Evidence of misandry on Feminist chat.

[UpstartCrow]

The last few days, there have been several claims of misandry on Feminist Chat. Please post examples here using a link and screen shot.

Thank you.

It does feel as though some posters are trying to define misandry in such a way that it effectively can't be demonstrated, and yet the same people are quite happy to take any evidence of a woman being disadvantaged by a man in any way as clear misogyny.

For what it's worth I think the answer is somewhere in the middle.

I would like to call people on the whole '90% of violent crime is commited by men' thing that then becomes justification for tarring all men as potentially violent without qualification.

I wonder if the same people would be happy if we applied that argument to black people in the US for example? They are statistically more likely to commit crimes, therefore can we describe all black people as potential criminals without any qualification?

Or use women being more far likely to commit fraud or shoplift as justification for treating all women as dishonest liars?

Of course not, because we recognise it's a bigoted and narrow minded thing to do.

Phew...............

Every online feminist space has someone like larry hanging around the fringes, being tedious. It's an odd hobby.

Worita

Black people who say 'i hate white people' are routinely called out on it by white and black people.

Because it doesn't matter how they try and justify it, it's a racist and unacceptable thing to say.

“I would like to call people on the whole '90% of violent crime is commited by men' thing that then becomes justification for tarring all men as potentially violent without qualification“

Tricky. There is a difference between “tarring all men as violent” and “tarring all men as potentially violent” The first is obviously wrong. The second? Well, if I was OLD as a straight woman or a gay man for example, I’d have that in the back of my mind........

What on earth is that Mumsnet Sucks website??

Crikey. If you don’t want to be pegged as an MRA, haggis, then linking to that website won’t help you out there.

Also agree with bertrand - if there is misandry (big if, given that it is not at all the equivalent of misogyny, as pp have also explained) to be found here, I’d suggest the women who are doing it are the ones who treat the men in their lives like helpless children incapable of finding the washing machine, and who think that a tendency to rape and violence are inbuilt to the male psyche.

Not feminists, in other words.

Oh, and there's another one. Some people like to sail, some collect things, and some hang around feminist spaces writing "angry of Tunbridge Wells" letter to the editor style missives about how the wimminz aren't speaking about our experiences in the way they'd prefer. Interesting to speculate what's lacking in their lives that would lead them to take up such a peculiar hobby.

I assumed Worita was genuine... no idea now.

Anyway this point:
the low-level "men don't see dirt" is clearly misandry
Actually, this is quite the opposite of misandry. It is patriarch compliance, it is upholding the gendered hierarchy where men are too above/too important to take part in domestic wife work.

Noticing dirt is the female domian it's up to females to sort out the dirt, and pretending that men just can't see dirt reinforces this notion conveniently.

I’d suggest the women who are doing it [misandry] are the ones who treat the men in their lives like helpless children incapable of finding the washing machine
Which is another convenient myth that fits neatly into patriarchy. Not misandry but compliance to existing social order keeping women as the servants of men.

Why can't we all just get along?

KingHaggis- aah, shit, you’re another one. I thought you might actually be OK from another thread.

Bertrand

I do see your point.

But the statement 'all men are potentially violent' is no more valid than the statement 'all black people are potentially criminals' or 'all women are potentially thieves'.

They are all statements of fact based on statistics, but they don't really help us in any way, because (especially in the black people and women examples) it's easy to see that they far too simplistic and one dimensional.

That link he posted does answer my earlier question about who raised the bat signal encouraging MRAs to invade.

I would like to call people on the whole '90% of violent crime is commited by men' thing that then becomes justification for tarring all men as potentially violent without qualification.

It really doesn't. It does mean that since we can't tell, it's wise to be cautious

I wonder if the same people would be happy if we applied that argument to black people in the US for example? They are statistically more likely to commit crimes, therefore can we describe all black people as potential criminals without any qualification?

As has been pointed out in discussion here before, it's actually a combination of police arresting, and courts treating more harshly when a person is black, plus poverty. Unless you think men are poorer than women (untrue) and that men are disproportionately arrested and punished compared to women (also untrue) they aren't comparable.

Actually, this is quite the opposite of misandry. It is patriarch compliance, it is upholding the gendered hierarchy where men are too above/too important to take part in domestic wife work.

If a man pats my head (metaphorically) and tells me to leave him to fix my computer, I count that as misogyny - he doesn't think that I can do it because I'm just a woman. The cleaning thing is the same in reverse, so surely must by misandry - just because it benefits the patriarchy I don't think it makes it any different.

Larry, I find that so interesting (the reference to Animal Farm), and a bit of a shame. In contrast, I find these boards useful fora (?) for a broad and diverse discussion in which it is possible to have different opinions coexisting harmoniously, unlike many other groups I have dipped my toe in and found too intimidating to contribute to. But then I am quite a tender flower.
Before motherhood (and MNing, which coincided in my case) I was blissfully blind to patriarchal oppression, having been lucky to have been surrounded by fairly 'enlightened' men, joining absolutely zero dots, refusing to see a bigger picture and hiding behind cultural relativism, both in the UK and abroad. NAMALT would have been my staple response. The great leveller and window into women's lived experience which is MN has made me so distressed on behalf of women over the years, and aware of what could be described as a small patch of festering misandry in my thinking, if that is what it is when I read the news through the filter of "Fucking men, here we go again!" and initially suspect foul play by the male partner when a woman is found dead or reported missing. Is that what it is, or is it just a recognition of aggression and arrogance born out of male privilege, and an acknowledgement of male pattern violence?

Sorry patodp, i have a hangover and I’m not following- can you explain a bit more what you mean as it sounds interesting?

Patriarchy - if your daughter was going on a blind date, would you want her to be more wary if it was with a man or a woman?

I am aware that this is a trick question, because anyone who says either they would want her to be equally wary or more wary of the woman is being disingenuous

aware of what could be described as a small patch of festering misandry in my thinking, if that is what it is when I read the news through the filter of "Fucking men, here we go again!" and initially suspect foul play by the male partner when a woman is found dead or reported missing

That's statistics, not "misandry". The police will look at the partner (or ex partner) first too, because statistically speaking that's who's most likely to have done it.

Swivelchair

I agree.

I was using it as an example of using statistics to justify prejudice against an entire group.

Women are more likely than men to defraud or shoplift. I don't view every single woman as a potential fraudster/thief just to be on the safe side.

becomes justification for tarring all men as potentially violent

Because women's lives are an ongoing, background risk assessment, you nitwit.

“Women are more likely than men to defraud or shoplift. I don't view every single woman as a potential fraudster/thief just to be on the safe side.”

1. Do they make up 90% of fraudsters/thieves?
2. Might you end up in hospital if you call it wrong?

Look, I understand that many men find it hard to be part of the sex that commits 90% of violence. It must be grim. SO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!

Also, I'm still wondering why I should consider myself deservedly rebuked if it's deemed I have committed offences of misandry.

Cos, y'know, I don't give a shiny shit if I have.

If you're a shop rather than a person, then sure, feel free to worry about the category of person statistically most likely to steal small easily hidden items from your shelves.

Meanwhile women will continue to exercise appropriate caution when dealing with the category of people most likely to rape and murder us. Especially the ones who raise red flags in terms of making us wonder why they're so determined to stop us from discussing the situation with each other.

For women who may be feeling guilty about having basic pattern recognition skills and exercising appropriate caution based on them (rather than our visiting MRAs, who honestly it's a waste of time engaging with) this is useful reading.

kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest-blogger-starling-schrodinger%E2%80%99s-rapist-or-a-guy%E2%80%99s-guide-to-approaching-strange-women-without-being-maced/

I think you're supposed to do some kind of penance and promise never to feminist in public again, LangCleg. Not sure what the equivalent of a Hail Mary is for the sin of hurting a man's feelings.