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

[ecclesvet]

1) Why have two words, 'misogyny' and 'sexism' which appear to mean the same?

But they don't mean the same thing at all:
Sexism: prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination on the basis of sex.
Misogyny: the hatred of women.

2) What word are we going to use for the systematized, institutionalized oppression of women?

'Patriarchy', surely?

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

eccles - if we have misogyny, misandry, and sexism, and we think they mean the same things, why bother? The usefulness of the term 'misogyny' is that it reminds us that oppression is gendered. If you want to introduce misandry as an equivalent, why bother wtih the term 'sexism' since you've effectively bled out the usefulness of 'misogyny' as a gendered term for a gendered practice.

'Patriarchy' refers to the system, not the practice. If you want to coin a term 'patriarchistic', you could I suppose. But IMO it is useful to have both words since they do refer to different things．

[OrmIrian]

I am not sure what this is about then. Misandry doesn't have to be equal and opposite to misogyny to exist. Big isn't the equal and opposite of small in every case - it's all relative. A big mouse will still be smaller than a small elephant. A misandrist doesn't have to be as aggressive and damaging as a misogynist - one particular misandrist might just mutter silly stereotypes at men and roll their eyes when a man uses a washing machine, and a misogynist employer might discriminate against women in the workplace, BUT the two things can still exist and still be damaging. I dont think that accepting that one exists, downgrades the other.

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

'Big' and 'small' are, in your example, qualified. You're saying two terms, when qualified, are, erm, qualified in their meaning. Well, yes, they are. So?

I think saying that misandry exists does downgrade misogyny, seeing as how the word was coined precisely for that reason.

[KRITIQ]

Yes, LRD, that seems to be the key point here. You could say the same about the terms "reverse racism" or "heterophobia." The purpose in coining them was to dilute the significance of racism (institutionalised prejudice of and oppression against non-white people) and homophobia (institutionalised prejudice of and oppression against non-straight people.) The problem with promoting the use of these terms, like misandry, is that it effectively legitimises the concepts they were founded on - i.e. that systematic oppression based on ethnicity, sexual orientation and sex "goes both ways," when quite clearly, it doesn't.

[Trills]

No such thing as reverse racism. Racism is racism no matter who is doing it to who. It's not a directional term.

(should there be a whom in there?)

[KRITIQ]

Okay, perhaps this sounds like playing with language and at the risk of going in circles, I see a distinction between racism (racial prejudice + the systemic economic, political and social "weight" to back it up) and racial prejudice (individuals not liking others because of their difference, but not having that "weight.")

In a similar way, you can have individual women who dislike men, even who might wish them harm, but you don't have the backing of history, culture, the law, traditions, social attitudes, etc. to translate that dislike on a large scale basis to harm huge swathes of men. However, when individual men dislike women and wish to do them harm, their position is at least to a degree supported by the history, culture, laws, etc. on a wider basis.

I think it IS important to look at whose views carry the most weight in society and where possible, distinguish between the attitudes and practices of people in those groups from the attitudes and practices of those outside the groups. Otherwise, there's the risk that everyone will be seen "as bad as each other" and the systemic oppression that underpins the bigotry of some will be ignored. Injustice will prevail.

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

See, I find it so interesting that you can say 'no such thing as reverse racism' but can't accept that there's no such thing as 'misandry', even though loads of people have described ways in which misogyny leads to bad things for men as well as women.

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

And I agree, that is a very good point about legitimizing.

I do find it deeply depressing that the argument I got in RL about this was 'oh but you can't have misogyny if we can't have misandry'. In those exact words.

(Yes, because you'd be so lucky to get misandry, right? )

[Trills]

There's no such thing as reverse sexism, because sexism is a non-directional term.

Misogyny is a term that specifies a direction for the hatred of one sex by the other. Therefore it is at the very least conceptually possible for the opposite to exist.

Whether the opposite does exist or not depends on which definition you choose (as seen in about 100 posts above).

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

I agree there is no such thing as reverse sexism (I never said there was).

Nor did I ever say (nor did anyone else say) that it's not conceptually possible for misandry to exist.

But, in our society, it doesn't.

I don't understand what's being added here except straw man replies.

[Trills]

You were challenging me saying "reverse racism doesn't exist" while saying that misandry could, so I explained that it is because one term is directional and the other is not.

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

And, once again, all you're showing is that misandry could, in theory, exist. We all know that. You're not getting any closer to showing it does or doesn't.

[Trills]

I was responding to a specific point you made about the logic of saying that there is no such thing as reverse racism. Not trying to show anything. You called my logic into question, I explained it.

Misandry does exist if you define it the way I do, it doesn't exist if you define it the way you do. I have said this already.

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

Fair enough.

Actually, I didn't call your logic into question, I commented it was interesting. No more.

I do find it interesting that you don't feel the need to search for a term for racism by black people against white people, you just accept 'reverse racisim' isn't a meaningful term and that white people can be racist agaisnt black people.

But it seems important to you and others on this thread that there must be a term for women hating men. I don't get why that is so important? Why aspire to have equality in hatred?

[KRITIQ]

But Trills, some have suggested that endorsing use of the term "misandry" gives legitimacy to the idea that sexual prejudice happens in the same way, with the same frequency and with an equivalent impact when it happens against men AND women.

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?

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

See, I would be really disturbed if someone came on here saying they really felt it was important to use the term 'black supremacy' in order to denote the way that black people oppress white people. I would think such a person was a raving racist. And I would be deeply dubious of his or her motives.

If someone came on and said 'I think black people can be racist to white people', I'd be saying 'erm, yes, true'.

The same is IMO the case with 'misandry'. Women can be sexist towards men, but I am disturbed by people who argue that we should adopt the term 'misandry' happily.

[Trills]

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).

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

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

[MitchierInge]

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

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

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

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

michier - good point, and I agree.

And thanks again for starting this thread.

[thunderboltsandlightning]

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?

[MitchierInge]

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

[OrmIrian]

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