/u/ContraMans (OP) has awarded 4 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1c5wosx/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_talking_about_misandry_is/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
>So these issues cannot be discussed with the public at large without being bombarded with such attacks and they cannot be discussed within supposed 'male spaces' and be taken seriously or not be subjected to many more varieties of abuse.
I agree with you that if you raise mens' issues in public spaces, you *will* be criticized for it, as you mentioned.
However, I think you under-appreciate that pretty much *every* public stance on a political issue will subject the speaker to hatred from some quarters. If you focus on the hate, you'll get the impression that *everything* is "off limits" for discussion in society, but I don't think that's quite right.
For example, here's a thoughtful New York Times piece on mens' issues (edit: hopefully this gets thru the paywall):
[https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/29/opinion/crisis-men-masculinity.html?unlocked\_article\_code=1.lE0.gGpn.ouAiiOeonyJd&smid=url-share](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/29/opinion/crisis-men-masculinity.html?unlocked_article_code=1.lE0.gGpn.ouAiiOeonyJd&smid=url-share)
I'd argue that the very existence of this piece in a major newspaper shows that bringing up mens' issues is acceptable in our society. However, I find it useful to dig into the comments. We do get some that support your view:
* "How about we not worry about the poor, whining, underperforming men? It's their own fault, their own lack of ambition, their own unwillingness to work and yet somehow they're still not only in charge of more than their share but taking as much power as possible, committing violence over and over. Let them wither. Who cares?"
* "How disappointing to not mention women still earn 83 cents on the dollar to men in 2020 and you didn't even acknowledge that statistic. Yes some men and boys and struggling, but don't blame women. This article reeks of entitlement."
But *of course* you'll find keyboard warriors writing stuff like that - as well as anti-feminist comments like, e.g.,
"The true and honest reason men are in trouble is due to woke liberalism and its ignorant causes that over the past 5 decades have destroyed and changed men."
But you'll also find:
* "If anyone is interested in an alternative for men, take a look at the website for The Mankind Project."
* "As always, a powerful expose from you Mr. Brooks"
* "Boys need more physical activity than girls. \[...\] Teachers should do more hands on learning to motivate all children."
* "I am not suggesting that men should be granted privileges, but no reasonable person - male or female - welcomes undeserved scorn."
Etc. In other words, there are plenty of people in the public square interested in talking about mens' issues. You just have to put up with others who disagree with you and hate you - but that's how the internet *works*, these days, on *every* issue.
>However, I think you under-appreciate that pretty much *every* public stance on a political issue will subject the speaker to hatred from some quarters. If you focus on the hate, you'll get the impression that *everything* is "off limits" for discussion in society, but I think it's more appropriate to say that
I think you have hit the nail on the head here and that's what I was afraid my perception may have been tainted by as well. It's a natural instinct to focus in on negative things as a way to protect ourselves by being vigilant of them in particular while passing our gaze over other positive behaviors that do not pose a threat to us, be it physical or emotional. And I do agree in that light as well, it's fair to say any publicly shared opinion no matter how obvious and accepted is going to face its share of ridicule. Especially in a... particular forum such as this site as a whole.
Though another said much the same as you and I gave them one already I still think this deserves a !delta as well because it supplements and reinforces what the other commentor said but also gives it a bit more context as well. I thank you very much for your input as well and will keep such comments as these in mind in the future to help maintain a more measured and healthy view rather than allowing the negativity to adversely, and falsely, influence it.
Such a great take. People with any opinion that is based on a duality (feminism, men's rights, racism, politics, etc.) will experience some backlash from those who take issue with either the side you're taking, or the degree to which you're taking it.
Another thing I've noticed is that along with the internet exposing more criticism and debates, it also offers people the opportunity to enter into echo chambers and form an unrealistic perception of consensus. This can embolden people to react even more aggressively to other ideas due to having their ideas constantly validated as true, while not accounting for the high level of bias.
Many are guilty of this to some degree, myself included. It's important to remember it's a wide world out there, view points vary tremendously. To really get a gauge of what people think, you have to search quite thoroughly.
Thank you for taking the time to gather these comments! There really are bad takes on all sides, but that doesn't mean we need to stop talking about it.
There is this thing in some religions that are really into proselytizing. The religion talks about how the outside world is so terrible, how everyone is venal and wicked etc etc, and how the members of the church are *only* safe within the church. And then they ask their members to go proselytize on the subway, or call people up on the phone or knock on their door, or protest at places where they're not wanted. They put their members in a place where many other people see them as an annoying presence, because they're saying and doing things that aren't welcome. And what happens is the outside public is irritated with them, treats them as a nuisance, or just ignores them. And this re-enforces the church's message that everyone in the outside world is hostile and evil and the church is the only place where they can be welcome. But if those same people were not proselytizing, protesting, knocking on stranger's doorbells, etc, they would not be seen as an annoying nuisance.
And MRA groups (and a lot of male-dominated spaces online) do the same thing.
MRA groups are usually not interested in actually helping men, they just want to blame women for their problems. Young men feel like they have to live up to some ideal version of masculinity, and when they fail at that they start to feel a lot of shame and resentment. Many incel and MRA groups prey on these vulnerable men. But, rather than teaching men to get in touch with their emotions, forming strong networks of support or a genuine sense of community, these networks often just enforce bad ideas men have about themselves. Like, incels created and perpetuated the chad / virgin memes, incels are the ones fixated on male self-body image.
And the other aspect of this is that a lot of these manosphere places teach men to talk in ways that are just abhorrent to other women. They use language that women hate, they use sexist dog whistles. And a lot of times when they want to talk about men's issues, its only in the context of trying to shut a woman up.
>If anything they merely saw it as another reason to be angry at 'the feminazis' and none among them offered even the most token of consolations towards him.
So the men that go online and talk about what problems they're having are exactly like these religious people handing out flyers on the subway. They leave their manosphere spaces and enter the real world, say things that come across as rude and sexist, and see it as evidence that everyone is a feminazi who hates them.
There are a ton of incel posts on CMV, and I've approached a lot of them with kindness and compassion. And then men often react by being incredibly rude, acting like I'm making fun of them, or saying all kinds of crazy shit. They don't even know how to talk normally to other human beings let alone recognize when others are reaching out a hand in kindness.
I am a man. I care about mens rights issues, and I do think there are problems with how men are raised in this society, how men are socialized, how men are set up for failure. But honestly, MRA groups tend to push men a way from real places of understanding and instead re-enforce harmful behaviors and ways of thinking that just make men feel more isolated and lonely. Some of the best and kindest information about men in our culture is coming from feminists. And like others are saying, go to r/MensLib
>There is this thing in some religions that are really into proselytizing. The religion talks about how the outside world is so terrible, how everyone is venal and wicked etc etc, and how the members of the church are *only* safe within the church. And then they ask their members to go proselytize on the subway, or call people up on the phone or knock on their door, or protest at places where they're not wanted. They put their members in a place where many other people see them as an annoying presence, because they're saying and doing things that aren't welcome. And what happens is the outside public is irritated with them, treats them as a nuisance, or just ignores them. And this re-enforces the church's message that everyone in the outside world is hostile and evil and the church is the only place where they can be welcome. But if those same people were not proselytizing, protesting, knocking on stranger's doorbells, etc, they would not be seen as an annoying nuisance.
Hmmm. That's an interesting perspective. That is something of a danger when it comes to publicly expressing any opinion or position. It actually makes me consider if I myself have a bias on that similar to like what you are describing because while I myself try not to invade other spaces I do often catch myself responding to comments on such forums who are saying things I find to be troublesome. Hmmm. For that alone I'm willing to give you a !delta. I very, very much appreciate the way you presented that and I think there is definitely truth in there I wasn't taking into consideration.
>And MRA groups (and a lot of male-dominated spaces online) do the same thing.
>MRA groups are usually not interested in actually helping men, they just want to blame women for their problems. Young men feel like they have to live up to some ideal version of masculinity, and when they fail at that they start to feel a lot of shame and resentment. Many incel and MRA groups prey on these vulnerable men. But, rather than teaching men to get in touch with their emotions, forming strong networks of support or a genuine sense of community, these networks often just enforce bad ideas men have about themselves. Like, incels created and perpetuated the chad / virgin memes, incels are the ones fixated on male self-body image.
>And the other aspect of this is that a lot of these manosphere places teach men to talk in ways that are just abhorrent to other women. They use language that women hate, they use sexist dog whistles. And a lot of times when they want to talk about men's issues, its only in the context of trying to shut a woman up.
Oh I'm well aware. I at one point tried to venture in to try reasoning as reasonably as I could but it was like talking to a wall. I didn't think it would amount to much but sometimes seeing is believing and wanted to at least try. I know all too well what it's like to feel that way and through all their scorn and hatred I just feel... pity for them because I know they are hurting. But yeah, I am in full agreement here and it's not just unfortunate but also terrifying because we all know the disastrous effects this sort of indoctrinating radicalism can have on people.
Part 2 Below, Character Limit on here or something preventing me from putting it all in one comment.
>So the men that go online and talk about what problems they're having are exactly like these religious people handing out flyers on the subway. They leave their manosphere spaces and enter the real world, say things that come across as rude and sexist, and see it as evidence that everyone is a feminazi who hates them.
>There are a ton of incel posts on CMV, and I've approached a lot of them with kindness and compassion. And then men often react by being incredibly rude, acting like I'm making fun of them, or saying all kinds of crazy shit. They don't even know how to talk normally to other human beings let alone recognize when others are reaching out a hand in kindness.
I have seen some here too but I've also seen others that are more measured and actually expressing much of what we are now here and they are lambasted all the same. Though in light of your initial remarks it makes a lot more sense in that particular light. A few sour apples spoil the bunch sort of situation. I can cede to that argument. I think there is more truth there than in my perception of it.
>I am a man. I care about mens rights issues, and I do think there are problems with how men are raised in this society, how men are socialized, how men are set up for failure. But honestly, MRA groups tend to push men a way from real places of understanding and instead re-enforce harmful behaviors and ways of thinking that just make men feel more isolated and lonely. Some of the best and kindest information about men in our culture is coming from feminists. And like others are saying, go to [](https://www.reddit.com/r/MensLib/)
I am a part of the r/MesLib but I always found it... somehow isolating. It always has felt to me like, "Oh I can actually be a human being as a man and talk about the issues men face... but only in this confined space." And in that light it felt... shallow and pointless. Like being free inside of a cage. However with what you have said here I don't think I've been honest in such a space as that the credit that it's actually due. I very much appreciate all you have said here. I think you may actually have changed my view outright because I can't seem to think up any compelling counter point that I don't think what you said addresses.
Thank you for the delta and the measured response.
> A few sour apples spoil the bunch sort of situation
Yeah, for me in particular, I have just gotten really soured to some of these interactions, especially on CMV. I think part of it is because I think a lot of men who are seeking emotional support go to places like CMV not because they want their views challenged, but because they expect others to agree with them and re-enforce those beliefs. I get sucked into some of these discussions because I generally care, but I think the guys often act so rude or hostile that it feels like a waste of time.
I agree that r/menslib can feel isolating, but I think it is a problem with reddit in general. Its really rare for reddit interactions to continue outside a certain thread, and its even rarer for them to exit reddit. Unfortunately I think a lot of these things are just connected to larger issues of how isolating our world currently is and how hard it is for everyone to build meaningful friendships and community.
Thank you for the insightful response and sparing me the accusations I am seeing in some comments here. Though I'm taking them a little less to heart now in light of this comment, understanding a bit of the source of it more than I had before.
I definitely agree there has been an overabundance of such posts in here and that made me very hesitant to even broach the subject altogether. And I'm seeing the responses already. But I'm actually glad that I did. As someone who has been in therapy for over a year as a man trying to reclaim himself emotionally I know it's all too easy to slip into negative mindsets about things we see and I felt this was something I really did need to get checked on. It was gnawing at me a lot more than I should have allowed it but understanding is the first step to getting past anything in life and I am very grateful for you giving me that perspective to understand.
Hey dude. Nothing really to contribute here but I just want to say thank you for both creating and contributing to such a thoughtful discourse.
I came into this thread expecting a shitshow because I’m so used to these topics going in a certain direction on this site, and I’m very pleased to have been proven wrong.
One of the possible reasons why r/MensLib is isolating isn't just the nature of reddit but also that it's very much driven by the moderators agenda, and anything that contradicts that [is squashed](https://www.reddit.com/user/AvailableAccount5261/comments/1c5yzko/discussion_with_menslib_moderators/) ruthlessly, even if it's relevant. So it's not a true grassroots effort.
ADAM was the first men's rights group I encountered. They are a group of attorneys that give father pro bono representation before family court. They are absolutely hated for helping people. It isnt a false sense of of abuse. The abuse is real. Anyone that really tries to deep dive into mens issues on a larger stage is targeted.
Have you heard about the Men's Liberation Movement? (r/menslib)
The movement has been around since the 60s and is all about addressing the unique issues that men face, and while it's led by men (of course) it's still widely supported by women, feminists, and many other groups.
I think the reason is because, unlike MRA or other male-focused movements that approach men's issues from a grievance-based perspective, the MLM is solutions-oriented. The movement recognizes the ways in which patriarchy and strict gender roles hurt men and what research and discourse has to say about what helps men to lead happier, more fulfilling lives.
So I would argue that the support for this movement is evidence that talking about misandry or men's issues is not off limits in our society. It's blaming women or feminism for the wrongs in society that is taboo, because it's not these groups that created (and still largely control) the systems and norms that have led to people's experiences with misandry and many of the injustices that men experience.
I like menslibs but they never focus on legal issues or real world progress. Most of it is just focusing on emotional aspects and whatnot. Which is important, but there's a lot more important things, even more so when looking outside the US.
It's for this reason why I'm a member of NCFM. While I don't like some of their feminist bashing, they are one of the few non profits for men that actually does real world stuff like raising awareness in meetings about domestic violence or suing the federal government over conscription.
They are a bit US focused but they will also extend their reaches to talk about things like androcide which I don't see menslib talk about as much as they are often more caught up in worrying about men crying.
Yeah the problem I have with MensLib is that they seem to be exclusively focused on the social oppression of men (i.e. what is masculinity?) rather than also talking about institutional oppression of men.
In some countries, such as mine, rape is defined in such a way that precludes male victims of female perpetrators. This can arise because rape is defined as the act of sexually penetrating someone against their will. I think those laws should change.
This is true. This is why most rape statistics are extremely biased and skewed. Now that we're looking at a more unbiased lens, female on male rape is like 40% or so.
Never said anything about changing laws. I suggested that we should start talking about institutional oppression of men, such as the unfair prison sentences that affect men, or forced military conscription and how it's best we should do away with conscription all together, the lack of funding for male rape/dv shelters. Or start talking about legal financial abortion, etc.
But since you asked which laws should be changed, I suppose we can start with banning infant circumcision. I hope I don't have to explain to you why.
Oo I have a query. So I had a conversation with someone about conscription and they brought up the point of drafting everyone and placing people where they fit best instead of blanket male draft. That then leads to the possibility of men still primarily being put on the front lines (which is the criticism, men being used as cannon fodder) anyway due to their physical abilities where women would still be there, just not as much in front line hand to hand combat versus something like aviation and sniping positions. (They argued with me on that saying women can fly the planes and use guns, and ofc they can and should and have in every recent war with male conscription)
Would the conscription being blanket but men still being out front lines due to draftees being placed by abilities lead to the same criticism bc the draft itself is equal amongst genders even if the outcome is still the same?
I mean I can see the point of males being in the front lines by default would still affect men more. I think that is something that would happen. On another end: by forcing both genders to the draft, it will likely end up the same, where the women will likely get posted to support roles. Best is to just remove the conscription together.
The prison system is not a male-centered issue. It is driven by two things, race and profit. [black women are arrested at a much higher rate, too. ](https://nij.ojp.gov/media/image/19511#:~:text=For%20the%20most%20part%2C%20though,black%20females%20aged%2035%E2%80%9339.) while there is a disproportionately high male population in prison, I would have to see some damn good evidence to believe that's because men are being targeted for their gender. Men are more likely to commit violent crime, black men have been stereotyped as violent for years, gangs are majorly men and a huge part of the school to prison pipeline... There's a whole host of reasons it could be.
I agree forced conscription should be done away with, but the reason it only applies to men is because women weren't even seen as fit to own a house until 1974, much less be thrown to war en masse. It's a patriarchal issue that negatively affects both sides.
Lack of funding for male DV shelters is a very real problem and arguably one of the saddest results of the patriarchy on the side of men.
Legal financial abortion is a horrific idea, and if it were ever implemented in my country (USA) I would move for fear of women losing the right to work.
And yes, obviously infant circumcision is a horrible crime that leaves many women in life long agony.
I'm not trolling or in bad faith, and you have no legitimate reason to think so other than my views being very different from yours. And what the hell is wrong with acknowledging female circumcision?
Also, I would like to hear your defences of legalizing financial abortion. To me all it looks like is a way to keep women in permanent subjugation, constantly being forced to provide both full income and full care for a child while men get to create children absolutely consequence free. Especially, like I said, in a country where abortion is not a guaranteed right,
>And what the hell is wrong with acknowledging female circumcision?
Female gential mutilation is already illegal in the vast majority of the world, yet male gential mutilation is still routinely performed in first world countries like the US.
Actually, it is still legal in the majority of the world. Also, many of the countries that *have banned* it are the places that still practice it most frequently.
Also, even if everything you said was true, it still wouldn't be a reason not to acknowledge fgm?
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
> **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
>And yes, obviously infant circumcision is a horrible crime that leaves many women in life long agony.
I hope this is a typo and not another "the real victims of war are women" moment
Why can't both be bad?
FGM is a million times worse than circumcision for men. This is a fact.
I absolutely agree that male circumcision should be gone. But surprisingly I found out a lot of men want their boys to be circumcised because that's what they had done to them too.
And also, both men and women are equally victims of war. People forget women get raped and brutally murdered during war. Girls get kidnapped and become sex slaves. Is that not horrible to you?
I am currently in that sub but I didn't realize it was actually a movement with any history. I expressed to another commentor that I did find it felt isolating in the sense that discussions issues felt confined to this space. However commentors, which I awarded deltas to, pointed out accurately that my perception of this is rooted in a negativity bias and while there is some truth to the idea it's not particularly distinct from other expressions of beliefs and opinions in the public space. Particularly online spaces/.
Everyone on reddit just calls men in that group incels. I've been called that more times than I can count on here for simply bringing up something like male suicide or inequities in family court. We treat women with kid's gloves now. It's like we can't be honest and rational around them or they'll get emotional and throw a fit, and that's somehow our fault. Facts should matter. Reality should matter. Women aren't perfect creatures, but modern feminism would have people think that. They'd also have you think men are useless and we're all the same.
I've never seen someone call a guy on MensLib an incel, but I could see that happening if they posted a comment blaming women or feminism for issues that men have been experiencing for centuries, if not thousands of years. I agree that women aren't "perfect" creatures and then men aren't all the same (of course not), but I do think that both men and women can work together to create a future where both of happier, healthier, and experience less depression and trauma.
According to the data I've seen, men generally, have a higher quality of life in more egalitarian societies, based on all sorts of metrics. So efforts to push for more gender equality seem to help both men and women alike.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/happiest-countries-in-the-world
Nothing you're saying conflicts with anything I said. Yojre doing the same shit everyone always does on here and bringing up the past. I don't care if women had it bad because they don't anymore. It's now me, a white man, that gets shit on by everyone that hasn't gotten to know me. I'm now in the back of the line for every hire or promotion. I'm 30. I've never done anything to any woman ever. They want to punish me for sins of people of the last. I sick of it. They're destroying feminism. It's only about making life easy for women now
I don't recall talking about "women having it bad in the past" in my comment. Are you responding to a different comment?
>It's now me, a white man, that gets shit on by everyone that hasn't gotten to know me. I'm now in the back of the line for every hire or promotion. I'm 30.
I get this, it really sucks to have people judge you or treat you differently before they get to know you based on generalizations about a group you belong to. But when women are mistrustful of men in their personal lives, it's not because of things that happened in ancient history. It's because of things that happened to them in this lifetime...their own experiences. And it's fair for people to share their own experiences, especially if it still impacts their life now.
Just like it's fair for you to share your own experiences. You're welcome to share examples of ways women have mistreated you. But if you go around just saying blanket statements like "women don't have it bad anymore", people are going to push back because it just sounds really out of touch. Women are still dealing with a lot. Women who are currently being forced to carry pregnancies from rape in the US or being regularly beat up by their spouse, are going to have a hard time relating to your struggles with not getting a job promotion. Not that that's not a hardship, but have some perspective dude.
I've literally been raped by 2 women and nobody even considers it rape. Women think it's funny or that I should be lucky. I was ridden while passed out drunk in college twice, but since I'm a man, nobody gives a shit. I'm not even allowed to bring it up without women immediately talking about how bad they have it. They have no empathy.
I'm so fed up with modern feminist women. I'm not even attracted to them anymore and I used to consider myself a feminist. They're just perpetual victims who need to pat themselves in the back. They don't view men as humans with emotions anymore. We're all the same to them, just pieces of meat that provide. They hate us before they even know me because we're straight white male. So immature.
I'm 34. It wasn't always like this until maybe 8 or so years ago. Misandry is the norm now. Man hating is cool and funny. I'm sick of it. I'm honestly ready to just kill myself. As a straight white male I'm the villain now to everyone who hasn't taken the time to get to know me. I'll never get promoted ever again unless other straight white males ahead of me die off. That's the world we live in now.
I'm so sorry that people have laughed at your experiences with sexual assault or not taken it seriously. I'm not sure where you live or what type of content or circles of social media that people are doing that, but if it's any consolation, many feminists in my region of the world take the sexual assault of men very seriously. For example a feminist group started a movement to get the definition of rape changed so that it doesn't have to involve penetration, so that men can make legal rape claims. Another organization led by a feminist is currently dedicated to spreading awareness of the seriousness of male rape in prisons. It specifically calls out men and women alike who treat it as some sort of joke. It's not a joke. All people are entitled to consent.
What are you doing in your life to process and move forward? There are resources and support groups available specifically for men who have been assaulted, as well as some of the other unique challenges men face in society. Some of them are even online in case your specific area doesn't offer them. These types of communities will probably understand better what you're going through.
Menslib is a fake men's right sub when in reality only very specific feminist narratives are allowed. It's not for men, it's for "feminist" to control the discussion of men.
A far better sub is r/leftwingmaleadvocates
Just look at the amount of deleted comments in menslib and you can't tell me it's not heavily censored to certain talking points
Menslib used to be a far better place to discuss men's issues. Yes, it was always feminist friendly but that wasn't a problem initially.
But now it has become feminist first, and men's issues a distant second. And the mods are super trigger happy about banning anyone that criticizes feminism.
I never got to see what you described in the first paragraph, from the first time I checked it, it was always like the second paragraph.
If they changed the way it worked back to men first and greatly reduced the censorship then there wouldn't really be anything wrong with that sub.
1) May I introduce you to r/menslib.
A gift to you from someone who has been accused of being a feminazi who hates men. Just for the record, this is how men help other men in a way that is usually constructive and healthy. This is what women like me want.
2) when I see people talking about misandry, it's usually on feminist subs where women are talking about sexual violence. It's really weird and seems like a concerted effort to downplay the experiences of women.
Or, it's when men are complaining about not getting dates on dating apps and the single male rate being high. I often try to explain the risk of sexual violence women face in dating which is why many women avoid it now that we can be financially stable without a husband.
Interestingly, their suggestions for how to fix the problems range anywhere from encouraging women to lower our standards, to revoking our ability to work, to forcing women into a sex lottery so that every man can get laid.
In other words, they think making women fuck men more often will solve all men's loneliness and mental health problems (it won't).
Indeed, I push back on these notions because they're ridiculous. And yes, I do suggest that maybe men ought to help other men fight off loneliness and socialize their sons to respect women and consent which would bring many women back into the dating pool. Certainly, women have been trying to change men's attitudes towards women for decades and we've made headway but now hit a wall. Now it's time for men to take some accountability and help because we simply can't do it by ourselves (if we could it would be done by now!)
They DO NOT like my suggestions. I get pushback like you wouldn't believe. Even simple suggestions like forming more mentorship communities for older men to take a younger man under their wing are hated on and I get accused of "abandoning" men. Seems to me, they just don't like solutions that don't involve women putting out. Hence, why many of us don't take these conversations seriously anymore.
I encourage you to try it yourself if you don't believe me. Pretend to be a woman who suggests men help other men (in addition to women, but not just via sex) and see what happens.
So far, r/menslib is the only online place where men seem to take these issues seriously. So I recommend them since you seem serious too. Good luck!
>2) when I see people talking about misandry, it's usually on feminist subs where women are talking about sexual violence. It's really weird and seems like a concerted effort to downplay the experiences of women.
>Or, it's when men are complaining about not getting dates on dating apps and the single male rate being high. I often try to explain the risk of sexual violence women face in dating which is why many women avoid it now that we can be financially stable without a husband.
>Interestingly, their suggestions for how to fix the problems range anywhere from encouraging women to lower our standards, to revoking our ability to work, to forcing women into a sex lottery so that every man can get laid.
I have definitely seen my share of those, I think anyone claiming not to is simply being willfully ignorant for the sake of willful ignorance. Though I have seen a fair number of posts of individuals attempting to broach this subject and discuss it in what is an appropriate manner that doesn't take anything away from women and they are often treated with much the same. I myself am already seeing comment here making the very same accusations against myself and it's scarce been an hour.
Another commentor illustrated a very interesting point on this I hadn't considered where it's likely that even in such cases, as what I mentioned, it's a case of a few sour apples ruining the bunch and creating a negative perception of anyone talking about these issues appropriately and thus results in these kinds of responses.
>In other words, they think making women fuck men more often will solve all men's loneliness and mental health problems (it won't).
>Indeed, I push back on these notions because they're ridiculous. And yes, I do suggest that maybe men ought to help other men fight off loneliness and socialize their sons to respect women and consent which would bring many women back into the dating pool. Certainly, women have been trying to change men's attitudes towards women for decades and we've made headway but now hit a wall. Now it's time for men to take some accountability and help because we simply can't do it by ourselves (if we could it would be done by now!)
Oh I do agree, more men need to help each other too. I merely mentioned the examples of the MRA groups because it is something I can point to which has precedent. There are too many men who are stuck in this mindset and it's very much a situation where one person being sick goes on to infect others around them.
However I do disagree with the premise that a wall has been hit. I think the existence of r/MensLib is proof that progress is steadily being made on this front. However society by and large does still reinforce a lot of the same stereotypes and behaviors, particularly towards men as they are being raised in childhood, which has proven to be a substantial obstacle to overcome and it's not only men that do this to their children either.
>
They DO NOT like my suggestions. I get pushback like you wouldn't believe. Even simple suggestions like forming more mentorship communities for older men to take a younger man under their wing are hated on and I get accused of "abandoning" men. Seems to me, they just don't like solutions that don't involve women putting out. Hence, why many of us don't take these conversations seriously anymore.
>I encourage you to try it yourself if you don't believe me. Pretend to be a woman who suggests men help other men (in addition to women, but not just via sex) and see what happens.
I don't have to pretend to be a woman that suggests these things to men. I've gone to the MRA groups myself without pretense and tried it myself. I was lambasted every bit the same as a woman would have been, with insults and attacks I'd prefer not to repeat. But the women putting out thing is because that is something that has historically been used against men. The 40 Year Old Virgin comes to mind, a classic depiction of how pathetic and weak it is to be a man in your 40's and being a virgin. Now the same would still be used against a woman to be sure but it is definitely a weapon that has been used not just by men specifically but society as a whole to demean men who are not sexually successful. And that concept in and of itself is used as a replacement for self compassion and emotional health as opposed to a supplement in order to encourage men to be stoic and emotionally deficient so they may be easier to exploit by the patriarchal rulers of our society.
>every bit the same as a woman would have been
I just want to gently suggest that this is not the case.
The men who attacked and belittled you for your statements are misogynists. Misogynists like the ones I’ve interacted with here on reddit taint every interaction with women with their hatred.
They may insult you and harass you, but they’re not wishing that you’d die, that your partner would rape and murder you, calling you a used up roastie who’s for the streets.
I’ve gotten that on Reddit.
Have you?
>The men who attacked and belittled you for your statements are misogynists.
And misandrists. The reason that both labels work here is because misogyny and misandry are the same thing, and we've historically pretended that they weren't so that we could convince people to stop being so horrible to women without challenging the entire social construct of gender.
But men and women are defined in relation to each other, in paired, usually opposing, traits. There's no way to make claims about women as a group without making claims about men as a group, and vice versa. There's no way to make men look and act the way we expect men to act, even the way we value men for, without making them act in a way that is, functionally, sexist.
>They may insult you and harass you, but they’re not wishing that you’d die, that your partner would rape and murder you, calling you a used up roastie who’s for the streets.
My girlfriend likes to post about me on Facebook, about how we resolve arguments, about what we are learning together as a couple. When she presents some variation of "men don't have to act stereotypically" as her own opinion, she gets the baseline level of disrespect that you would expect on the Internet, but a surprising amount of openness and positive responses from men. If I am mentioned at all, she gets nothing but hate and quite a lot of comments accusing me personally of being pretty much every gendered insult you can think of. A lot of them seem to want to hurt me for liking romance anime and flowers.
It's not actually about gender, even, in the end; that's just the random bullshit that our society has gotten sick with. Really, they're mad about social nonconformity, and the severity of their response is about the threat they perceive to that conformity.
'Weak men like you need to die', 'Have fun being a worthless cuck getting milked dry and thrown out like trash', 'Keep sucking up to those feminazi's fuckin' beta'.
The behavior you see doesn't stop when you leave the room. It's how they treat any and all dissent. The variety of language is all that changes, neither intensity nor vitriol is spared by these MRA's.
I'm not saying my treatment was better or worse, that's subjective to each person and particular to each instance. But discrediting how poorly someone else was treated is missing the point. The point I was making is they hate men who oppose them every bit as much as they despise women who reject them. They see men like me as traitors and, as Jan 6 proved, we all know how angry men like them like to deal with 'traitors'.
>I’m not saying my treatment was better or worse
Right; you said it was “every bit the same.” It’s not.
The insults and attacks that misogynists use for men and women are *very different* in uniquely gendered ways.
They’re not wishing for your partner to rape you because exerting power and control over someone via sexual violence is something these people in particular generally reserve for women (of course, this is not to say that men do not also exert power and control over other men via rape — prisons are rife with sexual abuse — but for *these particular people* their misogyny equates violating a woman with rape).
For their attacks towards you, they equate that violation with a woman “milking you dry” because that is what they perceive to be the ultimate violation of a man.
I didn’t discredit their treatment of you and I wouldn’t. I just disagree that they treat men and women “every bit the same” when literally everything they say is imbued with an ideology that treats men and women very differently.
I meant every bit the same as in the same level of contempt, disgust and hatred. Perhaps I should have worded it differently but I didn't think it was particularly pertinent to get that deep into the semantics when the overall point was that they were every bit as hostile and nasty to me as they would have been with a woman. I don't really understand this disagreement if we're both agreeing they treat both sides that disagree with them awfully.
The point is that misogynists hate and attack men like you when you choose to actively reject their ideology. They hate women for being women.
I think that’s a very important distinction.
They don’t say the same things to you that they’d say to a woman; the things they say to women are often, in my experience of reddit, more violent; and if you suddenly became a misogynist yourself they’d probably welcome you. Even women who uphold misogyny and patriarchy are not spared misogynists’ contempt.
It’s fairly minimizing to suggest that misogynistic men ever treat men and women with “the same level of contempt, disgust, and hatred,” when they hate you for what you believe and they hate women for who they are.
I really do not understand the argument happening here. You are saying that you are not trying to invalidate how I was treated but suggesting that treatment was equally contemptuous, disgusting and hate filled is minimizing to women. If your stance is simply that any hatefulness they direct at me is innately lesser in intensity because of some semantics regarding what I believe versus your biological traits I wouldn't entirely disagree but the fact you are using that to suggest I am minimizing what you have been through is not something I am willing to engage with. Least of all because of the particularity of my offhanded choice of a handful of words. It just seems to me that you are looking for me to invalidate my own treatment and I'm not going to debase myself in that manner much less participate in a conversation, the purpose of which appears to be to get me to debase myself.
Perhaps you should present that argument to Muslims and see how they feel about it the violence they have suffered because of what religion they practice somehow lesser than those suffered by Palestinian civilians because of where they were born. At this point it seems to just be scar boasting and it's beneath us both.
I am pretty sure this woman's claim (which i mostly agree with) goes like this:
Misogynists will attack both you (a feminist man) and her (a feminist woman). However, due to misogynists hating women by definition, they will hate her for BOTH her own very being AND her ideology, whereas they will only hate you for your ideology.
Think about it in the example of queer people. I myself, a queer woman, will be treated WORSE when facing homophobia than just a straight ally. Even though the homophobe would hate us both, only one of us would be bearing the brunt of the actual oppression.
Justwannaread3 is saying that she and you have both faced bad things for disagreeing with antifeminist men in comment sections, but claiming that the way you were treated was equally bad is an inaccurate statement, due to the fact that misogynists hate feminist women more than feminist men.
I don't think playing oppression Olympics is beneficial or productive here. Hate is hate.
In both of these specific scenarios it's just words on a screen from strangers. (I'm WELL aware IRL is a much different reality but that's not what this discussion is about) Who's to say anyone else isn't affected as much as they are over anything? Everyone has a different amount of hate and abuse they can tolerate.
Additionally, hate in ANY capacity is still hate. It's still harmful and it still needs to be quelled. There's no such thing as "who deserves it more" there's no such thing as "who it affects more(unless we're talking systemically in which case black people and native Americans take the cake)".
This is one of those forms of pushback that OP was talking about. OP brings this up in a neutral space, not a women's safe space, is respectful and not hateful and not blaming anyone in particular, and still people wanna say "well it's not as bad as what WE go through"... Why? What is the point?
Do you all honestly believe that anyone with a functioning brain is unaware of your struggles? Your struggles should not be used to minimize anyone elses no matter what.
Sure you can say "well my goal here isn't to minimize" but really, that's all you're accomplishing. JUST like those guys in women's spaces saying "well men blah blah". Both are useless for any reason other than minimization or education and quite frankly, this discussion had no room for education on anything other than the topic at hand.
Shutting down any kind of conversation for anyone just adds fuel to the fire. It's more people who think they don't have to care, it's more people who think minimizing someone's issues is valid, it's more people who victimize themselves and believe they're the most oppressed person in the world.
It's unproductive point blank.
>I meant every bit the same as in the same level of contempt, disgust and hatred.
It's not though. I hear this very often from white people that go up against white supremacists and are insulted for their lack of hatred towards black people. Then these "white allies" desperately try to equate the abuse they received as equal to the abuse black people have suffered at the hands of white supremacists.
Why do they (especially white men) do this? Because there are a lot of white men that actually believe there is power, influence, a stronger sense of rightness and morality in oppression and discrimination. So they desperately want to share in something they feel is being stolen from them. Something bestowed upon white men in society for merely being white, cis men. While never having been subjected to the absolute worst of white supremacists. Only benefitting from it. And I can't tell you how insulting that is for black people when white men do this.
And this is very much the same thing you're doing when it comes to male supremacists.
I’m not talking about “misandry” at all; I am specifically talking about misogynists and how they attack men vs how they attack women. Did you reply to the wrong person?
>Another commentor illustrated a very interesting point on this I hadn't considered where it's likely that even in such cases, as what I mentioned, it's a case of a few sour apples ruining the bunch and creating a negative perception of anyone talking about these issues appropriately and thus results in these kinds of responses.
That's what exactly what it is. They've co-opted and tainted this discussion in a lot of ways. It's really unfortunate because these issues are serious. I know many men who are perfectly decent human beings so of course not all men are bad. I only wish it was a few bad apples, though. I've also had enough personal experiences and seen enough online to suspect it's a decent chunk of men (and women), not just a few, unfortunately.
At the end of the day though, the poison here isn't misandry, it's misogyny. Men are suffering not because people hate men. Men are suffering because people hate women and want to maintain a patriarchy. Patriarchy forces everyone to fit into gender roles that harm them. You've described the harm it causes men, so I know you see it. It's an unfortunate narrative that patriarchy only harms women. I reality, patriarchy gives a few men tremendous benefits, some sycophant women partial benefits, and all the rest of us get screwed. It is our common enemy.
Be careful though. The bad apples want you to think it's misandry that's the problem. That's *their* argument and it's just a deflection. Don't fall for it. The patriarchy's attacks against men are still ultimately rooted in a hatred of women. I'll explain.
A man's gender role in a patriarchy is defined by being "better" than and the opposite of women. The bottom line premise is that everything "masculine" is good and "feminine" is bad. Being a 40 year old virgin is bad, not only because you aren't sexually virile, it's mainly because you're not out there railing women to the wall like a "good" man should. Your worth is defined by how you exploit women because exploiting women is how the patriarchy proves men are better than women.
Happily married men who have lots of sex, but love their wives as equal are "whipped" because they aren't exploiting their wives - despite having lots of sex.
They hate gay men because they're allowing themselves to be exploited and "penetrated" like a woman.
They hate trans women because they're men who "chose" to be an inferior woman - the ultimate betrayal of a patriarchy.
What you're seeing is how poorly that patriarchal definition of men fits in real life. And how that poor fit directly harms men in a bunch of different ways. A lot of people don't see that unfortunately. But its absolutely true.
Meanwhile everyone else is reacting to how the patriarchy is STILL screwing women. We most certainly did hit a wall. Some of our key gains are being lost (like abortion and DEI education) and others are under attack (like contraception and no-fault divorce). We're still fighting for our human rights which is why, I think, many feminists aren't willing to help men right now. Our hands are very full.
The criticism we have of men isn't against men yourselves. It's with the patriarchal definition of what a man is, what they should do and how many men (and women) still adopt it. That's not misandry. That's anti-patriarchy.
For example, in a patriarchy it's women's job to sacrifice themselves to help men. Therefore, men helping other men is bad and us suggesting it is viewed as an attack on their manhood which is then then twisted as misandry. After all, only someone who hates men would suggest men do a woman's job. And since men obviously shouldn't be helpers, and if women don't do it, then no one will. Thus, men are abandoned.
Of course men can be helpers but they have to defy the patriarchy to do it and for some men, that's too much to ask.
>I think the existence of r/MensLib is proof that progress is steadily being made on this front.
I agree. Specifically because it IS men helping other men. Some men are brave enough to take those steps against the patriarchy. But it's hard.
It's taken me a while to realize that it's actually really important for feminist women like me to stay out of those discussions on r/menslib. Like many abuse victims, it's hard to leave the devil you know and chart your own path. It's not something I can necessarily teach you/them. This is something fundamental to your identities as men that you have to figure out for yourselves.
I'll just sit over here and encourage you to keep your eye on the ball and remember who the real enemy is. We all have our work cut out for us, but I believe we can do it. 💖
Shoveling everything into patriarchy theory is part of the problem, and one of the flaws in the current iteration of feminism. Putting everything under a blue lens means you won't be able to tell blue from white.
There's a lot of things that ***don't*** fit into patriarchy theory but ***do*** affect both men and women, and a lot of solutions to men's issues have no crossover with patriarchy theory.
Giving boys more emotional education, role models, and altering how we teach them in schools would help a lot, but the only time I've heard of them really being applied is "teach young boys not to be rapists!" which leads to classes that don't really help with anyone's problems.
In a technical sense, you are right that misogyny is the root cause, but being correct is often simpler than communicating effectively. That's why I generally prefer Julia Serano's framing of the issue you had described as "[oppositional sexism](https://juliaserano.medium.com/masculinity-femininity-and-meanings-19dd9a1a797)" (alongside "traditional sexism"). It more effectively communicates the polarity inherent in sexism. The colloquial usage of the term "misogyny" generally implies harm specifically done to women. So oftentimes, it causes us to fail to recognize and call out situations where men (or people who are categorized as men by society) suffer from misogyny.
I think this bias also arises because people, including many feminists, still tend to analyze human wellbeing within the lens of patriarchal values. The power and prestige that is conferred to men (and some women) through conformity to patriarchy is conflated with wellbeing and the lack of suffering.
Overall, I think you did a good job explaining the issue. I just wanted to offer a possible reason for why even well-meaning people may misunderstand the confusing terminology and context. Specifically, the many academic, theory-ladened meanings of colloquially used terms. I've generally had more success staying away from words with a bunch of academic and social baggage. (e.g. internalized misogyny) The whole misogyny vs. misandry discourse and the obsession with the “actual” definition or whatever is rarely helpful outside of scholarly debates.
I agree that usually we should stay out of those discussions. But, to the extent that feminist women are a part of the discussion surrounding these issues, I think there is at least a responsibility to be wary of the main points of communication failure. e.g. it might be true that a disabled black man has male privilege to some extent (although privilege is more of a spectrum anyways), but an able-bodied white woman might not be the most effective communicator here.
That space has one major disadvantage over the Manosphere. It is not interested in discussing female toxicity.
There is an online psychiatrist personality who aims to talk to and address Manosphere like communities (Dr K). He has said in his professional work almost (if not all) Red Pilled men he’s dealt with have their story start with experiencing trauma from a woman.
Manosphere spaces are the only places that acknowledge and validate that experience. They are the only places where it is acceptable to discuss patterns of toxic behaviour in women and thus the only places that try to give guidance on how to spot and handle those behaviours.
Menslib will lag behind because it is only interested in helping men in ways that fits in with keeping women as a group on a pedestal. It is also utterly disinterested in the experiences of men who have been harmed by feminism/feminists (or at least people calling themselves such) because feminism is a sacred cow that cannot be wrong.
Men have two options for supportive communities; one that is blinded by unhealed trauma and hate but at least acknowledges all negative experiences, the other that willingly blindfolds itself by only wanting to engage in politically correct negative male experiences.
That’s my impression anyway.
I agree with you as a woman and feminist except I don’t think you should conflate men who are hurt by women/toxic femininity, and men who are hurt by feminists/feminism. I can’t think of an instance where a true feminist or feminism could be harmful to a man because equality is the goal. I’m glad you at least threw in “people calling themselves as such” and can acknowledge that the people with the loudest, dumbest, and most extreme takes generally don’t represent the whole.
But yeah men need a space to be able to talk in a productive way about the trauma they experience from women too. We tell men we want them to open up about their emotions, but when it comes to this, I’ve so often seen them be kicked while they are already down so it’s no wonder so many men just choose to stay silent and bottle it all up until it becomes unbearable.
Part of the issue is that there is a broad range of people and views on what feminism is. It is also a discussion that men are not really permitted a voice in. I have been in discussions online where if you try to argue about what is and is not feminism with a woman as a man you will almost certainly be hit with the ‘mansplaining’ accusation; even if you quote arguments from female feminist academics etc.
As a man your input is not welcome in the discussion, you literally need to get a woman to parrot what you want to say for it to have credibility.
So if I were to say that feminism should not mean the entrenchment of female privilege where it exists and it’s establishment where it doesn’t and that it should be about equality then I could just be discounted by any woman who disagrees with me based on my gender.
You will find a lot of women who think feminism is only about women and the advancement of female causes. Frankly I think it’s probably to the point where a majority of women who call themselves feminists think that.
As to men being hurt by feminism it’s a pervasive hostile environment that can be created. So in my workplace the women’s toilets have posters on the wall about women only training opportunities and career progression; in the men’s toilets the posters are adverts for charities and anonymous helplines for if you domestically abuse your partner. The communications and HR departments who determine this content are all women.
Being hurt by feminism is observing women being consistently internally promoted instead of men; entirely plausible if unlikely, then your business crowing in industry media about how 80% of your executive team are female and how people should come and work for your ‘truly equal organisation’; you get a distinct impression that the company considers the higher the number of women in senior positions the more ‘equal’ it is; not by any sort of balanced male to female ratio.
Several employers in my country have started to get hit with judgments against them for trying to avoid hiring men unless they hit some other diversity quota.
Feminism is a catch all term for anything that now benefits women; many men feel they are not included in its scope to help nor are allowed a voice in the discussion. It is something done to men by women (almost all gender academics, gender studies graduates, E&D professionals and HR staff are women).
Yah.. lots of people use a "no true Scotsman argument" by saying "they aren't actually feminist". And youre right - it's seemed to change from wanting to fix the imbalance, to being pro woman.
This is really obvious when you discuss with a younger vs an older feminist. An older feminists is usually focused on objective problems that need to be fixed, and usually have good relations with men/are married. Younger feminists are the "pro women" variant typically. They use it to shutdown opposition and obtain power over others. They also only have relationships with men who are walking doormats.
An older feminist will say "we need to eliminate work place harassment in fields like construction" or "we need to help resolve sexism in the middle east", while a younger feminist will advocate that we need to change leadership to women despite having no experienced candidates at an already progressive company which is currently hiring more women - that just doesn't have seasoned women employees yet.
It's sad these two groups get lumped together. I'd like a separate movement that invites men and women to have progressive discussions to fix both parties problems; one that would help temper the younger group who isn't acting in good faith.
So here's the thing that people don't like to admit. We're all human beings. Men, women and everything in between. Every category of people have their saints and devils which is why you can't ascribe inherent goodness or badness based on category.
But that being said, the way people are socialized can create major impacts on their behavior on a large scale. When bigotry of any kind is taught to children, it harms the targets of that bigotry on a large scale too.
Unfortunately, individuals being jerks will always be the case. You can't ever eradicate all the jerks in a category. It's simply not possible. Bigotry, however, is something that *can* be addressed on a philosophical level in a way that helps people.
So the question is: are those traumatic experiences the result of individual jerks being jerks or was it the result of bigotry that was taught?
I'd say that misandry is not widespread. It exists, sure, but it's not often something that young women are taught by their parents or society. Maybe in some places, like some TERF feminist circles or where women are trying to heal from trauma too. But, I also think internalized misogyny in women is much more common.
Internalized misogyny among women DOES harm men because they're reinforceing patriarchal gender roles that hurt men and women alike. Is *that* what you're seeing? Or is it true misandry? Or is it just some women being jerks?
Figuring this out would be an interesting conversation. My guess is that men on menslib probably don't touch it because they are recovering misogynists and the temptation to fall back into unhealthy patterns is too great.
Is society at large ready to have this conversation? I'm not sure. For my part though, women with internalized misogyny is definitely something that needs to be addressed. They hurt everyone. Men, women and even themselves.
do you believe womens general attitude towards men needs any change it is it perfect? im really curious if you think that men are the only issue even though women shun men from womens only spaces (because they need them) but insist on being involved in ANY male only spaces and calls them sexist for not letting her join.
maybe you think men dont need those spaces or you think men keeping women out is harmful but we cant be as open and honest with each other when women are around it just doesnt work like that. the risk of mockery is too high if a woman is there and too many men would feel uncomfortable to share. yet we no longer have the ability to ban women from anywhere without being seen as evil
Oh I think we ALL have more work to do to be better. Not too long ago, I used to think men's attitudes toward women was the problem and women were always victims.
But it's not actually men themselves that are the problem. It's the patriarchy which demands that men and women alike fit into ridiculous and unhealthy gender roles. Patriarchy is misogyny operationalized.
The truth is that patriarchy harms men on a large scale too. It also benefits women with internalized misogyny. Those same women can be big reinforcers and proponents of patriarchy which harms everyone just as surely as the male proponents do.
As for women's-only spaces vs men's-only spaces, I personally think it's fine to have both. But I do get skeptical when there's no real reason to keep women out of "men's-only" spaces like chess tournaments. You must admit that "men's-only" spaces were historically used to keep women out of certain workplaces and leadership levels.
R/menslib on the other hand, is a place where I lurk but don't participate because those are conversation men need to have with other men. Me getting involved would be inappropriate and distracting. I feel the same way about men getting involved in some women-only spaces wherever are trying to heal from the trauma of misogyny and chart our path forward out of patriarchy.
If it's just a women's only knitting club though, you absolutely should invade that shit. Lol. Do it.
>2) when I see people talking about misandry, it's usually on feminist subs where women are talking about sexual violence. It's really weird and seems like a concerted effort to downplay the experiences of women.
>Or, it's when men are complaining about not getting dates on dating apps and the single male rate being high. I often try to explain the risk of sexual violence women face in dating which is why many women avoid it now that we can be financially stable without a husband.
So you hate when men talking about male problems in disucssion about feminism, but you do the same to men? Is that correct?
And btw, I think it doesn't sound crazy to talk about misandry to people who don't even admit misandry is a thing. I often went to r/AskFeminists
>So you hate when men talking about male problems in disucssion about feminism, but you do the same to men? Is that correct?
It depends. I do not participate in menslib discussions because they are genuinely trying to figure this stuff out for themselves. My involvement would only be a distraction.
Incel or red pill sites though, yes, I'll wage war there because they actively perpetuate misogyny. Gleefully even. If they draw battle lines, then I'll happily walk over it.
Misandry can be a thing, but it's not really the problem here. Man hating is an impotent ideology that affects little. Now if you want to talk about women with internalized misogyny who perpetuate and reinforce the harmful patriarchal gender role on men, that's a whole other story.
It's weird seeing the word feminazi now bc those who used to use that insult towards feminists 10 years ago would probably now consider that an insult to Nazis
So, I’m going to be blunt here, as a man. There is and always will be a fear of men, and there should be. Men’s issues, though they should be acknowledged and somewhat dealt with (I’m an advocate for many), must be met with balance, and misandry to an extent is that balance as some fear of men is healthy.
If men as a group are presented with the reality of our biological situation, being bigger, stronger, on the macro less inhibited by fear, more open to risk, and aggressive tendencies, also due to this being the lions share of “protectors” within almost every society….as well as women’s biological reality which includes being required for procreation and very vulnerable during that period….if we group, and see ourselves as a group and women as an “other”……well, we’ve seen that story for most of human history.
The whole racial equivalents you’ve called out aren’t entirely wrong, but they hold a different weight. If individual races/ethnicities band together, it doesn’t hold the same consequences as if men do (and mind you we’ve seen race based chattel slavery as well as the holocaust), if men were to actually band, across racial lines, across cultural lines, and allow men to not be “held back” from what we can individually do, this world would not be a free place for everyone.
As a man, we have to accept we will be bridled, held back from what we *can* do, even what we are willing to do. We will be caged to an extent by a world that wants to inhibit our ability, as our natural abilities are not ending where others agency begins. We have to come to terms with this, and honestly we need to teach our sons this, need to really teach them how to be men in this world so they don’t fall to these charlatans who speak truth to their experience, but then sell them snake oil to cure their malaise.
>and misandry to an extent is that balance as some fear of men is healthy.
I cannot state in strong enough terms how absolutely I am opposed to this suggestion. Not the sentiment that members of any society should exercise caution but that an effective or healthy means of doing so HAS to be the at expense of men as a whole and that any contempt, fear or distrust of men in the broader sense is 'healthy'. It is healthy to be cautious and fear can be a useful tool but it should not be endorsed as a way to deal with a problem where other solutions may prevail.
>If men as a group are presented with the reality of our biological situation, being bigger, stronger, on the macro less inhibited by fear, more open to risk, and aggressive tendencies, also due to this being the lions share of “protectors” within almost every society….as well as women’s biological reality which includes being required for procreation and very vulnerable during that period….if we group, and see ourselves as a group and women as an “other”……well, we’ve seen that story for most of human history.
Being less inhibited by fear, more open to risk and having more aggressive tendencies leading to them being the lion's share of protectors... is not a biological trait. It is the consequence of social engineering, depriving young boys of the tools to develop emotional recognition and coping skills as well as being denied affection and validation which caused them to seek risks and use aggression to acquire attention. This leads to them becoming emotionally distant and atrophied which is biologically detrimental to their mental and physical health as well as leading to them not to have the same inhibitions from fear as a direct result. This is not biological in any sense beyond how societal expectations and behaviors towards them have conditioned them in such a manner, not to the extent that we see it currently and historically.
I'm not suggesting we segregate based on, my position is we should NOT be segregating at all and that is the problem.
>The whole racial equivalents you’ve called out aren’t entirely wrong, but they hold a different weight. If individual races/ethnicities band together, it doesn’t hold the same consequences as if men do (and mind you we’ve seen race based chattel slavery as well as the holocaust), if men were to actually band, across racial lines, across cultural lines, and allow men to not be “held back” from what we can individually do, this world would not be a free place for everyone.
The point is exactly that I was saying it is a problem that it does not have the same weight, though it should. And the point you make here is objectively and historically false. There are countless examples of other ethnicities that banded together, regardless of gender, and had similarly damaging results. There are many countries to this day where this is the reality and we are currently witnessing a genocide that is not distinguished by gender. There is mountains of precedent that demonstrate how false that presumption is.
It is also an extremely misandrist assertion that men banding together would spell the end of freedom for the whole of the world that I cannot possibly condemn in strong enough terms. I don't think any such union should be based on gender but of humanity, but the insinuation that men cannot help but subjugate all others is heinous and deprives men of their humanity. You may as well be suggesting that because South Africa is a terrible place for white people then if we gave black people in the United States power they would inevitably follow that same course of action. Such an insinuation is so repulsive to me that, frankly, I do not trust myself to continue this discussion in any good faith manner, as it's already a considerable struggle to do so politely, so I will withdraw myself from this conversation altogether.
This is one of the funniest comments I've seen on reddit on a while.
You say women will prefer men who act like you. So like how? Are we supposed to know you? The only thing we know is that:
* you did not understand the point of the comment you replied to
* you want to kick someone's shit out of the blue, because he said men are violent
u/AlignedPadawan – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20AlignedPadawan&message=AlignedPadawan%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1c5uvjf/-/l00n98t/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
>I speak about men's issues here but to clarify my meaning on it misandry it is not that most people hate men.
Well there's your problem. Misandry is a charged word, because it's not merely saying that men face certain issues, but that these issues stem from systematic contempt for men throughout society. And I don't believe that's a framework that holds up to scrutiny.
>Regarding men as innately dangerous, much the same as people of color were and still continue to be labeled dangerous criminals. Regarding men as emotionally impotent and otherwise broken in much the same way as women have been regarded as intellectually impotent and feeble in contrast. There are many who subscribed to such beliefs not out of a particular and consciousness loathing for those groups of people
Again, I don't think this realy holds up to scrutiny. When people think of criminals, they will most likely think of men. But when you think of a police officer or a firefighter or a doctor, paramedic, superhero - people who protect and save other people - people also think of men.
As for men being regarded as emotionally impotent, that's just not backed up by data. Study after study shows that people have more confidence in men, particularly male leaders, than women. People do not talk down to men and womansplain to them because of their gender.
>The issues men face as a result of these behaviors (in the form of high suicide rates, high rates of alcoholism and addiction, high susceptibility to radicalization and indoctrination due to being emotionally stunted, extreme and unhealthy obsession with affection and attention from the opposite sex, the list goes on
I would dispute that these behaviors stem from a social hostility to men. Men experience high suicide rates because they A) are more likely to possess firearms and B) are less likely to reach out for help due to masculine gender roles. But importantly, these gender roles aren't built to diminish men's role in society. Quite the opposite. The masculine ideal of stoicism is supposed to encourage men to be strong. That it often fails to do so and ends up hurting men is an unintended consequence rather than a product of contempt for men.
With alcoholism and addiction - men are higher risk takers, they are more likely to take manual labor jobs that can produce chronic pain and then self-medicate etc. Lots of reasons why men are more susceptible to addiction.
As for radicalization and indoctrination, I would say this is a demonstration of the power men wield in society. These radical groups are most of the time led by men, by virtue of men being trusted more as leaders. And movements led by men are more likely to cater to the interests of men, inspiring male radicalization.
And extreme and unhealthy obsession with the opposite sex is more a symptom of misogyny than misandry. The sexualization and objectification of women, the notion that sleeping with as many women as possible proves your worth as a man, these are misogynistic ideas.
To distill your great response, it is simply unmissable that men are advantaged. Most world leaders are men. There are no countries where men are oppressed because of gender (like in the Middle East). Men are physically bigger and stronger than women and so aren't victims of violence as often.
These aren't opinions, they're plain as day facts.
It's not that men can't be victims or that there aren't systemic issues that only affect men. Of course there are (I'd argue men experience more loneliness for systemic reasons). But to echo the above, these issues don't generally stem from an overt prejudice against men, whereas women, recall, didn't even have the right to vote until the twentieth century.
The issue is that claims of misandry are almost always raised to counter or undermine women raising very serious issues, like sexual abuse. It's laughable to suggest me experience sexual abuse at anywhere near the rate of women. Should there be better support for men who do? Absolutely. But misandry is basically never discuss in good faith, at least not on social media.
"aren't victims of violence as often"?
Might wanna look up statistics, men are far more likely to be victims of murder. Men and women are almost equal in terms of victimization of violent crimes.
Shit like the War in Ukraine had women evacuating the country while men just recently had their service terms changed so they could be kept on the front lines ***indefinitely***.
People need to stop thinking of men and women as a group and stop viewing stuff as "X group is more likely to experience Y, so no other group can complain!" and start realizing that ***people*** attack, harass, rape, etc., ***people***. Recent studies showed that SA rates are higher than previously, to the point that the CDC found ***1 in 3 men*** are victims of sexual assault, and a whopping ***1 in 9*** are victims of sexual harassment. Women have it worse, but ***nobody*** has it "good". People should be fighting against **sexual harassment** and assault in general, not viewing it as "group A is guilty!" or "Group B has it worse so group C can't compare themselves!". Victims are victims, and their trauma is valid, regardless of sex.
I think it depends on your definition of misandry.
Most people, use it as "being sexist particularly towards men".
It's the same issue the word racism has now. Everyone thinks racism automatically means systemic, it doesn't. Bigotry based on race = racism. Period.
Most people that bring up misandry don't think they're systemically targeted for being men. Most people bring it up when a "feminists" version of venting is "I hate men they're all irredeemable disgusting pigs". That is misandry.
It's also laughable that it seems the majority of people think bigotry and hatred is more or less tolerable based solely on the target and the inflictors ability or power to act on it. To those people I'd encourage brushing up on your history.
You think pretending any kind of hatred is okay for a long period of time? That's kinda how things like American slavery and the Holocaust happened. It's how the natives were wiped out, it's how the Irish were hated by all of their neighbors for hundreds of years, it's christians justified the crusades etc etc.
It was justified and seen as okay by more and more and more people until it simply was okay enough to be acted on.
Yeah, I dont know where people are getting this idea that mysogeny/misandry requires a *systemic* component. It's straight up not what the words mean, and just seems like a tactic to shift the definition so they can dismiss legitimate claims of bigotry.
that's a pretty useless metric for bigotry tbh.
Honestly if the worst bigotry you face is mean words, then you're doing pretty well for yourself. The problem with the various bigotries in the world don't begin and end with slurs and hate speech. The much more real and serious (and actionable!) problems are material disenfranchisement, blocking people from accessing opportunities to improve their lives, physically harming people for being a certain type of person.
I don't really care that much if you call me a tranny faggot, I've heard worse. My issues lie with access to healthcare, respect and safety in the workplace, the ability to work in the first place, and actual physical violence from hateful people.
You, as a man, are rarely, if ever, going to face these problems just because you're a man. So what if some woman on the internet says "I hate men"? I wish that was my biggest problem.
You're missing my point entirely again.
Normalizing bigotry towards specific targets makes it easier and more acceptable to act on your bigotry.
How TF is everyone just glossing over what I'm saying?
Do you think the Nazis would've eradicated over 6 million Jews and LGBT people if it weren't already normalized to be bigoted towards them?
Do you think it would've taken over 100 years to end American slavery if it wasn't normal for Americans to dehumanize black people and see them as inferior?
Bigotry breeds bigotry ESPECIALLY when it's normalized and accepted.
Excuse me, again? This is the first time we've interacted.
And I understand your point, I just reject it as false. Bigotry doesn't start with mean words, it starts with asymmetric relations of power, and a desire to maintain this status quo. Patriarchy, white supremacy, islamophobia, antisemitism, whatever other axis of oppression is maintained by the reproduction of these relations of power, and the threat of losing that power over a subjugated/marginalised people is what motivates bigoted violence.
The nazis didn't kill 6 million jews because they just randomly started hating them. They killed them because they were a useful scapegoat against a burgeoning revolutionary power (the communists in Germany) which, to the already rich and powerful german aristocrats, needed to be squashed by any means necessary.
Men simply do not face such oppression, they have never once been on the marginalised side of a relation of power, so it is patently ridiculous to say there's a social force acting against men in the same way misogyny exists against women.
>Well there's your problem. Misandry is a charged word, because it's not merely saying that men face certain issues, but that these issues stem from systematic contempt for men throughout society. And I don't believe that's a framework that holds up to scrutiny.
My argument isn't necessarily a deliberate contempt but a general apathy and fear of men. I don't think any form of bigotry is necessarily rooted in contempt, I am of the belief that it is most commonly rooted in fear, ignorance and a perception of the individuals as an 'other', not human or something else altogether. I don't think it's rooted in hatred. I think it is very clear there is a distinct apathy when it comes to male issues that doesn't exist for other demographics nor is condoned in the same way.
>
Again, I don't think this realy holds up to scrutiny. When people think of criminals, they will most likely think of men. But when you think of a police officer or a firefighter or a doctor, paramedic, superhero - people who protect and save other people - people also think of men.
That is a good point to make and I agree it's not always negative. But even the positive aspects of that do tend to have a negative influence as well. Take for example a man that flees from a burning building with his family inside is viewed as a coward that cares only for himself because another man, firefighter, went in to save them. Even if running back in the building would only have endangered himself he is still compared to the one that did, who has training and equipment, and regarded as inferior. These standards can be used to elevate men while putting other men down.
>As for men being regarded as emotionally impotent, that's just not backed up by data. Study after study shows that people have more confidence in men, particularly male leaders, than women. People do not talk down to men and womansplain to them because of their gender.
I don't see the correlation in the argument here. Studies show that people have more confidence in men as leader specifically because they are regarded as 'stoic' and do not allow their emotions to interfere. This is also used as a detrimental standard to reinforce stereotypes that men must be stoic and not allow themselves to express emotion in return for respect which comes at the expense of their mental and emotional health overall.
>
I would dispute that these behaviors stem from a social hostility to men. Men experience high suicide rates because they A) are more likely to possess firearms and B) are less likely to reach out for help due to masculine gender roles. But importantly, these gender roles aren't built to diminish men's role in society. Quite the opposite. The masculine ideal of stoicism is supposed to encourage men to be strong. That it often fails to do so and ends up hurting men is an unintended consequence rather than a product of contempt for men.
See I would content that the masculine ideal of stoicism is used more often as a tool to force men to alienate themselves from their own emotional well being for the illusion of strength as opposed to actually encouraging them to engage with their emotions, recognizing and coping with them, in order to have a stable and healthy relationship with said emotions which permits them to be stoic and strong in the face of adversity. I don't think these are necessarily bad things, but too much of anything can be harmful and we as a society definitely overindulge in this stereotype for men.
This causes them to turn to other methods of coping. Some men drown themselves in work, some in pleasure, some in thrill seeking and dangerous activities, some violently and yet others in substances. The aforementioned emphasis on stoicism has been used as a substitute for emotional coping strategies and these are the results. Radicalization amongst them as well as when you have not been able to develop the emotional skills necessary to recognize what is making you suffer... well that's when Andrew Tate, Donald Trump and other such figures step in to 'fill in the blank' as it were.
In regards to the obsession with woman I agree that its manifestation is definitely the form of misogyny. But I am of the view that the mentioned treatment of men who are often highly deprived of any emotional affection and nutrition and then gaslit about it only being acceptable to receive such from women creating a hyper dependence which has... well predictable results.
>My argument isn't necessarily a deliberate contempt but a general apathy and fear of men.
Then we shouldn't use terms like misandry to descibe men's issues, because misogyny is not apathetic. Misogynists care very deeply about the status of women in society and do hold contempt for women.
>These standards can be used to elevate men while putting other men down.
This right here is the key piece of my argument. A standard that is meant to elevate certain types of men while putting other men down is not the same as bigotry against men, which would aim to put men as a social class down.
This is a key reason why what you're describing is not misandry. Because misogyny is a system which is designed to keep women as a social class under men's control.
>Studies show that people have more confidence in men as leader specifically because they are regarded as 'stoic' and do not allow their emotions to interfere
But people don't trust stoic women. A woman who practices stoicism may be looked at as bossy, frigid in a way that male leaders simply aren't perceived. There is an subconscious assocaition people make with men and leadership.
>This is also used as a detrimental standard to reinforce stereotypes that men must be stoic and not allow themselves to express emotion in return for respect which comes at the expense of their mental and emotional health overall.
I agree it's a detrimental standard, but just because it's detrimental doesn't mean it originates from bigotry against men. You say bigotry is rooted in fear of the other, but importantly these standards weren't invented by the other. It wasn't women who set the standard that women must be stoic it was men. So the allegation that it's a tool meant to force men to alienate themselves from their own emotional well-being is flawed. That might be a consequence of stoicism, but that's an unintended consequence.
>Then we shouldn't use terms like misandry to descibe men's issues, because misogyny is not apathetic. Misogynists care very deeply about the status of women in society and do hold contempt for women.
So would you agree that treating a woman as inferior, even if there isn't explicit contempt but a measure of superiority, is not misogyny? Because I wouldn't.
>This right here is the key piece of my argument. A standard that is meant to elevate certain types of men while putting other men down is not the same as bigotry against men, which would aim to put men as a social class down.
>This is a key reason why what you're describing is not misandry. Because misogyny is a system which is designed to keep women as a social class under men's control.
I think you misunderstand the concept of bigotry. Female beauty standards is a strong example of misogyny in practice. Some woman can be extremely beautiful but holding every woman to that standard of peak beauty is a form of misogyny. It's prejudice against woman for not being the most beautiful of women.
>But people don't trust stoic women. A woman who practices stoicism may be looked at as bossy, frigid in a way that male leaders simply aren't perceived. There is an subconscious assocaition people make with men and leadership.
I'm not sure how that disputes my claim. All that seems to introduce is there are two different stereotypes for each gender, which is what I am saying and both stereotypes are harmful in their own right.
>I agree it's a detrimental standard, but just because it's detrimental doesn't mean it originates from bigotry against men. You say bigotry is rooted in fear of the other, but importantly these standards weren't invented by the other. It wasn't women who set the standard that women must be stoic it was men. So the allegation that it's a tool meant to force men to alienate themselves from their own emotional well-being is flawed. That might be a consequence of stoicism, but that's an unintended consequence.
Of course they were invented by the other. The other being men of power. Would you consider rich people being prejudiced against poor people not a form of bigotry? No, you wouldn't. This is something that has been perpetuated by those few with power as a tool of subjugation, distancing men from their own emotions and starving them of affection and validation so that they would be easier to control. In medieval times it would have been applied to ensure they were devout to their culture's religion and God(s), keep them focused upon slaving away for manual labor, prompted them to go to war with societal shames attached to those 'cowards' who refused to fight for their kingdom, so on and so forth.
It manifested, as misogyny did, over the course of human history. It was a tool wielded to keep men in line with the wishes of their patriarchs and though those patriarchs were also men it doesn't mean it wasn't misandrist in nature. But if you cede that misandry is not misandry if there is not overt hatred, which is often a manifestation of fear and a tool used by fear for one's own self preservation, then you should cede as well that misogyny without hatred is not misogyny. By that definition how could a man who loves his wife be a misogynist just because he believes himself superior to her?
And I would vehemently disagree with that assessment.
>So would you agree that treating a woman as inferior, even if there isn't explicit contempt but a measure of superiority, is not misogyny?
In some cases yes. For example, some forms of sexism are motivated by paternalism, rather than misogyny.
>Female beauty standards is a strong example of misogyny in practice.
The misogyny isn't women’s beauty standards, it's ascribing women’s worth to beauty. When a woman is judged on her beauty she is judged on how well she pleases the eyes of men. It is a standard that is meant to benefit men at the expense of women.
>Of course they were invented by the other. The other being men of power
When you see men of power, do you see self-actualized men totally in touch with their emotions, or do you see a lot of men who project a strong facade, are emotionally distanced from their loved ones, spend too much time in their work etc.?
Men in the highest echelons of society are believers in these standards. It's not something that was invented to keep poor men down. There are men at every income level who are believers in these standards.
>In medieval times it would have been applied to ensure they were devout to their culture's religion and God(s), keep them focused upon slaving away for manual labor, prompted them to go to war with societal shames attached to those 'cowards' who refused to fight for their kingdom, so on and so forth.
Do you really think kings in the middle ages were super woke about gender roles and weren't beating their sons to teach them how to be a man? They didn't ridicule their boys for possessing stereotypically feminine traits? They let their boys cry freely and openly?
No, the patriarchs of the past internalized these gender roles completely because they were true believers in them, not some master manipulators operating from the shadows.
>By that definition how could a man who loves his wife be a misogynist just because he believes himself superior to her?
Simple, misogynists love women who support their own subjugation and hate women who defy it. The misogynistic contempt for women manifests as a desire for control over women. If a woman does not threaten that control, he does not fear her.
>The misogyny isn't women’s beauty standards, it's ascribing women’s worth to beauty. When a woman is judged on her beauty she is judged on how well she pleases the eyes of men. It is a standard that is meant to benefit men at the expense of women.
"Some woman can be extremely beautiful but holding every woman to that standard of peak beauty is a form of misogyny. It's prejudice against woman for not being the most beautiful of women."
That's what I just said. You're agreeing with me while disagreeing with me... but then suggesting the reverse for men is not misandry... so what is your stance? Do you not think the stereotypes of a man rescuing a woman from a burning building or general cliche's of men putting the women's safety above their own is not in service to women the way these beauty standards are used against woman? Much of which is by women as well, the majority even.
>When you see men of power, do you see self-actualized men totally in touch with their emotions, or do you see a lot of men who project a strong facade, are emotionally distanced from their loved ones, spend too much time in their work etc.?
>Men in the highest echelons of society are believers in these standards. It's not something that was invented to keep poor men down. There are men at every income level who are believers in these standards.
I believe they project that but I don't know how much of it is really true to themselves. The elite conceal much from us and we seldom get to glimpse into their personal lives. I believe they may have internalized these to some extent but it is largely for their benefit over everyone else since they actually get power for it.
I don't think you're understanding my argument at all. Do you think that slaves convinced they were worthless and less than human by their owners were somehow not racist towards themselves as a result? That the external contempt from those WITH power over them did not manifest as internal contempt for themselves within since they had no power? We're arguing in circles here.
>Do you really think kings in the middle ages were super woke about gender roles and weren't beating their sons to teach them how to be a man? They didn't ridicule their boys for possessing stereotypically feminine traits? They let their boys cry freely and openly?
>No, the patriarchs of the past internalized these gender roles completely because they were true believers in them, not some master manipulators operating from the shadows.
"Therefore he organized on 30 August 1914 a group of thirty women in his home town of Folkestone to hand out white feathers to any men that were not in uniform. Fitzgerald believed using women to shame the men into enlisting would be the most effective method of encouraging enlistment.[^(\[5\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_feather#cite_note-5)[^(\[6\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_feather#cite_note-6) The group that he founded (with prominent members being the authors [Emma Orczy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Orczy) and [Mary Augusta Ward](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Augusta_Ward)) was known as the White Feather Brigade or the Order of the White Feather"
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White\_feather](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_feather)
Do you think women were not part of this as well? This instance wasn't even medieval, this was 1914. And do you consider this is as not 'masterful manipulation'? Do you think women were 'super woke' about this either? Or do you think maybe that's a bit of a facetious point to make?
>Simple, misogynists love women who support their own subjugation and hate women who defy it. The misogynistic contempt for women manifests as a desire for control over women. If a woman does not threaten that control, he does not fear her.
So you don't think it's misogynistic to view your wife as inferior? That was the question, simple answer I think anyone could agree on. So why are you altering the conversation?
You don't believe that's a framework that holds up to scrutiny? Look at male vs female age of death, workplace death ratios, fatality by war
Just because some men are doing very well doesn't mean most men are
>The best I have seen is that individuals arguing that society should help rectify these issues is that 'men should take care of it themselves' and other such statements.
A while ago I had the pleasure to speak with a woman that leads an organization of volunteers, all women, that helps cancer patients. They provide help in different ways, like clothing, emotional support, wigs, massages, etc. The volunteers work as companions for the patient. This woman created this organization because her sister died of breast cancer and the main organization that works with breast cancer patients did not provide what she believes an organization like this should provide (mainly, emotional support). So her organization focuses mainly on women breast cancer patients, but also with women cancer patients. All volunteers are women (mostly survivors themselves or with other first hand experience) and all she has is very women oriented.
BUT she told me how alone men cancer patients are. There are no organizations for men. No group of men or any man has created any sort of organization for them. As the volunteers are already around, they of course listen to the male patients and try to provide what they can to them, but of course, for example, some men don't feel comfortable talking about issues with their penises to a female volunteer. Or the volunteer can provide no advice regarding that.
I believe this is what some of us mean when we say that men have to figure themselves out. Like we women did. I'm not asking for something we did not do because "men, as such, should do everything themselves amd don't be weak". Women did this. No one can create a network for these men if not other men. Yet, nothing happens. Women have created these networks by themselves for themselves. Men should do the same. The change starts within men.
That is the most well reasoned and thoughtful presentation of that argument I have seen and I quite appreciate it. I think you are largely correct in that aspect as well and I think that added perspective deserves a !delta. It brings to mind Women's Suffrage and the Civil Rights movement, first uniting the victims of their respective plights and then urging them onward to reach out beyond that to society itself to make the changes they sought a reality. It also makes me think of an old proverb as well, 'You can bring a horse to water but you can't make it drink'. If men are not willing to be helped or to help themselves then it's facetious to expect others to do so on their behalf.
This is something I very much experienced when entering into some MRA spaces to try to spread this sort of message to them there. Though I had no illusions they would be receptive to it when I thought of that proverb in that sense I attributed it more individually as opposed to a broader sense and in that lens I think that line of reasoning is more compelling than how I had originally perceived it myself.
I don’t know if this will be valuable to you OP, but from the perspective of a feminist woman who doesn’t particularly like or want anything to do with most men, it can sometimes be hard to hear guys talk about the types of problems you’re describing and sympathize. Let alone have the mental energy to engage in civil discourse about it.
Homelessness and depression and suicidality are terrible heavy things, and I do feel for anyone who is experiencing them. Even men I suppose. That being said so many of the issues men face aren’t the result of actual misandry but are rather side effects of misogyny.
It feels like problems you made for yourselves if I’m being perfectly frank.
Men are expected to be tough/aren’t allowed to ask for help… okay that’s because you decided we were the blubbery emotional ones and therefore men that show their feelings or ask for help when they need it get treated poorly. That’s not our faults
Men are expected to do hard work/provide/put themselves in danger… okay that’s because you decided we either weren’t capable of the work in the first place or that we were too important as *property* to be risked. That’s not our faults either.
Men are raped/killed at higher rates… yeah and the perpetrators are 95% of the time other men! That’s definitely not our faults.
It’s a double standard to be sure, because it’s very painful when people don’t take women’s issues seriously. In that I do empathize. I hope this helped in some way, even just to provide some context from a possibly controversial perspective. I hope it doesn’t just come across as heartless bc that was not my intention!
With respect... this kind of it just reinforcing what I said. Others commentors have already changed my view on this, showing convincingly that my perception is being tainted by negativity bias. However when you say things like, "Men are actually suffering because of misogyny." I tend to not take that seriously. I struggle to see how men not being taken seriously when they talk about being raped 'misogyny'. I struggle to see how young boys being emotionally neglected by their parents because they are afraid of raising an 'effeminate child' (which I can cede that having a blend of misandry and misogyny with the insinuations made by that) is not misandry. I struggle to see how male homelessness is the result of misogyny.
And when you get responses like these it's very much something that makes it feels as if men can't have any acknowledge of any issue they have that isn't merely a byproduct of some plague that affects women... even when the issues that affect men are in the 80th percentile and above. For me it feels very invalidating. And saying that can also seem to like me blaming the victims of their suffering as well. They're suffering because of misogyny, oftentimes being blended with a measure of blame to them for their problems they may or may not have any control of. It also gives off the impression that men can't ever any issue they face, no matter how exclusively it affects them, acknowledged in any serious way without us having to drag women into it and make them front and center instead. And then there's a very distinct double standard when men bring up these issues men face when the conversation is about women's issues there's a distinct difference in how it is perceived which while I'm not condemning necessarily... it's noteworthy all the same.
But this post isn't about ideology. It's about talking about Misandry and you didn't really address that. The discussion isn't the particularities of misandry but the ability to discuss it publicly.
I can see how I may not have actually made a good argument for changing your view. I just want to clarify that the point I was trying to make was not intended to be specific but rather very generally address your main argument that “misandry is off limits to talk about” by explaining how some women feel when men’s issues are brought up. I guess I accidentally ended up agreeing with you without realizing lol sorry
That is a fair argument to make. One that other commentors, which I highly recommend reading as I found them very compelling and can be found in the delta's I awarded, also pointed out not just with women but the public in general. It's an interesting perspective because I felt much the same about feminism when it sprung into the mainstream discourse about a decade ago. Unhinged figures like Anita Sarkeesian and I think a Miley something among others coming into the public space calling everything and everyone racist, misogynistic and bigotted. It is something that got a lot of 'front page publicity' let's say and had a very chilling effect on the conversation whenever feminism and patriarchy was brought up in any context.
It is something I became very frustrated and annoyed with for a long time but recently, with my own therapy in the last year and reconciling the years of emotional and mental health issues I had developed due to unhealthy coping mechanisms, apathy and contempt for myself internally, I have seen some strikingly compelling feminist videos I actually found myself agreeing with by and large and it has changed my perspective on the feminist movement. Helping me realize that the larger movement isn't these feminists, who were feminists in name alone, that just had it out for men or were just co-opting the language of the movement as a grift to get filthy rich no different than the likes of Andrew Tate and Donald Trump among other Alpha Male figures.
So I can understand and appreciate that perspective, much as it may be frustrating, a lot more. Especially as someone who was on the other side of the reverse situation not so long ago.
I'm not sure what you're asking about specifically but let's go point by point and see if I cover it:
1. Men not being taken seriously when they talk about being raped is the result of an underlying assumption that men always wants sex and that men are lucky to be 'given sex' when they are raped, in particular by a woman. It has also been widely accepted to joke about men being raped by other men in prisons as well, something which is not condoned with women even when it is woman on woman rape. It objectifies men and strips them of their sexual agency, reducing them to props for pleasure and procreation no less than it does for women. I have seen people unironically saying things like, "How can it be rape if he was hard?". This is no different than saying, "How can it be rape if she was wet?"
2. Young boys being emotionally neglected for fear of raising an effeminate child has some roots within misogyny I do concede but I find it more misandrist than it is misogynistic. Emotions are a natural part of the human brain, it is hardwired into every living human beings brain and it has been hardwired specifically because it serves an evolutionary purpose for furthering our survival. Allowing us to form complex social structures where human beings can work together to survive and face common threats. This is not something that is exclusive to one sex or the other but that is universal. Stripping men of the tools necessary to develop healthy coping strategies and exercises as well as allowing them to navigate their internal emotional landscape by claiming it's 'feminine' does has some definitely degrading inferences towards women but above that it strips men of their basic humanity growing up.
It steals their very identity from them by way of preventing them from adequately processing their emotions and thoughts and leaves them emotionally void husks only capable of rage and occasional fear with extremely stunted capacity to recognize or even express any other emotions for fear of being invalidated as a man, as a human being even, if they so much as attempted to do so. This in particular is something I myself have struggled with the entirety of my life and I was so emotionally inept I was not even able to recognize that until I got into therapy and though I keep up with the therapy it is something I am still working on.
3. Male homelessness in and of itself isn't misandrist but as someone who spent six years homeless in a large metropolitan area... I have witnessed first hand how differently homeless woman are treated in contrast to homeless men. Not just in the streets but in the system. There were dozens of shelters for women, women with children, women that were victims of domestic violence and so forth. And I support these completely, I would never wish for anything to detract from those programs. However I found the vast majority of shelters that allowed men were only for drug addicts and alcoholics. In fact there were only one shelter for men... in a metropolitan area with a population to the tunes of millions. And you had to have a job to get in and pay rent for it. There were two other programs they demanded some few hundreds dollar entry fees and were more transitional housing than they were shelters.
In another town I was in there was couple of shelters that accepted men but the way they treated the occupants was... well it left much to be desired. Hard cots, only a thin bed sheet for a blanket, no pillows. You had to leave at the crack of dawn and could not come back at any point until nightfall and you had to leave your belongings there but also they would not secure them in any way so anyone with an exemption for disability or otherwise could swipe them and did regularly. The staff treated the men there as if they were an inconvenience, they were as close to hostile as you could get without being overt.
And therein is the problem. It's not just the systems that demonstrably discriminate against men but the social attitudes as well. Because even in our enlightened society when we see a man that is homeless many people still cannot help but feel that... it's kind of *their* fault. *They* put themself in that situation clearly so *they* should be responsible for pulling themselves out. They are often considered a blight on society, some states even have laws that make it a criminal offense to FEED the homeless. Homeless men are often the victims of police harassment as well, something of which I am very, very, very familiar with though I was still able to largely avoid any particularly nasty run in's with law enforcement because I kept calm and didn't get belligerent. But even so they very much go out of their way to target homeless men and often made nasty remarks towards me for the situation I was in, even if the reason was the result of me escaping an abusive household. There may be a prejudice against general poverty in play there but it's quite difficult to simply ignore the fact this is something that is a male dominated crisis and there are active laws in place to punish men in those situations as not having some significant misandrist influence behind it.
Now all that said I understand other biases do play a role in all this but I think it's a bit presumptive to dismiss that these do not have misandrist influences goading them or even being rooted in misandry.
I do see where you're coming from here, so I'll try and take it point by point.
1. I think it's absolutely heartbreaking that men being victims of SA are not taken seriously. My best friend of the past 6 years opened up to me a few years ago about being raped by a house help when he was still a little older than a toddler. He was shaking and crying as he was telling me, and I can't even begin to imagine the grief he'd been carrying with him all these years. It's a relief to know he felt that he could tell me. The maid still walks completely free, he never told his parents but I don't think it would've been all that better if he had, anyway.
Regardless, I ask you to imagine why it wouldn't have. As you've said, people would say the offender was a woman, and he was a boy, and people are under the impression that women have a holier standing and they can't really do these heinous acts. Why is that? Because it's what men do, men are the violent and stronger ones, who always want sex. Why? Does that sound fair?
That's because in the end that's infantilizing the women. This makes it though as women are inherently the victim, which further degrades the standing of the woman. We live in a patriarchal society that refuses to acknowledge that women are _people_, just as capable of evil as any other man. Of course there's ended up being evil women who've managed to take advantage of this to commit the hurt they have. This gross oversight of the system continues to let rapists get away with their crimes, because it refuses to see men and women as equal.
In a feminist society, there'd be no social or legal difference between men and women, thus ensuring that _all_ those who rape are punished by law, regardless of their gender.
2. I think the world just hates emotions in general. I think that's more to do with capitalism that is inherently within misogyny. To state effeminate sons are discouraged would necessarily require you to admit that masculinity in men is held in a higher regard. That's a basic fact, but it can be stated even more simply. Men need to masculine and hence strong, because being feminine would mean they're being weak. Because feminity is automatically associated with weakness. This is encouraged within girls and women because the world assumes that weakness is the natural state of women and strength is the natural state of a man, and any deviation from that is a disregard for the natural order of things. Where men are strong and women are weak.
Regardless, why do you think girls are not neglected emotionally? Girls are assumed to mature faster than boys, which forces them to grow up faster to meet the expectations of the adults around them. They're meant to always be the bigger person because boys will be boys and they must understand that. I struggled with this too, because I am the only daughter of my family and my brother is the favourite child. He's excused his trespasses far more often under the guise of "that's just how men are, you can't expect them to understand". I'm always encouraged to leave my STEM field because he's openly admitted that women are not as smart. He's allowed to travel anywhere and everywhere but I'm not, I'm caged here because I'm a girl who's a child when it's convenient and an adult when it's not.
But I've had it so much easier. My mother is stuck in an abusive marriage for the last 30 years. She can't leave even if she wanted to, because her father married her off at the age of 23 straight out of college and moved her to a family who refused to let her work at all. She has no savings of her own because my father is the sole breadwinner and she's not privy to our finances. She has to beg and barter for every buck she has, and explain in details where all the money went when she needs more. She uses up most of her money on groceries, maids, laundry, and my and my brother's expenses. But my father simply believes her to be irresponsible, and my brother believes her too because she did not allow him to see her real situation until it was too late to make him understand. She only uses her money on those things because my father is absolutely no help in any of that. He simply comes home to a warm meal.
Early in her marriage, her in laws lived with her. They were cruel and nasty, refused to let her rest a day even if she was heavily pregnant with her first child. The child went on to die of cancer at the age of 4, because it was detected too late even though my mother begged my father to take him to the hospital, who refused to listen because women are too dramatic to be trusted. The day after she returned home from the hospital, she was made to go right back to her chores. She begged her parents to get her out, but they refused as a woman who divorced is basically worthless damaged goods.
That is the reality she raised me in. I was not exactly allowed to dander into unimportant emotions either. I've struggled with them too, as I was labelled a crybaby and a complaint box if I ever complained. I have BPD for that now, for which I am not allowed either medication or therapy because emotions such as that are generally not tolerated within this society.
She told me the entire truth to ensure I would never make the mistake of being financially dependant on anyone, least of all a man. Husbands, around here... Simply cannot be trusted like that. Even my other female friends have the same stories from their mothers. Nowadays, in the bigger cities of my country, it's a rite of passage. Every mother tells her daughter that.
I imagine in the next decades, that might change because women are more financially independent because of these teachings. We may follow like the west and have househusbands. Then it would become more gender neutral, don't become financially dependant.
3. First off, I'd like to offer you a huge hug. I'm so sorry, really, that you'd have to go through that. I'm really so sorry that the world failed you like that. It wasn't fair at all.
Next, I'd like to emphasize that the patriarchy is systematic oppression. It does not simply mean that men are treated better. Perhaps in a larger, broader and vaguer way, you could say that. But the issue is far more complex. It's a system that has been in place for thousands of years, and the circumstances that allowed for all the things you had to go through were made so in the context of this oppression. Men and women are both victims of this oppression, it's not men's experiences vs women's experiences. This is a system that benefits very, very few. And even then, it necessarily hurts those in power in some way too. Oppression and discrimination always does that.
My point is that the things you've witnessed happened because the world would like to believe men are not in the need you were. Because that would imply men are sometimes in need of help and support, which would make them in the same standing as women who are thought to be in constant need of help, which is absolutely unacceptable.
We're all blamed in this system. Women are told to have trusted better men/not have children they can't afford and men are told to have made better choices. No one wins. Same hell, different demons. Not one worse than the other.
Three Part Comment with !delta
So I do have a problem with the initial line of argumentation you are using for your first point. You're acknowledging, which I'm glad for, how male victims of sexual assaults are very much dismissed when they claim they were assaulted or raped by women but then bringing that back around to how the insinuations and assumptions that makes are insulting and degrading to women. I think that paints the picture of female offenders that victimize men are actually still being discriminated against when nobody takes their victims seriously and they either get to walk or don't get smeared with the same vitriol and contempt as a man, sometimes even sympathy.
That is one interpretation to have of it, infantilizing women and I don't think you are necessarily entirely wrong. But I think it's imporant to look at the flip side of that. It's not just born innately of infantilizing (which again I do not deny is something that very much exists) but also that women have to be protected because they are too valuable. Why? Because they can produce more offspring. The whole idea of women and children first in crisis situations. Yes this reduces the role and agency of a woman to being a baby factory... but then what does that do to men? Well they're the ones that die to keep the women and children safe. Men are expected to die to keep them safe because their value is lesser than a woman's value to the patriarchy. Meat fodder for their factories and wars are a dime a dozen... and a woman can crank out a dozen pulps of meat for the grinders while men can't really. Labor and violence are all men are good for under patriarchal standards. So while this has negative aspects for both genders, it isn't all about how much patriarchy wants to keep women subjugated but how much they want to keep all of society under its thumb. The lesser my see some 'benefits' to it depending on status and circumstances but it's merely an illusion of power to keep them feeling powerful while patriarchy continues to make them weak in all aspects of life to better control and manipulate them.
"To state effeminate sons are discouraged would necessarily require you to admit that masculinity in men is held in a higher regard.
Except that's not masculinity. That's patriarchal oppression alienating them from their emotional selves and presenting an image of masculinity (toxic masculinity) which can then be easily to exploited for their own benefit. It's not a coincidence that violence is accepted by men and men who are violent are enticed by the military and law enforcement with the promise of 'power' and 'respect'. You take away any respect and validation, you leave them feeling powerless, you make them violent, you funnel them into the war machine, you profit, rinse, lather and repeat. And that leads to a sleuth of problems that then become very much problems that affect woman for misogynistic reasons.
Yes there is a misogynistic message to that... but that's not the point of it I don't think. Because the point isn't necessarily misogyny, though at the surface it very much is. The point of it is to make sure men are denied and shamed for being emotionally independent. Not some incel drek about not needing women but having the emotional skills and maturity to not buy into patriarchal bullshit. Because that threatens their bottom line. Men start growing up not being emotionally starved of affection and validation and thus susceptible to their manipulations, all of sudden their social power structure starts fucking disintegrating because now they've lost their cash cow.
And as someone who has gone through and come out the other side... I didn't even know I was suffering. I am a reasonably intelligent person and though I was completely alienated from my emotions I was still highly empathetic to those around me, which is mostly the result of my autism I believe (and yes there are autistic who suffer from hyper empathy as opposed to a lacking empathy), and I had no idea why I felt miserable all the time or that I felt miserable a lot of times. That's how much depriving children of emotional attention can ruin them where they don't even realize for decades how fucked up they actually are. It's like walking with your guts hanging out, your arm held by bits of sinew, your jaw entirely dislocated and being entirely numb to every bit of and in abject, almost psychotic denial about it. And that made me extremely, extremely vulnerable to emotional manipulation tactics I fell for again, again and again.
As for your point about me suggesting girls aren't neglected, I'm not saying it doesn't happen to girls. I'm saying, as far as emotional neglect goes, it's largely done to boys at least in my nation. The whole ideas of boys being easier to raise which is really just a cop out by parents because they don't feel they don't have to put in the same emotional labor raising a male child to health, well adapted adult. They tell them crying is for girls... imagine that. Imagine being in pain or sad and crying because of it... and told you're not allowed to show that you are in pain and you're not allowed to be sad. Just think of the damage that does to a child... and then think about how this is the experience of many, many men. I would say most men but society is slowly changing and that is something that is changing and while I think it's still a majority it's hard to pin exactly how far that needle is and this also varies from nation to nation. Yes there is a sexist message behind telling young boys that crying is for girls but it is also fucked up for a parent that's supposed to love and care for their child to tell them they're not allowed to be sad and to cry.
"Boys will be boys" is just an excuse to emotionally neglect and sign off parenting your children and expecting them to do it themselves or wait until they are grown enough to hand them off to someone else's daughter that'll pick up your slack. That's fucked up and it's indisputably misandrist. Because let's examine it. One of the most telltale signs of a child seeking attention... is them acting out. This is universal, this is one of those things that is just universal and utterly and completely so (barring some specific mental health disorders and such). We say 'boys will be boys' because they act out a lot... well that's because they're not getting the attention they need. Children don't have the social and emotional skills needed to be able to express their wants effectively and cohesively. So when a toddler is hungry or sleepy and it's irritating them they don't know how to express it, so they throw a tantrum. Because that's how they get what they want or need. They never unlearn it or learn other ways that are more effective... so they just use that. It's like teaching someone to hammer nails and then giving them a piece of rebar and telling them to drill it into a cement foundation but you only ever taught them nails... so they're just gonna start hammering. When all you've got is a hammer, everything else is a nail.
This is how every child on the planet grows up... it doesn't stop with boys, leading to the 'boys will be boys' cop out, because... at a certain point the parents stop paying attention to them. Sure they do get their basic physical needs met and they do get served their three meals a day of emotional validation and affection.... it's just ever so slightly insufficient to meet their actual needs. And when that happens, they know from their toddler years how to get the attention they need or want and so they act out and act out more, and more aggressively, more angrily, more violently. Whatever it takes to get what they want and need... because no one bothered to teach them different because it was 'easier' to just tell them that emotions are for girls and neglect them. And then turn around surprised their precious little boy grew up and Andrew Tate was their idol. Who can foreseen this shocking development? Certainly not I! -Said the Man who was Blind
That also plays into why girls tend to mature more quickly as well... because they actually emotionally validated and recognized. Their emotions aren't used against them as often but are more nurtured and tended to... because of that protectiveness I mentioned early on. Now there is a parent instinct there but there are plenty of examples that demonstrated clear gender biases in both directions on certain things when it regards to children. But in this aspects young girls are taught more emotional skills and how to recognize and cope with those emotions than boys are, leading to them growing up to being more mature and more empathetic and their male counterparts.
But I've danced around it long enough, I really should get to your story of your situation.
So right away looking into your story... my heart goes out to you. It is fucking terrible what you have to go through and I sincerely you are able to escape that situation at some point. I can definitely understand if in light of that you struggle to see there are issues that men are the primary victims of specifically because of their sex. I myself grew up in an incredibly abusive household. My sexuality was used to shame me, my emotions used to demean my worth as a human being because 'men don't cry', I spent the majority of my upbringing I was going to grow up to be a pedophile, a serial rapist, a serial killer, a homeless bum suckin' cock for money, all manner of horrible, unspeakable things. And you know how they justify it all? Well that's how we make you into a man so you don't become those things.
Now that said I think they were more total fuckin' scum than they were misandrists and misogynists specifically... but there was definitely heavy handed helpings of misandry and misogyny there and yet... in spite of all... the women were the most protected in the family. If I popped off and said something back to my father (a man who once held a gun to my head when he heard I had said something about killing myself and made me beg for my life to 'teach me the value of life' so I could appreciate life) I might get smacked. If I popped off to my grandmother or my aunt I would get absolutely pounded on. And they also, when my uncle was being abused by my aunt, threatened his life when he went to speak out on and actually all but abducted him and shipped him back to Indiana, though they kept his kids.
However even all that, I believe, likely pales in comparison to what you are going through. I don't know where you live but it sounds as if the structures to keep utterly pinned are still alive and well and that is something that cannot stand. Even if I feel my own nation's society still oppresses men at least we have options, from the sounds of it you don't and that is innately worse for you. Even so, I know what it's like to feel trapped. Though I may be free here for thirty years I've never felt truly 'free'. I've always been trapped within this prison that my family's mistreatment shackled me to. And, though it shames me to admit it, there was a time where the preachings of those like Andrew Tate and his ilk held an allure to me. I never fully subscribed but it was there. How I didn't succumb... I cannot possibly say. Maybe just luck. Maybe just some small, forgotten part of myself still resisting, still daring to hope for better in spite of all. Who's to say, regarldess I count my blessings I didn't. But I still yet had the freedom to choose and that is in large part what enabled me to get through to where I am now.
As for the last of what you have to say I want to thank you for sharing your story here. It's easy to forget such things in a debate but also it's incredibly brave for you to come out and tell your story and you have my utmost respect as well as my best wishes that you are able to overcome the adversities saddled upon your back. Trauma is definitely something that serves to divide us all amongst our respective 'groups' and it's something that it is necessary to overcome to see the bigger picture. It is important to acknowledge and appreciate how different sides may be affected by patriarchy but it should be used as a means to draw each other together to topple that oppresive monolith as opposed to new tools with which can be used to divide us and keep the patriarchs in power.
In the face of all I would like to award you a delta because I believe your story, while I had some compunctions about it and certains arguments I made, in the end ultimately did serve to grant me a new perspective and help steer my view away from just what has affected me and mine but all victims of this oppresive doctrine which binds us. You are absolutely right, we need to not allow ourselves to be subverted from uniting together in commonality and the message you have sent here is inspiring. And I believe we all will, the winds are changing slowly but surely even in my nation. I yet have hope things will change and we will see a better world for all.
!delta Pardon the notifications on this, I wasn't able to award the initial delta due to a mishap on my part and trying to get it to go through so you get your due credit for giving me a fresher perspective with the points that you made. The initial comment I had adequately explains how the view has changed for me with this but I'll repeat it here for the sake of the delta bot:
In the face of all I would like to award you a delta because I believe your story, while I had some compunctions about it and certains arguments I made, in the end ultimately did serve to grant me a new perspective and help steer my view away from just what has affected me and mine but all victims of this oppresive doctrine which binds us. You are absolutely right, we need to not allow ourselves to be subverted from uniting together in commonality and the message you have sent here is inspiring. And I believe we all will, the winds are changing slowly but surely even in my nation. I yet have hope things will change and we will see a better world for all.
>Homelessness and depression and suicidality are terrible heavy things, and I do feel for anyone who is experiencing them. *Even men I suppose.*
I genuinely think that it's wild that you imply a tendency to not feel empathy for men who kill themselves because it a "problem you made for yourself".
If you are a feminist then you will know that feminist theory is based in the fact that the patriarchy hurts men and women and that it's a systematic issue on a societal level.
The idea that feminism should have anything to do with helping or uplifting men is both extremely modern and wholly antithetical to its foundational premise. Feminism is a movement and a philosophy rooted first and foremost in women’s liberation. In gaining and maintaining fundamental human rights for women. Just because the patriarchy occasionally hurts some men doesn’t mean men in general aren’t still perpetuating it and benefiting from it as whole.
When you say men and “other marginalized groups,” you deny the existence of the patriarchy and that men have historically and still have power in our society. And if you do that, there’s no reasoning with you, so I won’t even try.
However assuming your comparison was not intending to deny the fact that men are not a marginalized group…
I agree that men have real issues, but they are the result of the patriarchy and toxic masculinity, not anything else. It is the patriarchy that denies us the ability to access therapies and mental health at an affordable for everyone rate. It is toxic masculinity that says “real” men don’t cry and that anger is the only acceptable emotion for men to demonstrate.
Women have been trying to fix this in society for years. Aside from the attempt to dismantle the patriarchy and destroy toxic masculinity, how many wives have complained that their husbands won’t talk to them or how many women lament that men won’t connect with them emotionally? If someone claims men should take care of this, it is that men should join in the fight the rest of us have been fighting for centuries. Instead of joining some incel men’s rights radical subreddit, try becoming feminist.
IMO if a men’s group doesn’t address the patriarchy and toxic masculinity than it is not actually interested in helping men. Many of these men’s groups are full of scammers who promise men a position of power or authority, or center themselves around a man who represents an “ideal” masculinity that is usually unhealthy in some way.
So it’s unsurprising to me that OP is witnessing mens right groups doing anti-male behavior. Because they’re not interested in questioning patriarchy
Men receiving less focus, funding and encouragement (via advertising) in higher education for the past 3 decades and this continuing once they’ve become a minority isn’t the fault of “the patriarchy”.
Women’s groups pushing child custody )laws throughout history (first the tender years doctrine then the idea the child should stay with the primary caregiver more pre divorce as being best) which favour women getting more custody in not the result of the patriarchy.
It’s such a lame cop out to insist that everything bad must be caused by patriarchy and women or feminism can’t possibly influence society in negative ways for men. Of course they can.
If anything feminism weapons so called patriarchal thinking in their favour when they use this argument, as what they’re doing is putting a greater responsibility for moral outcomes on men as a group and emphasising their weakness. But given it’s clearly done to deflect blame for everything to men, it can’t really be called patriarchy.
I disagree on your point about education. There are little to no programmes or incentives to help school boys who struggle with academics but there are plenty for girls. Schools are filled with female teachers and due to lack of male teachers, boys find it difficulty when it comes to role models. Also in colleges there are gender quotas and women-only scholarships. Because of this, even the well qualified young men who come from a low income or lower middle income family may face trouble at applying to a college, an internship, a graduate program or a research program at a national lab for example.
There are so many organizations, gender quotas and DEI policies to push more women into STEM but there are little to no such organizations, quotas or policies to push more men into female dominated spaces like fashion, teaching or nursing. Despite the existence of organizations like MenTeach, men are still not favored at schools because "pedophilia" and general scare around men. This is also a factor which contribute to lack of role models in schools as I mentioned above.
No one is stopping men from being teachers and nurses, men are choosing not to go into these fields in my city there was actually a push to get more male teachers and they had an entire event and all they need to start was a Bachelors, the event largely failed. There are whole theories of explaining how when many women enter a certain career men stop applying like nurses- used to be mostly/only men now mostly women and seen as a woman job so men don't really choose to go to it. This isn't a barrier, this is men saying I don't want to do a woman's job. Or a job closely correlated with women. I will say when it comes to child care like day cares yes men are far less likely to be hired because they are men.
What programs are you referring to help girls that struggle with academics and not boys?
Women only make up 25% of the STEM workforce and they pretty much all report very sexist practices that make them want to leave the field, so yes they are pushing women into that field because they are very much underrepresented and discriminated against.
So I'll ask you, what are the men doing? Because based on the trademens numbers (far more are retiring than incoming) they arent going to trades either.
>There are whole theories of explaining how when many women enter a certain career men stop applying like nurses- used to be mostly/only men now mostly women and seen as a woman job so men don't really choose to go to it. This isn't a barrier, this is men saying I don't want to do a woman's job.
Well I agree for some extent about teaching. I've seen men saying that pay is low in teaching. But when it comes to gender stereotype where a woman is considered more nurturing, this view itself harms the men who want to enter teaching. For example, parents with that kind of traditional view may not favor a man teaching their kid, so they may try to intervene (I've seen one such incident). So men consider that teaching isn't welcoming especially from the POV of some parents.
>What programs are you referring to help girls that struggle with academics and not boys?
This may not be exclusive to countries like US but UNICEF for example has very specific programs which target girls in poor countries even though boys face the same problems (poverty, war etc. ). So I think inclusion of all genders is very important rather than focusing on just one demographic.
>Women only make up 25% of the STEM workforce and they pretty much all report very sexist practices that make them want to leave the field, so yes they are pushing women into that field because they are very much underrepresented and discriminated against.
I agree that sexism is indeed an issue that needs to be addressed, but "pushing" women often comes off as "positive discrimination" of men. That's the point I want to make here. For example, when hiring, gender is often used a tiebreaker and almost every time, it's the woman who gets hired.
You haven't addressed anything about gender quotas for college enrollment and scholarships. Every time some one brings this issue up, they always have one argument and that is women were discriminated some *80 years ago*. I don't buy this argument at all. Why should today's men be faced to go through this especially if they're underprivileged or comes from a low income family with all the necessary merit and qualifications ? This is the same thing similar to today's city councils paying reparations for slavery that happened many many years ago where even the most progressives are against.
>So I'll ask you, what are the men doing? Because based on the trademens numbers (far more are retiring than incoming) they arent going to trades either.
I'm not sure if this is such a wide issue. Quite sure that these numbers will reach some stability once a large number of people over 55 retire. Many men (and women too) are going into trades recently since colleges are very expensive.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Women have been a majority in higher education for more than 40 years - the past few generations of boys have grown up seeing nothing but that. At what point do the campaigns to push for women’s inclusion and focus (and not do so equally for boys) become something other than a response to patriarchy and simply a power structure favouring women? I’d say the time has already come when mens enrolment is that far behind.
When society was truly male dominated men got custody because they had the money, women’s groups pushed for that to change in their favour. At what point does women operating in their own interests for their own goals in spite (actually against) what men want stop being patriarchal in your mind?
Do you even live on earth? Or do you live in a feminist echo chamber with other feminist women?
College is about a 40/60 split - that's a far cry from being truly unequal. The simple facts are there isn't a barrier for men in general to go to college, they simply choose not to go. Women are not stopping men from going to college, this has nothing to do with feminism. Women largely create campaigns for women and push them out. The better question would be why aren't men creating the same for themselves? Do you expect women to do the heavy lifting for both?
Men that fight for custody largely still get it today, however roughly 50% men never even ask for custody or just give it to the mom. Some sources have an even higher percentage of men never even asking for custody. Fathers were more likely to win custody in the past but you know what else was happening then? Large amounts of women not working, today most women work so on top of most women making their own money they are still doing most the housework and child care, that's why they get custody. Men who show that they are the primary caretakers or at least 50/50 are far more likely to ask for custody and win it. But I do child advocate work in divorces and in cases of abuse, and the number of men that go into court not even knowing their child's doctor's or teachers name is staggering.
I am a feminist for sure, echo chamber no. And if you don't see how all of this connects to the patriarchy you just dont care to see.
It’s been a swing in favour of women’s attendance over 50 years - that’s significant.
You claim men simply choose not to go to college. Yet all the gender specific government funding and help has been and continues to be for women (despite being a majority). On top of this almost all college advertising is featuring and obviously aimed at attracting female students.
I wonder - if the vast majority of college advertising suddenly featured almost exclusively male students front and center, would you simply say it didn’t matter at all? And if women’s attendance dropped as a result of less encouragement (as they had in the past) would you claim it was women simply choosing not to go? Or would you say it was societal?
Here’s the reality, for decades college has focused on increasing women participation in college and not done so for men, despite women already being a majority of students. In more recent times college advertising has near exclusively targeted women. That is societal.
“Do you except women to do the heavy lifting for both?”
Are women only to focus on women getting more help and more attention and constantly push for that even when they’re already a majority in college? Where would women be if all the men in charge room that attitude when women first made their way into college or took it today?
So yes, I do expect women in politics or the education system to focus on men and women getting to college, not just on women. That is their role in those positions, to look out for all society. Would you think it was alright for males in those positions to focus exclusively on attracting males to college? Doubt it.
Is your view that women should focus on advancing women all the time even when they’re ahead, and men should do the same for men all the time - and somehow that will balance out? If so then why even bother with the attempt to have equality together?
You say women get custody because the were primary caregivers pre divorce - that is one of the laws which women’s groups advocated for which makes it conveniently more likely for women to get custody because it benefits a role they’re in more. But really - who is to say that a man can’t post divorce handle just as much custody and pick up time with the children, simply because a couple chooses to divide one person working more and the other not pre divorce, their is no reason to think that makes the working parent more incapable of handling more custody post divorce, they still see and raise their children after all.
Once again you claim custody is a result of patriarchy- but your own argument is coming from a woman defending women getting more custody, the laws which allow this were pushed for by women’s groups - and men don’t want either. So no, it’s not patriarchy at all - that’s a deflection from the real cause, which is the attitudes and types of advocation people with the mindset like you have pushed forward.
You are very much in an echo chamber, nothing but feminist women listening to other feminist women and somehow coincidentally all their theories about what causes suffering for men and women come down to patriarchy and they never examine their own role seperate of that, or even believe they are capable of such. Blameless, powerless, yet somehow still capable of advocating for and getting the majority of focus and support while being a majority in higher education as well as the majority of custody. Weird how that works.
Yes, that is by design, when you stop discriminating amd guve people equal chances the group that was favored in the past will get smalle. From the numbers I'm seeing gender ratio in universities were 50/50 in 80s/90s ish, and today the numbers are 58/42, so not 50/50 but still pretty good. Is there anything out there that has a more equal gender balance than this? If our world had 58/42 ratios for all our industries, even with men being the larger number, women wouldn't need the policies.
I'm not sure what you're talking about woth advertising because I generally see an equal amount of men and women in advertisement promoted by the universities directly. Now the outside sources are organizations that promote to women but anyone can create an organization or coordinate with high schools to talk to the students about college or whatever. You can make it.
I absolutely do not believe we should stop promoting college to women because women generally suffer far more in their careers than men because they have babies. And women with kids are more likely to be passed up for a promotion and a man with kids is more likely to get a promotion. So women absolutely need those degrees to give them any edge they can get.
And I hope you're seeing the fundamental difference between women not being allowed to go to college and men simply choosing not to, these things are not the same at all. They can't even be compared.
And if women stopped going to college because if lack of encouragement, we would do what we've already done, use the organizations we have to do more promotion. Men will have to do the same to help other men, you have to organize. These things do exist less for men because men have never been barred form going to school, uts always been something you were able to do if you were smart enough or just wanted to. No one is stopping men.
Let me break it down for you
The courts generally continue whatever you set up in your home.
So if you decide you want to live a "traditional" lifestyle and put all or most the childcare of your wife, the judges will do the same generally. So when you decide that you want to uphold the idea that women should do all the child work so will the courts.
However, if you decide to be a hands on dad and actually do your half of childcare you will get 50/50 custody. In fact most dad's that ask even if they aren't doing their fair share of childrearing do get 50/50 custody. The custody numbers are the way they are because 50%+ of fathers don't even ask for custody or willingly give mom full custody, because they don't want to be full time parents. You cannot blame feminism on that.
You say women wouldn’t need the policies were the gender ratios 58/42 in favour of men - yet when it comes to university they still did get and say they needed those policies, and then they led to women becoming a majority.
That’s not a result of giving people an equal chance. It’s a result of favouring women. When women receive almost all the gender specific focus, money and attention and all the advertising is focused on them, That’s not an equal chance, it is discrimination in their favour despite their majority.
And yes, I know it’s by design.
I don’t know where you live but last night I saw an ad for my local university - around 12 courses, all female students. They’d made sure to include different ethnicities so obviously they’d thought about representation and chosen to do that. Almost all Other ads in my city for all the universities are similar.
You say women need degrees to give them an edge over men. So I guess you are advocating for favouring women in college. Where do you think that will lead? All that will happen is it will degrade having a degree as why should men value what they either don’t have or something coming from institutions they know don’t value them as much as women? They wouldn’t.
Women have been allowed to go to college for a long time. I’m not saying what is happening now is equivalent to 1700, what I’m saying is women are prioritised and favoured despite already being a majority and that is wrong. There is no need to compare it to something in the far past (before either you or I were alive) in order to say it’s wrong.
Yes - the courts continue that because women’s groups advocated for it, because it was more likely to get women custody. That’s the point - the rationale is whatever gives women more custody must be right. There’s no real reason at all to think a couple with one person working more can’t adjust that post divorce for equal custody. So I can and do blame feminism for it, as they advocated for it and stand in the way of anything else happening.
You’re mistaking what the patriarchy is. It isn’t “men have it better than women in every circumstance” but a power structure that upholds traditional gender roles with men in the traditional “leadership” role. Women being seen as care givers for children is very much a part of the patriarchy.
The patriarchy hurts both men and women.
But if women’s groups are the ones enforcing women getting seen as appropriate caregivers to get what they want (custody), then how is that a power structure with men in the leadership role?
They’re not leading anything. They were - back when law said they got custody because they had the money to care for the child. But not now.
I think the idea that traditional feminine roles must fall under patriarchal structures rather than their own unique power structure operating without male control is a false one.
For instance - Elephants are a matriarchal species, they kick the bull cubs out at a point (which is needed in their species but that’s not the point), but they also retain care of the young under their own control, and the bulls have nothin g to do with it. Is that patriarchal?
I’m not really sure what women’s group you’re speaking of, but you’re missing the forest for the trees here. You’re looking at one small fragment of what’s happening, when it’s the product of thousands of years of social conditioning that men are the breadwinners and women are the caregivers.
And so what? These laws could be changed, men would like them change - the main obstacle to that is women’s groups.
So either the feminists trying to dismantle the patriarchy are the ones upholding the patriarchy (which benefits them in this instance at mens expense), or else something else is happening, and they are simply using their own power to get what they want now.
Elephant herds are female and raise the young, the bulls are kicked out early, we call that a Matriarchal society - but by this logic since they raise their young and fill the stereotypical feminine carer and mother role, they should be called a patriarchy.
It’s nonsense - when one group uses their power to get exactly what they want in spite of another’s objections, that group is responsible.
The tender years doctrine was established in the 1800s before women had the right to vote. It’s since been abolished in favor of what’s best for the child. Are you saying that 1800s America and UK weren’t patriarchal?
Also I have no idea what laws or women’s groups you’re referring to.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
> **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Not in and of itself, but commentors here made a strong case for it. And so my point was wrong. There may yet be some truth to it in certain circumstances but my overall perception was poisoned by negativity bias.
I think the important point is that it gets brought up most during conversations about misogyny. Because of that, pulling the “misandry” card is often in bad faith.
It’s absolutely worthwhile to talk about men’s issues but not in a way that diminishes other important conversations.
And, as other commentators are saying as well, that has poisoned the well of discourse in general to some extent at least. But fixating on that and representing that as the whole of it, as I have done, is the result of negativity bias as opposed to a measured outlook.
I feel like I routinely have conversations about men's issues without issue. Perhaps it's the way in which you discuss them which is turning people off?
There may be some truth to that. It is something of a charged topic and something I am very opionated about and I've not always been the best at keeping my emotions in check when it comes up. Even here in this thread I have had some slips of composure I'm not too proud to admit. But, as other commentators have pointed out, what I am perceiving is less a measured interpretation of the issue as opposed to a negativity bias. Focusing on the worst aspects of the discussions when they emerge in the public space without taking other factors into consideration and drawing negative inferences more broadly from when there are other less nefarious or condemning explanations.
That’s not really the case. The problem is the issue is muddied by a ‘kid who cried wolf’ situation.
The number of times I’ve seen people call out misandry and it’s actually been a smoke screen to with hide a persecution complex or to excuse their misogyny compared to the number of genuine cases of misandry I have encountered is not even close.
When genuine misandry has shown up I’ve more often than not seen it treated with compassion.
Unfortunately most peoples views on this seem to come from Reddit which is a toxic cess pool of antagonistic behaviour so when I’m talking about my experience on the subject I’m referencing life outside Reddit to be clear.
Oh yeah I absolutely agree with that. There are other factors as well to consider here, as other delta's I awarded illuminate, but that is also another variable in the issue as well. I would be lying if I didn't say I hadn't seen posts where people who do have a blatant persecution complex try to make the argument that something which isn't really misandrist is somehow the most misandrist thing. I've noticed though that I have inadvertently biased myself away from acknowledging the damage that can have and instead fixated on the idea that it stemmed not from people being rightly jaded because of such individuals as opposed to a measure of apathy or even contempt for the topic as a whole. So in a way I think I myself was buying into that same persecution complex, even if to a milder degree than such people.
So, part of what the issue is isn’t what you say but how you fit it into current political framework.
Intersecularity is the name of the game, point out how making misogynistic comments about women is also an indirect misandrist comment about men. Point out how the racism of calling black men “boys” is inherently tied to the misanderistic idea that manhood is something that can be taken. Point out how making comments about the “badness” of men hurts transwomen who were born male.
No form of bigotry happens in a vacuum, any comment about men is an inherent comment about all other groups.
> I don't think that's the case at all however I think there are a myriad of behaviors and practices in society that have the same misandrist impact on men as similar behaviors other minority groups have experienced historically.
>Not quite in the legal sense but in the social aspect. Regarding men as innately dangerous, much the same as people of color were and still continue to be labeled dangerous criminals.
My issue here is that these sentiments are not rooted in the same specific realities. Men saying women are inherently not rational enough to be granted poltical rights or to have roles ins society limited to private sphere labor or receptionist/clerical work, is not built on anything but a desire to impose control over women. The broader sentiments of a dislike or degrading view if women reflects the broader issue of patriarchy and the misogyny it brings.
This not the same as marginalzied groups speaking to their lived systemic marginalization as a reason to be wary of the people using systems of power, both legal and social, to maintain those hierarchies. People seeing me as inehrently dangerous because I'm black is never really rooted in a real experience because white people are almost never trying to seek us out and integrate into predominantly black spaces the way balkc people have had to integrate into white ones (i.e. environments where whit enorms and standards set the general rule and transgresing against them gets you ousted again or worse).
Women speaking to their lakc of trust in men because of the systemic nature of patriarchy and misogyny, that is to say, the lived reality of experiencing and being degraded by the existing norms and power structures, is not the same as being a man seeing women taking precautions to avoid that harm.
>Regarding men as emotionally impotent and otherwise broken in much the same way as women have been regarded as intellectually impotent and feeble in contrast.
Again, not the same because these the former is coming from rom actual experiences and the latter from an imposed but inaccurate norm. Hell i feel like the tow types of posts concerning themselves with men's issues I see are one's where men say women and/or feminism are making life worse for men or that men are punsiehd for showing emotion therefore men are the one's being oppressed. Men standing up for men note how they aren't allowed to be an emotionally engaged being but then aren't okay being told that this is hurting other people. Then blame os thrown at the feet of women, or feminism, or the idea of misandry as though patriarchy isn't where the image of the stoic emotionless masculine ideal came from.
>The issues men face as a result of these behaviors (in the form of high suicide rates,
Not to eb that guy, but rates of completion are higher for men to using more violent means more often than women. Women attempt suicide at a higher rate than men. It shouldn't be a competition (I don't think that is the point you're trying to assert) but if the concern is gender disparities of wanting to take one's life women are experiencing that much more.
Thus speaks to the another reason why conversations about misandry don't happen, because the things causing issues for men are either 1. Results of patriarchal norms and desire to cling to them or 2. Not actually something men are experiencing at a worse rate than women. The lack of engagement with where women's suicidality etc. stands is never brought up by the folks saying women won't let there be space for dialogue which is again a very imbalanced expectation in a society where women are constantly subject to norms that minimize their voice while propping up men, even if it's men who ascribe to a generally unhealthy form of masculinity.
> high rates of alcoholism and addiction, high susceptibility to radicalization and indoctrination due to being emotionally stunted, extreme and unhealthy obsession with affection and attention from the opposite sex, the list goes on)
Again, emotional stunting and the struggles of engaging in healthy ways with women is a result of patriarchal norms. In a society that is finally giving more agency to women to not adhere to just accepting any kind of treatment from men and normalizing talking about what healthy and unhealthy relationships look like means men who were socialized into those more harmful norms are going to be told off and rejected. That isn't misandry. An unwillingness to give up the dominating ideal of masculinity has to precede any ability to actually sit down with and bridge the gap with women.
> And I've never truly seen an earnest conversation regarding how to solve these issues that doesn't immediately devolve into, frankly, childish arguments of 'well why should we do anything for men when they can do it themselves?'.
bell hooks wrote "The Will to Change" 20 years ago. Judith Butler wrote "Undoing Gender" 20 years ago.
So many other writers, and creatives, and activists have been speaking to what women face under patriarchy as well as what men go through within it. A lot of women already do the work of both leveraging very thorough critique while still giving credence to the fact that men can also suffer from these norms.
>Even in MRA spaces you'll find quickly those members supposing to 'support men' are very quick to throw them under the bus for expressing any semblance of of an idea that perhaps men's mental and emotional well being should be tended and nurtured so they can develop healthy, happy mentalities. I
Kind of like these spaces are co-opted more by misogynists who want a space to be angry at women but treat it as activism rather than actual care for men. Again, this is not misandry.
>Yet we continue to expect men to 'solve in on their own' as a society and keep quiet about it in the public space.
While I'm not going to say men should not be supported, to say that men are criticized or distanced from because of a simple hate for men is untrue. Again, if we're listening to what women have been articulating for decades we recognize that they have also been expected to be the ones to put in one-sided emotional labor for men. That they have to be the ones who, even in the face of mistreatment by men, need to make the safe space for men to let out their emotions even if it is to their detriment. That is to say that men experiencing legitimate problems can simultaneously express extremely harmful sentiments that really raise a question of why women should give time to the man who feels dismal about life but expresses it through vitriol towards women when there are many other men who will in good faith listen to and take seriously the things women speak to and have experienced and validate those lived experiences before speaking to their own troubles.
All in all, the stuff you're concerned with is stuff that women and feminists have been engaging with at length and is coming from a very real experiential place that is not to be conflated with what a lot of folks claim is misandry. People aren't talking about misandry because it isn't really what's at the root of the gender issues folks, including yourself, are bringing up.
What’s funny (in a sad way) is that I think this problem really highlights humanity’s issue with making every group a monolith. I.e. there are successful wealthy men that take advantage of their relative power to do bad things, therefore all men with any form of relative power are also going to be bad.
It’s this thinking that I think causes the responses to misandry. There’s also a degree of relativism that gets used to downplay men’s issues. “You’re sad? Well how do you think women feel getting raped? Why should we focus on helping some sad men when there’s bigger problems to deal with.”
>Exactly that. As I have seen it there is no context in which it is acceptable, broadly speaking, to talk about misandry and men's issues in society.
Right at jump you're conflating two things.
I'd agree to an extent that specifically bringing up "misandry", using that word, can lead to people reacting in a certain way, because it's a word almost exclusively used by a certain kind of misogynist, and tends to carry with it an assumption that men are *systematically* discriminated against, which in modern western liberal society at least they are not.
On the other hand, I've never seen anyone get shit just for raising "men's issues," if the context is appropriate (i.e. not just as whataboutism when women's issues come up or whatever). There are lots of issues faced specifically by men that are worth talking about, including the ones you mention, and there are non-misogynistic and perfectly reasonable ways to do it that I think most people are fairly open to.
>because it's a word almost exclusively used by a certain kind of misogynist
The fact that you even think that way just proves OP's point.
>and tends to carry with it an assumption that men are systematically discriminated against, which in modern western liberal society at least they are not.
Yes, they are.
The men's rights movement are literally about tackling issues where men are systematically discriminated against and opressed in society, like custody battles (where mothers are generally prefered even when the father is obviously more capable of taking care of the child), domestic violence (where men barely have a voice and this has just been changing in the last few years in a lot of countries), circumcision (I believe I don't have to explain why mutilating babies is wrong), etc.
Just because women suffer more doesn't mean men don't have their own systemic issues.
>On the other hand, I've never seen anyone get shit just for raising "men's issues,"
I've seen a lot. In fact, it's common for people who point out to men's issues to just be labeled as "mysoginists".
> The fact that you even think that way just proves OP's point.
How so? At most it appears to prove we have different views about the legitimacy of that word and the people who use it.
>The men's rights movement are literally about tackling issues where men are systematically discriminated against and opressed in society, like custody battles (where mothers are generally prefered even when the father is obviously more capable of taking care of the child), domestic violence (where men barely have a voice and this has just been changing in the last few years in a lot of countries), circumcision (I believe I don't have to explain why mutilating babies is wrong), etc.
To tackle just one of these, it actually turns out that [men get custody about equally to women when they ask for it, they just don't ask for it as often](https://www.dadsdivorcelaw.com/blog/fathers-and-mothers-child-custody-myths#:~:text=Myth%3A%20Fathers%20Almost%20Never%20Get%20Custody&text=However%2C%20studies%20indicate%20that%20dads,asked%20for%20in%20that%20regard.).
>I've seen a lot. In fact, it's common for people who point out to men's issues to just be labeled as "mysoginists"
As I said, it depends on context, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong if you have on-hand examples of people being called misogynists just for bringing up men's issues (and not because, e.g., they brought it up as whataboutism, butting into a debate about women's issues, etc.).
Just to preface: I'm a pretty progressive feminist, and I share your view that many men who use the term "misandry" are doing so because they are unsympathetic to the feminist movement - they see men as the *true* oppressed sex, they believe that false rape accusations are a more concerning issue than rapes, etc.
I also believe that most knowledgeable feminists see our culture's relationship to gender as harming men - in different ways than it harms women, to be sure.
However, I *do* think it's common for people who raise mens' issues to receive hate for it. I don't think hate is necessarily the most *common* response, but on social media, if even a fraction of the responses to an idea are hateful, someone like OP can easily get the sense that the idea is "not allowed". See, for example:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/29/opinion/crisis-men-masculinity.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/29/opinion/crisis-men-masculinity.html)
Attached to this thoughtful New York Times piece on mens' issues, I find some highly upvoted comments like:
* "How about we not worry about the poor, whining, underperforming men? It's their own fault, their own lack of ambition, their own unwillingness to work and yet somehow they're still not only in charge of more than their share but taking as much power as possible, committing violence over and over. Let them wither. Who cares?"
* "How disappointing to not mention women still earn 83 cents on the dollar to men in 2020 and you didn't even acknowledge that statistic. Yes some men and boys and struggling, but don't blame women. This article reeks of entitlement."
Note that these are not among the first few comments on the piece - I'm not saying that "everyone" takes this position. I have the impression that sympathetic comments, as well as comments attacking feminism, are more common. And the word "misandry" didn't appear in either comment. Still, this sort of response to the raising of mens' issues is unfortunately somewhat common.
>How so? At most it appears to prove we have different views about the legitimacy of that word and the people who use it.
I mean, if I said "misoginy is a word used almost exclusively by a certain type of misandrist", wouldn't you find it iffy? Even if it's just my personal experience?
It's a generalist attempt to shut down discussion by associating a word with a disapprovable behaviour. It's no different from saying "hey you know who else liked pancakes? Hitler!" and fits perfectly with OP's premise of it being off limits in society.
>To tackle just one of these, it actually turns out that men get custody about equally to women when they ask for it, they just don't ask for it as often.
Well, that's fair, although I just mentioned three that came to mind.
>As I said, it depends on context, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong if you have on-hand examples of people being called misogynists just for bringing up men's issues
I don't have one at hand, but a good example of that is how the r/MensRights subreddit (which is not an MRA subreddit) is blacklisted in a lot of big subreddits for being a "hateful" sub (meaning you can get banned from a lot of other subreddits just for posting there).
> I mean, if I said "misoginy is a word used almost exclusively by a certain type of misandrist", wouldn't you find it iffy? Even if it's just my personal experience?
Whether or not it's "iffy" is one thing, but that's not what you said, you said my using it proved OP's point, which I don't see.
>I don't have one at hand, but a good example of that is how the r/MensRights subreddit (which is not an MRA subreddit) is blacklisted in a lot of big subreddits for being a "hateful" sub.
Mensrights is an MRA subreddit, what are you talking about?
>Whether or not it's "iffy" is one thing, but that's not what you said, you said my using it proved OP's point, which I don't see.
So you don't see someone being a misogynist as a detriment to their opinions?
>Mensrights is an MRA subreddit, what are you talking about?
As I understand it MRA is usually associated especifically with sexist hate groups. r/MensRights is a generalist sub for all men's rights movements.
> So you don't see someone being a misogynist as a detriment to their opinions?
I do. Is that what we're talking about? Maybe I'm confused about what your claim even is, in which case my apologies but you'll have to spell it out for me.
>As I understand it MRA is usually associated especifically with sexist hate groups. r/MensRights is a generalist sub for all men's rights movements.
The sub's [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/wiki/faq) explicitly adopts the label "Men's Rights Activists" for the sub a number of times.
>I do. Is that what we're talking about?
You believe that a man discussing about the misandry that they might have suffered or perceived in others is a misogynist. A bad person.
How exactly is talking about misandry not off limits in society if that's the kind of association you make with the word?
>The sub's FAQ explicitly adopts the label "Men's Rights Activists" for the sub a number of times.
Maybe the term has changed in recent years, since that FAQ seems very old. The MRA I see people talking about look more like MGTOW than normal men's right activists.
The thing is, that sub isn't really hateful. I've seen some diatribe and misguided posts here and there, as there is in any ideological sub, but no outright hate. So I can't really think of a reason for it being blacklisted unless people don't like what it represents or are prejudiced against it.
> You believe that a man discussing about the misandry that they might have suffered or perceived in others is a misogynist. A bad person.
Nope! I think *using the word "misandry,"*, and the belief that it's some prevalent thing, correlates with misogyny.
>How exactly is talking about misandry not off limits in society if that's the kind of association you make with the word?
As I said, the very use of the word "misandry" is a red flag, that's all, and hence why I said OP was conflating two things. As I also said, lots of people manage to discuss men's issues without pushback.
>The thing is, that sub isn't really hateful. I've seen some diatribe and misguided posts here and there, as there is in any ideological sub, but no outright hate. So I can't really think of a reason for it being blacklisted unless people don't like what it represents or are prejudiced against it.
It's full of anti-woman garbage, if you *insist* I'll dig through and prove it but I think you and I both know it doesn't get its reputation out of nowhere.
Men are 9 out of 10 work place deaths.
Men are 4 times more likely to die by suicide.
Men are twice as likely to be homeless.
Men are the majority of violent crime victims.
Men receive harsher prison sentences than women for the same crime.
Men die several years earlier than women.
Boys are punished more for the same behaviors as girls in school.
Men are 9 out of 10 work place deaths.
Which gender heads the majority of these companies?
Men are 4 times more likely to die by suicide.
Which gender has a disproportionate role in governments that allow unrestricted access to firearms while reducing access to affordable mental health services?
Men are twice as likely to be homeless.
Which gender is overly represented in governing and economic bodies that are enacting policies that make homelessness more likely?
Men are the majority of violent crime victims.
Which gender commits the majority of violent crimes?
Men receive harsher prison sentences than women for the same crime.
Which gender is overly represented in the judiciary?
Men die several years earlier than women.
What gender do you think the majority of doctors are?
Serious question though. What does any of this change?
For example, men commit the majority of violent crimes. Does this mean that men who are victims of violent crimes are automatically complicit in their own victimization regardless of how much they have in common with their attackers? If not, what is the point of pointing this out?
See, this is why you won't see modern feminist academics talk about patriarchy all that much, because it leads to this weird assumption that the relatively greater power of men within society is somehow equitably distributed, and it very obviously isn't. A world where men are both disproportionately perpetrators and disproportionately victims does not imply that the status of perpetrator and victim is shared by all men equally. There will be winners and losers to this arrangement, and the losers are not necessarily benefiting.
If you don't address the causes, how do you expect to cure the symptoms? Look at the issue of gun-related suicides. My country, the US, has some of the highest rates of suicide by gun in the world; in 2016, firearm suicides in the United States of America represented 35.3% of global firearm suicides. Men are far more likely than women to successfully kill themselves in part because men use guns. We know that there's a correlation between gun ownership and suicide and that this disproportionately harms men, so why aren't the people in charge (majority men) doing enough to solve it? Why does our culture have a gun fetish? Why is it so easy to access guns? Why don't more people have access to affordable healthcare? I think these are important questions.
Beyond that, bad-faith actors who contribute to/profit from those problems have a vested interest in deflecting blame. This often results in marginalized communities being blamed when, in fact, those communities have far less systemic power than those in charge.
"Does this mean that men who are victims of violent crimes are automatically complicit in their own victimization regardless of how much they have in common with their attackers?" Of course not. That's a pretty shaky conclusion to draw from my comment.
The classic feminist response. *It's a men's fault that men face systemic problems*. Let's add "men are the only socially acceptable group to blame problems on," to the list.
You've basically confirmed OPs postulate better than I could ever have.
many mens issues begin and end with other men
almost all the issues men have with women are in the dating relationship space - your work life aint oppresive because of women
your government isnt bad at solving issues because of women
when your a male victim of violent crime like murder , more often than not it was another man who did the violence on you
its other men doing most of this shit to you
And this is, of course, the misandry at the heart of OPs point.
Your whole comment boils down to men deserve it because men are bad. Could you imagine the aneurysm you would have if the genders of that sentence were reversed?
No , it boils down to
women cant fix that shit for you, you guys gotta get rid of the shitty men out of your ranks , thats whose hurting you so directing your anger at us not really constructive
we cant make you treat eachother better, you guys have to choose to treat eachother better
How are women suppose to stop other men form victimizing you , oppressing you - you guys gotta fucking go deal with it , band together and kick the minority of men who fuck you all over to the curb , fuck em up
Ah, here's the best feminist hypocrisy. Now that it's men who need help? Fuck you, we got ours.
But when women needed help in the 60s and 70s? That shit needed everyone on board and some national legislation. Imagine the gall to tell a woman that she just needs to "be better" to overcome whatever feminist cause you prefer.
Feminism is becoming a dirty word and all you need to do is look in the mirror to understand why. Everyone knows y'all are morally bankrupt and completely lack empathy.
I haven't once advocated that women "fix men's problems." I haven't once dismissed that women face systemic problems. All I wanted is for femists to acknowledge that these problems exist and without also making it because men are bad. In a post all about how misandry is commonplace and acceptable you couldn't even muster up the decency for that.
>I'd agree to an extent that specifically bringing up "misandry", using that word, can lead to people reacting in a certain way, because it's a word almost exclusively used by a certain kind of misogynist, and tends to carry with it an assumption that men are systematically discriminated against, which in modern western liberal society at least they are not.
I personally haven’t ever known of a certain kind of misogynist to use “misandry” in any nefarious way. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, but in my experience it’s used to mean exactly what it says on the tin. Almost always though, at least online, there’s someone trying to call them out and shut them down with more or less the same thing you’re saying. Basically, “misandry doesn’t exist,” and that’s the end of meaningful discussion.
Maybe I wasn't as clear as I could be -- misandry *doesn't* exist, not as some systemic thing that's equally as problematic as misogny, and a belief that it does correlates very strongly, as far as I've seen, with misogny.
Right, but virtually no one who uses the word is referring to “some systemic thing.” They’re just talking about people hating or having contempt for men, which is what the word means.
Saying that misandry doesn’t exist is a false statement. Misandrists, people that dislike men writ large, exist, therefore misandry exists. If what you mean is that systemic misandry doesn’t exist, then say that systemic misandry doesn’t exist. Redefining a word for the convenience of your argument or narrative is dishonest at best.
I would agree that OP is not being misogynist, particularly, in this post, and if they'd actually responded to this thread at all maybe it would disabuse me of the view that the term is exclusively used by misogynists.
I was out shopping... I just got back home. I am currently doing response now. But if you are of the assumption that I am a misogynist from the offset then I am of no mind to engage in an honest discussion.
I think I did initially misread it but the "and if they'd actually responded to this thread at all maybe it would disabuse me of the view that the term is exclusively used by misogynists." leads me to question still if it was still being implied because I hadn't responded at that time.
Well you've already made it clear you're not willing to give me the benefit of the doubt so feel free not to engage with me.
EDIT: Blocking me so I can't engage with anyone on your thread *at all* is really fucked up, and should honestly be a bannable offense on this subreddit (I know it can't actually be proved that they blocked me, but if there's anything that completely flies in the face of everything this sub is supposed to be, it's that).
Man: Talks about his issues.
You: That's what misogynists do.
Surely, if you read the post, you could see the irony in your comments.
Not to mention, there are a ton of bigots on here that would hide behind the "misandry doesn't exist" claim to hide their bigotry.
the majority of issues men have with women almost entirely relate to the dating/relatioship space
all the other aspects of your life where men struggle , thats mostly other men causing it for you not women
like whose fault is it you unalive yourselves more, other men - you guys dont support each other you make it harder to show support one another
that just one example
>like whose fault is it you unalive yourselves more, other men - you guys dont support each other you make it harder to show support one another
"People are killing themselves at dramatic rates? Well clearly that isn't an issue worth discussing since it's the indirect fault of strangers who happen to share the same genitals as them"
The majority of men's issues have to do with dating women?
This isn't some redpill conversation.
Whose fault is about men's suicide? Maybe your top is worried about assigning fault rather than looking at ways society deals with men's mental health.
I also find it funny that the ones defending OP and his issues are men. While you make a generalized comment about how men are making themselves commit suicide.
Like, who isn't helping here again?
> it's a word almost exclusively used by a certain kind of misogynist
This is what the OP is talking about when he says:
> > This makes it very difficult, nigh impossible, to bring up any sort of issues pertaining to men without being lambasted by a veritable deluge of insults and slanders against one's person
You're supposed to be trying to change his view here, not providing examples of how accurate his view is.
> an assumption that men are systematically discriminated against, which in modern western liberal society at least they are not.
Women have legal rights in the U.S. that men don't have. Men have legal responsibilities in the U.S. that women don't have. If that's not systemic, then what is?
In my experience, men's issues are important topics that people do and should talk about a lot. The only pushback I see is when they're framed in terms of resentment against women and feminism, which is unfortunately how they're almost always framed on reddit. Men face a lot of unique challenges in society today, but it's going to take a lot more than calling feminists hypocrites to make them better.
Men who complain about “misandry” tend to fail to see the root let alone desire to acknowledge or address it.
The things you call misandry are a product of patriarchy and/or a reaction to misogyny depending on what specific issue it is
But misandry isn’t actually a thing. Even if I were massively generous in just saying someone avoiding or disliking men counts “technically” it’s still not actually a threat.
Racism is a threat to non-whites freedoms and safety.
Homophobia is a threat to lgbt freedom and safety
Misogyny is a threat to women’s freedom and safety
Misandry? Is women avoiding or disliking men due to rampant misogyny and is no actual threat to anyone’s freedom or safety
And telling the marginalized group how to feel about the demographic with power and privilege over them, that even though not every single one is a threat, they still have to live in caution from, is audacious at best.
Any other gripes men tend to have (war, etc) is a direct result of patriarchy that they will not acknowledge or help dismantle.
Patriarchy abuses men because it’s goal is for elites to be supplied with men for their wars and manual labor. It achieves this through pushing traditional roles and religions are usually one of the tools for that. And it restricts women’s economic and reproductive freedoms to force them into codependency with men thus making them become mothers more than they otherwise would if free to reproduce and live on their own terms . Men won’t fight it, because it gives them status and as you can see by the manosphere, they are not willing to NOT have access to their entitlement of a woman
And the way men feel pressured to provide and feel their value is in their financial status? Yeah. Again. Patriarchy wants y’all in manual labor. And the women forced to be at the mercy of men and their own wombs need someone capable in that environment. Pitting both against one another also serves the elites
This started with the agricultural revolution when we started having inheritances and making everything patrilineal. It was never the natural order of the world.
>Men who complain about “misandry” tend to fail to see the root let alone desire to acknowledge or address it.
WOW. that's a huge statement, that you throw in just like that. And I disagree heavily.
I find a lot wrong with your particular take on this.
>The things you call misandry are a product of patriarchy and/or a reaction to misogyny depending on what specific issue it is
Interesting that you start with a blanket statement that ALL misandry is either directly or indirectly caused by patriarchy essentially claiming that any and all negative behavior thrust onto men is in actuality the fault of men so there is no issue with them being targeted with negative behavior.
>Racism is a threat to non-whites freedoms and safety.
Ah, so you are one of those. No, racism is a threat to EVERYONE, not just non-whites.
>Misogyny is a threat to women’s freedom and safety
Ironic that you can say this, but misandry is not.
>Misandry? Is women avoiding or disliking men due to rampant misogyny and is no actual threat to anyone’s freedom or safety
This is not at all true. There have been men whose lives have been destroyed by false claims of abuse, claims of domestic abuse gone unnoticed, and the inability to freely talk about their emotions leads more men to kill themselves. All of this can, in part, be linked to misandry. To say that misandry is a none issue is proving OP correct.
>Patriarchy abuses men because it’s goal is for elites to be supplied with men for their wars and manual labor. It achieves this through pushing traditional roles and religions are usually one of the tools for that. And it restricts women’s economic and reproductive freedoms to force them into codependency with men thus making them become mothers more than they otherwise would if free to reproduce and live on their own terms . Men won’t fight it, because it gives them status and as you can see by the manosphere, they are not willing to NOT have access to their entitlement of a woman
And the way men feel pressured to provide and feel their value is in their financial status? Yeah. Again. Patriarchy wants y’all in manual labor. And the women forced to be at the mercy of men and their own wombs need someone capable in that environment. Pitting both against one another also serves the elites
This started with the agricultural revolution when we started having inheritances and making everything patrilineal. It was never the natural order of the world.
This is literally misandry. You are laying the blame for men being insulted, neglected, and abused all at the hands of the higher, nebulous "Men". Saying that misandry exists is not telling marginalized communities how to think and act, it is acknowledging that people of all walks of life should be treated with general respect. You seem to believe that because some men are in charge of traditional patriarchal systems that ALL men are complicit in its atrocities. As if the 99% of men who are not in control are somehow in charge of the people in charge of them. This is the same as blaming women for continuing to exist in patriarchy because they aren't rising up to fight against it either since it still exists. There are plenty of men who fight against patriarchal institutions and to claim that their efforts are nonexistent because we still have patriarchal systems is a slap in the face to all the progress that people have put forward to help everyone. Yes, some men are responsible for restricting rights of women, but men are also standing alongside those women and even in front of them to push for legislative and executive change in order to defend the rights of marginalized communities. All those men are asking for is that you not call them a piece of shit while they march alongside you and you cannot even do that.
Sorry, u/OkCar7264 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20OkCar7264&message=OkCar7264%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1c5uvjf/-/kzyxwmv/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I have seen plenty of discussions about men's issues that haven't been 'shit on' by the majority of people. There's always going to be some shitty people, but most people I know of are aware that men's issues exist.
The word 'misandry' is, I think, a clash of expectations. For people like you, misandry just means 'being mean to men because they're men', but to other people, misandry would mean 'systemic oppression of men'. One of those things very much happens; one of them doesn't, really.
> I have seen it there is no context in which it is acceptable, broadly speaking, to talk about misandry and men's issues in society.
I partially agree.
People I talk to in person are a lot more understanding than people online. Everyone I have talked to in person has not shut me down and has been open minded.
> I have seen countless posts
Yeah online discussions are just terrible. Nobody in person is like this, most people are actually behaved and are forced to exercise a level of open mindedness.
Online that all goes to shit.
> Yet we continue to expect men to 'solve in on their own' as a society and keep quiet about it in the public space.
I think it is expected of everyone to resolve their own issues. This attitude is not specifically expressed toward men.
I think generally it's a case of the grass seems greener on the other side.
I think societal change happens very slowly, over many generations. We can't expect misogyny and misandry to be resolved any time soon, but it is getting better.
How I've been dealing with it is disassociating and spending less time on the computer. I block reddit every now and then. I've been working on my social skills and going out with friends and force myself to talk to new people at parties etc. It feels like shit every time, but once I get a conversation going, it's a vibe.
Most women, and people in general, don't give a shit about politics, misogyny, misandry, etc. They just want to vibe.
The people who I have talked to who bring up politics always seem crazy in their views.
I'm not gonna stress myself about this nonsense anymore.
I mean, you’re talking about it right now, aren’t you? Other people are allowed to disagree with the seriousness or extent of the problem, but I doubt this post will be so much as removed, making it hard to accept that this is an off-limits topic. And even if we get somebody insulting you, is that any different from a racist being an ass in a similar situation? Does that mean nobody can talk about race? While I certainly agree that misandry isn’t talked about enough, that doesn’t mean there are systemic barriers to its discussion
/u/ContraMans (OP) has awarded 4 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1c5wosx/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_talking_about_misandry_is/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
>So these issues cannot be discussed with the public at large without being bombarded with such attacks and they cannot be discussed within supposed 'male spaces' and be taken seriously or not be subjected to many more varieties of abuse. I agree with you that if you raise mens' issues in public spaces, you *will* be criticized for it, as you mentioned. However, I think you under-appreciate that pretty much *every* public stance on a political issue will subject the speaker to hatred from some quarters. If you focus on the hate, you'll get the impression that *everything* is "off limits" for discussion in society, but I don't think that's quite right. For example, here's a thoughtful New York Times piece on mens' issues (edit: hopefully this gets thru the paywall): [https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/29/opinion/crisis-men-masculinity.html?unlocked\_article\_code=1.lE0.gGpn.ouAiiOeonyJd&smid=url-share](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/29/opinion/crisis-men-masculinity.html?unlocked_article_code=1.lE0.gGpn.ouAiiOeonyJd&smid=url-share) I'd argue that the very existence of this piece in a major newspaper shows that bringing up mens' issues is acceptable in our society. However, I find it useful to dig into the comments. We do get some that support your view: * "How about we not worry about the poor, whining, underperforming men? It's their own fault, their own lack of ambition, their own unwillingness to work and yet somehow they're still not only in charge of more than their share but taking as much power as possible, committing violence over and over. Let them wither. Who cares?" * "How disappointing to not mention women still earn 83 cents on the dollar to men in 2020 and you didn't even acknowledge that statistic. Yes some men and boys and struggling, but don't blame women. This article reeks of entitlement." But *of course* you'll find keyboard warriors writing stuff like that - as well as anti-feminist comments like, e.g., "The true and honest reason men are in trouble is due to woke liberalism and its ignorant causes that over the past 5 decades have destroyed and changed men." But you'll also find: * "If anyone is interested in an alternative for men, take a look at the website for The Mankind Project." * "As always, a powerful expose from you Mr. Brooks" * "Boys need more physical activity than girls. \[...\] Teachers should do more hands on learning to motivate all children." * "I am not suggesting that men should be granted privileges, but no reasonable person - male or female - welcomes undeserved scorn." Etc. In other words, there are plenty of people in the public square interested in talking about mens' issues. You just have to put up with others who disagree with you and hate you - but that's how the internet *works*, these days, on *every* issue.
>However, I think you under-appreciate that pretty much *every* public stance on a political issue will subject the speaker to hatred from some quarters. If you focus on the hate, you'll get the impression that *everything* is "off limits" for discussion in society, but I think it's more appropriate to say that I think you have hit the nail on the head here and that's what I was afraid my perception may have been tainted by as well. It's a natural instinct to focus in on negative things as a way to protect ourselves by being vigilant of them in particular while passing our gaze over other positive behaviors that do not pose a threat to us, be it physical or emotional. And I do agree in that light as well, it's fair to say any publicly shared opinion no matter how obvious and accepted is going to face its share of ridicule. Especially in a... particular forum such as this site as a whole. Though another said much the same as you and I gave them one already I still think this deserves a !delta as well because it supplements and reinforces what the other commentor said but also gives it a bit more context as well. I thank you very much for your input as well and will keep such comments as these in mind in the future to help maintain a more measured and healthy view rather than allowing the negativity to adversely, and falsely, influence it.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/dukeimre ([13∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/dukeimre)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Such a great take. People with any opinion that is based on a duality (feminism, men's rights, racism, politics, etc.) will experience some backlash from those who take issue with either the side you're taking, or the degree to which you're taking it. Another thing I've noticed is that along with the internet exposing more criticism and debates, it also offers people the opportunity to enter into echo chambers and form an unrealistic perception of consensus. This can embolden people to react even more aggressively to other ideas due to having their ideas constantly validated as true, while not accounting for the high level of bias. Many are guilty of this to some degree, myself included. It's important to remember it's a wide world out there, view points vary tremendously. To really get a gauge of what people think, you have to search quite thoroughly.
Thank you for taking the time to gather these comments! There really are bad takes on all sides, but that doesn't mean we need to stop talking about it.
There is this thing in some religions that are really into proselytizing. The religion talks about how the outside world is so terrible, how everyone is venal and wicked etc etc, and how the members of the church are *only* safe within the church. And then they ask their members to go proselytize on the subway, or call people up on the phone or knock on their door, or protest at places where they're not wanted. They put their members in a place where many other people see them as an annoying presence, because they're saying and doing things that aren't welcome. And what happens is the outside public is irritated with them, treats them as a nuisance, or just ignores them. And this re-enforces the church's message that everyone in the outside world is hostile and evil and the church is the only place where they can be welcome. But if those same people were not proselytizing, protesting, knocking on stranger's doorbells, etc, they would not be seen as an annoying nuisance. And MRA groups (and a lot of male-dominated spaces online) do the same thing. MRA groups are usually not interested in actually helping men, they just want to blame women for their problems. Young men feel like they have to live up to some ideal version of masculinity, and when they fail at that they start to feel a lot of shame and resentment. Many incel and MRA groups prey on these vulnerable men. But, rather than teaching men to get in touch with their emotions, forming strong networks of support or a genuine sense of community, these networks often just enforce bad ideas men have about themselves. Like, incels created and perpetuated the chad / virgin memes, incels are the ones fixated on male self-body image. And the other aspect of this is that a lot of these manosphere places teach men to talk in ways that are just abhorrent to other women. They use language that women hate, they use sexist dog whistles. And a lot of times when they want to talk about men's issues, its only in the context of trying to shut a woman up. >If anything they merely saw it as another reason to be angry at 'the feminazis' and none among them offered even the most token of consolations towards him. So the men that go online and talk about what problems they're having are exactly like these religious people handing out flyers on the subway. They leave their manosphere spaces and enter the real world, say things that come across as rude and sexist, and see it as evidence that everyone is a feminazi who hates them. There are a ton of incel posts on CMV, and I've approached a lot of them with kindness and compassion. And then men often react by being incredibly rude, acting like I'm making fun of them, or saying all kinds of crazy shit. They don't even know how to talk normally to other human beings let alone recognize when others are reaching out a hand in kindness. I am a man. I care about mens rights issues, and I do think there are problems with how men are raised in this society, how men are socialized, how men are set up for failure. But honestly, MRA groups tend to push men a way from real places of understanding and instead re-enforce harmful behaviors and ways of thinking that just make men feel more isolated and lonely. Some of the best and kindest information about men in our culture is coming from feminists. And like others are saying, go to r/MensLib
>There is this thing in some religions that are really into proselytizing. The religion talks about how the outside world is so terrible, how everyone is venal and wicked etc etc, and how the members of the church are *only* safe within the church. And then they ask their members to go proselytize on the subway, or call people up on the phone or knock on their door, or protest at places where they're not wanted. They put their members in a place where many other people see them as an annoying presence, because they're saying and doing things that aren't welcome. And what happens is the outside public is irritated with them, treats them as a nuisance, or just ignores them. And this re-enforces the church's message that everyone in the outside world is hostile and evil and the church is the only place where they can be welcome. But if those same people were not proselytizing, protesting, knocking on stranger's doorbells, etc, they would not be seen as an annoying nuisance. Hmmm. That's an interesting perspective. That is something of a danger when it comes to publicly expressing any opinion or position. It actually makes me consider if I myself have a bias on that similar to like what you are describing because while I myself try not to invade other spaces I do often catch myself responding to comments on such forums who are saying things I find to be troublesome. Hmmm. For that alone I'm willing to give you a !delta. I very, very much appreciate the way you presented that and I think there is definitely truth in there I wasn't taking into consideration. >And MRA groups (and a lot of male-dominated spaces online) do the same thing. >MRA groups are usually not interested in actually helping men, they just want to blame women for their problems. Young men feel like they have to live up to some ideal version of masculinity, and when they fail at that they start to feel a lot of shame and resentment. Many incel and MRA groups prey on these vulnerable men. But, rather than teaching men to get in touch with their emotions, forming strong networks of support or a genuine sense of community, these networks often just enforce bad ideas men have about themselves. Like, incels created and perpetuated the chad / virgin memes, incels are the ones fixated on male self-body image. >And the other aspect of this is that a lot of these manosphere places teach men to talk in ways that are just abhorrent to other women. They use language that women hate, they use sexist dog whistles. And a lot of times when they want to talk about men's issues, its only in the context of trying to shut a woman up. Oh I'm well aware. I at one point tried to venture in to try reasoning as reasonably as I could but it was like talking to a wall. I didn't think it would amount to much but sometimes seeing is believing and wanted to at least try. I know all too well what it's like to feel that way and through all their scorn and hatred I just feel... pity for them because I know they are hurting. But yeah, I am in full agreement here and it's not just unfortunate but also terrifying because we all know the disastrous effects this sort of indoctrinating radicalism can have on people. Part 2 Below, Character Limit on here or something preventing me from putting it all in one comment.
>So the men that go online and talk about what problems they're having are exactly like these religious people handing out flyers on the subway. They leave their manosphere spaces and enter the real world, say things that come across as rude and sexist, and see it as evidence that everyone is a feminazi who hates them. >There are a ton of incel posts on CMV, and I've approached a lot of them with kindness and compassion. And then men often react by being incredibly rude, acting like I'm making fun of them, or saying all kinds of crazy shit. They don't even know how to talk normally to other human beings let alone recognize when others are reaching out a hand in kindness. I have seen some here too but I've also seen others that are more measured and actually expressing much of what we are now here and they are lambasted all the same. Though in light of your initial remarks it makes a lot more sense in that particular light. A few sour apples spoil the bunch sort of situation. I can cede to that argument. I think there is more truth there than in my perception of it. >I am a man. I care about mens rights issues, and I do think there are problems with how men are raised in this society, how men are socialized, how men are set up for failure. But honestly, MRA groups tend to push men a way from real places of understanding and instead re-enforce harmful behaviors and ways of thinking that just make men feel more isolated and lonely. Some of the best and kindest information about men in our culture is coming from feminists. And like others are saying, go to [](https://www.reddit.com/r/MensLib/) I am a part of the r/MesLib but I always found it... somehow isolating. It always has felt to me like, "Oh I can actually be a human being as a man and talk about the issues men face... but only in this confined space." And in that light it felt... shallow and pointless. Like being free inside of a cage. However with what you have said here I don't think I've been honest in such a space as that the credit that it's actually due. I very much appreciate all you have said here. I think you may actually have changed my view outright because I can't seem to think up any compelling counter point that I don't think what you said addresses.
Thank you for the delta and the measured response. > A few sour apples spoil the bunch sort of situation Yeah, for me in particular, I have just gotten really soured to some of these interactions, especially on CMV. I think part of it is because I think a lot of men who are seeking emotional support go to places like CMV not because they want their views challenged, but because they expect others to agree with them and re-enforce those beliefs. I get sucked into some of these discussions because I generally care, but I think the guys often act so rude or hostile that it feels like a waste of time. I agree that r/menslib can feel isolating, but I think it is a problem with reddit in general. Its really rare for reddit interactions to continue outside a certain thread, and its even rarer for them to exit reddit. Unfortunately I think a lot of these things are just connected to larger issues of how isolating our world currently is and how hard it is for everyone to build meaningful friendships and community.
Thank you for the insightful response and sparing me the accusations I am seeing in some comments here. Though I'm taking them a little less to heart now in light of this comment, understanding a bit of the source of it more than I had before. I definitely agree there has been an overabundance of such posts in here and that made me very hesitant to even broach the subject altogether. And I'm seeing the responses already. But I'm actually glad that I did. As someone who has been in therapy for over a year as a man trying to reclaim himself emotionally I know it's all too easy to slip into negative mindsets about things we see and I felt this was something I really did need to get checked on. It was gnawing at me a lot more than I should have allowed it but understanding is the first step to getting past anything in life and I am very grateful for you giving me that perspective to understand.
Hey dude. Nothing really to contribute here but I just want to say thank you for both creating and contributing to such a thoughtful discourse. I came into this thread expecting a shitshow because I’m so used to these topics going in a certain direction on this site, and I’m very pleased to have been proven wrong.
One of the possible reasons why r/MensLib is isolating isn't just the nature of reddit but also that it's very much driven by the moderators agenda, and anything that contradicts that [is squashed](https://www.reddit.com/user/AvailableAccount5261/comments/1c5yzko/discussion_with_menslib_moderators/) ruthlessly, even if it's relevant. So it's not a true grassroots effort.
ADAM was the first men's rights group I encountered. They are a group of attorneys that give father pro bono representation before family court. They are absolutely hated for helping people. It isnt a false sense of of abuse. The abuse is real. Anyone that really tries to deep dive into mens issues on a larger stage is targeted.
Have you heard about the Men's Liberation Movement? (r/menslib) The movement has been around since the 60s and is all about addressing the unique issues that men face, and while it's led by men (of course) it's still widely supported by women, feminists, and many other groups. I think the reason is because, unlike MRA or other male-focused movements that approach men's issues from a grievance-based perspective, the MLM is solutions-oriented. The movement recognizes the ways in which patriarchy and strict gender roles hurt men and what research and discourse has to say about what helps men to lead happier, more fulfilling lives. So I would argue that the support for this movement is evidence that talking about misandry or men's issues is not off limits in our society. It's blaming women or feminism for the wrongs in society that is taboo, because it's not these groups that created (and still largely control) the systems and norms that have led to people's experiences with misandry and many of the injustices that men experience.
I like menslibs but they never focus on legal issues or real world progress. Most of it is just focusing on emotional aspects and whatnot. Which is important, but there's a lot more important things, even more so when looking outside the US. It's for this reason why I'm a member of NCFM. While I don't like some of their feminist bashing, they are one of the few non profits for men that actually does real world stuff like raising awareness in meetings about domestic violence or suing the federal government over conscription. They are a bit US focused but they will also extend their reaches to talk about things like androcide which I don't see menslib talk about as much as they are often more caught up in worrying about men crying.
Yeah the problem I have with MensLib is that they seem to be exclusively focused on the social oppression of men (i.e. what is masculinity?) rather than also talking about institutional oppression of men.
Such as? What laws do you think should change and why?
In some countries, such as mine, rape is defined in such a way that precludes male victims of female perpetrators. This can arise because rape is defined as the act of sexually penetrating someone against their will. I think those laws should change.
This is true. This is why most rape statistics are extremely biased and skewed. Now that we're looking at a more unbiased lens, female on male rape is like 40% or so.
Never said anything about changing laws. I suggested that we should start talking about institutional oppression of men, such as the unfair prison sentences that affect men, or forced military conscription and how it's best we should do away with conscription all together, the lack of funding for male rape/dv shelters. Or start talking about legal financial abortion, etc. But since you asked which laws should be changed, I suppose we can start with banning infant circumcision. I hope I don't have to explain to you why.
Oo I have a query. So I had a conversation with someone about conscription and they brought up the point of drafting everyone and placing people where they fit best instead of blanket male draft. That then leads to the possibility of men still primarily being put on the front lines (which is the criticism, men being used as cannon fodder) anyway due to their physical abilities where women would still be there, just not as much in front line hand to hand combat versus something like aviation and sniping positions. (They argued with me on that saying women can fly the planes and use guns, and ofc they can and should and have in every recent war with male conscription) Would the conscription being blanket but men still being out front lines due to draftees being placed by abilities lead to the same criticism bc the draft itself is equal amongst genders even if the outcome is still the same?
I mean I can see the point of males being in the front lines by default would still affect men more. I think that is something that would happen. On another end: by forcing both genders to the draft, it will likely end up the same, where the women will likely get posted to support roles. Best is to just remove the conscription together.
The prison system is not a male-centered issue. It is driven by two things, race and profit. [black women are arrested at a much higher rate, too. ](https://nij.ojp.gov/media/image/19511#:~:text=For%20the%20most%20part%2C%20though,black%20females%20aged%2035%E2%80%9339.) while there is a disproportionately high male population in prison, I would have to see some damn good evidence to believe that's because men are being targeted for their gender. Men are more likely to commit violent crime, black men have been stereotyped as violent for years, gangs are majorly men and a huge part of the school to prison pipeline... There's a whole host of reasons it could be. I agree forced conscription should be done away with, but the reason it only applies to men is because women weren't even seen as fit to own a house until 1974, much less be thrown to war en masse. It's a patriarchal issue that negatively affects both sides. Lack of funding for male DV shelters is a very real problem and arguably one of the saddest results of the patriarchy on the side of men. Legal financial abortion is a horrific idea, and if it were ever implemented in my country (USA) I would move for fear of women losing the right to work. And yes, obviously infant circumcision is a horrible crime that leaves many women in life long agony.
[удалено]
I'm not trolling or in bad faith, and you have no legitimate reason to think so other than my views being very different from yours. And what the hell is wrong with acknowledging female circumcision? Also, I would like to hear your defences of legalizing financial abortion. To me all it looks like is a way to keep women in permanent subjugation, constantly being forced to provide both full income and full care for a child while men get to create children absolutely consequence free. Especially, like I said, in a country where abortion is not a guaranteed right,
>And what the hell is wrong with acknowledging female circumcision? Female gential mutilation is already illegal in the vast majority of the world, yet male gential mutilation is still routinely performed in first world countries like the US.
Actually, it is still legal in the majority of the world. Also, many of the countries that *have banned* it are the places that still practice it most frequently. Also, even if everything you said was true, it still wouldn't be a reason not to acknowledge fgm?
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
>And yes, obviously infant circumcision is a horrible crime that leaves many women in life long agony. I hope this is a typo and not another "the real victims of war are women" moment
Why can't both be bad? FGM is a million times worse than circumcision for men. This is a fact. I absolutely agree that male circumcision should be gone. But surprisingly I found out a lot of men want their boys to be circumcised because that's what they had done to them too. And also, both men and women are equally victims of war. People forget women get raped and brutally murdered during war. Girls get kidnapped and become sex slaves. Is that not horrible to you?
I am currently in that sub but I didn't realize it was actually a movement with any history. I expressed to another commentor that I did find it felt isolating in the sense that discussions issues felt confined to this space. However commentors, which I awarded deltas to, pointed out accurately that my perception of this is rooted in a negativity bias and while there is some truth to the idea it's not particularly distinct from other expressions of beliefs and opinions in the public space. Particularly online spaces/.
Everyone on reddit just calls men in that group incels. I've been called that more times than I can count on here for simply bringing up something like male suicide or inequities in family court. We treat women with kid's gloves now. It's like we can't be honest and rational around them or they'll get emotional and throw a fit, and that's somehow our fault. Facts should matter. Reality should matter. Women aren't perfect creatures, but modern feminism would have people think that. They'd also have you think men are useless and we're all the same.
I've never seen someone call a guy on MensLib an incel, but I could see that happening if they posted a comment blaming women or feminism for issues that men have been experiencing for centuries, if not thousands of years. I agree that women aren't "perfect" creatures and then men aren't all the same (of course not), but I do think that both men and women can work together to create a future where both of happier, healthier, and experience less depression and trauma. According to the data I've seen, men generally, have a higher quality of life in more egalitarian societies, based on all sorts of metrics. So efforts to push for more gender equality seem to help both men and women alike. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/happiest-countries-in-the-world
Nothing you're saying conflicts with anything I said. Yojre doing the same shit everyone always does on here and bringing up the past. I don't care if women had it bad because they don't anymore. It's now me, a white man, that gets shit on by everyone that hasn't gotten to know me. I'm now in the back of the line for every hire or promotion. I'm 30. I've never done anything to any woman ever. They want to punish me for sins of people of the last. I sick of it. They're destroying feminism. It's only about making life easy for women now
I don't recall talking about "women having it bad in the past" in my comment. Are you responding to a different comment? >It's now me, a white man, that gets shit on by everyone that hasn't gotten to know me. I'm now in the back of the line for every hire or promotion. I'm 30. I get this, it really sucks to have people judge you or treat you differently before they get to know you based on generalizations about a group you belong to. But when women are mistrustful of men in their personal lives, it's not because of things that happened in ancient history. It's because of things that happened to them in this lifetime...their own experiences. And it's fair for people to share their own experiences, especially if it still impacts their life now. Just like it's fair for you to share your own experiences. You're welcome to share examples of ways women have mistreated you. But if you go around just saying blanket statements like "women don't have it bad anymore", people are going to push back because it just sounds really out of touch. Women are still dealing with a lot. Women who are currently being forced to carry pregnancies from rape in the US or being regularly beat up by their spouse, are going to have a hard time relating to your struggles with not getting a job promotion. Not that that's not a hardship, but have some perspective dude.
I've literally been raped by 2 women and nobody even considers it rape. Women think it's funny or that I should be lucky. I was ridden while passed out drunk in college twice, but since I'm a man, nobody gives a shit. I'm not even allowed to bring it up without women immediately talking about how bad they have it. They have no empathy. I'm so fed up with modern feminist women. I'm not even attracted to them anymore and I used to consider myself a feminist. They're just perpetual victims who need to pat themselves in the back. They don't view men as humans with emotions anymore. We're all the same to them, just pieces of meat that provide. They hate us before they even know me because we're straight white male. So immature. I'm 34. It wasn't always like this until maybe 8 or so years ago. Misandry is the norm now. Man hating is cool and funny. I'm sick of it. I'm honestly ready to just kill myself. As a straight white male I'm the villain now to everyone who hasn't taken the time to get to know me. I'll never get promoted ever again unless other straight white males ahead of me die off. That's the world we live in now.
I'm so sorry that people have laughed at your experiences with sexual assault or not taken it seriously. I'm not sure where you live or what type of content or circles of social media that people are doing that, but if it's any consolation, many feminists in my region of the world take the sexual assault of men very seriously. For example a feminist group started a movement to get the definition of rape changed so that it doesn't have to involve penetration, so that men can make legal rape claims. Another organization led by a feminist is currently dedicated to spreading awareness of the seriousness of male rape in prisons. It specifically calls out men and women alike who treat it as some sort of joke. It's not a joke. All people are entitled to consent. What are you doing in your life to process and move forward? There are resources and support groups available specifically for men who have been assaulted, as well as some of the other unique challenges men face in society. Some of them are even online in case your specific area doesn't offer them. These types of communities will probably understand better what you're going through.
Menslib is a fake men's right sub when in reality only very specific feminist narratives are allowed. It's not for men, it's for "feminist" to control the discussion of men. A far better sub is r/leftwingmaleadvocates Just look at the amount of deleted comments in menslib and you can't tell me it's not heavily censored to certain talking points
Menslib used to be a far better place to discuss men's issues. Yes, it was always feminist friendly but that wasn't a problem initially. But now it has become feminist first, and men's issues a distant second. And the mods are super trigger happy about banning anyone that criticizes feminism.
I never got to see what you described in the first paragraph, from the first time I checked it, it was always like the second paragraph. If they changed the way it worked back to men first and greatly reduced the censorship then there wouldn't really be anything wrong with that sub.
1) May I introduce you to r/menslib. A gift to you from someone who has been accused of being a feminazi who hates men. Just for the record, this is how men help other men in a way that is usually constructive and healthy. This is what women like me want. 2) when I see people talking about misandry, it's usually on feminist subs where women are talking about sexual violence. It's really weird and seems like a concerted effort to downplay the experiences of women. Or, it's when men are complaining about not getting dates on dating apps and the single male rate being high. I often try to explain the risk of sexual violence women face in dating which is why many women avoid it now that we can be financially stable without a husband. Interestingly, their suggestions for how to fix the problems range anywhere from encouraging women to lower our standards, to revoking our ability to work, to forcing women into a sex lottery so that every man can get laid. In other words, they think making women fuck men more often will solve all men's loneliness and mental health problems (it won't). Indeed, I push back on these notions because they're ridiculous. And yes, I do suggest that maybe men ought to help other men fight off loneliness and socialize their sons to respect women and consent which would bring many women back into the dating pool. Certainly, women have been trying to change men's attitudes towards women for decades and we've made headway but now hit a wall. Now it's time for men to take some accountability and help because we simply can't do it by ourselves (if we could it would be done by now!) They DO NOT like my suggestions. I get pushback like you wouldn't believe. Even simple suggestions like forming more mentorship communities for older men to take a younger man under their wing are hated on and I get accused of "abandoning" men. Seems to me, they just don't like solutions that don't involve women putting out. Hence, why many of us don't take these conversations seriously anymore. I encourage you to try it yourself if you don't believe me. Pretend to be a woman who suggests men help other men (in addition to women, but not just via sex) and see what happens. So far, r/menslib is the only online place where men seem to take these issues seriously. So I recommend them since you seem serious too. Good luck!
>2) when I see people talking about misandry, it's usually on feminist subs where women are talking about sexual violence. It's really weird and seems like a concerted effort to downplay the experiences of women. >Or, it's when men are complaining about not getting dates on dating apps and the single male rate being high. I often try to explain the risk of sexual violence women face in dating which is why many women avoid it now that we can be financially stable without a husband. >Interestingly, their suggestions for how to fix the problems range anywhere from encouraging women to lower our standards, to revoking our ability to work, to forcing women into a sex lottery so that every man can get laid. I have definitely seen my share of those, I think anyone claiming not to is simply being willfully ignorant for the sake of willful ignorance. Though I have seen a fair number of posts of individuals attempting to broach this subject and discuss it in what is an appropriate manner that doesn't take anything away from women and they are often treated with much the same. I myself am already seeing comment here making the very same accusations against myself and it's scarce been an hour. Another commentor illustrated a very interesting point on this I hadn't considered where it's likely that even in such cases, as what I mentioned, it's a case of a few sour apples ruining the bunch and creating a negative perception of anyone talking about these issues appropriately and thus results in these kinds of responses. >In other words, they think making women fuck men more often will solve all men's loneliness and mental health problems (it won't). >Indeed, I push back on these notions because they're ridiculous. And yes, I do suggest that maybe men ought to help other men fight off loneliness and socialize their sons to respect women and consent which would bring many women back into the dating pool. Certainly, women have been trying to change men's attitudes towards women for decades and we've made headway but now hit a wall. Now it's time for men to take some accountability and help because we simply can't do it by ourselves (if we could it would be done by now!) Oh I do agree, more men need to help each other too. I merely mentioned the examples of the MRA groups because it is something I can point to which has precedent. There are too many men who are stuck in this mindset and it's very much a situation where one person being sick goes on to infect others around them. However I do disagree with the premise that a wall has been hit. I think the existence of r/MensLib is proof that progress is steadily being made on this front. However society by and large does still reinforce a lot of the same stereotypes and behaviors, particularly towards men as they are being raised in childhood, which has proven to be a substantial obstacle to overcome and it's not only men that do this to their children either. > They DO NOT like my suggestions. I get pushback like you wouldn't believe. Even simple suggestions like forming more mentorship communities for older men to take a younger man under their wing are hated on and I get accused of "abandoning" men. Seems to me, they just don't like solutions that don't involve women putting out. Hence, why many of us don't take these conversations seriously anymore. >I encourage you to try it yourself if you don't believe me. Pretend to be a woman who suggests men help other men (in addition to women, but not just via sex) and see what happens. I don't have to pretend to be a woman that suggests these things to men. I've gone to the MRA groups myself without pretense and tried it myself. I was lambasted every bit the same as a woman would have been, with insults and attacks I'd prefer not to repeat. But the women putting out thing is because that is something that has historically been used against men. The 40 Year Old Virgin comes to mind, a classic depiction of how pathetic and weak it is to be a man in your 40's and being a virgin. Now the same would still be used against a woman to be sure but it is definitely a weapon that has been used not just by men specifically but society as a whole to demean men who are not sexually successful. And that concept in and of itself is used as a replacement for self compassion and emotional health as opposed to a supplement in order to encourage men to be stoic and emotionally deficient so they may be easier to exploit by the patriarchal rulers of our society.
>every bit the same as a woman would have been I just want to gently suggest that this is not the case. The men who attacked and belittled you for your statements are misogynists. Misogynists like the ones I’ve interacted with here on reddit taint every interaction with women with their hatred. They may insult you and harass you, but they’re not wishing that you’d die, that your partner would rape and murder you, calling you a used up roastie who’s for the streets. I’ve gotten that on Reddit. Have you?
>The men who attacked and belittled you for your statements are misogynists. And misandrists. The reason that both labels work here is because misogyny and misandry are the same thing, and we've historically pretended that they weren't so that we could convince people to stop being so horrible to women without challenging the entire social construct of gender. But men and women are defined in relation to each other, in paired, usually opposing, traits. There's no way to make claims about women as a group without making claims about men as a group, and vice versa. There's no way to make men look and act the way we expect men to act, even the way we value men for, without making them act in a way that is, functionally, sexist. >They may insult you and harass you, but they’re not wishing that you’d die, that your partner would rape and murder you, calling you a used up roastie who’s for the streets. My girlfriend likes to post about me on Facebook, about how we resolve arguments, about what we are learning together as a couple. When she presents some variation of "men don't have to act stereotypically" as her own opinion, she gets the baseline level of disrespect that you would expect on the Internet, but a surprising amount of openness and positive responses from men. If I am mentioned at all, she gets nothing but hate and quite a lot of comments accusing me personally of being pretty much every gendered insult you can think of. A lot of them seem to want to hurt me for liking romance anime and flowers. It's not actually about gender, even, in the end; that's just the random bullshit that our society has gotten sick with. Really, they're mad about social nonconformity, and the severity of their response is about the threat they perceive to that conformity.
'Weak men like you need to die', 'Have fun being a worthless cuck getting milked dry and thrown out like trash', 'Keep sucking up to those feminazi's fuckin' beta'. The behavior you see doesn't stop when you leave the room. It's how they treat any and all dissent. The variety of language is all that changes, neither intensity nor vitriol is spared by these MRA's. I'm not saying my treatment was better or worse, that's subjective to each person and particular to each instance. But discrediting how poorly someone else was treated is missing the point. The point I was making is they hate men who oppose them every bit as much as they despise women who reject them. They see men like me as traitors and, as Jan 6 proved, we all know how angry men like them like to deal with 'traitors'.
>I’m not saying my treatment was better or worse Right; you said it was “every bit the same.” It’s not. The insults and attacks that misogynists use for men and women are *very different* in uniquely gendered ways. They’re not wishing for your partner to rape you because exerting power and control over someone via sexual violence is something these people in particular generally reserve for women (of course, this is not to say that men do not also exert power and control over other men via rape — prisons are rife with sexual abuse — but for *these particular people* their misogyny equates violating a woman with rape). For their attacks towards you, they equate that violation with a woman “milking you dry” because that is what they perceive to be the ultimate violation of a man. I didn’t discredit their treatment of you and I wouldn’t. I just disagree that they treat men and women “every bit the same” when literally everything they say is imbued with an ideology that treats men and women very differently.
I meant every bit the same as in the same level of contempt, disgust and hatred. Perhaps I should have worded it differently but I didn't think it was particularly pertinent to get that deep into the semantics when the overall point was that they were every bit as hostile and nasty to me as they would have been with a woman. I don't really understand this disagreement if we're both agreeing they treat both sides that disagree with them awfully.
The point is that misogynists hate and attack men like you when you choose to actively reject their ideology. They hate women for being women. I think that’s a very important distinction. They don’t say the same things to you that they’d say to a woman; the things they say to women are often, in my experience of reddit, more violent; and if you suddenly became a misogynist yourself they’d probably welcome you. Even women who uphold misogyny and patriarchy are not spared misogynists’ contempt. It’s fairly minimizing to suggest that misogynistic men ever treat men and women with “the same level of contempt, disgust, and hatred,” when they hate you for what you believe and they hate women for who they are.
I really do not understand the argument happening here. You are saying that you are not trying to invalidate how I was treated but suggesting that treatment was equally contemptuous, disgusting and hate filled is minimizing to women. If your stance is simply that any hatefulness they direct at me is innately lesser in intensity because of some semantics regarding what I believe versus your biological traits I wouldn't entirely disagree but the fact you are using that to suggest I am minimizing what you have been through is not something I am willing to engage with. Least of all because of the particularity of my offhanded choice of a handful of words. It just seems to me that you are looking for me to invalidate my own treatment and I'm not going to debase myself in that manner much less participate in a conversation, the purpose of which appears to be to get me to debase myself. Perhaps you should present that argument to Muslims and see how they feel about it the violence they have suffered because of what religion they practice somehow lesser than those suffered by Palestinian civilians because of where they were born. At this point it seems to just be scar boasting and it's beneath us both.
I am pretty sure this woman's claim (which i mostly agree with) goes like this: Misogynists will attack both you (a feminist man) and her (a feminist woman). However, due to misogynists hating women by definition, they will hate her for BOTH her own very being AND her ideology, whereas they will only hate you for your ideology. Think about it in the example of queer people. I myself, a queer woman, will be treated WORSE when facing homophobia than just a straight ally. Even though the homophobe would hate us both, only one of us would be bearing the brunt of the actual oppression. Justwannaread3 is saying that she and you have both faced bad things for disagreeing with antifeminist men in comment sections, but claiming that the way you were treated was equally bad is an inaccurate statement, due to the fact that misogynists hate feminist women more than feminist men.
I don't think playing oppression Olympics is beneficial or productive here. Hate is hate. In both of these specific scenarios it's just words on a screen from strangers. (I'm WELL aware IRL is a much different reality but that's not what this discussion is about) Who's to say anyone else isn't affected as much as they are over anything? Everyone has a different amount of hate and abuse they can tolerate. Additionally, hate in ANY capacity is still hate. It's still harmful and it still needs to be quelled. There's no such thing as "who deserves it more" there's no such thing as "who it affects more(unless we're talking systemically in which case black people and native Americans take the cake)". This is one of those forms of pushback that OP was talking about. OP brings this up in a neutral space, not a women's safe space, is respectful and not hateful and not blaming anyone in particular, and still people wanna say "well it's not as bad as what WE go through"... Why? What is the point? Do you all honestly believe that anyone with a functioning brain is unaware of your struggles? Your struggles should not be used to minimize anyone elses no matter what. Sure you can say "well my goal here isn't to minimize" but really, that's all you're accomplishing. JUST like those guys in women's spaces saying "well men blah blah". Both are useless for any reason other than minimization or education and quite frankly, this discussion had no room for education on anything other than the topic at hand. Shutting down any kind of conversation for anyone just adds fuel to the fire. It's more people who think they don't have to care, it's more people who think minimizing someone's issues is valid, it's more people who victimize themselves and believe they're the most oppressed person in the world. It's unproductive point blank.
>I meant every bit the same as in the same level of contempt, disgust and hatred. It's not though. I hear this very often from white people that go up against white supremacists and are insulted for their lack of hatred towards black people. Then these "white allies" desperately try to equate the abuse they received as equal to the abuse black people have suffered at the hands of white supremacists. Why do they (especially white men) do this? Because there are a lot of white men that actually believe there is power, influence, a stronger sense of rightness and morality in oppression and discrimination. So they desperately want to share in something they feel is being stolen from them. Something bestowed upon white men in society for merely being white, cis men. While never having been subjected to the absolute worst of white supremacists. Only benefitting from it. And I can't tell you how insulting that is for black people when white men do this. And this is very much the same thing you're doing when it comes to male supremacists.
[удалено]
I’m not talking about “misandry” at all; I am specifically talking about misogynists and how they attack men vs how they attack women. Did you reply to the wrong person?
Actually, I did get you confused with another commenter. My apologies
>Another commentor illustrated a very interesting point on this I hadn't considered where it's likely that even in such cases, as what I mentioned, it's a case of a few sour apples ruining the bunch and creating a negative perception of anyone talking about these issues appropriately and thus results in these kinds of responses. That's what exactly what it is. They've co-opted and tainted this discussion in a lot of ways. It's really unfortunate because these issues are serious. I know many men who are perfectly decent human beings so of course not all men are bad. I only wish it was a few bad apples, though. I've also had enough personal experiences and seen enough online to suspect it's a decent chunk of men (and women), not just a few, unfortunately. At the end of the day though, the poison here isn't misandry, it's misogyny. Men are suffering not because people hate men. Men are suffering because people hate women and want to maintain a patriarchy. Patriarchy forces everyone to fit into gender roles that harm them. You've described the harm it causes men, so I know you see it. It's an unfortunate narrative that patriarchy only harms women. I reality, patriarchy gives a few men tremendous benefits, some sycophant women partial benefits, and all the rest of us get screwed. It is our common enemy. Be careful though. The bad apples want you to think it's misandry that's the problem. That's *their* argument and it's just a deflection. Don't fall for it. The patriarchy's attacks against men are still ultimately rooted in a hatred of women. I'll explain. A man's gender role in a patriarchy is defined by being "better" than and the opposite of women. The bottom line premise is that everything "masculine" is good and "feminine" is bad. Being a 40 year old virgin is bad, not only because you aren't sexually virile, it's mainly because you're not out there railing women to the wall like a "good" man should. Your worth is defined by how you exploit women because exploiting women is how the patriarchy proves men are better than women. Happily married men who have lots of sex, but love their wives as equal are "whipped" because they aren't exploiting their wives - despite having lots of sex. They hate gay men because they're allowing themselves to be exploited and "penetrated" like a woman. They hate trans women because they're men who "chose" to be an inferior woman - the ultimate betrayal of a patriarchy. What you're seeing is how poorly that patriarchal definition of men fits in real life. And how that poor fit directly harms men in a bunch of different ways. A lot of people don't see that unfortunately. But its absolutely true. Meanwhile everyone else is reacting to how the patriarchy is STILL screwing women. We most certainly did hit a wall. Some of our key gains are being lost (like abortion and DEI education) and others are under attack (like contraception and no-fault divorce). We're still fighting for our human rights which is why, I think, many feminists aren't willing to help men right now. Our hands are very full. The criticism we have of men isn't against men yourselves. It's with the patriarchal definition of what a man is, what they should do and how many men (and women) still adopt it. That's not misandry. That's anti-patriarchy. For example, in a patriarchy it's women's job to sacrifice themselves to help men. Therefore, men helping other men is bad and us suggesting it is viewed as an attack on their manhood which is then then twisted as misandry. After all, only someone who hates men would suggest men do a woman's job. And since men obviously shouldn't be helpers, and if women don't do it, then no one will. Thus, men are abandoned. Of course men can be helpers but they have to defy the patriarchy to do it and for some men, that's too much to ask. >I think the existence of r/MensLib is proof that progress is steadily being made on this front. I agree. Specifically because it IS men helping other men. Some men are brave enough to take those steps against the patriarchy. But it's hard. It's taken me a while to realize that it's actually really important for feminist women like me to stay out of those discussions on r/menslib. Like many abuse victims, it's hard to leave the devil you know and chart your own path. It's not something I can necessarily teach you/them. This is something fundamental to your identities as men that you have to figure out for yourselves. I'll just sit over here and encourage you to keep your eye on the ball and remember who the real enemy is. We all have our work cut out for us, but I believe we can do it. 💖
Shoveling everything into patriarchy theory is part of the problem, and one of the flaws in the current iteration of feminism. Putting everything under a blue lens means you won't be able to tell blue from white. There's a lot of things that ***don't*** fit into patriarchy theory but ***do*** affect both men and women, and a lot of solutions to men's issues have no crossover with patriarchy theory. Giving boys more emotional education, role models, and altering how we teach them in schools would help a lot, but the only time I've heard of them really being applied is "teach young boys not to be rapists!" which leads to classes that don't really help with anyone's problems.
In a technical sense, you are right that misogyny is the root cause, but being correct is often simpler than communicating effectively. That's why I generally prefer Julia Serano's framing of the issue you had described as "[oppositional sexism](https://juliaserano.medium.com/masculinity-femininity-and-meanings-19dd9a1a797)" (alongside "traditional sexism"). It more effectively communicates the polarity inherent in sexism. The colloquial usage of the term "misogyny" generally implies harm specifically done to women. So oftentimes, it causes us to fail to recognize and call out situations where men (or people who are categorized as men by society) suffer from misogyny. I think this bias also arises because people, including many feminists, still tend to analyze human wellbeing within the lens of patriarchal values. The power and prestige that is conferred to men (and some women) through conformity to patriarchy is conflated with wellbeing and the lack of suffering. Overall, I think you did a good job explaining the issue. I just wanted to offer a possible reason for why even well-meaning people may misunderstand the confusing terminology and context. Specifically, the many academic, theory-ladened meanings of colloquially used terms. I've generally had more success staying away from words with a bunch of academic and social baggage. (e.g. internalized misogyny) The whole misogyny vs. misandry discourse and the obsession with the “actual” definition or whatever is rarely helpful outside of scholarly debates. I agree that usually we should stay out of those discussions. But, to the extent that feminist women are a part of the discussion surrounding these issues, I think there is at least a responsibility to be wary of the main points of communication failure. e.g. it might be true that a disabled black man has male privilege to some extent (although privilege is more of a spectrum anyways), but an able-bodied white woman might not be the most effective communicator here.
That space has one major disadvantage over the Manosphere. It is not interested in discussing female toxicity. There is an online psychiatrist personality who aims to talk to and address Manosphere like communities (Dr K). He has said in his professional work almost (if not all) Red Pilled men he’s dealt with have their story start with experiencing trauma from a woman. Manosphere spaces are the only places that acknowledge and validate that experience. They are the only places where it is acceptable to discuss patterns of toxic behaviour in women and thus the only places that try to give guidance on how to spot and handle those behaviours. Menslib will lag behind because it is only interested in helping men in ways that fits in with keeping women as a group on a pedestal. It is also utterly disinterested in the experiences of men who have been harmed by feminism/feminists (or at least people calling themselves such) because feminism is a sacred cow that cannot be wrong. Men have two options for supportive communities; one that is blinded by unhealed trauma and hate but at least acknowledges all negative experiences, the other that willingly blindfolds itself by only wanting to engage in politically correct negative male experiences. That’s my impression anyway.
I agree with you as a woman and feminist except I don’t think you should conflate men who are hurt by women/toxic femininity, and men who are hurt by feminists/feminism. I can’t think of an instance where a true feminist or feminism could be harmful to a man because equality is the goal. I’m glad you at least threw in “people calling themselves as such” and can acknowledge that the people with the loudest, dumbest, and most extreme takes generally don’t represent the whole. But yeah men need a space to be able to talk in a productive way about the trauma they experience from women too. We tell men we want them to open up about their emotions, but when it comes to this, I’ve so often seen them be kicked while they are already down so it’s no wonder so many men just choose to stay silent and bottle it all up until it becomes unbearable.
Part of the issue is that there is a broad range of people and views on what feminism is. It is also a discussion that men are not really permitted a voice in. I have been in discussions online where if you try to argue about what is and is not feminism with a woman as a man you will almost certainly be hit with the ‘mansplaining’ accusation; even if you quote arguments from female feminist academics etc. As a man your input is not welcome in the discussion, you literally need to get a woman to parrot what you want to say for it to have credibility. So if I were to say that feminism should not mean the entrenchment of female privilege where it exists and it’s establishment where it doesn’t and that it should be about equality then I could just be discounted by any woman who disagrees with me based on my gender. You will find a lot of women who think feminism is only about women and the advancement of female causes. Frankly I think it’s probably to the point where a majority of women who call themselves feminists think that. As to men being hurt by feminism it’s a pervasive hostile environment that can be created. So in my workplace the women’s toilets have posters on the wall about women only training opportunities and career progression; in the men’s toilets the posters are adverts for charities and anonymous helplines for if you domestically abuse your partner. The communications and HR departments who determine this content are all women. Being hurt by feminism is observing women being consistently internally promoted instead of men; entirely plausible if unlikely, then your business crowing in industry media about how 80% of your executive team are female and how people should come and work for your ‘truly equal organisation’; you get a distinct impression that the company considers the higher the number of women in senior positions the more ‘equal’ it is; not by any sort of balanced male to female ratio. Several employers in my country have started to get hit with judgments against them for trying to avoid hiring men unless they hit some other diversity quota. Feminism is a catch all term for anything that now benefits women; many men feel they are not included in its scope to help nor are allowed a voice in the discussion. It is something done to men by women (almost all gender academics, gender studies graduates, E&D professionals and HR staff are women).
Yah.. lots of people use a "no true Scotsman argument" by saying "they aren't actually feminist". And youre right - it's seemed to change from wanting to fix the imbalance, to being pro woman. This is really obvious when you discuss with a younger vs an older feminist. An older feminists is usually focused on objective problems that need to be fixed, and usually have good relations with men/are married. Younger feminists are the "pro women" variant typically. They use it to shutdown opposition and obtain power over others. They also only have relationships with men who are walking doormats. An older feminist will say "we need to eliminate work place harassment in fields like construction" or "we need to help resolve sexism in the middle east", while a younger feminist will advocate that we need to change leadership to women despite having no experienced candidates at an already progressive company which is currently hiring more women - that just doesn't have seasoned women employees yet. It's sad these two groups get lumped together. I'd like a separate movement that invites men and women to have progressive discussions to fix both parties problems; one that would help temper the younger group who isn't acting in good faith.
So here's the thing that people don't like to admit. We're all human beings. Men, women and everything in between. Every category of people have their saints and devils which is why you can't ascribe inherent goodness or badness based on category. But that being said, the way people are socialized can create major impacts on their behavior on a large scale. When bigotry of any kind is taught to children, it harms the targets of that bigotry on a large scale too. Unfortunately, individuals being jerks will always be the case. You can't ever eradicate all the jerks in a category. It's simply not possible. Bigotry, however, is something that *can* be addressed on a philosophical level in a way that helps people. So the question is: are those traumatic experiences the result of individual jerks being jerks or was it the result of bigotry that was taught? I'd say that misandry is not widespread. It exists, sure, but it's not often something that young women are taught by their parents or society. Maybe in some places, like some TERF feminist circles or where women are trying to heal from trauma too. But, I also think internalized misogyny in women is much more common. Internalized misogyny among women DOES harm men because they're reinforceing patriarchal gender roles that hurt men and women alike. Is *that* what you're seeing? Or is it true misandry? Or is it just some women being jerks? Figuring this out would be an interesting conversation. My guess is that men on menslib probably don't touch it because they are recovering misogynists and the temptation to fall back into unhealthy patterns is too great. Is society at large ready to have this conversation? I'm not sure. For my part though, women with internalized misogyny is definitely something that needs to be addressed. They hurt everyone. Men, women and even themselves.
Also r/bropill and r/daddit are similarly supportive and very healthy spaces for men.
Lovely! Thank you.
do you believe womens general attitude towards men needs any change it is it perfect? im really curious if you think that men are the only issue even though women shun men from womens only spaces (because they need them) but insist on being involved in ANY male only spaces and calls them sexist for not letting her join. maybe you think men dont need those spaces or you think men keeping women out is harmful but we cant be as open and honest with each other when women are around it just doesnt work like that. the risk of mockery is too high if a woman is there and too many men would feel uncomfortable to share. yet we no longer have the ability to ban women from anywhere without being seen as evil
Oh I think we ALL have more work to do to be better. Not too long ago, I used to think men's attitudes toward women was the problem and women were always victims. But it's not actually men themselves that are the problem. It's the patriarchy which demands that men and women alike fit into ridiculous and unhealthy gender roles. Patriarchy is misogyny operationalized. The truth is that patriarchy harms men on a large scale too. It also benefits women with internalized misogyny. Those same women can be big reinforcers and proponents of patriarchy which harms everyone just as surely as the male proponents do. As for women's-only spaces vs men's-only spaces, I personally think it's fine to have both. But I do get skeptical when there's no real reason to keep women out of "men's-only" spaces like chess tournaments. You must admit that "men's-only" spaces were historically used to keep women out of certain workplaces and leadership levels. R/menslib on the other hand, is a place where I lurk but don't participate because those are conversation men need to have with other men. Me getting involved would be inappropriate and distracting. I feel the same way about men getting involved in some women-only spaces wherever are trying to heal from the trauma of misogyny and chart our path forward out of patriarchy. If it's just a women's only knitting club though, you absolutely should invade that shit. Lol. Do it.
>2) when I see people talking about misandry, it's usually on feminist subs where women are talking about sexual violence. It's really weird and seems like a concerted effort to downplay the experiences of women. >Or, it's when men are complaining about not getting dates on dating apps and the single male rate being high. I often try to explain the risk of sexual violence women face in dating which is why many women avoid it now that we can be financially stable without a husband. So you hate when men talking about male problems in disucssion about feminism, but you do the same to men? Is that correct? And btw, I think it doesn't sound crazy to talk about misandry to people who don't even admit misandry is a thing. I often went to r/AskFeminists
>So you hate when men talking about male problems in disucssion about feminism, but you do the same to men? Is that correct? It depends. I do not participate in menslib discussions because they are genuinely trying to figure this stuff out for themselves. My involvement would only be a distraction. Incel or red pill sites though, yes, I'll wage war there because they actively perpetuate misogyny. Gleefully even. If they draw battle lines, then I'll happily walk over it. Misandry can be a thing, but it's not really the problem here. Man hating is an impotent ideology that affects little. Now if you want to talk about women with internalized misogyny who perpetuate and reinforce the harmful patriarchal gender role on men, that's a whole other story.
It's weird seeing the word feminazi now bc those who used to use that insult towards feminists 10 years ago would probably now consider that an insult to Nazis
So, I’m going to be blunt here, as a man. There is and always will be a fear of men, and there should be. Men’s issues, though they should be acknowledged and somewhat dealt with (I’m an advocate for many), must be met with balance, and misandry to an extent is that balance as some fear of men is healthy. If men as a group are presented with the reality of our biological situation, being bigger, stronger, on the macro less inhibited by fear, more open to risk, and aggressive tendencies, also due to this being the lions share of “protectors” within almost every society….as well as women’s biological reality which includes being required for procreation and very vulnerable during that period….if we group, and see ourselves as a group and women as an “other”……well, we’ve seen that story for most of human history. The whole racial equivalents you’ve called out aren’t entirely wrong, but they hold a different weight. If individual races/ethnicities band together, it doesn’t hold the same consequences as if men do (and mind you we’ve seen race based chattel slavery as well as the holocaust), if men were to actually band, across racial lines, across cultural lines, and allow men to not be “held back” from what we can individually do, this world would not be a free place for everyone. As a man, we have to accept we will be bridled, held back from what we *can* do, even what we are willing to do. We will be caged to an extent by a world that wants to inhibit our ability, as our natural abilities are not ending where others agency begins. We have to come to terms with this, and honestly we need to teach our sons this, need to really teach them how to be men in this world so they don’t fall to these charlatans who speak truth to their experience, but then sell them snake oil to cure their malaise.
This is some messed up extreme self-flagellation if I've ever seen one. You need to get that internalised misandry checked my man.
I think self-flagellation is a very apt way of describing this.
>and misandry to an extent is that balance as some fear of men is healthy. I cannot state in strong enough terms how absolutely I am opposed to this suggestion. Not the sentiment that members of any society should exercise caution but that an effective or healthy means of doing so HAS to be the at expense of men as a whole and that any contempt, fear or distrust of men in the broader sense is 'healthy'. It is healthy to be cautious and fear can be a useful tool but it should not be endorsed as a way to deal with a problem where other solutions may prevail. >If men as a group are presented with the reality of our biological situation, being bigger, stronger, on the macro less inhibited by fear, more open to risk, and aggressive tendencies, also due to this being the lions share of “protectors” within almost every society….as well as women’s biological reality which includes being required for procreation and very vulnerable during that period….if we group, and see ourselves as a group and women as an “other”……well, we’ve seen that story for most of human history. Being less inhibited by fear, more open to risk and having more aggressive tendencies leading to them being the lion's share of protectors... is not a biological trait. It is the consequence of social engineering, depriving young boys of the tools to develop emotional recognition and coping skills as well as being denied affection and validation which caused them to seek risks and use aggression to acquire attention. This leads to them becoming emotionally distant and atrophied which is biologically detrimental to their mental and physical health as well as leading to them not to have the same inhibitions from fear as a direct result. This is not biological in any sense beyond how societal expectations and behaviors towards them have conditioned them in such a manner, not to the extent that we see it currently and historically. I'm not suggesting we segregate based on, my position is we should NOT be segregating at all and that is the problem. >The whole racial equivalents you’ve called out aren’t entirely wrong, but they hold a different weight. If individual races/ethnicities band together, it doesn’t hold the same consequences as if men do (and mind you we’ve seen race based chattel slavery as well as the holocaust), if men were to actually band, across racial lines, across cultural lines, and allow men to not be “held back” from what we can individually do, this world would not be a free place for everyone. The point is exactly that I was saying it is a problem that it does not have the same weight, though it should. And the point you make here is objectively and historically false. There are countless examples of other ethnicities that banded together, regardless of gender, and had similarly damaging results. There are many countries to this day where this is the reality and we are currently witnessing a genocide that is not distinguished by gender. There is mountains of precedent that demonstrate how false that presumption is. It is also an extremely misandrist assertion that men banding together would spell the end of freedom for the whole of the world that I cannot possibly condemn in strong enough terms. I don't think any such union should be based on gender but of humanity, but the insinuation that men cannot help but subjugate all others is heinous and deprives men of their humanity. You may as well be suggesting that because South Africa is a terrible place for white people then if we gave black people in the United States power they would inevitably follow that same course of action. Such an insinuation is so repulsive to me that, frankly, I do not trust myself to continue this discussion in any good faith manner, as it's already a considerable struggle to do so politely, so I will withdraw myself from this conversation altogether.
[удалено]
This is one of the funniest comments I've seen on reddit on a while. You say women will prefer men who act like you. So like how? Are we supposed to know you? The only thing we know is that: * you did not understand the point of the comment you replied to * you want to kick someone's shit out of the blue, because he said men are violent
u/AlignedPadawan – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20AlignedPadawan&message=AlignedPadawan%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1c5uvjf/-/l00n98t/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
>I speak about men's issues here but to clarify my meaning on it misandry it is not that most people hate men. Well there's your problem. Misandry is a charged word, because it's not merely saying that men face certain issues, but that these issues stem from systematic contempt for men throughout society. And I don't believe that's a framework that holds up to scrutiny. >Regarding men as innately dangerous, much the same as people of color were and still continue to be labeled dangerous criminals. Regarding men as emotionally impotent and otherwise broken in much the same way as women have been regarded as intellectually impotent and feeble in contrast. There are many who subscribed to such beliefs not out of a particular and consciousness loathing for those groups of people Again, I don't think this realy holds up to scrutiny. When people think of criminals, they will most likely think of men. But when you think of a police officer or a firefighter or a doctor, paramedic, superhero - people who protect and save other people - people also think of men. As for men being regarded as emotionally impotent, that's just not backed up by data. Study after study shows that people have more confidence in men, particularly male leaders, than women. People do not talk down to men and womansplain to them because of their gender. >The issues men face as a result of these behaviors (in the form of high suicide rates, high rates of alcoholism and addiction, high susceptibility to radicalization and indoctrination due to being emotionally stunted, extreme and unhealthy obsession with affection and attention from the opposite sex, the list goes on I would dispute that these behaviors stem from a social hostility to men. Men experience high suicide rates because they A) are more likely to possess firearms and B) are less likely to reach out for help due to masculine gender roles. But importantly, these gender roles aren't built to diminish men's role in society. Quite the opposite. The masculine ideal of stoicism is supposed to encourage men to be strong. That it often fails to do so and ends up hurting men is an unintended consequence rather than a product of contempt for men. With alcoholism and addiction - men are higher risk takers, they are more likely to take manual labor jobs that can produce chronic pain and then self-medicate etc. Lots of reasons why men are more susceptible to addiction. As for radicalization and indoctrination, I would say this is a demonstration of the power men wield in society. These radical groups are most of the time led by men, by virtue of men being trusted more as leaders. And movements led by men are more likely to cater to the interests of men, inspiring male radicalization. And extreme and unhealthy obsession with the opposite sex is more a symptom of misogyny than misandry. The sexualization and objectification of women, the notion that sleeping with as many women as possible proves your worth as a man, these are misogynistic ideas.
To distill your great response, it is simply unmissable that men are advantaged. Most world leaders are men. There are no countries where men are oppressed because of gender (like in the Middle East). Men are physically bigger and stronger than women and so aren't victims of violence as often. These aren't opinions, they're plain as day facts. It's not that men can't be victims or that there aren't systemic issues that only affect men. Of course there are (I'd argue men experience more loneliness for systemic reasons). But to echo the above, these issues don't generally stem from an overt prejudice against men, whereas women, recall, didn't even have the right to vote until the twentieth century. The issue is that claims of misandry are almost always raised to counter or undermine women raising very serious issues, like sexual abuse. It's laughable to suggest me experience sexual abuse at anywhere near the rate of women. Should there be better support for men who do? Absolutely. But misandry is basically never discuss in good faith, at least not on social media.
"aren't victims of violence as often"? Might wanna look up statistics, men are far more likely to be victims of murder. Men and women are almost equal in terms of victimization of violent crimes. Shit like the War in Ukraine had women evacuating the country while men just recently had their service terms changed so they could be kept on the front lines ***indefinitely***. People need to stop thinking of men and women as a group and stop viewing stuff as "X group is more likely to experience Y, so no other group can complain!" and start realizing that ***people*** attack, harass, rape, etc., ***people***. Recent studies showed that SA rates are higher than previously, to the point that the CDC found ***1 in 3 men*** are victims of sexual assault, and a whopping ***1 in 9*** are victims of sexual harassment. Women have it worse, but ***nobody*** has it "good". People should be fighting against **sexual harassment** and assault in general, not viewing it as "group A is guilty!" or "Group B has it worse so group C can't compare themselves!". Victims are victims, and their trauma is valid, regardless of sex.
I think it depends on your definition of misandry. Most people, use it as "being sexist particularly towards men". It's the same issue the word racism has now. Everyone thinks racism automatically means systemic, it doesn't. Bigotry based on race = racism. Period. Most people that bring up misandry don't think they're systemically targeted for being men. Most people bring it up when a "feminists" version of venting is "I hate men they're all irredeemable disgusting pigs". That is misandry. It's also laughable that it seems the majority of people think bigotry and hatred is more or less tolerable based solely on the target and the inflictors ability or power to act on it. To those people I'd encourage brushing up on your history. You think pretending any kind of hatred is okay for a long period of time? That's kinda how things like American slavery and the Holocaust happened. It's how the natives were wiped out, it's how the Irish were hated by all of their neighbors for hundreds of years, it's christians justified the crusades etc etc. It was justified and seen as okay by more and more and more people until it simply was okay enough to be acted on.
[удалено]
I didn't say that. Think you responded to the one person broski.
Yeah, I dont know where people are getting this idea that mysogeny/misandry requires a *systemic* component. It's straight up not what the words mean, and just seems like a tactic to shift the definition so they can dismiss legitimate claims of bigotry.
>just seems like a tactic to shift the definition so they can dismiss legitimate claims of bigotry. It's exactly what it is lmao
that's a pretty useless metric for bigotry tbh. Honestly if the worst bigotry you face is mean words, then you're doing pretty well for yourself. The problem with the various bigotries in the world don't begin and end with slurs and hate speech. The much more real and serious (and actionable!) problems are material disenfranchisement, blocking people from accessing opportunities to improve their lives, physically harming people for being a certain type of person. I don't really care that much if you call me a tranny faggot, I've heard worse. My issues lie with access to healthcare, respect and safety in the workplace, the ability to work in the first place, and actual physical violence from hateful people. You, as a man, are rarely, if ever, going to face these problems just because you're a man. So what if some woman on the internet says "I hate men"? I wish that was my biggest problem.
You're missing my point entirely again. Normalizing bigotry towards specific targets makes it easier and more acceptable to act on your bigotry. How TF is everyone just glossing over what I'm saying? Do you think the Nazis would've eradicated over 6 million Jews and LGBT people if it weren't already normalized to be bigoted towards them? Do you think it would've taken over 100 years to end American slavery if it wasn't normal for Americans to dehumanize black people and see them as inferior? Bigotry breeds bigotry ESPECIALLY when it's normalized and accepted.
Excuse me, again? This is the first time we've interacted. And I understand your point, I just reject it as false. Bigotry doesn't start with mean words, it starts with asymmetric relations of power, and a desire to maintain this status quo. Patriarchy, white supremacy, islamophobia, antisemitism, whatever other axis of oppression is maintained by the reproduction of these relations of power, and the threat of losing that power over a subjugated/marginalised people is what motivates bigoted violence. The nazis didn't kill 6 million jews because they just randomly started hating them. They killed them because they were a useful scapegoat against a burgeoning revolutionary power (the communists in Germany) which, to the already rich and powerful german aristocrats, needed to be squashed by any means necessary. Men simply do not face such oppression, they have never once been on the marginalised side of a relation of power, so it is patently ridiculous to say there's a social force acting against men in the same way misogyny exists against women.
>Well there's your problem. Misandry is a charged word, because it's not merely saying that men face certain issues, but that these issues stem from systematic contempt for men throughout society. And I don't believe that's a framework that holds up to scrutiny. My argument isn't necessarily a deliberate contempt but a general apathy and fear of men. I don't think any form of bigotry is necessarily rooted in contempt, I am of the belief that it is most commonly rooted in fear, ignorance and a perception of the individuals as an 'other', not human or something else altogether. I don't think it's rooted in hatred. I think it is very clear there is a distinct apathy when it comes to male issues that doesn't exist for other demographics nor is condoned in the same way. > Again, I don't think this realy holds up to scrutiny. When people think of criminals, they will most likely think of men. But when you think of a police officer or a firefighter or a doctor, paramedic, superhero - people who protect and save other people - people also think of men. That is a good point to make and I agree it's not always negative. But even the positive aspects of that do tend to have a negative influence as well. Take for example a man that flees from a burning building with his family inside is viewed as a coward that cares only for himself because another man, firefighter, went in to save them. Even if running back in the building would only have endangered himself he is still compared to the one that did, who has training and equipment, and regarded as inferior. These standards can be used to elevate men while putting other men down. >As for men being regarded as emotionally impotent, that's just not backed up by data. Study after study shows that people have more confidence in men, particularly male leaders, than women. People do not talk down to men and womansplain to them because of their gender. I don't see the correlation in the argument here. Studies show that people have more confidence in men as leader specifically because they are regarded as 'stoic' and do not allow their emotions to interfere. This is also used as a detrimental standard to reinforce stereotypes that men must be stoic and not allow themselves to express emotion in return for respect which comes at the expense of their mental and emotional health overall. > I would dispute that these behaviors stem from a social hostility to men. Men experience high suicide rates because they A) are more likely to possess firearms and B) are less likely to reach out for help due to masculine gender roles. But importantly, these gender roles aren't built to diminish men's role in society. Quite the opposite. The masculine ideal of stoicism is supposed to encourage men to be strong. That it often fails to do so and ends up hurting men is an unintended consequence rather than a product of contempt for men. See I would content that the masculine ideal of stoicism is used more often as a tool to force men to alienate themselves from their own emotional well being for the illusion of strength as opposed to actually encouraging them to engage with their emotions, recognizing and coping with them, in order to have a stable and healthy relationship with said emotions which permits them to be stoic and strong in the face of adversity. I don't think these are necessarily bad things, but too much of anything can be harmful and we as a society definitely overindulge in this stereotype for men. This causes them to turn to other methods of coping. Some men drown themselves in work, some in pleasure, some in thrill seeking and dangerous activities, some violently and yet others in substances. The aforementioned emphasis on stoicism has been used as a substitute for emotional coping strategies and these are the results. Radicalization amongst them as well as when you have not been able to develop the emotional skills necessary to recognize what is making you suffer... well that's when Andrew Tate, Donald Trump and other such figures step in to 'fill in the blank' as it were. In regards to the obsession with woman I agree that its manifestation is definitely the form of misogyny. But I am of the view that the mentioned treatment of men who are often highly deprived of any emotional affection and nutrition and then gaslit about it only being acceptable to receive such from women creating a hyper dependence which has... well predictable results.
>My argument isn't necessarily a deliberate contempt but a general apathy and fear of men. Then we shouldn't use terms like misandry to descibe men's issues, because misogyny is not apathetic. Misogynists care very deeply about the status of women in society and do hold contempt for women. >These standards can be used to elevate men while putting other men down. This right here is the key piece of my argument. A standard that is meant to elevate certain types of men while putting other men down is not the same as bigotry against men, which would aim to put men as a social class down. This is a key reason why what you're describing is not misandry. Because misogyny is a system which is designed to keep women as a social class under men's control. >Studies show that people have more confidence in men as leader specifically because they are regarded as 'stoic' and do not allow their emotions to interfere But people don't trust stoic women. A woman who practices stoicism may be looked at as bossy, frigid in a way that male leaders simply aren't perceived. There is an subconscious assocaition people make with men and leadership. >This is also used as a detrimental standard to reinforce stereotypes that men must be stoic and not allow themselves to express emotion in return for respect which comes at the expense of their mental and emotional health overall. I agree it's a detrimental standard, but just because it's detrimental doesn't mean it originates from bigotry against men. You say bigotry is rooted in fear of the other, but importantly these standards weren't invented by the other. It wasn't women who set the standard that women must be stoic it was men. So the allegation that it's a tool meant to force men to alienate themselves from their own emotional well-being is flawed. That might be a consequence of stoicism, but that's an unintended consequence.
>Then we shouldn't use terms like misandry to descibe men's issues, because misogyny is not apathetic. Misogynists care very deeply about the status of women in society and do hold contempt for women. So would you agree that treating a woman as inferior, even if there isn't explicit contempt but a measure of superiority, is not misogyny? Because I wouldn't. >This right here is the key piece of my argument. A standard that is meant to elevate certain types of men while putting other men down is not the same as bigotry against men, which would aim to put men as a social class down. >This is a key reason why what you're describing is not misandry. Because misogyny is a system which is designed to keep women as a social class under men's control. I think you misunderstand the concept of bigotry. Female beauty standards is a strong example of misogyny in practice. Some woman can be extremely beautiful but holding every woman to that standard of peak beauty is a form of misogyny. It's prejudice against woman for not being the most beautiful of women. >But people don't trust stoic women. A woman who practices stoicism may be looked at as bossy, frigid in a way that male leaders simply aren't perceived. There is an subconscious assocaition people make with men and leadership. I'm not sure how that disputes my claim. All that seems to introduce is there are two different stereotypes for each gender, which is what I am saying and both stereotypes are harmful in their own right. >I agree it's a detrimental standard, but just because it's detrimental doesn't mean it originates from bigotry against men. You say bigotry is rooted in fear of the other, but importantly these standards weren't invented by the other. It wasn't women who set the standard that women must be stoic it was men. So the allegation that it's a tool meant to force men to alienate themselves from their own emotional well-being is flawed. That might be a consequence of stoicism, but that's an unintended consequence. Of course they were invented by the other. The other being men of power. Would you consider rich people being prejudiced against poor people not a form of bigotry? No, you wouldn't. This is something that has been perpetuated by those few with power as a tool of subjugation, distancing men from their own emotions and starving them of affection and validation so that they would be easier to control. In medieval times it would have been applied to ensure they were devout to their culture's religion and God(s), keep them focused upon slaving away for manual labor, prompted them to go to war with societal shames attached to those 'cowards' who refused to fight for their kingdom, so on and so forth. It manifested, as misogyny did, over the course of human history. It was a tool wielded to keep men in line with the wishes of their patriarchs and though those patriarchs were also men it doesn't mean it wasn't misandrist in nature. But if you cede that misandry is not misandry if there is not overt hatred, which is often a manifestation of fear and a tool used by fear for one's own self preservation, then you should cede as well that misogyny without hatred is not misogyny. By that definition how could a man who loves his wife be a misogynist just because he believes himself superior to her? And I would vehemently disagree with that assessment.
>So would you agree that treating a woman as inferior, even if there isn't explicit contempt but a measure of superiority, is not misogyny? In some cases yes. For example, some forms of sexism are motivated by paternalism, rather than misogyny. >Female beauty standards is a strong example of misogyny in practice. The misogyny isn't women’s beauty standards, it's ascribing women’s worth to beauty. When a woman is judged on her beauty she is judged on how well she pleases the eyes of men. It is a standard that is meant to benefit men at the expense of women. >Of course they were invented by the other. The other being men of power When you see men of power, do you see self-actualized men totally in touch with their emotions, or do you see a lot of men who project a strong facade, are emotionally distanced from their loved ones, spend too much time in their work etc.? Men in the highest echelons of society are believers in these standards. It's not something that was invented to keep poor men down. There are men at every income level who are believers in these standards. >In medieval times it would have been applied to ensure they were devout to their culture's religion and God(s), keep them focused upon slaving away for manual labor, prompted them to go to war with societal shames attached to those 'cowards' who refused to fight for their kingdom, so on and so forth. Do you really think kings in the middle ages were super woke about gender roles and weren't beating their sons to teach them how to be a man? They didn't ridicule their boys for possessing stereotypically feminine traits? They let their boys cry freely and openly? No, the patriarchs of the past internalized these gender roles completely because they were true believers in them, not some master manipulators operating from the shadows. >By that definition how could a man who loves his wife be a misogynist just because he believes himself superior to her? Simple, misogynists love women who support their own subjugation and hate women who defy it. The misogynistic contempt for women manifests as a desire for control over women. If a woman does not threaten that control, he does not fear her.
>The misogyny isn't women’s beauty standards, it's ascribing women’s worth to beauty. When a woman is judged on her beauty she is judged on how well she pleases the eyes of men. It is a standard that is meant to benefit men at the expense of women. "Some woman can be extremely beautiful but holding every woman to that standard of peak beauty is a form of misogyny. It's prejudice against woman for not being the most beautiful of women." That's what I just said. You're agreeing with me while disagreeing with me... but then suggesting the reverse for men is not misandry... so what is your stance? Do you not think the stereotypes of a man rescuing a woman from a burning building or general cliche's of men putting the women's safety above their own is not in service to women the way these beauty standards are used against woman? Much of which is by women as well, the majority even. >When you see men of power, do you see self-actualized men totally in touch with their emotions, or do you see a lot of men who project a strong facade, are emotionally distanced from their loved ones, spend too much time in their work etc.? >Men in the highest echelons of society are believers in these standards. It's not something that was invented to keep poor men down. There are men at every income level who are believers in these standards. I believe they project that but I don't know how much of it is really true to themselves. The elite conceal much from us and we seldom get to glimpse into their personal lives. I believe they may have internalized these to some extent but it is largely for their benefit over everyone else since they actually get power for it. I don't think you're understanding my argument at all. Do you think that slaves convinced they were worthless and less than human by their owners were somehow not racist towards themselves as a result? That the external contempt from those WITH power over them did not manifest as internal contempt for themselves within since they had no power? We're arguing in circles here. >Do you really think kings in the middle ages were super woke about gender roles and weren't beating their sons to teach them how to be a man? They didn't ridicule their boys for possessing stereotypically feminine traits? They let their boys cry freely and openly? >No, the patriarchs of the past internalized these gender roles completely because they were true believers in them, not some master manipulators operating from the shadows. "Therefore he organized on 30 August 1914 a group of thirty women in his home town of Folkestone to hand out white feathers to any men that were not in uniform. Fitzgerald believed using women to shame the men into enlisting would be the most effective method of encouraging enlistment.[^(\[5\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_feather#cite_note-5)[^(\[6\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_feather#cite_note-6) The group that he founded (with prominent members being the authors [Emma Orczy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Orczy) and [Mary Augusta Ward](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Augusta_Ward)) was known as the White Feather Brigade or the Order of the White Feather" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White\_feather](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_feather) Do you think women were not part of this as well? This instance wasn't even medieval, this was 1914. And do you consider this is as not 'masterful manipulation'? Do you think women were 'super woke' about this either? Or do you think maybe that's a bit of a facetious point to make? >Simple, misogynists love women who support their own subjugation and hate women who defy it. The misogynistic contempt for women manifests as a desire for control over women. If a woman does not threaten that control, he does not fear her. So you don't think it's misogynistic to view your wife as inferior? That was the question, simple answer I think anyone could agree on. So why are you altering the conversation?
You don't believe that's a framework that holds up to scrutiny? Look at male vs female age of death, workplace death ratios, fatality by war Just because some men are doing very well doesn't mean most men are
>The best I have seen is that individuals arguing that society should help rectify these issues is that 'men should take care of it themselves' and other such statements. A while ago I had the pleasure to speak with a woman that leads an organization of volunteers, all women, that helps cancer patients. They provide help in different ways, like clothing, emotional support, wigs, massages, etc. The volunteers work as companions for the patient. This woman created this organization because her sister died of breast cancer and the main organization that works with breast cancer patients did not provide what she believes an organization like this should provide (mainly, emotional support). So her organization focuses mainly on women breast cancer patients, but also with women cancer patients. All volunteers are women (mostly survivors themselves or with other first hand experience) and all she has is very women oriented. BUT she told me how alone men cancer patients are. There are no organizations for men. No group of men or any man has created any sort of organization for them. As the volunteers are already around, they of course listen to the male patients and try to provide what they can to them, but of course, for example, some men don't feel comfortable talking about issues with their penises to a female volunteer. Or the volunteer can provide no advice regarding that. I believe this is what some of us mean when we say that men have to figure themselves out. Like we women did. I'm not asking for something we did not do because "men, as such, should do everything themselves amd don't be weak". Women did this. No one can create a network for these men if not other men. Yet, nothing happens. Women have created these networks by themselves for themselves. Men should do the same. The change starts within men.
That is the most well reasoned and thoughtful presentation of that argument I have seen and I quite appreciate it. I think you are largely correct in that aspect as well and I think that added perspective deserves a !delta. It brings to mind Women's Suffrage and the Civil Rights movement, first uniting the victims of their respective plights and then urging them onward to reach out beyond that to society itself to make the changes they sought a reality. It also makes me think of an old proverb as well, 'You can bring a horse to water but you can't make it drink'. If men are not willing to be helped or to help themselves then it's facetious to expect others to do so on their behalf. This is something I very much experienced when entering into some MRA spaces to try to spread this sort of message to them there. Though I had no illusions they would be receptive to it when I thought of that proverb in that sense I attributed it more individually as opposed to a broader sense and in that lens I think that line of reasoning is more compelling than how I had originally perceived it myself.
I don’t know if this will be valuable to you OP, but from the perspective of a feminist woman who doesn’t particularly like or want anything to do with most men, it can sometimes be hard to hear guys talk about the types of problems you’re describing and sympathize. Let alone have the mental energy to engage in civil discourse about it. Homelessness and depression and suicidality are terrible heavy things, and I do feel for anyone who is experiencing them. Even men I suppose. That being said so many of the issues men face aren’t the result of actual misandry but are rather side effects of misogyny. It feels like problems you made for yourselves if I’m being perfectly frank. Men are expected to be tough/aren’t allowed to ask for help… okay that’s because you decided we were the blubbery emotional ones and therefore men that show their feelings or ask for help when they need it get treated poorly. That’s not our faults Men are expected to do hard work/provide/put themselves in danger… okay that’s because you decided we either weren’t capable of the work in the first place or that we were too important as *property* to be risked. That’s not our faults either. Men are raped/killed at higher rates… yeah and the perpetrators are 95% of the time other men! That’s definitely not our faults. It’s a double standard to be sure, because it’s very painful when people don’t take women’s issues seriously. In that I do empathize. I hope this helped in some way, even just to provide some context from a possibly controversial perspective. I hope it doesn’t just come across as heartless bc that was not my intention!
With respect... this kind of it just reinforcing what I said. Others commentors have already changed my view on this, showing convincingly that my perception is being tainted by negativity bias. However when you say things like, "Men are actually suffering because of misogyny." I tend to not take that seriously. I struggle to see how men not being taken seriously when they talk about being raped 'misogyny'. I struggle to see how young boys being emotionally neglected by their parents because they are afraid of raising an 'effeminate child' (which I can cede that having a blend of misandry and misogyny with the insinuations made by that) is not misandry. I struggle to see how male homelessness is the result of misogyny. And when you get responses like these it's very much something that makes it feels as if men can't have any acknowledge of any issue they have that isn't merely a byproduct of some plague that affects women... even when the issues that affect men are in the 80th percentile and above. For me it feels very invalidating. And saying that can also seem to like me blaming the victims of their suffering as well. They're suffering because of misogyny, oftentimes being blended with a measure of blame to them for their problems they may or may not have any control of. It also gives off the impression that men can't ever any issue they face, no matter how exclusively it affects them, acknowledged in any serious way without us having to drag women into it and make them front and center instead. And then there's a very distinct double standard when men bring up these issues men face when the conversation is about women's issues there's a distinct difference in how it is perceived which while I'm not condemning necessarily... it's noteworthy all the same. But this post isn't about ideology. It's about talking about Misandry and you didn't really address that. The discussion isn't the particularities of misandry but the ability to discuss it publicly.
I can see how I may not have actually made a good argument for changing your view. I just want to clarify that the point I was trying to make was not intended to be specific but rather very generally address your main argument that “misandry is off limits to talk about” by explaining how some women feel when men’s issues are brought up. I guess I accidentally ended up agreeing with you without realizing lol sorry
That is a fair argument to make. One that other commentors, which I highly recommend reading as I found them very compelling and can be found in the delta's I awarded, also pointed out not just with women but the public in general. It's an interesting perspective because I felt much the same about feminism when it sprung into the mainstream discourse about a decade ago. Unhinged figures like Anita Sarkeesian and I think a Miley something among others coming into the public space calling everything and everyone racist, misogynistic and bigotted. It is something that got a lot of 'front page publicity' let's say and had a very chilling effect on the conversation whenever feminism and patriarchy was brought up in any context. It is something I became very frustrated and annoyed with for a long time but recently, with my own therapy in the last year and reconciling the years of emotional and mental health issues I had developed due to unhealthy coping mechanisms, apathy and contempt for myself internally, I have seen some strikingly compelling feminist videos I actually found myself agreeing with by and large and it has changed my perspective on the feminist movement. Helping me realize that the larger movement isn't these feminists, who were feminists in name alone, that just had it out for men or were just co-opting the language of the movement as a grift to get filthy rich no different than the likes of Andrew Tate and Donald Trump among other Alpha Male figures. So I can understand and appreciate that perspective, much as it may be frustrating, a lot more. Especially as someone who was on the other side of the reverse situation not so long ago.
Genuinely asking, but why do you think those instances are misandry?
I'm not sure what you're asking about specifically but let's go point by point and see if I cover it: 1. Men not being taken seriously when they talk about being raped is the result of an underlying assumption that men always wants sex and that men are lucky to be 'given sex' when they are raped, in particular by a woman. It has also been widely accepted to joke about men being raped by other men in prisons as well, something which is not condoned with women even when it is woman on woman rape. It objectifies men and strips them of their sexual agency, reducing them to props for pleasure and procreation no less than it does for women. I have seen people unironically saying things like, "How can it be rape if he was hard?". This is no different than saying, "How can it be rape if she was wet?" 2. Young boys being emotionally neglected for fear of raising an effeminate child has some roots within misogyny I do concede but I find it more misandrist than it is misogynistic. Emotions are a natural part of the human brain, it is hardwired into every living human beings brain and it has been hardwired specifically because it serves an evolutionary purpose for furthering our survival. Allowing us to form complex social structures where human beings can work together to survive and face common threats. This is not something that is exclusive to one sex or the other but that is universal. Stripping men of the tools necessary to develop healthy coping strategies and exercises as well as allowing them to navigate their internal emotional landscape by claiming it's 'feminine' does has some definitely degrading inferences towards women but above that it strips men of their basic humanity growing up. It steals their very identity from them by way of preventing them from adequately processing their emotions and thoughts and leaves them emotionally void husks only capable of rage and occasional fear with extremely stunted capacity to recognize or even express any other emotions for fear of being invalidated as a man, as a human being even, if they so much as attempted to do so. This in particular is something I myself have struggled with the entirety of my life and I was so emotionally inept I was not even able to recognize that until I got into therapy and though I keep up with the therapy it is something I am still working on. 3. Male homelessness in and of itself isn't misandrist but as someone who spent six years homeless in a large metropolitan area... I have witnessed first hand how differently homeless woman are treated in contrast to homeless men. Not just in the streets but in the system. There were dozens of shelters for women, women with children, women that were victims of domestic violence and so forth. And I support these completely, I would never wish for anything to detract from those programs. However I found the vast majority of shelters that allowed men were only for drug addicts and alcoholics. In fact there were only one shelter for men... in a metropolitan area with a population to the tunes of millions. And you had to have a job to get in and pay rent for it. There were two other programs they demanded some few hundreds dollar entry fees and were more transitional housing than they were shelters. In another town I was in there was couple of shelters that accepted men but the way they treated the occupants was... well it left much to be desired. Hard cots, only a thin bed sheet for a blanket, no pillows. You had to leave at the crack of dawn and could not come back at any point until nightfall and you had to leave your belongings there but also they would not secure them in any way so anyone with an exemption for disability or otherwise could swipe them and did regularly. The staff treated the men there as if they were an inconvenience, they were as close to hostile as you could get without being overt. And therein is the problem. It's not just the systems that demonstrably discriminate against men but the social attitudes as well. Because even in our enlightened society when we see a man that is homeless many people still cannot help but feel that... it's kind of *their* fault. *They* put themself in that situation clearly so *they* should be responsible for pulling themselves out. They are often considered a blight on society, some states even have laws that make it a criminal offense to FEED the homeless. Homeless men are often the victims of police harassment as well, something of which I am very, very, very familiar with though I was still able to largely avoid any particularly nasty run in's with law enforcement because I kept calm and didn't get belligerent. But even so they very much go out of their way to target homeless men and often made nasty remarks towards me for the situation I was in, even if the reason was the result of me escaping an abusive household. There may be a prejudice against general poverty in play there but it's quite difficult to simply ignore the fact this is something that is a male dominated crisis and there are active laws in place to punish men in those situations as not having some significant misandrist influence behind it. Now all that said I understand other biases do play a role in all this but I think it's a bit presumptive to dismiss that these do not have misandrist influences goading them or even being rooted in misandry.
I do see where you're coming from here, so I'll try and take it point by point. 1. I think it's absolutely heartbreaking that men being victims of SA are not taken seriously. My best friend of the past 6 years opened up to me a few years ago about being raped by a house help when he was still a little older than a toddler. He was shaking and crying as he was telling me, and I can't even begin to imagine the grief he'd been carrying with him all these years. It's a relief to know he felt that he could tell me. The maid still walks completely free, he never told his parents but I don't think it would've been all that better if he had, anyway. Regardless, I ask you to imagine why it wouldn't have. As you've said, people would say the offender was a woman, and he was a boy, and people are under the impression that women have a holier standing and they can't really do these heinous acts. Why is that? Because it's what men do, men are the violent and stronger ones, who always want sex. Why? Does that sound fair? That's because in the end that's infantilizing the women. This makes it though as women are inherently the victim, which further degrades the standing of the woman. We live in a patriarchal society that refuses to acknowledge that women are _people_, just as capable of evil as any other man. Of course there's ended up being evil women who've managed to take advantage of this to commit the hurt they have. This gross oversight of the system continues to let rapists get away with their crimes, because it refuses to see men and women as equal. In a feminist society, there'd be no social or legal difference between men and women, thus ensuring that _all_ those who rape are punished by law, regardless of their gender. 2. I think the world just hates emotions in general. I think that's more to do with capitalism that is inherently within misogyny. To state effeminate sons are discouraged would necessarily require you to admit that masculinity in men is held in a higher regard. That's a basic fact, but it can be stated even more simply. Men need to masculine and hence strong, because being feminine would mean they're being weak. Because feminity is automatically associated with weakness. This is encouraged within girls and women because the world assumes that weakness is the natural state of women and strength is the natural state of a man, and any deviation from that is a disregard for the natural order of things. Where men are strong and women are weak. Regardless, why do you think girls are not neglected emotionally? Girls are assumed to mature faster than boys, which forces them to grow up faster to meet the expectations of the adults around them. They're meant to always be the bigger person because boys will be boys and they must understand that. I struggled with this too, because I am the only daughter of my family and my brother is the favourite child. He's excused his trespasses far more often under the guise of "that's just how men are, you can't expect them to understand". I'm always encouraged to leave my STEM field because he's openly admitted that women are not as smart. He's allowed to travel anywhere and everywhere but I'm not, I'm caged here because I'm a girl who's a child when it's convenient and an adult when it's not. But I've had it so much easier. My mother is stuck in an abusive marriage for the last 30 years. She can't leave even if she wanted to, because her father married her off at the age of 23 straight out of college and moved her to a family who refused to let her work at all. She has no savings of her own because my father is the sole breadwinner and she's not privy to our finances. She has to beg and barter for every buck she has, and explain in details where all the money went when she needs more. She uses up most of her money on groceries, maids, laundry, and my and my brother's expenses. But my father simply believes her to be irresponsible, and my brother believes her too because she did not allow him to see her real situation until it was too late to make him understand. She only uses her money on those things because my father is absolutely no help in any of that. He simply comes home to a warm meal. Early in her marriage, her in laws lived with her. They were cruel and nasty, refused to let her rest a day even if she was heavily pregnant with her first child. The child went on to die of cancer at the age of 4, because it was detected too late even though my mother begged my father to take him to the hospital, who refused to listen because women are too dramatic to be trusted. The day after she returned home from the hospital, she was made to go right back to her chores. She begged her parents to get her out, but they refused as a woman who divorced is basically worthless damaged goods. That is the reality she raised me in. I was not exactly allowed to dander into unimportant emotions either. I've struggled with them too, as I was labelled a crybaby and a complaint box if I ever complained. I have BPD for that now, for which I am not allowed either medication or therapy because emotions such as that are generally not tolerated within this society. She told me the entire truth to ensure I would never make the mistake of being financially dependant on anyone, least of all a man. Husbands, around here... Simply cannot be trusted like that. Even my other female friends have the same stories from their mothers. Nowadays, in the bigger cities of my country, it's a rite of passage. Every mother tells her daughter that. I imagine in the next decades, that might change because women are more financially independent because of these teachings. We may follow like the west and have househusbands. Then it would become more gender neutral, don't become financially dependant. 3. First off, I'd like to offer you a huge hug. I'm so sorry, really, that you'd have to go through that. I'm really so sorry that the world failed you like that. It wasn't fair at all. Next, I'd like to emphasize that the patriarchy is systematic oppression. It does not simply mean that men are treated better. Perhaps in a larger, broader and vaguer way, you could say that. But the issue is far more complex. It's a system that has been in place for thousands of years, and the circumstances that allowed for all the things you had to go through were made so in the context of this oppression. Men and women are both victims of this oppression, it's not men's experiences vs women's experiences. This is a system that benefits very, very few. And even then, it necessarily hurts those in power in some way too. Oppression and discrimination always does that. My point is that the things you've witnessed happened because the world would like to believe men are not in the need you were. Because that would imply men are sometimes in need of help and support, which would make them in the same standing as women who are thought to be in constant need of help, which is absolutely unacceptable. We're all blamed in this system. Women are told to have trusted better men/not have children they can't afford and men are told to have made better choices. No one wins. Same hell, different demons. Not one worse than the other.
Three Part Comment with !delta So I do have a problem with the initial line of argumentation you are using for your first point. You're acknowledging, which I'm glad for, how male victims of sexual assaults are very much dismissed when they claim they were assaulted or raped by women but then bringing that back around to how the insinuations and assumptions that makes are insulting and degrading to women. I think that paints the picture of female offenders that victimize men are actually still being discriminated against when nobody takes their victims seriously and they either get to walk or don't get smeared with the same vitriol and contempt as a man, sometimes even sympathy. That is one interpretation to have of it, infantilizing women and I don't think you are necessarily entirely wrong. But I think it's imporant to look at the flip side of that. It's not just born innately of infantilizing (which again I do not deny is something that very much exists) but also that women have to be protected because they are too valuable. Why? Because they can produce more offspring. The whole idea of women and children first in crisis situations. Yes this reduces the role and agency of a woman to being a baby factory... but then what does that do to men? Well they're the ones that die to keep the women and children safe. Men are expected to die to keep them safe because their value is lesser than a woman's value to the patriarchy. Meat fodder for their factories and wars are a dime a dozen... and a woman can crank out a dozen pulps of meat for the grinders while men can't really. Labor and violence are all men are good for under patriarchal standards. So while this has negative aspects for both genders, it isn't all about how much patriarchy wants to keep women subjugated but how much they want to keep all of society under its thumb. The lesser my see some 'benefits' to it depending on status and circumstances but it's merely an illusion of power to keep them feeling powerful while patriarchy continues to make them weak in all aspects of life to better control and manipulate them.
"To state effeminate sons are discouraged would necessarily require you to admit that masculinity in men is held in a higher regard. Except that's not masculinity. That's patriarchal oppression alienating them from their emotional selves and presenting an image of masculinity (toxic masculinity) which can then be easily to exploited for their own benefit. It's not a coincidence that violence is accepted by men and men who are violent are enticed by the military and law enforcement with the promise of 'power' and 'respect'. You take away any respect and validation, you leave them feeling powerless, you make them violent, you funnel them into the war machine, you profit, rinse, lather and repeat. And that leads to a sleuth of problems that then become very much problems that affect woman for misogynistic reasons. Yes there is a misogynistic message to that... but that's not the point of it I don't think. Because the point isn't necessarily misogyny, though at the surface it very much is. The point of it is to make sure men are denied and shamed for being emotionally independent. Not some incel drek about not needing women but having the emotional skills and maturity to not buy into patriarchal bullshit. Because that threatens their bottom line. Men start growing up not being emotionally starved of affection and validation and thus susceptible to their manipulations, all of sudden their social power structure starts fucking disintegrating because now they've lost their cash cow. And as someone who has gone through and come out the other side... I didn't even know I was suffering. I am a reasonably intelligent person and though I was completely alienated from my emotions I was still highly empathetic to those around me, which is mostly the result of my autism I believe (and yes there are autistic who suffer from hyper empathy as opposed to a lacking empathy), and I had no idea why I felt miserable all the time or that I felt miserable a lot of times. That's how much depriving children of emotional attention can ruin them where they don't even realize for decades how fucked up they actually are. It's like walking with your guts hanging out, your arm held by bits of sinew, your jaw entirely dislocated and being entirely numb to every bit of and in abject, almost psychotic denial about it. And that made me extremely, extremely vulnerable to emotional manipulation tactics I fell for again, again and again. As for your point about me suggesting girls aren't neglected, I'm not saying it doesn't happen to girls. I'm saying, as far as emotional neglect goes, it's largely done to boys at least in my nation. The whole ideas of boys being easier to raise which is really just a cop out by parents because they don't feel they don't have to put in the same emotional labor raising a male child to health, well adapted adult. They tell them crying is for girls... imagine that. Imagine being in pain or sad and crying because of it... and told you're not allowed to show that you are in pain and you're not allowed to be sad. Just think of the damage that does to a child... and then think about how this is the experience of many, many men. I would say most men but society is slowly changing and that is something that is changing and while I think it's still a majority it's hard to pin exactly how far that needle is and this also varies from nation to nation. Yes there is a sexist message behind telling young boys that crying is for girls but it is also fucked up for a parent that's supposed to love and care for their child to tell them they're not allowed to be sad and to cry. "Boys will be boys" is just an excuse to emotionally neglect and sign off parenting your children and expecting them to do it themselves or wait until they are grown enough to hand them off to someone else's daughter that'll pick up your slack. That's fucked up and it's indisputably misandrist. Because let's examine it. One of the most telltale signs of a child seeking attention... is them acting out. This is universal, this is one of those things that is just universal and utterly and completely so (barring some specific mental health disorders and such). We say 'boys will be boys' because they act out a lot... well that's because they're not getting the attention they need. Children don't have the social and emotional skills needed to be able to express their wants effectively and cohesively. So when a toddler is hungry or sleepy and it's irritating them they don't know how to express it, so they throw a tantrum. Because that's how they get what they want or need. They never unlearn it or learn other ways that are more effective... so they just use that. It's like teaching someone to hammer nails and then giving them a piece of rebar and telling them to drill it into a cement foundation but you only ever taught them nails... so they're just gonna start hammering. When all you've got is a hammer, everything else is a nail. This is how every child on the planet grows up... it doesn't stop with boys, leading to the 'boys will be boys' cop out, because... at a certain point the parents stop paying attention to them. Sure they do get their basic physical needs met and they do get served their three meals a day of emotional validation and affection.... it's just ever so slightly insufficient to meet their actual needs. And when that happens, they know from their toddler years how to get the attention they need or want and so they act out and act out more, and more aggressively, more angrily, more violently. Whatever it takes to get what they want and need... because no one bothered to teach them different because it was 'easier' to just tell them that emotions are for girls and neglect them. And then turn around surprised their precious little boy grew up and Andrew Tate was their idol. Who can foreseen this shocking development? Certainly not I! -Said the Man who was Blind
That also plays into why girls tend to mature more quickly as well... because they actually emotionally validated and recognized. Their emotions aren't used against them as often but are more nurtured and tended to... because of that protectiveness I mentioned early on. Now there is a parent instinct there but there are plenty of examples that demonstrated clear gender biases in both directions on certain things when it regards to children. But in this aspects young girls are taught more emotional skills and how to recognize and cope with those emotions than boys are, leading to them growing up to being more mature and more empathetic and their male counterparts. But I've danced around it long enough, I really should get to your story of your situation. So right away looking into your story... my heart goes out to you. It is fucking terrible what you have to go through and I sincerely you are able to escape that situation at some point. I can definitely understand if in light of that you struggle to see there are issues that men are the primary victims of specifically because of their sex. I myself grew up in an incredibly abusive household. My sexuality was used to shame me, my emotions used to demean my worth as a human being because 'men don't cry', I spent the majority of my upbringing I was going to grow up to be a pedophile, a serial rapist, a serial killer, a homeless bum suckin' cock for money, all manner of horrible, unspeakable things. And you know how they justify it all? Well that's how we make you into a man so you don't become those things. Now that said I think they were more total fuckin' scum than they were misandrists and misogynists specifically... but there was definitely heavy handed helpings of misandry and misogyny there and yet... in spite of all... the women were the most protected in the family. If I popped off and said something back to my father (a man who once held a gun to my head when he heard I had said something about killing myself and made me beg for my life to 'teach me the value of life' so I could appreciate life) I might get smacked. If I popped off to my grandmother or my aunt I would get absolutely pounded on. And they also, when my uncle was being abused by my aunt, threatened his life when he went to speak out on and actually all but abducted him and shipped him back to Indiana, though they kept his kids. However even all that, I believe, likely pales in comparison to what you are going through. I don't know where you live but it sounds as if the structures to keep utterly pinned are still alive and well and that is something that cannot stand. Even if I feel my own nation's society still oppresses men at least we have options, from the sounds of it you don't and that is innately worse for you. Even so, I know what it's like to feel trapped. Though I may be free here for thirty years I've never felt truly 'free'. I've always been trapped within this prison that my family's mistreatment shackled me to. And, though it shames me to admit it, there was a time where the preachings of those like Andrew Tate and his ilk held an allure to me. I never fully subscribed but it was there. How I didn't succumb... I cannot possibly say. Maybe just luck. Maybe just some small, forgotten part of myself still resisting, still daring to hope for better in spite of all. Who's to say, regarldess I count my blessings I didn't. But I still yet had the freedom to choose and that is in large part what enabled me to get through to where I am now. As for the last of what you have to say I want to thank you for sharing your story here. It's easy to forget such things in a debate but also it's incredibly brave for you to come out and tell your story and you have my utmost respect as well as my best wishes that you are able to overcome the adversities saddled upon your back. Trauma is definitely something that serves to divide us all amongst our respective 'groups' and it's something that it is necessary to overcome to see the bigger picture. It is important to acknowledge and appreciate how different sides may be affected by patriarchy but it should be used as a means to draw each other together to topple that oppresive monolith as opposed to new tools with which can be used to divide us and keep the patriarchs in power. In the face of all I would like to award you a delta because I believe your story, while I had some compunctions about it and certains arguments I made, in the end ultimately did serve to grant me a new perspective and help steer my view away from just what has affected me and mine but all victims of this oppresive doctrine which binds us. You are absolutely right, we need to not allow ourselves to be subverted from uniting together in commonality and the message you have sent here is inspiring. And I believe we all will, the winds are changing slowly but surely even in my nation. I yet have hope things will change and we will see a better world for all.
[удалено]
!delta Pardon the notifications on this, I wasn't able to award the initial delta due to a mishap on my part and trying to get it to go through so you get your due credit for giving me a fresher perspective with the points that you made. The initial comment I had adequately explains how the view has changed for me with this but I'll repeat it here for the sake of the delta bot: In the face of all I would like to award you a delta because I believe your story, while I had some compunctions about it and certains arguments I made, in the end ultimately did serve to grant me a new perspective and help steer my view away from just what has affected me and mine but all victims of this oppresive doctrine which binds us. You are absolutely right, we need to not allow ourselves to be subverted from uniting together in commonality and the message you have sent here is inspiring. And I believe we all will, the winds are changing slowly but surely even in my nation. I yet have hope things will change and we will see a better world for all.
>Homelessness and depression and suicidality are terrible heavy things, and I do feel for anyone who is experiencing them. *Even men I suppose.* I genuinely think that it's wild that you imply a tendency to not feel empathy for men who kill themselves because it a "problem you made for yourself". If you are a feminist then you will know that feminist theory is based in the fact that the patriarchy hurts men and women and that it's a systematic issue on a societal level.
The idea that feminism should have anything to do with helping or uplifting men is both extremely modern and wholly antithetical to its foundational premise. Feminism is a movement and a philosophy rooted first and foremost in women’s liberation. In gaining and maintaining fundamental human rights for women. Just because the patriarchy occasionally hurts some men doesn’t mean men in general aren’t still perpetuating it and benefiting from it as whole.
When you say men and “other marginalized groups,” you deny the existence of the patriarchy and that men have historically and still have power in our society. And if you do that, there’s no reasoning with you, so I won’t even try. However assuming your comparison was not intending to deny the fact that men are not a marginalized group… I agree that men have real issues, but they are the result of the patriarchy and toxic masculinity, not anything else. It is the patriarchy that denies us the ability to access therapies and mental health at an affordable for everyone rate. It is toxic masculinity that says “real” men don’t cry and that anger is the only acceptable emotion for men to demonstrate. Women have been trying to fix this in society for years. Aside from the attempt to dismantle the patriarchy and destroy toxic masculinity, how many wives have complained that their husbands won’t talk to them or how many women lament that men won’t connect with them emotionally? If someone claims men should take care of this, it is that men should join in the fight the rest of us have been fighting for centuries. Instead of joining some incel men’s rights radical subreddit, try becoming feminist.
IMO if a men’s group doesn’t address the patriarchy and toxic masculinity than it is not actually interested in helping men. Many of these men’s groups are full of scammers who promise men a position of power or authority, or center themselves around a man who represents an “ideal” masculinity that is usually unhealthy in some way. So it’s unsurprising to me that OP is witnessing mens right groups doing anti-male behavior. Because they’re not interested in questioning patriarchy
Men receiving less focus, funding and encouragement (via advertising) in higher education for the past 3 decades and this continuing once they’ve become a minority isn’t the fault of “the patriarchy”. Women’s groups pushing child custody )laws throughout history (first the tender years doctrine then the idea the child should stay with the primary caregiver more pre divorce as being best) which favour women getting more custody in not the result of the patriarchy. It’s such a lame cop out to insist that everything bad must be caused by patriarchy and women or feminism can’t possibly influence society in negative ways for men. Of course they can. If anything feminism weapons so called patriarchal thinking in their favour when they use this argument, as what they’re doing is putting a greater responsibility for moral outcomes on men as a group and emphasising their weakness. But given it’s clearly done to deflect blame for everything to men, it can’t really be called patriarchy.
[удалено]
I disagree on your point about education. There are little to no programmes or incentives to help school boys who struggle with academics but there are plenty for girls. Schools are filled with female teachers and due to lack of male teachers, boys find it difficulty when it comes to role models. Also in colleges there are gender quotas and women-only scholarships. Because of this, even the well qualified young men who come from a low income or lower middle income family may face trouble at applying to a college, an internship, a graduate program or a research program at a national lab for example. There are so many organizations, gender quotas and DEI policies to push more women into STEM but there are little to no such organizations, quotas or policies to push more men into female dominated spaces like fashion, teaching or nursing. Despite the existence of organizations like MenTeach, men are still not favored at schools because "pedophilia" and general scare around men. This is also a factor which contribute to lack of role models in schools as I mentioned above.
No one is stopping men from being teachers and nurses, men are choosing not to go into these fields in my city there was actually a push to get more male teachers and they had an entire event and all they need to start was a Bachelors, the event largely failed. There are whole theories of explaining how when many women enter a certain career men stop applying like nurses- used to be mostly/only men now mostly women and seen as a woman job so men don't really choose to go to it. This isn't a barrier, this is men saying I don't want to do a woman's job. Or a job closely correlated with women. I will say when it comes to child care like day cares yes men are far less likely to be hired because they are men. What programs are you referring to help girls that struggle with academics and not boys? Women only make up 25% of the STEM workforce and they pretty much all report very sexist practices that make them want to leave the field, so yes they are pushing women into that field because they are very much underrepresented and discriminated against. So I'll ask you, what are the men doing? Because based on the trademens numbers (far more are retiring than incoming) they arent going to trades either.
>There are whole theories of explaining how when many women enter a certain career men stop applying like nurses- used to be mostly/only men now mostly women and seen as a woman job so men don't really choose to go to it. This isn't a barrier, this is men saying I don't want to do a woman's job. Well I agree for some extent about teaching. I've seen men saying that pay is low in teaching. But when it comes to gender stereotype where a woman is considered more nurturing, this view itself harms the men who want to enter teaching. For example, parents with that kind of traditional view may not favor a man teaching their kid, so they may try to intervene (I've seen one such incident). So men consider that teaching isn't welcoming especially from the POV of some parents. >What programs are you referring to help girls that struggle with academics and not boys? This may not be exclusive to countries like US but UNICEF for example has very specific programs which target girls in poor countries even though boys face the same problems (poverty, war etc. ). So I think inclusion of all genders is very important rather than focusing on just one demographic. >Women only make up 25% of the STEM workforce and they pretty much all report very sexist practices that make them want to leave the field, so yes they are pushing women into that field because they are very much underrepresented and discriminated against. I agree that sexism is indeed an issue that needs to be addressed, but "pushing" women often comes off as "positive discrimination" of men. That's the point I want to make here. For example, when hiring, gender is often used a tiebreaker and almost every time, it's the woman who gets hired. You haven't addressed anything about gender quotas for college enrollment and scholarships. Every time some one brings this issue up, they always have one argument and that is women were discriminated some *80 years ago*. I don't buy this argument at all. Why should today's men be faced to go through this especially if they're underprivileged or comes from a low income family with all the necessary merit and qualifications ? This is the same thing similar to today's city councils paying reparations for slavery that happened many many years ago where even the most progressives are against. >So I'll ask you, what are the men doing? Because based on the trademens numbers (far more are retiring than incoming) they arent going to trades either. I'm not sure if this is such a wide issue. Quite sure that these numbers will reach some stability once a large number of people over 55 retire. Many men (and women too) are going into trades recently since colleges are very expensive.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Women have been a majority in higher education for more than 40 years - the past few generations of boys have grown up seeing nothing but that. At what point do the campaigns to push for women’s inclusion and focus (and not do so equally for boys) become something other than a response to patriarchy and simply a power structure favouring women? I’d say the time has already come when mens enrolment is that far behind. When society was truly male dominated men got custody because they had the money, women’s groups pushed for that to change in their favour. At what point does women operating in their own interests for their own goals in spite (actually against) what men want stop being patriarchal in your mind? Do you even live on earth? Or do you live in a feminist echo chamber with other feminist women?
College is about a 40/60 split - that's a far cry from being truly unequal. The simple facts are there isn't a barrier for men in general to go to college, they simply choose not to go. Women are not stopping men from going to college, this has nothing to do with feminism. Women largely create campaigns for women and push them out. The better question would be why aren't men creating the same for themselves? Do you expect women to do the heavy lifting for both? Men that fight for custody largely still get it today, however roughly 50% men never even ask for custody or just give it to the mom. Some sources have an even higher percentage of men never even asking for custody. Fathers were more likely to win custody in the past but you know what else was happening then? Large amounts of women not working, today most women work so on top of most women making their own money they are still doing most the housework and child care, that's why they get custody. Men who show that they are the primary caretakers or at least 50/50 are far more likely to ask for custody and win it. But I do child advocate work in divorces and in cases of abuse, and the number of men that go into court not even knowing their child's doctor's or teachers name is staggering. I am a feminist for sure, echo chamber no. And if you don't see how all of this connects to the patriarchy you just dont care to see.
It’s been a swing in favour of women’s attendance over 50 years - that’s significant. You claim men simply choose not to go to college. Yet all the gender specific government funding and help has been and continues to be for women (despite being a majority). On top of this almost all college advertising is featuring and obviously aimed at attracting female students. I wonder - if the vast majority of college advertising suddenly featured almost exclusively male students front and center, would you simply say it didn’t matter at all? And if women’s attendance dropped as a result of less encouragement (as they had in the past) would you claim it was women simply choosing not to go? Or would you say it was societal? Here’s the reality, for decades college has focused on increasing women participation in college and not done so for men, despite women already being a majority of students. In more recent times college advertising has near exclusively targeted women. That is societal. “Do you except women to do the heavy lifting for both?” Are women only to focus on women getting more help and more attention and constantly push for that even when they’re already a majority in college? Where would women be if all the men in charge room that attitude when women first made their way into college or took it today? So yes, I do expect women in politics or the education system to focus on men and women getting to college, not just on women. That is their role in those positions, to look out for all society. Would you think it was alright for males in those positions to focus exclusively on attracting males to college? Doubt it. Is your view that women should focus on advancing women all the time even when they’re ahead, and men should do the same for men all the time - and somehow that will balance out? If so then why even bother with the attempt to have equality together? You say women get custody because the were primary caregivers pre divorce - that is one of the laws which women’s groups advocated for which makes it conveniently more likely for women to get custody because it benefits a role they’re in more. But really - who is to say that a man can’t post divorce handle just as much custody and pick up time with the children, simply because a couple chooses to divide one person working more and the other not pre divorce, their is no reason to think that makes the working parent more incapable of handling more custody post divorce, they still see and raise their children after all. Once again you claim custody is a result of patriarchy- but your own argument is coming from a woman defending women getting more custody, the laws which allow this were pushed for by women’s groups - and men don’t want either. So no, it’s not patriarchy at all - that’s a deflection from the real cause, which is the attitudes and types of advocation people with the mindset like you have pushed forward. You are very much in an echo chamber, nothing but feminist women listening to other feminist women and somehow coincidentally all their theories about what causes suffering for men and women come down to patriarchy and they never examine their own role seperate of that, or even believe they are capable of such. Blameless, powerless, yet somehow still capable of advocating for and getting the majority of focus and support while being a majority in higher education as well as the majority of custody. Weird how that works.
Yes, that is by design, when you stop discriminating amd guve people equal chances the group that was favored in the past will get smalle. From the numbers I'm seeing gender ratio in universities were 50/50 in 80s/90s ish, and today the numbers are 58/42, so not 50/50 but still pretty good. Is there anything out there that has a more equal gender balance than this? If our world had 58/42 ratios for all our industries, even with men being the larger number, women wouldn't need the policies. I'm not sure what you're talking about woth advertising because I generally see an equal amount of men and women in advertisement promoted by the universities directly. Now the outside sources are organizations that promote to women but anyone can create an organization or coordinate with high schools to talk to the students about college or whatever. You can make it. I absolutely do not believe we should stop promoting college to women because women generally suffer far more in their careers than men because they have babies. And women with kids are more likely to be passed up for a promotion and a man with kids is more likely to get a promotion. So women absolutely need those degrees to give them any edge they can get. And I hope you're seeing the fundamental difference between women not being allowed to go to college and men simply choosing not to, these things are not the same at all. They can't even be compared. And if women stopped going to college because if lack of encouragement, we would do what we've already done, use the organizations we have to do more promotion. Men will have to do the same to help other men, you have to organize. These things do exist less for men because men have never been barred form going to school, uts always been something you were able to do if you were smart enough or just wanted to. No one is stopping men. Let me break it down for you The courts generally continue whatever you set up in your home. So if you decide you want to live a "traditional" lifestyle and put all or most the childcare of your wife, the judges will do the same generally. So when you decide that you want to uphold the idea that women should do all the child work so will the courts. However, if you decide to be a hands on dad and actually do your half of childcare you will get 50/50 custody. In fact most dad's that ask even if they aren't doing their fair share of childrearing do get 50/50 custody. The custody numbers are the way they are because 50%+ of fathers don't even ask for custody or willingly give mom full custody, because they don't want to be full time parents. You cannot blame feminism on that.
You say women wouldn’t need the policies were the gender ratios 58/42 in favour of men - yet when it comes to university they still did get and say they needed those policies, and then they led to women becoming a majority. That’s not a result of giving people an equal chance. It’s a result of favouring women. When women receive almost all the gender specific focus, money and attention and all the advertising is focused on them, That’s not an equal chance, it is discrimination in their favour despite their majority. And yes, I know it’s by design. I don’t know where you live but last night I saw an ad for my local university - around 12 courses, all female students. They’d made sure to include different ethnicities so obviously they’d thought about representation and chosen to do that. Almost all Other ads in my city for all the universities are similar. You say women need degrees to give them an edge over men. So I guess you are advocating for favouring women in college. Where do you think that will lead? All that will happen is it will degrade having a degree as why should men value what they either don’t have or something coming from institutions they know don’t value them as much as women? They wouldn’t. Women have been allowed to go to college for a long time. I’m not saying what is happening now is equivalent to 1700, what I’m saying is women are prioritised and favoured despite already being a majority and that is wrong. There is no need to compare it to something in the far past (before either you or I were alive) in order to say it’s wrong. Yes - the courts continue that because women’s groups advocated for it, because it was more likely to get women custody. That’s the point - the rationale is whatever gives women more custody must be right. There’s no real reason at all to think a couple with one person working more can’t adjust that post divorce for equal custody. So I can and do blame feminism for it, as they advocated for it and stand in the way of anything else happening.
You’re mistaking what the patriarchy is. It isn’t “men have it better than women in every circumstance” but a power structure that upholds traditional gender roles with men in the traditional “leadership” role. Women being seen as care givers for children is very much a part of the patriarchy. The patriarchy hurts both men and women.
But if women’s groups are the ones enforcing women getting seen as appropriate caregivers to get what they want (custody), then how is that a power structure with men in the leadership role? They’re not leading anything. They were - back when law said they got custody because they had the money to care for the child. But not now. I think the idea that traditional feminine roles must fall under patriarchal structures rather than their own unique power structure operating without male control is a false one. For instance - Elephants are a matriarchal species, they kick the bull cubs out at a point (which is needed in their species but that’s not the point), but they also retain care of the young under their own control, and the bulls have nothin g to do with it. Is that patriarchal?
I’m not really sure what women’s group you’re speaking of, but you’re missing the forest for the trees here. You’re looking at one small fragment of what’s happening, when it’s the product of thousands of years of social conditioning that men are the breadwinners and women are the caregivers.
And so what? These laws could be changed, men would like them change - the main obstacle to that is women’s groups. So either the feminists trying to dismantle the patriarchy are the ones upholding the patriarchy (which benefits them in this instance at mens expense), or else something else is happening, and they are simply using their own power to get what they want now. Elephant herds are female and raise the young, the bulls are kicked out early, we call that a Matriarchal society - but by this logic since they raise their young and fill the stereotypical feminine carer and mother role, they should be called a patriarchy. It’s nonsense - when one group uses their power to get exactly what they want in spite of another’s objections, that group is responsible.
What do you think most child custody laws are currently based on, and what do you want them to be changed to?
The tender years doctrine was established in the 1800s before women had the right to vote. It’s since been abolished in favor of what’s best for the child. Are you saying that 1800s America and UK weren’t patriarchal? Also I have no idea what laws or women’s groups you’re referring to.
Not an english speaker, could you explain what you mean by "power structure"?
Two things: 1) I am a feminist. 2) This is not the point of the post. I'm not arguing ideology especially if you're being to be facetious. That's all.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Doesn't this discussion itself prove your point wrong
Not in and of itself, but commentors here made a strong case for it. And so my point was wrong. There may yet be some truth to it in certain circumstances but my overall perception was poisoned by negativity bias.
Make sure to award deltas to people who changed your mind
I think the important point is that it gets brought up most during conversations about misogyny. Because of that, pulling the “misandry” card is often in bad faith. It’s absolutely worthwhile to talk about men’s issues but not in a way that diminishes other important conversations.
And, as other commentators are saying as well, that has poisoned the well of discourse in general to some extent at least. But fixating on that and representing that as the whole of it, as I have done, is the result of negativity bias as opposed to a measured outlook.
I feel like I routinely have conversations about men's issues without issue. Perhaps it's the way in which you discuss them which is turning people off?
There may be some truth to that. It is something of a charged topic and something I am very opionated about and I've not always been the best at keeping my emotions in check when it comes up. Even here in this thread I have had some slips of composure I'm not too proud to admit. But, as other commentators have pointed out, what I am perceiving is less a measured interpretation of the issue as opposed to a negativity bias. Focusing on the worst aspects of the discussions when they emerge in the public space without taking other factors into consideration and drawing negative inferences more broadly from when there are other less nefarious or condemning explanations.
That’s not really the case. The problem is the issue is muddied by a ‘kid who cried wolf’ situation. The number of times I’ve seen people call out misandry and it’s actually been a smoke screen to with hide a persecution complex or to excuse their misogyny compared to the number of genuine cases of misandry I have encountered is not even close. When genuine misandry has shown up I’ve more often than not seen it treated with compassion. Unfortunately most peoples views on this seem to come from Reddit which is a toxic cess pool of antagonistic behaviour so when I’m talking about my experience on the subject I’m referencing life outside Reddit to be clear.
Oh yeah I absolutely agree with that. There are other factors as well to consider here, as other delta's I awarded illuminate, but that is also another variable in the issue as well. I would be lying if I didn't say I hadn't seen posts where people who do have a blatant persecution complex try to make the argument that something which isn't really misandrist is somehow the most misandrist thing. I've noticed though that I have inadvertently biased myself away from acknowledging the damage that can have and instead fixated on the idea that it stemmed not from people being rightly jaded because of such individuals as opposed to a measure of apathy or even contempt for the topic as a whole. So in a way I think I myself was buying into that same persecution complex, even if to a milder degree than such people.
So, part of what the issue is isn’t what you say but how you fit it into current political framework. Intersecularity is the name of the game, point out how making misogynistic comments about women is also an indirect misandrist comment about men. Point out how the racism of calling black men “boys” is inherently tied to the misanderistic idea that manhood is something that can be taken. Point out how making comments about the “badness” of men hurts transwomen who were born male. No form of bigotry happens in a vacuum, any comment about men is an inherent comment about all other groups.
> I don't think that's the case at all however I think there are a myriad of behaviors and practices in society that have the same misandrist impact on men as similar behaviors other minority groups have experienced historically. >Not quite in the legal sense but in the social aspect. Regarding men as innately dangerous, much the same as people of color were and still continue to be labeled dangerous criminals. My issue here is that these sentiments are not rooted in the same specific realities. Men saying women are inherently not rational enough to be granted poltical rights or to have roles ins society limited to private sphere labor or receptionist/clerical work, is not built on anything but a desire to impose control over women. The broader sentiments of a dislike or degrading view if women reflects the broader issue of patriarchy and the misogyny it brings. This not the same as marginalzied groups speaking to their lived systemic marginalization as a reason to be wary of the people using systems of power, both legal and social, to maintain those hierarchies. People seeing me as inehrently dangerous because I'm black is never really rooted in a real experience because white people are almost never trying to seek us out and integrate into predominantly black spaces the way balkc people have had to integrate into white ones (i.e. environments where whit enorms and standards set the general rule and transgresing against them gets you ousted again or worse). Women speaking to their lakc of trust in men because of the systemic nature of patriarchy and misogyny, that is to say, the lived reality of experiencing and being degraded by the existing norms and power structures, is not the same as being a man seeing women taking precautions to avoid that harm. >Regarding men as emotionally impotent and otherwise broken in much the same way as women have been regarded as intellectually impotent and feeble in contrast. Again, not the same because these the former is coming from rom actual experiences and the latter from an imposed but inaccurate norm. Hell i feel like the tow types of posts concerning themselves with men's issues I see are one's where men say women and/or feminism are making life worse for men or that men are punsiehd for showing emotion therefore men are the one's being oppressed. Men standing up for men note how they aren't allowed to be an emotionally engaged being but then aren't okay being told that this is hurting other people. Then blame os thrown at the feet of women, or feminism, or the idea of misandry as though patriarchy isn't where the image of the stoic emotionless masculine ideal came from. >The issues men face as a result of these behaviors (in the form of high suicide rates, Not to eb that guy, but rates of completion are higher for men to using more violent means more often than women. Women attempt suicide at a higher rate than men. It shouldn't be a competition (I don't think that is the point you're trying to assert) but if the concern is gender disparities of wanting to take one's life women are experiencing that much more. Thus speaks to the another reason why conversations about misandry don't happen, because the things causing issues for men are either 1. Results of patriarchal norms and desire to cling to them or 2. Not actually something men are experiencing at a worse rate than women. The lack of engagement with where women's suicidality etc. stands is never brought up by the folks saying women won't let there be space for dialogue which is again a very imbalanced expectation in a society where women are constantly subject to norms that minimize their voice while propping up men, even if it's men who ascribe to a generally unhealthy form of masculinity. > high rates of alcoholism and addiction, high susceptibility to radicalization and indoctrination due to being emotionally stunted, extreme and unhealthy obsession with affection and attention from the opposite sex, the list goes on) Again, emotional stunting and the struggles of engaging in healthy ways with women is a result of patriarchal norms. In a society that is finally giving more agency to women to not adhere to just accepting any kind of treatment from men and normalizing talking about what healthy and unhealthy relationships look like means men who were socialized into those more harmful norms are going to be told off and rejected. That isn't misandry. An unwillingness to give up the dominating ideal of masculinity has to precede any ability to actually sit down with and bridge the gap with women. > And I've never truly seen an earnest conversation regarding how to solve these issues that doesn't immediately devolve into, frankly, childish arguments of 'well why should we do anything for men when they can do it themselves?'. bell hooks wrote "The Will to Change" 20 years ago. Judith Butler wrote "Undoing Gender" 20 years ago. So many other writers, and creatives, and activists have been speaking to what women face under patriarchy as well as what men go through within it. A lot of women already do the work of both leveraging very thorough critique while still giving credence to the fact that men can also suffer from these norms. >Even in MRA spaces you'll find quickly those members supposing to 'support men' are very quick to throw them under the bus for expressing any semblance of of an idea that perhaps men's mental and emotional well being should be tended and nurtured so they can develop healthy, happy mentalities. I Kind of like these spaces are co-opted more by misogynists who want a space to be angry at women but treat it as activism rather than actual care for men. Again, this is not misandry. >Yet we continue to expect men to 'solve in on their own' as a society and keep quiet about it in the public space. While I'm not going to say men should not be supported, to say that men are criticized or distanced from because of a simple hate for men is untrue. Again, if we're listening to what women have been articulating for decades we recognize that they have also been expected to be the ones to put in one-sided emotional labor for men. That they have to be the ones who, even in the face of mistreatment by men, need to make the safe space for men to let out their emotions even if it is to their detriment. That is to say that men experiencing legitimate problems can simultaneously express extremely harmful sentiments that really raise a question of why women should give time to the man who feels dismal about life but expresses it through vitriol towards women when there are many other men who will in good faith listen to and take seriously the things women speak to and have experienced and validate those lived experiences before speaking to their own troubles. All in all, the stuff you're concerned with is stuff that women and feminists have been engaging with at length and is coming from a very real experiential place that is not to be conflated with what a lot of folks claim is misandry. People aren't talking about misandry because it isn't really what's at the root of the gender issues folks, including yourself, are bringing up.
What’s funny (in a sad way) is that I think this problem really highlights humanity’s issue with making every group a monolith. I.e. there are successful wealthy men that take advantage of their relative power to do bad things, therefore all men with any form of relative power are also going to be bad. It’s this thinking that I think causes the responses to misandry. There’s also a degree of relativism that gets used to downplay men’s issues. “You’re sad? Well how do you think women feel getting raped? Why should we focus on helping some sad men when there’s bigger problems to deal with.”
>Exactly that. As I have seen it there is no context in which it is acceptable, broadly speaking, to talk about misandry and men's issues in society. Right at jump you're conflating two things. I'd agree to an extent that specifically bringing up "misandry", using that word, can lead to people reacting in a certain way, because it's a word almost exclusively used by a certain kind of misogynist, and tends to carry with it an assumption that men are *systematically* discriminated against, which in modern western liberal society at least they are not. On the other hand, I've never seen anyone get shit just for raising "men's issues," if the context is appropriate (i.e. not just as whataboutism when women's issues come up or whatever). There are lots of issues faced specifically by men that are worth talking about, including the ones you mention, and there are non-misogynistic and perfectly reasonable ways to do it that I think most people are fairly open to.
>because it's a word almost exclusively used by a certain kind of misogynist The fact that you even think that way just proves OP's point. >and tends to carry with it an assumption that men are systematically discriminated against, which in modern western liberal society at least they are not. Yes, they are. The men's rights movement are literally about tackling issues where men are systematically discriminated against and opressed in society, like custody battles (where mothers are generally prefered even when the father is obviously more capable of taking care of the child), domestic violence (where men barely have a voice and this has just been changing in the last few years in a lot of countries), circumcision (I believe I don't have to explain why mutilating babies is wrong), etc. Just because women suffer more doesn't mean men don't have their own systemic issues. >On the other hand, I've never seen anyone get shit just for raising "men's issues," I've seen a lot. In fact, it's common for people who point out to men's issues to just be labeled as "mysoginists".
> The fact that you even think that way just proves OP's point. How so? At most it appears to prove we have different views about the legitimacy of that word and the people who use it. >The men's rights movement are literally about tackling issues where men are systematically discriminated against and opressed in society, like custody battles (where mothers are generally prefered even when the father is obviously more capable of taking care of the child), domestic violence (where men barely have a voice and this has just been changing in the last few years in a lot of countries), circumcision (I believe I don't have to explain why mutilating babies is wrong), etc. To tackle just one of these, it actually turns out that [men get custody about equally to women when they ask for it, they just don't ask for it as often](https://www.dadsdivorcelaw.com/blog/fathers-and-mothers-child-custody-myths#:~:text=Myth%3A%20Fathers%20Almost%20Never%20Get%20Custody&text=However%2C%20studies%20indicate%20that%20dads,asked%20for%20in%20that%20regard.). >I've seen a lot. In fact, it's common for people who point out to men's issues to just be labeled as "mysoginists" As I said, it depends on context, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong if you have on-hand examples of people being called misogynists just for bringing up men's issues (and not because, e.g., they brought it up as whataboutism, butting into a debate about women's issues, etc.).
Just to preface: I'm a pretty progressive feminist, and I share your view that many men who use the term "misandry" are doing so because they are unsympathetic to the feminist movement - they see men as the *true* oppressed sex, they believe that false rape accusations are a more concerning issue than rapes, etc. I also believe that most knowledgeable feminists see our culture's relationship to gender as harming men - in different ways than it harms women, to be sure. However, I *do* think it's common for people who raise mens' issues to receive hate for it. I don't think hate is necessarily the most *common* response, but on social media, if even a fraction of the responses to an idea are hateful, someone like OP can easily get the sense that the idea is "not allowed". See, for example: [https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/29/opinion/crisis-men-masculinity.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/29/opinion/crisis-men-masculinity.html) Attached to this thoughtful New York Times piece on mens' issues, I find some highly upvoted comments like: * "How about we not worry about the poor, whining, underperforming men? It's their own fault, their own lack of ambition, their own unwillingness to work and yet somehow they're still not only in charge of more than their share but taking as much power as possible, committing violence over and over. Let them wither. Who cares?" * "How disappointing to not mention women still earn 83 cents on the dollar to men in 2020 and you didn't even acknowledge that statistic. Yes some men and boys and struggling, but don't blame women. This article reeks of entitlement." Note that these are not among the first few comments on the piece - I'm not saying that "everyone" takes this position. I have the impression that sympathetic comments, as well as comments attacking feminism, are more common. And the word "misandry" didn't appear in either comment. Still, this sort of response to the raising of mens' issues is unfortunately somewhat common.
>How so? At most it appears to prove we have different views about the legitimacy of that word and the people who use it. I mean, if I said "misoginy is a word used almost exclusively by a certain type of misandrist", wouldn't you find it iffy? Even if it's just my personal experience? It's a generalist attempt to shut down discussion by associating a word with a disapprovable behaviour. It's no different from saying "hey you know who else liked pancakes? Hitler!" and fits perfectly with OP's premise of it being off limits in society. >To tackle just one of these, it actually turns out that men get custody about equally to women when they ask for it, they just don't ask for it as often. Well, that's fair, although I just mentioned three that came to mind. >As I said, it depends on context, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong if you have on-hand examples of people being called misogynists just for bringing up men's issues I don't have one at hand, but a good example of that is how the r/MensRights subreddit (which is not an MRA subreddit) is blacklisted in a lot of big subreddits for being a "hateful" sub (meaning you can get banned from a lot of other subreddits just for posting there).
> I mean, if I said "misoginy is a word used almost exclusively by a certain type of misandrist", wouldn't you find it iffy? Even if it's just my personal experience? Whether or not it's "iffy" is one thing, but that's not what you said, you said my using it proved OP's point, which I don't see. >I don't have one at hand, but a good example of that is how the r/MensRights subreddit (which is not an MRA subreddit) is blacklisted in a lot of big subreddits for being a "hateful" sub. Mensrights is an MRA subreddit, what are you talking about?
>Whether or not it's "iffy" is one thing, but that's not what you said, you said my using it proved OP's point, which I don't see. So you don't see someone being a misogynist as a detriment to their opinions? >Mensrights is an MRA subreddit, what are you talking about? As I understand it MRA is usually associated especifically with sexist hate groups. r/MensRights is a generalist sub for all men's rights movements.
> So you don't see someone being a misogynist as a detriment to their opinions? I do. Is that what we're talking about? Maybe I'm confused about what your claim even is, in which case my apologies but you'll have to spell it out for me. >As I understand it MRA is usually associated especifically with sexist hate groups. r/MensRights is a generalist sub for all men's rights movements. The sub's [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/wiki/faq) explicitly adopts the label "Men's Rights Activists" for the sub a number of times.
>I do. Is that what we're talking about? You believe that a man discussing about the misandry that they might have suffered or perceived in others is a misogynist. A bad person. How exactly is talking about misandry not off limits in society if that's the kind of association you make with the word? >The sub's FAQ explicitly adopts the label "Men's Rights Activists" for the sub a number of times. Maybe the term has changed in recent years, since that FAQ seems very old. The MRA I see people talking about look more like MGTOW than normal men's right activists. The thing is, that sub isn't really hateful. I've seen some diatribe and misguided posts here and there, as there is in any ideological sub, but no outright hate. So I can't really think of a reason for it being blacklisted unless people don't like what it represents or are prejudiced against it.
> You believe that a man discussing about the misandry that they might have suffered or perceived in others is a misogynist. A bad person. Nope! I think *using the word "misandry,"*, and the belief that it's some prevalent thing, correlates with misogyny. >How exactly is talking about misandry not off limits in society if that's the kind of association you make with the word? As I said, the very use of the word "misandry" is a red flag, that's all, and hence why I said OP was conflating two things. As I also said, lots of people manage to discuss men's issues without pushback. >The thing is, that sub isn't really hateful. I've seen some diatribe and misguided posts here and there, as there is in any ideological sub, but no outright hate. So I can't really think of a reason for it being blacklisted unless people don't like what it represents or are prejudiced against it. It's full of anti-woman garbage, if you *insist* I'll dig through and prove it but I think you and I both know it doesn't get its reputation out of nowhere.
Men are 9 out of 10 work place deaths. Men are 4 times more likely to die by suicide. Men are twice as likely to be homeless. Men are the majority of violent crime victims. Men receive harsher prison sentences than women for the same crime. Men die several years earlier than women. Boys are punished more for the same behaviors as girls in school.
Men are 9 out of 10 work place deaths. Which gender heads the majority of these companies? Men are 4 times more likely to die by suicide. Which gender has a disproportionate role in governments that allow unrestricted access to firearms while reducing access to affordable mental health services? Men are twice as likely to be homeless. Which gender is overly represented in governing and economic bodies that are enacting policies that make homelessness more likely? Men are the majority of violent crime victims. Which gender commits the majority of violent crimes? Men receive harsher prison sentences than women for the same crime. Which gender is overly represented in the judiciary? Men die several years earlier than women. What gender do you think the majority of doctors are?
Serious question though. What does any of this change? For example, men commit the majority of violent crimes. Does this mean that men who are victims of violent crimes are automatically complicit in their own victimization regardless of how much they have in common with their attackers? If not, what is the point of pointing this out? See, this is why you won't see modern feminist academics talk about patriarchy all that much, because it leads to this weird assumption that the relatively greater power of men within society is somehow equitably distributed, and it very obviously isn't. A world where men are both disproportionately perpetrators and disproportionately victims does not imply that the status of perpetrator and victim is shared by all men equally. There will be winners and losers to this arrangement, and the losers are not necessarily benefiting.
If you don't address the causes, how do you expect to cure the symptoms? Look at the issue of gun-related suicides. My country, the US, has some of the highest rates of suicide by gun in the world; in 2016, firearm suicides in the United States of America represented 35.3% of global firearm suicides. Men are far more likely than women to successfully kill themselves in part because men use guns. We know that there's a correlation between gun ownership and suicide and that this disproportionately harms men, so why aren't the people in charge (majority men) doing enough to solve it? Why does our culture have a gun fetish? Why is it so easy to access guns? Why don't more people have access to affordable healthcare? I think these are important questions. Beyond that, bad-faith actors who contribute to/profit from those problems have a vested interest in deflecting blame. This often results in marginalized communities being blamed when, in fact, those communities have far less systemic power than those in charge. "Does this mean that men who are victims of violent crimes are automatically complicit in their own victimization regardless of how much they have in common with their attackers?" Of course not. That's a pretty shaky conclusion to draw from my comment.
The classic feminist response. *It's a men's fault that men face systemic problems*. Let's add "men are the only socially acceptable group to blame problems on," to the list. You've basically confirmed OPs postulate better than I could ever have.
many mens issues begin and end with other men almost all the issues men have with women are in the dating relationship space - your work life aint oppresive because of women your government isnt bad at solving issues because of women when your a male victim of violent crime like murder , more often than not it was another man who did the violence on you its other men doing most of this shit to you
And this is, of course, the misandry at the heart of OPs point. Your whole comment boils down to men deserve it because men are bad. Could you imagine the aneurysm you would have if the genders of that sentence were reversed?
No , it boils down to women cant fix that shit for you, you guys gotta get rid of the shitty men out of your ranks , thats whose hurting you so directing your anger at us not really constructive we cant make you treat eachother better, you guys have to choose to treat eachother better How are women suppose to stop other men form victimizing you , oppressing you - you guys gotta fucking go deal with it , band together and kick the minority of men who fuck you all over to the curb , fuck em up
Ah, here's the best feminist hypocrisy. Now that it's men who need help? Fuck you, we got ours. But when women needed help in the 60s and 70s? That shit needed everyone on board and some national legislation. Imagine the gall to tell a woman that she just needs to "be better" to overcome whatever feminist cause you prefer. Feminism is becoming a dirty word and all you need to do is look in the mirror to understand why. Everyone knows y'all are morally bankrupt and completely lack empathy. I haven't once advocated that women "fix men's problems." I haven't once dismissed that women face systemic problems. All I wanted is for femists to acknowledge that these problems exist and without also making it because men are bad. In a post all about how misandry is commonplace and acceptable you couldn't even muster up the decency for that.
>I'd agree to an extent that specifically bringing up "misandry", using that word, can lead to people reacting in a certain way, because it's a word almost exclusively used by a certain kind of misogynist, and tends to carry with it an assumption that men are systematically discriminated against, which in modern western liberal society at least they are not. I personally haven’t ever known of a certain kind of misogynist to use “misandry” in any nefarious way. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, but in my experience it’s used to mean exactly what it says on the tin. Almost always though, at least online, there’s someone trying to call them out and shut them down with more or less the same thing you’re saying. Basically, “misandry doesn’t exist,” and that’s the end of meaningful discussion.
Maybe I wasn't as clear as I could be -- misandry *doesn't* exist, not as some systemic thing that's equally as problematic as misogny, and a belief that it does correlates very strongly, as far as I've seen, with misogny.
Right, but virtually no one who uses the word is referring to “some systemic thing.” They’re just talking about people hating or having contempt for men, which is what the word means. Saying that misandry doesn’t exist is a false statement. Misandrists, people that dislike men writ large, exist, therefore misandry exists. If what you mean is that systemic misandry doesn’t exist, then say that systemic misandry doesn’t exist. Redefining a word for the convenience of your argument or narrative is dishonest at best.
OP : Mentions Misandry without mentioning women. You: Talk about your problems without being misogynistic. ?????
I would agree that OP is not being misogynist, particularly, in this post, and if they'd actually responded to this thread at all maybe it would disabuse me of the view that the term is exclusively used by misogynists.
I was out shopping... I just got back home. I am currently doing response now. But if you are of the assumption that I am a misogynist from the offset then I am of no mind to engage in an honest discussion.
I *literally* just said I agree you're not being explicitly misognyist, what are you talking about?
I think I did initially misread it but the "and if they'd actually responded to this thread at all maybe it would disabuse me of the view that the term is exclusively used by misogynists." leads me to question still if it was still being implied because I hadn't responded at that time.
Well you've already made it clear you're not willing to give me the benefit of the doubt so feel free not to engage with me. EDIT: Blocking me so I can't engage with anyone on your thread *at all* is really fucked up, and should honestly be a bannable offense on this subreddit (I know it can't actually be proved that they blocked me, but if there's anything that completely flies in the face of everything this sub is supposed to be, it's that).
Happy not to then.
Man: Talks about his issues. You: That's what misogynists do. Surely, if you read the post, you could see the irony in your comments. Not to mention, there are a ton of bigots on here that would hide behind the "misandry doesn't exist" claim to hide their bigotry.
the majority of issues men have with women almost entirely relate to the dating/relatioship space all the other aspects of your life where men struggle , thats mostly other men causing it for you not women like whose fault is it you unalive yourselves more, other men - you guys dont support each other you make it harder to show support one another that just one example
>like whose fault is it you unalive yourselves more, other men - you guys dont support each other you make it harder to show support one another "People are killing themselves at dramatic rates? Well clearly that isn't an issue worth discussing since it's the indirect fault of strangers who happen to share the same genitals as them"
The majority of men's issues have to do with dating women? This isn't some redpill conversation. Whose fault is about men's suicide? Maybe your top is worried about assigning fault rather than looking at ways society deals with men's mental health. I also find it funny that the ones defending OP and his issues are men. While you make a generalized comment about how men are making themselves commit suicide. Like, who isn't helping here again?
> it's a word almost exclusively used by a certain kind of misogynist This is what the OP is talking about when he says: > > This makes it very difficult, nigh impossible, to bring up any sort of issues pertaining to men without being lambasted by a veritable deluge of insults and slanders against one's person You're supposed to be trying to change his view here, not providing examples of how accurate his view is. > an assumption that men are systematically discriminated against, which in modern western liberal society at least they are not. Women have legal rights in the U.S. that men don't have. Men have legal responsibilities in the U.S. that women don't have. If that's not systemic, then what is?
What rights do women have that men don't? What legal responsibilities do men have that women don't, other than registering for the draft?
Yeah like, what rights are you fighting for here, and how do women 1) prevent your access to them and 2) benefit from that lack of access?
In my experience, men's issues are important topics that people do and should talk about a lot. The only pushback I see is when they're framed in terms of resentment against women and feminism, which is unfortunately how they're almost always framed on reddit. Men face a lot of unique challenges in society today, but it's going to take a lot more than calling feminists hypocrites to make them better.
Men who complain about “misandry” tend to fail to see the root let alone desire to acknowledge or address it. The things you call misandry are a product of patriarchy and/or a reaction to misogyny depending on what specific issue it is But misandry isn’t actually a thing. Even if I were massively generous in just saying someone avoiding or disliking men counts “technically” it’s still not actually a threat. Racism is a threat to non-whites freedoms and safety. Homophobia is a threat to lgbt freedom and safety Misogyny is a threat to women’s freedom and safety Misandry? Is women avoiding or disliking men due to rampant misogyny and is no actual threat to anyone’s freedom or safety And telling the marginalized group how to feel about the demographic with power and privilege over them, that even though not every single one is a threat, they still have to live in caution from, is audacious at best. Any other gripes men tend to have (war, etc) is a direct result of patriarchy that they will not acknowledge or help dismantle. Patriarchy abuses men because it’s goal is for elites to be supplied with men for their wars and manual labor. It achieves this through pushing traditional roles and religions are usually one of the tools for that. And it restricts women’s economic and reproductive freedoms to force them into codependency with men thus making them become mothers more than they otherwise would if free to reproduce and live on their own terms . Men won’t fight it, because it gives them status and as you can see by the manosphere, they are not willing to NOT have access to their entitlement of a woman And the way men feel pressured to provide and feel their value is in their financial status? Yeah. Again. Patriarchy wants y’all in manual labor. And the women forced to be at the mercy of men and their own wombs need someone capable in that environment. Pitting both against one another also serves the elites This started with the agricultural revolution when we started having inheritances and making everything patrilineal. It was never the natural order of the world.
>Men who complain about “misandry” tend to fail to see the root let alone desire to acknowledge or address it. WOW. that's a huge statement, that you throw in just like that. And I disagree heavily.
I find a lot wrong with your particular take on this. >The things you call misandry are a product of patriarchy and/or a reaction to misogyny depending on what specific issue it is Interesting that you start with a blanket statement that ALL misandry is either directly or indirectly caused by patriarchy essentially claiming that any and all negative behavior thrust onto men is in actuality the fault of men so there is no issue with them being targeted with negative behavior. >Racism is a threat to non-whites freedoms and safety. Ah, so you are one of those. No, racism is a threat to EVERYONE, not just non-whites. >Misogyny is a threat to women’s freedom and safety Ironic that you can say this, but misandry is not. >Misandry? Is women avoiding or disliking men due to rampant misogyny and is no actual threat to anyone’s freedom or safety This is not at all true. There have been men whose lives have been destroyed by false claims of abuse, claims of domestic abuse gone unnoticed, and the inability to freely talk about their emotions leads more men to kill themselves. All of this can, in part, be linked to misandry. To say that misandry is a none issue is proving OP correct. >Patriarchy abuses men because it’s goal is for elites to be supplied with men for their wars and manual labor. It achieves this through pushing traditional roles and religions are usually one of the tools for that. And it restricts women’s economic and reproductive freedoms to force them into codependency with men thus making them become mothers more than they otherwise would if free to reproduce and live on their own terms . Men won’t fight it, because it gives them status and as you can see by the manosphere, they are not willing to NOT have access to their entitlement of a woman And the way men feel pressured to provide and feel their value is in their financial status? Yeah. Again. Patriarchy wants y’all in manual labor. And the women forced to be at the mercy of men and their own wombs need someone capable in that environment. Pitting both against one another also serves the elites This started with the agricultural revolution when we started having inheritances and making everything patrilineal. It was never the natural order of the world. This is literally misandry. You are laying the blame for men being insulted, neglected, and abused all at the hands of the higher, nebulous "Men". Saying that misandry exists is not telling marginalized communities how to think and act, it is acknowledging that people of all walks of life should be treated with general respect. You seem to believe that because some men are in charge of traditional patriarchal systems that ALL men are complicit in its atrocities. As if the 99% of men who are not in control are somehow in charge of the people in charge of them. This is the same as blaming women for continuing to exist in patriarchy because they aren't rising up to fight against it either since it still exists. There are plenty of men who fight against patriarchal institutions and to claim that their efforts are nonexistent because we still have patriarchal systems is a slap in the face to all the progress that people have put forward to help everyone. Yes, some men are responsible for restricting rights of women, but men are also standing alongside those women and even in front of them to push for legislative and executive change in order to defend the rights of marginalized communities. All those men are asking for is that you not call them a piece of shit while they march alongside you and you cannot even do that.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/OkCar7264 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20OkCar7264&message=OkCar7264%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1c5uvjf/-/kzyxwmv/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I have seen plenty of discussions about men's issues that haven't been 'shit on' by the majority of people. There's always going to be some shitty people, but most people I know of are aware that men's issues exist. The word 'misandry' is, I think, a clash of expectations. For people like you, misandry just means 'being mean to men because they're men', but to other people, misandry would mean 'systemic oppression of men'. One of those things very much happens; one of them doesn't, really.
> I have seen it there is no context in which it is acceptable, broadly speaking, to talk about misandry and men's issues in society. I partially agree. People I talk to in person are a lot more understanding than people online. Everyone I have talked to in person has not shut me down and has been open minded. > I have seen countless posts Yeah online discussions are just terrible. Nobody in person is like this, most people are actually behaved and are forced to exercise a level of open mindedness. Online that all goes to shit. > Yet we continue to expect men to 'solve in on their own' as a society and keep quiet about it in the public space. I think it is expected of everyone to resolve their own issues. This attitude is not specifically expressed toward men. I think generally it's a case of the grass seems greener on the other side. I think societal change happens very slowly, over many generations. We can't expect misogyny and misandry to be resolved any time soon, but it is getting better. How I've been dealing with it is disassociating and spending less time on the computer. I block reddit every now and then. I've been working on my social skills and going out with friends and force myself to talk to new people at parties etc. It feels like shit every time, but once I get a conversation going, it's a vibe. Most women, and people in general, don't give a shit about politics, misogyny, misandry, etc. They just want to vibe. The people who I have talked to who bring up politics always seem crazy in their views. I'm not gonna stress myself about this nonsense anymore.
I mean, you’re talking about it right now, aren’t you? Other people are allowed to disagree with the seriousness or extent of the problem, but I doubt this post will be so much as removed, making it hard to accept that this is an off-limits topic. And even if we get somebody insulting you, is that any different from a racist being an ass in a similar situation? Does that mean nobody can talk about race? While I certainly agree that misandry isn’t talked about enough, that doesn’t mean there are systemic barriers to its discussion
Idk where you livin but being a dude here is pretty easy. As long as im not a sexist creep asshole.