Misandry - Real or imaginary?

[ZombiePuffinsAreREAL]

This is being discussed on another thread, which was started by someone else about a completely different subject, so I felt that it would be better and more polite to start a new thread where it could be discussed properly, and without stealing someone else's thunder, if you will.

That's still not looking at it in a holistic way. I mean, I understand why you might not want to, but...

It's this aspect that says women's standing in the world can only be considered as being relative to men's and therefore we need to make sure nothing improves men's lot because it doesn't counter the gap. That seems like bad maths to me. Especially when we're talking about masculinity as a factor in women's oppression.

There's disagreeing in an engaged way and disagreeing in a dismissive way Yonic. It's very clear that some people don't even think we should have this conversation. It baffles me - in fact I said so in that other thread before it got deleted.

As to misandry having a meaning, I don't see why a definition that is attributed to the diet coke brigade is one that people are identifying as being the final say (or, in fact, the original one). It's a concept and concepts can evolve - or at least be discussed.

Because of the rules of language! Misanthropy and misogyny carry parallel meanings; you can't redefine just misandry in that context.

Re. Your other point - are there lots of men fighting against women's oppression and baffled why women aren't also fighting against men's oppression by toxic masculinity? Or are you asking women to do both but not asking men to do either?

Actually I still have that post; it was this:

I don't find it intimidating - although I think anyone invested in this forum really should take note of the sheer number of women that have said that they find it to be so.

My personal frustration is when you voice an idea and people reply to say that the issue has already been agreed to be XYZ and there's nothing more to be said. I find this a really odd way to behave bearing in mind that:

a) Feminism can't be said to have achieved all its aims yet - so surely there are ways to increase its potency, relevance and reach.
b) Feminsism should really be liberal and therefore inclusive, open-minded, not dogmatic clique impervious to change.

c) Feminism isn't a like a Haynes manual for a Ford Escort with a hierarchy of self-appointed master technicians whose approval needs to be gained.

I'm re-posting again here, because I think some of this is really relevant. Feminsism's position relative to society is ever-changing. It's place in public consciousness and discourse is never the same. To that end, the means by which the concepts of gender equality are discussed are up for constant review and adjustment. Does anyone want to deny that many people (women and men) feel difficulty in relating to what they think feminism is? I think that's a major challenge in itself!

Yonic

Re. Your other point - are there lots of men fighting against women's oppression and baffled why women aren't also fighting against men's oppression by toxic masculinity? Or are you asking women to do both but not asking men to do either?

I thought I'd already kind of answered that? I'm having an issue with this constant assumption that the overall task of gender equality is something that should be segregated: This - It's this aspect that says women's standing in the world can only be considered as being relative to men's and therefore we need to make sure nothing improves men's lot because it doesn't counter the gap. That seems like bad maths to me. Especially when we're talking about masculinity as a factor in women's oppression.

And a few previous posts too further upthread.

Can I ask a serious and genuine question; am I talking in riddles? Are my posts hard to understand?

Of course it exists! We can't just redefine the meaning of word because some twats (M'R'As) misuse it.

Systematic misandry, now that's another story. I cannot think of any examples of that off of the top of my head.

Buffy Thanks for the answer - I'll go and ponder and read etc. However, that still sounds like a view that concentrates on the gap in a divisive way rather than the overall environment in a holistic way.

I'm starting to think I may not be wording stuff very well.

yy Apocalypse. That's why I'm not engaging.

So Damsili on a thread that was all about how women felt that feminists were telling them how to do feminism, you went on and told them how feminism should be done.

Nice.

Male exclusion from home economics at school might have been systematic misandry. Long gone now probably - and that's rather off the top of my head.

Don't be ridiculous. That benefited men.

Scallops thank you for your contribution. You've set out your attitude very nicely. Sorry if you feel a bit called out on it.

Perhaps you could stop trolling the thread if you've nothing to add?

I don't feel called out at all. Who's been doing the calling? Where did that happen?

Oh the irony

Don't worry Buffy. I'm leaving them to it. They can have their "debate". I admire your patience and time spent engaged in this matter. It might be a bit early for this but you may need it later

DS, don't accuse scallops of trolling. If you think someone is a troll, report.

Again, are you off urging men to fight the oppression of women?

If someone has openly stated that they don't wish to engage in a discussion and yet, over a variety of posts, say that other posts are 'ridiculous' or 'misdirection' and make other rather aggressive criticisms, wouldn't you define that as trolling?

If someone doesn't wish to discuss the issue, they don't have to.

In the great words of Ginandcampari, "fuckin' see ya!"

Yonic Yes! Of course! But did you not read the response I already gave you? You say "again" as if I ignored it.

Buffy - I responded to your Friere post and said I was going away to read and to ponder on it. I appreciate all of your responses so far. I am not mourning the loss of Scallops on this thread.

Is there an issue with drawing parallels with other oppressed groups because of the uniqueness of the personal vs general dynamics between men and women?

I mean that a working class person who is being oppressed will probably be married to someone who is working class and will have working class kids. A black person fighting against segregation in the 1960s probably had a black partner and black children (where partner/kids exist, I mean). So the fighting through division held few personal conflicts for them (bar the odd white guy at work who was pretty nice and not racist).

I think the problem a lot of women have with the concept that feminism must involve division rather than trying to reach a consensus with men is that we talk about feminism but then get into bed with a male partner, or kiss a son goodnight... And suddenly the general 'women vs men' thing feels super personal and like its engendering a personal/moral conflict.

I'm a FWR newbie so I'm sorry if I haven't expressed that well and would appreciate thoughts on how to resolve the perceived conflict. I say perceived because I may just be thinking about this in a knee jerk / unsophisticated way.

Yes, I read your response, DS.

What I am specifically asking is are you also going onto male dominated forums and asking them to work against female oppression. I don't think you addressed that.