misandry doesn't exist

That sounds about right VictorGollanz.

I think we could probably clear all this up quite simply if people would pay attention. Nothing I'm about to say hasn't been said several times on this thread.

When feminists talk about misogyny they use the term as having a political meaning within the political context of male dominated society. As has been said so many times on this thread feminist analysis looks at existing patterns, systems, structures, mechanisms and hierarchies. We observe evidence of violence against and oppression of women as existing at a global, societal and all-pervading level. The very fabric of our society.

None of this exists as a system of oppression for men based on their gender.

MRAs have got their target wrong. Their banner should be 'patriarchy hurts men too'. Either that or they are not entirely truthful about their agenda.

I have no patience for the 'but some women hate men' strawman dressed up as a political viewpoint when there is nothing political to substantiate it or explore within it.

The only interesting discussion to be had, of this hopelessly politically thin matter is; why don't more women hate men considering our suffering at their hands.

I think it is time for Dworkin n'est-ce pas?

?I don?t believe rape is inevitable or natural. If I did, I would have no reason to be here. If I did, my political practice would be different than it is. Have you ever wondered why we [women] are not just in armed combat against you? It?s not because there?s a shortage of kitchen knives in this country. It is because we believe in your humanity, against all the evidence.?
Andrea Dworkin

And for those posters who may think that they are succeeding in wasting feminists' valuable time: do you know how many lurkers we get on this board?

Every time you post bollocks, we get another chance to post the basic principles of feminism. This thread is a brilliant example of hundreds of evocative descriptions of misogyny. It shows the women's movement for what it is - necessary, unified, and not 'man-hating' in the slightest.

Anyone with eyes can see whose argument is clear, unambiguous and backed up with evidence. Cheers for that!

Minor point of order: no-one has said that misandry doesn't exist. Given that we're supposed to all be elevating ourselves to a higher plane of existence and mutual co-operation, or whatevs, could we please deal with what is actually being said?

Plenty of feminist posters have acknowledged that of course women can hate men. Of course we can. But then, of course, you have to think about how that hatred is expressed and maintained. And that brings up an inconvenient truth: not only do the scales not balance, but actually there is no structural support to man-hatred. There are no governments based around man-hatred. There are no major world religions based around man-hatred. I'm sure I could go on.

My own post points out the very first documented use of the word. Of course, if we engage with that first use of the word, that too brings up an inconvenient truth: we can see that from the very start it hasn't been used to describe man-hatred, but to get women to shush.

But of course certain posters don't want to employ these analytical tools. And it is so very tiresome that they won't do that. But we know why they won't do that - because unless they cherry-pick with all their might, their thesis falls down. As Beachcomber says, they prefer to garland their flimsy evidence around with sensation and outrage in the hope that we won't notice that there is nothing there.

Normally I choose not to engage but insinuations that feminism somehow lacks academic rigour are so glaringly incorrect that they need to be challenged. Of course, that's exactly what Lilly and Sarah want: that we go round and round in circles pointing out the glaringly obvious.

No I haven't.

Who holds the power/top jobs/wealth/influence in this country?
Who holds it world wide?

That's what we mean when we say 'systems' and 'structures'.

It's pond and ocean, as I keep saying.

The difference is clear.

Lone individuals with a gripe? Oh give me strength.

You've just illustrated my point perfectly.

Sahara.

Did you read even the OP
'Misandry doesn't exist ...not in a sort of homologous (if that's the word?) way to misogyny anyway - society just isn't that evolved yet'

Words are only shadows of deeper concepts.
Misogynistic words/speech are shadows of some pretty scary unpleasant real life actions and systems.
Misandrist words/speech (which is all anyone can come up with) are shadows of, well, what really, some lone individuals with a gripe?

Can you grasp that?

"They always have so much to say don't they, these men's rights folk". My thoughts entirely. Reams and reams of drivel it.

Lilly - feminists will never admit that misandry exists, they can't. That is understandable from their viewpoint. Feminisim (today, mainly gender feminism) is built on the premise that men oppress women. To admit misandry exists basically blows apart their theory. You can submit example after example, thousands, millions of them, but the response will always be the same, there is no misandry.

It's a little like the Church of England admitting there is no God, it's never going to happen, how could it?

This is why they will argue endlessly about the meaning, about how MRA's coined the term, despite me linking to early examples. They say misogyny has been around much longer, or say it isn't a reversal of the term misogyny. They will argue the toss endlessly, derail, do practically anything to avoid admitting it exists.

I understand that, I understand why they won't admit to it. It's frustrating for those of us trying to make sense of feminism, those of us who can see misandry exists, but there you go. Feminists will never, ever admit misandry exists, they can't.

They always have so much to say don't they, these men's rights folk?

And so much of it is offensive and none of it well thought out or original.

Shame. There was potential for this thread to be an interesting exploration of power structures, the mechanisms of oppression and their various applications.

Interesting feminist analysis stuff yunno?

But no, we are talking about men's rights and that well known to be hugely oppressive tool of the matriarchy - a 45 year old satirical pamphlet that almost no-one has read .

I'll keep this as brief as possible because you know, and I know, that you know this perfectly well:

Feminism does not 'make' men the enemy.
Patriarchy is the enemy.
Patriarchy is not 'men' - it is a system that privileges and benefits men.
Men who actively work to keep that privilege are oppressing women.
There are also men who are violent to women.
Patriarchy is a structure that normalises these actions.
These men, and the structure in which they rule, will therefore be criticised and challenged by the women's movement.
It is not a blanket 'hatred' or 'dislike' of men. There is no division on lines of sex and gender here.

Men are welcome in the women's movement. As supporters, allies, and friends. An individual man who wishes to spend his time arguing that inequality does not exist is not a suitable supporter, ally or friend to the movement.

If you like, I can have this made into a poster. Then you can stop making up divisions and animosities that don't exist, and stop posting cringeworthy nonsense about 'seeking the truth' and 'all coming together'.

A note to MRA's. I can see that you are looked at with disdain by many of the participants in this thread and I think that's a shame because feminism and the men's rights movement really are two sides of the same coin.

I would also like to say that I do find the following kinds of attacks offensive and I really wish you would stop with these tactics as it only creates animosity to the women on this site.

1. Denigrating lesbians. Some of my best friends are lesbians and they are amongst the nicest people I know. Please if you have something to address to radical feminists who are speaking hatefully or disrespectfully to men, by all means address them. But please don't bring lesbians into it, the majority of feminists are not lesbians and the majority of lesbians are not necessarily feminists.

2. Using the term "feminazi". All this does is create animosity and is counter productive to meaningful dialogue. I know that I have drawn comparisons between Solanas' book and Hitler's book and in retrospect that is not a fair comparison as Hitler's book truly led to the death of millions, and I would like to withdraw that comparison and will refrain from making any further Nazi comparisons.

3. Calling feminists fat and ugly, hairy armpits and the like. These people come from all walks of life and it's a really unfair stereotype. Some people are fat and some people are ugly. This does not make them any less worthwhile as human beings.

It seems that I personally have ticked off many of the people in this thread, but all I am attempting to do is stating my views. I do not believe that drawing a line in the sand and making men the enemy is the answer and neither is making women the enemy the answer.

To the men and women on this site. Why not try just a little bit harder to understand the other person's point of view instead of trying to score points?

If there are injustices against women let's do what we can to fix them.
If there are injustices against men, let's do what we can to fix them.

And let us not tell lies in order to make our case more compelling. Let us seek and tell the truth whether it supports our case or not.

@Nyac, yes thanks I hope you realize that I don't believe that misogyny was a term coined by feminists, although it most certainly has been a word well used as a tool and sometimes abused as a weapon by certain factions of the feminist movement.

My point really was this - why are people still lying and pretending that it was a word coined by MRAs when MRAs were not around in the early 1900's? This is

As someone has pointed out to me, I can not pretend not to have heard people say that SCUM is not widely considered as a parody. By the same token, you have now seen definitions of misandry pre-dating the men's rights movement; so you can no longer pretend that misandry was a word recently coined by men's rights groups.

And you have seen the definition of it as "hatred of men". Putting all gender politics aside, as a word that is all it means, and it most certainly exists.

Quoting JerichoStarQuilt:

Quote:
I'm coming late back to this, but I have a comment on the post by lilly that kicked all of this off again. I found that post really depressing for the ignorant, misogynistic attitude behind it. Particularly this bit:

"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."

Since terminology actually matters in this debate, lilly and friends, I shall explain this simple point to you. 'Homosexuality' (meaning sexual attraction to the same sex) does not - oddly enough - have anything at all to do with the word for 'man'. You are confusing the Greek 'homos' (=same) with the Latin 'homo' (=human, as opposed to 'vir', which means 'man').

I know I should be taking issue with your arguments - which I'm afraid I find almost as weak and ignorant as the above quotation - but I just can't get past the fact you've assumed, incorrectly, that the word for 'same' actually means 'man'.

How incredibly sexist do you have to be to assume such an idiotic thing?
End quote

First of all, I had a post removed for calling a member a bully. Here I am called ignorant, misogynistic, incredibly sexist and idiotic.

But your post remains uncensored.

It seems personal attacks are ok when performed on someone who does not toe the official party line.

Now to actually respond.

Yes the homo in homosexual means attraction to the same sex and yes there is an alternative meaning to the root word "homo" which you have correctly identified as a Latin root word meaning "man".

As I explicitly stated I changed the meaning around - quoting myself "...Except perhaps homophobic with a slightly different slant, where we take "homo" to mean man..."

Was that not explicit enough for you? I actually said 'where we take "homo" to mean man' surely a reasonably intelligent person could ascertain from this that I am shifting the meaning of "homo" in this case without the need to spell it out.

I will certainly not call you any names as I do not wish to sink to that level, but once again it is telling that some of my far milder posts have been deleted while your insulting personal attack on me remains intact.

"Would it be true to say that the word "misogyny" was a word coined by feminists for their own purposes?"

Don't think there were many feminists around in the 1650s:

misogyny
1650s, from Gk. misogynia, from misogynes "woman-hater," from miso- + gyne "woman" (see queen).

And 'misandry' might exist in the dictionary but I have access to the full OED (ie, the one that is about four miles long) and the earliest usage given is 1898 (hilariously, it is 'a little misandry from a constitutional man-hater': from it's very inception, it is a word used to attack women's rights campaigners!).

There's only four other entries. It is not a word in common use.

The idea that misandry, misogyny, racism, sexism, or anything else can exist without a supporting social structure is so, so, outdated and incorrect...'hatred is still hatred' is all very well and good on a t-shirt, but it's bullshit as a political theory.

It is just you. The definition of satire does not require it to be funny.

Basil. I have indeed been told the SCUM was a satire, and if you read one of my posts I attempt to convey that:

"First of turnip, so sorry to have ignored you up till now, I'm getting about five replies to every post I make so it's kind of hard to keep up. I haven't read Swift's book, and I guess that's just not the kind of satire I appreciate, however I do understand the point you are trying to make and yes, I do understand the concept of satire.

I do ask you though, if Solanas's book had been a satire against women do you think you would have still appreciated it as a good satire? If so what other satires with women as the butt of the joke have you enjoyed?"

I am not obstinately clinging to my beliefs, in fact I have take what people have been saying on board that it was meant as a satire. I'm sure some people will probably gloat over that, but I am interested in the truth whichever way it falls.

BTW I have had one or two of my posts deleted, one where I called a member a bully. She complained that mumsnet don't seem to remove those posts any more, I'm guessing my post was deleted because it was seen as a personal attack. So what about your post where you say that you don't believe I'm as stupid as I'm pretending to be? I will not report it as I have no desire to see your post censored

Getting back to SCUM, whether it's a satire or not, it still contains language which is deeply offensive towards men, as an example:

"The male is completely egocentric, trapped inside himself, incapable of empathizing or identifying with others, or love, friendship, affection of tenderness. He is a completely isolated unit, incapable of rapport with anyone. His responses are entirely visceral, not cerebral; his intelligence is a mere tool in the services of his drives and needs; he is incapable of mental passion, mental interaction; he can't relate to anything other than his own physical sensations. He is a half-dead, unresponsive lump, incapable of giving or receiving pleasure or happiness; consequently, he is at best an utter bore, an inoffensive blob, since only those capable of absorption in others can be charming. He is trapped in a twilight zone halfway between humans and apes, and is far worse off than the apes because, unlike the apes, he is capable of a large array of negative feelings hate, jealousy, contempt, disgust, guilt, shame, doubt and moreover, he is aware of what he is and what he isn't."

You can call this satire all you want, I still feel it is still deeply offensive towards men and I for one cannot stomach reading such offensive material whether it is aimed at men, women, blacks, whites or any section of the community.

Maybe it's just me, but a satire or parody has to be funny, this stuff is just offensive.

I would think, however, that those people who can stomach this kind of parody are those with at least some degree of antipathy towards men, or in other words (since it pertains to the thread) those with some degree of misandry.

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

Unless of course they were a woman-hater."

In similar vein I would say: Why would anyone want to read this kind of thing?

Unless of course they were a man-hater.

In response to your accusation "you have a very clear anti-feminist agenda", that is simply not true. I believe that both men and women have a right to exist in a society free from prejudice due to their gender.

I believe in the truth and I object to lies. When people start saying that misandry does not exist that is simply a lie.

Misandry is hatred of men. It doesn't need a power structure, and whether or not people act on their hatred it is still hatred.

Another lie I've seen in this thread is that misandry is a word that MRAs coined for their own purposes. It is not, the word has been around for some time.

Would it be true to say that the word "misogyny" was a word coined by feminists for their own purposes?

Lilly I don't believe that you are as stupid as you are pretending to be.

You have been told more than once, that SCUM was a satire.

Yet still you post as if you either haven't seen those posts, or understood them.

Why?

I mean, I suppose you might have overlooked those posts.

But it's unlikely that you'd have overlooked all of them.

So I'm led to believe that you are obstinately clinging to your "SCUM is a hate manifesto" line because you have a very clear anti-feminist agenda.

Lilly"I am far more outraged by two women getting killed in real life in the UK than by a satirical book. I am curious to know though, if such a book had been written by a man with women as the targets, do you think he would have been accused of misogyny?"

You have answered your own question. You cite two women a week getting killed by violent partners, they are targets, targets of the violence inherent in patriarchial system and the resultant misogynistic attitudes.

As has been already pointed out, Solanas reversed it. However the real life statistics don't back the male hatred and killing that is expounded within the manifesto, so it is satire. Nor has it increased, nor have women as a sex class risen above 'their station' in patriarchial society. Some women may seem to have done so, and this is excellent, but it's not representative of the sex class as a whole.

If I may I'd like to post one of my favourite quotes from SCUM manifesto.

"No genuine social revolution can be accomplished by the male, as the male on top was the status quo and all the male on the bottom wants is to be the male on top."

That's not satire btw, I believe that's just how it is; but all good satire contains nuggets of truth.

Lilly, I'm not going to discuss feminist strategy with someone who is spreading men's rights woman-hating propaganda, and just compared feminists to Nazis. Not now, not ever. I'd be an idiot to get into that kind of conversation with you.

But it's amusing to see the level of entitlement demanding that question be answered.

Lilly by asking questions about how people would feel if the SCUM manifesto was reversed and about violence against women, rather than violence against men, you are demonstrating the following IMHO;

• you don't understand what satire is
• you don't understand the institution of patriarchy
• you don't understand the use of violence as a tool of the oppressive system that is patriarchy
• that you don't understand the global power dynamic of gender based oppression.

The SCUM manifesto is about violence against women.

Might I suggest that you stop telling people who do understand all the above, that they are Doing Feminism Wrong.

I don't know much about Australian feminist organisations but the Million Women Rise movement is worldwide and organises woman-only marches to draw attention to violence against women such as female infanticide - a lot of MNers are involved in this country and you could see if there is one in Australia.
You also need to do some political lobbying. You can organise all gender protests if you prefer it that way. Feminist organisations in your country would be able to suggest particular times and places to protest. Apologies if this is teaching one's grandmother to suck eggs but you did say you wanted ideas.

You are still missing the point about Solanas's satire. It is not a satire against men, it is a satire against patriarchal treatment of women and writings against women. That is the point - it is a woman pretending to say stuff as prejudiced against men as things that have been commonly written against women in order to point out how ridiculous and appalling it is.

I've enjoyed many satires which have female characters - one example would be the Polly Filla/Glenda Slag characters in the English satirical magazine Private Eye. But they're not satirising 'women' as a group, they're satirising particular kinds of journalism. Satirising women as a group would be broad brush and probably not very funny. Another one would be Sue Townsend's diary of Margaret Thatcher - again, what is being satirised is Thatcher's narrow-mindedness, not the fact that Thatcher was a woman. Most political satire features men, though, because most politicians are men.
There are satirical cartoons that feature feminists. Clare in the Community in the Guardian newspaper can be funny; Millie Tant in Viz magazine has its moments occasionally.
The point about satire is that it is only funny when it comments on something that really happens. The English elites in Swift's day really were making ridiculous and heartless suggestions about what the Irish poor should do about their poverty. But you can't take a mirror image of a satire and switch the groups involved and expect it to be funny.

It's not up to me to tell Nyac what to do. I commented on your not having answered my question because you claimed to genuinely want to know something and it seemed strange that you were complaining about her not answering when there were other people on the thread willing to help with the thing you were asking her. She can answer whichever of your questions she chooses to, that's up to her.

Lol, that's too good, Dworkin - like Frothy Dragon said - comedy genius! :D

Oh I know the joke's on me, but it was a good one and I'll pay it out! Will anyone join my band - perhaps we could enter the song for Sweden and all dress in funky costumes?

I'm thinking "If only I could - I'd make this world a better place" if it hasn't been done before - or perhaps as Strop suggested "make the world a better place for you and for me and the entire human race?".

Perhaps this isn't the forum in which to discuss reuniting the genders in love and harmony :)

Anyway good night all, it's been fun but it's far too late/early in my time zone.

Signing off.

Lilly (two ells [well three really])

"My firm belief is that this world will become a better place when men and women stop fighting each other and realize that we're all human and we need each other.

Why can't we work together as humans to make this world a better place for all of us without drawing lines that place people of the opposite sex as the enemy?"

Set that to music and you might be in with a chance to enter the Eurovision song contest.

I'm having a dumb moment. I can see ways in which men could stop fighting women. An end to rape and sexual harassment - including verbal harassment of the ''show us your tits'' variety would massively improve gender relationships. As well as all those nasty, covert warfare tactics used to keep women out of politics (as shown in the link upthread) and no doubt also used in private business to keep women out of executive positions.

What acts of aggression are women committing against men that we should stop in order to improve gender relationships and make the world a better place for you and for me and the entire human race?