Misandry & Colonisation
"Men are never oppressed for being men under the patriarchy so Misandry is not real"; Okay.
Clearly, only I can hear how White and Anglocentric this sounds when you say that, probably because I’ve had a stake in international colonisation on the victims’ side.
Go and declare this to the dead fathers, brothers and sons who were the immediate targets during colonisations, invasions, pillagings, ICE raids, hateful campaigns, incited violence, stochastic terrorism, or anytime a fascist reign feels threatened by foreigners and ethnic minorities. Or declare this to the survivors of such conflicts, genocides, mass cleansings and wars who have to live with this trauma, and watch their family members be taken. They’d maybe get their bodies to bury if they’re lucky. If not; it’s a ditch for an unmarked grave. Civilians who are typically the first to be rounded up and detained, tortured, brutalised, sexually abused and face violence, enslaved, executed and made “an example of” because:
They are men.
They are perceived to have the potential to become men.
They are perceived to have the potential to fulfil the gender roles of men within the victimised society.
No one can tell me this is privilege and fortunate treatment. Sexism occurs in benevolent forms and malevolent forms. Being perceived as a threat is not because “men are perceived as strong which is positive/good”. It’s because of the context which changes a quality from desired to undesired, useful to useless, security to threat.
It’s why strength in a local white straight normative-presenting(locality-dependent) able-bodied man Anglosphere citizen is seen as virtuous and desireable, but it is seen as undesireable and unsafe in any other marginalised demographic, during which it morphs into “dangerous”, “aggressive”, “violent”, perverted”, “uncontrolled/uncontrollable”, “ill/pathological”, “unstable/volatile”, “backwards & inferior”, “animalistic”, “unwarranted”.
No one can tell me “but are most men at war/raided”. The answer is an emphatic Yes. Both within and outside of the Anglosphere.
Yes this happens to even White Cisheterosexual Able-bodied Men. No it does not discount what happens to persons left behind or not perceived as any of the above, nor vice versa.
Look at how white cis women especially, weaponise the popular notion that men do not face oppression for being men, by rallying the crowds to target and victimise intersectional masculinity. White womanisms, White Woman Tears and dogwhistles work so effectively for a reason. By encouraging the deportations, systemic disenfranchisement, invasions of other countries; which would typically see severe depletions in especially, the men.
And on the topic of war; look at how BIPOC men are typically at a severe disadvantage [in this post].
The patriarchy holds a view of ALL men which is contextually and conditionally privileged, not absolutely.
The patriarchy is sexist in many forms if we are to recognise there are more genders and sexes than the cisbinary woman. And we should at this point, be able to recognise that the Anglosphere’s cisbinary is inherently raced as white, able-bodied, middle-class and cisheteronormative.
If this were extrapolated to other countries, you may replace white with the relevant ethnic or religious dominant group.