Misandry - Men don't exist, unless they do something bad!

OrphanApology
reply to post by halfoldman

 

Vocabularies are based on men. Women don't exist in vocabularies, the etymology of words used to describe females just shows the historical property status of the female gender.

Let me give you some vocabulary examples:

History
Women(WO-MEN)
Woman(Wo-man)

The word woman started as wifman which translates into the wife of man. Every word used to describe females is as property of the man.

More words:

Humans
Female(FE-MALE)
Heroine(Hero-ine)

So when you analyze words like manhunt, mankind, etc. you will see that those words are not examples of misandry but rather examples of misogyny in the context of vocabularies and language.

Women do not have their own words, ever. Any word associated with a female is simply an add on to it's male counterpart.

edit on 28-10-2013 by OrphanApology because: d

I recommend "The Alphabet vs the Goddess" by Leonard Shlain.

halfoldman
It's only part of the story of how a fight for equality has ended up with reverse discrimination.
Perhaps men have also been too proud to contest this discrimination (no wonder, considering their socialization), and a solid men's movement is sorely lacking.

This is actually a good point. As a white adult male I have noticed this to a degree. It's almost as if its impossible to talk to your friends about this. Its somehow easier to speak out against circumcision and other discrimination on the Internet then to our friends. At least that's the way I feel about it. I feel the butchering of either sexes genitalia is unacceptable and a crime against humanity. Always felt the child should grow to an adult and make the decision themselves. It will also cause far less medical problems as those organs are still growing.

Every time I have seen a man speak up about this subject they have been laughed at. Either other men cannot accept the subject because its too horrible or society hasn't accepted it. I don't think until recently it was even socially acceptable to mention it. I also feel governments have had a part in some of this. They want to divide and conquer so they push sexism, racism, and general bias. Anyhow I will leave you will a good quote. Thank you for speaking up.

In the past quarter century, we exposed biases against other races and called it racism, and we exposed biases against women and called it sexism. Biases against men we call humor.

—Warren Farrell

jonnywhite
What bothers me isn't that I like or hate males or females, but that being a male and sometimes liking male things somehow makes me a bad person; somehow makes me primitive. The new trend seems to be gender-neutral and blurry.

I think most healthy hetero women like healthy manly men. Our culture, of course, is re-educating women, not just men, toward this plain-wrap gender version of the race of tan.

If it's any consolation, you can look to the gigantic romance novel marketing sector to see what women really like. Opening doors for women and other chivalry-manners is bad? Men who are dominant sorts are bad? Not according to a gazillion dollars in books women buy, where incredibly dominant, usually autocratic, mostly chivalrous, manly-men in the classical 'strong' sense are the panty-dropping heroes.

I know a lot of men who say, "The women I know are attracted to jerks. I'm a nice guy and it's not good enough." I think this is actually a replacement dynamic. Let me explain.

The body when it lacks most elements, let us say healthy phospholipids, seems to be able to use less-ideal replacement elements, let's say twinkie trans-fats. This is good as it keeps us alive when short on things we need. Unfortunately then we have twinkie-cell-membrane elements, lipids which it turns out are a lot better designed for eternal-storage-twinkies than human cell membranes. Well, the psychology (possibly because it's based on biology of course) seems to use kind of the same dynamic.

When we lack something that we 'need,' if we don't have it, we often substitute other things for it. So for example, a woman who needs to feel protected will often get involved with a man who is eventually abusive, because initially, his dominating, lightly-controlling behavior seems very protective, sheltering and strong.

Well, I think elements such as confidence and independence are things in men which women sort of 'need' or are positively-triggered by in the subconscious-selection-of-mates, and when the men around them either lack this or "are simply not doing anything which demonstrates it" (perhaps our environment gives few opportunities at times), women may 'substitute' other qualities which have a slight "behavioral" overlap. Self-centered a**holes seem confident and independent, even when they are not. A bad trans-fat version of that true-freedom-independence healthy manly-men naturally have.

Just philosophy. :-)

I think the title of this thread is worth paying attention to! The judgement of something one does as "bad" is of ethics. One can be superior to another in many areas- intelligence, strength, knowledge, speed, skill..... but here we are accusing ethical inferiority.


- American culture has traditionally emphasized individualism

-That nurtures higher occurance in the population of narcissism

-Narcissism includes a tendancy towards polarized views and behaviors

-In partnerships, that means separation into one role of "powerful immoral", and "powerless moral"
(the ouvert narcissist and the covert narcissist )

-Individuals choose to identify with one or the other

-This is relevant to the post above this one, in terms of "women who love jerks" (they get to be morally superior)

-as well as "men who love bitches" (who get to be morally superior)

-As well as the polarization of other aspects of the society, politics, religion, science...

reply to post by halfoldman


My question:

Can you really interpret male circumcision as Misandry?

Its just that Misandry implies actual hatred of men and their sex. The perceived reasoning to circumcision as im sure you know is based on "hygiene" and religious reasons, as opposed to female circumcision that is based solely on keeping her a virgin for her future husband and reducing her enjoyment of sex (As she is a daughter of eve and must be punished for something some bitch apparently did 2000 years ago)

If they where shortening penis's, intentionally trying to ensure that men received less pleasure from sex while also in the same breath, bad mouthing your sex, making it known that you are lesser of female's, then i suppose could agree that the word Misandry could be used.

But men are just not "Hated" as some seem to imply. Men still hold many of the top position's in society, there still hasn't been a female president in the USA. Men are not turned away from job's/career's because of their sex or even treated differently because they have a nice rack.

How can a men's movement possibly be taken seriously when as soon as a man cant get a sandwich made FOR him he begins to scream "MISANDRY!!!" like a whiny 6 year old.

Just my thoughts.

Peace.

I think I'm confused. He brought up circumcision, but you say the complaint is that someone won't make a sandwich for him? Am I reading the wrong thread or what?

SearchLightsInc
reply to post by halfoldman

 

Can you really interpret male circumcision as Misandry?

Hiya SearchLights,

I think you missed the point of the OP a little? I can't watch the video but the OP wasn't really discussing male circumcision as misandry so much as discussing the United Nations response to it.

It's also a side point, but all the reasons you listed for male circumcision have been applied to women's experiences too. It's why they often run off into the forest to perform male circumcisions in some countries, because it's a religious act of becoming a man and surviving the process.

Though I will agree that the reasons are different etc ... I'm not really gonna go into in depth and detail about all that but instead kinda say ... do you not think some of the responses to the OP were a bit harsh?

We're already on to the sandwich making jokes and it took less than a page for someone to go into deep (and possibly offensive) psychoanalysis without much kind explaining of why those feelings were in place.

I don't know everyone's history in this discussion so I guess this is all I can say, and I may be way off base.

reply to post by halfoldman


I'm a dude and I understand what you are saying.. bit in fairness malr and female circumcision aren't even almost the same thing.
Sure maybe some male citcumcisions are botched and its terrible to force someone to go through.. but female circumcisions are ALL botched. They are done t prevent women sexual pleasure so they are less likely to lise their virginity pre marriage (an irony is that thise countries that do female circumcision usually marry girls off at 9 and the odds of ls willingly having sex before by then are slim making the act redu ndant.) The male circumcision is at least believed to serve a positive purpose (physically) even though it doesnt make it right. The female circumcision is removing the clitoris and something else all together.

Pinke

SearchLightsInc
reply to post by halfoldman

 

Can you really interpret male circumcision as Misandry?

Hiya SearchLights,

I think you missed the point of the OP a little? I can't watch the video but the OP wasn't really discussing male circumcision as misandry so much as discussing the United Nations response to it.

It's also a side point, but all the reasons you listed for male circumcision have been applied to women's experiences too. It's why they often run off into the forest to perform male circumcisions in some countries, because it's a religious act of becoming a man and surviving the process.

Though I will agree that the reasons are different etc ... I'm not really gonna go into in depth and detail about all that but instead kinda say ... do you not think some of the responses to the OP were a bit harsh?

We're already on to the sandwich making jokes and it took less than a page for someone to go into deep (and possibly offensive) psychoanalysis without much kind explaining of why those feelings were in place.

I don't know everyone's history in this discussion so I guess this is all I can say, and I may be way off base.

The real point i was making is the use of the word Misandry. The only example the OP gave of misandry was male circumcision.

I just thought that Misandry implies active hatred of the male species and i dont think circumcision can be counted for reasons i stated in the previous post, though i am welcoming to any other examples that can be classed as misandry.

Where in society is there an active hatred of men? They are still pretty much running society, are they not?

RedCairo
I think I'm confused. He brought up circumcision, but you say the complaint is that someone won't make a sandwich for him? Am I reading the wrong thread or what?

Your lack of coherence isnt much to do with how ive laid out my first post in this read, seem's as though you've read the first two lines of my post and then jumped to the end.

I would advise reading my entire post and it will probably make sense to you.

The example of misandry that kills me over and over again is the dumb male buffoon stereotype we see over and over in the entertainment media.

Every sitcom man is the dumb male just like every sitcom wife is the smart and reasonable one. Very rarely are these stereotypes overturned.

reply to post by halfoldman


There is no patriarchy. There is only oligarchy. Those who seek power and submission of their subjects do not care what gender they rule over.

ketsuko
The example of misandry that kills me over and over again is the dumb male buffoon stereotype we see over and over in the entertainment media.

Yet women get the same treatment in adverts aimed at men.

Every sitcom man is the dumb male just like every sitcom wife is the smart and reasonable one. Very rarely are these stereotypes overturned.

Every sitcom, there is a dumb blonde, the media play's off of stereotypes, what's your point?

If both sexes are being treated equally unfairly by the media, is that really misandry?

reply to post by SearchLightsInc


Well then get rid of all stereotypes, but it's a bit nasty of you to only be concerned about the female ones and not admit the male ones exist, too.

ketsuko
reply to post by SearchLightsInc

 

Well then get rid of all stereotypes, but it's a bit nasty of you to only be concerned about the female ones and not admit the male ones exist, too.

Where have i shown concern that only the female ones exist? You raised a point, i agreed but noted that men were not the only victims of media stereotyping.

I think both of them are wrong but unfortunately the media is a machine and its worked hard working out how each gender ticks so we can "relate" better to the message being broadcast.

ketsuko
reply to post by SearchLightsInc

 

Well then get rid of all stereotypes, but it's a bit nasty of you to only be concerned about the female ones and not admit the male ones exist, too.

Pretty much nailed it here, Ketsuko. It's completely hypocritical to Hulksmash over female entertainment stereotypes of big boobs, dumb blondes, helpless women when we have an equal amount of beefy testosterone inflated mega-men, dumb fat men, or dumb knuckle-dragging men in general. That's like yelling 'DON'T MAKE FUN OF MEEEE! But it's fine if we make fun of you, so STFU." Either the goose AND the gander get their giggles (and everyone stuffs it) or we swallow pride & admit both aren't fair, and commit to fixing entertainment's stereotypes if they're truly that detrimental.

SearchLightsInc
Your lack of coherence isnt much to do with how ive laid out my first post in this read, seem's as though you've read the first two lines of my post and then jumped to the end.
I would advise reading my entire post and it will probably make sense to you.

I think it is more a matter that you are discussing something that must be emotional for you, but it doesn't seem to be what the OP was actually talking about.

The OP was pretty specific: regarding the language that is used when reporting on issues in mass media, and one person's suggestion that this was indicative of bias against men, as 'bad' event reports used words which pointedly kept 'men/man' in them, and 'good' event reports pointedly used word forms which removed that.

Granted the conversation did spiral out a bit after that. But his fundamental point is related to that.

In reading forum archives, somewhat like your post, it seems to me that any time men even mildly mention something that they feel is doing men as a gender injustice, they are all but verbally tackled by women who go on about (check one variant on the men are jerks / women are victims theme) instead. Surely we could make other threads to cover the (pretty well infinite, I agree) list of traits, from irritating to homicidal, that men throughout time and culture have, do or will exercise.

Men ought to be able to have a conversation without it being about women. He was not really even talking about women in his OP, but about third parties (like media sources). A man shouldn't have to defend the entire history or culture of gender relationships to have a personal experience or opinion. He's just one guy.

I mean it's ironic because in a way, it sort of subtly underscores the original misandry framework: there are (at least) two ways to be biased about a group: one is to openly put them down in various ways, but the other is to subtly undermine them instead, such as not taking anything they say seriously, or making anything they try to address into being about something else.

RedCairo

SearchLightsInc
Your lack of coherence isnt much to do with how ive laid out my first post in this read, seem's as though you've read the first two lines of my post and then jumped to the end.
I would advise reading my entire post and it will probably make sense to you.

I think it is more a matter that you are discussing something that must be emotional for you, but it doesn't seem to be what the OP was actually talking about.

The OP was pretty specific: regarding the language that is used when reporting on issues in mass media, and one person's suggestion that this was indicative of bias against men, as 'bad' event reports used words which pointedly kept 'men/man' in them, and 'good' event reports pointedly used word forms which removed that.

Granted the conversation did spiral out a bit after that. But his fundamental point is related to that.

In reading forum archives, somewhat like your post, it seems to me that any time men even mildly mention something that they feel is doing men as a gender injustice, they are all but verbally tackled by women who go on about (check one variant on the men are jerks / women are victims theme) instead. Surely we could make other threads to cover the (pretty well infinite, I agree) list of traits, from irritating to homicidal, that men throughout time and culture have, do or will exercise.

Men ought to be able to have a conversation without it being about women. He was not really even talking about women in his OP, but about third parties (like media sources). A man shouldn't have to defend the entire history or culture of gender relationships to have a personal experience or opinion. He's just one guy.

I mean it's ironic because in a way, it sort of subtly underscores the original misandry framework: there are (at least) two ways to be biased about a group: one is to openly put them down in various ways, but the other is to subtly undermine them instead, such as not taking anything they say seriously, or making anything they try to address into being about something else.

And as ive stated before, i feel that for the issue's the OP raised, Misandry is to strong a word imo, i am still waiting for someone to debate me on that point. I am not disagreeing that men are treated unfairly in some situation's but to present circumcision or the media's portrayal of the "buffoon man" as a form of Misandry (hatred of males, is just, well... doesn't stack up with me.

All im really wanting to discuss is the use of the word Misandry yet everyone's talking to me like im going off on a tangent, how much clearer can i possibly make my intentions on this thread?

reply to post by SearchLightsInc


I think RedCairo already brilliantly addressed some of the points.

Ultimately, how one defines misogyny, misandry as well as racism, antisemitism, Islamophobia or homophobia will always be a matter of debate, and where one person will see a slight bias (or a laughable over-reaction) another may see hatred and significant discrimination.
Of course, the most blatant form of hatred is violence or the threat of violence by highly prejudiced people (for example, the Society for Cutting Up Men).
However, no group has advanced itself by simply fighting extremists against their kind, or possibly deranged people.

As especially the second wave of feminism taught, power is reflected in language and this can be revealed by social deconstructionism of gender-biases in all kinds of discourses, including the media.
Since misandry is the parallel study of misogyny, I think it quite acceptable to apply similar techniques and demand similar standards of equality in either study of sexism.

According to the examples in my clip the label "men" is only applied when males do something bad.
When they do something heroic another description is applied.
Now the Bible and many novels have been interpreted as misogynist because they divide female characters (or gendered metaphors, like cities) into stereotypes of the "Madonna"/"Whore".
Similarly we can call it misandry when the media portrays "men as criminals"/"persons as heroic".
One could dispute this, but to me there simply is an opposing binary system that should be further investigated and exposed.

Ultimately to me the genders are tied together, and they should be happy together.

In that sense, having a discourse of disposable "men" (while expectations of being "a man" and the "tough guise" are simultaneously preached in other discourses, also in female "raunch culture") is a recipe for confusion and dysfunction.
Without heroic males also being affirmed as "men", I see no solution but for males to be manipulated into politically incorrect aspects of sub-cultures and the worst aspects of the "tough guise".
Hence, I not only defend my labeling of the media discourse as misandry, but it will lead to more misogyny, and therefore it could be described as both.
The media should decide whether it wants gender neutral terms, but double standards should be opposed.

Apart from that the clip clearly shows examples of where and how men's bodies where placed in harm's way, and their very disposablility was considered culturally acceptable and unquestioned.

In South Africa there's several issues, from some feminists calling for a complete reworking of language, similar to reconstruction in Germany after World War II.
How to respond to the deaths and penile amputations from tribal male circumcisions is of course quite difficult.
One certainly wouldn't want to repeat debates about the Western feminist "rescue narrative" concerning female cutting and circumcision in other parts of Africa (which can be seen as hegemonic imposition, and has been accused of driving the custom underground, and even demonizing the women who perform and support it).
I would like the UN to take note of male circumcision practices in SA, and for some pressure to be applied to at least cancel out human rights abuses, kidnappings and dreadful annual deaths and mutilations.
It should at least also be brought to the attention of the world and public debate.
What happens to the gendered and raced body also has to do with knowledge, and I don't see why the next generation of males has to suffer because certain knowledge has been held back.

We have two Women's Days in SA (international and a local public holiday), we have 16 days of activism against violence against women and children, we have a "Take a girl-child to work day" (although this year, for the first time, some called it "Take a child to work day") and then we have Oprah with her female-only schools.
Apart from that affirmative action quotas favor women of all races (including, strangely, white women).
We have activists and academic work pushing "sex-workers" and the dangers of their work (but rarely male miners).
That doesn't mean there isn't a political glass ceiling for women - I think we're further removed from a female ANC president than the US.
However, I can't afford to wait for some countries and parties to sort out their gender issues in the top echelons before I can argue that men are oppressed and hated in certain ways.

The former "other" is also speaking back nowadays - reverse discrimination in many ways may still not always be recognized in the academies or the mainstream media, but there is push-back.

As for the the media discourse:
I cannot say the intent is always hateful.
It could be completely ignorant, just like many people repeat discourse.
However, the result amounts to discrimination and the kind of feelings and lack of acceptance that qualifies as being hated, disliked, fatalistic and disinterested in connection with the other gender and worthless.

reply to post by AliceBleachWhite


Your point is valid, unless of course there isn't anybody tracking statistics for men?

Which there aren't really. 90% of all male victimization goes unreported or un-investigated.

SO that's not a good response.

Secondly, just because something WAS a certain way before, doesn't mean that it's OK for it be now but on the other foot. That whole pendulum argument is crap.

The problem in today's society is VERY simple.

Women's culture is celebrated.

Men's culture is demonized.

This sums it up nicely:



~Tenth