• WISDOMfromPO-MO
    454
    "Misogyny is in fact equally responsible for all gender based issues. Period. There is no such thing as misandry..."

    Therefore, every negative experience I have due to being male is the result of "the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls..."

    Therefore, the times when I was walking through neighborhoods (I remember one time I was walking home from work; another time I was scouting what I thought might be a long trail in the area for future leisurely walks) at night and residents there called the police, their response was due to "the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls". Okay, I did not live in the area and maybe they did not recognize me. But something tells me that if a woman they did not recognize was walking through the neighborhood at night the police would not have been called.

    Have you seen the videos I have seen where actors play a couple having an argument in a public place? It is an experiment. When the man verbally abuses the woman and shoves her, strangers intervene. When they switch roles and the woman verbally abuses the man and shoves him, nobody intervenes. Apparently the outcome of that experiment--the different response to a man being assaulted by a woman--is due to "the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls..." We can't attribute it to misandry--misandry does not exist.

    In a short, 2-minute video titled Men's Suicidal Life it is stated that a man is severely assaulted by his girlfriend or wife every 14.6 seconds. Apparently our indifference to the victims of such crimes is due to "the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls..."

    I have absorbed more than my share of thought about gender. Many times I have heard it said that MRA's, including female MRA's, are misogynists. I have seen/heard words and actions that left me almost convinced that feminism--at least at this point in its evolution--has nothing to do with women or equality and is purely an ideology through which people are seeking power by any means, including lying, demonizing their opponents, deluding themselves, etc. And probably almost everything in between. But never before, until a few minutes ago, had I read or heard it said that every gender issue is rooted in misogyny.

    I am too familiar with how emotional, personal, and inflamed discussions of gender and feminism almost invariably become. But maybe we can break that pattern here and calmly, rationally analyze the claim made at the beginning of this post.

    I think that it is extremely simplistic--extremely black and white--to say that all issues surrounding gender are due to misogyny. I do not know of any comparable claim in any other area of thought. Nobody says that all human rights violations around the globe are due to Western imperialism/colonialism. Nobody says that all poverty is due to capitalism. Nothing--especially in the social world; a world that we do not have precise sciences to investigate like we do with the non-social world (physics, chemistry, geology, etc.)--is obvious. Nothing is black and white. Nothing is cut and dried. It is tempting to say that the claim quoted at the beginning of this post is absurd.
  • Bitter Crank
    3.7k
    "Misogyny is in fact equally responsible for all gender based issues. Period. There is no such thing as misandry..."WISDOMfromPO-MO

    The author says she is a Third Wave Feminist and effectively demonstrates the ideological flavor of 3WF. Feminism, some other sweeping 'isms' demonstrates a certain amount of the same sociopathy that very conservative evangelical thought leaders exhibit--pathologic egocentricity, specific loss of insight, general poverty in major affective reactions, and untruthfulness and insincerity

    People who go way out into the deep end of ideological extremity (whether it be feminism, marxism, libertarianism, veganism, or what-have-you) seem to take on a pathologically narrow focus, or they have that to start with.

    Third wave feminists are not alone in these distortions, but they are out in front of the competition.

    By the way, who are these people "other than men" who are raping males? Women? How do they get it up?

    One feature of ideological extremists is "simplifying all problems". For the 3WF you quoted, it's misogyny. Misogyny this, misogyny that, misogyny and the other thing. For some gay rights activists, every problem they see is homophobia. Some marxists see the devil of capitalism behind every social problem.

    Social/political movements sometimes (usually?) outrun their good ideas. Gay activists would, I think, do well to go back to the late 60s-early 70s gay liberation for inspiration. Marxists would do well to go back to Marx. Feminists would, I think, do well to back up too.
  • darthbarracuda
    2.3k
    I have absorbed more than my share of thought about gender. Many times I have heard it said that MRA's, including female MRA's, are misogynists. I have seen/heard words and actions that left me almost convinced that feminism--at least at this point in its evolution--has nothing to do with women or equality and is purely an ideology through which people are seeking power by any means, including lying, demonizing their opponents, deluding themselves, etc. And probably almost everything in between. But never before, until a few minutes ago, had I read or heard it said that every gender issue is rooted in misogyny.WISDOMfromPO-MO

    Liberal feminism is crap and it's easy to criticize it, like shooting fish in a barrel.

    More coherent feminist thinking, like radical feminism, aim less at "equality" and more at liberation, primarily from the patriarchal institution of gender. But even then, there are many crazies who would like to separate men from women, who are hostile to transgenders and clearly have a cult-like exclusionary prejudice, where there are "women-only" talk spaces that can breed hatred and suspicion for men.

    I find it fascinating as an outside observer but I have very little patience with real time gender discussion. It's like you said, far too ideological. It's about waging a righteous crusade against the infidels and pretending you care about truth or objectivity. Red herrings, more like.
  • TimeLine
    775
    But something tells me that if a woman they did not recognize was walking through the neighborhood at night the police would not have been called.WISDOMfromPO-MO

    This is an assumption from both parties (yourself included) but you fail to consider the balance of probabilities. It is not rocket science to say that more crimes have been committed by men over women.

    I don't care for feminism, but I care for human rights and justice and that is for both men and women. It is a reality, however, that the scale of gender-based violence is clearly and unequivocally tipped against women at a much more larger scale. Misogyny is an actuality, particularly in some cultures and demographics.

    I am glad that you have pointed out verbal abuse because I believe that it is not yet well understood that violence needn't be physical. Indeed, I have seen mothers treating their children in what I would consider to be a contemptible example of motherhood. Bullying and harassment is a form of violence and can cause a considerable amount of emotional and psychological suffering as much as using physical violence.

    As a woman who has witnessed gender-based violence during childhood, it took a long time for me to 'forgive' men and I came to approach the subject with reason rather than emotion since it is certainly not all men who are bad. However, using an extremely small portion of radical feminists as an example of women's rights is not really correct of you, now is it.

    I think a discussion about men' rights or masculinity studies is certainly something that should be brought to attention.
  • unenlightened
    1.5k
    Have you seen the videos I have seen where actors play a couple having an argument in a public place? It is an experiment. When the man verbally abuses the woman and shoves her, strangers intervene. When they switch roles and the woman verbally abuses the man and shoves him, nobody intervenes. Apparently the outcome of that experiment--the different response to a man being assaulted by a woman--is due to "the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls..." We can't attribute it to misandry--misandry does not exist.WISDOMfromPO-MO

    Well if I were to speculate, based on my own prejudices, I would say that this result is due to the notion that women are 'the weaker sex'. Now it is arguable whether weakness is something one necessarily dislikes - do you want to argue it? When weakness provokes aid, it becomes an advantage, and I dare say that there are other advantages to being identified as inferior, like not being seen as a threat in strange neighbourhoods. But it doesn't seem like the greatest example of misandry.
  • Bitter Crank
    3.7k
    like shooting fish in a barreldarthbarracuda

    Myth Busters demonstrated that it is easy to shoot fish in a barrel: point the gun at the barrel and pull the trigger. What the bullet doesn't hit, the shock wave will damage.

    But who puts fish in a barrel to start with, and who shoots them? Third wave feminists? Apparently this is a common practice, because so many people confidently assert that something is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel.
  • VagabondSpectre
    623
    I've been immersed in this subject for about three years now...

    Long story made short: Radical feminism is now taught using a suite of sociologically presumptive frameworks (intersectionality, patriarchy theory, new racism, etc, ...) which are based on circular and ultimately self-consuming moral arguments. The actual ideology is stunningly remedial despite constant efforts to make it sound intellectual via grandiloquent vernacular; it opens with a tautology about whiteness, maleness, and privilege/power in society from a sociological perspective (which deeply confuses historical colonialism with contemporary norms), but then instantly dives into long-winded nonsense like: "listening to the emotions, feelings, and lived experiences of people of color, and believing them, because as a white or as a male I'm in capable of comprehending the plight of the victims who I unconsciously oppress, and my existing beliefs are merely self-preserving racist norms I inherited from my white-supremacist ancestors who invented slavery". That women-hating men are all to blame isn't a conclusion of this theory, it's a starting point.

    Identity politics has brought modern feminism to it's knees. It's been completely hijacked by the argument that one's identity (be it gender, race, sexual orientation, nationality, etc...) gives actual validity one's arguments, and with the rebuttal that any disagreement is precisely the racist-sexist-homophobic-transphobic oppression that got us here in the first place, it becomes politically dangerous to even question them. They actually had to invent a ranking system (they call it "The progresssive stack") in order to determine which groups are the most oppressed, and therefore whose individual ideas are the most valid, and therefore who should be speaking first and who should be speaking last, or not at all.

    It's sad to say, but basically it all boils down to the idea that since white men have all the power in the world, then white males are to blame for everything, including their own problems. The reason why this junk is so prevalent in the media is because every advertiser is so afraid of negative public backlash (except from white males it seems), that they feel obligated to pander to any and every minority or perceivably oppressed group when someone demands it of them. Being called racist or sexist can be a death sentence in today's culture, especially if any band-wagons pick up the trail, and so it will be quite awhile before advertisers stop leaning heavily toward this nonsense. (white tears are less important than black blood, as they say).

    It turns out that when the hipster masses get together to shed communal tears at the man, it makes for very fashionable Twitter/Instagram campaigns. #BashTheFash of 'Anti-Fa' is the perfect example of the mentality that this movement promotes. "Let's dress in black, wear masks, arm ourselves with melee weapons and smoke bombs, and go do physical violence to this free-speech rally because everyone knows that Trump voters are all white supremacists and that violence is a legitimate means of expressing our own political ideas".

    But not all advertisers are that afraid (or that dimwitted)... L'Oreal fired their first trans model, Munroe Bergdorf, a few days ago for the following social media post:

    DIohl-aXcAAmj6l.jpg

    She then wrote a lengthy response, which pretty much sums it all up:

    Reveal
    First up, let's put my words in context, as the Daily Mail failed to do so. This 'rant' was a direct response to the violence of WHITE SUPREMACISTS in Charlottesville. It was not written this week.

    Secondly, identifying that the success of the British Empire has been at the expense of the people of colour, is not something that should offend ANYONE. It is a fact. It happened. Slavery and colonialism, at the hands of white supremacy, played a huge part in shaping the United Kingdom and much of the west, into the super power that it is today.

    Whether aware of it or not, in today's society the lighter your skin tone (people of colour included) the more social privileges you will be afforded. Whether that's access to housing, healthcare, employment or credit. A person's race and skin tone has a HUGE part to play in how they are treated by society as a whole, based on their proximity to whiteness.

    When I stated that "all white people are racist", I was addressing that fact that western society as a whole, is a SYSTEM rooted in white supremacy - designed to benefit, prioritise and protect white people before anyone of any other race. Unknowingly, white people are SOCIALISED to be racist from birth onwards. It is not something genetic. No one is born racist.

    We also live in a society where men are SOCIALISED to be sexist. Women are SOCIALISED to be submissive. Gay people are SOCIALISED to be ashamed of their sexuality due to heterosexual people's homophobia. Cisgender people are SOCIALISED to be transphobic. We do not need to be this way. We are not born this way and we can learn to reject it. We are just socially conditioned to think this way from an early age. With the right education, empathy and open mindedness we can unlearn these socialisations and live a life where we don't oppress others and see things from other people's points of view.

    So when a transgender woman of colour, who has been selected to front up a big brand campaign to combat discrimination and lack of diversity in the beauty industry, speaks on her actual lived experience of being discriminated against because of her race and identifies the root of where that discrimination lies - white supremacy and systemic racism - that big brand cannot simply state that her thoughts are not "in line with the ethics of the brand".

    If you truly want equality and diversity, you need to actively work to dismantle the source of what created this discrimination and division in the first place. You cannot just simply cash in because you've realised there's a hole in the market and that there is money to be made from people of colour who have darker skin tones.

    The irony of all this is that L'Oréal Paris invited me to be part of a beauty campaign that 'stands for diversity'. The fact that up until very recently, there has been next to no mainstream brands offering makeup for black women and ethnic minorities, is in itself due to racism within the industry. Most big brands did not want to sell to black women. Most big brands did not want to acknowledge that there was a HUGE demographic that was being ignored. Because they did not believe that there was MONEY to be made in selling beauty products to ethnic minorities.

    If L'Oreal truly wants to offer empowerment to underrepresented women, then they need to acknowledge THE REASON why these women are underrepresented within the industry in the first place. This reason is discrimination - an action which punches down from a place of social privilege. We need to talk about why women of colour were and still are discriminated against within the industry, not just see them as a source of revenue.

    Racism may be a jagged pill to swallow, but I suggest you force it down quickly if you want to be part of the solution. Doing nothing, does nothing and solves nothing. Empowerment and inclusivity are not trends, these are people's lives and experiences. If brands are going to use empowerment as a tool to push product to people of colour, then the least they can do is actually work us to dismantle the source, not throw us under the bus when it comes to the crunch. At times like this, it becomes blindly obvious what is genuine allyship and what is performative.

    I stand for tolerance and acceptance - but neither can be achieved if we are unwilling to discuss WHY intolerance and hate exist in the first place.
  • BlueBanana
    289
    This is all caused by the existence of gender. Sex shouldn't matter and gender shouldn't exist. There was this one person in some tv show that said something along these lines: "I'm not a boy nor a girl. I'm a person." If everyone in the world thought like this we'd very likely be living in a happier place.
  • VagabondSpectre
    623
    Under this new regime of power and identity, black people cannot possibly be racist because they "have no power" and so even if a black person was racist it wouldn't affect anyone at all, hence "reverse racism is a myth" (note: 'reverse racism' has also been redefined to mean "racism from non-whites" because new racism basically means "a white person". Similarly, a woman cannot be a misandrist, a gay person cannot be heterophobic, etc...
  • earthlycohort
    3
    The prevention of owning the responsibility for one's own action, thoughts, emotions and life are and will forever be humanity's greatest weakness.
  • Bitter Crank
    3.7k
    This is all caused by the existence of genderBlueBanana

    I doubt that very much.
  • szardosszemagad
    82
    "Misogyny is in fact equally responsible for all gender based issues. Period. There is no such thing as misandry..."WISDOMfromPO-MO

    If it's equally responsible, then there is another factor, which is also equally responsible. IN fact, there could be a number of different factors, which are equally responsible.

    One thing can't be alone equal. Or equally responsible.

    The quote does not make sense.

    I sense that the quote was lifted from a context that is no longer there, and that is a no-no. I claim that the quote as said was part of something that meant something different than what the author is claiming it means.
  • BlueBanana
    289
    I doubt that very much.Bitter Crank

    If genders and gender roles didn't exist, how could gender discrimination or gender related problems exist?
  • szardosszemagad
    82
    If genders and gender roles didn't exist, how could gender discrimination or gender related problems exist?BlueBanana

    How? By claiming that they do exist, while they don't and then discriminate on the basis of non-existing differences.

    Mind you, it is not possible for genders to be equal, and not different, if there are at least two distinct genders, but gender roles are not automatic (in humans they are), such as with foxes, penguins, apple trees, and frogs. Let's for a moment assume that sexual behaviour is discounted as a gender role behaviour (but I oppose this forced exclusion).
  • John Days
    146
    You put the word "period" at the end of the thread title for emphasis, followed by an ellipses, as though there's actually a little more after the period. My sense of outrage is confused. :)
  • Cuthbert
    64
    "Period" means "No more discussion". Starting a thread means "Let's have a discussion". It's an apparent case of a speech-act (in this case, starting a thread) undermining the speech-content. But the thread title is in part a quotation - a mention of a speech-act rather than the performance of one.

    I was treated kindly and well by a woman and ever since then I have given my trust completely to all women. Same with men: I got kindness and now I trust them all. Big mistake. It seems that the inference is mistaken whether it's good treatment or abuse we are talking about. Generalising from too few cases is one logical error.

    Another logical error that crops up a lot in this corner of the battle of the sexes is affirming the consequent. All rapists are men. So all men are rapists.
  • Wosret
    2.3k
    Equality is great. That's why this is totally cool now:

    It's equality, they're super powerful tiny girls. Totally justified.
  • VagabondSpectre
    623
    Is this an anime where a regular dude is surrounded by magical chicks and is forced to take them out with a regular old face-punch?

    That's hilarious...
  • Wosret
    2.3k


    Something like that. It's all serious, and super justified. Quite a progressive anime. I'm glad that I'm not the only one that thinks it's fucking hilarious.

    I do prefer the old fashioned chauvinists. Renji takes his woman beating way more seriously, and can't seem to find the justification.

  • 0af
    44


    Of course it's absurd. I'm on the liberal side, but we sure have our share of clowns on this side, too. To me this is just more of the darkness of human nature. "Bring in the next scapegoat."

    But it's not all bad for the male (or the white male if we want to generalize). We're allowed to hear these biases. In many ways that's an advantage. On a personal level, I don't want this kind of thing censored. Morbid minds (small minds, group minds) reveal themselves this way. I'd rather know than not know. It helps me pick my friends. Fortunately there are many, many women out there who don't buy into all this conspiracy theory man-hate disguised as the endless war on misogyny. To be sure, women have been victims of sexism, but there's a tendency to overcorrect and merely invert sexism (or racism) into its "virtuous" or sickly-version liberal form. It's far more palatable than alt-right conspiracy theory, at least presently.
  • WISDOMfromPO-MO
    454
    You put the word "period" at the end of the thread title for emphasis,John Days

    It was all that would fit in the thread title field.

    It had nothing to do with "emphasis".

    followed by an ellipses, as though there's actually a little more after the period.John Days

    There was a lot more after "Period". There's a categorical statement about the non-existence of misandry.

    I've heard plenty of statements about particular things, such as indifference to male rape victims, not being due to misandry. But never before had I seen or heard it stated categorically that misandry does not exist.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.