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

I was trying to think of the name of the Swift text, so thank you, Turnip...

As far as I'm aware, incidents of child eating didn't rise as a result of that text...

Jonathan Swift was just like Hitler.

But if they had, Frothy, would you be against or in favour? Would you be joining the party or fighting it?

arf....

Anyway Lilly, you want us to give you some ideas to help fight female infanticide, so I asked you twice where in the world you are located and what your gender is. (No point in advising you to join a UK organisation, or suggesting a march you can go on that's women only, if you're a bloke in the States, you see.)

I don't know why you keep ignoring me, anyone would think you weren't really sincere and were just trying to do a 'gotcha' at Nyac

Hi Sinical Santa,

Thanks again for your reply, I appreciate you taking your time to rebut my answers and some of your replies make great sense.

Yes, it sucks that women who are raped so seldom receive true justice. This saddens me and I would do anything to change this situation.

Woman horribly mutilates man to fanfare by loons. Well we're not talking loons here, we're talking about an entire audience of women and the cast of a TV show called The Talk. Sharon Osborn described the incident as being fabulous or wonderful and all the women in the cast and audience were laughing uproariously about it. Can you really imagine an audience of men laughing at a woman being raped?

Stupid man on TV? Is it always about laundry? I thought it was a bit more global than that.

Valerie = Hitler? No I didn't say that, and didn't mean it. I was trying to draw a parallel. Nyac's point about Godwin's is well taken, but there are parallels there. That's different to saying Solanis = Hitler, right? Both of them used the language of hatred and discrimination and argued for the persecution of a different group. Yes Hitler was "successful" and Solanis was not, but what if her ideas had taken off? Can we be sure that people have not been killed due to Solanis's ideas? Are we sure she does not have her own band of fanatical followers who would or perhaps have killed men simply for their gender?

Family court. Well yes there are more dead beat dads, but then again dad's rarely win custody so they're far more often going to be the ones in the position of having to pay and for every dead beat dad there are many more dads who do the right thing. One fact remains: even accounting for the greater number of fathers not paying a woman is far less likely to be jailed - even when taking the proportions into account. For the same "crime" a woman is less likely to be jailed. On that subject, a woman is also less likely to be jailed than a man - once again this takes the proportions into account, and a man is likely to be given a larger sentence for the same crime as a woman.

Look I know that discrimination occurs against women all the time, but why can we not acknowledge that men can be the victims of gender stereotyping too? Why do we dismiss this kind of discrimination while emphasizing case of discrimination against women?

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?

Dworkin there's a very funny passage in the Malcolm Bradbury novel Stepping Westward where a visiting literature lecturer tries to teach 'A Modest Proposal' to a group of unsophisticated students and they can't grasp the satire and think he's advocating baby eating and complain about him to the university authorities.

Now you mention it, Turnip, I do think DS would cook quite well in a stew... Eradicating men AND children in one go... Do I get extra points?

Oh I'm loving this. Whoever says feminists don't have a sense of humour needs to get out more!

Lilly Of course men never reinact anything they see on the big screen...

radfemworldnews.wordpress.com/2012/01/31/boys-men-never-re-enact-what-they-see-onscreen-say-jedi-kittens/

And I love the clips to this post, to continue with the laughter!

Whoever says Feminists don't have a sense of humour OBVIOUSLY hasn't spent enough time here...

Re-enact of course.

Lilly you wrote:

"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.

That's a lovely sentiment Lilly.
That's what feminists do.

The patriarchy hurts men too

You'll like this then Lilly.

It's an article on the Good Men Project site talking about how the solution to most of the problems MRAs complain about is more feminism.

See, we have the comedy geniuses in FWR...

And thanks to sinicalsanta, we have the poets, too...

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?

OK already! I am an Australian woman who has fought for feminist rights but also believes in justice for men. Is that enough to make me an outcast on this page?

I saw someone getting a little smart arse on me, and I note, being just a tad sexist against men (always harder to spot isn't it?) by suggesting that a man would have to ask others for suggestions, he'd leave the hard work to the women. Here we have a tiny little example of misandry. Ask yourself: if genders had been swapped and it had been suggested that a woman had to ask men for suggestions would that have been construed as sexist and misogynistic?

My reason for phrasing it that was simply the hope I had that we might put our differences aside for a short while in order to work for something greater than our petty differences of opinion. In asking for other people's suggestions I was trying to foster some co-operation. I would like to do something about it, but I honestly don't know what - and at least I have the courage to admit that. I still haven't heard anyone make any suggestions and I am asking not just the women but the men on this thread too for ideas on what we could do about the infanticide of baby girls.

You know what? I am going to say something that I KNOW will invoke scorn upon me, but I will be honest (get your ammunition ready) I could not read much of the SCUM manifesto, I found it upsetting and I gave up on it. I await the inevitable onslaught :) I will even concede this point, perhaps it is a satire and I missed it.

I will however once again ask all of you: if this satire had had women as the targets do you think you would have appreciated it just as much? And what satire have you enjoyed and appreciated where women - or perhaps even feminists - were the satirical targets?

Frothy Dragon, you also have a very valid point and yes 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?

Turnip I have answered your questions. Have you also noticed that Nyac has not answered a fair number of my questions? Should I get on her case about that or is it ok with you if she ignores my questions?

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?

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 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.

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.

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"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 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.

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?