Suicide-a feminist issue?

[whenwomenruletheworld]

Tragically high male suicide rates have I think wrongly painted this as a men's issue. Aren't all the suicides men and women tragedies? And if the "man up/grow a pair" culture is in part responsible for men killing themselves in such numbers, when will society see feminism as the main opponent to the patriarchal bullshit which creates these gender stereotypes as the main hope for both men and women of dismantling them? It is disheartening to hear men talk disparagingly about feminism when my God the alternatives PUA nonsense MRA, UKIP, are so totally discredited. As someone posted on here when will there be a men's rights movement which embraces feminism as it's sister movement and which focuses on things which damage everyone?

Great posts MelindaMay.

MelindaMay

I absolutely agree, and I was never at any point suggesting that the impact of misandry was as great as the impact of misogyny. I would be surprised to hear anybody argue that. However, claiming one exists and one doesn't is simply not true. It does have an impact, as any hate does.

As to your second point I absolutely concede that. I would hope that given we are aware of history, and what has happened in the past, that we could stop that happening. You are however probably right - therefore perhaps two movements - open to all genders - which support and re-inforce each other when it is right to do so?

I disagree with your interpretation of misogyny and misandry (although not with the outcomes that have been faced by women). Misogyny and misandry are respectively the hatred of women (by men) and the hatred of men (by women). The impact of that is gender inequality - the "impact and cultural weight" which has been heinously unbalanced in the favour of men for pretty much our entire existence as a society. Let's put it another way - is it acceptable for a single person to be deprived or alienated or punished because of either of those terms? I would believe not.

Secondly, no. Why would a movement for Men's right not also expend their energy fighting for women's rights? In fact (and this is a completely unproven guess) might it not make greater strides with the support of more men? Still I can absolutely understand the mis-trust - I imagine I would feel the same.

Sorry, haven't explained that very well.

What I mean is that Misogyny is a cause - and the treatment of women over the centuries has been the effect. If we can take away the effects, the cause still remains. Therefore you can have misogyny as stand alone.

On this basis of argument, we can also have misandry. It will exist without any effects.

In my experience, 'Misandry' normally just consists of women telling the truth to men about their behaviour.

But where you lose me is where you seem to be suggesting that feminists need to extend some sort of olive branch, or make some sort of gesture of good faith, so that this can happen. Otherwise, if no change whatsoever is needed from the various women's rights movements, why don't men just help? Why keep pointing out a supposed inequality in social activism around gender? Do you see what I mean?

I don't think I have argued any of those things. I think that is inference rather than intention. The point I was making is this - if you feel strongly about discrimination because of sexism against women, you should feel strongly about discrimination because of sexism against men. Nothing more than that. Obviously, there is a hell of a lot more to fight against in terms of discrimination for women.

The big problem I see at the moment is parts of the feminist spectrum arguing there is no such thing as misandry or sexism against men. That is what I would like to see stop. (Also, I think I cut it off but it is an absolute travesty more men don't put more effort into fighting sexism and patriarchy in particular - because it is damaging to them too). I have cut a lot off there but I think that addresses the point I was trying to make.

So to summarise, either we keep misogyny's full significance as a concept, which means misandry isn't really a comparable thing. Or we say that language has evolved, these words now mean different sides of a coin, and we need a new word for what misogyny used to mean.

Yes, language does evolve. But I think it is more "we need a new term for what feminists used to use misogyny to mean". An example (and no woman speaks for all of feminism, I get that) would be Jess Phillips MP arguing that Jeremy Corbyn was guilty of "low-level non-violent misogyny". For having more women in the shadow cabinet than ever before - but not giving any of the 4 big offices of state to women (a decision on which were the 4 big offices of state having previously been made by men). Is that really misogyny? Sorry, digressed slightly, but I think it is a question of how that term is used within feminism. I read that misogynist used to mean homosexual somewhere - probably on the internet so might not be true.

In my experience, 'Misandry' normally just consists of women telling the truth to men about their behaviour.

Tell that to Valerie Solanis (not sure of the spelling) or Andy Warhol.

Indeed slug. Agree with the point Melinda made earlier that claiming something which criticises men is "misandry" (as done frequently by MRAs and is personally a red flag that a man is one for me) is frequently just a poor attempt to construct a false equivalence with misogyny. And generally an attempt to shut women up/dismiss their lived experiences.

Obviously I don't believe men should suffer, or that men cannot have their own rights movement. But I don't agree they face the systemic prejudice and discrimination women do.

For example, I've never heard a man argue against someone saying that it's 'natural' for men to sexually harass women by saying that statement is misandric. confused

And this is an excellent point.

I think we are in danger of violently agreeing on most of those points. What we do agree on -
Men shouldn't discriminate against, be violent towards or basically shits to women in a million different ways every day.
Misogyny exists, and the impacts of it have been far ranging and are far greater than the impact of misandry. In terms of impact, in fact over the entirety of history, misogyny has been much worse, and remains much worse, than misandry.
Misandry does exist, and we should also condemn that (I think you agreed).
That there is a far greater need for action where it comes to misogyny.
More men should do much more, and more of the time and in more ways to overthrow patriarchy and sexism / misogyny.

What we don't agree on -
You think I am saying that women should fight for men's rights so that men will fight for womens rights - well that is easy to fix. I am definitely, definitely not saying that. What I am saying is that women shouldn't walk past or worse still pretend that misandry and sexual discrimination against men don't exist. They also shouldn't actively campaign against the need for a men's rights movement.

But I don't agree they face the systemic prejudice and discrimination women do.

Yes, I don't think anyone would argue that - certainly not anyone who has actually inhabited the real world at any point in there life. Although always space to be amazed, I suppose.

Great posts, Melinda May! You've really helped me organise my thoughts on this, thank you.

The word misandry always makes me twitch because it does, for me, summon up an image of an attempt to make a false equivalence with misogyny, when that just isn't there. As has been said upthread, the majority of the time that the word misandry is used, the correct word would actually be "sexism", because that covers everything that needs to be said, as it pertains to a piece of individual behaviour, and lacks that weight of history and behaviour-as-a-class that "lends weight to the punch" (thank you, MM) of misogyny.

And I agree that while it's lovely in theory that men's activism and women's activism could work together to dismantle patriarchy, history tells me that that just doesn't happen because unless a movement overtly centres women's needs, they get sidelined, because the default is to centre men. I vividly remember reading an article about the post-war reconstruction in Afghanistan, where it was spelled out that while the allies were OF COURSE, terribly terribly interested in a programme for women's rights, they just had to sort out all of the important reconstruction stuff first, after all, the whole population is impoverished and oppressed...but as soon as they had fixed that, then they would definitely hop right to it, and work on women's rights, right away, honest...I thought, well, it's not usually spelled out as clearly as that, but there you have it.

So, I have been thinking about this - and is it the use and meaning of the word misogyny or the use and the meaning of the word misandry that causes problems?

It appears to me (and tell me if I am wrong, I often am) that a lot of posters object to the way misandry has been used by individuals within the mens rights movement in the past. For example, trying to equate it as a problem similar in scale to misogyny OR trying to use it as a deflection technique to avoid acceptance of feminists issues? I can understand why if that was the case it would now raise hackles.

I don't accept that misandy and sexism are covered by the same word. For example - higher male suicide rates are in part caused because mental health services are not targetted at men. It could easily be argued that this is a case of sexism (or sexual discrimination) because the designers of those programmes have not considered the needs of each sex when rolling out services, leading to an imbalance in outcomes. However, you would have to be quite skewed in your thinking to believe this was caused by misandry.

That actually suggests to me that feminists should embrace the word misandry - but make sure it is used correctly rather than deny any existence of it at all.

OF COURSE, terribly terribly interested in a programme for women's rights, they just had to sort out all of the important reconstruction stuff first, after all, the whole population is impoverished and oppressed...but as soon as they had fixed that, then they would definitely hop right to it, and work on women's rights, right away, honest...I thought, well, it's not usually spelled out as clearly as that, but there you have it.

That is brilliantly put - never thought of that before.

I'd like to know that Melinda too.

Valerie Solanis wrote a satirical piece about women doing things to men - which a) they don't do and b) men have already done to women (and that seems to pass over everyone's head!). She was also in an abusive relationship with Warhol and hit back.

It's partly the previous usage, unexpsoc, and partly thinking that there's just no actual real useful application of the word, other than the way it has been used, ie as deflection and weapon.

I am racking my brains to think of a real-world situation that could be described as misandry. It would need to be

• solely applicable to men
• inflicted by women
• inspired by women hating and/or fearing men

-backed by the weight of the law or enabled by the indifference of the law

• OR enabled by historical precedence, with a broad reluctance to address the possibility of change
• accepted as inevitable by large swathes of the population
• causing real harm to men, not just hurt feelings, but injury, lost opportunity, loss of earnings, ie quantifiable, tangible damage.

And I can't think of anything that fits the bill...what do people think of my list of requirements? on the right track?

What would be an example of actual misandry (systematic, institutional hatred by women of men leading to harm)?

So, I think that is where the conversation breaks down. We simply have different understanding of the meaning of the word misandry. I think you are suggesting that misandry can only exist where it leads to systematic institutional hatred by women of men leading to harm.

I take a much more simple view - misandry simply means hatred of men. By your argument then, can misogyny only exist if it leads to systematic institutional hatred leading to harm? Or can misogyny exist outside of that? For example, misogyny in someone's mind - as long as it doesn't lead to harm, is not misogyny?

I am not sure that is played out by how we have written our laws on discrimination, or the generally accepted academic understanding of the word BUT I accept what matters is what it means to each person. So, in your understanding, misandry can never exist - mainly because misogyny got there first.

In answer to a slightly altered version of your question - What would be an example of my (MM) understanding of misandry (systematic, institutional hatred by women of men leading to harm)?

That is a really good one. I might have to look into that. I would imagine if any examples exist they would be few and far between.

bum! *precedent, not precedence!