misandry doesn't exist

[MitchierInge]

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

Nobody has explained how this "misandry" manifests itself, given it's supposed to be equal in seriouness to misogyny or why given the global scale of male violence towards and destruction of women, why we're supposed to regard it as an important issue.

Oh wow Mumsnet actually deleted Lilly's attack. Almost a first. You're applauding empty space there ILoveDinosaurs.

IloveDinosaurs can you link to some of the posts on RadFem Hub to support your evidence?

As I feminist, I would never charge another woman with the word 'bitter'.

Is Valerie Solanas' SCUM manifesto misandric or is it a brilliant satire?

The manifesto can be read in all its glory here:

www.womynkind.org/scum.htm

Enjoy!

Nyac

I think you have to have read Freud making generalisations about women in order to get the satire in Solanas - a lot of the antifeminists who miss the irony are under the bizarrely ignorant impression that no-one has ever said anything like that about women and if they did they would be shot down.

Good posts Lilly and ILove.

As for posting 'men's rights propaganda' in the women's rights section, do you think if there actually was a men's rights section on MN (which, incidentally, would be a great idea), you would keep out of it?

Can Lilly, I love, or Sahara explain how misandry manifests in real life?

As opposed to people saying stuff in on the internet.

Thanks

Sahara I would never go voluntary to an MRA site, and have no interest in 'discussion' with them, unless they infiltrate other sites.

MRA threads are in general abusive to women. They never focus on how men can make their lives better. MRA threads/forums are "always the victim never your fault" types of discourse I could do without. Ta!

Dworkin, I was saying if there was a men's rights section here on MN, would you stay out of it?

I wouldn't go onto a MRA site to join in the discussion either.

Sinical, if I use the term misandry in the same way that you use misogyny, i.e a response for discrimination, hate, privilage and everything else in between..

sticking to my own personal examples...

Whilst pregnant I had much 'sympathy' for the fact I was carrying a son, including

'Oh I bet you wish you were having a girl'

'Have you bombproofed your house'

'Oh that's a shame, girls clothes are so much nicer, you can't dress boys well'

'Boys just up and leave you, let's hope you have a girl next time'

'You'll have to train him to look after you and your DH, because girls always do that'

'Oh, are you disappointed, did you want a girl. All women want girls really'

etc, etc

Whilst pregnant with DS 2...

'Oh God, not another one'

'Oh well, never mind, are you trying again?' x 20

'Another one? I'll make sure I come to your house because I don't want my house trashed'

'I bet you're disappointed aren't you?'

'Never mind love, there's always the next time' (from my midwife)

etc, etc

So I'm going to now miss out the many other examples during DS's todderhood and move on to DS starting school.

Ds has returned home upset because many times a girl in his class has been unpleasant. Including telling him his work is rubbish, he can't draw properly, girls are better than boys, lying about him, telling him he didn't get an award for being good,,it was because he was stupid.

The focus at school seems to be on his supposed inability to keep still and focus on writing and drawing, however, suprise, suprise, he's very focussed on outdoor and practical stuff (which has been proven to stimulate boys in a learning environment), but the school chooses not to focus on this, and his 'inability' to sit still and learn is a problem but they don't try to address this.

I got a lot of that daft pregnancy talk too - except I had two girls.
It's still only words though - not much weight behind them.

Kids pick on each other in school. It's bullying and should be dealt with. Again, a boy could just as easily said those things.

Sitting still and keeping quiet is a feature of the classroom, isn't it?

Nothing you have said there says misandry to me, it wouldn't say misogyny either if your child was a girl. They are just gripes really.

But the patriarchy hurts boys too, of course. For children it manifests as teaching boys to deny their feelings, that is so damaging imo. 'Little monster' tshirts? 'Big boys don't cry'? Hyper-masculinisation does no one any favours.

Sahara

I think you're describing effects of cultural gender stereotyping that can be harmful and starts even before the child is born.

I had the same when expecting my two daughters but when my ds came along and was presenting at an early age with problems (since diagnosed with autism), I was told that boys do things differently, such as not talk till later. This cultural gender sterotyping would have harmed him had I not been as forceful as I was in ignoring it and demanding that his needs be addressed.

IME there's an expectation that the ideal is having one of each. My family goes girl, boy, boy, and I never got any of the negative stuff about boys that Sahara reports, but when I told people dc2 was going to be a boy I got a lot of congratulations.

I have two girls and one eejit actually said Does your husband mind having 2 girls?
wtaf?
Someone else told my sister she could stop now, she had a boy first then a girl. The perfect family, apparently.

I think we are straying into the arena of Daft Stuff People say About Babies

An exemple of how "misandry" manifests itself: Women who won't let clearly abusive fathers have contact with their children. Those poor blokes!

I've got another one - women who think rapists should be punished for their crimes, instead of the current 6% conviction rate we've got.

You know, all of this has been quite interesting. I'll admit that just lately I've been spending a lot of time researching gender inequality. I've got a long way to go, in fact there is such a mountain of information, books, links, opinions etc, that it appears I'm going to be spending a year at the very least working through a lot of it.

I've ordered literature to get a balanced view, both feminist and post feminist. I'm going to read MRA sites and feminist sites, then when I have a decent amount of understanding, I'll probably feel more qualified to speak on the matter.

From the amount I've read so far, I would say that Patriarchy only applies to the very top of society. There are a lot of myths out there, on both sides, and there are a lot of very angry men and women. Statistics are dubious at best, and it's incredibly difficult to form an opinion based on them.

I wonder where, in your opinion, society is going to be in, say, 50 years time?

"post feminist" hahahahaha

I wish

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?

I have sympathy with lilly in that the poster is immersed in patriarchial language. Although I do have to say JSQ that your reply is also steeped in patriarchial language as well.

Naturally it's best to assume that the Greek and Latin language was the basis for English, but these societies themselves were deeply patriarchial. Some examples:

hysterectomy - the Greek for womb was hysteria

And surprise! We adopt this today. It's insidious no doubt.

However a big + to all that Jericho posted.

How can we have post-feminism, when we still have a patriarchy? When we're still in a rape culture? When we still have 2 women a week being killed by former or current partners? When America is trying to give control of a woman's body to the men in society?

We're going backwards. Not forwards. In fifty years time, if we carry on at this rate, the world is going to be an even scarier place to be a woman....

I am curious to know how anyone would come to the conclusion that patriarchy only applies to the top of society. In many cultures it's the bottom of society where women suffer most, eg when there are educated Westernised elites at the top but arranged marriages and illiteracy for the women at the bottom.
Half The Sky is a good read.

What feminist books are you starting with SaharaMerchant?

Pure Lust: Elemental Feminist Philosophy
Mary Daly

Gyn/Ecology: Metaethics of Radical Feminism
Mary Daly

Pornography
Andrea Dworkin

Intercourse
Andrea Dworkin, Ariel Levy

I agree, the women at the bottom suffer the most, but I believe that is social issue, or a class issue, whatever you want to call it.