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:
jamma111 · 10/01/2012 14:40

LRDtheFeministDragon

^Can I just be gobsmacked again that you're still pushing, as evidence of misandry, a crime that has actual, real, defenseless victims, both boys and girls?

D'you not feel, I dunno, a tiny moral twinge?^

What, are you trying the 'you must condone pedophilia' number?

Wasn't that tried on Professor Jean La Fontaine by Beatrix Campbell OBE some years ago?

We've gone through the usual routines now;

  • You must be stupid
  • You must be a paedo

What next?

jamma111 · 10/01/2012 14:34

Oh no!

It must be satire.

Unfortunately Child Sexual Assault: Feminist Perspectives (2001) doesn't make for comfortable reading. And unfortunately I have access to plenty of Dr. Kelly's work, and that of Sarah Nelson going back to the mid-1980s to this century, and of course Catherine Itzin.

But do I really want to provide evidence of misandry? Not really, it seems these authors provide the MRA's with as much ammunition as they need (Dr. Kelly and the now-deceased Itzin a-plenty).

But if you take the time to determine me stupid, I'll take the time to copy relevant extracts from their own work.

A combination of the CWASU web site and an Athens login is a dangerous thing...

LRDtheFeministDragon · 10/01/2012 14:32

Can I just be gobsmacked again that you're still pushing, as evidence of misandry, a crime that has actual, real, defenseless victims, both boys and girls?

D'you not feel, I dunno, a tiny moral twinge?

MitchierInge · 10/01/2012 14:30

I suppose in an ideal world abusers wouldn't be so adept at masquerading as 'ordinary men' and we could all avoid them.

If we are going to derail can we talk about something a bit nicer?

OP posts:
StewieGriffinsMom · 10/01/2012 14:26

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

jamma111 · 10/01/2012 14:23

Immediatelty the word 'paedophile' is used, we move away from recognition of abusers as 'ordinary men' - fathers, brothers, uncles, colleagues, neighbours - qand are returned to the more comfortable view of them as 'other', a small minority who are fundamentally different from most men.

Page xv. From the Forward to Child Sexual Assault: Feminist Perspectives, by Dr. Liz Kelly, book edited by Pat Cox, Sheila Kershaw and Joy Trotter - Palgrave 2001.

Oh, go on. Provoke me to quote from Sara Nelson's essay in that book, with her reference to Joan Coleman's essay.

Go on, do it.

KRITIQ · 10/01/2012 14:09

The article you linked to refers to an earlier article by Dr Kelly that's not on the website, so unless it can be found elsewhere, it's not possible to get the full context for the statement you keep quoting.

However, I don't see why there is a problem with it, or how this could be seen as evidence of misandry in ANY form.

Liz Kelly (T&S 33) has criticised the re-emergence of a professional and popular discourse on ?paedophiles? which sees child sexual abusers as abnormal, as ?other?, thus disguising the connections that they have with ?normal men/normal masculinity?.

From what I know of Dr Kelly's extensive writing on the issue, I think her article would have been critical of those who try to frame the practice of seeking or having sex with children as just a "lifestyle choice," or perhaps an "illness" worthy of understanding, sympathy and treatment. I believe her argument (and mine) would be that while there may be a small number of adults who have or want to have sex with children, or non-consenting adults for that matter caused by recognised psychological or physiological conditions, that's not the case in the vast majority of cases.

More often, it is perhaps an extreme extension of "male entitlement" where perpetrators feel justified in their actions either because they minimise and deny what they do (e.g. it was just a cuddle), minimise or deny the impact of their actions (e.g. she came onto me, he liked it, etc.) or both.

And, your problem with that analysis is what exactly?

KRITIQ · 10/01/2012 13:58

Jamma, Trouble and Strife magazine ceased to publish 10 years ago and even then, it had a very small circulation. It was the antithesis of mainstream and certainly had extremely limited influence on public discourse at the time. I doubt its circulation was more than a couple hundred copies a pop. It's barely remembered now, so surely you could come up with something more recent to "prove" your claims that misandry (as a widespread threat to men) exists.

And, did you actually read Hilary McCollum's article? I don't know when it was originally published, but interestingly I remember a convo with her probably 15 years ago on some of the themes in this article - what the media chooses to report and not report, how the mainstream press chooses to portray perpetrators and victims of gender-based crimes depending on their perceived value (e.g. prostitutes, promiscuous women, unfaithful wives, etc. not as "worthy" of victim status as those seen as "innocent," and making excuses for male perpetrators of violence against women deemed "less than innocent.")

However, the flip side is the media portrayal of perpetrators who are "beyond the pale" as being uniquely evil, demonic, less than human, and men who sexually abuse children tend to fall into the category (unless they take the stand that it was "justified" because the child looked older, behaved provocatively, etc.)

One problem with this is it fails to recognise that most perpetrators of child sexual abuse don't have a special satanic appearance or behaviour. Something like 90% are parents, kinship carers, step parents, etc. and the vast majority are male. In other respects, they don't stand out from any crowd of ordinary men.

So, the media likes to focus on the small percentage of child sexual abusers who aren't related to or known to their victims and sets them up as icons of evil. At the same time, the media fails to give coverage to the vast majority of cases where the perpetrators were in a position of trust, often within the family, and not so easily portrayed as evil or demonic. And, it's not in the interest of the mainstream media to point out the threats to children, or to women, within the home and traditional family set up. So, the perpetrators of child sexual abuse we DO hear about tend to be portrayed as uniquely deviant, as aberrations.

There is absolutely NOTHING in that article that suggests that McCollum, Kelly or anyone believes that all men are evil, bad, abusers, paedophiles, etc. It does state that the media tends to either diminish the significance and gravity of male violence to women and children OR portrays those who fit the mould of "deviant" as being uniquely evil and inhuman, thus nothing like "normal humans" and something we don't need to worry about.

It also suggests that this is highly misleading because male sexual violence against women and children falls at one end of a continuum of male attitudes and behaviours that regard women and children as inferior to men. At least some sections of this continuum of attitudes and behaviours is if not overtly endorsed, at least not universally condemned by our society. And, the boundary between what is acceptable and not acceptable seems to be pretty variable and porous.

LRDtheFeministDragon · 10/01/2012 13:13

Do large numbers of women paedophiles (a pretty small subset of all paedophiles) have similarities to 'normal' women?

I think - not knowing anything about Kelly as a writer - that she might be thinking of the way that there are men who rape underage girls, who are not men who have a compulsion towards sex with children, but who have had what seem to be normal adult relationships and then decide to (quoting from Gail Dines who quotes such an individual) 'try something new'. Sad

jamma111 · 10/01/2012 12:47

^Liz Kelly (T&S 33) has criticised the re-emergence of a professional and popular discourse on ?paedophiles? which sees child sexual abusers as abnormal, as ?other?, thus disguising the connections that they have with ?normal women/normal femininity?.

No problems with that then I guess.

Any other interpretation is obviously 'stupid'.

LRDtheFeministDragon · 10/01/2012 12:38

I would say that, although it is deeply wrong to brand all men as paedophiles, the actual victims of paedophilia are children. Both boys and girls. And it is part of a wider culture in which some people have arrived at the idea that their sexual urge is more important than the body and hurt of another person. IMO that is an idea that is deeply rooted in misogynistic culture. The fact that adult men are collateral damage of this is horrible, but they are not the primary victims of paedophilia and I do not think paedophilia is about misandry.

StewieGriffinsMom · 10/01/2012 12:34

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

jamma111 · 10/01/2012 12:30

Well I have one recent example I am pursuing at present.

The journal Trouble & Strife unfortunately hosts numerous misandrist statements, often negating its sensible messages in favour of sheer paranoid hate. Here's one from December last year;

Liz Kelly (T&S 33) has criticised the re-emergence of a professional and popular discourse on ?paedophiles? which sees child sexual abusers as abnormal, as ?other?, thus disguising the connections that they have with ?normal men/normal masculinity?.

What the papers say

Now I know that some folk like to go through torturous processes to avoid the obvious - like the above statement was 'satire' or whatever. And I know that the subject of alleged statements accusing 'all men are rapists' cause some grief, even on this foum. This one though steps beyond that; defining all men are pedophiles. Hurrah for Trouble & Strife!

But, I am though willing to read any explanation, however absurd, to indicate that the quote above isn't an effort to brand ALL men as pedophiles, and pedophile behavior to be a key part of ?normal men/normal masculinity?

Strangely enough the journal hasn't been willing to-date to respond to my correspondance.

MitchierInge · 10/01/2012 12:10

what is misandrist behaviour, and how do you challenge it?

OP posts:
jamma111 · 10/01/2012 12:05

In the context of the US only, Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young's trilogy of academic books have widened the debate about 'misandry' somewhat;

Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination Against Men (2006) - concerned with perceived changes to the legal structure in the US

Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture (2006) - concerned principally with the perceived academic teaching of misandry in the US

Sanctifying Misandry: Goddess Ideology and the Fall of Man (2009) - concerned with the increasing conspiracy-theory-driven nature of US feminism (i.e. the manner in which 'patriarchy' is becoming interchangeable with 'The Illuminati' often referenced by the likes of David Icke). Dan Brown's 'The Da vinci code' is extensively deconstructed (!)

These books, though academic, aren't particularly popular in some circles. Some US libraries have attempted to ban them. I have only read one - Legalizing Misandry, and the amount of research that went into it is extraordinary; though reading the footnotes on occasions takes as long as the main pages, which isn't too impressive. Perhaps the worst thing is that Nathanson and Young find it easy to quote people hoisting themselves by their own petard; some of the statements made by folk claiming to be feminist defy belief.

Ultimately although reading the book was a hard thing to do, I don't think it changed my view about feminism. It certainly changed my view about American feminism though, which I now see in a somewhat different light. I think British feminism would be best to identify itself as a 'European' feminism and keep clear of the US version altogether. I also find that I am now willing to challenge misandrist behavior as much as mysologist behavior.

These books though are US-centric. I don't think the UK is anywhere near going as wonky as the American path.

MitchierInge · 09/01/2012 16:56

if a self-confessed medical misogynist says I have such problems who am I to disagree?

I don't know, probably do have some problems, just don't think misandry is the word for them. I would call it learning, adapting and surviving or something like that.

OP posts:
thunderboltsandlightning · 09/01/2012 16:52

The fundamental difference between misogyny and so-called misandry, is that misogyny at its base is supported by widespread male violence against women and girls simply for being female.

There is no equivalent "misandry". Badly written sitcoms don't cut it.

OrmIrian · 09/01/2012 16:51

Do you have difficulties relating to men as actual people then mitchy?

MitchierInge · 09/01/2012 16:49

during the conversation that inspired this thread, in which reference was made to my misandry, I think the word was used as a shorthand for my perceived difficulties relating to men as actual people rather than - well I'd better not go into it, but I just thought 'my what?' and wanted to come here and read something sensible about there being no such thing, certainly not in the form or function of misogyny anyway

so thank you for that

OP posts:
thunderboltsandlightning · 09/01/2012 16:29

Has anybody come up with examples of this non-existent misandry yet, or is the discussion remaining in the realms of the abstract and hypothetical?

LRDtheFeministDragon · 09/01/2012 11:00

michier - good point, and I agree.

And thanks again for starting this thread. Smile

LRDtheFeministDragon · 09/01/2012 10:59

(Sometimes it's even spelt properly, but not by me.)

MitchierInge · 09/01/2012 10:59

I don't think misogyny is 'by men to women' at all. Am enjoying this thread though.

OP posts:
LRDtheFeministDragon · 09/01/2012 10:59

There is a specific term for racism done by one race to anotehr - it's white supremancy.

Trills · 09/01/2012 10:58

If there was a specific term for racism that was done by one specific race to another, then I would expect that there might be a number of words for a number of combinations of races acting in this way.

Sexism as a concept can be by anyone to anyone. Racism can be by anyone to anyone. Misogyny is by men to women. That is why it is different as a concept and why it is possible for there to be a reverse.

Do you believe sexual prejudice operates the same way, with the same frequency and with the same impact on men as it does on women?

No. I have not said anything that would even remotely suggest that, on this thread or otherwise.

As I have said about 10 times now:

If misandry means simply the hatred of men by women, then it exists both as a concept and a thing that actually happens. Not to anywhere near the same extent as misogyny, but it is real.

If misandry means that hatred being a part of the makeup of society, then it does not exist (not in any society that I know of).

Swipe left for the next trending thread