Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

misandry doesn't exist

517 replies

MitchierInge · 06/01/2012 10:14

not in a sort of homologous (if that's the word?) way to misogyny anyway - society just isn't that evolved yet

OP posts:
SinicalSanta · 03/03/2012 13:39

People use misandry as the opposite of misogyny.

But they're not opposites really.
As misandrists are a few lone souls carping from the sidelines in the main, while misogynists have actual real life power, numbers and a structure that supports them.

Archemedes · 03/03/2012 13:31

I havent really read tbh ,too much bickering.

Surely misandry does exist, there are people out there who truly dislike men as a group so how would that be described if its not misandry?

ecclesvet · 03/03/2012 13:29

"Only if you take what I said super-literally"

Ah, I should assume that you don't mean what you say, got it. The onus is on the reader to substitute or add words into your posts to make them more consistent, OK.

"Do you think that women commit actual rape ecclesvet?"

Yes, of course, given that my definition is purely non-consensual sex. There was a big thread about this a while ago. Not on anywhere near the same scale though.

Nyac · 03/03/2012 11:26

Except you didn't. Only if you take what I said super-literally and put your own spin on it - that it's possible for a woman to physically to commit rape (it isn't, a woman can however commit sexual assault, although it's rare) - could you draw that conclusion. And you know already that that isn't my definition of rape.

Do you think that women commit actual rape ecclesvet? Not as an accomplice but real life rape, when rape requires a penis.

That sort of attitude is exactly the same as the misandry = misogyny position - the false logic that exists which says that because men (as a group) are guilty of something then automatically women must be too. It's a way of disguising male crimes against women.

ecclesvet · 03/03/2012 11:13

It wasn't a 'gotcha', or 'twisting your words'. It was just pointing out an inconsistent/hypocritical message.

Nyac · 03/03/2012 11:12

I don't understand why so many people are horrified that feminsits want to do something about rape. Like stop it.

Everybody should support that.

Nyac · 03/03/2012 11:10

Exactly, a gotcha. Taking what I said absolutely literally when it was just a brief, not expanded, remark in an internet discussion, and in fact given that you know that I've argued (and the law - I suppose i now have to spell out - UK law supports me) that rape requires a penis.

It's not necessary to provide a huge definition of every single word in an internet discussion, and the fact you leaped on mine and twisted my words to make a non-point doens't reflect very well on your style of arguing.

The discussion was about consent specifically, not about the whole definition of rape.

SinicalSanta · 03/03/2012 11:09

We don't need an agenda or filter to read your C&P Lily.

It comes with plenty of it's own.

'McKinnon's minions having the last laugh', anyone?

ecclesvet · 03/03/2012 11:06

It wasn't a 'gotcha'. You said here that the definition of rape should simply be sex without consent; I remembered you saying elsewhere that that alone shouldn't be the definition.

Nyac · 03/03/2012 11:00

The difference between the US and UK definitions isn't really the point. Ecclesvet was attempting an idiotic gotcha. Trying to prove something, I'm not sure what.

There's always someone from the peanut gallery ready to whizz in and deliberately misinterpret what's being said.

StewieGriffinsMom · 03/03/2012 10:15

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Nyac · 03/03/2012 09:48

rape = penetration by a penis without consent

What's your point?

ecclesvet · 03/03/2012 09:36

"Why would anyone object to the defintion of rape being sex without consent?"

Well, you would, Nyac.

Nyac · 03/03/2012 09:10

"what some of the mum's on here think, and what women who still actually like men think"

Transparent.

Speaking of agendas you know that SAVE who you are quoting is a mens' rights organisation who base their advocacy on the myth of false allegations of domestic violence.

And Chrstina Hoff Summers who gets a mention is an anti-feminist who claims to be a feminist. Because anti-feminists just love doing that for some reason.

Nyac · 03/03/2012 09:03

Why would anyone object to the defintion of rape being sex without consent?

Unless of course they were a woman-hater.

What's your argument here Lily?

Women hold virtually no power in the world. Economic, social and political power is overwhelmingly in the hands of men. Just because that reality gives you feelings of discomfort doens't make it untrue.

Your post is more evidence of misogyny, not non existent "misandry".

LillyJ123 · 03/03/2012 01:53

Ever since someone mentioned power structures it's been on my mind. Somehow it just doesn't gel with me that only men have power structures and women have none. That just doesn't seem right. Look I'll admit I may not quite grasp what they mean by power structures, but I like to go off what I see and hear with my own eyes, and today I found something which I thought was a really good example of how women can have power structures, and as much as this can be a good thing, it can also be a bad thing too. Of course it's the same when men get too much power over women, but since we all agree on that anyway I thought it would be interesting to share a link I found about a woman who wants to expand the definition of rape so that once a woman has a drink she would be deemed to not be able to give consent, even if it was her idea. I do not want to live in a world where men are accused of rape after having consensual sex with a woman who happened to have a drink, I find the whole idea enormously offensive to both sexes.

I'd be really interested to hear what people think about this, and hope that people can see it for what it is, I'm not really interested in convoluted explanations involving the patriarchy - although who am I to stop that - it's a free world, but I'm most interested in what people who can read this without applying filters or agendas - what some of the mum's on here think, and what women who still actually like men think.

The "All-Sex-is-Rape" Team is Coming to Your State
Dear Lilly,

Attorney Catherine MacKinnon once proclaimed, "Penetrative intercourse is, by its nature, violent." Her writings argue that in a patriarchal society, women are incapable of giving consent, so all heterosexual sex is rape. For years, critics dismissed her has a nut case.

But now, MacKinnon's minions are working to assure that she gets the last laugh. The process began 9 months ago at the federal level with a radical overhaul of definitions of rape:

  1. In April, the US Department of Education released its "Dear Colleague" letter: www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201104.html
  1. In December, the Centers for Disease Control issued its National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf
  1. Last week, the FBI announced its new reporting definition of rape: www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-01-06/fbi-rape-definition-adds-men/52398350/1?csp=34news

The ideologues are working to achieve their "all-sex-is-rape" goal through two steps:

  1. Remove the requirement of the sex being "forcible," and substitute the idea of the sex "lacking consent"
  2. Decree that if alcohol passes between a woman's lips, she is rendered incapable of giving consent...even if the drunken bash is her idea!

Dr. Christina Hoff Sommers discussed this issue on Tuesday's Mike McConnell Show: www.wgnradio.com/shows/mikemcconnell/wgnam-mike-mcconnell-1-10-12-uncut-b,0,1176295.mp3file?track=rss

SAVE's Domestic Violence Legislative Project consists of state-level citizen lobbyists working on their 2012 legislative agendas. If you would like to stop expansive definitions of rape from being applied in your state, participate in our monthly teleconferences. The next call is Feb. 21. Email [email protected] to join.

Sincerely,

teri

Teri Stoddard, Program Director
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
www.saveservices.org

LillyJ123 · 19/02/2012 14:53

Just a quick correction to my own post above. The definition I first quoted was for "misandry", not for "misandrist". For clarity here are the comparable definitions from The World Book

misandry: n hatred of men

LillyJ123 · 19/02/2012 14:49

I just wanted to clarify something based on some of the comments I'm seeing.

Comments like "There may be women who bitterly and personally 'hate' all males, (though I have never actually met any of them), but there is no structure at all through which that 'hatred' can be exercised."

OK, let's just get back to basics. Pulling out my old 1977 copy of "The World Book Dictionary" the definition of "misandrist" is: "n. hatred of men". Looking up the word "misogynist" the definition is "n. a hater of women".

Pretty simple definitions, and they mention nothing about power structures.

So if there are women who "bitterly and personally 'hate' all males" then they are misandrists. Pure and simple.

I can't help but wonder what the agenda is when people expend energy into putting a spin onto something this simple in order to deny and claim that misandrists or misandry does not exist. What is the benefit? My own belief is that it is to do with winning some kind of propaganda war whereby women are continued to be seen as the good guys/victims and men are seen as the bad guys/oppressors.

I also wonder what motivates people who deny the holocaust. Sorry if that's going off thread and I'm not comparing, but I do also wonder why people would deny that something that so clearly happened didn't happen.

Panfriedstardust · 17/02/2012 21:44

as a bit of of a clarification as well, I have met amny, many women who may have v. good reason to 'hate' all males due to their life experiences, but ime it's never been an observable trait.

Panfriedstardust · 17/02/2012 21:40

I'm pretty sure the basis of a belief in 'misandry' is the v. simple notion that males/females are simply the reverse of the same coin, and for an action there must be a similar( if not equal) reaction. ( I know I have used this analogy here before, and it may be obvious but nonetheless it's still true, I think.)

So without any real, pointable-to evidences, the proponents insist it must exist, by a simple logic of 'physics', the laws of which have little or nothing to do with how humans interact on a social, personal and economic scale and quality.

There may be women who bitterly and personally 'hate' all males, (though I have never actually met any of them), but there is no structure at all through which that 'hatred' can be exercised.

JosephineB · 17/02/2012 18:51

Most of the 'evidence' being offered as to the existence of misandry is actually evidence of sexism rooted in misogyny. As such, the answer is more feminism.

For example 'Why do only men have to sign for the draft?' That would be because women are considered to be too weak to fight (and it wasn't exactly women who made up those rules) or 'Why are family law courts overwhelmingly in favour of women over men?' which is a consequence of seeing women as 'natural' child carers (and it has been feminists who have demanded greater involvement of fathers in child rearing)

Most of the complaints about misandry are criticisms of sectors / structures / cultural where men wrote the rules and for all the times they end up disadvantaging men, there's usually a great big pay off for them too (eg men portrayed as bumbling idiots with regard to housework means they don't have to do their fair share and women are supposed to fall over in gratitude for them even looking in the direction of an ironing board)

Beachcomber · 17/02/2012 03:18

The following is a quote from a blog post which could have been written with our current MRA guests this very thread in mind

This post really is About the Menz...

I've been thinking a lot about privilege and oppression lately. I try to think about these things a lot, anyway, but there have been a number of posts on other blogs lately that have been addressing privilege or the nature of oppression lately, and it's got my mind whirling. It started with Jill posting someone's request for help, which turned into a "discussion" about men and privilege. Someone there posted a link to a post from Dizzy about men on feminist blogs who use overtly male sounding names. Thin Black Duke's post about the common elements of oppression just added to the storm...

On the big blogs, it's pretty near impossible, I think, to have a conversation about male privilege without someone like Burton (comment 23 in that feministe thread) coming along and derailing the discussion in some way. Part of the problem with a guy like Burton is that he's not interested in the actual discussion of privilege and oppression. His comments aren't intended as thoughtful analysis or even a result of unintentional misunderstanding- they're intended as a "Gotcha!" moment.

When someone is talking about male privilege or patriarchical institutions, pointing out that women don't register for the draft, or that abused men don't have the same access to domestic violence shelters that women do doesn't negate that. Pointing out that men die at higher rates from work accidents or criminal violence? Sorry, that doesn't prove anything either. See, the problem with the list that he's throwing up, and with many of the criticisms that MRA groups and antifeminists seem to have, is that a lot of those complaints and criticisms are about issues that are a direct result of men pushing public policies.

Take the draft. The fact that women don't register for select services is one of the things I see come up all the time. I'm not really sure why, given the complete and total lack of support for the draft, but it really bugs these types. They'll go on at great length about how unfair it is that men register for select services but women don't. And, if that were the end of the story, sure, that would be unfair. It would be unfair to expect any particular subgroup of our country to be solely responsible for the draft (even as we should recognize that the draft, when instituted, tends to fall on the shoulders of the poor... which isn't that different from voluntary service).

Of course, the story doesn't end there. You can't just look at the draft and pretend that it just happened that way. It's important to remember the context of these things. You can't point to the draft as some example of unfair privilege towards women when it wasn't women who pushed for the draft, and when there are plenty of women and women's groups that actively oppose any draft.

It's not the fault of women that men register for the draft, or that women don't serve in infantry units. Men made those rules, based largely on sexist notions about what women are and are not capable of. When feminists point out that the patriarchy hurts men, too? This is an example. Patriarchical thinking says that women can't hold their own in combat, and that they need to be protected, lest enemies capture them and do horrible things to them. Women are delicate and need to have the strength of a man to keep them safe. That's why women don't register for the draft. That's why women have been kept out of combat.

One of the reasons that this is so frustrating to me, as a guy, is that there are legitimate concerns to be raised about the lives and experiences of men in our country. There are things that happen that should probably be changed, and there are ways that the lives of men should be improved. But, those experiences and those issues get overlooked or ignored because men like Burton are too busy worrying about playing a Gotcha! card against feminists to actually take the time to give those issues the attention they deserve.

Going onto a site like feministe and complaining that men can't have access to women only domestic violence shelters doesn't prove that men have it worse than women- it proves that you're an insensitive asshole who hasn't taken the time to examine why it's important to create shelters that cater specifically to the type of victim seeking shelter. A woman seeking shelter from an abusive husband or boyfriend isn't going to find the safety and peace of mind she needs in a shelter full of men, and there's every reason to believe that a man being abused by his wife or girlfriend may want a shelter that caters to his needs, and can provide him the peace of mind and safety he needs.

I can't quite decide how much of this- if any- is a legitimate misunderstanding of what constitutes privilege, and how much of this is intentional intellectual dishonesty. The move here is from "men have privilege", which is true, to "men never experience negative or harmful consequences", which isn't.

Being a part of the privileged class does not mean that one never experiences harmful or negative treatment. It's possible to be a man in a patriarchical system, and still have people treat you unfairly sometimes. It's still possible to be a part of an advantaged class and find that there are times when you are at a disadvantage.

When we say that we live in a patriarchical system, we're not saying that every single member of the class "men" have a set number of advantages over every single member of the class "women". When we talk about men having unearned privileges, that doesn't mean that no woman has any of these privileges, or that every man has all of them.

Pointing out that I do not have the same advantages or opportunities that someone like Hillary Clinton has doesn't prove that we live in a society that favors women, because the comparison doesn't even make sense. It makes more sense to examine the advantages and disadvantages that face me and my sister, or Bill and Hillary Clinton, because we live in a world where sex is only one of a number of factors that create advantages: race/ethnicity, economic status, age, and education (to name just a few) are all factors that can influence your level of privilege.

And, yeah, like I said, I think that there really are things in our society that are harmful to men. I think that the under-reporting of, and general lack of understanding about or resources for men who are the victims of domestic abuse or sexual assault is harmful. That's not feminism's fault, though. One of the main reasons that men under-report sexual assault is because of the culture of masculinity we live in. We're brought up to think that men can't be the victims of sexual assault. That a man is incapable of not wanting sex. And in cases of male on male sexual assault, there's the homophobic element complicating things, too.

Ultimately, there's nothing that prevents men who are concerned about these things from taking action, just like there's nothing that stops men who are legitimately concerned about father's rights from taking action, either. If a man is really concerned that he's being denied rights as a father- that custody should have gone to him, or that he's not getting the visitation rights he deserves, or something along those lines... do something about it.

Feminists didn't wait for men to back them up before they fought for their rights. They couldn't afford to. The fact that so many of these men use these issues as a way of trying to score points against feminists hurts their cause. It makes it seem like their interest in men's rights is less about the actual problems that men face, and more about winning arguments with feminists.

wodalingpengwin · 17/02/2012 02:40

LillyJ123, not downplaying any individual injustices to men, but how many female presidents has the United States had?

wodalingpengwin · 17/02/2012 02:28

Wrote a longer comment but the web ate it. Racism and sexism are both forms of prejudice. My reading of the social psychology literature convinces me that prejudice is in fact deeply biologically rooted. Look up 'in group out group bias'. Human beings (men and women) are incredibly good at hating other groups based upon difference, be it sex, sexuality, race, ethnicity, religion, politics, accent, hair colour, taste in music, clothing, child-rearing practices, etc etc. Social psychologists have run studies in which two groups of people will start hating each other based on the most trivial and spurious differences (differences which the experimenters made up). Then, once you have started hating and dehumanising the 'out-group' it is easier to start being nasty to them. Prejudice becomes oppression.

Going back to misandry, if it is defined simply as the hating of men by women, then it exists, but globally I would say that misogyny leads to the greater oppression of women. Greater predilection for physical violence means perhaps men are better at acting on their hate?

LillyJ123 · 17/02/2012 00:57

Dear Messy,

First of all thanks for taking the time to answer my post.

Oxymoron? Well IMO there is nothing special about a feminist that would make her any more or less likely to be homophobic. Except perhaps homophobic with a slightly different slant, where we take "homo" to mean man, as it actually does. Plenty of that kind of homophobic feminists abound!

I'm sorry I know this whole "patriarchy" thing is a tremendously popular theory, but it's something I've never been able to swallow. Sacrilege?

A patriarchy would mean that men are dominant over women, something like the way masters were dominant over slaves, right? So why do we women get onto a lifeboat while the men are left until last, perhaps meaning the difference between life and death? Wouldn't the masters normally save themselves and let the slaves drown? Why do women have the vote while men can only vote if they've signed for the draft? Why are family law courts overwhelmingly in favour of women over men? Why is wife beating condemned while husband beating is encouraged, or swept under the carpet? Why do people deny that husband beating is almost as common as wife beating? Why are people outraged when they see a man beating a woman, but amused when they see a woman beating a man? Why do only men have to sign for the draft? Is a man's life worth so much less that a woman's? Why is it that rapists are so widely condemned while women who sexually mutilate their partners are lauded as heroes, including a woman who mutilated her husband because he was going to leave her. So many more examples I could give where society favours women over men, and yet I see so many feminists ignoring or minimizing facts that don't suit "the cause".

Yes, of course there are examples where Western society favours men over women, and I will leave it to you to give me some examples of that. I also challenge the whole "male privilege" thing. Maybe in years gone by, but not today. If you disagree, please give me some examples of male privilege in the United States today. I actually believe that today white Western women are the most privileged people in the world!

I fought for women's rights when there were real issues to fight for. The right not to be harassed, better pay at work, voting rights and equal footing to men.

I got off that boat once these goals had been achieved and the movement was hijacked by man haters - yes MISANDRISTS - even though we didn't have a word for it back then. I'm all for equality but I'm not for hatred and contempt of the opposite sex. I love men!!! What made sense to me back then and now is equality between the sexes. I have never been swayed by the wordy tomes of complicated jargon and theories of a patriarchy, it always seemed to contain too much twisted, subjective and convoluted "logic" for my liking.

I am now a liberationist who believes in men's rights as well, because as I once saw injustice to women I now see injustice towards men.

Yes there are still injustices to women, but is it right to ignore or downplay injustices to men, or pretend they don't exist? Men and women ought to work together for fairness to both genders and my problem with feminism as it is practised today is that it's all about women's rights but not about men's rights. The very name "feminist" suggests a bias towards women. I believe in equality for women and men.

Without lots of jargon and theory what I see is men being hateful to women as misogynists, and women being hateful to men as misandrists.

It's really that simple.