Too often there is this separation we invent where misogyny is a ubiquitous tool of patriarchy while misandry is somehow separate. This becomes so intense that many are not even able to admit that misandry is even theoretically possible, and even if it's undeniable it is still seen as highly irrelevant to patriarchy.
But misandry does advance patriarchy and it is a force that intensifies misogyny.
Consider homophobia. This is an obvious case where misandry advances heretopatriarchy. Certain men can entrench their status through an infrastructure of hatred against homosexual men that can be accessed by nearly everyone else as well.
Consider transphobia. Another obvious realm where misandry is at play. Trans men are shown hatred in ways that are unique to the experience of cis men, and these experiences drive cis heteronormativity.
Consider how our actions and ideas impact the world. If we live in denial of misandry we live in denial of patriarchy. Denying misandry does not make you a quality feminist. It does not make you theoretically sound. Hating men just gets in the way of challenging patriarchy.
Consider how misandry enforces gender roles. Misandrous discourse functions to discipline people. When misandry is denied, there is almost always an element of "you have to man up, because women are weak." The narrative is familiar; women are subjected to patriarchal violence and are thus too hysterical to have sound or reasonable options about men, thus, men must internalize misandrous attitudes out of sheer emotional intelligence and masculine willpower. The men who fail to do this are weak, unable to maintain a rational, stoic attitude and are thus lesser, unmasculine men. Men who can master their performance of masculinity in a self-denying or sacrificial way will benefits from misandry but will certainly be thoroughly disciplined by it.
Women, other non men genders,and queer communities often play a role in policing masculinity for patriarchy which may obfuscate the patriarchal power at play. This ultimately reinforces misogyny by haphazardly enforcing binaries, devaluing feminity, and promoting a supremacist view of masculinity.
Let me paint a situation. Imagine a comedian making a joke about their trans wife; that she removed the worst part of her--being a man. Everyone laughs in support of trans women and implicitly they laugh AT trans men and cis men. Next joke is about how stupid bisexual women are for dating men, how they make the queer community worse.
Now imagine you are a man who wants a little clarity in life. How should you feel about such language which is clearly both misandrous and misogynistic? How should you feel that it is directed at you, as a man? I'll tell you:
You should feel safe because you are a man. If you don't feel safe it's because you are a weak man, incapable of performing.
Because "misandry" is not real.
Men are not oppressed just by being men. Whatever 'hate' men may experience for their maleness is totally irrelevant by every metric. Men aren't subjected to abuse, exclusion, violence, etc. on a social or institutional level by any serious percentage just for the 'crime' of being men expressly because being a man isn't a crime.
You are rewarded for being a man. You are celebrated for being a man. You are empowered for being a man. This is true at all levels of society and it's why we live under patriarchy - the rule of men.
You might be oppressed for some other factor - such as being gay or trans - while being a man and the nature of that oppression may look different from how women or enbies are treated but you will never be oppressed just for being a man by itself.
Masculinity is a cult of male worship. Men aren't excluded from holding power in the sexual hierarchy just for being men; they will be excluded on other grounds like race, class, sexuality, or how they express their gender (i.e. not conforming to the 'ideal' masculine standard).
Misogyny is prejudice + power. Misandry is just prejudice with no power behind it making it an irrelevant social phenomenon. If the worst thing a man can face for being a man is mean words then he is not oppressed by any conceivable metric. Misogyny is a real thing that actually harms and kills; misandry is not and does not.
You may as well be talking about 'heterophobia', 'cisphobia', or 'anti-white racism' because that would make just as much sense. You can't oppress the oppressor class.
I think a large reason why these conversations keep happening is that many people fail to grasp this point, and it results in people talking past each other.
Many take "misandry is not real" to mean that no prejudice or situation negatively affects a man for being a man. This is then contrasted with personal experiences of toxic masculinity, negative social experiences mostly unique to men, and experiences of feeling excluded from some circles due to being a man, etc.
Some men would then think to themselves "how could you say that 'misandry' is not real when I had all these negative personal experiences?", unaware that these experiences don't translate to a systemic form of oppression.
That's pretty much it in a nutshell.
Though I would say that I'm still somewhat sympathetic to people expressing points like OP because if you're not aware of this, then you feel like all your personal experiences and hardships are invalidated. Especially given that most of the time when people try to explain this point, it's done pretty aggressively and antagonistically. Can't say I would blame people airing their grievances against an oppressing force, but I can see how some people would feel victimised by it.
The antagonistic attitudes that some feminists demonstrate when talking about these issues is entirely understandable tbh.
Most feminists are women (obviously) and womens' opinions, perspectives, needs, wants, & feelings are regularly being dismissed by our patriarchal society. The lack of value in our words, thoughts, and experiences lead to regular abuse, abandonment, isolation, and gaslighting. This is doubly so for feminists - who expressly reviled & ridiculed often by the public & institutions alike.
Naturally this leads to frustration, bitterness, and hostility. We get tired of being mocked and ignored while trying to discuss the nature of our oppression, its origins, and how to resolve it.
I don't and can't blame feminists who are more confrontational. I know what their feeling and I get it. The onus is on men to start listening to women if they want women to talk to them about womens' liberation and gender equality.
Yes, like I said, I wouldn't blame them. What I mean is that, regardless of blame or finger pointing, the people caught in the crossfire are still affected by it.
This isn't talking about priorities, blame, or what issues should take focus on a systemic level. It's more on an individual level where I sympathise with the negative experiences they had and the feelings of social isolation that they go through.
At the risk of making a bad analogy, we could say that if someone stubs and injures their toe on a living room table, we should be able to sympathise with what they're going through without assigning blame to an inanimate object. The concern is not to find someone or something to assign blame to, but to help out the injured person and give them some support.
That doesn't mean that we would go on a country-wide campaign about the dangers of tables.
Class society. Capitalism. Sexual relationships will be liberated by changing the relations of production. This is the focus. We are communists.
What you're doing is the equivalent of "Death to America". While completely understandable that people rage against the USA, it's not an ideology that is ever going to fundamentally resolve anything. If not this USA, there would be another. No amount of telling Americans that the onus is on them to listen to the Global South is going to change anything meaningful.
I'm still shocked at how poor quality this thread is for Marxist analysis. I had to check twice that I was on this website and not some shitty federated one.
This is class reductionism. None of these issues can be solved under capitalism, but ignoring the unique systemic issues faced by roughly half of the population is going to make organizing and agitating very difficult. Systemic misogyny, transphobia, racism, settler-colonial relations, etc. need to be dealt with as part of the revolution, and before seizing state power, recognizing these issues and providing solutions (for both the present and future) is essential for building support among these populations.
Directly blaming even, not just ignoring. This is gender reductionism.
Agreed. That system being capitalism, not the resultant social constructs of it. Trying to push the gender rope and ignoring the root causes is doomed to failure, alientation and wasted effort.
I can't believe I was sucked into this but there's some humdingers in this thread. It's impossible for men to be hated because they are men just because and Men aren’t subjected to abuse, exclusion, violence, etc. on a social or institutional level by any serious percentage just for the ‘crime’ of being men expressly because being a man isn’t a crime. are particularly jaw dropping western chauvinist observations.
No one here is arguing that gender is the primary contradiction. No one here is saying that we shouldn’t address capitalism. What people are saying is that there are contradictions other than capitalism. After all, patriarchy existed way before the system of capitalism. Abolition of the latter does not automatically abolish the former.
And also, do you disagree than men have a privileged position in society? Just so we get our basics covered.
Agreed, that would have been something at least. Instead we have "Men bad".
Nor that we should. We should just address men and get them to "listen", then everything will be okay.
As communists, we strive to abolish Class Society, of which Capitalism is only the latest manifestation.
Which society? I assume this is more western chauvinistic American defaultism again? We're talking about the entire global gender here. Do you deny that some women have a more privileged position than some men? Or are we only dealing with this absolute. In which case, no is the obvious answer.
you are again bringing up morality when i am talking about class issue. you seem to be fixated on this idea that men are ontologically evil. i have never brought it up, maybe you are confusing me for someone else
again, nobody said that
yes!
do you really think that only in the US men are a privileged class? because it doesnt seem that you even think that to start with
i do not deny that! but class is not absolute, it is an aggregate concept. some proletarians being more privileged than some bourgeois (a worker in europe vs a shopkeeper in the global south for example) does not mean that on aggregate the bourgeoisie is the privileged oppressor class. another example is racism in the US: just because Obama became president does not mean that black people in aggregate are not being marginalized.
This isn't going to work. I am the one here who's introduced class into this moralistic discussion. Me.
Which, again, has been my point in this entire thread. It's all there for anyone to see. Changing your tune now and trying to swap places with me isn't going to work. Otherwise you're just agreeing with me while trying to appear not to.
Do I have to tap the link again? "I don’t and can’t blame feminists who are more confrontational. I know what their feeling and I get it. [The onus is on men to start listening...](I don’t and can’t blame feminists who are more confrontational. I know what their feeling and I get it. The onus is on men to start listening)"
Yes, you agree with my correction of your take. Good.
No, I just assumed, completely without evidence that you were American based on the western centered worldview that there is only one society, and men are privileged within it.
Great. The important distinction where this analogy breaks down is that peoples' relations to the means of production can be changed easily. And this is something we aim to achieve. Whereas men can't ever stop being men.
Lol you have no idea about me. I’m kind of done with this conversation
This here is misandry in several paragraphs. Unsubstantiated, unsupported, baseless claims with no argument.
I would argue against it but there's nothing to argue against. There is no reasoned argument put forth, just tautology and obvious bigotry.
Replace it all with female analogues and see if it still works.
I see you have no response to the below comment that destroyed this.
Otherwise, isn't this a Marxist-Leninist space? What is this liberal bigoted claptrap doing here?
this is not how oppression works though. you cant just replace the oppressed class in place of the oppressor.
All men do not oppress all women. This is as reductive and facile, not to mention bigoted and anti-Marxist. Many men actively work against gender inequality and advocate for women's rights. many men seek to overthrow the class societies that cause oppression of various groups, just as many women support the status quo.
the same is true for any groupings of classes. there are bourgeois and proletarians who work against their class interests, settlers who are against their state and indigenous people who are for it etc etc. this does not negate the class dynamic.
Thank you. Glad we agree. Maybe you can help me elsewhere in the thread now?