hey male comrades

[Sinister Intents]

We all should know that misogyny and sexism are institutionalized and directly tied to the capitalist mode of production. So, is misandry real to you?

[Armchair Partisan]

I don't think I've ever seen legit, non-ironic misandry anywhere, even on an individual level. Only one Youtuber, but I think that was also just a troll looking to get a rise out of people. (Maybe a few do exist out there in the world, somewhere, but they must be extremely rare.) Misandry is the biggest non-issue ever.

[The Intransigent Faction]

"Misandry" as in so-called institutionalized "reverse discrimination" against the male gender? Not at all.

If anything, the social pressures I've faced as a male are rooted in gender norms ascribed to males by a patriarchal society. I've never experienced being hated for being a man, but rather contempt for not being "manly" enough by one or another standard of measurement, which is anything but 'misandry' as it puts the 'male ideal' on a pedestal. Men are expected to be "macho"/"strong"/"independent"/loud and obnoxious for some reason. Modest men seem to be seen as "effeminate". As irritating and confusing as it may be when even some women in my life adopt those expectations (I've been told, word-for-word, "You should be more dominant", among other things about my tendency to be unassuming in person), it doesn't amount to so-called "misandry", which is a concept peddled by MRA tools.

The only reason men are expected to be dominant is that women are expected to be submissive, and as a white male I still am necessarily privileged irrespective of whether or not I conform to every gendered expectation. I can walk down the street without worrying about harassment, for example.

[Redistribute the Rep]

it is real and understandable imo. In fact, a little misandry is healthy I think. As women we are told the problems are our fault or 'nature', so I think it can be cathartic.

[oneday]

We all should know that misogyny and sexism are institutionalized and directly tied to the capitalist mode of production. So, is misandry real to you?

It doesn't seem to exist for the most part, but could the draft for the Vietnam war in the US be considered institutionalized misandry? Only males were required to register and stood a good chance of dieing while serving.

[Redistribute the Rep]

Only males were required to register and stood a good chance of dieing while serving.

And stood a good chance raping and killing Vietnamese women. Don't forget that

[Sinister Intents]

It doesn't seem to exist for the most part, but could the draft for the Vietnam war in the US be considered institutionalized misandry? Only males were required to register and stood a good chance of dieing while serving.

I'd say that's sexism, considering women weak and inferior. It supported the notion of men being superior to women

[RA89]

Yeah definitely.

Lesbian police officers are the worst for it.

I'm not joking because of the stereotype btw.

[oneday]

I'd say that's sexism, considering women weak and inferior. It supported the notion of men being superior to women

But also more expendable.

[Sinister Intents]

Yeah definitely.

Lesbian police officers are the worst for it.

I'm not joking because of the stereotype btw.

Oh Yeah?

So the oppressed can oppress the oppressors? Cops are definitely oppressors, but wtf are you on about? Women in the police force get harassed by men all the time. Of the two female police officers I know, they've talked about the sexual harassment they face and its deplorable

[Redistribute the Rep]

But also more expendable.

Men who are trained, fed and armed are more expendable than the native women who have fuck all to defend themselves with?

[The Disillusionist]

Absolutely it exists. Just like "reverse racism" exists. I don't think anyone is seriously trying to say that they don't. They just don't really exist on any sort of institutional level, and so they don't matter, at least when compared to traditional sexism and racism. People that try to use reverse bigotry as an excuse for bigotry are idiots. But I would say that there is a definite cultural expectation, at least in the US, of a mutual hatred between men and women, even while the two genders are expected to cooperate for the good of society. It's like those stupid "gender war" board games, there is a definite cultural divide set up that relies on a mutual hatred between the two genders.

Honestly, I would argue (and I'm a man, so I know that automatically makes my opinion worthless), that misandry is not productive in any way, just as misogyny is not productive in any way. Both forms of hate just serve to maintain that divide. They might be cathartic in the short time, but they just perpetuate inequality in the long term.

[The Disillusionist]

Men who are trained, fed and armed are more expendable than the native women who have fuck all to defend themselves with?

Now I think we're on the blurry line between imperialism and sexism. I think you are talking about a combination of the two here, rather than solely sexism alone.

[oneday]

Men who are trained, fed and armed are more expendable than the native women who have fuck all to defend themselves with?

Men were sent to Vietnam with a known high probability of being killed in pursuit of the United States imperialist interests, that's the definition of expendable. They may have been viewed as more expendable than women in the United States, while the leaders probably didn't give a fuck about the native population, man or woman.

[Redistribute the Rep]

Men were sent to Vietnam with a known high probability of being killed in pursuit of the United States imperialist interests, that's the definition of expendable. They may have been viewed as more expendable than women in the United States,

Only in the same sense that homosexuals were seen asless "expendable," seeing as they weren't allowed to serve, an absurd notion


which probably didn't give a fuck about the native population, man or woman.

Funny how not giving a fuck about the native population results in women being disproportionately harmed

[Sinister Intents]

"Misandry" is only real as reaction to oppression. The oppressors cannot be oppressed because of their lofty position in the hierarchy that benefits their demographic. Cisgender, heterosexual, white, property owning men get to experience social benefits while those not in those demographics get to experience disprivilege and suppression.

[Counterculturalist]

Sorry, but the suggestion that men were sent to war because of systemic matriarchal, "misandrist" bias is utter revisionist gibberish.

[The Disillusionist]

Only in the same sense that homosexuals were seen asless "expendable," seeing as they weren't allowed to serve, an absurd notion



Funny how not giving a fuck about the native population results in women being disproportionately harmed

To be fair, native men were far more likely to be outright massacred, not all of which were combatants. It's been the same in all wars. Men are far more likely to be the victims of deadly violence, worldwide. Here's another example... the way US government drone strike casualties are marked up, any male of fighting age is considered to be a combatant, even if there is no other evidence that they really were combatants. The government does this in order to inflate drone strike success rates, but it also demonstrates that killing men is pretty easy to get away with. We just hear about it more often when women and children are killed.

That does NOT excuse misogynist violence though, it simply demonstrates that there are severe problems between men as well as between men and women. I would say that this is an example of the patriarchy hurting men as well as women, but honestly, I don't think power structures can be simplified as much as gender conflict theory often tries to make them. I don't think everything boils down to old "patriarchal" model that assumes that everything can be condensed down to the men vs. women issue. There is also class conflict, imperialism, and many other factors to consider. But of course, the patriarchal aspect of society is still a very important part of the bigger picture. Anyway, this is going way off topic...

[The Disillusionist]

Sorry, but the suggestion that men were sent to war because of systemic matriarchal, "misandrist" bias is utter revisionist gibberish.

Wait, is this the discussion we're having? If so, then yeah, it's total garbage. Women have/had nothing to do with men killing men or sending men to war.

[oneday]

Only in the same sense that homosexuals were seen asless "expendable," seeing as they weren't allowed to serve, an absurd notion

I don't consider the possibility that different groups may have been excluded for different reasons as necessarily absurd.

[oneday]

Wait, is this the discussion we're having? If so, then yeah, it's total garbage. Women have/had nothing to do with men killing men or sending men to war.

I don't think that the definition of misandry necessarily implies a matriarchy or that women sent men to war or what have you.

[Armchair Partisan]

I would say women not being allowed to serve for a long time is an 'accidental benefit' of sorts, in an otherwise well-entrenched kyriarchy. I mean, I'm sure there are patriotic* women who regretted not being able to serve their nation on equal terms with the men (and who now experience probably even more serious discrimination in the military "boys' club" now that they are allowed to serve), but obviously it's preferable for someone not to die in stupid imperialist wars.

Women are systemically discriminated against, and quite heavily. One or two such 'accidental benefits' do not negate that in the slightest.

*I originally mistyped this as "pathetic". A Freudian slip of the finger, perhaps? :lol:Just a fun fact.

[RedAnarchist]

I've never experienced misandry in my life, and if I live to 100 I bet I won't ever experience it (I'm 29).

[oneday]

I would say women not being allowed to serve for a long time is an 'accidental benefit' of sorts, in an otherwise well-entrenched kyriarchy. I mean, I'm sure there are patriotic* women who regretted not being able to serve their nation on equal terms with the men (and who now experience probably even more serious discrimination in the military "boys' club" now that they are allowed to serve), but obviously it's preferable for someone not to die in stupid imperialist wars.

Women are systemically discriminated against, and quite heavily. One or two such 'accidental benefits' do not negate that in the slightest.

*I originally mistyped this as "pathetic". A Freudian slip of the finger, perhaps? :lol:Just a fun fact.

This is a good point. Perhaps the underlying assumption with sending men to war, or "women and children to the lifeboat first" is that women are inferior, weak and need to protected, while men are courageous and strong and prepared to die for the cause (a supposed noble thing). So the misogynist attitude accidently imparts the avoidance of death.

[Loony Le Fist]

I guess I have a strange opinion here, but I tend to think that misandry is also a result of the patriarchy. There are limited cases, like how women receive 60% shorter prison sentences than men for the same crimes. This is a result of society treating women as if they need to be coddled and protected in those cases. The irony is how women are mistreated in so many other cases. Misandry (or perhaps that which is perceived as such) can be blamed on the patriarchy. This is a point I think many MRAs miss. Any feminist worth their salt knows that what they are fighting for is equality, not superiority.

It was a feminist that turned me away from MRA by simply explaining this to me.

[RA89]

Oh Yeah?

So the oppressed can oppress the oppressors? Cops are definitely oppressors, but wtf are you on about? Women in the police force get harassed by men all the time. Of the two female police officers I know, they've talked about the sexual harassment they face and its deplorable

Females being oppressed in the work force and female police officers oppressing men are not mutually exclusive.

[Lily Briscoe]

Yeah definitely.

Lesbian police officers are the worst for it.

I'm not joking because of the stereotype btw.

No, this is a good point. Anyone who hasn't experienced misandry firsthand must be living under a rock, I mean you need look no further than the legions of man-hating lesbian police officers.

Lol, what are you?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

What do female police officers do to oppress men? Like, what are the specific tactics employed in their day to day tasks?

[Lily Briscoe]

Women in the police force and military tend to participate in and subscribe to the same sexist, male-dominated culture and worldview as their male counterparts (I suspect their ability to survive in those environments is largely contingent on how enthusiastically they show their support for that culture and worldview). The idea that no, there is an actual social phenomenon that consists of misandrist lesbian police officers using their status as the state's armed thugs to single out men for sexist abuse is completely fucking delusional.

Pretty good illustration of how seriously people should take the idea of 'misandry'

[Rafiq]

But also more expendable.

What's your point? Indeed it wouldn't make a difference if all men and only men had to be sacrificed to the fertility goddess when they reach age 30.

The point is that sexual oppression or and relations of sexual domination are not reducible to which sex is more susceptible to being in a condition that threatens their bodily health. It concerns a relationship of POWER. Were women left out of the draft because of the servile nature of the male gender? No? Next question! It would completely undermine and force society to entirely re-evaluate its sexual relations if women, who at the same time were bound to domestic slavery, were sent off to fight alongside men.

And let's play the devil's advocate, with regard to the "expendable". Why are women not "expendable"? Is it because everyone genuinely cares about their well being for reasons best explained by evolutionary psychology, or is it because like domestic breeding stock their role in raising the future proprietors and proletarians is more vital in reproducing the conditions of capitalism, that their womanly subservience is more useful than their death? Slaves in Rome were, after all, largely unable to join the military, save for times where the necessity of able infantrymen was desperately irregular.

Sustaining the female identity and keeping women not only physically but psychologically weak is entirely contingent upon their lack of 'expendability'. If women were 'expendable' sexual oppression would not exist in its present form.

[consuming negativity]

>all men and only men ha[ve] to be sacrificed to the fertility goddess when they reach age 30

it would make for great tv

besides, we've got to sacrifice someone to the goddess, and men are what She demands

after a few years, we'll show them that the system works by bumping the age up to 32 and letting them opt for 14 years of military service instead

[Rafiq]

It's like those stupid "gender war" board games, there is a definite cultural divide set up that relies on a mutual hatred between the two genders.


This, however, doesn't support the conclusion you've drawn - that misandry is "real". Let's elaborate upon your logic: If the definite divide between Yin and Yang exist in our society, i.e. "boys will be boys" and "girls will be girls", which indeed perpetuates sexual relations, then it follows that a definite, structurally reinforced framework of sexual relations exist, no?

What it means is that definite connotations, of power and so on, are associated with each gender. These connotations, as you recognize, 'clash' with each other but only as exaltations of each gender (NOT in the form of feminism, but, you know "Pink vs. Blue" or whatever), in a manner that reinforces the above framework which I am sure you recognize exist. So that means that no, so-called "misandry" does not and cannot exist. There is no innate ideological basis for the hatred of men, on a psychological level that bears itself in every domain. Misogyny, on the other hand, is an integral (at least partial) basis of all currents of reaction, it does not simply amount to abstract sentences which outwardly declare a hatred of women, but a real and deep pathology.

Conversely, so-called "misandry" is used to desperately express the experiences of women that couldn't otherwise be expressed. The political language is lacking. The point is simple, for sex and for race - what does it mean to hate men? What does it mean to hate whites? To say there's ANY level of equivalency which renders it racist or sexist is to abstract it from its context, it's to assume that we live in a post-racial, post-sexual society where there's no connotations of power associated with such identities. But there are.

Simple question: What's a "black" person? What does that mean? Where did this category come from? Blacks were never culturally homogeneous in Africa. They spoke a multitude of different languages and came from a multitude of different historic epochs. In case you haven't guessed, it's slavery that made them black. Next question: What's a "white" person? Sure enough, an Englishmen is an Englishmen, a Belgian a Belgian, and a Spaniard a Spaniard. What makes them "white"? Here's a hint: By contrasting them to everyone else. How did they come into contact with "everyone else"? Colonialism, slavery and genocide. So as you should know, these identities were fundamentally built upon a contact between peoples that was hardly an encounter between equals.

[#FF0000]

But also more expendable.

That's because of typical gender roles in patriarchal society though, not because men are being oppressed by women. Men aren't seen as "expendable" so much as they're considered naturally suited to dangerous or difficult work. Even then, at the end of the day, all working people, man or woman, are considered expendable to capitalism.

EDIT: oh Rafiq beat me to it

[Os Cangaceiros]

Women in the police force and military tend to participate in and subscribe to the same sexist, male-dominated culture and worldview as their male counterparts (I suspect their ability to survive in those environments is largely contingent on how enthusiastically they show their support for that culture and worldview).

Yeah absolutely. I was reminded of this in the news when the head of the local vice squad (a woman) in my state's largest city defended the policy of arresting prostitutes recently. Even though technically according to state law they're the victims of trafficking and are not supposed to be treated like criminals (they still are being treated like criminals, though, of course.) Women who are cops are no better or worse than male cops, they're just part of the same general fucked up milieu of law enforcement here in the states IME.

As far as the question posed in the OP goes: "misandry" may exist on an individual level, I don't know. I've never personally encountered it. It definitely doesn't exist on a societal or institutional level. That seems to be the consensus here though.

[The Disillusionist]

This, however, doesn't support the conclusion you've drawn - that misandry is "real". Let's elaborate upon your logic: If the definite divide between Yin and Yang exist in our society, i.e. "boys will be boys" and "girls will be girls", which indeed perpetuates sexual relations, then it follows that a definite, structurally reinforced framework of sexual relations exist, no?

What it means is that definite connotations, of power and so on, are associated with each gender. These connotations, as you recognize, 'clash' with each other but only as exaltations of each gender (NOT in the form of feminism, but, you know "Pink vs. Blue" or whatever), in a manner that reinforces the above framework which I am sure you recognize exist. So that means that no, so-called "misandry" does not and cannot exist. There is no innate ideological basis for the hatred of men, on a psychological level that bears itself in every domain. Misogyny, on the other hand, is an integral (at least partial) basis of all currents of reaction, it does not simply amount to abstract sentences which outwardly declare a hatred of women, but a real and deep pathology.

Conversely, so-called "misandry" is used to desperately express the experiences of women that couldn't otherwise be expressed. The political language is lacking. The point is simple, for sex and for race - what does it mean to hate men? What does it mean to hate whites? To say there's ANY level of equivalency which renders it racist or sexist is to abstract it from its context, it's to assume that we live in a post-racial, post-sexual society where there's no connotations of power associated with such identities. But there are.

Simple question: What's a "black" person? What does that mean? Where did this category come from? Blacks were never culturally homogeneous in Africa. They spoke a multitude of different languages and came from a multitude of different historic epochs. In case you haven't guessed, it's slavery that made them black. Next question: What's a "white" person? Sure enough, an Englishmen is an Englishmen, a Belgian a Belgian, and a Spaniard a Spaniard. What makes them "white"? Here's a hint: By contrasting them to everyone else. How did they come into contact with "everyone else"? Colonialism, slavery and genocide. So as you should know, these identities were fundamentally built upon a contact between peoples that was hardly an encounter between equals.

I already made the point that misandry and "reverse racism" are essentially meaningless on a structural level because they aren't a part of the social structure. However, that doesn't mean that hate doesn't occur on an individual level. If life can teach us anything, it's that people are really good at finding reasons to hate other people. Between virtually any two distinctly different groups of people, you are very likely to find individuals in each group who hate the other group as a whole.

As for the creation of those groups... you said it yourself... "white" is defined as different from "non-white". Those are two culturally defined groups that both perceive the other as different. On the most basic level, that's all you really need hate to exist among individuals in both of those groups. Add on the fact that one group had power and stood to gain from exploiting the other group, and that hate is magnified and turned into a social structure. The reaction to that social structure is highly likely to increase resistance among the members of the oppressed group, resulting in hatred.

I don't think anyone here is trying to argue that there are not women who hate men, or minorities who hate white people, or even that they don't occasionally act on that hate, it seems that people are just arguing about whether those phenomenon can be defined as bigotry. My response... I don't think so, because, as Rafiq said, that's a structural level definition. You have to be in a position of social power to be a bigot. In some cases, hatred of the ruling classes/races/genders has resulted in action that has improved conditions for the oppressed, which is a good thing. I wouldn't call that bigotry, but it's still hate. I would say that misandry exists, defining it as hatred of men, and action on that hatred, but it isn't bigotry. However, sometimes it can still be wrong, like in the case of that one ultra-radical criminally-insane feminist who wrote that book seriously advocating for the murder of men...

Overall, the whole issue is the product of a big web of vague, unhelpful definitions.

[index]

Misandry does exist. Especially with bourgeois tumblr feminists (SJWs).

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Misandry is about as rare as an albino wolf howling at a blue moon on a leap year.

Their is really only one case I know of , and it may be completely fake. It's the case of 'BitingBeaver', a feminist blogger who was apparently so horrified at the fact that her teenage son had looked up porn online that she wished she had had him aborted.

Of course, this being the internet, it's possible that this may have been completely fabricated by MRAs to discredit feminists.

[Sinister Intents]

Misandry is about as rare as an albino wolf howling at a blue moon on a leap year.

Their is really only one case I know of , and it may be completely fake. It's the case of 'BitingBeaver', a feminist blogger who was apparently so horrified at the fact that her teenage son had looked up porn online that she wished she had had him aborted.

Of course, this being the internet, it's possible that this may have been completely fabricated by MRAs to discredit feminists.

Two words: Poe's Law! :grin:

This thread has yielded some posts in which I'm absolutely disgusted by, but because of self confidence and not wanting to upset anyone I'll say nothing..... Not you at all Brandon

[Sinister Intents]

Misandry does exist. Especially with bourgeois tumblr feminists (SJWs).

I get the feeling you're a troll..... Or just very ignorant, especially since you just used the term SJW. Misandry isn't fucking real, there's social reaction, but no misandry.

[#FF0000]

Misandry does exist. Especially with bourgeois tumblr feminists (SJWs).

No it doesn't. Men are not discriminated against or oppressed in a systemic manner in a woman-dominated society. There's simply no comparison to misogyny, there. And even so, if teenagers on blogs is all one's got to worry about as far as "misandry" goes, then it isn't even worth talking about. Complaining about it is trivial at best, and, at worst, disruptive to any meaningful conversation or critique of men's traditional role as a "man".

I also have to wonder why so many young people (not you, index, but in general) are so concerned with "misandry" on tumblr but are so dismissive of racism and misogyny on places like reddit or 4chan?

[lutraphile]

I mean, there is certainly major bias against men in the legal system. It's based on the same sexist notions as anti-female bias elsewhere though. Still, it's a system that is institutionally biased against men, so for that reason I'd say yes.

[#FF0000]

I mean, there is certainly major bias against men in the legal system. It's based on the same sexist notions as anti-female bias elsewhere though. Still, it's a system that is institutionally biased against men, so for that reason I'd say yes.

If that's a manifestation of misandry, then that means misandry is a product of patriarchy and patriarchal gender roles, and not hysterical, man-hating feminists. But I also think this is a short-sighted analysis. One could just as easily say that there is bias against adults in the legal system because children and teenagers get punished far less severely than adults do for similar crimes. That's, of course, absurd -- minors are punished less severely because they are seen as less competent, less responsible, less developed in terms of reason and rational decision making, and thus less culpable. I'd argue that women are perceived similarly in society at large, and judged on that basis in court, whereas men are expected to be competent, capable, responsible, etc. etc. etc.

[G4b3n]

Misandry isn't real "to me" in the same way that the Easter Bunny isn't real "to me" i.e., it isn't real.

[Mr. Piccolo]

I guess I have a strange opinion here, but I tend to think that misandry is also a result of the patriarchy. There are limited cases, like how women receive 60% shorter prison sentences than men for the same crimes. This is a result of society treating women as if they need to be coddled and protected in those cases. The irony is how women are mistreated in so many other cases. Misandry (or perhaps that which is perceived as such) can be blamed on the patriarchy. This is a point I think many MRAs miss. Any feminist worth their salt knows that what they are fighting for is equality, not superiority.

It was a feminist that turned me away from MRA by simply explaining this to me.

Yes, I agree with you. I am not sure if this is an example of patriarchy in action, but I think that a good case of misandry in society is whenever men are dismissively told to "man up " when they are faced with a serious problems. Misandry rears its ugly head whenever a man feels that he cannot open up about his problems so he becomes inwardly depressed and takes to destructive behavior.

[Armchair Partisan]

Yes, I agree with you. I am not sure if this is an example of patriarchy in action, but I think that a good case of misandry in society is whenever men are dismissively told to "man up " when they are faced with a serious problems. Misandry rears its ugly head whenever a man feels that he cannot open up about his problems so he becomes inwardly depressed and takes to destructive behavior.

The term is more often than not used by men against other men and posits masculine emotionlessness as a positive ideal to follow. How exactly is it an example of misandry? Or do you have a looser definition of misandry than some of us do?

[Mr. Piccolo]

The term is more often than not used by men against other men and posits masculine emotionlessness as a positive ideal to follow. How exactly is it an example of misandry? Or do you have a looser definition of misandry than some of us do?

I am writing in very broad terms; misandry as "hatred of men." Some men hate other men, and sometimes this hate is based on the same concept of the "weak man" who does not live up to the male standard developed under patriarchy. A good example of this phenomenon would be men shaming other men for openly discussing or otherwise manifesting their depression or other mental health problems. Sometimes women echo the same sentiments. This is just not an emotional issue either; it can impact one's employment situation, education, etc.

I know most people are probably thinking of the stereotype of the "man-hating feminist" or something like that, but that is not really what I was going for.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Misandry does exist. Especially with bourgeois tumblr feminists (SJWs).

Hey, AmazingAtheist, is that you? :rolleyes:

[Zoop]

Misandry does exist. Especially with bourgeois tumblr feminists (SJWs).

The same people who whine about misandry are akin to those who whine about 'reverse racism'.

In other words, they exaggerate its significance beyond belief, and completely misunderstand the societal and institutional power dynamics at play.

They can fuck off is what I'm trying to say.

[Loony Le Fist]

To believe absolutely no misandry exists is delusional. It is far more delusional to believe that it exists at a level that somehow balances the massive amount of misogyny. Of course, two wrongs don't make a right, particularly if those wrongs don't make things better for the aggrieved party.

Either way, it is gender roles that are to blame. Misogyny and any limited misandry that exists are merely manifestations of the social conditioning imposed by patriarchy.

Unfortunately, bourgeois feminists participate in their own enslavement. While they are well intentioned, the true emancipation of women (and humans in general) cannot be accomplished without the abolition of capitalism.

[RA89]

No, this is a good point. Anyone who hasn't experienced misandry firsthand must be living under a rock, I mean you need look no further than the legions of man-hating lesbian police officers.

Lol, what are you?

I'm not saying it's an epidemic just that it exists. I'm sure that ex-police Dormer guy who was killed by police wrote about it in his manifesto.

I've come across a few females I'd say hated men. One was a manager who was nasty to all the males (of all ages and races) yet friendly to the females.

In general these case studies aren't a problem. It's just when these women are in positions of authority it does make things pleasant.

If you want to argue misandry is structural and institutionalised etc then fair enough it's not something that happens. If we're talking basic "are there females who irrationally dislike males?" then yes it fuckin does exist.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I get the feeling you're a troll..... Or just very ignorant, especially since you just used the term SJW. Misandry isn't fucking real, there's social reaction, but no misandry.

I don't think using the term SJW is a sign of ignorance, nor is even criticizing some of them (i.e. about politics) necessarily a sign of ignorance. Complaining about SJWs in terms of being misandrists, however, is just silly.

If a few comments on the internet is all some people can complain about the existence misandry ("SJWs"), then it is clearly not an issue. To me as a male, it most definitely is not, and it's a shame MRAs think they somehow represent me and my interests.

[The Intransigent Faction]

I'm not saying it's an epidemic just that it exists. I'm sure that ex-police Dormer guy who was killed by police wrote about it in his manifesto.

I've come across a few females I'd say hated men. One was a manager who was nasty to all the males (of all ages and races) yet friendly to the females.

In general these case studies aren't a problem. It's just when these women are in positions of authority it does make things pleasant.

If you want to argue misandry is structural and institutionalised etc then fair enough it's not something that happens. If we're talking basic "are there females who irrationally dislike males?" then yes it fuckin does exist.

Yep. Anecdotal evidence about the behaviour and attitudes of a few individuals is insignificant next to structural/societal trends, which are clearly patriarchal/misogynist.

[RA89]

Yep. Anecdotal evidence about the behaviour and attitudes of a few individuals is insignificant next to structural/societal trends, which are clearly patriarchal/misogynist.

Still doesn't make the isolated cases okay though does it?

Unless we're going to make a new word for "dislike of men which isn't structural" then it makes sense to use "misandry".

[Sinister Intents]

Still doesn't make the isolated cases okay though does it?

Unless we're going to make a new word for "dislike of men which isn't structural" then it makes sense to use "misandry".

What is your take on Misogyny then?

[mushroompizza]

I mean misandry is real but it is so small compared to misogyny why care?

Actually holy shit what am I talking about I totally forgot something! The draft in the USA forces young men into military slavery, that sucks, and different versions of that exist in other nations.

[RA89]

What is your take on Misogyny then?

It exists and is worse than misandry.

Doesn't make misandry okay though, regardless of how small it is. If we want to only tackle the big issues it could be said that feminism is wasting it's time with most of the shit they do when they could be tackling things like Female Genital Mutilation which affects millions of women in such a horrible way. However this would be the fallacy of relative privation.

[BIXX]

Idk I think man-hating feminism is totally rad but I seem unable to find it

[Cliff Paul]

Idk I think man-hating feminism is totally rad but I seem unable to find it

try college campuses

[mushroompizza]

God damnit! Did this just turn into old man Jenkins talk? The myth of college man haters is so stupid, its just like the high school socialist myth. It doesn't exist! Radical Feminism is such a small issue why care?

[Sewer Socialist]

Is that what you think radical feminism is?

[#FF0000]

Doesn't make misandry okay though, regardless of how small it is.

it makes it a matter of some people who are mean, which is to say, it's not an "issue" to tackle at all.


try college campuses

lol is this a serious post

[#FF0000]

My one argument would be that many contemporary feminists (Tumblr feminists, if you will)

I won't, because I don't think young teenagers doing their best to grapple with new and complicated ideas and ways of thinking is a good representative of contemporary feminist thought.


seem to argue that such a system is just given generations of male exploitation. It is not. Prejudice in any manner is harmful to the left.This is why calling this "misandry" muddies the waters, though -- because patriarchal social structures still give men the initiative and power in those structures. Men aren't being oppressed by another group on the basis of their gender in these situations. They're struggling to live up to a standard maintained by a male-dominated society. It isn't women setting that standard for us as men.


But I do agree that pro-woman bias in the legal system is a manifestation of prejudices against women, one that states- that they are incapable of independent decision-making, that their crimes are somehow lessened or their good deeds magnified because of a male-dominated system- and as such encourages the very gender stereotypes they seek to do away with.

Yeah, the underlined bit makes me think that we don't actually agree, since I don't think that has anything to do with the reason women's sentences are what they are. That said, I don't think equality means equal incarceration for men and women. I think equality means the abolition of prisons altogether, but that's another topic.


Misandry is very much a product of generations of misogyny, but I don't think that in and of itself is reason to dismiss it as a very real phenomenon.

I don't see any evidence of misandry, though. I don't see men being systematically oppressed, or ideological hatred of men being reinforced or reproduced through our institutions or in legislation. When we talk about racism and sexism and discrimination like this, we aren't just talking about people saying "those people suck". We're talking about an entire group of people being made worse off on the basis of their race or gender. Men aren't made worse off on the account of being men in the Big Picture. That's why people say misandry doesnt' exist.

[Troika]

I mean misandry is real but it is so small compared to misogyny why care?

Actually holy shit what am I talking about I totally forgot something! The draft in the USA forces young men into military slavery, that sucks, and different versions of that exist in other nations.

you're joking, right? I'm new so I don't have a feel for whether this is sarcasm. anyway, that would be because of misogyny. has literally nothing to do with misandry.