"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.

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.

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.

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.

like shooting fish in a barrel — darthbarracuda

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.

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:



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

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.

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...

The prevention of owning the responsibility for one's own action, thoughts, emotions and life are and will forever be humanity's greatest weakness.

This is all caused by the existence of gender — BlueBanana

I doubt that very much.

"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.

I doubt that very much. — Bitter Crank

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

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).

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. :)

"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.

Equality is great. That's why this is totally cool now:

It's equality, they're super powerful tiny girls. Totally justified.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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. — 0af

Interestingly enough I don't read a conspiracy in it if you refer to the type of article that the OP referred to. It seems pretty obvious white men in Western countries have had it very comfortable for quite some time historically speaking. And although many men are aware of that historical inequality and try to remedy existing inequality, a lot of how we treat each other is so automatic and ingrained; implicit association tests reveal this time and again. Even when we rationally pursue equality we are confronted with media that perpetuates gender stereotypes (and racist stereotypes).

So women can't be strong, should look pretty, should let men talk but may be interrupted themselves, should take care of kids more than men, and still get paid less etc. etc. I don't think we should be defining it as mysogyny but it's definitely socially harmful as it condones a lot of unfairness as "natural".

And you can test this in your surroundings. Invariably, if you talk about successful women at some point their looks will be discussed. Last month I wanted to talk about Dafne Schippers (a successful Dutch athlete) and one of the first things one of my female colleagues said: "Yeah, she looks pretty good". Really? That comes before being the world champion for the 200 m sprint this year? I consider that pretty telling as it's not just an anekdote but happens constantly in various ways. The message to our kids is: it doesn't matter what you do if you're a girl as long as you look pretty. As a father of one, I find that highly worrying.

Also, I'd like to add that this isn't something you can blame people for as this is how culture imprints on our minds. We can't really help it. We can blame people when they are aware to choose not to take it into account. So maybe we should think again when considering that "princess" sweater or another book that has a white hero in it for your kids.

It had nothing to do with "emphasis". — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Ok, I guess you were using in a different way. I understand it to mean emphasis.

I've heard plenty of statements about particular things, such as indifference to male rape victims, not being due to misandry. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Also, I'd like to add that this isn't something you can blame people for as this is how culture imprints on our minds. We can't really help it. We can blame people when they are aware to choose not to take it into account. So maybe we should think again when considering that "princess" sweater or another book that has a white hero in it for your kids. — Benkei

Nope. The complex psychological processing that configures and influences cognition is enabled with perceptual plasticity and provides us with the capacity to transcend the limitations of cultural transmissions. We can help it.

People are or for a moment become aware that there is something deeply wrong with their environment, but they continue following anyway until eventually they go into some auto-pilot mindlessness and completely forget that they have a mind. That is a choice. That can be helped. And that is also why you can think again when considering that princess sweater.

Nope. The complex psychological processing that configures and influences cognition is enabled with perceptual plasticity and provides us with the capacity to transcend the limitations of cultural transmissions. We can help it.

People are or for a moment become aware that there is something deeply wrong with their environment, but they continue following anyway until eventually they go into some auto-pilot mindlessness and completely forget that they have a mind. That is a choice. That can be helped. And that is why you can think again when considering that princess sweater. — TimeLine

I think we agree. When I say we cannot blame them; I refer to the subconscious judgments and classifications we render as a result of such cultural imprint. Once we're made aware of the subconscious we do have a duty to rationally correct ourselves. If we then don't there is culpability indeed.

EDIT: I have the impression that quite a few people also blame (white) men for having those subconscious judgments and classifications in the first place, which is why I raised the point.

I think we agree. When I say we cannot blame them; I refer to the subconscious judgments and classifications we render as a result of such cultural imprint. Once we're made aware of the subconscious we do have a duty to rationally correct ourselves. If we then don't there is culpability indeed. — Benkei

If, indeed, culture imprints these classifications and if we become aware of the subconscious and rationally correct ourselves, does it also become our duty to enable others access to this awareness? Such cultural phenomenon is a product of our learned behaviour and social interaction and communication develops these classifications that in turn transmit these perceptions. It would seem that tolerance to such behaviour would make one just as culpable.

If, indeed, culture imprints these classifications and if we become aware of the subconscious and rationally correct ourselves, does it also become our duty to enable others access to this awareness? Such cultural phenomenon is a product of our learned behaviour and social interaction and communication develops these classifications that in turn transmit these perceptions. It would seem that tolerance to such behaviour would make one just as culpable. — TimeLine

I'll have to respectfully disagree for the simple fact that it is so omnipresent that a certain tolerance is requirement to function in society. It's in everything; why do we dress the way we dress? Why do we have make up, botox, facelifts, breast implants? Plus, why not adhere to all these gender stereotypes when it works for a significant part of society (beautiful women, rich white men, powerful athletes, popular movie stars, etc. etc.)? You cannot expect people to wage that uphill battle all the time.

I understand. I don't disagree with anything you say. But there are some who do indeed simply "invert" the situation. I recently saw a cartoon on Facebook (a woman's post) of women splashing beneath a waterfall of male tears. How can such sadism be justified if men are not (in the context of this half-joke) the cause of all the suffering of the world? It was Eve. Now it's Adam's turn. Surely all things would run smoothly and innocently if there were only females, right? Of course that's a silly idea that few would seriously endorse, and yet the man-hating jokes seem to suggest the fantasy of an impossible guiltlessness. This fantasy is itself perhaps a colonizing phallus.

As to the beauty issue, I think it's worth noting that men are also harshly judged. Perhaps women (if I may risk a generalization) are less visual in their evaluation of the worth of men than men are not only in their evaluation of the worth of women but also (admittedly with important exceptions) of the worth of other men. People can have different feelings about that fact, if it is indeed a fact. Of course rudeness sucks. The focus on the runner's beauty is a bit laughable. On the other hand, that's sexuality for you. Is there any dispute that many women will choose for a mate a somewhat inferior mind in a sufficiently superior body? I think of Schopenhauer's notion that the brain and the genitals as opposite poles, the first for culture and the individual and the second for the species. As I see it, it is part of the cruel comedy of life. Ideally, we can get a certain amount of control and be less rude. But we can't eradicate this injustice entirely, not unless see become pure mind. Even then style and charisma would be accused of unjustly usurping the position of content.

Interestingly enough I don't read a conspiracy in it if you refer to the type of article that the OP referred to. It seems pretty obvious white men in Western countries have had it very comfortable for quite some time historically speaking. And although many men are aware of that historical inequality and try to remedy existing inequality, a lot of how we treat each other is so automatic and ingrained; implicit association tests reveal this time and again. Even when we rationally pursue equality we are confronted with media that perpetuates gender stereotypes (and racist stereotypes)... — Benkei

Everybody is stereotyped.

"All men are jerks" seems to be a popular stereotype.

If you want something from the media, there's all the men in advertisements being portrayed as Pavlovian dogs in the presence of attractive women.

Yet, you never hear that part. You just hear how women are being objectified, or something like that.

And now we have a writer saying that men being stereotyped is entirely the result of misogyny and has nothing to do with any beliefs, feelings, attitudes, etc. about/towards men.

So women can't be strong, should look pretty, should let men talk but may be interrupted themselves, should take care of kids more than men, and still get paid less etc. etc. I don't think we should be defining it as mysogyny but it's definitely socially harmful as it condones a lot of unfairness as "natural"... — Benkei

But, according to the aforementioned quote, men should be strong, men should sacrifice their bodies, men should be assertive, men can't be trusted with kids, a man should have a job and a woman should not have to support him, etc. are the result of our hate for women. In other words, condoning unfairness against men as natural is a sign of the oppression of women.

And you can test this in your surroundings. Invariably, if you talk about successful women at some point their looks will be discussed. Last month I wanted to talk about Dafne Schippers (a successful Dutch athlete) and one of the first things one of my female colleagues said: "Yeah, she looks pretty good". Really? That comes before being the world champion for the 200 m sprint this year? I consider that pretty telling as it's not just an anekdote but happens constantly in various ways. The message to our kids is: it doesn't matter what you do if you're a girl as long as you look pretty. As a father of one, I find that highly worrying. — Benkei

And unattractive men are on a level playing field with attractive men?

I can think of plenty of examples where women's accomplishments are celebrated with no reference to their looks. ESPN spends plenty of airtime covering the University of Connecticut women's basketball program, and in that coverage I have never heard any reference to anybody's looks. I could think of plenty of other examples, I'm sure.

And if we are going to talk about physical beauty and sex/gender, let's not forget that men are judged by the attractiveness of their wives/girlfriends. And I think that it is safe to say that a lot of women exploit that. But if you say that a beautiful woman will only marry a "successful professional" and won't marry a plumber you will be told that she is doing what she has to do because she is oppressed for being female.

It's all due to misogyny, remember.

I wonder if you've considered a related issue. As I see it, people are largely attached to gender and racial identity. Many women (including my wife) take a certain pleasure in being non-male. It's part of their identity. I think it's the same with race. So on the one hand we have this fantasy of the individual without gender and color and on the other hand we have identities constructed in terms of positive stereotypes.

Here's an idea I found in some comment somewhere that's worth considering. Let's consider a male-to-female trans person. If there is no female essence, then what does it mean to "really" be a woman? What does it mean to desire the female pronoun? "I'm a she." What is this she? There was also the case of a "not really black" person identifying as black. So there seems to be a real ambivalence on the liberal side. Clearly it's considered bad form among many of my fellow liberals to conspicuously enjoy being male and/or white. It's treated as if one is flashing "wealth" (privilege). But if celebrating one's femininity or blackness, etc., isn't also the flashing of privilege, this suggests (among other things) a subtle devaluation of femaleness, blackness, and otherness in general, among the very people who would be most ashamed of such a thing. To protect otherness from legal inequality is only decent. But to protect otherness from cultural criticism seems condescending. Incidentally, this is why I won't want anti-male talk censored. First, it allows me to sort potential friends. Secondly, it's a confused form of flattery. Insult them (men). Wish pain on them. They are strong enough to take it. In short, it betrays...penis envy?