Living Metal

if you consider yourself a feminist you do have to hold the line on misandry being fake. if you're willing to capitulate on that you will be fundamentally compromised when you advocate for the cause of women's liberation.

... Nooo?

This is a line that would immediately fire back.

It's not that misandry does not exist - otherwise those that debate with you will pick one actual misandric person as a token and be like AH-AAAAH GOTCHA! (and by rule of large numbers one such a person is ALWAYS bound to exist).

The point you wanna hold onto is that misandry, differently from misogyny, is NOT a SYSTEMIC sociopolitical and cultural recurring phenomenon enforced, accepted and perpetrated FROM SOCIETY AS A WHOLE, but in most cases rather a reaction to it.

Don't advocate on people being perfect saints, but do on the difference between an oppressing force and one in defense.

a woman holding "prejudice" against a man and a man doing the same to a woman are not the same in a patriarchal society. we call the latter misogyny because it is structural and systemic, and we wouldn't call the former misandry because it cannot be structural or systemic.

you might be tempted to weasel around this by providing a hypothetical man who, after living in a clean room for 10 years had a horrible and traumatic experience with women and hates them. i would call this bullshit and tell you to get real.

the reason why i have expressed an absolute stance is because this is a conversation about rhetoric, and any capitulation to misandry being "real" is what an antifeminist arguing in bad faith would want. misandry isn't real

there isn't a dimension of moral purity to this line of argumentation either. i am not saying that women are perfect saints. i do not care if women are perfect saints or flawed. i care that a misogynist society disadvantages and mistreats women. i care that men gain social power for engaging in the mistreatment of women.

and i am annoyed that whenever anyone floats anything more than the mildest feminist egalitarian ideas someone will call them a misandrist for doing that. this entire reply is unserious

I'm only telling you by experience that going with that line opens you up to fallacies in a debate and it leaves your flank severely exposed because - again - misandric people, both in the feminism world and not - DO EXIST.

The fact there even is a word for "misandry" is because it's something that exists, duh. Our trans brothers and men alike are well aware of that and intersecitional feminism in theory takes care of them as well. Otherwise this is just radfem talk repackaged in "hating men is always ok" and doubling down on the patriarchal system that oppressed mostly women BUT ALSO men.

We're supposed to break the chains for everyone.

there is a word for dragon. for unicorn. those are fairy tales, just like misandry is. i would pose a question to you: should we humor "reverse racism" or "anti-white bias" in conversations about racism?

Wow, of two whole paragraphs you really chose to focus on one single sentence and ignore all the rest, uh?

My point is: mysandric women in retaliation to systemic oppression by the patriarchal system we live in ARE sometimes (following abuse, rape, etc.) justified in their hatred? Yes.

Men also oppressed by the patriarchy exist? Yes, listen to your fellows if you call yourself an intersectional feminist.

Should mysandric women make it a fucking motto to hate all men in feminist spaces because of the experiences they had?

HELL NO!

You're only alienating potential allies and furthering the agenda of those who'd have us silenced: you can't have a debate if both parts' only argument is telling the other "eHm AcTuAllY the problem YOU talk about doesn't exist wah wah" you're behaving exactly like those we critizice DON'T YOU SEE THE PROBLEM WITH THIS?!

you did not answer my question.

personal input as a black transfem from the caribbean:

this one does think that the defining of racism and racial bias as something that cannot categorically happen to white people is something that, as the above commenter stated prior, leaves our flank open.

part of this one's suffering is caused by racism. where other races are given more grace and opportunities than it. where this one's capability and value is deemed lesser than others. in its experience, no white people had to be involved here, chinese people, indian people have been the perpetrators of these events.

to resolve this, buy in is needed from everyone, to solve the root problem of racial prejudice. what good does it do to tell people that if they experience what this one has experienced, that because they are more privileged than it, their bad experiences usnt something to care about at all? why give those that seek to maintain the norms and biases of the status quo or worsen them the easy rhetorical victory in the fight to build mass?

same too for the misandry conversation. we both seek the destruction of the current norms that drive the fear and anguish of my life, where people deem this one an abomination, a disgusting pervert, for being AMAB and valuing and seeking to express femininity. the people that harm this one do not care and do not know it is a transfem. so should it see an person who presents publicly as a cis man (as this one does as well) suffering abuse with the same words and same actions, what value is there in operating as what they experience isnt real and refusing to extend solidarity?

tldr: what utility does denying the existence of prejudices against men and then making and reinforcing the perception of feminism as something that 'does not care about men' at all, that calls any attempt to do so 'centering them' and bad, have in the achieving the dismantling of the current norms that produce our suffering? what is the theory of change for this course of action?

men may face prejudice and discrimination on the axes of other marginalizations (race, sexuality, disability, etc) but they do not experience prejudice or discrimination for being men. this is basic intersectional feminism, and if you do not understand this, you are not qualified to comment

that was not this one's question.

this one's question was: if the goal is to dismantle the norms that hurt us (patriarchy, racism, etc.), what is the theory of change (how will we achieve this), to in the domain of rhetoric to state effectively "i see you being hurt by the system, but as a member of the dominant group, i not only do i not think that experience is worthy of my care but i also think it is a good thing for people of my group to insult you".

what does this achieve? genuinely? can you honestly state that a member of the dominant group will be likely to work to dismantle a system if those that seek the system's dismantlement are actively stating they dislike them categorically and will extend no care or solidarity to them?

theory is one thing. how do you get the effects or changes you desire is another.

this one's question was: if the goal is to dismantle the norms that hurt us (patriarchy, racism, etc.), what is the theory of change (how will we achieve this), to in the domain of rhetoric to state effectively "i see you being hurt by the system, but as a member of the dominant group, i not only do i not think that experience is worthy of my care but i also think it is a good thing for people of my group to insult you".

how would i go about dismantling patriarchy? socialism. i would use state power to raise women up and address the material conditions that produce misogyny. all of this trite waffle about interpersonal nicities doesn't advance my cause one inch. i would invite you to get real

and can you achieve the implementation of socialism alone? or do you need other people on your side. and do you have enough currently to win? or do you still need more support? and simple question: is a person who does not currently believe as you do, more or less likely to come to your side if you insult them or state "prejudice and discrimination against you does not exist but also we dont care about the maltreatment we dish out to you"? (not implying that you have insulted this one)

if you consider yourself a feminist you do have to hold the line on misandry being fake. if you're willing to capitulate on that you will be fundamentally compromised when you advocate for the cause of women's liberation.

... Nooo?

This is a line that would immediately fire back.

It's not that misandry does not exist - otherwise those that debate with you will pick one actual misandric person as a token and be like AH-AAAAH GOTCHA! (and by rule of large numbers one such a person is ALWAYS bound to exist).

The point you wanna hold onto is that misandry, differently from misogyny, is NOT a SYSTEMIC sociopolitical and cultural recurring phenomenon enforced, accepted and perpetrated FROM SOCIETY AS A WHOLE, but in most cases rather a reaction to it.

Don't advocate on people being perfect saints, but do on the difference between an oppressing force and one in defense.

a woman holding "prejudice" against a man and a man doing the same to a woman are not the same in a patriarchal society. we call the latter misogyny because it is structural and systemic, and we wouldn't call the former misandry because it cannot be structural or systemic.

you might be tempted to weasel around this by providing a hypothetical man who, after living in a clean room for 10 years had a horrible and traumatic experience with women and hates them. i would call this bullshit and tell you to get real.

the reason why i have expressed an absolute stance is because this is a conversation about rhetoric, and any capitulation to misandry being "real" is what an antifeminist arguing in bad faith would want. misandry isn't real

there isn't a dimension of moral purity to this line of argumentation either. i am not saying that women are perfect saints. i do not care if women are perfect saints or flawed. i care that a misogynist society disadvantages and mistreats women. i care that men gain social power for engaging in the mistreatment of women.

and i am annoyed that whenever anyone floats anything more than the mildest feminist egalitarian ideas someone will call them a misandrist for doing that. this entire reply is unserious

I'm only telling you by experience that going with that line opens you up to fallacies in a debate and it leaves your flank severely exposed because - again - misandric people, both in the feminism world and not - DO EXIST.

The fact there even is a word for "misandry" is because it's something that exists, duh. Our trans brothers and men alike are well aware of that and intersecitional feminism in theory takes care of them as well. Otherwise this is just radfem talk repackaged in "hating men is always ok" and doubling down on the patriarchal system that oppressed mostly women BUT ALSO men.

We're supposed to break the chains for everyone.

there is a word for dragon. for unicorn. those are fairy tales, just like misandry is. i would pose a question to you: should we humor "reverse racism" or "anti-white bias" in conversations about racism?

Wow, of two whole paragraphs you really chose to focus on one single sentence and ignore all the rest, uh?

My point is: mysandric women in retaliation to systemic oppression by the patriarchal system we live in ARE sometimes (following abuse, rape, etc.) justified in their hatred? Yes.

Men also oppressed by the patriarchy exist? Yes, listen to your fellows if you call yourself an intersectional feminist.

Should mysandric women make it a fucking motto to hate all men in feminist spaces because of the experiences they had?

HELL NO!

You're only alienating potential allies and furthering the agenda of those who'd have us silenced: you can't have a debate if both parts' only argument is telling the other "eHm AcTuAllY the problem YOU talk about doesn't exist wah wah" you're behaving exactly like those we critizice DON'T YOU SEE THE PROBLEM WITH THIS?!

you did not answer my question.

personal input as a black transfem from the caribbean:

this one does think that the defining of racism and racial bias as something that cannot categorically happen to white people is something that, as the above commenter stated prior, leaves our flank open.

part of this one's suffering is caused by racism. where other races are given more grace and opportunities than it. where this one's capability and value is deemed lesser than others. in its experience, no white people had to be involved here, chinese people, indian people have been the perpetrators of these events.

to resolve this, buy in is needed from everyone, to solve the root problem of racial prejudice. what good does it do to tell people that if they experience what this one has experienced, that because they are more privileged than it, their bad experiences usnt something to care about at all? why give those that seek to maintain the norms and biases of the status quo or worsen them the easy rhetorical victory in the fight to build mass?

same too for the misandry conversation. we both seek the destruction of the current norms that drive the fear and anguish of my life, where people deem this one an abomination, a disgusting pervert, for being AMAB and valuing and seeking to express femininity. the people that harm this one do not care and do not know it is a transfem. so should it see an person who presents publicly as a cis man (as this one does as well) suffering abuse with the same words and same actions, what value is there in operating as what they experience isnt real and refusing to extend solidarity?

tldr: what utility does denying the existence of prejudices against men and then making and reinforcing the perception of feminism as something that 'does not care about men' at all, that calls any attempt to do so 'centering them' and bad, have in the achieving the dismantling of the current norms that produce our suffering? what is the theory of change for this course of action?

men may face prejudice and discrimination on the axes of other marginalizations (race, sexuality, disability, etc) but they do not experience prejudice or discrimination for being men. this is basic intersectional feminism, and if you do not understand this, you are not qualified to comment

that was not this one's question.

this one's question was: if the goal is to dismantle the norms that hurt us (patriarchy, racism, etc.), what is the theory of change (how will we achieve this), to in the domain of rhetoric to state effectively "i see you being hurt by the system, but as a member of the dominant group, i not only do i not think that experience is worthy of my care but i also think it is a good thing for people of my group to insult you".

what does this achieve? genuinely? can you honestly state that a member of the dominant group will be likely to work to dismantle a system if those that seek the system's dismantlement are actively stating they dislike them categorically and will extend no care or solidarity to them?

theory is one thing. how do you get the effects or changes you desire is another.

if you consider yourself a feminist you do have to hold the line on misandry being fake. if you're willing to capitulate on that you will be fundamentally compromised when you advocate for the cause of women's liberation.

... Nooo?

This is a line that would immediately fire back.

It's not that misandry does not exist - otherwise those that debate with you will pick one actual misandric person as a token and be like AH-AAAAH GOTCHA! (and by rule of large numbers one such a person is ALWAYS bound to exist).

The point you wanna hold onto is that misandry, differently from misogyny, is NOT a SYSTEMIC sociopolitical and cultural recurring phenomenon enforced, accepted and perpetrated FROM SOCIETY AS A WHOLE, but in most cases rather a reaction to it.

Don't advocate on people being perfect saints, but do on the difference between an oppressing force and one in defense.

a woman holding "prejudice" against a man and a man doing the same to a woman are not the same in a patriarchal society. we call the latter misogyny because it is structural and systemic, and we wouldn't call the former misandry because it cannot be structural or systemic.

you might be tempted to weasel around this by providing a hypothetical man who, after living in a clean room for 10 years had a horrible and traumatic experience with women and hates them. i would call this bullshit and tell you to get real.

the reason why i have expressed an absolute stance is because this is a conversation about rhetoric, and any capitulation to misandry being "real" is what an antifeminist arguing in bad faith would want. misandry isn't real

there isn't a dimension of moral purity to this line of argumentation either. i am not saying that women are perfect saints. i do not care if women are perfect saints or flawed. i care that a misogynist society disadvantages and mistreats women. i care that men gain social power for engaging in the mistreatment of women.

and i am annoyed that whenever anyone floats anything more than the mildest feminist egalitarian ideas someone will call them a misandrist for doing that. this entire reply is unserious

I'm only telling you by experience that going with that line opens you up to fallacies in a debate and it leaves your flank severely exposed because - again - misandric people, both in the feminism world and not - DO EXIST.

The fact there even is a word for "misandry" is because it's something that exists, duh. Our trans brothers and men alike are well aware of that and intersecitional feminism in theory takes care of them as well. Otherwise this is just radfem talk repackaged in "hating men is always ok" and doubling down on the patriarchal system that oppressed mostly women BUT ALSO men.

We're supposed to break the chains for everyone.

there is a word for dragon. for unicorn. those are fairy tales, just like misandry is. i would pose a question to you: should we humor "reverse racism" or "anti-white bias" in conversations about racism?

Wow, of two whole paragraphs you really chose to focus on one single sentence and ignore all the rest, uh?

My point is: mysandric women in retaliation to systemic oppression by the patriarchal system we live in ARE sometimes (following abuse, rape, etc.) justified in their hatred? Yes.

Men also oppressed by the patriarchy exist? Yes, listen to your fellows if you call yourself an intersectional feminist.

Should mysandric women make it a fucking motto to hate all men in feminist spaces because of the experiences they had?

HELL NO!

You're only alienating potential allies and furthering the agenda of those who'd have us silenced: you can't have a debate if both parts' only argument is telling the other "eHm AcTuAllY the problem YOU talk about doesn't exist wah wah" you're behaving exactly like those we critizice DON'T YOU SEE THE PROBLEM WITH THIS?!

you did not answer my question.