• Is misandry real?
    333 replies, posted
[QUOTE=McGii;36715513]Feminism is a direct result of misogyny so either way you are agreeing with him (but you're way of agreeing with him is wrong)[/QUOTE] Communism is a result of capitalism. Therefore, capitalism is responsible for the Gulags
[QUOTE=prooboo;36718314]Communism is a result of capitalism. Therefore, capitalism is responsible for the Gulags[/QUOTE] The moon is responsible for the tides in the ocean, the ocean is water, rivers are water and lead to oceans, therefore the moon is responsible for some guy drowning in a river.
[QUOTE=McGii;36715696]thats not a misandry problem you dork its a tranny problem and btw jeans are mutlisexual just like shirts are [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] Basically this except he was polite about it[/QUOTE] Wow. First off, jeans were not always unisexual. It is thanks in part to the feminist movements that they are unisexual. Go back to the 1850's, and no women wore pants. So your post is just another example of this issue. Society accepts women who wear "men's clothes" but rejects men who wear women's clothes. P.S. nice job bringing transexuals into this [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=SigmaLambda;36715689]that's because of misogyny. The reason society tolerates women who act masculine somewhat more than men who act feminine because femininity is seen as weakness; whereas masculinity is seen as something to aspire to. All of these "problems" that men face that you people list are problems that are the result of misogyny, not misandry.[/QUOTE] I would say they are the result of gender roles, not misogyny. Misogyny is the hatred of women, not femininity. If masculinity was something to aspire too, why were women discouraged from acting masculine before feminism came around? the real problem is not misogyny or misandry, but forced gender roles. Both misogyny and misandry come as a result.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;36729404]Wow. First off, jeans were not always unisexual. It is thanks in part to the feminist movements that they are unisexual. Go back to the 1850's, and no women wore pants. So your post is just another example of this issue. Society accepts women who wear "men's clothes" but rejects men who wear women's clothes. P.S. nice job bringing transexuals into this [editline]11th July 2012[/editline] I would say they are the result of gender roles, not misogyny. Misogyny is the hatred of women, not femininity. If masculinity was something to aspire too, why were women discouraged from acting masculine before feminism came around? the real problem is not misogyny or misandry, but forced gender roles. Both misogyny and misandry come as a result.[/QUOTE] But it makes sense from an emporement perspective. Men's clothes are seen as the empowered niveau. So women who are able to wear them (or who were able to wear them) did so as a symbol of emporement and work ability. Compare that to men who wear female clothes - females are seen as the weaker gender and as a result men who wish to wear female clothes are seen as inferior (also abnormal). Notive how even scots don't wear female clothes. Kilts are not skirts and any scot would get offended by you calling them that. Again - Misandry obviously exists, but generally is not on a societal level. Where it does manifest on a societal level, it is damaging, but generally doesn't have a direct impact on the life of men (usually in adds - the man is always the stupid one, the man is rarely is the irresponsible one). They won't expect lower wages and similar because of it. Though the issue of male negative attitudes in ads and similar can actually be considered as a backlash against misoginy and society acceptance of the existance of the problem. Everyone knows sexism against women exists, and as such it's not acceptable to make a sexist ads against a woman. But because you usually need a stupid person in an add men get the shtick. Go back fifty or more years and you see a completely different scenario. It was almost always the woman who was the dumb one.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;36729607]But it makes sense from an emporement perspective. Men's clothes are seen as the empowered niveau. So women who are able to wear them (or who were able to wear them) did so as a symbol of emporement and work ability. Compare that to men who wear female clothes - females are seen as the weaker gender and as a result men who wish to wear female clothes are seen as inferior (also abnormal). Notive how even scots don't wear female clothes. Kilts are not skirts and any scot would get offended by you calling them that. Again - Misandry obviously exists, but generally is not on a societal level. Where it does manifest on a societal level, it is damaging, but generally doesn't have a direct impact on the life of men (usually in adds - the man is always the stupid one, the man is rarely is the irresponsible one). They won't expect lower wages and similar because of it. Though the issue of male negative attitudes in ads and similar can actually be considered as a backlash against misoginy and society acceptance of the existance of the problem. Everyone knows sexism against women exists, and as such it's not acceptable to make a sexist ads against a woman. But because you usually need a stupid person in an add men get the shtick. Go back fifty or more years and you see a completely different scenario. It was almost always the woman who was the dumb one.[/QUOTE] I agree with you there. A lot of misandry is feminists "getting back" for years of misogyny. This still does not make it right though. Misogyny, misandy, and the gender roles that started all need to be dealt with.
You can claim that it's a side effect as much as you want, but that isn't going to make it true. There are social constructs against both men and women. They might affect women more, but the ones effecting men are still [b]definitely[/b] there.
[QUOTE=sgman91;36715969]On height affecting salary: [URL]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/5887567/Tall-men-earn-more-than-shorter-colleagues-research-claims..html[/URL] "That makes height as important as race or gender as a determinant of wages. And it works for women as well as men. The University of Pennsylvania study found that even among female identical twins (whose heights can differ more than you might expect), the taller sister earns, on average, substantially more than the shorter." The basic claim doesn't need citation though. I'm just saying that correlation=/=causation. This means that a stat by itself isn't enough to conclude that the cause is misogyny/misandry. It needs to be shown that the discrimination is based purely on sex, not on factual differences.[/QUOTE] Would not have thought that at all, interesting. A $500 pay difference per year is a lot less than the gap between the womens average wage and a males average wage [QUOTE=prooboo;36718314]Communism is a result of capitalism. Therefore, capitalism is responsible for the Gulags[/QUOTE] Because thats a totally fair and truthful comparison [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;36729967]I agree with you there. A lot of misandry is feminists "getting back" for years of misogyny. This still does not make it right though. Misogyny, misandy, and the gender roles that started all need to be dealt with.[/QUOTE] Misandry doesn't need to be dealt with because it doesn't exist outside of reddit and other pathetically sexist communities (towards women). [QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;36733164]You can claim that it's a side effect as much as you want, but that isn't going to make it true. There are social constructs against both men and women. They might affect women more, but the ones effecting men are still [b]definitely[/b] there.[/QUOTE] Nope. Show me an example of misandry that isn't a problem directly related to misogyny or actually a problem relating to a minority.
Show me one example that it doesn't exist at all. One source that proves it's not real. If we have to provide sources, so you do.
[QUOTE=McGii;36733582] Nope. Show me an example of misandry that isn't a problem directly related to misogyny or actually a problem relating to a minority.[/QUOTE] Well, things like the draft are a pretty good place to start. We didn't base our society around hating women, we based it off of ideals for both sexes. Some of those happen to be male.
[QUOTE=draugur;36739338]Show me one example that it doesn't exist at all. One source that proves it's not real. If we have to provide sources, so you do.[/QUOTE] Thats not how it works bud [QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;36748080]Well, things like the draft are a pretty good place to start. We didn't base our society around hating women, we based it off of ideals for both sexes. Some of those happen to be male.[/QUOTE] I don't know how the draft works but if its men only its been discussed already that its because men told women they were weak and stopped them from serving, forcing them to stay at home. In times before that women were denied education and any sort of training and weren't people but property which is where that came from.
[QUOTE=McGii;36748629] I don't know how the draft works but if its men only its been discussed already that its because men told women they were weak and stopped them from serving, forcing them to stay at home. In times before that women were denied education and any sort of training and weren't people but property which is where that came from.[/QUOTE] That's exactly what I'm saying, though. Our society isn't based off of woman hate, it's based off of these ideals that we have for both sexes. In those ideals (which practically don't apply anymore, but still manifest in social constructs), women stay at home, cook, and take care of the kids, and men work and go to war. Because of that, both misandry and misogyny happen. Just look at the way that the court handles divorces with children. Only a tiny percentage of the children actually end up with the male, because men are believed to be inferior at child care.
[QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;36748972]That's exactly what I'm saying, though. Our society isn't based off of woman hate, it's based off of these ideals that we have for both sexes. In those ideals (which practically don't apply anymore, but still manifest in social constructs), women stay at home, cook, and take care of the kids, and men work and go to war. Because of that, both misandry and misogyny happen. Just look at the way that the court handles divorces with children. Only a tiny percentage of the children actually end up with the male, because men are believed to be inferior at child care.[/QUOTE] "the reason men are the only ones who are drafted is because men told women they were too weak to serve" "that's exactly what i'm saying! it's not because of woman hating, it's because of ideals!!" you can call it whatever you want, just because you say "ideals" instead of "sexism" doesn't change anything. misandry exists but in a disproportionately smaller scale, i don't think it's comparable to misogyny. also do you have a source for the fact that women are given custody of children more often than men?
Of course misandry doesn't real. A prejudice against men can (and probably does) exist, but it isn't misandry. Misandry would have to be institutionalized hatred of men. There's a reason this happens when you use auto-correct: [img]http://puu.sh/I9gJ[/img]
[QUOTE=Kopimi;36749081]"the reason men are the only ones who are drafted is because men told women they were too weak to serve" "that's exactly what i'm saying! it's not because of woman hating, it's because of ideals!!" you can call it whatever you want, just because you say "ideals" instead of "sexism" doesn't change anything. misandry exists but in a disproportionately smaller scale, i don't think it's comparable to misogyny. also do you have a source for the fact that women are given custody of children more often than men?[/QUOTE] actually i've heard the claim that female parents are granted custody far more often than male parents a lot, it's one of the big legit gripes amongst MRAs. cbf finding a source though.
[QUOTE=BoysLightUp;36749227]actually i've heard the claim that female parents are granted custody far more often than male parents a lot, it's one of the big legit gripes amongst MRAs. cbf finding a source though.[/QUOTE] Because men hardly ever fight for custody, when they do they are granted it more often!
[QUOTE=Shadaez;36749240]Because men hardly ever fight for custody, when they do they are granted it more often![/QUOTE] haven't heard that one before actually
[QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;36748972]That's exactly what I'm saying, though. Our society isn't based off of woman hate, it's based off of these ideals that we have for both sexes. In those ideals (which practically don't apply anymore, but still manifest in social constructs), women stay at home, cook, and take care of the kids, and men work and go to war. Because of that, both misandry and misogyny happen. Just look at the way that the court handles divorces with children. Only a tiny percentage of the children actually end up with the male, because men are believed to be inferior at child care.[/QUOTE] No, the war thing is not misandry, males are not expected to go to war, its that they stopped women from going. Men believed themselves the superior sex and did not want weak, defenseless women on the battlefield Give me statistics from a reliable source on that divorce statistic
[QUOTE=BoysLightUp;36749227]actually i've heard the claim that female parents are granted custody far more often than male parents a lot, it's one of the big legit gripes amongst MRAs. cbf finding a source though.[/QUOTE] i've "heard that" too but i've never been shown any actual evidence of it which is why i asked
[QUOTE=Kopimi;36749344]i've "heard that" too but i've never been shown any actual evidence of it which is why i asked[/QUOTE] [url]http://fatherhood.about.com/od/childsupport/a/child_support_statistics.htm[/url] [quote]82.6% of custodial parents are mothers, 17.4% are fathers[/quote] The statistics were taken from the United States Census Bureau. [QUOTE=Shadaez;36749240]Because men hardly ever fight for custody, when they do they are granted it more often![/QUOTE] [I][Citation needed][/I] that's a load of garbage.
Societies have always said that women are better at some things and men are better at other things. It just so happens that our society looks at the things men have always been associated with as being more important. If our society had some huge respect of child rearing (a job left to women for most of human history) we might be saying society is misandrist because the women are expected to do the important jobs.
[QUOTE=Shadaez;36749118]Of course [B]misandry doesn't real[/B]. A prejudice against men can (and probably does) exist, but it isn't misandry. Misandry would have to be institutionalized hatred of men. There's a reason this happens when you use auto-correct: [img]http://puu.sh/I9gJ[/img][/QUOTE] Oh shit guys facepunch doesn't validate in autocorrect and that means that it doesn't exist
[QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;36749392][url]http://fatherhood.about.com/od/childsupport/a/child_support_statistics.htm[/url] The statistics were taken from the United States Census Bureau.[/QUOTE] The site doesn't link to the report and just likes to a page explaining what the census is doesnt count sorry [editline]13th July 2012[/editline] also about.com is not a reliable source
[QUOTE=McGii;36749524]The site doesn't link to the report and just likes to a page explaining what the census is doesnt count sorry [editline]13th July 2012[/editline] also about.com is not a reliable source[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p60-237.pdf[/url] [quote]Mothers accounted for the majority of custodial parents (82.6 percent) while 17.4 percent were fathers, proportions statistically unchanged from 1994.7[/quote] Sorry for grabbing a shite source at first
-snip whatever-
I believe we can all agree on two things: 1. Gender roles exist and exercise a very powerful force on society 2. Historically, injustices due to these gender roles have been far more common towards women than men I also believe that both misogyny and misandry are both consequences of these gender roles. After all, wouldn't it be reasonable to say that without any gender differences whatsoever neither problem would exist? [editline]13th July 2012[/editline] In addition, McGli, using harsh language like you are isn't making the opponent look stupid, it's making you look like a blind, dogmatic zealot. You should probably cut it out if you want your opinions to be more respected.
Things like this makes me worried. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlFAd4YdQks[/media] Now my intention isn't to paint women as the culprit, only to add some backbone to the claim that serious discrimination issues does exist on both sides of the coin.
[QUOTE=Simski;36750330]Things like this makes me worried. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlFAd4YdQks[/media] Now my intention isn't to paint women as the culprit, only to add some backbone to the claim that serious discrimination issues does exist on both sides of the coin.[/QUOTE] That part with the cop was disgusting.
Oh look, a study that says that females actually perpetrate MORE domestic violence than men. And some quotes. [quote=Page 14]but for this sample as for others, male dominance is not more prevalent than female dominance.[/quote] [quote=Page 13]The results showing that mutual violence is the most prevalent form of partner violence in this sample and that Male-Only violence is the least prevalent form...[/quote] [url]http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID41E2.pdf[/url] Table showing overall violence is on page 23 (Table 2). And another with more quotes. [QUOTE]... [A]mong relationships with nonreciprocal violence, women were the perpetrators in a majority of cases, regardless of participant gender.[/QUOTE] [url]http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdfplus/10.2105/AJPH.2005.079020[/url] Page 944 for the quote, 943 for a table (Table 2) that indicates that females perpetrate violence at least twice as often as males in nonreciprocal situations (i.e. situations where only one partner perpetrates violence)
[QUOTE=McGii;36733582]Would not have thought that at all, interesting. A $500 pay difference per year is a lot less than the gap between the womens average wage and a males average wage Because thats a totally fair and truthful comparison Misandry doesn't need to be dealt with because it doesn't exist outside of reddit and other pathetically sexist communities (towards women). Nope. Show me an example of misandry that isn't a problem directly related to misogyny or actually a problem relating to a minority.[/QUOTE] misandry doesn't exist outside of reddit? oh come on. As I have already mentioned, men are discriminated against in many ways. Women can wear men's clothes, but men who wear women's clothes are crossdressers. Women can be tough and manly, but more feminine males are "gay" and "wimpy". Society has many double standards for both men and women.
Busy with assignment stuff so I can't do this atm but if the threads alive when im not busy ill make replies [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;36763511]misandry doesn't exist outside of reddit? oh come on. As I have already mentioned, men are discriminated against in many ways. Women can wear men's clothes, but men who wear women's clothes are crossdressers. Women can be tough and manly, but more feminine males are "gay" and "wimpy". Society has many double standards for both men and women.[/QUOTE] Because (female equivalent of masculine word that I forget) = a bad thing and masculinity = a good thing sorry thats actually a case of misogyny
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.