Misandry
- Thread starter Jux
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The problem I've found is that almost everything goes two ways. Yes Men are self absorbed and lots of us treat women horribly and there is no excuse for that. However we do seem to ignore that women do similar things to men on an almost equal basis. Men are like bulls running straight at something until they hit it then moving on. Women are more like matadors, leading the bull where they want them to go. Neither version is healthy for long term relationships or for cultivating respect for both genders. Of course not everyone is like this and there are plenty of decent people out there, its just that the decent people are not focused on, the bad people are.
What about misanthrophy where you consider yourself to be part of the problem too? Because that's the camp I fall intoDizzyChuggernaut said:
I perfectly agree with the rest of your post though. That's the depressing thing about this whole mess. It's all about being a "real" man or a "proper" woman.
Maybe it's because I have the wrong definition of misanthrophy, but I'm confused about what you mean by this. You dislike humankind because of dumb things humans do, but you also dislike yourself because you feel like you do the same things?erttheking said:
I don't think there's more PUA then feminists and even if they were, I'd still be more concerned with misandric feminists. Most people don't take PUAs seriously, and they certainly don't have the clout feminists have. They're not a political movement so their opinions don't affect anyone aside from people they come into contact with.Jux said:
Not to say that every man-hating tumblr feminist is worthy of concern though.
misandryInglorious891 said:
/ˈmɪsəndrɪ/
noun
1.
hatred of men
So you think no one in the universe hates men? What a weird thing to believe. It would be nice if it were true but I don't think it is.
Ranted for a few paragraphs about why MRA is necessary and how modern feminism is still dropping the ball on men's rights but I can sum up that long ass rant like this: Acknowledging the issues isn't enough, especially when major feminist organizations actively campaign against legislation aimed at helping men have more rights when it comes to their offspring. Paying lip service to the issues just plain isn't good enough!
With that out of the way, no, misandry does not primarily come from men. Just like misogyny, it comes from culture and society that is built by both men and women. In many ways we have a poor view of both sexes driven by traditional views about what makes a man masculine and a woman feminine. Traditionalists, made up of both men and women, push to keep these views intact, citing (bad) utilitarian reasons or tradition for its own sake. Progressives, made up of both men and women fight against these views, citing the damage such views do to those who don't fit the molds society wants to put them in. I for one think the progressive notions are, on the whole, correct and that neither weak utilitarian arguments nor tradition for its own sake are good reasons to marginalize individuals. Unfortunately, many of my fellow progressives seem to view these issues in what I find to be a bizarre light, as if every slight against men in society is really just a slight against women when it's actually a slight against both! As some in this thread have pointed out, all of these issues affect both sexes negatively. It is only when we not only understand this to be true but also ACT in ways to rectify the situation for both sexes that we will reach anything approximating equality!
With that out of the way, no, misandry does not primarily come from men. Just like misogyny, it comes from culture and society that is built by both men and women. In many ways we have a poor view of both sexes driven by traditional views about what makes a man masculine and a woman feminine. Traditionalists, made up of both men and women, push to keep these views intact, citing (bad) utilitarian reasons or tradition for its own sake. Progressives, made up of both men and women fight against these views, citing the damage such views do to those who don't fit the molds society wants to put them in. I for one think the progressive notions are, on the whole, correct and that neither weak utilitarian arguments nor tradition for its own sake are good reasons to marginalize individuals. Unfortunately, many of my fellow progressives seem to view these issues in what I find to be a bizarre light, as if every slight against men in society is really just a slight against women when it's actually a slight against both! As some in this thread have pointed out, all of these issues affect both sexes negatively. It is only when we not only understand this to be true but also ACT in ways to rectify the situation for both sexes that we will reach anything approximating equality!
Yup, on the money. I feel like human beings do plenty of stupid things and I know that in my less rational moments I do the same stupid things. Though I wouldn't say I dislike myself. Disappointed in myself more like, just like I'm disappointed in the Human race.Inglorious891 said:
Paradoxically, acknowledging that you are just like everyone else makes you different from loads of them.erttheking said:
Well, first off I didn't say the pua community had more numbers than feminists, I said that I think more misandry comes out of that community than from feminism. Second, I think you're underestimating the larger impact of the ideas that these people push. There may be legislation being pushed based on feminist critique, but how much of that is misandric? On the other hand, the sort of evo psych BS about 'alpha/beta/omega' men seems like it played a pretty big part in what led Elliot Rogers to go on his murder spree. Of course that's a bit of a simplification, but had he not been inundated with that kind of message, or not had the entitlement issues that are also common to toxic masculinity, I think a very different outcome would have been likely.WhiteNachos said:
I haven't read anything that has suggested a concept like 'toxic masculinity' had anything to do with Elliot Rodgers. Typically people point toward the extreme narcissism in his manifesto, coupled with an inability to deal with any sort of rejection or disappointment due to his upbringing. He wasn't a misogynist - he was mentally ill. If anything he was a misanthrope as he considered everyone, male or female, to be lesser than him.Jux said:
I don't think it's particularly 'strange' where the thought process comes from of wanting to buy into those ideas, because it provides a pretty clear explanation (though based on what could, at best, be called pseudoscience) for why your life is the way it is, and allows you to blame your lack of romantic success on psychology or society or evolution or whatever.Jux said:
By using those as excuses, you're now no longer responsible for how things have turned out: you're now a victim of forces much greater than you. The simple fact is that being a victim is easy because it doesn't require you to try and change anything because, hey, when you're a victim, anyone suggesting the problem is you and something you need to change is just victim-blaming.
It's way easier to say "I'm a virgin because I'm not tall enough/not dominant enough/not alpha male material" than to try and figure out what you can do to stop it. And to push things even further, it's way, way easier to say "women only want to sleep with assholes, and I'm way too kind to behave like that, so I just have to accept that I'm never getting laid".
Hmm, I considered this but I feel as if that's a distinct thing, even if it's still "misanthropy", if that makes sense?erttheking said:
A hatred of human nature, perhaps? An awareness that humanity has extremely prominent flaws and that you are contributing to the problem just by existing. Because I share a view like that. As much as I hate pollution, the destruction of the environment, animal cruelty etc., I still contribute to those things simply by being part of a society that consumes products and uses services every day that in some way or another harmfully exploits natural resources.
Interesting.
Before we go any further with this point, can you express what toxic masculinity means to you? Because this is the sort of stuff I'm refering to what I say that:EvilRoy said:
http://thefederalist.com/2014/06/17/understanding-toxic-masculinity-why-defending-men-isnt-enough/
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Toxic_masculinity
Him being mentally ill does not preclude misogyny, and the reason why I label him a misogynist and not the blanet term of misanthrope is because the reasons he hated women were different from the reasons he hated (some) men. The difference between general misanthropy and misogyny/misandy has been covered by other posters earlier in this thread.
The definition of 'toxic masculinity' as a concept that you have presented doesn't exactly match with my previous understanding, but still does not mesh well with Elliot Rogers. Or at least, if it does, then it only does so because of the sections of the definition that match up with standard asexual narcissism.Jux said:
For instance, there really isn't much evidence that Elliot Rogers craved danger or shunned responsibility or commitment any more or less than any other male his age. Certainly he approached women with sex as the end, and only, goal - but again that isn't particularly abnormal for a male his age. He definitely did objectify women, but he also objectified men - as an element typical to narcissism, he was the star of his own movie. Everyone else was a background character that existed to facilitate the his goals and desires. Delusions of grandeur aren't necessary for this brand of narcissism, but he had those in spades anyway.
Ultimately it was the repeated rejection that shattered the illusion of his 'movie'. On that basis I assert that although the women took the brunt of his anger, it was not the women that he was angry at - it was the realization that he was not the most important/only character in the story. It could have just as easily been the basketball team that became the focus of his anger, should they have repeatedly turned him away. And related to that is why I refer to him as a 'misanthrope' rather than a 'misogynist and a misandrist' - he hated everyone for the same reason, although in practice the anger focused and manifested in different ways - they all failed to play their parts properly.
The quotes listed in the OP seem to be a catalog of this one guy's own personal self loathing. I'm not really sure where misandry comes into this at all. We have a guy who hates himself and teh way he lives his life but he continues to engage in the activities that define the way he lives. In other cases we would call this clinical depression or some other kind of mental disorder say he needs help. But for some reason this has become a discussion piece for how misandry comes more from men than women?
A man with a case of self loathing does not mean he is a misandrist unless the reason he hates himself is for the fact he is a man.
Until this this link is better defined I really fail to see the point of this thread.
A man with a case of self loathing does not mean he is a misandrist unless the reason he hates himself is for the fact he is a man.
Until this this link is better defined I really fail to see the point of this thread.
PUAs cynical attitude to relationships ultimately comndemns men as well as women. It buys wholesale into an attitude that women are merely gate keepers of sex, and as such, that a man's entire purpose is to blow out their chin sacks to get those gates open.
I have to disagree that he doesn't fit the bill. Those are all examples of toxic masculinity, I don't think one needs to encompass them all in order to use the term to describe them. Looking at the small quote I pulled from geek feminism, it reads "...socially-constructed attitudes that describe the masculine gender role as violent, unemotional, sexually aggressive, and so forth." It doesn't say one needs to exhibit all of those qualities, only that all of those socially constructed attitudes fall under that umbrella.EvilRoy said:
Did you ever read his 'manifesto'? I read it from front to back. I think I remember a single case of him actually being rejected, and he threw a drink at the woman. Most of what he considered 'rejection' was nothing of the sort. Women not throwing themselves at him wasn't rejection. I would say the perception of rejection would be a more accurate statement.
While I agree that he hated a lot of people, and in different ways, I didn't see the level of self awareness in his manifesto where there was ever any sort of realization that he wasn't the most important person.
A short google search of Elliot Rodger toxic masculinity (I was misspelling his name before) turned up quite a bit.
http://www.thefrisky.com/2014-05-27/a-reading-list-on-elliot-rodger-misogyny-toxic-masculinity/
http://www.salon.com/2014/05/25/elliot_rodgers_fatal_menace_how_toxic_male_entitlement_devalues_womens_and_mens_lives/
http://feministnonfiction.bangordailynews.com/2014/07/07/home/revisiting-elliot-rodger-toxic-masculinity-and-yesallwomen/
http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2014/05/elliot-rodger-price-toxic-masculinity/
http://nymag.com/thecut/2014/05/reformed-pickup-artist-on-rodgers-anger.html
And a slightly related piece from Psychology Today on chronic loneliness https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/web-loneliness/201405/the-loneliness-elliot-rodger
I think it's pretty important not to just dismiss what E.R. did as a product of mental illness. I think it's doubly harmful because it not only further stigmatizes mental illness and marginalizes the mentally ill, but it creates this 'other' to cast blame on. It removes the need to look at how harmful attitudes that everyday 'normal' people hold that could lead to the same thing, and instead just sweep it under the rug as actions only 'mentally ill' people could commit.
Er, well I'm not trying to be a dick here but I just sort of assumed that the definitions you provided would be more directly relevant to the current discussion. You were, after all, completely free to provide whatever definition you deemed more accurate or relevant, and it doesn't seem like a good idea to introduce an argument about what may comprise 'toxic masculinity' - particularly because I'm not seeing what those definitions may have left out. They seem to cover most if not all of what people stereotype as being male and as being bad.Jux said:
Yes, I did although it has been some time. However, since he is the star of this movie, perception of rejection = rejection. That is, the popular attractive Ferris Bueller character is supposed to have a girlfriend, therefore every instance of him not having a girlfriend counts as a rejection. If the star was supposed to be on the basketball team it would be the same thing. Reality was not meeting his expectations, therefore reality was rejecting him, if you want it in a general sense.
Of course not, narcissistic rage is necessarily a reaction to a challenge to identity. He likely had no idea why he was angry beyond "they don't treat me how I'm supposed to be treated".
At the risk of sounding rude, those are not sources I would really trust for this kind of discussion on psychology.
An interesting read, but not really supportive of the 'toxic masculinity' premise from before. They did also write a piece on him related to narcissism if you are interested. I can see if I can find it again.
In fairness to you, extreme narcissism isn't necessarily a mental illness - that was said more or less flippantly, when I really shouldn't have. Certainly it has no chemical basis in the brain that has been found, but on a more pragmatic basis there isn't really a difference between your statement and mine. Mental Illness as the evil other that we can blame for making serial killers, or Toxic Masculinity as the evil other that makes serial killers. They're both some intangible thing that we can blame for this, when the reality is more likely that Elliots parents didn't do the best job raising him, and sometimes people do bad things for crappy reasons.