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

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

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that misandry, misogyny, racism, sexism, or anything else can exist without a supporting social structure is so, so, outdated and incorrect...'hatred is still hatred' is all very well and good on a t-shirt, but it's bullshit as a political theory.

"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).

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.

@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.

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.

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'.

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 .

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". My thoughts entirely. Reams and reams of drivel it.

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?

Lone individuals with a gripe? Oh give me strength.

You've just illustrated my point perfectly.

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.

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.

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!

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

I love that quotation.

What you're saying there is so right - feminist analysis of pretty much anything is a giant invitation for men to stand with us, to work to combat his privilege, etc.

Precisely.

And therein there is a potentially interesting discussion to be had of the writing of Solanes for example. The SCUM Manifesto is anarchist - it attacks a system which causes harm to certain groups of society, due to a clinging to of privilege by other groups, using any and all means possible; notably violence and the construction of power structures which institutionalise that violence.

I suspect it is impossible to develop such a discussion in this forum however without it degenerating to the level of the lowest common denominator. A fruitless exercise.

I've come to the conclusion that the word misandry exists. It's been used hundreds of times on this thread alone.

I believe that misandry is a word that was invented by 19th century MRAs (Men's Rights Activists) specifically to smear, denigrate and destroy feminists from the start of First Wave feminism in the 1800s.

I believe that the word misandry was not invented to describe hatred of men. On the contrary, it was invented to silence women who dared to point out widespread discrimination by men against women. That discrimination against women is not some imaginary thing, then or now.

I do not believe that MRAs are a modern invention of the 1980s or later. They have been around since the start of feminism. The recent revival of MRAs in the internet age is not about increased discrimination against men. It is to oppose the resurgence of feminism due to the Patriarchal backlash against feminism. For example, anyone following the current U.S. Republican Primary campaign can see how anti-woman thinking has moved even higher up the Patriarchy's agenda.

Most people who shout "misandry!" seem to be obsessed with some fantasy that the world is ruled by feminists, who hold all the power and allegedly are out to eliminate men. The evidence is precisely the opposite of their MRA fantasy. The Patriarchy uses MRAs to fight Patriarchy's enemy, which is feminism. The Patriarchy is not primarily concerned with giving more rights to its MRA foot soldiers. If feminism were to be destroyed, the Patriarchy would not reward MRAs with more rights than they had before feminism. More parental leave for fathers under the Patriarchy, without the help of feminists? No chance.

Misandry is all about the Patriarchy pushing its agenda of anti-feminism. MRAs will not improve the world for most people by fighting feminists. MRAs will preserve the more pro-male, more anti-woman Patriarchy. It's ironic that discrimination against some men in the real world actually comes from the male-dominated Patriarchy, not from feminism.

Misandry is not the "other side of the coin" equal and opposite to misogyny. Misogyny has involved real, documented, systematic, institutionalised discrimination and hatred of women, causing the (often violent) deaths of millions of women at the hands of many men, for at least the past 2,500 years. Women have not done this to men.

Bye-bye, Sahara!

ps: I would have to be dragged through a hot pit of roasting coals before I told someone who actually believes that misandry is a real institutionalised process about my rape. Just a thought...

I love that quote too Beachcomber. And it's a goodbye to you Sahara from me too.

SaharaMerchant wrote - "I?m just tired of radicals. When have they ever made the world a better place?"

Depending on how one defines "radical", it could be said that radicals have made numerous positive contributions to the world, such as inventing things like the wheel, writing and books.

The radical in radical feminism does not refer to "extremism", it refers to "root" as in "the root cause of oppression of women is the Patriarchy."