Skip Navigation
Comradeship // Freechat @lemmygrad.ml
CountryBreakfast @lemmygrad.ml

Why isn't misandry seen as a vital part of patriarchy?

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.

77 comments

  • You are getting very mixed reactions to this post because you are using incorrect terminology, and misunderstanding some things, but also are seeing some real problems. Patriarchy does hurt men too. As all oppression hurts the opressor. But that is not because of "misandry".

    Misandry is hatred of men. Because they are men.

    If you hate a gay man for being gay that is homophobia not misandry. If you hate a trans man for being trans that is transphobia not misandry. If you hate a black man for being black that is racism not misandry.

    You are taking misandry to mean any prejudice against a man. That is not what it is. Just like if you hate a lesbian for being gay its homophobia not misogyny. etc.

    A man will never experience actual systemic hardship simply due to being a man under a patriarchal system. Men can experience systemic hardship for OTHER reasons though. That is not misandry.

    The strict gender binary, and pressure for men to be masculine and women to be feminine is also not misandry. The term for that is heteronormativity.

    This is why you get so much push back. You are having a communication problem.

    What you should be focusing on is how the act of oppression itself harms everyone. I think that is what youre trying to get at. If you can refine your language, and viewpoint a bit i believe you will have a much more positive reaction to the points you are trying to make.

    For example. A white person in a racist society. They may not be able to love people of another race openly, or have friends of another race, or act in certain ways that are deemed 'non-white', or various other things.

    None of these are anti white racism. They are restrictions placed on the oppressing group by themselves in order to maintain the otherization of the oppressed group.

    Intersectionality can make understanding things like this in the real world a bit confusing sometimes. So while this might seem obvious to you in this context that may be why you feel differently about this same phenomena as it relates to partiarchy.

    I hope that explained it well enough.

  • I think what you're touching on is that patriarchy is a dehumanizing mode of doing things and it dehumanizes men in its ways, not just women. Whether any of that qualifies as "misandry" largely seems to be a matter of phrasing and terminology, and based on the argument some of making, the idea seems to be that systemic misandry cannot be real under patriarchy for much the same reasons that systemic racism against white people cannot be real under white supremacism (aka: the institution of whiteness); because the system is based on the one group being the superior and others the inferior, so it would be contradictory for the "superior" group to be treated like "inferior" on a system level.

    That said, the dehumanizing means men can be viewed as disposable (such as in wars, in riskier jobs, etc.) and their emotions (which every human being has in a complex range of it) get reduced to anger and maybe joy and that's about it. In order to fulfill the role of the "superior", they are reduced to caricature. Notably, if they refuse this, patriarchy compares them to women, such as in calling them a "pussy", "emotional", etc. As far as I can tell, the patriarchal "disciplining" boils down to "don't act like a woman" (the "inferior" in the view of patriarchy), rather than "don't be a shitty man."

    How a casual comment like "men suck" factors into that is maybe a bit confusing. I think that's more of a pushback against patriarchy than it is an expression of it. But in a place like the US, we have this weird between stuff sometimes where people are sort of pushing back in their language, but the systems aren't being challenged properly. So you might have someone who says that men suck and what they're really trying to say is that the monstrous caricature of a human being men get reduced to behaving as under patriarchy is horrific to deal with, but that's a lot to put into words and express - and putting it that way also has some risk in making it sound like I'm absolving men of responsibility for their actions.

    I do think it's probably important to make a distinction on terms like man and woman, masculine and feminine, in what these things mean in the context of patriarchy and what they mean outside of it. To be a patriarchal man is a picture of a monster, essentially. I think it can be confusing at times what it means to be one beyond that because of how patriarchy takes over the definitions and conception of masculine and feminine. This further gets confused by the gender binary enforcement and the exclusion of nonbinary and the like. I don't have a great insight there, but I do think one of the best things those of us who are men can do is allow ourselves to be human, make emotions more conscious and regulated, and in that process, get better at not taking things personally that aren't truly; notably, this does not mean being "stoic" and "pretending something that hurts our feelings doesn't impact us." It means processing any hurt and then understanding where something came from, and not assuming it's about us. The same as what a mature woman would do, which is just a human thing of dealing with emotions and what they mean.

    For example, when a woman says "men suck", that might hurt some men's feelings. The patriarchal instinct would be to say "I don't care" and try to ignore it like a robot (which will often fail and lead to resentment because we aren't robots). The human thing would be to acknowledge and process if it does hurt, and then understand that the woman is probably saying this because of lifelong shitty experiences with men and that it's about that pain and the system behind it, not about you as an individual. If you were the one who hurt them, that's different and you need to take some responsibility for what you do as any human being does, but if it wasn't you, then it's not really about you. What they are upset about is the patriarchal man and the patriarchal man is a twisted way of being that you're better off not being anyway. You aren't self-hating to agree with their upset. You can, like them, despise the monster and support humanization.

  • 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.

      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.

      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.

    • 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?

      • Replace it all with female analogues and see if it still works.

        this is not how oppression works though. you cant just replace the oppressed class in place of the oppressor.

    • Men are sent to war to get shot at, mutilated and blown to pieces en masse.

      Most of the murder victims are male.

      Male suicides are off the rails and no one gives a shit.

      No one cares about male victims of pedophilia.

      One in 3 domestic abuse victims are male.

      People laugh at male victims of rape which is barely reported.

      20 million of Soviet men which includes 80% of males born in 1920s died in WW2 for some idiot today to be able to wish death on entire gender.

      Some of my male ancestors died in concentration camp while defending their country.

      Wishing genocide on entire gender is probably not sexism according to you.

      Fuck right off.

      Edit: I remember you, you were the one who wanted to talk shit about Traoré and find his flaws, beside the fact that he's literally the best leader on the continent right now. Westerners really need to stay the fuck away from Africa, Muslim countries in general and serious topics such as feminism.

  • You're missing the point of homophobia & transphobia -

    Homophobia is not the hatred of gay men, it is the hatred of the deviation from traditional masculinity, which is seen as feminine.

    Transphobia directed toward trans men is a denial of their ability to be men, because patriarchy is a club & outsiders are not invited. The violence inflicted on them is very particular to "women trying to be men".

    As for your comedic "joke", it's just transphobia. The point is that trans women were always women, they're just aligning their bodies that way. It's not about removing the "worst part of her", that would be a framing that she is a man.

  • Imagine a comedian making a joke about their trans wife; that she removed the worst part of her–being a man.

    This is not necessarily misandrist because the "worst" is in the context of what he wants and expects. I cannot imagine this comedian extrapolating and saying that every man should become a woman.

    Misandry is nowhere near as common and pervasive as you are making it out to be. A lot of what you are construing as misandry is just toxic masculinity and I think that's a better way of conceptualising the problem.

77 comments