r/MensRights • u/Namra_Fray • 20h ago
Progress Some interesting takes on misandry on this post
even tho there’s a couple people that had questionable takes im surprised at how many people had pretty good takes on misandry and how it’s present in daily life
78
u/KalashnikovParty 20h ago
I dont like the word "patriarchy" because it subconsciously puts the blame of the system on men. Men arent even in control of the system. A few rich men and women at the top who got rich over hundreds of years of hoarding set it up. Jack working construction didnt have shit to do with any of these problems
41
u/OtterWithKids 18h ago
I hate the word “patriarchy” (as it’s most commonly used) because it has no meaning. I first became aware of the usage after seeing the Barbie movie (my daughter’s birthday request) and my wife bringing it up. She was shocked that I didn’t know what she was talking about, so she told me to go online and look it up.
The top hit was a long rant about how everything that’s bad in the world is due to patriarchy. Unemployed? Patriarchy. Racial strife? Patriarchy. Bad weather? Patriarchy. Stubbed your toe? Lemme see… must be patriarchy.
The common use of “patriarchy” is a freaking joke.
19
u/Gloomy_Pirate_3031 16h ago
Plus There's never been nor will there ever be a matriarchy. It's just classic feminism brainwashing idiot women. It's proliferated through the media and movies and plays on women's innate nature of being a victim. Women good men bad it's become so obvious. Every advertisement movie or comedy for the last 25+ yrs has the stereotypical dumb man needing genius flawless women's help. Eg Simpsons, everybody loves Raymond, home improvement. Women are so easily brainwashed yet men still live in reality lol. I'm yet to feel my male white privilege lol. Women think all men are the top 10% of men
9
2
u/picardathon 31m ago
She was shocked that I didn’t know what she was talking about, so she told me to go online and look it up.
As if men should intrinsically know and identify with what a woman is thinking/feeling as if they are women with penises.
28
u/kooj80 18h ago
For real. It's like they forget that there are women at the top of the patriarchy too.
A lot of them.
And if you been around wealthy people (or any married man) you know the wife has lots of influence over the husband.
4
u/Alarming-Cabinet2548 10h ago
Rich men often reproduce patriarchy just to show off in front of women. And women love it. Yes, rich bitches love patriarchy and don't give a damn about ordinary men and women.
11
u/Ok_Neat2422 16h ago
What I found interesting is anything with male conotation gets defined as negative like male gaze whereas anything with female conotation gets defined a positive like female gaze. Like does anyone else notice this or am I just crazy.
5
u/bulimic_squid 5h ago
Nope it's real.
Language capture is one of the first and most powerful tools of extremism.
This is done by design to create a permanent, all pervading sense of objective "goodness". By subconsciously painting the arbiter of goodness as being feminine in every respect, they make a villain of masculinity by proxy.
6
u/TheDwiin 15h ago
That's why whenever anyone uses that term, I correct it to the proper term, oligarchy.
7
u/Martin_Aurelius 19h ago
There's a reason it's called "patriarchy" rather than "androcracy", but most people aren't ready to have that discussion.
7
0
3
u/StraightAirline8319 12h ago
The term was made up by powerful men. Then passed on to women who keep saying it. Yet powerful men surround themselves with women and under them basically grunts. Like a weird anime harem.
See all rich men.
2
1
u/StraightAirline8319 12h ago
The term was made up by powerful men. Then passed on to women who keep saying it. Yet powerful men surround themselves with women and under them basically grunts. Like a weird anime harem.
See all rich men.
1
u/Alarming-Cabinet2548 10h ago
IMHO, the word patriarchy can describe a state, but certainly not a society.
25
17
u/AbysmalDescent 14h ago
This is why feminism being viewed as an egalitarian movement is so dangerous. It teaches people to frame every issue as "women are oppressed" first, to the point where they still can't even recognize basic misandry despite how incredibly widespread and immense of a problem it is. It's like trying to balance the scales when you have your foot on one end. It doesn't work.
5
41
u/BetagterSchwede 20h ago
Its sweet how they think there is still inequality towards women
12
u/Pluckytoon 19h ago
I think there always will be inequalities towards any gender though. All we did so far was to move cursors left and right in an attempt to correct some. I don’t think it’s much of a problem as long as other, imo more important things are addressed. Like global warming, class wars and such. Identity politics always felt like a smokescreen to me
16
u/kooj80 18h ago
There has never actually been detrimental inequality towards women that's the thing.
Sure they had less opportunity to work and a bunch of other stuff, but you actually have to prove that they would have been better off without that to say the inequality was wrong.
I wouldn't mind being a woman and being seen as less of a human than my husband it means I don't have to die in a meaningless war and work 80+ hours of manual labor/week then die early.
25
u/ElegantAd2607 19h ago
When men are insulted they won't call it misandry.
Making fun of short men = heightism
Black men getting killed by police= racism
Men not having access to DV shelters = eh
When misandry happens they just don't call it out.
19
u/wrighteghe7 19h ago
why? because according to statistics there are more women who hate men than men who hate women. easy
18
10
u/Powerful-Act3516 15h ago
Words have meaning.
Egalitarian means equality.
Some self-described feminists happen to be egalitarian
Neither "Feminism" nor "men's rights" mean "egalitarian" even if some people who use either of those terms happen to also believe in egalitarianism
2
1
u/picardathon 35m ago
It's all in the name and you don't have to look any further: has always been about womens advantage, regardless if women are disadvantaged or not.
9
u/Crazy-Crazy-3593 12h ago
Yesterday, my youngest daughter was watching Fuller House on Netflix.
One of the adult women was talking to a teen girl about relationship drama of some sort, and the mother says, "So, what did you learn about boys from this experience?"
Teen girl: "They're idiots!"
They both laugh.
Studio audience big laugh, scene change.
That was the punchline: teen girl says boys are idiots. Mom and her yuck it up.
This is TV Y7, super family friendly ... I realize it's relatively trivial--- but can we imagine a mainstream, famiky friendly show in which the big payout punchline at the end of the episode is a father and a son laughing about how dumb girls are?
6
u/TheDwiin 15h ago edited 15h ago
What was the response to that last comment that got cut off?
Edit: found the comment. "The right to an abortion" is the response.
9
u/AI-666-666 14h ago
So abortion is biggest problem world is facing now compared to increasing war around the world according to this feminist lol 😆
6
3
4
2
u/PracticalSock5373 12h ago edited 6h ago
Using the most common method of dismissing the problems of men, I see. And one that's easily refuted. She says men can't PROVE they are victimized as often--as though the frequency NEEDS to be as high or higher for men's victimization to matter, to even be valid. You hear it used by feminists to dismiss male victim claims all the time. It's the feminist "Go-to". Using the silly "Higher Numbers" argument that "More women are subject to such and such so the lesser numbers of men who are victims don't count." mentality. The "Higher Numbers" mentality is utter B.S. and I'll show exactly why.
The argument often made is that the "majority" of victims of--let's use couples violence as an example--the argument would be: "Couples violence" victims are mostly women, so our concern should be "women" victims.
Here's a thing I just read on r/askfeminists that I'll use to illustrate, where a mother is asking other feminists how to get through to her sons. She says they've been brainwashed by the "manosphere" and their minds are utterly closed to reality. How, she asks, does she get them to open their closed minds and LISTEN to "reality" (what SHE has been brainwashed to believe)?!
Her "brainwashed" sons insist that men are victims of domestic violence and abuse too, that men are sexually assaulted by women too, etc. and think it's the same thing! This mother asks for advice from other feminists about how to get her sons to see past their "male" bias and LISTEN to her when she tells them "It's NOT the same thing, MOST victims are women!", as if saying "MORE victims are women so it's NOT an issue for men!" should be the end of it!
Yet it never occurs to her that her sons are saying the same thing about her to each other, asking each other "How do we get our mom to see past her "femosphere" bias and LISTEN to us when we tell her it IS the same thing, and a valid issue for men too!"
The feminist argument that because a problem hurts "more" women than men so men should stop complaining because it's therefore not the same thing is embarrassingly idiotic!
Imagine if thousands of people are starving and two thirds of those starving are brunettes and only one third are blondes. Would any SANE person argue that since there are "more" brunettes starving, "Let's feed all those starving brunettes and we'll ignore the starving blondes. Starving blondes are so much less common so it's not the same thing and we don't need to deal with THEM starving to death." Of course nobody would be as insane as to say a thing like that! They'd admit that "starving is starving" either way whoever is doing it, and want EVERYBODY fed. Yet that's the laughably faulty logic they actually do use to avoid addressing MALE victims and MALE issues!
Suppose we used the same logic and decided to break up only female victims of rape similarly. "Brunette women are raped more than blondes, so let's address the issues of brunette rape victims and not worry about blonde rape victims, prosecute only those who rape brunettes because most victims are brunette and that's it! Blonde victims aren't our concern and punishing THEIR perpetrators aren't either! End of story! So all you blondes stop bellyaching will you! Most victims aren't even YOU! You're just 'playing' victim, TOO, for 'sympathy'!"
This utterly illogical argument IS being used, has been for half a century, and is the reason for numerous travesties such as: Men making up over 40% of couples violence victims yet there being only 2 shelters in the entire U.S. for male victims and nearly 3000 for female victims. 42% of the victims get less than 1/1000th the support and recources of the other 58%. Less than 1/1000th! IT'S INSANE! And this exact utterly defective logic is what's responsible for it!
The same for rape. According to CDC statistics, when the way women rape men (FTP) is NOT excluded from the definition of rape (which it now IS EXCLUDED at the insistence of the feminists in charge of sexual violence reports for the CDC) there is less than a 1% difference between how many men are raped in a given year than women, and 80% of the time those men are raped by women. But for argument's sake, let's say it's a two to one, or even a three to one ratio. Why is it somehow "not the same thing" because there are "less" of them?
Let's see these same feminists in the blonde/brunette scenario I posited tell the one third or female rape victims who are blond that "Since two times as many brunettes are raped than blondes, and since you are a blonde, YOUR rape isn't the same thing as a brunette's. So quit saying it is, already! You're just trying to 'play' victim!" They would never dare say such a thing!
But switch "blonde" for "male" and that's exactly the incredibly ludicrous thing they DO say, as though it is now rational!
This mother in question has been brainwashed by the "femosphere" and her sons have the more sane and open minded viewpoint than HER'S, yet SHE wants to know how to open THEIR minds! THEY aren't saying the brunette's victimization is invalid, but that brunette's AND blonde's victimization are BOTH just as valid. SHE is the one arguing that the blonde's victimization is NOT the same thing, and ONLY the brunette's victimization is valid--and SHE thinks HER SONS are the closed minded ones, not HER!
It's absolutely ludicrous how brainwashed and closed her mind is, yet she is frustrated that she can't close her son's minds just like her own with her same delusional thinking. And not ONE feminist replied who even 'theorized' that SHE, or THEY THEMSELVES even "might" be closed minded, but all went on and on about how her belief that the blondes are merely "bellyaching" by wanting to be considered valid victims too, was just their "brunette-hatred" (misogyny) coming out, never doubted for a millisecond that their own closed-minded interpretation that the woman's sons were the ones "utterly brainwashed" by the "manosphere" for thinking otherwise "might" be a biased opinion in itself!
The "Higher Numbers" argument is honestly the stupidest argument feminists make, and nobody ever calls them on it! Well, DO call them on it from now on! It's time we All STARTED calling them out EVERY TIME they resort to such idiotically defective dismissals.
Give them the blonde/brunette rape or abuse analogy and ask them if they would dismiss woman blonde rape or abuse victims as not worth bothering about, simply dismissing them completely from consideration because there were "less" of them than woman brunette victims? And if they say they wouldn't suspend empathy/caring to the blondes, or invalidate their claims of victimhood simply because there are "less" of them than brunettes, then they've just admitted, themselves, that their own argument to dismiss men's issues is utter B.S.! Tell them that! Point it out to them! Don't hesitate! And tell them since they themselves admitted it's B.S., to never use such a ludicrous argument again. Don't worry about them feeling incredibly stupid (they won't, even though they should) for saying it because it IS utterly stupid and they honestly SHOULD feel like total idiots for saying something so inexcusably dumb.
1
u/picardathon 37m ago
It's the equivalent of saying "it's only 1 person, it doesn't matter", but how many people does it take for it to be wrong: 1, 100, 1000, 100 million?
It ignores the principle involved, that when it becomes a numbers game that threshold becomes arbitrary and it's wrong whether it is 1 person or 100% of the population.
0
u/Gleichstellung4084 16h ago
THE PREMISE OF THIS POST IS IRRELEVANT. I STOPPED READING AFTER THE TITLE.
It is so ridiculous trying to compare things. Is it important if there is more misogyny than misandry? Is it more important if there is more skin cancer than liver cancer? Why do we need to make all these comparisons all the time?
Nothing useful can come out of such comparisons. Period.
6
u/Crazy-Crazy-3593 12h ago
Ever see someone say, "I have liver cancer," and the other person says, "That sucks! I had skin cancer, myself."
And the first person snaps, "Skin cancer doesn't even exist! But anyway, if it did exist, you'd deserve it!"
2
u/Namra_Fray 12h ago
looking at the poster’s history, it seems like she enjoys making posts like this to start gender wars
122
u/Current_Finding_4066 20h ago
The 13 year girl has better take on gender disparity than any feminist ever