#do i agree that misandry is not a systemic issue like misogyny is and that mras are full of shit? yes

[gorillawithautism]

we should not, in fact, bring back man-hating feminism

like you can say your post isn't a safe place for radfems and terfs all you want but you specifically said we should bring back man-hating feminism

man-hating feminism hates trans women of color first and foremost.

man-hating feminism hates muslim men, trans men, intersex people. and i say this again, most of all, man-hating feminism hates trans women of color more than anyone. (more on this point)

we do not need to bring that back. the idea of bringing that back should sicken you. it should anger you. it should be unthinkable that you would support that.

[genderkoolaid]

Hey - I have a question I'm curious about. I'm somewhat new to this discourse, though I agree with most posts on your blog. I saw another post a while ago saying that transandrophobia shouldnt be its own term, that it's just transphobia. They specifically brought up that there isn't a male-specific term for racism or homophobia either. And while this kinda rubs me the wrong way, I honestly can't figure out how to formulate a good retort and am starting to think they may be right. I'd be curious to know how you'd respond to this argument.

Just because there are not currently comparable versions for other marginalized men, does not mean transandrophobia shouldn't be used. Like... what even is the logic there? We can only invent a new term if similar terms already exist?

People are, in fact, talking about the intersection of racism and patriarchal views of men (which some call misandry). Homophobia also intersects with this, as does ableism. These are already conversations that exist, and have for a while especially in the case of Black and Brown men. Especially in spaces where transandrophobia is discussed. It's very very common for us to discuss the intersectional experiences of other marginalized men, especially when those men are also trans. So again... what's the logic here? People who believe in transandrophobia tend to also believe that similar concepts exist for other men and should be discussed. Even going by the logic in #1, this only provides support for transandrophobia existing.

The intersections involved in transandrophobia are not exactly the same as the intersections involved in, say, racism towards Arab men. Because with transandrophobia or transmisogny, the intersection ism't between two different kinds of identitites. It's between different gender identities. Even IF we agree that "misandronoir" isn't a real thing (which is to say, the term doesn't describe a useful concept), the way transness intersects with other gender identities isn't the same. And trans men very clearly do experience gender marginalization, and in many statistical areas are more at risk for certain experiences than cis women, and sometimes even trans women. And trans men are very clearly impacted on interpersonal and systemic levels by misogyny, and transphobia, AND they are doubly affected by the intersection of the two. Examples include experiencing period poverty while also not being able to access support services for that because of your transmasculinity, experiencing corrective rape for being trans and then not being able to access abortion care because of misogyny (and not being able to access support for this because trans), or getting married and pregnant young and never being socially or financially independent enough to ever explore your gender or realize transitioning was an option. So I think it's fair to say that transmasculine people experience unique issues and that it benefits us while harming no one to use unique words to facilitate conversation and activism.

[abearinthewoods]

Hi, I have in fact ended up on this page from velvetvexations reblogging you to mock you, so you've got that right lol

And scrolling through your blog for a while I agree with almost all you're saying, but I'm left with two questions I'm really curious about, and I hope you do take them in good faith

Why do you describe yourself as, as you said in that post, MRA? I kinda get both people being extremely wary of hearing that term *and* wanting to reclaim it, since yeah, "men's rights activist" shouldn't be an inherently bad thing to be, but it does associate you with a specific movement that was actually really shitty, and did way more to be sexist to women that to even address the actual issues men face - which you genuienly do! That's the reason it perplexes me. In my country there's a really cool charity that works for men's rights while making it known that it's working for equality and not what the MRA movement wants - and while a lot of people do hate them just because they don't care about men at all, like, I've seen their subreddit - it's an extremely toxic environment that very much supports the same structures that do oppress men.

And second question, what do you mean when you tag your posts with "anti feminism"? I haven't seen a post when you talk about it more, sorry if I've missed that, but it shows up in your tags a lot and I think may be the other reason people are fast to dismiss you. Because, yeah, the general feminist movement has a fuck ton of flaws, and a lot of it is way closer to radical feminism than the people involved would like to admit. The theory behind it, the central idea is about equality, and there are a lot of people who still do care about it though. I generally consider "the purpose of a system is what it does" a good rule, and I'm certainly not opposed to critiquing the current feminist movement, but calling it "anti feminism" specifically does sound more like opposing the core idea, and it is what usually people mean when saying they are anti feminism . It didn't seem, reading your posts that you're against actually treating women equally, so why do you choose to use a term that does imply that? It feels kinda hypocritical if you discard the whole movement/idea, but still align yourself with the MRA movement when it's even further from ideal

Again, I'm asking this out of genuine curiosity. Sorry if you've discussed it before, I didn't manage to find it, but I also haven't scrolled too terribly far.

I get why people dismiss you, but I don't think that's fair. I'd be really happy to see more of your point of few

Context: https://abearinthewoods.tumblr.com/post/768152067433021440/everytime-misandrist-assholes-like

This ask has three parts:

Why do I call myself an MRA given the connotations™?

Simple, the connotations were always bullshit. I have been posting on reddit about men's issues since obama's first term. (and arguing about it among school since the bush administration) People have always had an *idea* about what a mra is about before they ever meet one. Reactionary people (as in reacting negatively out of impulse to the basic concept of men's equality or caring about misandry) have an even stronger idea. It infects how they see the entire movement and how they interpret our words. They read this bias into everything we write, and it doesn't matter what we say or how we say it, its always some how coming from a place of misogyny.

We want to end the male only draft because it re-enforces harmful gender roles and male disposablity? Clearly its just an excuse to imagine women dying on the front line if we actually cared about men instead of using it as some excuse for hating women, we'd fight to end the draft altogether. We want to call out misandry among women? Clearly we are just neckbeard losers who can't get laid and are lashing out at women. Want to address male rape? No if we didn't hate women we would fight against rape culture and rape of women so that there would be time for men's victimization. We want to discuss our experiences being discriminated against? No, clearly we just want to drown out women's voices. Accused of claiming women oppress men, or of hating women. Interrogated with questions to prove we aren't trying to dismiss or take away from xyz "real" oppression.

Hey wait a moment, this is starting to sound like the transmasc oppression discourse. You can take any post of a trans man talking about why they use transmisandry and transandrophobia instead of what ever assholes on tumblr tell them to use and transplant that post on to my answer to the question of why I call myself an mra and not a feminist.

I'm not interested in preforming my gender advocacy under the banner of feminism, and I am not interested in giving way to people operating in (sometimes subconscious) bad faith misreading our posts to fit the ideals in their head by changing what words I use to advocate for myself or my gender to fit their biases. Its pointless because subconsciously what a lot of them object to is the advocacy in general. They are so clearly doing it to trans men now that anybody who has been paying attention on tumblr shouldn't be blind to what I'm talking about. Is it really that farfetched to some of that which was directed at trans men's advocacy was directed at cis men's advocacy?

The rest of it, the bad apples, i consider to be a counter part to something that exists in feminism. We have our terfs you have your terfs. We have our tradcons, you have your radfems. A lot of the most "known" MRAs are just the most viral who are only viral because they are controversial and get shared via ragebait. (To the point that even the less reactionary/hatefilled MRA influencers admit to dipping into ragebait just to compete. (i'm people)).

I think MRA in particular should be protected because I found it at 4th grade. it was the obvious set of words. This would be y2k bug panic year 2000 pre reddit, google, youtube, tate, peterson 4th grade me. Its a descriptor. it can not ever be allowed to be anything else. In the name of every boy who will naturally stumble upon it after facing sexism against themselves and waking up to the concept of sexism against men like I did.

Why do I tag posts anti-feminism given I seem to genuinely be for gender equality for both genders?

One reason I do it for is to normalize criticizing feminism. Its gotten way too easy to dismiss as originating from misogyny or bad faith something or another. That needs to change.

But on a bigger note, I do consider myself a kind of anti-feminist.

I think feminism has gotten too comfortable having a presumption of the moral high ground that it does not analyze its own biases about men.

A big example of what I mean is how feminism will all too often try to theory craft some gender stereotype and harmful trope filled reason for why men do xyz thing and what I need you understand is that from my position, this theorycrafting is itself an expression of bigotry. Manspreading being casted as a "patriarchal signal of domination over public spaces"? How the fuck is that not just 100% stereotype fueled bigotry? Men spread their legs in the train more than women because parents teach only girls to cross their legs (for mostly dress reasons). Not because we are operating out some malicious desire to dominate the world. Jesus fuck. It is anxiety inducing to know feminists are looking at your actions under this kind of light purely because of your gender.

There is also the issue with how feminism's way of looking at the sexism issue actually contributes to misandry. I'm referring to the obsession with privilege and "oppression" as class descriptors and how this is used to excuse "punching up" or denying men access to services they also need, its just women need a bit more. I consider this to be a core aspect to the overall ideological identity of feminism that opposing it is essentially opposing feminism as it currently exists.

The path forward is to remove the concept of oppression and privilege and patriarchy and all the petty dick measuring and bullshit excuses about "punching up" they entail from the conversation. I think this is required to move forward on gender equality. Anybody who has seen how the same fucking arguments mras were having 16 fucking years ago about the existence and validity of misandry as a concept and term, are playing out on the transmisandry tag can plainly see by now the oppression olympics have done more harm than good. Its time to stop.

Allowing this way of looking at gender issues to exist in the culture zeitgeist harms men. I read a post on here about a guy who got SA'ed in highschool because someone made his ride back home contingent on, well, things. He mentioned how he didn't have a cell phone to call his parents for a ride home but his younger sister did, specifically so something like that wouldn't happen to her. Because of this us vs them oppressed vs privileged bullshit he was not given a tool to prevent sexual assault his younger sister got.

Nope, no more. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. I will except no less moving forward.

Aren't I a hypocrite for doing both at the same time given I'm trying reclaim the MRM from the connotations set by the worse while holding feminism to the worst?

Here's the difference. When I find out somebody calls themselves a feminist, I don't assume things about them, laugh at their face, make some flippant remark based on my ideals about feminism, or even make them prove what kind of WRA (Women's rights advocate/activist) they are. I watch, listen and let them demonstrate what that means to them.

Be mindful of the distinction between The movement(the waves, etc), the general concept(anti-sexism), the ideology(the theory and written work), and the people who are associated by means of either of the three (feminists).

And lets be real. Feminism sits in the culture limelight, the men's movement does not. Feminism has the sway within corporate culture and mainstream political ideals to actually harm men when its misandry is allowed go unchecked. Meanwhile the MRM is listed as a hate group by organizations that command respect purely because of the existence of the same types of bitter hate filled vocal minority. This listing subtly hinders any men's advocacy, because, as i've said, Men's rights Advocate/Activist, is a *descriptor*. Like Civil Rights Activists or Women's Rights Activists. When you tie that strong of a negative connotation to a descriptor people will have a hard time differentiating between what ADL and SPLC are talking about and men's advocacy (what the the descriptor points to) in general. This can not be allowed to remain the status quo. It has to be pushed back against.

If feminism as a whole starts getting listed as a hate group because of "the worst of the worst" members by orgs with a lot of respect around the world and this hinders feminism's ability to gain any traction or do any advocacy for women calling me out for hypocrisy would start to become a fair cop.

One final note, I'm not even defining feminism by the worst of the worst. That once piece of shit radfem with her male tears coffee mugs aren't the standard i'm judging feminism by. The countless men and women who took to twitter to defend her right to have said mug and mocked any man who objected to it, is. The feminist leaning major publications that were pushing articles defending it as punching up and mocking any man who dared to express his emotions about it as a fragile wittle wite male, are. They (sadly) define feminism more than intersectionists on tumblr do. (as does Jezebel mag bragging about their staffers domestically abusing men) Ps: saturnian-catboy, I hope this helps you view my prospective a bit better. I could write for ever on the topic of feminism. thats why i got this blog, so i'm sure there are points i'll punch my self for forgetting. thank you for the kind words about my blog. I appreciated them.

[drdemonprince]

i’ve been pretty much completely 180 turned on my idea of identifying with transandrophobia truthers because of your recent post about it. but you focused a lot on the idea that transandrophobia is hinging on the androphobia being real to be intersected in, when i’ve never believed misandry/androphobia are real in any systemic way and i wasn’t thinking about it as an intersection of those with transphobia but as its own thing? was i baseless? i have felt like i have lived and understood the specific hate trans men and transmasc people face, not because we are men but because we are trans men, and i don’t know how else to talk about it, does that make sense? the word made sense and was useful? //very autism guy, i don’t want to be doing something wrong

Thanks for your curiosity. An intersecting oppression by definition has to consist of two otherwise existing forms of oppression: misogynoir, for example, is where misogyny and anti-Blackness meet. We don't have a word for the experience of racism Black men face, even though it is different from what Black women face, because none of their suffering is caused by men being oppressed. None of the prejudice trans men face is because we are men. It is because we are trans.

When the prejudices that trans men face look different from trans women, that's in part because transphobia by definition involves misgendering. Of course the misgendering of a man will look different from the misgendering of a woman. It's still transphobia though.

And on top of transphobia, trans women also experience transmisogyny -- where transphobia and misogyny intersect. It's an insulting men's rights activist move for some populations of trans men to claim they are overlooked -- essentially saying that men's issues arent taken as seriously as women's. That kinda sexist bullshit should sound familiar. And when someone talks about transandrophobia thats what they are signalling they believe in -- that men are oppressed for being men.

That said, don't agree with me because of some fawn response or because you don't want anyone to be mad at you or think you are bad. This is a contentious topic with deeply entrenched sides. Someone WILL be mad at you no matter what your stance on this is. So accept that. And then inform yourself and choose the side you actually believe in and have the courage to defend and to let guide your actions. I recommend reading up on transmisogyny to start. Best of luck on your self-reflection journey!

[transmandrake]

Hrm hrm I hate that this is kinda becoming my Thing but this is my blog so I can do what I want-

Thinking on trans intercommunity issues and how utterly abysmal we are, like two brick walls we're both building leaving anyone who doesnt fit the narrative in the middle.

And I think one issue is the lack of clarity between genders as identities and as political, social structures.

I don't think it's real helpful to wax on about trans men being men, not being men, 'socialisation', misandry, etc etc without clarifying and understanding gender as not just like, an aesthetic, a personal framework, but as a vessel of societal structure.

I think, for trans women in particular, and transmisogyny as a (imo flawed but not baseless) concept, where identifying as a woman, presenting as a woman, is a political position of vulnerability, as well as an identity.

The reverse, and here is where I think a lot of hurt comes from, is that the opposite is laregly untrue for trans men, because... Well, the patriarchy and misogyny suck. We / they reject it.

Identity, and political social role, are incongruent for most trans men. Rejecting this paradigm is, to me, the source of (again flawed but useful) concept of transandrophobia- A type of man who embraces masculinity, manhood, identity, but rejects the corresponding structural role.

Conversely of course some trans men are misogynistic...? No, that's not right to me. Everyone is misogynistic because we live in a misogynistic society.

Some trans men embrace the structural role. They are not the focus of transandrophobia because they do not contradict the system. Presumably, they benefit from this.

This is I think where the source of 'misogynistic trans men' comes from...

But as detailed I think this is a systemic issue, not a trans or gendered issue. Women are plenty misogynistic where it benefits them- it is transphobic to suggest trans men are uniquely prone to this because of their gender.

Of course I think society pressures trans men into fulfilling their expected role- Specifically, with the intention that they will fail.

This is unique to trans men systemically (but not socially) as trans women are already seen as failing at their intended structural role- succeeding as a woman is seen as accepting their lesser status.

In a misogynistic society, you can fall, but not rise. (Socially however we are all pressured to perform- but I feel this is different.) and so a trans man, in a... less transphobic society, is accepted as a man if they check the boxes.

But as detailed, to check the boxes is to be complicit in patriarchy and misogyny as systems.

Trans men are uniquely discriminated against, even or especially by 'trans-friendly' spaces, because their identity is contradictory to their chosen role.

Trans men whose identity and role matches, pass the test.

Therefore... no trans man can pass *systemically*. It is not possible. Not without upholding the system. And the system is not our friend.

It does not matter how easy or hard it is for a trans man to pass *socially* or *perceptually* because they will never be accepted on these terms alone. The system does not allow them to exist- transandrophobia is the result. It is the pressure to either lower yourself to the status of woman, or betray yourself.

And betrayal is not final- just as cis men need to perform to the system, perform misogyny, trans men are still trans, are still subject to transphobia, and so no matter their 'sacrifices', they will never be free. There is always another checkbox.

To bring it around... Honestly? Yeah, I think trans women 'have it worse'. I worry about anyone who presents like that to society, as society is particularly and remoreselessly cruel to them.

But trans men are not unique forces of misogyny or patriarchy. The suggestion... is transphobic. When you say these things, you are actually *agreeing with the system* that they should fulfill their role.

There is no shortage of voices that want us / them to shrivel up and shut up so we / they stop being living contradictions.

There is also no shortage of voices insisting we 'man up' (a neverending pursuit) and fulfill the role we're expected to. Acceptance in the patriarchy is conditional, and the condition is self-annihilation.

Those who choose this are, while tragic and pitiable, fully culpable and complicit. But not monstrous either. It is after all what everyone wants and expects.

This dynamic is complex, and the concepts of gender, passing, presenting, sex... I think we are hurting each other because the system has been neglected in the conversation. I think this is what transmisogyny attempts to address, but... well, it neglects the unique systemic pressures on trans men.

So is transandrophobia the solution as a concept? Honestly neither works. I like transunity as a term but its still underdeveloped and evidently hasnt fostered much unity.

Misogyny is not the force at work here alone. Misandry is not the missing piece because it is not systemic.

But the patriarchy is. And no one is exempt from that.

[t-cock]

We have male privilege just as any queer man does. Our male privilege doesn't take away from the marginalization (transphobia) we face in a cishetero patriarchal and white supremacist society. Transphobia is an extension of misogyny, just as homophobia is.

Saying trans men have male privilege should not be intended to dismiss trans men being subject to trans/homophobia, but should be about getting us to recognize the new space we occupy, at the very least in interpersonal situations.

There are all kinds of forms of oppression, and while we are not as a class systemically oppressive, we have the potential of being interpersonally oppressive.

We benefit from a transmisogynistic society because we are trans without being trans women. It’s true that trans men are more "tolerated" or even "favorable" -- but just like any marginalized man, that doesn't clear us of oppression. It doesn't take away from the transphobic violence we face under the same system, it just means we're not always aware of each other's struggles.

I would have agreed with your post before I saw the "transandrophobia" tag. I at first thought it was a post acknowledging our marginalized identity intersects with privilege, but this tag undos that reading. Please understand that androphobia isn't the actual problem going on. You are misdiagnosing a systemic issue.

As a trans man myself, I know there is a need in trans men to have language to discuss our oppression; how our oppression is uniquely at a crossroads between privilege and oppression; but we can do so without unintentionally claiming that misandry is a real issue in society. A cishetero patriarchal, white supremacist (as stated before) society does not hate Men in any real capacity. When men are marginalized by these systems, it is due to seeming adjacency to Women. That is why I say homophobia and transphobia are extentions of misogyny. Transphobia would not exist without misogyny; transphobia exists because of transmisogyny.

We can acknowledge this, acknowledge that in some ways we have potential benefits, and also discuss how the same conditions still/also oppress us. It's true that it is complicated to work through, and yes it can be frustrating when some people don't want to. We don't need to give up the work and go for menimist arguments because... well to be completely honest, I don't really understand why you guys do this, other than it being reactionary. I think being more involved with the history of marginalized queer men would really benefit some of you. I don't just mean from the last few centuries, like when you look into older examples of homophobia it really puts into perspective how deeply misogyny goes and how we got to this point. At least do that before fuming about feminists (which is what you're doing with "androphobia")

I hope my comment gets at least one guy to rethink androphobia trutherism. I know it feels uncomfortable and even insulting to be labeled as having "male privilege" -- but to be completely honest, the first time I ever heard that trans men have male privilege was from an elder trans man. So if you're thinking this is something only baeddels say online to silence us, please remember that some trans men have been saying this for longer than that. The baeddels weren't around when I started transitioning! This isn't a new idea, it's trans feminism!

"your transness doesn't intersect with your manness"

actually my transness IS my manness. they're the exact same facet of my identity. they don't just intersect, they are mutually inclusive parts of each other. one does not exist without the other

[bongwater-supreme]

i think part of the issue with your post is that you started with "im gonna get a lot of hate for this" i understand what youre saying in the post (tho i dont fully agree bc i do think misandry exists it just isnt systemic like misogyny) but i think that they reacted that way bc the way you started the post is a common way people start bad faith engagements with stuff (in my experience at least). maybe you didnt mean it to sound that way, maybe you were in good faith, idk you so i cant say. but starting off with that did set the tone for the kind of responses youd most likely get bc its kind of an inflamatory phrase. doesnt necessarily make them right to react that way though.

That’s actually a really helpful insight, thanks anon!! I thought that having that before the post would ward off the worst of the bad faith readings, because it showed awareness of how heated this discourse always gets, but your take actually makes a lot of sense as to why it had the opposite effect.

Also, thank you for actually just being normal about this, you’re the first anon I’ve had who isn’t accusing me of being a secret terf or whatever, and I just really appreciate you not coming in with the aggression off the bat. I’m glad that we can disagree somewhat but still be respectful, so thank you for being a breath of fresh air

[solena2]

Just saw someone claim that saying “not all men” and saying “hating men is bad because all gender essentialism is bad” are inherently the same idea and didn’t want to derail the post, but I think there’s a genuine discussion to be had here, so

Hot take, apparently, but the problem with “not all men” rhetoric has nothing to do with the factual accuracy of the statement. Like, we can all agree that not every single man, (or the majority of men) assaults women, right?

The problem with people saying “not all men” isn’t that the statement they’re making is wrong, it’s that they’re engaging in bad faith and obfuscating the actual debate. Because no, not all men, but also “every man has assaulted a woman” was never the point the opposing movement was trying to make. Dudebros just acted like it was because there’s no way to oppose the statement “assaulting women is bad, actually” without sounding like a tone deaf asshole, so they built a strawman to mock instead.

But the post that prompted me to write this wasn’t written by a dudebro. It was written by a terf.

And the problem with terf ideology, also known as the core of terf ideology, is that they really do believe that all men are bad, inherently, by virtue of being men. They view gender as a moral alignment, with men on the “bad” side and women on the “good”, and any deviation from that binary as misguided at best and malicious infiltration at worst.

Which is why they hate trans women, view trans men as confused, and either treat nonbinary people as “women-lite” or, more often, refuse to acknowledge them entirely.

So why is that a bad thing?

Because being real here, that’s a question that needs answered. The seeds of terf ideology grew in fertile soil, and knowing what led to that is important. Knowing the conditions under which radical feminism thrives is what gives us the insight to root it out early.

The same time that “not all men” rhetoric was popular with the right, significant parts of the left were beginning to respond with “yes, all men”. Partially out of frustration at first, I think, at least for those unfamiliar to such statements. (As many of us were, at the time.) People embracing the “man hating lesbian” stereotype and similar things used to discredit them. Going “you know what, maybe I do hate men, maybe I should hate men, maybe everyone should.” because they were hurting and tired of being hurt and when sexism is such a prevalent issue it is genuinely difficult to oppose the statement.

It’s very easy to take a hatred of misogyny and translate it to a hatred of men, because misogyny is synonymous with men, right? Built by men and perpetrated by men and kept alive by men.

So shouldn’t men be sorry for it? Shouldn’t they attempt to atone, whether or not they, personally, have bought into it? It’s certainly true that all men benefit from misogyny, so shouldn’t all men be treated with suspicion?

It’s easy to see why terfs believe what they do, in the end. Their beliefs are based in personal pain and anger and trauma so often.

The problem, as it often is, is that it’s not that simple. “All men benefit from misogyny” is not a true statement, and “all men benefit from misogyny and need to atone for it” is worse.

Any man who’s been called a fag, for example, is not reaping the benefits of misogyny. Any man who doesn’t fit in the cookie cutter mold and is punished for it, whether that’s a drag queen or a gay man or a cis straight man who just likes the fucking color pink, men are just as socially shackled by misogyny as women are, top of the gender bullshit food chain or not.

Misandry is just as bad as misogyny ideologically. The reason it’s rarely as much of a problem has nothing to do with the inherent qualities of womanhood. Systemic misandry isn’t often a problem because we haven’t historically had much of it.

Feminism is not and never has been an attempt to invert the status quo, place women on top, and call it a day assuming the exact same bullshit won’t arise. Feminism is a fight for equality, a fight where we try to liberate everyone, lift everyone up instead of pulling each other down.

We are not crabs in a bucket.

“Trans-exclusionary radical feminism” is what happens when someone decides pulling other people down is easier than lifting them up.

It’s an ideology built on assuming you’re the only victim that matters.

You’re not. Oppression isn’t a competition.

Stop trying to pull us back into the bucket. It does nothing constructive for anyone.

[wearequeer-andwearehere]

you said that misandry isnt real, so I've got a question transmasc to transmasc: how do you feel about the vilification of masculinity in queer spaces? (that sounded really aggressive akdhakdhakdja I'm sorry) like as a transmasc person I feel unwelcome in offline queer spaces and then online I get attacked for talking abt transmasc specific issues

Btw just a disclaimer before I go on with my answer that i am a Literal Child and have next to no idea what I’m talking about lmao (I’ve only known I was trans for like six months aksjakdncjd) but yeah here’s my perspective!!

It didn’t sound aggressive at all!!

Honestly I feel like people are mislabelling something different as misandry without like, any deeper analysis. I’m not entirely sure what to call it though.

Misandry certainly does not exist—men are not oppressed on the systemic level women/people perceived as women are oppressed by misogyny. If you’re claiming misandry as oppression of men, that’s pretty much nonexistent. Misogyny is women facing violence for daring to exist. Misandry is men on twitter feeling hurt because a feminist said that men are sometimes sexist.

I do however agree that there are a lot of people labelling masculinity and maleness as inherently bad and I‘ve seen it myself, but labelling these things as misandry,,,not really? Since it doesn’t work the same way misogyny does so yeah. It’s certainly harmful though.

Idk what it is (I’ve seen some people say it’s gender essentialism but I haven’t read into that so) yeah, this thing of “men are inherently evil and abusive and maleness is bad” is a bad mentality and extremely harmful but yeah, labelling it as misandry doesn’t make any sense.

If that’s the sort of villianization of masculinity you’re talking about, I’ll have to be honest when I say I have never experienced it first hand or been exposed to that particular mentality too much! I’ve always curated my online experience and I stay in a pretty friendly inclusionist circle of blogs on this hellsite, so I’ve never actually seen that firsthand

I have however heard a lot of transmascs talk about it, and I do agree that it needs to stop. There’s a difference between saying that cis men are often misogynistic and violent towards women because of the patriarchy, and vilifying maleness and masculinity which straight up harms trans people.

It really does need to stop. Instead of villianizing maleness we need to work further on deconstructing the patriarchy. Maleness and manhood are not inherently evil and bad, cis men are often misogynist because the patriarchy makes them that way. I’ve seen too many transmascs say they felt like shit for being a guy and that sucks honestly. Men aren’t inherently evil but the patriarchy is.

Hope I could answer your question!! And again please keep in mind i know next to nothing about trans stuff and I’m legit a teenager lol so Im def not an expert this is just what I think!

[emi1y]

the whole point of transandrophobia is MEN experience MISOGYNY. Queen TERF joann wrote a whole manifesto on how trans men are just confused/crazy women who need to be saved with radical feminism. Transphobia ✅ Misogny ✅

but “men don’t experience misogyny,” and this isn’t transmisogyny even tho it checks both boxes because ??? girls only ???

The problem with transandrophobia are the people who think cis men aren’t oppressed by patriarchy. The entire point of discussing oppression in terms of systems or matrices is to direct attention to the policies, social anxieties, etc. that actually cause prejudices and bigotry to go unchecked. “Men aren’t oppressed” >> “Men are oppressors” Do you see how that is essentialist and TERFy?

The problem is this TERF rhetoric seeping into trans feminist spaces. The problem is people assuming the most logical root word is indicative of something that goes against the TERF rhetoric they’ve already ingrained. The problem is this requires them to unlearn and admit they were wrong. The problem is you.

the problem is ME? i literally agree with u. I've been saying that all day. sorry the original post implied i meant that only trans women experience an intersection of transphobia and misogyny, you're right that that's not accurate. the issue i take with the term transandrophobia is that it carries the implication that trans men specific experiences of transphobia occur because they are men, when the actual cause is that it occurs because society percieves them as women (to be clear what i mean isn't about whether individual trans men pass or not, just that the structures in society differentiating between how to treat men and women percieve the idea of trans men as a whole as part of the woman category)

yes, it's a subtle difference, but i believe it's worth pointing out because if we are going to work towards eradicating the root motivation behind that transphobia we have to name it for what it is, and its not any iteration of androphobia or misandry, it's misogyny. trans women and men experience that misogyny in different ways, because for trans women its a matter of society not wanting to allow them to enter into womanhood & for trans men its society not wanting to allow them to exit womanhood, but in both cases it is misogyny and the rigid ideas society has about how it wants to allow people to interact with the concept of womanhood. whether that means using transmisogyny to refer to both trans men and trans women, or naming something else entirely is a discussion that continues to be had in the trans community.

YES i am aware this IS semantics. but its not just me bitching over root words for no reason. even if We can agree that to use transandrophobia is to actually refer to the intersection of misogyny and transphobia that trans men experience, a huge portion of the population who uses the term transandrophobia are not using it to refer to that, theyre genuinely under the impression that the transphobia they experience IS due to them being men, when like we said above, it's really due to them being percieved as women.

you say that the point of discussing oppression in terms of systems is to direct attention to the social ideologies that cause that prejudice, and I'm saying that i agree, and that the term transandrophobia is not successfully accomplishing that. we can't just write off how many people use it for their belief that their oppression is caused by them being men. we can't just say that well they don't count because they aren't using it right when they're being as vocal as they are about their incorrect stance and affecting the rest of the community when we have to endure it.

i have never once said that men aren't oppressed, it's that they aren't oppressed FOR BEING MEN. the oppression men experience is due to the other identities they carry that are maginalized. and, sometimes the fact that they are men will cause the way they experience their other marginalized identities appear differently to how the women of that identity are treated. some of those differences might even seem like its worse than how the women are treated, especially when you look at statistics about violence at the hands of other oppressive classes. but there will also be differences in which the women are treated worse. and within the vacuum of just that marginalized identity, the men will be prioritized above the women.

yet society doesn't exist in a vacuum! so everyone is constantly experiencing overlapping prejudices and privileges all at once! but that doesn't mean that we should suddenly throw away all discussions of the privileges men, as a class, have over women, as a class. and in most cases, no, its not men who necessarily are the oppressors, its the structure itself placing men above women that is responsible for the oppression. but "the structure" isnt some nebulous indefinable thing, its the policies and ideologies held up by the culture, and those are determined within the government and the figures of authority within that government making those decisions, are men! or they're women whose ideology has been so shaped by the patriarchal society they were socialized in that they play a role in holding up that structure intentionally.

we can talk in circles about these concepts all day but my ultimate point is that you can say a word means whatever you want and it'd be ideal if everyone agreed, but that doesn't mean anything when the practical, concrete examples of its usage contradict what you say it is supposed to refer to. even if you say that transandrophobia is about misogyny and not actual androphobia, there will still be loud outspoken people who use the term transandrophobia complaining about how their mistreatment is the result of being men, and then extrapolate that into a belief that because men like them have struggles and prejudices against them, that somehow negates all other aspects of privileges that all other men (beating a dead horse at this point but: Men As A Class) have.

[sometimes-men-need-help-too]

What does modern feminism do that you don't agree with? This is genuine btw

A couple things before I start: 

- This is not meant to bash all the feminists out there unless they fit into what I’m saying. I know there are good feminists out there 

- When I say ‘you’ I’m not meaning you, I’m saying it in a general way 

-I hope I get my point across and it’s clear. I sometimes struggle with that 

Also I’m sorry this is so long and it’s in no particular order and I hope none of this comes across as being aggressive or anything

~~ 

A lot of my issues with the movement boils down to attitudes. To me, that is very telling of its true colors. And I do try not to necessarily judge an entire movement from just the bad people because I know that isn’t fair, although I do feel like the bad feminists have taken over the movement and end up drowning out the good voices and that’s why we hear more negativity than positivity. 

One thing that I have issue with the lack of respect towards those that disagree whether it’s with the movement itself or it’s a particular thing. For a movement that preaches about a woman’s choice, I don’t feel that really happens like it should. I don’t know, maybe I’m wrong here but depending on what the topic is I get a general impression like you’re not really supposed to disagree with what’s being side. You do and you might have someone lash out at you (that’s another point I have). Or if you say you’re anti feminist, you have people coming up with these reasons why they think you are; one being internalized misogyny  and you get called a pick-me which I find a bit insulting.  I should be able to have an opinion without someone assuming I’m trying to get a man’s attention or I can’t think for myself or I hate other girls. That isn’t it! Wouldn’t you think that is misogynistic? 

And if it’s not  internalized misogyny, then there are other factors; her being white (which usually then goes on to sound racist)  or it’s because she has money or  internalized racism or whatever they come up with. And it sounds condescending and that just bugs me. Hey, maybe instead of some underlying reason, we just don’t agree. 

or you have people try to stick the label on anyway. 

‘If you believe in equality you’re a feminist’

The label means nothing. I don’t understand why some will focus on this so much. I don’t want to be called a feminist. I don’t need to. In the same way, it’s not necessary for me to refer to myself as an MRA (men’s rights activist). And yeah, I know this says it’s an “MRA blog” that’s what I had when I started. But ultimately, the label isn’t important. I’m all for equality. It’s cool, it’s great. But I see this sort of thing (online that is) being forced on people and the thing is, with that wording it makes it sound like the movement is all inclusive when it’s not. You have to have certain politics and for the most part (unless you’re a religious feminist) you have to be pro choice otherwise you’re not a ‘real’ feminist. 

My next issue is all the aggression. You can just tell sometimes with how people respond online or if you catch a video that someone posted. And not only that, but how quickly people fall into name-calling or just all around acting like a child. And for the most it seems pretty acceptable to some because it keeps happening. It’s not hard to find on this site or otherwise. If you can’t communicate your opinions about something without having a fit or blocking someone (excluding if they just keep harassing you) then you’re not mature enough. That shows me you don’t really care about having a real discussion. And some can say that it happening on here is probably done by teenagers and to an extent they’re probably right. But it happens on other sites and in real life as well and it’s more than just teens. It’s people my age and older and that’s not cool. 

And then we have  how some like to ignore the differences between men and women. Sure, yes, there are many things a woman can do just like a man but we also have to acknowledge our differences.  I don’t see a lot of that with some forms of feminism. STEM, for example, is something I would attribute the differences more to just how men and women tend to be rather than sexism. Could there be certain circumstances where it is sexism? Sure, I suppose you can’t rule it out entirely. Otherwise I would say it’s just what they’re happy doing. I know girls who are doing science stuff or business things but I also know girls who are going to be teachers or psychologists or nurses. It’s not that they're actively being told by everyone that they can’t do it(I suppose unless they live in some other country like that). That’s just what they want to do, you know, their choice. Just like how some men go towards a job like with computers or farming or they’re pre-school teachers or gynecologists.

 I found an interesting fact (source will be posted below) that said women are actually preferred over men two-to-one for faculty positions. The study was done by psychologists from Cornell University with professors from 371 colleges/universities in the US. It also noted that: “recent national census-type studies showing that female Ph.D.s are disproportionately less likely to apply for tenure-track positions, yet when they do they are more likely to be hired, in some science fields approaching the two-to-one ratio revealed by Williams and Ceci.” 

Yet, we need to ask ourselves honestly, how often do facts like these get passed around vs the idea that women are suffering from misogyny and therefore are unable to fully represent in STEM jobs? 

The next thing I want to address is misandry. Now there are a good portion of people who don't think it exists or if it does, it's really not much of an issue because of the "power" and the "privilege" men have within society. And to me, I have a problem with that. If feminism is supposed to be for men as well, I would think they would want to combat misandry as well as misogyny. If someone really doesn't think it exists, I would suggest that the person really take a look at what goes on in real life and online that's directed towards men.

There's the whole "male tears" thing which is on coffee mugs and t-shirts. There's the kill all men/yes all men thing. All of which are supposed to be jokes and if a man says something about it he gets mocked for his "fragile masculinity"

That's just not okay. They're being immature and a bully which they usually try to justify (men have done this and that throughout history to women) but you just can't.

I found this article, this really really atrocious article. It's one of those open letter things and found on this feminist website (feminisminindia) and I almost believed it to be satire with how.... stereotypically Tumblr it was. I did research and looked at the info regarding the site and nope, it's a serious site. I'll post the article below but I'll also summarize it:

Basically this woman is telling the men in her life that she will not stop saying "men are trash or other radical feminist opinions." She's saying it because women and others have suffered so much at the hands of the patriarchy because they're not straight white men. She goes on to say:

So let’s establish: misandry isn’t real. Just like unicorns and heterophobia, misandry is a myth because it isn’t systematic or systemic. Unlike misogyny, cis men don’t face oppression purely based on their gender. While they may encounter instances of racism, homophobia and ableism, they are not dehumanised as a function of their gender identity (read: cis privilege).

That is wrong. Absolutely wrong. Misandry is real. "Cis" people do face oppression purely based on their gender. Anyone can. To deny that lacks understanding.

And the rest is just saying that: It is time to start hating on men-as-a-whole and starting celebrating the men that you are.

And: Because at the end of the day, feminists need men. Whether it’s because you wield structural power or because we genuinely value your existence, we need to band together to destroy ‘men’ because men are trash, but you, if you made it to the end of this, are probably not. Prove me right.

I would imagine this is a common viewpoint. And it's not a good one. If you genuinely think a whole group as a whole is bad you need to reexamine your thoughts. It's not "men" that are bad, it's the sexist people.

To wrap this up (I'm sure you might be tired of reading this lol); like I said, the attitudes play a huge part of it. Modern feminism, in my opinion, is just not good enough for me to say I agree with it and want to identify as one. I just can't

Here is the link to the feminist article: https://www.google.com/amp/s/feminisminindia.com/2020/09/23/men-are-trash-and-other-radical-feminist-opinions/%3famp

And here is the link for the STEM thing: https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2015/04/women-preferred-21-over-men-stem-faculty-positions

[softerseasons]

I think you have a lot of really good points here, but I'd like to point something out. And to make it very clear, everything above the last few paragraphs I agreed wholeheartedly with, I could see where you were coming from, and I could see how the misunderstanding on both sides of this conversation happened. I don't think either of you were exactly 'wrong' or 'right', since this IS a nuanced topic with multiple viewpoints.

Starting with the "poke the bear" bit- I think the major problem here is that you are both being exposed to very different communities of people. Velvet, in the original answer, is addressing the community that she most often interacts with. In this community, the common viewpoints are as follows:

- Transmisogyny is the penultimate form of oppression, all other oppression either stems from or pales in comparison to it

- Transandrophobia is a word that is inherently transmisogynistic

- Transmascs only face garden-variety transphobia and are privileged by identifying into masculinity

- TMA/TME in theory describe who is and is not systemically targeted by transmisogyny, but in practice TMA is used as a synonym for transfems and TME is used to mean transgender individuals who are considered "AFAB". Rarely, TME includes cis women. Very rarely, TME includes cis men. A number of people argue that cis men are in fact TMA because they Could Become Trans Women.

Aside from the viewpoints in this community, however, behavior is also important to note. So some notes on behavior common in this community:

- Trans men, transmascs, and anyone who speaks up in defense of them are told, both by people who identify as TMA and people who identify as TME, that wanting a specific word to talk about their issues is transmisogynistic and a show of male privilege (and in the case of transfems, that they are not real transfems).

- Any attempts at discussion in good faith are shut down immediately. People attempting to truly discuss in good faith are met with hostility, mocking, and often hate-filled harassment, moreso the less obsequious they are with their disagreements.

With the above in mind, looking at Velvet's words, we can do two things:

- We can understand this as more a semantics argument than a literal one. In this community, 'Man' and 'Woman' are seen as direct opposites. 'Trans Man' and 'Trans Woman' are also seen as direct opposites, rather than as two sides of the same binary coin. If Trans Women have one experience, then Trans Men must either have the same experience (due to being Trans) or one directly opposite (due to being Man), depending on what the argument is. This extends out to transfems and transmascs. "Transandrophobia" as a word is "implying that misandry is real, because it uses the same formula as Transmisogyny, which is Trans(phobia) + Misogyny".

- We can divorce Velvet's paragraph about TAA/TAE being unusable because no one will read it in good faith from the statement "No one is TME". These are not a direct comparison. TAA/TAE is unusable because it will not be read in good faith, much as TMA/TME can only be used because it so often is read in good faith (in this community). No one is TME because no one is exempt from any sort of oppression- this doesn't mean people can't face challenges unique to their demographic, but any systemic oppression will dig its roots into everyone alive within that system, and it affects everyone and everything within that system. Similarly, no one is transandrophobia-exempt.

So when facing a community of people who wholeheartedly believe that classifying people as TMA/TME and often use this to mean 'transfem/trans afab', refuse to acknowledge that transmascs can have unique challenges that will affect Everyone but will pointedly and systemically target transmascs specifically, and will meet dissent with cruelty and mockery, misgendering, and an often intentional misunderstanding/twisting of words... Velvet chooses to use her words to make a point, so that people on the fringes of this community can see how circular their logic is, how their arguments don't make sense or hold up. This can help some who are not totally taken in by the community to question some of their own burgeoning beliefs, and it provides a show of allyship to trans men and transmascs currently struggling in the thick of having their experiences and realities mocked and belittled.

Sometimes that takes the form of 'poking the bear'. I don't think that's what this answer in particular was- again, it was an argument of semantics, addressing a community that often relies on semantics to tell other trans people that they aren't allowed their own language, or that their language isn't good enough. But sometimes, yes, poking the bear happens.

No, it's probably not going to accomplish much other than providing cathartic relief for the one doing the poking. Given that 'the bear' is already awake and doing active damage, though, I don't think the poking is the thing to focus on here.

Finally, we are building a strong case for transandrophobia. And Velvet isn't saying that transmisogyny doesn't exist, much less building a case against it. That would be incredibly counterproductive given the transmisogyny she faces frequently from the community she's addressing in the original answer, for being a trans woman who says that transandrophobia is real, and points out the circular and flawed logic of those who believe it isn't.

Ultimately, all of this isn't to say you're wrong- like I said, I agree with the vast majority of the points you made in the reblog I'm replying to. But I just wanted to point out the disconnect I saw between the perceptions that led to your last few paragraphs and my own understanding from having been in the community in question, having been targeted by the community in question, and having watched Velvets methodology for a while. I hope this was able to do that and provide some context, and if not, I hope I at least approached it in a way to make it sufficiently clear that I'm in no way trying to be rude or aggressive or to discount your perception of the conversation as someone who it seems isn't in these particular trenches (which is a good thing, mind you, and doesn't mean you aren't in more reasonable trenches just down the road).

Also apologies just in general for the way I type like I'm trying to be the most pretentious person on the planet. Promise it's just the way I talk and I'm really truly not trying to be condescending.

"cis men are tme" - I think I have some problems with this idea but I'm not sure they make sense. I don't think cis men as a whole are 100% tme bc. I went to an extremely conservative religious high school. In places like that, being anything close to feminine as a man, even if you were 100% cishet, was absolutely unacceptable. Like you would be bullied by your peers and staff for just. DARING to use a pink pen in class. If that isn't a form of transmisogyny that affects cis men, idk what is.

No one is TME.

[fictofaggot]

Hi! im assuming you're trying to learn as well, so here a trans man in your inbox re:transmisandry. it's Actually A Real Thing, people just hate the words we use and that's a big part of it. One of the biggest issue trans men face is our invisibility and non-trans people don't Get that, this also includes debating whether or not we Should use the words we use and if we even suffer from oppression at all. They don't want us to have words to define our struggles, just like when they didn't want ace or nonbinary people to not have theirs, because it's not real enough/we're privileged/etc.

People often forget that our "trans" comes before our "men" BUT that we suffer from transphobia SPECIFICALLY because we're men because if we weren't men we wouldn't be trans, duh! Also we aren't in the same space of power as cis men because no matter how well we pass, we're always one slip up alway from losing our "man" status so you REALLY can't say we're at the same level or privileged for Becoming Men. We aren't part of the oppressors and we don't benefit from the system as much as people think we do. The moment we decide to transition we Lose whatever "privileges" we had from our agab and we never quite gain full access to the perks of the other binary one.

Surprisingly enough, we also suffer from misogyny (although people ignore that we do) because society mostly thinks we're just Women Who Are Wrong, but we accept that we can't really use the term transmisogyny for ourselves. So we can't use that one. So what can we use to talk about our own specific struggles then? We need our words, even if people don't like them. There's too many people speaking for us. Listen to US (trans men) when we say we suffer, not to Other people with Opinions.

I don't mean any ill intent with this btw, just that you seen like a nice person who reblogged some misinformation. That's all.

just putting it out there that i am a trans man. so. i don't really need to be treated as what you say is "Other people with Opinions", cause this comes from like, my own experience

i don't claim to think that trans men don't experience specific types of transphobia at all. clearly they do, and it would be more than a little stupid to claim otherwise.

most of the issue i have is just... the word itself. again, transmisogyny as a term describes an intersection between two types of oppression, misogyny and transphobia. transmisandry, on the other hand, says that there's an intersection between transphobia and... misandry. which is widely agreed to be something that does not exist? as far as i'm aware?

and so if something does not exist, how can there be an intersection with it? i struggle to understand the reasoning.

the fact that i dislike the term as it is does not mean i think trans men are "privileged for Becoming Men". i don't think that at all. you do not suddenly become an oppressor once you transition into manhood... that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. trans men are still oppressed on the basis of being trans. trans men still face specific forms of oppression. just... maybe it's not best described as transphobia interacting with something that isn't real, once again.

i really think you should've just read the post you claim is misinformation.. it explains basically the same thoughts i have? like, even down to the example of the term misogynoir not having a white woman counterpart. it's the same concept in my mind.

but, all in all, i don't really care. love and light and peace on earth. i love trans people

[icaruskey]

hantudelusional made some rly good points about misandry. None of what I'm about to say is a "challenge" to your original post, I just wanted to add to what hantu said.

Disclaimer, I don’t know OOP’s original post. I feel the stupidity radiating from this post is strong enough on its own that I can tackle it just fine on its own, and while watching a makeup competition on the side.

I don't think all misandrists are terfs, 

I agree with this, as it requires all misandrists to perceive themselves as feminists. However if a woman hates men and manhood, even if they’re calling trans men “the good ones”, they’re TERFs. It’s called “trans exclusionary” and it’s exclusionary to basically say trans men are men lite. And sorry, but exclusionism is baked into rad fem ideology so TERF is a perfect descriptor of someone who hates men that much. 

and while I'm not advocating for its normalization, I reject the idea that misandry disqualifies someone as a feminist so long as we continue to live in patriarchy.

This is a disgusting take. Patriarchy =/= men. “Men benefit from patriarchy” is an old belief, and it is a wrong belief. The more accurate statement would be 

“white, able bodied and minded men, who are already financially stable and have access to higher education and use these privileges to continue to benefit themselves first and foremost benefit from patriarchy.” 

Disabled men don’t benefit from patriarchy, poor men don’t benefit from patriarchy, rural men don’t benefit from patriarchy, men of color don’t benefit from patriarchy. It is a very select few, the creme de la creme if you will, that benefits. 

Hold a black woman who is from a wealthy family and has become a lawyer against an Alabama white redneck who lives in a trailer because he barely was able to finish his high school degree while trying to take care of his family. Who would you say is better off? 

They both have their own difficulties and privileges that aren’t entirely comparable. She has money and power and stability, but he’s still taken more seriously in his community and has a constantly reinforced belief that he’s better than other races. She’s had education, but it’s come at an extreme cost due to her sex and race. He’s not had any education, and he’s likely not going to take advantage of the resources available to him as a white man because his ego is being inflated by right wing talking heads.

But they both pale in comparison to someone like Jeff Bezos or any member of Congress. 

 The oppressed reserve the right to be angry with their oppressors, after all.

I’m honestly not sure if I agree with this anymore. Because we see people online take justified anger towards systemic issues or hell, even individual instances of harm, and then they generalize that towards people who are shoulder to shoulder with them in the trenches. 

It’s fine not to have the spoons to try and educate someone spewing hatred at you. It’s fine to be hurt and angry that you’ve been traumatized. But you can also block them. You don’t have to put yourself in a situation online where you’re retraumatized over and over again, feeding that anger and hatred and pushing it onto someone who is an innocent bystander and hurt by patriarchy just as much as you are. 

 Women may harbor misandrist prejudices, but it's largely a defensive measure against misogyny, which is systemic (and frequently violent).

Patriarchy is just as harmful to men, including in systemically violent ways. They aren’t allowed to expression emotion unless it’s anger. They are forced to go to war. Literally, if it’s a big enough event, they have no choice but be conscripted. They are expected to wear their bodies out doing painful physical labor and do this for decades. 

They aren’t believed if they’re victims of sexual assault or domestic violence, regardless of who assaulted them. The idea that all men are pedophiles prevents fathers from openly loving their children and forces men from more nurturing careers like teaching. They’re belittled if they go into these careers anyway, anything from staying at home while their wife works to being nurses. 

Black men are seen as more dangerous in public. Asian men are desexualized. Latino and Hispanic men are considered dirty or drug dealers. Men face violence, trauma, pain all at the hands of these patriarchal standards that hurts everyone, but guess what?

They’re not allowed to talk about it in feminist circles. Yes, there are bad faith attempts to bring men’s issues up when talking about another problem, but we just don’t give them the space where they can talk about their needs. 

And what’s sad about that point is I only learned that when a skinhead on reddit asked me point blank to find a feminist movement that focused on men’s issues. And I couldn’t find anything of note.

So I don't think it's inherently wrong to be a misandrist - the important thing is what you do with it. 

You can’t do anything with inherently hating an entire half of the human race. It’s going to bleed out, be it in trying to make men the lesser sex instead of holding everyone equal, hating trans women, hating trans men, etc. Hatred and demonization is a rotten foundation and it’ll topple your whole house.

Terfs are wrong because they use misandrist rhetoric to radicalize (rightfully) frustrated girls and women into transphobia. 

Radfem in general is wrong because it wants to segregate everything based off gender or sex. TERFs are only a very easy talking point because it’s easy to see their hatred of trans people and say it’s wrong. 

But most misandrists just sit with their prejudice. 

Maybe irl, but certainly not online.

Maybe they use it to walk a little faster at night, because they don't trust strange men past 12 am and simply want to live another day. And who can blame them?

That’s not misandry. That’s being safe.

 Not all men, but enough.

I hate the “not all x” so this is getting its own point just for the eye roll.

Men just don't have comparable reasons to be wary of women. 

The man who gets assaulted by his girlfriend does. The man who is constantly told, over and over, by women that he should die for being a man does. The man who has his children taken away in a divorce because he’s a man does. The man who can’t go to the playground with his little boy because then he makes all the women there uncomfortable does. 

The black man who has the cops called on him by a white woman does. The man who gets labelled a sex offender and put on a registry for doing something stupid as a kid (like trying to pee against a wall or something really dumb like streaking or sharing nudes with his girlfriend) does. The men who get abused in nursing homes by women who became nurses to have some sort of power over them do.

There is no history of meaningful misandrist oppression. 

There is. The patriarchy harms everyone, and that includes men. Patriarchy is both misogynist and misandrist. 

And while I don't suggest it isn't a common covariable with transphobia (it certainly is), misandry can just... stop there. 

Stop where? Hurting men every single fucking day in innumerable small and large ways?

If you find you harbor misandry, just mind your conclusions, or we will hold you accountable. 

If you find you harbor a hatred towards men, question why that is. Otherwise everything you build based off that hatred will be as rotten as your foundation.

It needn't develop into violence. It often doesn't.

Hatred is a violent act in itself.

I don't think it would betray feminism to be a tad more patient with misandrist women, especially if they're just sitting with their frustration.

It’s a betrayal to what feminism is supposed to stand for. And you can’t just sit with it. I just sat with my frustration for a friend and it’s destroyed my DnD group from me just doing nothing. 

It's been a hard couple of millennia.

For everyone here. And you’re not helping matters at all anon.

Sorry OOP I just get mad seeing stupid ass takes cross my dash and I had to dismantle it piece by piece.

hantudelusional made some rly good points about misandry. None of what I'm about to say is a "challenge" to your original post, I just wanted to add to what hantu said.

I don't think all misandrists are terfs, and while I'm not advocating for its normalization, I reject the idea that misandry disqualifies someone as a feminist so long as we continue to live in patriarchy. The oppressed reserve the right to be angry with their oppressors, after all. Women may harbor misandrist prejudices, but it's largely a defensive measure against misogyny, which is systemic (and frequently violent).

So I don't think it's inherently wrong to be a misandrist - the important thing is what you do with it. Terfs are wrong because they use misandrist rhetoric to radicalize (rightfully) frustrated girls and women into transphobia. But most misandrists just sit with their prejudice. Maybe they use it to walk a little faster at night, because they don't trust strange men past 12 am and simply want to live another day. And who can blame them? Not all men, but enough.

Men just don't have comparable reasons to be wary of women. There is no history of meaningful misandrist oppression. And while I don't suggest it isn't a common covariable with transphobia (it certainly is), misandry can just... stop there. If you find you harbor misandry, just mind your conclusions, or we will hold you accountable. It needn't develop into violence. It often doesn't.

I don't think it would betray feminism to be a tad more patient with misandrist women, especially if they're just sitting with their frustration. It's been a hard couple of millennia.

I think your fundamental missing of the point is your belief that prejudice must be systemic in order to hurt people. I don't need to be "more patient" with misandrists when they actively cause harm and pain to men through those beliefs. You claim that you can be harmlessly misandrist, that it's "Not all men but enough", but who are you hurting in this situation?

You aren't going to get misogynists to feel guilty or take you seriously or acknowledge their misogyny. All you're doing is making trans men, gnc men, those who were AMAB, and queer men feel like there's something fundamentally dangerous, unsafe, and wrong with them because of their gender and your own bioessentialist idiocy.

[edgyartkid]

I’m not saying that there are no good men. There are. I have male friends whom I consider good, and my father is a good man. But regardless of individual goodness, men as a class still oppress women. Even the good ones. Oppression and benefiting from oppression is not an active decision by many men, but men as a class oppress women as a class, and individual actions of individual men do not change that.

I agree with this statement.

A man can be a good person, and protest for all kinds of oppression, but that doesn’t change the fact that he benefits from the oppression of women, and frankly, even the ‘good’ men like their position in the social hierarchy over women too much to ever make meaningful challenges or changes to their behaviour or that of others.

I do agree with that. The same way White people will always benefit from racism and white supremacy. Doesn’t make them inherently bad people. Doing nothing about it does.

If you had to ‘educate’ your male friend to take him out of his feminazi phase, then I’m afraid that he’s not a ‘good’ person. Decent people do not equate women fighting against their oppression with a fascist regime that killed literally millions of people. If I had to hazard a guess, I’d say that he now ‘supports women but would totally punch a terf’.

I went through the same phase myself. I said “redpilled” unironically and was genuinely convinced BLM was a terrorist group. I’m black ffs :| People can change and people can grow. He simply fell through the Alt-Right rabbit hole of Youtube, that i fell through as well. He was not a good person back then, neither was I. But he is now.

If growing and realizing how childish you where in the past (especially since we where 13 back then) makes you a bad person, then i’m Satan Himself.

I agree that men can influence and educate other men about oppression, but they’re not there helping women with the burden of educating men. To begin with, educating men on why they shouldn’t rape, murder, attack, violate, or harass women is not a responsibility that women should bear.

I fully agree.

Male violence towards women is not a women’s issue, it is a men’s issue. They are the ones doing those things, they should be the ones stopping.

That’s… exactly what he’s doing. A lot of men are as well.

And yet, where are the men fighting to stop men raping women? Where are the men fighting for laws that protect women from male violence? Where are the men out on the streets stopping other men from kidnapping and murdering random women? Where are the men policing their friends’ misogynistic language and telling each other to respect women? They aren’t there.

Except… there are. These Men do exist. They’re rare, but real.

Misogyny is a thing because it is the hatred of an oppressed class and the mechanisms used to oppress them.

I agree.

Misandry isn’t a real thing, because while individual men can be good, men as a class oppress women as a class, and the hatred, resentment, and anger of someone oppressed to the class, not just the individual, oppressing them, is not systemic prejudice. It’s an understandable reaction.

Misandry does exist; it’s not a valid system of oppression, but the mindset is in fact real.

We can agree to disagree. Thank you for ensuring i don’t live in a libfem echo chamber.

I’m sorry, but if you openly identify as a Misandrist, you’re a fucking shitty person. /hj

Yes, misandry isn’t nearly as deadly or bad as misogyny, and i’d take it over misogyny ANY day!! Still makes you an asshole. /srs

!!White/Girlboss/Liberal feminists dni!!

Radfems pls touch!! I may not agree w/ all of you but i’m not tryna live in an echo chamber.