just-smith:

lookoutsideyourself:

ideasandopinions:

convertedinvader:

ideasandopinions:

convertedinvader:

ideasandopinions:

I’d just like to tell all the anti-feminist Tum/b/lr bros something: when you assume all feminists are misandric (or that the entire philosophy is misandric), you’re committing a generalization fallacy. It is not right to base your opinion of a community of billions on a community completely resigned to Tumblr. Yes, there are misandric feminists, just as there are Windows-apologetic linuxfags.

Feminism is about achieving equality between the sexes, by bringing down Patriarchy and uplifting Humanism.

I’m not assuming that all feminists are misandric. Hell, I KNOW not all are. However, a movement as a whole is defined by the sum of those involved, therefore, since so many feminists are misandric (and apparently tolerated by the reasonable minority), the movement as a whole can be considered misandric.

Right there again you are committing a generalization fallacy. How many is ‘so many’ in a movement that includes billions of men and women from countless cultures and perspectives? It’s not justifiable to determine the quality of a movement from its own praxis and implementation. You must go to the root — to theory. If you’re keen on proving the misandric nature of Feminism, look up some essential feminist readings and find it there.

I respectfully disagree. There is no point in judging feminist theory when the movement itself fails to stay true to said theory, using it as a shield against rightful criticism instead.

And how many is “so many”? Enough to infuse most “feminist” articles with misandry. When the vast majority of what’s said under the aegis of feminism is misandric, how can you expect anyone not to consider feminism as a whole misandric?

I too respectfully disagree. Members of a movement that do not comply with the theory can be said to be members in-name-only. Just as something within science that is found wrong is no longer science, ‘feminists’ expressing non-feminist sentiment (misandry here) are not feminist. A particle that does not fit the qualities of being an electron is not an electron. You must know the theory to criticize the movement. It’s only sensible.

“Enough to infuse most ‘feminist’ articles with misandry.” Now, see here, you’re jumping the gun. What feminist literature have you read that is misandric? Quote lines for me. You say ‘vast majority’, but what do you mean by that? I really hate to pick apart your word-choice, but it is important to use the right words at the right time to adequately express an idea.

Interesting discussion, though I mostly agree with ideasandopinions. I criticize feminists and feminism pretty frequently, but even I concede that misandry is not nearly as common within feminism as some seem to believe.

I think that discussions like this confuse the meanings of the term ‘misandry’.

Feminists should know better. ‘Misogyny’, though literally translated to the hatred of women, is not simply men going ‘I hate women’. Otherwise examples of misogyny would be much rarer. Instead, misogyny can be a stereotype, a double standard, or an action/policy which leaves women worse off, intentions regardless. Feminists attempt to recognise and fight misogyny in all of its forms, including those which may be less obvious.

Likewise, ‘misandry’ is not just women going ‘I hate men’. Misandry, like misogyny, can be everywhere and anywhere. Somebody expecting chivalry might not knowingly hate men or women, but they are being misandric and misogynistic. Somebody enforcing patriarchal norms may not realise that what they are doing in misandry and misogyny, but it is. You see?

So, ‘misandry in feminism’ can mean a lot more than the minority of feminists who literally do hate men, and are proud of it. This minority are a problem of their own - they are vocal, face little opposition from within the movement, and are therefore known as influential ‘feminists’. This is obviously offensive to men, and hypocritical coming from supposed egalitarians, but if nothing else these extremists are bad because they give a bad name to real feminism, which suffers as a result. Fight them at every turn.

Although man-hating radicals are bad enough, the problem of feminist misandry is a much deeper one. It concerns the vast majority of feminists, the moderates, the ones who would never describe themselves as a ‘man-hater’, and who will claim to fight sexism in all of its forms.

But it’s misandry when they exclude men from discussions on gender equality, as if ‘women’s issues’ with men weren’t ‘men’s issues’ as well.

It’s misandry when they use ‘male privilege’ as a way to silence male viewpoints as invalid, without actually acknowledging the logical value of any arguments made.

It’s misandry when they use ‘male privilege’ to speak over male suffering as unimportant, as if the world is a ‘safe space’ for men, and thus unintentionally suppress the voices of male victims.

It’s misandry when they use ‘male privilege’ without accepting that they have an equal and opposite ‘female privilege’.

It’s misandry when they accuse a man of ‘mansplaining’, invalidating his point simply because they don’t want to be corrected, as if men can hypocritically never be right where equality is concerned.

It’s misandry when they blame men for misogyny, as if sexist men consciously created the natural patriarchy and its gender roles which hurt men just as much.

It’s misandry when they say misandry doesn’t exist, or laugh about it in a victim’s face.

It’s misandry when they say misandry is just a side effect of misogyny, and that male sufferers are ‘confused’, and the real oppressors.

It’s misandry when they assume that women can never be sexist, whereas all men are sexist whether they know it or not.

It’s misandry when they talk about ‘Nice Guys (tm)’ and other negative male behaviours, without realising that these behaviours are equally as evident in women.

It’s misandry when they talk about issues that negatively affect women without considering how they negatively affect men, and therefore treat them as ‘women’s issues’.

It’s misandry when they talk about issues which negatively affect men, and either reframe them as only affecting women or act as if they are some ‘privilege’ that men should be thankful for.

It’s misandry when they say that only misogyny can be sexism, or relegate misandry to ‘benevolent sexism’, as if it’s only bad when it affects women.

It’s misandry when they perpetuate the sexist stereotype that women are always victims, and men are always the oppressor.

It’s misandry when they blame sexist men for any and all discomforts they face in their life, many of which are not sexist at all, or are discomforts which men face too.

It’s misandry when they ignore men to such an extent that they stop being pro-equality, and begin just being pro-women.

It’s misandry when they are part of a ‘women’s movement’, exclude male ‘allies’ from having power in that movement, and then act as if it is the only movement we need for equality.

It’s misandry when they suppress the masculist movement as unnecessary, necessarily sexist, or a joke, and derail all discussions on men’s rights.

It’s misandry when they use false statistics and facts, for example on domestic violence, to create a negative depiction of men, whilst discouraging male survivors from speaking up.

It’s misandry when they suggest that all men are potential rapists, or that only men should be taught not to rape, or that only men rape.

It’s misandry when they suggest that only women can be rape victims, and that only women should be protected from rape, and only support women speaking up against it.

It’s misandry when they play the sex card on issues where it isn’t needed, as if men can never make the better argument, and must always have an ulterior motive or be blinded by privilege, whereas women aren’t.

It’s misandry when they suggest that women and feminists are immune to criticism, and automatically name-call anybody who disagrees with them, or treat all anti-feminists or masculists as misogynists and rape-apologists simply out of bigotry.

It’s misandry when they think that ‘misogynist’ and ‘rape apologist’ are the same thing, or that certain positions on abortion or promiscuity are necessarily misogynistic, when they may be benign, whilst ignoring all positions which disadvantage men.

It’s misandry so often that I encounter it every day as a male feminist, and struggle to find feminists who don’t do most of the above. There’s your ‘vast majority’.

As for judging the movement on the behaviour of those invoking its name, you have a point; but when such a bulk of members behave in such ways, it’s hard not to take that as a reflection on the label itself. Feminism would be nothing without feminists, and it evolves with them. They are, after all, its voice.

It is easy to simply say ‘well they weren’t a real feminist’ when somebody slips up, but that is far from satisfactory. Nobody is perfect, and so under this method nobody is a feminist. I can’t criticise what Christianity has done in the past, because if they did wrong then they ‘weren’t real Christians’. Nobody is. I can’t complain about oppressive Communist regimes, because they probably ‘weren’t real Communists’. It’s a tempting cop-out, but it doesn’t hold up when applied thoroughly.

As for looking at the fundamentals of the movement, nothing could be more fundamental than the name itself. Feminism. A woman’s movement. Feminism is based on the assumption that women are oppressed and men aren’t, an assumption which has proved very harmful to men, and continues to make a great deal of difficulty for men’s rights movements. There is a way around this, in calling yourself both a feminist and a masculist, but the majority of feminists don’t do that. The majority of feminists, and the sole beacon of feminism that they cling to, are therefore subtly misandric. Until they embrace masculism - or ditch both for the simpler label of ‘egalitarian’ - that is.