Sunday, September 13, 2009

No need to apologize because you are wrong anyway...

I'm talking about this. This is a post by a feminist by the name of factcheckme who is trying to prove that misandry does not exist. Well not so much claim it does not exist as trying to tie it to misogyny and anti-feminism and then by virtue of those two being bad claim that misandry is not what people claim it is and is actually misogyny and anti-feminism in disguise. Here goes.

i have come to see the word “misandry” as a euphemism for feminism, and “misandrist” as a euphemism for feminist, rather than anything that actually exists in real life, to any troubling degree, or in any meaningful way.

First mistake. This blogger has started off by trying to equate equality for women as hatred of men and while there are people who do think this this is not what misandry is about. Plain and simple it is about hatred of men and feminism is about helping women. Trying to insure that women make the same pay as men when all other metrics are equal is feminism. Presuming that a father is a bad and unfit parent based on only his gender is misandry. The two may overlap with some people (those that think insuring that women get the same pay when all metrics are equal is anti-male and that feminists support the presumption that fathers are bad and unfit parents based on gender alone) but the ideas themselves do not overlap.


...its just another flaccid jab at feminism, and feminists, by privileged men whose perverse denial of reality leads them to believe (or pretend to believe) that they are on the receiving end of institutional sexism as much as they benefit from it. and that they suffer relational abuse just as frequently as they dish it out.

Translation: You see the fact that the system favors men in some ways totally negates the fact that it works against them in others. And to point out how the system works against men is cry foul at feminists and feminism.

Play the victim much? And I wonder if she had a specific reason for using the word flaccid as her adjective of choice to describe the jab.


A quote from Adonis Mirror:
It certainly lacks the gravitas required to reflect the widespread injury and social disadvantages that many white males believe they endure on a daily basis.
(emphasis mine.)
Isn't it nice to have a single person around to assure us all that the hatred of men is nothing more than a figament of white men's imaginations? Yeah all the hatred that targets men of color is purely race based and would all magically go away if we changed races right? The problems may be swapped out for others but we would not suddenly be living on easy street.


as the author notes, only an anti-feminist would think to define misogyny’s ‘opposite’ as the hatred of men: more reasonably, woman-hating would be opposed to woman-loving, would it not? but leave it to a misogynist to define all things in relation to mens experience: they wouldnt think to define anything without evoking a male image, and considering (even imagining, with no basis in reality) not whether but how that “thing” would affect men.

Who said anything about opposite? While the opposite of woman-hate would be woman-love this is a misdirect. The term is meant to describe the hatred of men not the opposite of hatred of women. And I find it funny she tries to relate misandry to the female experience and then follows up with commentary on accusing people of trying to relate everything to the male experience. Yeah excuse people for trying to define the hatred of men based on the male experience.

and whether misandry even exists is entirely beside the point, isnt it? in fact, whether an inversion of the word “misogyny” was even necessary appears to be irrelevant.

No its not besides the point. Hatred and sexism should be pointed out whenever or whenever it happens no matter who it happens to.

More from Adonis Mirror:
As words, misandry and homicide-bomber have everything in common. Both are attempts to deliberately reframe an existing concept: neither makes any empirical sense without prior knowledge of “misogyny” and “suicide-bomber” as a reference point. Both attempt to invert power structures through their rhetoric: women and developing nations are seen as cowardly oppressors who refuse to honorably fight, and lose, on an uneven footing. Both are also tied to specific political groups: antifeminists and American conservatives. Yet while one term is a laughing stock of the liberal community, misandry has been making significant headway.

This is almost funny. This sounds like it is trying to say that in order for the hatred of men to be make sense must have prior knowledge of the hatred of women. This is not the case. One only need to know what "man" is and what "hatred" is. Hell when the term misogyny was put together it was done without any "prior knowledge" it was simply someone recognizing hatred that specifically targeted women and the same thing was done for the sake of misandry. Someone merely recognized hatred toward men and put a one word label on it. This sounds like she it trying to say that since hatred of women was recognized first people who are calling out hatred of men are just whining.

And for the record anyone that knows that "homicide" means to kill people and "bomber" is one who uses bombs knows full well the homicide bomber is one who uses bombs to kill people.


And finally:
when this word is used here or anywhere, i invite readers to put it in its correct context, and to identify the anti-feminist and misogynist agenda thats being pushed. there are those who will push back with made-up bullshit when their privilege is questioned, and its our responsibility (and my delight) to push the fuck back.

One more push of the misdirection. Her claim is that those calling out a hatred of men are really trying to hate women and and we are only crying about having our privileges challenged. So when I talk about how large men are treated what privilege was being challenged, the privilege of not being judged based on my gender and size? When Toy Soldier talks about how male victims of abused are silenced because of their gender what privilege was being challenged, the privilege of not being ridiculed and turned down for help based on gender?


Claim that hatred of men is "made up bullshit" meant to defend privileges. Try to say that hatred of men does not make sense unless one understands hatred of women. Saying that calling out hatred of men is actually hatred of women. Remember way back when I talked about "Shut up! You're privileged!" activism? This is what I'm talking about.


Oh and I have to point to this comment by the handle "Undercover Punk":
when i can safely walk the streets ALONE at night IN THE DARK, as a man can, i’ll consider the MRA’s outrageous claims of male oppression.

On a post meant to point out how men refuse to see anything from any prospective other than the male it is funny to see that this commenter thinks that male oppression is invalid until women's concerns are addressed. Nevermind that if women were to become equal to men in terms of likelihood of being a victim of violent crime they would see a sharp decrease in the likelihood of being sexually attacked and a sharp increase in likelihood of being murdered. (And while I commend factcheckme for not trying to claim that MRA = misogyny I can't help but notice that Undercover Punk has no problems with such claims and also has no problem saying that their claims are outrageous with no evidence to back it up.)


I have to say that posts like this are shining examples of why men and women can't come no a united front. There are still feelings of "who has it worse" and these feelings are not only being used to justify why issues that mostly affect them need to be addressed but they are also being used to try justify why issues that mostly affect other groups don't need to be addressed. That post seems to push the idea that trying to address issues that mostly affect men MUST be mutually inclusive with hatred of women when that is not the case. This almost sounds like that zero sum game some feminists try to accuse men of invoking.



I looked the site over for evidence that this post was a joke but found none. With all the attempts at trying to sweep the hatred of men under the rug I would actually feel better if this were a joke. But unless someone proves otherwise the shit is real and shit is offensive.

30 comments:

David K. said...

Well called Danny.
Sounds a lot like the kind of "Boys vs. Girls" gender politics that 6 year olds have, why don't these people just grow up? If you're suffering it doesn't make it better or worse for you because other people are worse off, or that other in your group are also likely to suffer the same problems - surely the point is that NO-ONE should be abused or persecuted, and EVERYONE should have their rights respected. But then I would say that: I'm a HRA - Human Rights Activist ;-)

Danny said...

Exactly. The problem is that there are ways in which men have an unfair advantage over women and there are ways in which women have an unfair advantage then men and having an advantage in one manner does not make it okay to be treated unfairly in another.

The fact that my gender might give me an edge over a woman in one job hunt does not somehow balance out the fact that my gender might put me at a disadvantage in another job hunt. Both are sexist, both are wrong, and neither should be allowed to happen.

elementary_watson said...

Great post, Danny! Some of the sections you discussed really border on parody, and are shining examples of Hypocritical Humor (My apologies to everyone who didn't know that site yet and is stuck there for the next seven hours). Claiming men who see misandry want society to see everything through a male-centric lense while demanding society to see everything through a female-centric lense, yeah, right.

Also, this line about domestic violence from factcheckme bothers me, because it seems to see men as one monolith. So yeah, accepting that there is more male violence against women, what does this mean for the *individual* man who never raised his voice, far less anything else, against his wife but gets beaten by her? In factcheckme's line of reasoning, his individuality seems to get dissolved in his identity as a man, and th wrong other men do is weighed against the wrong he experiences, rendering it irrelevant.

And then, those people wonder why some people think their philosophy has totalitarian tendencies ...

Meadester said...

I love how factcheckme claims to not hate men, while at the same time agreeing with Undercover Punk's idea that hatred of men is justified based on all the standard, clich├ęd anti-male propaganda points. Here we go again with actions of a small minority of men being generalized to promote hatred of the whole group. For what other group would that not be recognized as bigotry? There is more I'd like to say about this so I will make this the topic of the next post on my blog.

For now, I will leave with this thought: whatever semantic arguments there are over the word "misandry," its origins, or the relevance of its differences with the word "misanthropy," it is clear that we do need a term for anti-male bigotry.

Toysoldier said...

Actually, the post itself was kind of impressive. She managed to write a lot of words without actually addressing the point of the post. She never provided any proof that misandry does not exist, but she wrote a lot and meandered along well enough that anyone not paying attention would not catch that.

Danny said...

Yeah TS. Make a nonsense post claiming that something else is nonsense.

Danny said...

Yes Meadester. Time and time again we see feminists try to say that hatred of men is not real or redirect it into it actually being hatred of women. But people who call out misandry are the ones playing victim right?

And on generalization I do find it funny how the actions of one bad man somehow represents the entire gender but its sexism to hold the entire female gender to the actions of one bad woman.

Danny said...

Great post, Danny! Some of the sections you discussed really border on parody, and are shining examples of Hypocritical Humor (My apologies to everyone who didn't know that site yet and is stuck there for the next seven hours). Claiming men who see misandry want society to see everything through a male-centric lense while demanding society to see everything through a female-centric lense, yeah, right.

Yeah that's why for a bit I thought that post was a joke but like I said unless its proven to be a joke I'm taking it as real and dismissing the suffering of men is not cool.

Guest said...

FROM A REAL MAN:

http://radicalprofeminist.blogspot.com/2009/09/carefully-listening-to-radical-feminist.html

Enjoy,
Undercover Punk

Guest said...

As a feminist, I do agree with you, Danny. The term misandry can mean anti-male. As an advocate/activist in the LGBTQ community and a domestic violence/rape crisis counselor, I see plenty of misandry on a daily basis within the gay community, and I also meet plenty of men who are too afraid to speak out about DV because of the stigma against it.

However, I don't think that misandry and misogyny are necessarily two mutuallyl exclusive phenomenons, and I think they each stem from the same problems... that's the fact that men are seen as providers and strong and powerful, and if they leave those boxes, misandry often occurs, where as with women, they are submissive and weak (this construct in itself is misogynist). I'd like to believe that MODERN feminist thinking is actually working within a scope to combat BOTH of these issues due to the influence of gender theory on feminism. An oppression against a man usually contributes to oppression against women at some point.

To sum up, it seems weird to me that this debate even has to happen, because ultimately they are the exact same problem and stem from the same issues.

Danny said...

However, I don't think that misandry and misogyny are necessarily two mutuallyl exclusive phenomenons, and I think they each stem from the same problems... that's the fact that men are seen as providers and strong and powerful, and if they leave those boxes, misandry often occurs, where as with women, they are submissive and weak (this construct in itself is misogynist).

Ah my apologies on the explaining of the mutually exclusivity. By that I meant by that was that the person on that post I linked to seem to want to say that misandry cannot exist without misogyny coming first. In essence she was trying to trace it all back to misogyny for perhaps the purpose of saying the women are the "real victims".

And as far as some feminists are concerned I do find it odd that this came up because for a movement of people that are supposedly trying to help all people sure as hell are content on going out of their way to make sure no one finds out about the hatred targeted towards men.

Danny said...

Oh and one more thing Guest if you continue to post here I would appreciate if you would use some sort of handle to distinguish yourself lest it get very confusing with lots of Guests running around here.

Danny said...

Some decent advice although its funny to get a link telling how to not to dictate to women under a headline that attacks my masculinity (implying that I am not a real man for not ignoring the hatred and suffering of men in exchange for focusing all my attention on the hatred and suffering of women). And by the way none of that addresses that fact that there is systematic hatred against men and factcheckme is basically saying that the fact that there are men out there that do the things in the link you provide somehow negates hatred of men. They both happen and they are both wrong.

And by the way I never tried to say that things don't happen to women because I haven't lived a woman's life and even if I had I would only be one woman. Therefore to have a woman try to tell me that hatred of men does not exist and is made up is a pretty big heap of garbage. Oh and a couple of men who have not lived my life (because they are their own men how have lived their own unique lives) agreeing with her does not prove that hatred of men does not exist.

I'm all for people speaking out against the way women are treated and I have had my eyes opened by some feminist writing. But at the same time if you think that the mistreatment of women somehow proves that hatred of men is not real or that it is actually hatred of women in disguise or that the hatred of men should take some sort of back seat to the hatred of women then you have another thing coming.

Thanks for the link I plan to enjoy.

Danny said...

I saw the comments over at factcheckme's place about this post but instead of addressing what I said you and factcheckme are putting words in my mouth so that you can have something to attack. I never said I'm an MRA and I wonder if you actually looked at all the links at in my blog roll or did you just pick the ones you knew you wouldn't like based on your own biases for the sake of having something to attack.

And again I'll say that I never said the misogyny did not exist and I have certainly never compared oppressions in fact the only ones comparing are you since you seem to think that the exist of hatred against women means that hatred against men cannot exist.

But I am enjoying that link. Good words to live by. If only you and factcheckme would practice what you preach...

Beste said...

Julian Real is a "real" man?

Beste said...

You should also note that Undercover Punk a man-hating Lesbian separatist… So I wouldn’t take what she considers a “real man” very seriously.

Danny said...

Now now Beste. No need to name call. Well I guess you aren't if she said it herself...

Danny said...

I have no doubt that Julian Real is a real man on his own terms just as I am a real man on my own terms. That reference is the exact same shaming that Undercover Punk would be quick to point out if someone were to try to tell her that she is not a "real" woman (and despite her jabs at me I don't play that anymore than I would tolerate it at me).

Meadester said...

I would like to take this opportunity to remind anyone who has forgotten or enlighten anyone new to this discussion that this "real man", Julian Real, has been exposed by Daran of Feminist Critics as a proponent of gendercide.

Beste: "You should also note that Undercover Punk a man-hating Lesbian separatist… So I wouldn’t take what she considers a “real man” very seriously."

True. I don't know why she is even here if she cares so little about what men think of her. Regarding "Lesbian separatists" in general: I have had a good friend who was a Lesbian, as is one of my favorite bloggers - Becky of
Girl in Short Shorts(who was driven off the web -hopefully only temporarily- by whiny tattle-tales complaining about her content to Google). I have great respect for women who are born Lesbian, and men who are born gay, proclaiming to the world who they are and standing up for their rights. I do not however have any respect for people who are born straight but decide to "become gay" out of hatred for, and desire to avoid, the opposite sex. Undercover punk seems to be in the latter category. I'm sure she can come up with reasons for hating men that seem reasonable on the surface, but then all bigots focus on and exaggerate the flaws of the group that they have pre-judged to be worthy of hatred. This has been proven time and again in psychological experiments.

Danny said...

Sakes alive Mead it is! Funny that. I was actually reading that link she posted and I do acknowledge the problems he's pointing out. Think is Undercover Punk is trying to say that I'm refusing to acknowledge the things to happen to women at the hands of men but what do you expect of a person that creates targets instead of going after what I actually said.

And about why she may hate men I have a question. When a woman is done wrong repeatedly by men and she comes to hate them its the fault of men but when a man is done wrong by women repeatedly and he comes hate them its his fault, he's making generalizations, he's a misogynist, etc...?

elementary_watson said...

I guess you could say that George Clooney is a "Clooney man", ad it's similar with Julian real, I'd say. When someone writes in capital letters, sometimes it's hard to correctly parse the text.

cacophonies said...

<blockquote>And I find it funny she tries to relate misandry to the female experience and then follows up with commentary on accusing people of trying to relate everything to the male experience. Yeah excuse people for trying to define the hatred of men based on the male experience.</blockquote>

YES. That part rubbed me entirely the wrong way. Way to lose every ounce of credibility whatsoever and turn into a waste-of-space echo chamber.

Danny said...

Ah hi cacophonies. Glad to see you drop in. You know if it weren't for feminists like this I would actually have sympathy for the ones that go to such lengths to argue that feminists don't hate men.

Phantom said...

"Trying to insure that women make the same pay as men when all other metrics are equal is feminism."

This is *not* feminism. Feminism is about equal pay for women regardless of all metics. That is equal pay for unequal work. Demonstrated by how the UK government calculates the "pay gap", and by calls from feminists to "close the pay gap" eg. Fawcett Society: "In the UK, women get paid, on average, 17% less than men."

When you adjust pay for all relevant metrics women earn as much or more than men. A simple example is to look at pay for single women without children vs single men without children. For this subgroup women earn more than men.

Julian said...

Richard Leader is not alone as a man in his analysis of what's messed up about MRA psycho-logic. I admire that piece of his and publicly thank him for writing it. It's about time this nonsense of "men are oppressed by women too" is called out for what it is (stoo-pid), and that "misandry" is recognised for what it is: not structurally, institutionally, or socially significant, not a harmful or deadly phenomenon, and just a useful word-weapon for extremely privileged men to rant-and-banter about rather than take responsibility for what we and other men to do collectively and individually to oppress women.

What have you done to stop the endemic rape of women by men today? Why is "ending rape" not on men's "top 100" list of important things to deal with? Oh, that's right: because three women wrote thirty years ago some angry stuff about men. Boo hoo. God, it's hard being a man in a male supremacist land, isn't it? It's hard out here for a pimp, right?

Complaining about "misandry" is more important than challenging other men to help end men's rape and exploitation and subordination of women???? Please, make the case.

And I'm sure you'll find all kinds of fancy diversionary arguments for not dealing with men's actual violence against and subordination of women, in all its ugly MANifestations. And I'm sure there are MRA jerks (no, really, get this:) who will prefer to talk about how someone used the word "MANifestation". And who died from such words being uttered, exactly? Who died from "misandry"? Oh, men died, but from MEN's hatred of other men, not women's alleged "hatred of men". (And who cooks men's food, usually, and wiped your ass clean when you were a baby?) Yeah, going on and on about "how much [far too few] women don't like us", has got to be more important an action to take than calling out men's misogyny when you see it happening in front of you. Because, really--he said sarcastically--it is ALL about the men, right? We're the only humans who matter enough to enrage us about rape and child molestation, poverty and racism: if and when it happens to males by males and white male supremacist capitalist institutions. Grow some compassion for what happens to people WHO AREN'T YOU, Danny and FOD (friends of Danny). And stop defending dickheads.

Sonja Newcombe said...

Julian - Stop the bullshit. Each man here is stopping the "endemic" rape of women by... NOT RAPING WOMEN. No man is responsible for the actions of the tiny minority. It's not on a "top 100" because it's not a major issue. Most men's top priority is (funny this) survival. If it's such a big issue for these women, what the hell are THEY doing about it, other than sitting behind their computers on online forums and bleating about how they're such a victim?

"Complaining about "misandry" is more important than challenging other men to help end men's rape and exploitation and subordination of women???? Please, make the case."
Women have enough advocates in this day and age. I'm a woman, and I'm fucking sick to death of hearing about how women are getting paid less (on average, always an average of yearly earnings, never a comparison of the hourly rate with someone of equal qualifications and/or experience), how one in every [insert random number less than 10 here] women are going to be raped/beaten/prostituted/whatever. Most Western political spheres have at least one "Minister for Equality/Women", yet there is never a "Minister for Men". "Equality" is always about what women AREN'T getting that men supposedly have got.

Why is it stupid that men are oppressed by women? It is a known fact, something society cannot deny, but does refuse to acknowledge at all. There is systemic discrimination against men who are abused by women, and it is WAY past time it was stopped. I would really like to see you back up all your arguments against misandry. How is it not "structurally, institutionally, or socially significant"? Don't you see the "jokes" about all men being stupid, or clumsy, or deserving of a slap/kick in the testicles? How in HADES are they funny when you can't laugh about the same shit happening to women, since it's not PC? And if misandry is just an outlet for privileged men, I must (somehow, in spite of biology) be a privileged man. I am all-too familiar with misandry.

Every comment you have made in your post focuses on how bad WOMEN supposedly have it. You have utterly failed to take seriously the abuse suffered at the hands of women by men of all ages, shapes and sizes. How would you explain the fact that I know VERY well of how far-reaching an effect Child Abuse has had on a man I am very familiar with when the abuser was his own mother? What would you say to the very sweet man I worked with, who asked me whether I thought his daughter, by this time a young teen, would even want to hear from him, after his ex-wife taught her that she could get cancer from holding hands with her dad? What about the men who commit suicide every year because vindictive bitches refuse to let them see their own children??

I am tired of having women's so-called problems thrown in my face every goddamn day by people who refuse to even acknowledge that men have problems caused by women!

Danny said...

Hey they Sonja.

The thing about Julian is that he seems to think that helping men MUST equal hurting women when its not. I find it funny that the people who say men help themselves by helping women seem to not be able to realize that by men helping themselves they are also helping women.

One of the best ways for a person to learn that others are are being hurt is to pay attention to their own pain. And besides what good are men to women if they are running around trying to save women when they can't even deal with their own issues? Its almost as if people like Julian want men to intentionally ignore the things that affect men so that we can "man up" and help women. Guess what? Men have been told to put their own problems aside to help others for a long time. Yes there a lot out of men there that don't abide by this but think about all those men that ignore their own health problems because they choose providing for their families over their own health and that's only one example.

Well damn that. I'm all for helping women, children, or whoever but I'll be damned if I'm just gonna let one part of my identity be run into the ground because someone has decided that the things that affect me aren't that important.

Sonja Newcombe said...

Agreed! How can one help others when they can't even help themselves?

Male mental health is perhaps one of the most ignored issues in society, and has been for centuries. All one has to do to see it is look at veterans who returned with "shell shock", "battle fatigue".... now known as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Schala said...

Factcheckme is real. Just like Julian Real (ironic name is ironic).

It's not parody, but it certainly sounds like it. I treat it as entertainment when I read their blogs.

See the recent comments on the open thread I made about Julian's recent posts.

Danny said...

Sadly yes those people are real (and no amount of sweeping by other feminists that refuse to acknowledge won't make them go away).

But I'll have to say you're a better than one than me if you find their offensive material funny.

-->