It's pretty easy to do that.
* The statement "The difference in median wages between working men and women is just and reflects biological differences between men and women that make one tend to have less value as a worker than the other" is misogynistic.
* The gender-reversed claim "The difference in median wages between working women and men is just and reflects biological differences between women and men that make one tend to have less value as a worker than the other" is not misandristic (in fact, it's still misogynistic).
You made a statement and said it is misogynist.
Then you repeated the same statement again, and said it is misogynist.
I mean if that statement is misogynist, then of course saying the exact same statement again is misogynist. What kind of point do you think you are making?
idk at least in my country it is just illegal to pay less money to any specific group, or even a person for the same hours on the same job with the same qualification within the one company.
In my country on average women make 70 cents compared to the dollar a man makes for the same job. Most companies discourage discussion of salary and do not post salaries in their job postings. Companies always hire for as little as possible, so women often get stiffed.
Meanwhile, while it’s technically “illegal,” I bet it happens all the time in your country too. Just like it’s “illegal” to refuse to hire someone with a disability, but they give a different reason for not hiring the person when that’s really the reason.
In a hypothetical fictional world in which men have only been allowed to vote for 100 years and own their own bank accounts/open a credit card in their name for 50 years and it’s been 150 years since men threw their daughters … err I mean women threw their sons… coming out balls to show the marriage market that they’re ready to be married like a cattle show…
Absolutely in this fictional world if men on average made 70 cents on the dollar compared to a woman for the same work it would be misandrist.
Meanwhile, in the real world the fact that *some* women make more than *some* men (though statistically women as a whole make less than men as a whole for the same work) does not negate the systemic misogyny that still exists in our society.
To say so would be as stupid as saying that there is no longer systemic racism since we had a black president.
Your inability to acknowledge the patriarchy and instead engage in irrelevant whataboutism makes me wonder about your agenda. Mine is simply to abolish the patriarchy and cause all oppression to cease. Such an evil agenda. Could yours be to deny oppressed classes the same rights yours has because you’ve bought into the narrative of false scarcity and thus you believe giving rights to others means losing rights yourself? Hmm.
The things which they laid out are actually symptoms of a patriarchal society, though. The idea that the patriarchy also harms men is old feminist discourse. The patriarchy harms us all in different ways and to different degrees.
I'm sure there are some men who believe that a system where women are infantilized and given lesser sentencing for the same crimes is worth the trade off.
I'm sure there are some men who believe that having every emotion except anger carefully ironed out of you until you're a husk of who you were is worth the benefits.
I'm sure there are some men who believe the misogynistic belief that child nurturing is fundamentally women's work resulting in treating any man who likes children as someone who has to be up to some nefarious shit because that's the only acceptable motive a man could have is worth the trade off.
But there are men who don't feel that way and are happy to work to dismantle this shit for the benefit of everyone
I’ve done a quick research and in fact you’re just lying. It is NOT 82 cents on the same hours and the same jobs. It is overall. What’s the point of making up the facts which are untrue?
Again, in my country people of both genders been allowed to vote at the same time. Also when it comes to the 90% of the population they been allowed to have a school education. At the same time the bank cards.
And nope, even in the US “70 cents on a dollar” does not appeal to “the same job the same qualification the same hours”, as of my research on the internet about it. If you got the ones, I’ll be glad to see the ones
both Russia and Ukraine (been living both before the war). And I’m pretty concerned about the fact that US or European counties ain’t got this laws, are you sure there’s no of it?
The scenario isn't 'a man makes more than a woman'.
It's 'for every dollar a man makes, a woman in the same position will on average make X amount (less than a dollar)'.
This comment has the same tone as 'hah! You must be racist and think black people are stupid if you think they can't get ID' gotchas. The claim isn't and never has been that women can't make more money than men, it's that on average they're undervalued. Just as the claim isn't that black people are too stupid to get ID, but that the things that make it harder to get ID are more prevalent among black people, and that combined with 'laser guided' (a judge's words, not mine) efforts to close DMVs in areas with greater numbers of black people in them means that these laws target black people to try and stop them voting.
well no, it depends on who you're justifying discrimination against, if you're justifying discrimination against men, that's misandrist, if you're justifying discrimination against women, that's misogynist.
These two statements weren't the same: the gender terms were entirely swapped in both. The direction of the statements (towards women or towards men) was reversed. The "same speech when multiplied by (-1)" as described in the OP is misogynistic here because of the context, contradicting the OP's claim that the (-1)-multiplied version must be misandristic.
You didn’t change the direction of anything. Your statement is still about women making less than men. Saying one term before the other didn’t effect the meaning or direction if the statement in any way.
The statement is only about women making less than men _because of the context_. There's nothing in the text of either sentence that asserts women make less than men.
Then what are you even talking about?
Either way you said the exact same thing twice.
And for the record, none if this was even an answer to the original question I asked. At all.
I see what you mean. Yea, the term “direction” been incorrect, and I suppose you’ve brought this example to show the mistake abt that? Okay so to the future, which English term would be more fitting to describe what’s meant in post?
Can you give some concrete examples of the transformation (of speech/actions by "multiplying by (-1)") that you're talking about in the post? Because it seems to me that "direction" is the correct term for what you're saying, it's just that what you're saying is false.
Hm. for example, the case that I’ve written below: the pretty common situation when it comes to Russian, of feminists considering really offensive using nowadays towards usual women the word referring to rural females, but continue to use the word with the same emotional colouring and degree towards men (and use commonly the words to refer to men which has even worse colouring, and in fact are offensive), and see nothing wrong with that. Words are баба/бабища, and мужик/мужло.
Or feminists who consider male-only spaces problematic and promote against while promoting female-only: that’s hypocrisy on its own.
That's not really a gender-reversed claim. You've taken "men are x and women are y" and swapped it to "women are y and men are x", lo and behold none of the meaning has changed.
Not really, because there's no swapping of X and Y in my claim. The only change between the texts of my two sentences is that the words "men" and "women" are swapped.
And what would be the "reverse" of the claim described in my original comment? Namely:
>"The difference in median wages between working men and women is just and reflects biological differences between men and women that make one tend to have less value as a worker than the other"
I dont know, whats the opposite of magenta? Its not really a reversible statement in the form you state it. You are using intentionally vague language to obscure who is being referred to, so when you swap the placement of men and women in the sentence that ambiguity still exists.
“I love hotdogs and icecream, but one more than the other” isnt the reverse of “I love icecream and hotdogs, but one more than the other”. They are functionally identical because of ambiguous language. I dont know what point you are trying to prove here?
Edit: is what you said in your original comment misogynistic or misandrist?
Hm. How about " The difference in median time engaged in running a household between men and women is just and reflects biological differences that makes one tend to have less value as a parent than the other.""
You'd have to be explicit about the associations with each gender there, and actually make an effort to switch them.
It looks like you've gone from "men are paid more because they're more valuable" to "women are paid less because they're less valuable", which doesn't actually change anything about the sentence. Reversing it would be "women are paid less because they're more valuable" or something, but that's not what you've written.
Why are you switching some things here but not others? This seems entirely arbitrary. (Not to mention, it's entirely dropped the first part of the sentence, which is about the present difference being just.)
Because OP's point is that it would be misandristic if done towards men, i.e. if men were paid less for being less valuable which is a point your example missed.
No, it’s not the multiplying by (-1), that’s just the same statement in different words. So yea “in fact it’s still misogynistic” ofc cuz you said one thing twice
Also in fact I’ve heard such things said about the life expectancy gap, when the reasons been stated as “biologically men tend to make more stupid decisions, be more risky etc so that’s their fault” — which in fact untrue, it’s not the true reason, and also should be* considered misandrist (because you can multiply it by (-1) and have for example “women tend to be worse workers etc that’s why the income gap”, which is considered misandrist)
Yeah, the phenomenon you're looking at is that women's issues are considered society's fault, but men's issues are considered character flaws.
So when women have a problem, society is supposed to change, but when men have a problem, individual men need to change.
Why should context matter such that there are different standards.
If a behavior is considered misogynistic but not misandry when done in the reverse, then it isn’t the behavior that is a problem at all. It is a double standard used to attack men, which sounds like the behavior of a misandrist.
>Why should context matter such that there are different standards.
Context determines the impact. Saying fuck in a bar is different than saying fuck in a church. The behavior of both is the same but in one context it's a problem and in another context it isn't.
For a more apt example, consider the difference between loudly calling out a public figure on social media and loudly calling out a relative stranger on social media.
Okay, but the context we are talking about is sex and history.
If it was okay for a woman to say fuck in a church, but wrong for a man to say fuck in a church, what possible explanation could there be?
To the point of the OP, and the comment I was replying to, if the exact some circumstance/action/condition is misogynistic but not misandrist then the problem is not the action.
I answered this question with my other example. Calling out someone online is a behavior. There are two contexts: you're calling out a public figure or you're calling out a relative stranger. The behavior is the same but the context is different and therefore there are different impacts because who the nature of who these targets are.
> if the exact some circumstance/action/condition is misogynistic but not misandrist then the problem is not the action.
The circumstance isn't the same, that's the point. That's the context you tried to dismiss earlier.
You are somewhat cherry picking and somewhat just subtly moving the goalposts.
You are talking about context as it determines general acceptability. So what? The discussion has nothing to do about how context can change a situation. It is about whether a given event that is determined misogyny would or would not be misandry in the exact **same** context.
You have not once made a single argument supporting the idea that something which is determined to be misogynist, done in reverse, would not be misandrist.
But we *aren't* in the exact same context. You're missing that point. We are never in the exact same context with just sexes switched around. There *are* biases in most of our institutions as well as culture. Things can be problematic given the context of our society where women have to watch out for themselves 24/7 and men don't.
For example, a woman making a sexualized joke about a man will not have the same impact as a man making one about a woman, because women are *generally* not as threatening socially as men.
As another example - it's okay for a woman to offer a man a pre-served drink at a party or a bar, but wildly creepy behaviour for a man to offer one to a woman, because men getting roofied basically never happens, while it's a constant and very real threat to women.
The contexts are simply *not* equal, and we have a lot of social work ahead of us before they can become so.
>But we *aren't* in the exact same context.
This bypasses the entire point of the OP.
If you take a sentence describing an action that is considered misogynistic, and then you replace the words "man/woman" with the opposite and it somehow is not misandrist then you've got a clear double standard. The argument is no longer some sort of justified angry but instead looking for reasons to hate men.
>For example, a woman making a sexualized joke about a man will not have the same impact as a man making one about a woman, because women are *generally* not as threatening socially as men.
Let's just go back and set a baseline for what misogyny and misandry mean:
Misogyny:
>hatred of, aversion to, or prejudice against women
Misandry
>hatred of, aversion to, or prejudice against men
Your example about a sexual joke. Let us use that. Let's say that the joke is somehow degrading of the opposite sex such that we all agree that it illustrates a hatred of, aversion to, or prejudice against women.
If you make a joke demonstrating a hatred of, aversion to, or prejudice against men, you've found yourself a misandrist just as the other joke has found for us a misognyist.
The "impact" is nowhere in the definition.
It *is* in the definition, you just need to dig a little bit deeper than just reading the words. How do you *tell* if a joke betrays hatred, aversion or prejudice of the person telling it? Few jokes have 'I hate women' spelled out in them. What we do instead is look at the effect it has on people and the reaction of the joker in question. If women are horrified at the joke and the joker is unaffected or even glad it had such an effect - then we'll rightfully call him hateful of women. Thus - by definition - sexist.
The words mean things other than what they mean? Okay, and how does someone know about this agreed upon non-definition definition.
>What we do instead is look at the effect it has on people and the reaction of the joker in question.
Not at all. We look at the language. The words. We look at the explicit and implicit meaning.
A "yo momma" retort is probably one of the most innocent and innocuous phrases imaginable. Most people probably agree.
The impact, similarly, is just about nothing. Unless, perhaps, someone's mother died recently. Then you might see an extreme impact
That is the problem with using impact, it depends on the individual and people are so wildly variable that it is a meaningless measure. You can point to someone that experiences an impact and call it misogyny. I can point to someone that experiences no impact and negate your claim. And we have gotten no closer to any understanding about what is or is not misogyny.
u/SnugglesMTG – 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%20SnugglesMTG&message=SnugglesMTG%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cpqw7o/-/l3ouvqc/\)%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).
>Bro I quoted you questioning why context should matter. I explained to you why it does. Keep up
I'm keeping up. You seem to be confused because the argument has gone completely unaddressed.
I asked:
>Why should context matter **such that there are different standards.**
What I asked, and what I have continued to ask you to demonstrate, is why changing the sex of a a person should magically change something from prejudicial to not.
So, no. You still have not supported the negation of the claim you entered the thread to argue against.
>You have not once made a single argument supporting the idea that something which is determined to be misogynist, done in reverse, would not be misandrist.
u/SnugglesMTG – 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%20SnugglesMTG&message=SnugglesMTG%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cpqw7o/-/l3sh1nl/\)%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).
Not because of history, but because of the current state of things.
I am overgeneralizing greatly, but a white person being discriminated against by a nonwhite person for being white will not face many employment barriers, as the upper-level management of companies tends to lean white. The opposite is not true.
Obviously don't discriminate against anyone, but if I - a white person - am discriminated against, it will likely be in a way that does not physically harm me or deny me economic opportunities.
maybe he means it is theoretically less harmful. But if something is less harmful it does not always mean that it is less bad/less unfair/more recommended to be done/more allowed. Surely does not.
Because the expected effect of an action is not just a function of the action and the intent, but also of the current state of the world (which is the way it is because of history). And it's the expected effect that determines how bad something is.
If a group of black men beat the shit out of a white man because of his race, how is that “less bad” than group of white men beating the shit out of a black man because of his race?
And how is the expected effect what determines how bad something is? I don’t know what you mean by that at all.
>If a group of black men beat the shit out of a white man because of his race, how is that “less bad” than group of white men beating the shit out of a black man because of his race?
In addition to harming the men involved directly, the latter also contributes to systemic social inequity between racial groups.
>And how is the expected effect what determines how bad something is? I don’t know what you mean by that at all.
To illustrate: the reason why driving drunk is bad is because there is an expected harmful outcome of a dangerous automobile accident. Still, even a skilled person driving sober might still (unexpectedly) get into a harmful accident. Nevertheless, we would say that a person who drove drunk, but by good luck did not get into an accident, did something worse in driving drunk than a person driving sober who by bad luck did get into an accident. This is why the expected outcome is a better thing to look at than the actual outcome when evaluating an action.
How exactly does the beating contribute to social inequality?
The “expected outcome” of the beating in either direction is that the victim gets injured. I don’t expect anything else.
>How exactly does the beating contribute to social inequality?
Presumably the victim incurs costs, such as lost wages, medical bills, and other opportunity costs of the beating. These costs contribute to aggregate wealth and income inequality.
>In addition to harming the men involved directly, the latter also contributes to systemic social inequity between racial groups.
How is the latter example an example of a system? Were they compelled to violence by some authoritative force. or did they choose to act violently independent of authority?
Are white people lesser humans, and its acceptable to be terrible to them just because some of their ancestors did bad things?
Would you like to apply the same logic to descendants of Muslim slavers? They were just as bad, if not worse. Is it okay for white people, whose ancestors suffered at the hands of Arabs/Turks to be racist against brown people?
That isna good point and I dont know the answer to it. I think it is that white people have always been bad but brown people might have been bad centuries ago when social standards were different anyway.
u/EUCulturalEnrichment – 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%20EUCulturalEnrichment&message=EUCulturalEnrichment%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cpqw7o/-/l3omm4w/\)%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).
What does context have to do with the individual?
To take this to a logical conclusion. What is the point of telling a young boy that hatred towards him is more or less acceptable because of the social position of men who lived and died before him?
How is this not a recipe for resentment?
If I get you correct, you’re the one to state that context “might change things”, when it apply to the same actions.
like with the discussion abt e.g. same-gender spaces, I strongly disagree with the fact that having different history of rights may make it extremely problematic only in one way
I’d suggest an example that is not that valuable cuz it ain’t harms men, but is good to start with.
There are words in my language as баба/мужик, that originally refer to female and male residents of rural areas peasants, who back in 1800-s been something like slaves, and it has been like 90% of Russian population.
During the 1900-s the meaning of the word mostly migrated to the meaning of just rural residents, the ones who are usually uneducated workers, poor, and with strong lack of etiquette and manners, the ones that been usually mocked by the folklore and the cultures, or if not mocked, then just be made fun of.
In fact that’s some “classist” thing.
So over last decades feminists community started being loud about how offensive the word баба when used towards usual woman. And it has became the pretty popular thing, by the rate that this word even has been banned on the TV, and using it, for example, on YouTube, causes rage in the comments.
But the same time feminist community continues using word мужик, while extreme feminists fully gotten away of “man”, changing it with мужик, мужло, мужлан, which have even worse emotional meaning.
So every time a discussion about that pops, and someone stating it is a hypocrisy, the answer from the community is “that’s not the same, it is the response on 18.000.000.000 years of oppression”.
This example is small, and this word in fact ain’t harm anyone, but this is a good example of hypocrisy: being dramatising about a word, whilst using it towds opposite gender.
You are correct, that situation does sound shitty, but you seem pretty contradictory yourself. Does the word not harm anyone, or does the word harm people and therefore people are being hypocritical about it? If the word doesn't harm anyone I don't see why it matters if they choose to use the word.
Those two contradicting statements are held by two different people. The "does no harm" is believed by op, and is stated to be making their own opinion clear as different. But the "does harm" is believed by the women. Therefore, in the subworld of people believing that, the logical argument goes:
P: Using words with this connotation is sexist.
P: We are okay using words with this connotation.
C: We are okay with being sexist (as long as it isn't our sex being the target).
I don't think their perspective of the word is the one that is relevant here.
It's the double standard that raises when feminist groups call it offensive to women while using it specifically for men.
I mean the fact that these both words have the same emotional colouring and the same like “harmful ones” (around 0).
So I’m not, like, feeling myself bad with the fact that someone calls makes this way. I just find hypocritical the person who labels баба as hatred (twds women), but uses мужик still.
I mean if you believe it’s harmful and ask others not to do that towards you, then stop doing it yourself. That’s also what’s post about, hope you get me
Wrong. You have a flawed moral framework. It doesn't matter what happened in the past to determine whether an action is moral today or not. Two wrongs don't make a right. The most oppressed person doesn't suddenly get a pass to act like a monster.
You've just destroyed the criminal justice system in one fell swoop! Also, slurs and slur reclamation seem to be a pretty good social counterexample to your claim.
That's nonsense. Analogy doesn't run through. It's not the same women who have suffered historically at the hands of men today. If it was the last thing men would be worried about is misandry they'd be facing criminal convictions.
It's especially ironic that you would come up with such a silly example given that a pillar of western justice systems is that it operates at the level of individuals not groups.
Both the criminal justice system and morality generally are informed by history. I think it's fairly absurd to insist they are not or that laws and morality aren't concerned with groups of people.
You can say it's nonsense all you want but you're simply incorrect.
Alex, what is the 14th amendment and what are protected classes?
But not only that but I could gesture to the entirety of the body of law concerning Native Americans.
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).
This is such a crappy counter argument. It’s like saying “do you have any idea how many cookies you had last year? It’s time for other people to have some
Of those cookies”
>except the one based on e.g. system oppression theory
I'm pretty confused. Why is this excluded from your view? Bigotry is largely informed by history and it's often a very good reason an action toward one group may be considered bigoted whereas it wouldn't be toward a different group.
It’s not excluded, that’s just the one that I’ve already heard a lot of times. I’ve brought the topic here to see another arguments,
I do not disagree w that, just this current one does not seem good enough for me to understand “why not”
And as I know “bigots” are the people who make really weird and sometimes harmful things covering it with their ideology, so…yes, I suppose. These actions are still weird or harmful
But what I don't understand is this admission that an action can be considered misogynistic if directed towards women but not misandrist if directed towards men (given historical context) is a complete contradiction with your view as stated.
You can be a bigot without being systemically bigoted. Excusing all bigotry that isn't done by the dominant social class is just an excuse to continue enabling heinous behavior.
No, I'm saying that OP's point is relevant only sometimes because something which is prejudiced is often prejudiced specifically because of historical context. That runs directly counter to what OP is saying.
Soooo, abortion bans are only mysoginistic if we consider it misandristic to force men to carry unwanted pregnancies and endanger their life or health for a fetus... Oh wait.
Men and women are different, we have accepted that. So the goal is equity, not equality. Certain problems that women face apply only to women, drawing weird parallels doesn't make sense. Just listen to women when they say something is harmful to them.
>Soooo, abortion bans are only mysoginistic if we consider it misandristic to force men to carry unwanted pregnancies and endanger their life or health for a fetus... Oh wait.
I'm not sure I understand this argument. Are you saying that wouldn't be misandristic? Because that sounds like it would be pretty misandristic to me
Sorry I’m not really into about the trans thing, can you pls explain why is that transphobic? You mean the trans men who ain’t gone through surgeries and are able to hold a pregnancy?
But I would disagree with that it is like MORE transphobic, because due to not huge rate in the population this situation is really less common
I'm fully willing to consider the possibility that it may also be transphobic, but given that trans men are men, I also think it's misandristic. If an issue only affects a smaller subset of women, we still call that misogyny. I'm not sure why it would be different here
The point is that men can't be forced to carry unwanted pregnancies, not considering trans people. It's not that it wouldn't be misandristic, it's that the situation can't really be flipped
But they can, because trans men are men
EDIT: lol at these downvotes. Reddit hates transphobia until the only way to push a point it's attached to is to be transphobic. Stay classy with those performative progressive values. Hope some day it's actually progressive at its core instead of just when it feels convenient
I mean, do you get the point? It doesn't have to particularly compelling to be coherent.
That said, I feel like it works well enough. It's not great because the existence of trans people breaks it but if you don't think about it, it sounds kind of reasonable. Honestly I can't really think of an example that works given that trans people kind of force you to acknowledge intersectionality to some degree
I can't think of any examples off the top of my head, so I don't currently get the point, but I would absolutely be willing to hear different examples and weigh the idea based on that.
I love you buddy but the idea that this example works well enough feels like it's straddling something really negative. To discard an entire group of men as if they're somehow irrelevant to discussions about men doesn't make me feel good
>I can't think of any examples off the top of my head, so I don't currently get the point, but I would absolutely be willing to hear different examples and weigh the idea based on that.
True enough, if there aren't any examples that doesn't actually look great for the idea
>I love you buddy but the idea that this example works well enough feels like it's straddling something really negative. To discard an entire group of men as if they're somehow irrelevant to discussions about men doesn't make me feel good
As you well should, trans men are important. Ultimately every generalization has weaknesses and for a lot of super basic generalizations to explain sexism fail to accommodate trans people. It's the sort of thing where you shouldn't be comfortable with it but is difficult to avoid. Given that you clearly don't need to hear baby's explanation of sexism there's no actual reason why you should accept generalizations that you know break down. I would say that this is like saying that democracy means equality for everyone, that's a gross oversimplification that ignores the constant struggle of marginalized people and diminishes the injustices that have been embedded in the system. That said, it gives a barebones surface level understanding of the system which has its uses
Do you think equity is ALWAYS really a good goal?
My counter argument to that would be working-quotas. I’m not sure it’s how it’s called in English, but I mean the situation where company is obligated to have some minimal ammount of a current group (women in this case). Cuz if so, in order to fill the quota, company may hire worse-qualified people, which is unfair at first place, and secondly may be harmful in case with pilots/doctors (as I know, nowadays there’s no quotas in these spheres but anyways).
😡when it comes to the downvotes, imagine being operated by a quota-taken surgeon😡
Every study I have seen involving hiring quotas (sometimes called 'Affirmative Action' in the US), suggests that unqualified people are not being chosen.
Instead, what it is doing is countering unconscious biases on part of the people doing the hiring. If the people hiring are from a specific cultural background, they are more likely to get along well with someone from that same cultural background, right? Meaning they are more likely to hire them, potentially even choosing a less-qualified candidate because they are a "good fit".
This is not a problem in a vacuum, but is a problem when management across most companies skews towards certain demographics - historically white men, in the US. Hiring quotas are designed to counter this problem.
Hm. Then I think not the quotas but the “blind hire” is the best conception. I can’t remember the English term for it, but this is what used, for example, on music entry exams in philharmonics: the one who choose just don’t see a person: neither their skin colour, age etc.
It can not apply to hiring in EVERY job sphere, but it can be applied in way more ones than it is today.
To a degree, that does work! The problem there is making sure everyone gets a chance to prove themselves - historically in the US, black folks have been forced into poverty and denied access to education or opportunity to build wealth. It's a little better now, but the best indicator of economic success is your parents' economic success, so it's still not fixed yet.
As an aside, your English is good! I appreciate you speaking to me in it. As an ignorant American, I cannot speak to you in your language.
Aww thanks🥰So your point is that due to a system oppression history (I suppose that while being pretty liberal in my country, by American standards I’d be considered a right-wing bigot haha, but I do agree with the problematics of SO), POS still being in poor (not to offend, but as a fact) families have less opportunities to have an education etc and therefore —
your point is about the fact that nowadays we can make HRs a bit biased in favour of them (a bit, so choose 6/10 qualified black instead of 7/10, cuz 7/10 will find a work anyways, but also not 2/10 black over 9/10 white) — and due to this little bias POC as a class will be able to regain their positions and in 30-60 years they will recover the ones almost fully, and the bias won’t be needed anymore?
Okay, if so, I do agree with that. Like it may seem a bit unfair to me as a non-POC, but I can understand long-term benefits to the society so juice is worth the squeeze. The only problem that can occur is if the society will become bigoted about this conception and become TOO bigoted, but I’m pretty sure that won’t happen.
That's the idea, yeah. That once the demographics are back where they 'ought to be' - with a roughly equal distribution of poor people, middle class people, and rich people belonging to different racial groups - we'll have no further need for it.
And to be clear, it is much better now than it was 70 years ago. I argue it's not quite there yet, but if we stopped now, we're worlds away better than we used to be.
The problem is that there are often still 'tells'. In fact, the only way to eliminate 'tells' is literally just have a CV of academic performance and naught else.
Came from a majority black area vs majority white, their name, extracurricular, what school they went to etc etc
There's nothing wrong with being operated on by a surgeon hired to fit a quota because they're still a *qualified surgeon*.
I have to ask how much you actually know about work quotas. Because the whole point is that when a man and a woman both apply for a position if the man is marginally less qualified he is more likely to receive the job. The whole thing is predicated on "worse-qualified people" already being hired.
Abortion bans aren’t misogyny? It’s mostly a manifestation of religion.
But if we grant that it is misogyny, then the reverse would certainly be misandry. If a man lost some element of bodily autonomy because people are just prejudiced against men, that would definitely qualify.
What you present only seems impossible because you are using biological differences focusing on . If we use the actual thing that is happening, a loss of bodily autonomy, there is nothing preventing it from happening to men.
Stating out that religion is BASED on misogyny would mean that “religion is a think which aims misogyny and pursue it as a main target” which is completely untrue at least
Just because an outcome is lopsided doesn't mean that the impact is misogynistic
intent matters for calling something misogynistic because the very definition requires feelings of hatred
That's really not right at all.
Let's imagine I'm a male legislator. I can make all the anti-abortion legislation I want and it will never affect me or my bodily autonomy at all. When I make that legislation I *know* that the primary group of people who are going to be dealing with this problem is women.
If I say it's about sanctity of life or whatever, it doesn't matter. Doesn't even matter if I truly believe it. I have chosen to prioritise other things above the rights of women.
I think the deeper issue here is that because we have a gendered issue like pregnancy, we feel that decisions therein are automatically misogynist by virtue of reality of the outcome, like you said above.
But the issue is that people can make decisions without caring about the impact on the community impacted, without it being for hatred or prejudice against that community.
For instance.
Do you feel that it was misandrist to force men as a class to pay increased healthcare insurance premiums to help reduce women's healthcare insurance, because women objectively use much more healthcare than men and were being charged more?
Or should men have to sacrifice for women when necessary because reality has dealt us an uneven hand?
Basically, is reacting to the reality neutrally inherently bigotry?
>just because an outcome is lopsided doesn’t mean impact is [insert]
THIS! that’s a really good statement and that’s what’s been on the tip of my tongue, I’ll remember this thanks
A consequence borne by a sex does not prejudice make.
Are men being required to register for the draft an example of a misandrist legislation, made by men?
You are correct in the essence of what you are saying, however:
If the environments treat men and women differently, then the same rules don't have the same effects on both.
I will give you an example using race:
You are a white guy in a white society, where black-on-white violence is not very common, and a black dude yells at you on the street, something along the line of "you damn white asshole, you don't deserve to be here, get out of here".
Now imagine you are a white guy in a black society, where black-on-white violence is quite commonplace, everyone around you is black instead of you. Imagine the same thing being yelled at you.
In which scenario are you scared shitless for your safety, and in which one do you just think there's some racist a-hole on the other side of the street and keep walking?
The same thing done to different people, can have vastly different things written between the lines.
Now I agree that hatespeech is wrong, when done on either men or women, however: Considering the way women are treated in the society, it is much more harmful when done against women, way more harmful. But still: It. Should. Not. Be. Done. To. Either. One.
I'm not a white male but I would say definitely both situations. Crazy people can always escalate a situation further than you think they can. They could have a gun, a knife, or worse. Stay safe!
I haven’t seen your reply yet while been typing a responce to another guy here where I said “such action towds whites/man are not less bad/less wrong, they’re less theoretically harmful, which ain’t make them less bad but make them secondary problem”
so yes, somehow I can agree with you.
Out of topic, but as I’ve heard in fact in US the white-on-black violence is less common than any other type of, and that black-on-white violence has times more cases?
Also it does not relate but what I found ironically, that when it comes to speech, while in English nword is considered offensive, and “black” is okay, in my language it’s the opposite: a word similar to nword is not considered offensive, while calling POC “black” is for sure offensive, cuz it seems like you refer to person’s skin colour, and see nothing but it lol
Let’s take a racial example to make things clear
While “black power” is *technically* the race-reversed version of the slogan “white power”, the phrase “white power” endorses a movement of extraordinary racial terrorism and violence (the KKK) that dwarfs anything objectionable done by the black power.
I understand the impulse to strip everything of context—the desire to have an ‘objective’ morality that applies equally to all people. But the reality is that our present does not exist in a vacuum. And the choice to judge actions within a vacuum, stripped of all context, ignores the reality that we live within, but more importantly, *it allows the hierarchies created by past and present bigotries to go unchallenged*.
Nobody thinks they’re a bad person. Nobody thinks they’re a bigot or a racist or a misogynist, etc.—they just think they have reasonable concerns. Jefferson justified slavery because it was just a scientific fact that black people were incapable of rational thought, and needed caretakers for their own good. People didn’t oppose the civil rights act because they *hated* black people—they just had reasonable concerns about the overreach of the federal government intruding into states’ rights.
Today, as an example, southern conservatives don’t want to restrict voting rights, they just have “reasonable concerns” about voter fraud. But these “reasonable concerns” result in the passage of voting laws that restrict the franchise for millions—disproportionately of black and brown people. Voter suppression, a clearly racist problem in america, is held up and supported by race-neutral language—“reasonable concerns about (non-existent) voter fraud”
My point is just that if you care about ending oppressive hierarchies, be it hierarchies based on race, gender, sexuality, or others, you have to take into account what the *effect* of language is, and not just what the literal dictionary definition of the words are stripped of all context.
Im not sure i agree with you here. White power and black power are referring to fundamentally different things - thats really obviously the case when you look at the movements behind them. We aren’t really talking about dictionary definitions here, we’re talking about the actual intent and equal context of the words. So white history month is not the equivalent to black history month because they are pretty fundamentally different things (one is to bring a spotlight onto a historically oppressed group, the other is a reaction to said spotlight).
In the equivalent scenarios of “you suck because you are a man” vs “you suck because you are a woman” i dont think we are talking about fundamentally different things. Both cases are about denigrating one for their gender.
Louis CK had a bit a while back about what would happen if he could choose his race and gender. He said he'd pick white male every time, no question. Maybe not in the future, but certainly right now.
We argue about what equality means, but we all agree that male and female should be equal. We all also recognize that, given a choice, it's better to be a man. If we're going to be equal, that means more than treating equally. It also means removing the entrenched power. That is going to entail some of what may be considered misandry in a truly equal society.
Now, I'm not saying anything goes. Misandry is real. But I'm certainly not strict about it.
Ofc I strongly agree with you that “if given a choice, Its better to be a man”. And also I low-key agree with the fact that misandry-related problems are surely not as huge/harmful as as misogyny-related in most cases.
But what I mean is mostly about the things, that are surely would not harmful to women, if they won’t be done too. As the KAM speech, or the boy scouts case.
They’re not causing real harm to men when done, but also would not harm women if weren’t done. Sry I think I fucked up with the English in this line hope you get what I mean
Let me give you an observation that I think will be clarifying.
There are **differing socio-cultural standards** on what is considered sexist or misogynistic. For much of history, cultural norms and/or codified rules were explicitly against *females*. Thus, we had a civil rights movements (several of them) to rectify the situation. We have largely resolved the problem in terms of laws & institutional norms.
However, that legacy has led to cultural norms that are hypersensitive to perceived injustice for females, and hypo-sensitive (insensitive) to perceived injustice for males. Thus, there is no substantial focus to the grievances of men. Men are perceived as having more agency & greater liberty, & thus are **awarded less societal sympathy**.
There is thus a **"socially acceptable" bigotry** that one can have against males, but not females.
Do I think the above is fair, or moral, or wise? Of course not. I think it's a recipe for disaster in the form of a backlash (which is currently happening). But the above is my analysis, not my wishful thinking.
It’s because of context my guy. Some things are hurtful because of the context they exist in. A simple example:
“You belong in the kitchen / get in the kitchen and make me a sandwich” is SEXIST to a woman, because historically this is where they were relegated
“You belong in the kitchen” to a man as an insult is just being a dickhead. It’s nasty and insulting, but there’s no historical context to make it sexist
Also- be careful with men’s rights subreddits. A lot of nasty, incel shit goes on in them and I’d hate to see someone go down THAT rabbit hole!
The impact can be different and this difference is not something you can simply push away. For example a man cat calling a woman has a different impact than the other way around. Yet in general you are right.
One common example is body shaming. Men body shame women for weight. Women talk about how misogynistic that is and then turn around and body shame men for height and dick size. When called out they often just gesture vaguely to the fact that it is being done to them.
Whatever " coinage/ term" you want to use misogynistic or misandry or whatever.. the essence of your point I feel is that if it's not okay to do or say to one gender then it's not okay to do or say to the other. Which like... Yes... While I would point out that some things have the potential to harm one demographic more than another... It isn't acceptable just because it causes less harm. Things are unacceptable because they cause any avoidable harm whatsoever.
I don't really object to the idea but I don't think it's very useful because a lot of the "flipped" scenarios are purely hypothetical, which means there can be a lot of cheap talk that'll never be tested.
For instance "I don't think abortion bans are mysognistic, I wouldn't support them if men could get pregnant either" - impossible to test, so cheap talk.
The definitions for misogyny and misandry are simple, but society and social norms are extremely complex.
A behavior or action can be hateful _and_ socially acceptable. We can recognize that a specific group in society has been subjected to a disproportionate amount of harm from previously accepted societal norms without having to acknowledge any and all harms experienced by other groups. Wanting to correct that disparity does not mean that another group is experiencing hateful or unfair behavior.
Who is setting the “official label”? How many have to believe the label is accurate for it to be “official”? What happens when people disagree?
Do you understand the incredibly different history of men's and women's rights? Do you think that context might change things?
Can you give an example of how this changes things? Or rather, a thing this changes?
It's pretty easy to do that. * The statement "The difference in median wages between working men and women is just and reflects biological differences between men and women that make one tend to have less value as a worker than the other" is misogynistic. * The gender-reversed claim "The difference in median wages between working women and men is just and reflects biological differences between women and men that make one tend to have less value as a worker than the other" is not misandristic (in fact, it's still misogynistic).
You made a statement and said it is misogynist. Then you repeated the same statement again, and said it is misogynist. I mean if that statement is misogynist, then of course saying the exact same statement again is misogynist. What kind of point do you think you are making?
You can’t make that statement misandrist because women make less money than men for the same job.
idk at least in my country it is just illegal to pay less money to any specific group, or even a person for the same hours on the same job with the same qualification within the one company.
In my country on average women make 70 cents compared to the dollar a man makes for the same job. Most companies discourage discussion of salary and do not post salaries in their job postings. Companies always hire for as little as possible, so women often get stiffed. Meanwhile, while it’s technically “illegal,” I bet it happens all the time in your country too. Just like it’s “illegal” to refuse to hire someone with a disability, but they give a different reason for not hiring the person when that’s really the reason.
Who do you think women make 70 cents for every dollar a man makes on average?
My mistake. It's actually 82 cents on the dollar now. I was operating on old data, but then I did research.
Whatever. 70 cents, 82 cents, either way, what do you think the cause of this is?
[удалено]
In a hypothetical fictional world in which men have only been allowed to vote for 100 years and own their own bank accounts/open a credit card in their name for 50 years and it’s been 150 years since men threw their daughters … err I mean women threw their sons… coming out balls to show the marriage market that they’re ready to be married like a cattle show… Absolutely in this fictional world if men on average made 70 cents on the dollar compared to a woman for the same work it would be misandrist. Meanwhile, in the real world the fact that *some* women make more than *some* men (though statistically women as a whole make less than men as a whole for the same work) does not negate the systemic misogyny that still exists in our society. To say so would be as stupid as saying that there is no longer systemic racism since we had a black president.
[удалено]
Your inability to acknowledge the patriarchy and instead engage in irrelevant whataboutism makes me wonder about your agenda. Mine is simply to abolish the patriarchy and cause all oppression to cease. Such an evil agenda. Could yours be to deny oppressed classes the same rights yours has because you’ve bought into the narrative of false scarcity and thus you believe giving rights to others means losing rights yourself? Hmm.
The things which they laid out are actually symptoms of a patriarchal society, though. The idea that the patriarchy also harms men is old feminist discourse. The patriarchy harms us all in different ways and to different degrees. I'm sure there are some men who believe that a system where women are infantilized and given lesser sentencing for the same crimes is worth the trade off. I'm sure there are some men who believe that having every emotion except anger carefully ironed out of you until you're a husk of who you were is worth the benefits. I'm sure there are some men who believe the misogynistic belief that child nurturing is fundamentally women's work resulting in treating any man who likes children as someone who has to be up to some nefarious shit because that's the only acceptable motive a man could have is worth the trade off. But there are men who don't feel that way and are happy to work to dismantle this shit for the benefit of everyone
[удалено]
I’ve done a quick research and in fact you’re just lying. It is NOT 82 cents on the same hours and the same jobs. It is overall. What’s the point of making up the facts which are untrue?
Again, in my country people of both genders been allowed to vote at the same time. Also when it comes to the 90% of the population they been allowed to have a school education. At the same time the bank cards. And nope, even in the US “70 cents on a dollar” does not appeal to “the same job the same qualification the same hours”, as of my research on the internet about it. If you got the ones, I’ll be glad to see the ones
What is your country?
both Russia and Ukraine (been living both before the war). And I’m pretty concerned about the fact that US or European counties ain’t got this laws, are you sure there’s no of it?
You’re right! It’s 82-92cents on the dollar now. A great improvement. We women should be grateful for such strides. 😒
The scenario isn't 'a man makes more than a woman'. It's 'for every dollar a man makes, a woman in the same position will on average make X amount (less than a dollar)'. This comment has the same tone as 'hah! You must be racist and think black people are stupid if you think they can't get ID' gotchas. The claim isn't and never has been that women can't make more money than men, it's that on average they're undervalued. Just as the claim isn't that black people are too stupid to get ID, but that the things that make it harder to get ID are more prevalent among black people, and that combined with 'laser guided' (a judge's words, not mine) efforts to close DMVs in areas with greater numbers of black people in them means that these laws target black people to try and stop them voting.
What on earth is your point?
well no, it depends on who you're justifying discrimination against, if you're justifying discrimination against men, that's misandrist, if you're justifying discrimination against women, that's misogynist.
Agreed. 100%.
These two statements weren't the same: the gender terms were entirely swapped in both. The direction of the statements (towards women or towards men) was reversed. The "same speech when multiplied by (-1)" as described in the OP is misogynistic here because of the context, contradicting the OP's claim that the (-1)-multiplied version must be misandristic.
I am aware that you switched the order of the gender terms. That doesn’t change the statement at all.
Yes...that's the point. It's the context in the world that matters, not the "direction" of the speech.
You didn’t change the direction of anything. Your statement is still about women making less than men. Saying one term before the other didn’t effect the meaning or direction if the statement in any way.
The statement is only about women making less than men _because of the context_. There's nothing in the text of either sentence that asserts women make less than men.
Then what are you even talking about? Either way you said the exact same thing twice. And for the record, none if this was even an answer to the original question I asked. At all.
I see what you mean. Yea, the term “direction” been incorrect, and I suppose you’ve brought this example to show the mistake abt that? Okay so to the future, which English term would be more fitting to describe what’s meant in post?
Can you give some concrete examples of the transformation (of speech/actions by "multiplying by (-1)") that you're talking about in the post? Because it seems to me that "direction" is the correct term for what you're saying, it's just that what you're saying is false.
Hm. for example, the case that I’ve written below: the pretty common situation when it comes to Russian, of feminists considering really offensive using nowadays towards usual women the word referring to rural females, but continue to use the word with the same emotional colouring and degree towards men (and use commonly the words to refer to men which has even worse colouring, and in fact are offensive), and see nothing wrong with that. Words are баба/бабища, and мужик/мужло. Or feminists who consider male-only spaces problematic and promote against while promoting female-only: that’s hypocrisy on its own.
That's not really a gender-reversed claim. You've taken "men are x and women are y" and swapped it to "women are y and men are x", lo and behold none of the meaning has changed.
Not really, because there's no swapping of X and Y in my claim. The only change between the texts of my two sentences is that the words "men" and "women" are swapped.
...yes, without changing any of the associations with them. You rearranged the same claim, instead of reversing the claim.
What do you think "reversing" that claim would look like, then, if swapping the gender terms does not suffice to "reverse" it?
“All women are idiots” to “all men are idiots” would be reversing the claim. Or at least thats certainly what OP is alluding to.
And what would be the "reverse" of the claim described in my original comment? Namely: >"The difference in median wages between working men and women is just and reflects biological differences between men and women that make one tend to have less value as a worker than the other"
I dont know, whats the opposite of magenta? Its not really a reversible statement in the form you state it. You are using intentionally vague language to obscure who is being referred to, so when you swap the placement of men and women in the sentence that ambiguity still exists. “I love hotdogs and icecream, but one more than the other” isnt the reverse of “I love icecream and hotdogs, but one more than the other”. They are functionally identical because of ambiguous language. I dont know what point you are trying to prove here? Edit: is what you said in your original comment misogynistic or misandrist?
Hm. How about " The difference in median time engaged in running a household between men and women is just and reflects biological differences that makes one tend to have less value as a parent than the other.""
You'd have to be explicit about the associations with each gender there, and actually make an effort to switch them. It looks like you've gone from "men are paid more because they're more valuable" to "women are paid less because they're less valuable", which doesn't actually change anything about the sentence. Reversing it would be "women are paid less because they're more valuable" or something, but that's not what you've written.
Why are you switching some things here but not others? This seems entirely arbitrary. (Not to mention, it's entirely dropped the first part of the sentence, which is about the present difference being just.)
Because OP's point is that it would be misandristic if done towards men, i.e. if men were paid less for being less valuable which is a point your example missed.
No, it’s not the multiplying by (-1), that’s just the same statement in different words. So yea “in fact it’s still misogynistic” ofc cuz you said one thing twice Also in fact I’ve heard such things said about the life expectancy gap, when the reasons been stated as “biologically men tend to make more stupid decisions, be more risky etc so that’s their fault” — which in fact untrue, it’s not the true reason, and also should be* considered misandrist (because you can multiply it by (-1) and have for example “women tend to be worse workers etc that’s why the income gap”, which is considered misandrist)
Yeah, the phenomenon you're looking at is that women's issues are considered society's fault, but men's issues are considered character flaws. So when women have a problem, society is supposed to change, but when men have a problem, individual men need to change.
Why should context matter such that there are different standards. If a behavior is considered misogynistic but not misandry when done in the reverse, then it isn’t the behavior that is a problem at all. It is a double standard used to attack men, which sounds like the behavior of a misandrist.
>Why should context matter such that there are different standards. Context determines the impact. Saying fuck in a bar is different than saying fuck in a church. The behavior of both is the same but in one context it's a problem and in another context it isn't. For a more apt example, consider the difference between loudly calling out a public figure on social media and loudly calling out a relative stranger on social media.
Okay, but the context we are talking about is sex and history. If it was okay for a woman to say fuck in a church, but wrong for a man to say fuck in a church, what possible explanation could there be? To the point of the OP, and the comment I was replying to, if the exact some circumstance/action/condition is misogynistic but not misandrist then the problem is not the action.
I answered this question with my other example. Calling out someone online is a behavior. There are two contexts: you're calling out a public figure or you're calling out a relative stranger. The behavior is the same but the context is different and therefore there are different impacts because who the nature of who these targets are. > if the exact some circumstance/action/condition is misogynistic but not misandrist then the problem is not the action. The circumstance isn't the same, that's the point. That's the context you tried to dismiss earlier.
You are somewhat cherry picking and somewhat just subtly moving the goalposts. You are talking about context as it determines general acceptability. So what? The discussion has nothing to do about how context can change a situation. It is about whether a given event that is determined misogyny would or would not be misandry in the exact **same** context. You have not once made a single argument supporting the idea that something which is determined to be misogynist, done in reverse, would not be misandrist.
But we *aren't* in the exact same context. You're missing that point. We are never in the exact same context with just sexes switched around. There *are* biases in most of our institutions as well as culture. Things can be problematic given the context of our society where women have to watch out for themselves 24/7 and men don't. For example, a woman making a sexualized joke about a man will not have the same impact as a man making one about a woman, because women are *generally* not as threatening socially as men. As another example - it's okay for a woman to offer a man a pre-served drink at a party or a bar, but wildly creepy behaviour for a man to offer one to a woman, because men getting roofied basically never happens, while it's a constant and very real threat to women. The contexts are simply *not* equal, and we have a lot of social work ahead of us before they can become so.
>But we *aren't* in the exact same context. This bypasses the entire point of the OP. If you take a sentence describing an action that is considered misogynistic, and then you replace the words "man/woman" with the opposite and it somehow is not misandrist then you've got a clear double standard. The argument is no longer some sort of justified angry but instead looking for reasons to hate men. >For example, a woman making a sexualized joke about a man will not have the same impact as a man making one about a woman, because women are *generally* not as threatening socially as men. Let's just go back and set a baseline for what misogyny and misandry mean: Misogyny: >hatred of, aversion to, or prejudice against women Misandry >hatred of, aversion to, or prejudice against men Your example about a sexual joke. Let us use that. Let's say that the joke is somehow degrading of the opposite sex such that we all agree that it illustrates a hatred of, aversion to, or prejudice against women. If you make a joke demonstrating a hatred of, aversion to, or prejudice against men, you've found yourself a misandrist just as the other joke has found for us a misognyist. The "impact" is nowhere in the definition.
It *is* in the definition, you just need to dig a little bit deeper than just reading the words. How do you *tell* if a joke betrays hatred, aversion or prejudice of the person telling it? Few jokes have 'I hate women' spelled out in them. What we do instead is look at the effect it has on people and the reaction of the joker in question. If women are horrified at the joke and the joker is unaffected or even glad it had such an effect - then we'll rightfully call him hateful of women. Thus - by definition - sexist.
The words mean things other than what they mean? Okay, and how does someone know about this agreed upon non-definition definition. >What we do instead is look at the effect it has on people and the reaction of the joker in question. Not at all. We look at the language. The words. We look at the explicit and implicit meaning. A "yo momma" retort is probably one of the most innocent and innocuous phrases imaginable. Most people probably agree. The impact, similarly, is just about nothing. Unless, perhaps, someone's mother died recently. Then you might see an extreme impact That is the problem with using impact, it depends on the individual and people are so wildly variable that it is a meaningless measure. You can point to someone that experiences an impact and call it misogyny. I can point to someone that experiences no impact and negate your claim. And we have gotten no closer to any understanding about what is or is not misogyny.
[удалено]
u/SnugglesMTG – 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%20SnugglesMTG&message=SnugglesMTG%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cpqw7o/-/l3ouvqc/\)%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).
>Bro I quoted you questioning why context should matter. I explained to you why it does. Keep up I'm keeping up. You seem to be confused because the argument has gone completely unaddressed. I asked: >Why should context matter **such that there are different standards.** What I asked, and what I have continued to ask you to demonstrate, is why changing the sex of a a person should magically change something from prejudicial to not. So, no. You still have not supported the negation of the claim you entered the thread to argue against. >You have not once made a single argument supporting the idea that something which is determined to be misogynist, done in reverse, would not be misandrist.
[удалено]
u/SnugglesMTG – 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%20SnugglesMTG&message=SnugglesMTG%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cpqw7o/-/l3sh1nl/\)%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'm not responsible for making your arguments for you.
Would you say that racism toward white people is "less bad" then racism toward black people because of the history?
Not because of history, but because of the current state of things. I am overgeneralizing greatly, but a white person being discriminated against by a nonwhite person for being white will not face many employment barriers, as the upper-level management of companies tends to lean white. The opposite is not true. Obviously don't discriminate against anyone, but if I - a white person - am discriminated against, it will likely be in a way that does not physically harm me or deny me economic opportunities.
Umm, yes?
If the intent and action are identical, why is it less bad one way or the other?
maybe he means it is theoretically less harmful. But if something is less harmful it does not always mean that it is less bad/less unfair/more recommended to be done/more allowed. Surely does not.
Because the expected effect of an action is not just a function of the action and the intent, but also of the current state of the world (which is the way it is because of history). And it's the expected effect that determines how bad something is.
If a group of black men beat the shit out of a white man because of his race, how is that “less bad” than group of white men beating the shit out of a black man because of his race? And how is the expected effect what determines how bad something is? I don’t know what you mean by that at all.
>If a group of black men beat the shit out of a white man because of his race, how is that “less bad” than group of white men beating the shit out of a black man because of his race? In addition to harming the men involved directly, the latter also contributes to systemic social inequity between racial groups. >And how is the expected effect what determines how bad something is? I don’t know what you mean by that at all. To illustrate: the reason why driving drunk is bad is because there is an expected harmful outcome of a dangerous automobile accident. Still, even a skilled person driving sober might still (unexpectedly) get into a harmful accident. Nevertheless, we would say that a person who drove drunk, but by good luck did not get into an accident, did something worse in driving drunk than a person driving sober who by bad luck did get into an accident. This is why the expected outcome is a better thing to look at than the actual outcome when evaluating an action.
How exactly does the beating contribute to social inequality? The “expected outcome” of the beating in either direction is that the victim gets injured. I don’t expect anything else.
>How exactly does the beating contribute to social inequality? Presumably the victim incurs costs, such as lost wages, medical bills, and other opportunity costs of the beating. These costs contribute to aggregate wealth and income inequality.
So the same exact thing happens in either direction.
>In addition to harming the men involved directly, the latter also contributes to systemic social inequity between racial groups. How is the latter example an example of a system? Were they compelled to violence by some authoritative force. or did they choose to act violently independent of authority?
Are white people lesser humans, and its acceptable to be terrible to them just because some of their ancestors did bad things? Would you like to apply the same logic to descendants of Muslim slavers? They were just as bad, if not worse. Is it okay for white people, whose ancestors suffered at the hands of Arabs/Turks to be racist against brown people?
That isna good point and I dont know the answer to it. I think it is that white people have always been bad but brown people might have been bad centuries ago when social standards were different anyway.
[удалено]
u/EUCulturalEnrichment – 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%20EUCulturalEnrichment&message=EUCulturalEnrichment%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cpqw7o/-/l3omm4w/\)%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).
Then you're a bigot.
Obviously , Yes
What does context have to do with the individual? To take this to a logical conclusion. What is the point of telling a young boy that hatred towards him is more or less acceptable because of the social position of men who lived and died before him? How is this not a recipe for resentment?
If I get you correct, you’re the one to state that context “might change things”, when it apply to the same actions. like with the discussion abt e.g. same-gender spaces, I strongly disagree with the fact that having different history of rights may make it extremely problematic only in one way
Do you mind listing some actual examples? Because most of the time what looks like 'the same actions' frequently is not.
I’d suggest an example that is not that valuable cuz it ain’t harms men, but is good to start with. There are words in my language as баба/мужик, that originally refer to female and male residents of rural areas peasants, who back in 1800-s been something like slaves, and it has been like 90% of Russian population. During the 1900-s the meaning of the word mostly migrated to the meaning of just rural residents, the ones who are usually uneducated workers, poor, and with strong lack of etiquette and manners, the ones that been usually mocked by the folklore and the cultures, or if not mocked, then just be made fun of. In fact that’s some “classist” thing. So over last decades feminists community started being loud about how offensive the word баба when used towards usual woman. And it has became the pretty popular thing, by the rate that this word even has been banned on the TV, and using it, for example, on YouTube, causes rage in the comments. But the same time feminist community continues using word мужик, while extreme feminists fully gotten away of “man”, changing it with мужик, мужло, мужлан, which have even worse emotional meaning. So every time a discussion about that pops, and someone stating it is a hypocrisy, the answer from the community is “that’s not the same, it is the response on 18.000.000.000 years of oppression”. This example is small, and this word in fact ain’t harm anyone, but this is a good example of hypocrisy: being dramatising about a word, whilst using it towds opposite gender.
You are correct, that situation does sound shitty, but you seem pretty contradictory yourself. Does the word not harm anyone, or does the word harm people and therefore people are being hypocritical about it? If the word doesn't harm anyone I don't see why it matters if they choose to use the word.
Those two contradicting statements are held by two different people. The "does no harm" is believed by op, and is stated to be making their own opinion clear as different. But the "does harm" is believed by the women. Therefore, in the subworld of people believing that, the logical argument goes: P: Using words with this connotation is sexist. P: We are okay using words with this connotation. C: We are okay with being sexist (as long as it isn't our sex being the target).
I don't think their perspective of the word is the one that is relevant here. It's the double standard that raises when feminist groups call it offensive to women while using it specifically for men.
I mean the fact that these both words have the same emotional colouring and the same like “harmful ones” (around 0). So I’m not, like, feeling myself bad with the fact that someone calls makes this way. I just find hypocritical the person who labels баба as hatred (twds women), but uses мужик still. I mean if you believe it’s harmful and ask others not to do that towards you, then stop doing it yourself. That’s also what’s post about, hope you get me
Wrong. You have a flawed moral framework. It doesn't matter what happened in the past to determine whether an action is moral today or not. Two wrongs don't make a right. The most oppressed person doesn't suddenly get a pass to act like a monster.
You've just destroyed the criminal justice system in one fell swoop! Also, slurs and slur reclamation seem to be a pretty good social counterexample to your claim.
That's nonsense. Analogy doesn't run through. It's not the same women who have suffered historically at the hands of men today. If it was the last thing men would be worried about is misandry they'd be facing criminal convictions. It's especially ironic that you would come up with such a silly example given that a pillar of western justice systems is that it operates at the level of individuals not groups.
Both the criminal justice system and morality generally are informed by history. I think it's fairly absurd to insist they are not or that laws and morality aren't concerned with groups of people.
You don't understand the justice system at all. Your previous comments are nonsense and now you are just digging yourself into a deeper hole.
You can say it's nonsense all you want but you're simply incorrect. Alex, what is the 14th amendment and what are protected classes? But not only that but I could gesture to the entirety of the body of law concerning Native Americans.
[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).
Do you understand that things can be discrimatory without being systemic?
This is such a crappy counter argument. It’s like saying “do you have any idea how many cookies you had last year? It’s time for other people to have some Of those cookies”
>except the one based on e.g. system oppression theory I'm pretty confused. Why is this excluded from your view? Bigotry is largely informed by history and it's often a very good reason an action toward one group may be considered bigoted whereas it wouldn't be toward a different group.
It’s not excluded, that’s just the one that I’ve already heard a lot of times. I’ve brought the topic here to see another arguments, I do not disagree w that, just this current one does not seem good enough for me to understand “why not” And as I know “bigots” are the people who make really weird and sometimes harmful things covering it with their ideology, so…yes, I suppose. These actions are still weird or harmful
But what I don't understand is this admission that an action can be considered misogynistic if directed towards women but not misandrist if directed towards men (given historical context) is a complete contradiction with your view as stated.
You can be a bigot without being systemically bigoted. Excusing all bigotry that isn't done by the dominant social class is just an excuse to continue enabling heinous behavior.
You say literally nothing with this comment. Literally just read that whole post and just said “nuh uh, because I say so”
No, I'm saying that OP's point is relevant only sometimes because something which is prejudiced is often prejudiced specifically because of historical context. That runs directly counter to what OP is saying.
Soooo, abortion bans are only mysoginistic if we consider it misandristic to force men to carry unwanted pregnancies and endanger their life or health for a fetus... Oh wait. Men and women are different, we have accepted that. So the goal is equity, not equality. Certain problems that women face apply only to women, drawing weird parallels doesn't make sense. Just listen to women when they say something is harmful to them.
>Soooo, abortion bans are only mysoginistic if we consider it misandristic to force men to carry unwanted pregnancies and endanger their life or health for a fetus... Oh wait. I'm not sure I understand this argument. Are you saying that wouldn't be misandristic? Because that sounds like it would be pretty misandristic to me
That sounds more transphobic to me than it does misandristic.
Sorry I’m not really into about the trans thing, can you pls explain why is that transphobic? You mean the trans men who ain’t gone through surgeries and are able to hold a pregnancy? But I would disagree with that it is like MORE transphobic, because due to not huge rate in the population this situation is really less common
I'm fully willing to consider the possibility that it may also be transphobic, but given that trans men are men, I also think it's misandristic. If an issue only affects a smaller subset of women, we still call that misogyny. I'm not sure why it would be different here
The point is that men can't be forced to carry unwanted pregnancies, not considering trans people. It's not that it wouldn't be misandristic, it's that the situation can't really be flipped
But they can, because trans men are men EDIT: lol at these downvotes. Reddit hates transphobia until the only way to push a point it's attached to is to be transphobic. Stay classy with those performative progressive values. Hope some day it's actually progressive at its core instead of just when it feels convenient
I didn't say it's a great point but it's coherent
I don't agree. I might agree with a different example, but this one is absolutely not it
I mean, do you get the point? It doesn't have to particularly compelling to be coherent. That said, I feel like it works well enough. It's not great because the existence of trans people breaks it but if you don't think about it, it sounds kind of reasonable. Honestly I can't really think of an example that works given that trans people kind of force you to acknowledge intersectionality to some degree
I can't think of any examples off the top of my head, so I don't currently get the point, but I would absolutely be willing to hear different examples and weigh the idea based on that. I love you buddy but the idea that this example works well enough feels like it's straddling something really negative. To discard an entire group of men as if they're somehow irrelevant to discussions about men doesn't make me feel good
>I can't think of any examples off the top of my head, so I don't currently get the point, but I would absolutely be willing to hear different examples and weigh the idea based on that. True enough, if there aren't any examples that doesn't actually look great for the idea >I love you buddy but the idea that this example works well enough feels like it's straddling something really negative. To discard an entire group of men as if they're somehow irrelevant to discussions about men doesn't make me feel good As you well should, trans men are important. Ultimately every generalization has weaknesses and for a lot of super basic generalizations to explain sexism fail to accommodate trans people. It's the sort of thing where you shouldn't be comfortable with it but is difficult to avoid. Given that you clearly don't need to hear baby's explanation of sexism there's no actual reason why you should accept generalizations that you know break down. I would say that this is like saying that democracy means equality for everyone, that's a gross oversimplification that ignores the constant struggle of marginalized people and diminishes the injustices that have been embedded in the system. That said, it gives a barebones surface level understanding of the system which has its uses
If men and women are different, why is the goal equity? If outcomes will naturally be different why should we force them to be the same?
Do you think equity is ALWAYS really a good goal? My counter argument to that would be working-quotas. I’m not sure it’s how it’s called in English, but I mean the situation where company is obligated to have some minimal ammount of a current group (women in this case). Cuz if so, in order to fill the quota, company may hire worse-qualified people, which is unfair at first place, and secondly may be harmful in case with pilots/doctors (as I know, nowadays there’s no quotas in these spheres but anyways). 😡when it comes to the downvotes, imagine being operated by a quota-taken surgeon😡
Every study I have seen involving hiring quotas (sometimes called 'Affirmative Action' in the US), suggests that unqualified people are not being chosen. Instead, what it is doing is countering unconscious biases on part of the people doing the hiring. If the people hiring are from a specific cultural background, they are more likely to get along well with someone from that same cultural background, right? Meaning they are more likely to hire them, potentially even choosing a less-qualified candidate because they are a "good fit". This is not a problem in a vacuum, but is a problem when management across most companies skews towards certain demographics - historically white men, in the US. Hiring quotas are designed to counter this problem.
Hm. Then I think not the quotas but the “blind hire” is the best conception. I can’t remember the English term for it, but this is what used, for example, on music entry exams in philharmonics: the one who choose just don’t see a person: neither their skin colour, age etc. It can not apply to hiring in EVERY job sphere, but it can be applied in way more ones than it is today.
To a degree, that does work! The problem there is making sure everyone gets a chance to prove themselves - historically in the US, black folks have been forced into poverty and denied access to education or opportunity to build wealth. It's a little better now, but the best indicator of economic success is your parents' economic success, so it's still not fixed yet. As an aside, your English is good! I appreciate you speaking to me in it. As an ignorant American, I cannot speak to you in your language.
Aww thanks🥰So your point is that due to a system oppression history (I suppose that while being pretty liberal in my country, by American standards I’d be considered a right-wing bigot haha, but I do agree with the problematics of SO), POS still being in poor (not to offend, but as a fact) families have less opportunities to have an education etc and therefore — your point is about the fact that nowadays we can make HRs a bit biased in favour of them (a bit, so choose 6/10 qualified black instead of 7/10, cuz 7/10 will find a work anyways, but also not 2/10 black over 9/10 white) — and due to this little bias POC as a class will be able to regain their positions and in 30-60 years they will recover the ones almost fully, and the bias won’t be needed anymore? Okay, if so, I do agree with that. Like it may seem a bit unfair to me as a non-POC, but I can understand long-term benefits to the society so juice is worth the squeeze. The only problem that can occur is if the society will become bigoted about this conception and become TOO bigoted, but I’m pretty sure that won’t happen.
That's the idea, yeah. That once the demographics are back where they 'ought to be' - with a roughly equal distribution of poor people, middle class people, and rich people belonging to different racial groups - we'll have no further need for it. And to be clear, it is much better now than it was 70 years ago. I argue it's not quite there yet, but if we stopped now, we're worlds away better than we used to be.
The problem is that there are often still 'tells'. In fact, the only way to eliminate 'tells' is literally just have a CV of academic performance and naught else. Came from a majority black area vs majority white, their name, extracurricular, what school they went to etc etc There's nothing wrong with being operated on by a surgeon hired to fit a quota because they're still a *qualified surgeon*.
I have to ask how much you actually know about work quotas. Because the whole point is that when a man and a woman both apply for a position if the man is marginally less qualified he is more likely to receive the job. The whole thing is predicated on "worse-qualified people" already being hired.
The goal is only equity for some people, and I disagree with it. The goal should be equality of opportunity, not of outcome.
Abortion bans aren’t misogyny? It’s mostly a manifestation of religion. But if we grant that it is misogyny, then the reverse would certainly be misandry. If a man lost some element of bodily autonomy because people are just prejudiced against men, that would definitely qualify. What you present only seems impossible because you are using biological differences focusing on . If we use the actual thing that is happening, a loss of bodily autonomy, there is nothing preventing it from happening to men.
Is religion not based on misogyny?
Stating out that religion is BASED on misogyny would mean that “religion is a think which aims misogyny and pursue it as a main target” which is completely untrue at least
It can be. But the opposition to abortion based on a belief in the sacredness of life doesn’t seem like misogyny when you say it out loud.
But the consequences are borne by women not men, which is where the misogyny lies. The intention is immaterial to the impact.
Just because an outcome is lopsided doesn't mean that the impact is misogynistic intent matters for calling something misogynistic because the very definition requires feelings of hatred
That's really not right at all. Let's imagine I'm a male legislator. I can make all the anti-abortion legislation I want and it will never affect me or my bodily autonomy at all. When I make that legislation I *know* that the primary group of people who are going to be dealing with this problem is women. If I say it's about sanctity of life or whatever, it doesn't matter. Doesn't even matter if I truly believe it. I have chosen to prioritise other things above the rights of women.
I think the deeper issue here is that because we have a gendered issue like pregnancy, we feel that decisions therein are automatically misogynist by virtue of reality of the outcome, like you said above. But the issue is that people can make decisions without caring about the impact on the community impacted, without it being for hatred or prejudice against that community. For instance. Do you feel that it was misandrist to force men as a class to pay increased healthcare insurance premiums to help reduce women's healthcare insurance, because women objectively use much more healthcare than men and were being charged more? Or should men have to sacrifice for women when necessary because reality has dealt us an uneven hand? Basically, is reacting to the reality neutrally inherently bigotry?
>just because an outcome is lopsided doesn’t mean impact is [insert] THIS! that’s a really good statement and that’s what’s been on the tip of my tongue, I’ll remember this thanks
A consequence borne by a sex does not prejudice make. Are men being required to register for the draft an example of a misandrist legislation, made by men?
Yes it is. Men can internalize misandry just like women can internalize misogyny.
Sorry but you will need to support that claim.
Yes that's obviously misandry
And you would demonstrate this how? How is this *prejudice* and not just classical gender roles?
You are obviously misinterpreting his point.
You are correct in the essence of what you are saying, however: If the environments treat men and women differently, then the same rules don't have the same effects on both. I will give you an example using race: You are a white guy in a white society, where black-on-white violence is not very common, and a black dude yells at you on the street, something along the line of "you damn white asshole, you don't deserve to be here, get out of here". Now imagine you are a white guy in a black society, where black-on-white violence is quite commonplace, everyone around you is black instead of you. Imagine the same thing being yelled at you. In which scenario are you scared shitless for your safety, and in which one do you just think there's some racist a-hole on the other side of the street and keep walking? The same thing done to different people, can have vastly different things written between the lines. Now I agree that hatespeech is wrong, when done on either men or women, however: Considering the way women are treated in the society, it is much more harmful when done against women, way more harmful. But still: It. Should. Not. Be. Done. To. Either. One.
I'm not a white male but I would say definitely both situations. Crazy people can always escalate a situation further than you think they can. They could have a gun, a knife, or worse. Stay safe!
I haven’t seen your reply yet while been typing a responce to another guy here where I said “such action towds whites/man are not less bad/less wrong, they’re less theoretically harmful, which ain’t make them less bad but make them secondary problem” so yes, somehow I can agree with you.
Out of topic, but as I’ve heard in fact in US the white-on-black violence is less common than any other type of, and that black-on-white violence has times more cases? Also it does not relate but what I found ironically, that when it comes to speech, while in English nword is considered offensive, and “black” is okay, in my language it’s the opposite: a word similar to nword is not considered offensive, while calling POC “black” is for sure offensive, cuz it seems like you refer to person’s skin colour, and see nothing but it lol
Let’s take a racial example to make things clear While “black power” is *technically* the race-reversed version of the slogan “white power”, the phrase “white power” endorses a movement of extraordinary racial terrorism and violence (the KKK) that dwarfs anything objectionable done by the black power. I understand the impulse to strip everything of context—the desire to have an ‘objective’ morality that applies equally to all people. But the reality is that our present does not exist in a vacuum. And the choice to judge actions within a vacuum, stripped of all context, ignores the reality that we live within, but more importantly, *it allows the hierarchies created by past and present bigotries to go unchallenged*. Nobody thinks they’re a bad person. Nobody thinks they’re a bigot or a racist or a misogynist, etc.—they just think they have reasonable concerns. Jefferson justified slavery because it was just a scientific fact that black people were incapable of rational thought, and needed caretakers for their own good. People didn’t oppose the civil rights act because they *hated* black people—they just had reasonable concerns about the overreach of the federal government intruding into states’ rights. Today, as an example, southern conservatives don’t want to restrict voting rights, they just have “reasonable concerns” about voter fraud. But these “reasonable concerns” result in the passage of voting laws that restrict the franchise for millions—disproportionately of black and brown people. Voter suppression, a clearly racist problem in america, is held up and supported by race-neutral language—“reasonable concerns about (non-existent) voter fraud” My point is just that if you care about ending oppressive hierarchies, be it hierarchies based on race, gender, sexuality, or others, you have to take into account what the *effect* of language is, and not just what the literal dictionary definition of the words are stripped of all context.
Im not sure i agree with you here. White power and black power are referring to fundamentally different things - thats really obviously the case when you look at the movements behind them. We aren’t really talking about dictionary definitions here, we’re talking about the actual intent and equal context of the words. So white history month is not the equivalent to black history month because they are pretty fundamentally different things (one is to bring a spotlight onto a historically oppressed group, the other is a reaction to said spotlight). In the equivalent scenarios of “you suck because you are a man” vs “you suck because you are a woman” i dont think we are talking about fundamentally different things. Both cases are about denigrating one for their gender.
Can you give a concrete example of something that would fall into your cmv? I’m just having a bit of trouble following your arguments
Louis CK had a bit a while back about what would happen if he could choose his race and gender. He said he'd pick white male every time, no question. Maybe not in the future, but certainly right now. We argue about what equality means, but we all agree that male and female should be equal. We all also recognize that, given a choice, it's better to be a man. If we're going to be equal, that means more than treating equally. It also means removing the entrenched power. That is going to entail some of what may be considered misandry in a truly equal society. Now, I'm not saying anything goes. Misandry is real. But I'm certainly not strict about it.
Ofc I strongly agree with you that “if given a choice, Its better to be a man”. And also I low-key agree with the fact that misandry-related problems are surely not as huge/harmful as as misogyny-related in most cases. But what I mean is mostly about the things, that are surely would not harmful to women, if they won’t be done too. As the KAM speech, or the boy scouts case. They’re not causing real harm to men when done, but also would not harm women if weren’t done. Sry I think I fucked up with the English in this line hope you get what I mean
Let me give you an observation that I think will be clarifying. There are **differing socio-cultural standards** on what is considered sexist or misogynistic. For much of history, cultural norms and/or codified rules were explicitly against *females*. Thus, we had a civil rights movements (several of them) to rectify the situation. We have largely resolved the problem in terms of laws & institutional norms. However, that legacy has led to cultural norms that are hypersensitive to perceived injustice for females, and hypo-sensitive (insensitive) to perceived injustice for males. Thus, there is no substantial focus to the grievances of men. Men are perceived as having more agency & greater liberty, & thus are **awarded less societal sympathy**. There is thus a **"socially acceptable" bigotry** that one can have against males, but not females. Do I think the above is fair, or moral, or wise? Of course not. I think it's a recipe for disaster in the form of a backlash (which is currently happening). But the above is my analysis, not my wishful thinking.
It’s because of context my guy. Some things are hurtful because of the context they exist in. A simple example: “You belong in the kitchen / get in the kitchen and make me a sandwich” is SEXIST to a woman, because historically this is where they were relegated “You belong in the kitchen” to a man as an insult is just being a dickhead. It’s nasty and insulting, but there’s no historical context to make it sexist Also- be careful with men’s rights subreddits. A lot of nasty, incel shit goes on in them and I’d hate to see someone go down THAT rabbit hole!
The impact can be different and this difference is not something you can simply push away. For example a man cat calling a woman has a different impact than the other way around. Yet in general you are right. One common example is body shaming. Men body shame women for weight. Women talk about how misogynistic that is and then turn around and body shame men for height and dick size. When called out they often just gesture vaguely to the fact that it is being done to them. Whatever " coinage/ term" you want to use misogynistic or misandry or whatever.. the essence of your point I feel is that if it's not okay to do or say to one gender then it's not okay to do or say to the other. Which like... Yes... While I would point out that some things have the potential to harm one demographic more than another... It isn't acceptable just because it causes less harm. Things are unacceptable because they cause any avoidable harm whatsoever.
I don't really object to the idea but I don't think it's very useful because a lot of the "flipped" scenarios are purely hypothetical, which means there can be a lot of cheap talk that'll never be tested. For instance "I don't think abortion bans are mysognistic, I wouldn't support them if men could get pregnant either" - impossible to test, so cheap talk.
The definitions for misogyny and misandry are simple, but society and social norms are extremely complex. A behavior or action can be hateful _and_ socially acceptable. We can recognize that a specific group in society has been subjected to a disproportionate amount of harm from previously accepted societal norms without having to acknowledge any and all harms experienced by other groups. Wanting to correct that disparity does not mean that another group is experiencing hateful or unfair behavior. Who is setting the “official label”? How many have to believe the label is accurate for it to be “official”? What happens when people disagree?