In other words, condoning unfairness against men as natural is a sign of the oppression of women. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Good post. I found this quote to be food for though, though I think you mention it ironically. What hasn't been talked about much is self-oppression. Sartre comes to mind. If I'm oppressed, then my failure is not my fault. As you say, everyone is stereotyped. There is systemic oppression of women, of men, and even of the individual as such. Strong individuals of either gender manage to swim against the current. Weak individuals of either gender will stress systemic injustice in order to justify passivity. "The game is rigged." Of course the game is (partially) rigged and life isn't fair. I believe in voting to make the game less rigged and the individual freer. I'd be ashamed to deny the genius or character of someone because of some kind non-essential otherness. Most thoughtful people probably would be. Beyond the question of empathy, it would also indicate stupidity on my part. Sexism (classic or virtuous) is group-think. The individual melts into the group and its stereotypical personality (emphasis on the positive stereotypes.) The essence of my "gripe" (to the degree that I take such time-killing griping seriously) is the constant reduction of individual dignity and the distinct critical mind to guilt-innocence vice-virtue of groups. "You can only speak if you are purple or round. If you are green and rectangular, don't bother. We have found that green and rectangular types are colorist and shapist to the core. They are therefore excluded."

You cannot expect people to wage that uphill battle all the time. — Benkei

We could promote the expectation that they should, and practice it ourselves.

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. — 0af

I suppose the difference is between asserting one's identity freely and having it imposed by society through subtle and not so subtle expectations and (moral) norms. Only when we're capable of letting go of harmful expectations can a person be free to have their own identity.

It does make me wonder if and to what extent many people would then feel lost? Do we need some level of gender stereotyping to socially function?

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. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I don't agree with how she worded it but if I interpret it charitably I suppose her point is that it all boils down to gender stereotpying (instead of mysogyny) and that's a result of juxtaposing men and women. So when I say "women should be [x]" its corollary "men should be [y]" is probably implicit and vice versa. (Don't cry cuz you're a guy --> I'm a girl so I can cry).

If she didn't mean that, I'll have to disagree with her conclusion. On the other hand, it could be an exercise in purposefully interpreting these situations from an overt women centric point of view as an active rebellion against a society that is still mostly male centric.There's also some sense to it if we accept most social power still resides with men and as such all gender expectations are by and large imposed by men as a result of how they view women; the expectations on men resulting from this would then be entirely our own doing. It's not insensible to me but if that's her point it wasn't clear.

I can think of plenty of examples where women's accomplishments are celebrated with no reference to their looks. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

When you think of a good woman who is highly intelligent, perhaps prone to philosophy and science and hangs out on philosophy forums, what type of woman do you see?

Either she is ugly or old, at which point no one really cares. Or she is attractive. But when the latter, such attributes no longer exist in her because an attractive woman cannot also be a good woman who is highly intelligent. Suddenly, the woman gets bullied and harassed by men who try to dominate her, make her feel inferior by saying comments that damage her confidence to silence her to submission, either that or she puts up a fight to save herself, her identity and who she is. Women are not allowed to be who they are without being forced into a category because as Benkei pointed out, perceptions are epistemic for the most part. This is the same with men, that strength is depicted physically rather than mentally, that turning the other cheek is a sign of weakness and it is why I said that masculinity studies is just as necessary as feminist studies.

I highly doubt you "see" the actual person that she is and would be motivated by a number of other reasons to make it worth your while to get to know her as a friend.

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. — Benkei

There is a fine line between tolerance and becoming disillusioned; morally speaking, if there is a crime, inaction can make one just as guilty despite being able to say "I didn't do it". A woman can wear some make up when they go to an evening out, wear a swimsuit in public, but tolerance to botox, lip jobs and breast implants? No, such tolerance breeds dysfunction in society and eventually, as I said earlier, you end up a mindless drone and disillusioned yourself. Indeed, there is a level necessary, but if you are aware of this reality where people become entrenched with the belief that somehow how they look matters and forget everything else - a world where the amount of money spent per year in the USA on lipstick alone could feed and provide reproductive health to women in the global south - your place in tolerating this would, as you say, prove there is culpability indeed.

I suppose the difference is between asserting one's identity freely and having it imposed by society through subtle and not so subtle expectations and (moral) norms. Only when we're capable of letting go of harmful expectations can a person be free to have their own identity.

It does make me wonder if and to what extent many people would then feel lost? Do we need some level of gender stereotyping to socially function? — Benkei

A very deep issue. Here's part of the trickiness. Identity is largely about preference, and this largely involves a preference with respect to friends. If I'm a "macho" guy, then maybe I don't choose insufficiently "macho" friends. Maybe I crave traditionally female characteristics in a mate, perhaps to "live out" my own traditionally feminine characteristics that I consciously repress. The differentiation and specialization of organs comes to mind. A perfectly symmetrical relationship may involve both partners in certain blind-spots. Both also enjoy their own "gender" play via its recognition by the other: the roles depend on one another. Anyway, individual freedom involves the freedom of preference. It's reasonable to strive for equality before the law, but it's unreasonable to demand that everyone LIKE everyone else equally. These preferences are "harmful expectations." In a pluralistic society, we are battered by a thousand competing visions of the virtuous person. To me this is just the cost of freedom. The individual can sometimes tame this chaos, but think such an individual tends to do so most radically in terms of an individualism that abandons its identifications with groups. For instance, a female writer might resent her gender being mentioned in reviews. She might not want to have this role of representing her gender emphasized. Such a role is ultimately duty (be a role-model and don't just write whatever the hell you want to write.)

I know lots of sensitive people who wrestle with feelings of guilt or alienation. They want to be good people, but they receive endless conflicting messages about their guilt and their duties. I sometimes feel like the only sane person in a mad house. On the other hand, this is at the cost of me being "cynical" or "selfish" or "irresponsible" relative to the spirit of the times. My "sanity" is dark in a world that craves some universal source of light. I see ambivalence that refuses to recognize itself as such. To some degree we want to be objectified and dominated and cherished as objects. We want to be children again, guiltless and safe in a world where no one is allowed even to think that we are inferior to them. Wolves daydream about the lives of sheep, etc. There's violence and the desire to dominate hidden in the desire to end all domination.

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. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Your point about female MRA's is interesting. Presumably the female MRA is a gender-traitor. But the apparent fact that only women can be gender traitors suggests to me that men, more than ever, symbolize the universal. Man does not exist. To be a man is (to some degree) to have no fixed nature excepting perhaps the guilty autonomy that feminism needs from men. To be clear, I absolutely support individual freedom and equality before the law. I like proud, strong, capable women. So in some sense I'm a "feminist," though that word has been stretched too thin. I have to stress this because our polarized culture is drenched in a "with us or against us" attitude.

The main point I want to make is about the sexism in feminism. As soon as a sophisticated feminism makes room for those women who enjoy being objectified or taking a traditionally feminine role, it's already just individualism. Do your thing, sister. What solidarity is left except for the sharing of genitals? (So reproductive rights seem like a logical, non-paranoid goal for a non-sexist feminism. Individuals with the uteruses that value their have a well-defined goal here, namely access to body-specific healthcare.)
But the sexism in feminism is a vision of the abstract protagonist Woman and her ancient foe Man. She must be rescued from the dragon. Although she is secretly magical and superior, she is everywhere in chains. Of course every particular woman has a duty to advance our spectral protagonist, just as every man has a duty to repent and be baptized for his existence as a cell in the Great Satan, Man. This is all terribly oppressive and stereotyping. If a woman fails to achieve her goals, no doubt Man has a hand in it. If a man succeeds, he cheated. So failure and success are distanced from individual effort. Of course there has been systemic sexism and perhaps still is. But leaning in to it at this point may be counterproductive. Supposedly the goal is a gender-blind society, which would involve women also being viewed as universal, autonomous, guilty-worthy adults. But this would be the death of feminism, or at least of its justification. Does feminism really strive for its own obsolescence? Consciously, perhaps. But in some feminists (the "morbid" conspiracy-theory types who find a male hand in everything wrong with the world), there is perhaps the all-too-human terror in the face of freedom.

It seems pretty obvious white men in Western countries have had it very comfortable for quite some time historically speaking

But this is already an oversimplification, because there are some obvious ways in which men have it statistically "worse" than women, such as in rates of incarceration, suicide, homelessness, etc.

I really don't see the use of the "privileged/oppressed" dichotomy as an analytical tool for gender issues. It scarcely predicts what one would expect to see in reality if it were true (though of course, feminists adhere to it because of politics rather than empiricism).

Is feminism a sort of tribalism?

It seems that we have people saying here that procedures and products to enhance physical attractiveness are an instrument of the dehumanization and oppression of women.

They leave out the fact that men are also investing in things like cosmetic surgery because attractive people have higher incomes.

Forget for a minute about cosmetic surgery that costs tons of money. Think about all of the advertisements targeting men with promises of solutions to gray hair, hair loss, low testosterone, etc.

There are even men suffering from eating disorders due to body image issues.

Yet, apparently we are supposed to believe that it is all due to our contempt for and hate for women.

I don't see the correlation.

No evidence has been presented that shows that it can all be traced back to misogyny.

And has anybody else noticed that no matter what ideal physique is presented or pursued it is called misogyny? If black men like women with excess body fat, we are told that that is compromising women's health to satisfy men. If Hollywood presents thin women as ideal we are told that that causes body image issues and eating disorders in women.

It is horrible that girls and women feel like they have to compromise their health to please and appeal to men.

But is it any different for men? We have men literally destroying their brains playing the game of American football. I think that it is safe to say that a lot of football is boys and men meeting the requirements to be considered masculine and that girls and women encourage it.

Yet--again--we are somehow supposed to believe that all of it is due to systematic, widespread, epidemic, often subconscious contempt for and hate for women. And--again--evidence showing that all of it leads back to such misogyny is not presented.

If the physical ideal that women are asked to meet varies that seems to me to suggest that our obsession with pleasure and our culture that requires people to compete with each other probably has as much, if not more, to do with it as any misogyny.

If we are being honest we will recognize and acknowledge that the most talented, most dedicated, hardest working, etc.--the most qualified--people often don't get the admission to college, jobs, promotions, loans, public offices, etc. Even straight white men lose to less-qualified people. Yet, apparently we are supposed to believe that everything is rigged so that being female and average looking keeps you oppressed, dominated/subjugated, etc.

Again, this whole misogyny paradigm is extremely oversimplistic.

Is feminism a sort of tribalism? — Jake Tarragon

I don't know.

What do you think?

I don't agree with how she worded it but if I interpret it charitably I suppose her point is that it all boils down to gender stereotpying (instead of mysogyny) and that's a result of juxtaposing men and women. So when I say "women should be [x]" its corollary "men should be [y]" is probably implicit and vice versa. (Don't cry cuz you're a guy --> I'm a girl so I can cry).

If she didn't mean that, I'll have to disagree with her conclusion. — Benkei

I think that it is clear that she is saying that hate/contempt for men does not exist and that all gender-based problems/issues are the result of misogyny.

I highly doubt you "see" the actual person that she is and would be motivated by a number of other reasons to make it worth your while to get to know her as a friend. — TimeLine

I hope that "you" is being used generically there and does not refer to me.

Do you think my point was to divine what she truly meant or to explore different interpretations? You missed my point and that makes it all the more likely you missed hers.

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... — TimeLine

Every feminist source I encounter is oblivious to men suffering as men.

I think a discussion about men' rights or masculinity studies is certainly something that should be brought to attention. — TimeLine

That discussion has already been going on at least since the 1975 publication of The Hazards of Being Male: Surviving the Myth of Masculine Privilege, by Herb Goldberg, if not since the 1971 publication of The Manipulated Man, by Esther Vilar.

But it has never been the kind of dominant, mainstream narrative that feminism has been. It has struggled for relevance. Considering the attitude in the quote at the start of this thread, are the latter and former any surprise?

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. — unenlightened

The author here says that microaggressions are gendered violence and that an example of such violence is women being interrupted.

And you think that being confronted by the police; members of the public not noticing or caring that you are being assaulted; etc. are not good examples with respect to men?!

And you think that being confronted by the police; members of the public not noticing or caring that you are being assaulted; etc. are not good examples with respect to men?! — WISDOMfromPO-MO

You miss my point, I fear. I do not deny that your examples are the result of gender stereotyping, nor do I deny that they operate in these cases to the advantage of women. My claim is that they stem from exactly the same stereotypes that in the vast majority of cases operate to the advantage of men; the same prejudices that women are not worth hearing out in a discussion, operate to suggest that they are not worth arresting, and need our help in a domestic.

Excuse the graphic parody, but it is as though in the good old days, you were to justify women not having the vote on the grounds that men don't get doors held open for them. The conception of women as weak, irrational, and the opposite of all the manly virtues sometimes works to their advantage, but this does not turn misogyny into misandry.

You miss my point, I fear. I do not deny that your examples are the result of gender stereotyping, nor do I deny that they operate in these cases to the advantage of women. My claim is that they stem from exactly the same stereotypes that in the vast majority of cases operate to the advantage of men; the same prejudices that women are not worth hearing out in a discussion, operate to suggest that they are not worth arresting, and need our help in a domestic.

Excuse the graphic parody, but it is as though in the good old days, you were to justify women not having the vote on the grounds that men don't get doors held open for them. The conception of women as weak, irrational, and the opposite of all the manly virtues sometimes works to their advantage, but this does not turn misogyny into misandry. — unenlightened

You start out talking about stereotypes. Then you conclude with misogyny and misandry.

Misogyny is about hate, contempt, etc.

I do not see how stereotypes are relevant. Probably everybody is stereotyped in some way. However, most examples that immediately enter my mind have nothing to do with hate or contempt. The people of Appalachia are stereotyped as poor and uneducated, by I don't see any hate or contempt there.

No, I think that there is widespread mistrust of and hostility towards males.

A clinical psychologist said to me many years ago, "I believe that girls are socialized to hate men".

I do not see how stereotypes are relevant. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

In order to love or hate a group or type, whether it's gender, class, race, or whatever, you first have to stereotype them. Mysogyny is contempt for women as you say, it is stereotyping them as inferior and then treating them as inferior. you seem to have a difficulty in grasping this, so let's try the ideas out on race for comparison.

Suppose we as a society think that black people are inferior to white to the extent that we treat them as property. They cannot vote, or make decisions about their lives or jobs, or appeal to the justice system. You get the picture.

Now I say to you, "they are so lucky these black people, they do not have to worry about losing their jobs, or what the government is going to do, they do not have to fight for their country, and my friends and I do not hate our slaves, we love them. And yet a clinical psychologist told me that black people are socialised to hate whites."

You might think I had missed something.

Life is complicated and you can view it through an endless variety of paradigms. This culture of victimhood and fashionable misandry is an overcorrection. And it will be looked back on as the period when we drifted too far astray in that direction, from the vantage point of wherever we'll have drifted too far next. The errors of the current age are always in our blindspot, but are easy enough to see if you take a step back and look. Misogyny as a theory of everything is only worth a yawn.

Suppose we as a society think that black people are inferior to white to the extent that we treat them as property. — unenlightened

Is it possible that enslavement came first, and the stereotype followed? It seems like one would be required to think of one's slaves as inferior, especially if one consigned them to only physical labor. What else would cover the cognitive dissonance of enslaving one's fellow man? Did the Romans have a more complicated view of their slaves because they served as tutors and teachers as well as ditch diggers?

@BlueBanana A portion of your reply has been posted on The Philosophy Forum Facebook page. Congratulations and Thank you for your contribution.

Says man from future?

Did the Romans have a more complicated view of their slaves because they served as tutors and teachers as well as ditch diggers? — Bitter Crank

I don't think it was a race thing at all, but a class thing. But ask a time traveller.

In order to love or hate a group or type, whether it's gender, class, race, or whatever, you first have to stereotype them... — unenlightened

Yet, it is insisted that negatively stereotyping males is not hate for males.

Mysogyny is contempt for women as you say, it is stereotyping them as inferior and then treating them as inferior... — unenlightened

The stereotype that seems to dominate is that males are morally inferior.

What could be more negative than saying that a class of humans is worse than everybody not in their class simply due to the way they were born?

Yet, we are told that misandry does not exist.

you seem to have a difficulty in grasping this,... — unenlightened

Predictably, any time that someone is concerned about men's issues other people say from a feminist perspective, "You don't get it".

A lack of empathy, a lack of respect, and an almost complete failure to listen seems to always be the feminist response to men's issues and concerns.

so let's try the ideas out on race for comparison.

Suppose we as a society think that black people are inferior to white to the extent that we treat them as property. They cannot vote, or make decisions about their lives or jobs, or appeal to the justice system. You get the picture.

Now I say to you, "they are so lucky these black people, they do not have to worry about losing their jobs, or what the government is going to do, they do not have to fight for their country, and my friends and I do not hate our slaves, we love them. And yet a clinical psychologist told me that black people are socialised to hate whites."... — unenlightened

That is a straw man.

Men are hated for being men, it seems clear to me. A clinical psychologist even told me that--based on his observations in the clinical setting, I assume--he believes that girls are socialized to hate men.

Men are human too, believe it or not. Anything that questions, denies, undermines, etc. men's humanity is misandry.

This childish game of "Who is really a victim?", "Whose oppression is really the problem?", "Who has really suffered?", etc. needs to stop. If feminists want to completely be treated as human then they should act like humans in response to everybody. If we are talking about any people other than feminists--fascists, white supremacists, PETA, Westboro Baptist Church, etc.--who show no empathy and compassion to humans we see them as bordering on less-than-human. However, the humanity of feminists does not seem to ever be questioned--not even by anti-feminists--no matter what they do. I don't know why the latter is the case, but I suspect that if these feminists who categorically deny the existence of misandry were to change their approach to men's issues and instead try listening, empathizing and showing compassion they would find that being male is its own set of negative experiences and nothing done in the name of women's liberation has addressed a lot of that.

However, the humanity of feminists does not seem to ever be questioned--not even by anti-feminists--no matter what they do. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Every feminist source I encounter is oblivious to men suffering as men. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I think those quotes summarize your bias on the matter.

The stereotype that seems to dominate is that males are morally inferior.

What could be more negative than saying that a class of humans is worse than everybody not in their class simply due to the way they were born? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

If this were the case, one would expect to find women dominating in matters pertaining to morality, in the judiciary and the priesthood, for examples. But they don't. Quite the reverse, because the dominant stereotype is the exact opposite - that women are morally weaker, and this is part of the justification for male dominance in every other sphere. If the dominant stereotype was that men are morally inferior, we would not put them in charge of everything.

Every feminist source I encounter is oblivious to men suffering as men. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Feminism is not oblivious to the suffering of men but concerns itself with the study of women. That is the point.

For the most part, being a feminist is not about being an aggressive woman walking around topless and having sex with whoever you want, but it is having the attributes of one who fearlessly continues despite their vulnerabilities, those that fight hatred and violence and cruelty with goodness and love, by never giving up. It is about being yourself, whether you feel feminine in nature or not, and being virtuous and principled. This is the same for men. There needn't be a stereotype, an image that would classify you as a 'man' or a 'woman' but it is wholly subjective.

My father was taught to be 'manly' and that masculine attributes were physical in nature as well as being aggressive and showing dominance. He would boast about stories on how he made people disabled and would often beat my mother up - she was a tiny woman mind you - because in his pathetic culture violence against women had become normalised. He was a mindless follower of the constructions of masculinity and did the every bidding of his social environment that he cared for more than his own family and children, his false facade showcasing someone different to what we experienced when he came home.

I care about the construction of masculinity because of the impact it has on me and my mother (who became lost because she could not escape) and siblings, all of whom bullied and harassed me as I was the youngest in the family to vent their frustrations. I have never had sex neither even kissed a man because I was for a very long time scared of men and of being hurt. While I am lucky that I was never raped or severely hurt in some physical way, psychological and in particular emotional trauma was significant because of the constant threat of violence and it took a lot to recover from the realisation that I was long hiding from the pain pretending I was protecting myself since I thought men were the enemy. I know now that by exposing my vulnerability and being myself, I am much stronger than my father.

At the same time, it is not difficult for us to hastily generalise when you see the incredibly significant and widespread gender violence that occurs globally. I believe that masculinity studies is relevant to feminism because it will enable feminists to understand the underlying cause of why gender bias exists and encourage an interdisciplinary approach to the subject.

But it has never been the kind of dominant, mainstream narrative that feminism has been. It has struggled for relevance. Considering the attitude in the quote at the start of this thread, are the latter and former any surprise? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

The problem with the construction of masculinity is that a man exposing his vulnerabilities is considered 'weak' - for a very long time, men never exposed their experiences of sexual assault where a terrible number of boys had been raped and remained quiet; this includes the alarming rate of suicide. What you appear to be confused about is that you seem to be blaming feminism for this failure, but on the contrary, it is the construction of masculinity that has prevented the struggle of men to be voiced.

If anything, you should perhaps be praising feminism for working hard to fight these social constructions and stereotypes for ultimately shedding light on the issues that men face.

Feminism is not oblivious to the suffering of men but concerns itself with the study of women. That is the point. — TimeLine

But then feminists say that a men's rights movement is not needed; men's rights activism is misogynistic; "There is no misandry"; etc.

And if somebody says that feminists care only about women, not about equality, he/she is told that nothing could be further from the truth.

To stop at calling feminism incoherent would be generous, it seems.

To stop at calling feminism incoherent would be generous, it seems. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Call this misandry, but are you having some spat with your ex?

Call this misandry, but are you having some spat with your ex? — TimeLine

I've seen much worse ad hominems directed against me.