#masculist society

[alarajrogers]

"Misogyny" didn't start out as a word meaning the systemic oppression of women. It was a cognate to "misanthropy", the hatred of people.

As it happens, women are systemically oppressed, which led people to redefine "misogyny" as meaning systemic oppression of women. This was honestly a terrible idea. We have plenty of words describing the systemic oppression of women, such as patriarchy. And many patriarchal sexists don't hate women; they're just incredibly wrong about what is good for women. There's also bad stuff that's done to women by people who don't hate them and think they are being egalitarian, except that women and men aren't starting from the same baseline in our society, so treating them exactly the same where "exactly the same" means treat them all like men runs into serious problems.

I have been fighting for the word "misandry" and pushing back against this nonsensical "misogyny means the systematic hatred of women" nonsense for 15 years, now, and I never saw the "misogyny must be systemic to be misogyny" concept until people started trying to declare misandry a non-word. I feel that in fact misogyny got redefined precisely so that radfems could delegitimize misandry.

Imagine a boy is raised on a feminist commune with way too much radfem input, and they tell him that women should be in charge of everything because men are naturally violent, and women are better at social interaction, that's just a fact, and he should just accept that he will never be allowed to be in charge of anything. If he begins to hate and resent the women who are given more privilege than him in the local society that he doesn't know how to leave, how would we describe that except misogyny? This hypothetical boy doesn't know that, outside the commune, men run the world, because the information he's allowed to have is heavily censored. He's not hating women because he has a sense of entitlement and wants to dominate; he's hating women because they're oppressing him. Cool motive, still misogyny. It doesn't actually mean systemic oppression of women, it means hating women, full stop. There is so much hatred of women in the systemic oppression of women, it's easy to confuse the two, but they don't mean the same thing.

No one is systemically oppressing humanity, yet the word "misanthropy" for hatred of humans exists. Misanthropes are equally likely to particularly hate the powerful as they are to particularly hate the oppressed. In fact, a lot of misanthropy imputes the behavior of the powerful to "all humans" as a justification for hating us all. Since misanthropy comes from other humans, and not from, say, sentient walruses who hate us for causing global warming, it cannot be re-imagined to mean "systemic oppression"... and it is where the word misogyny comes from. Someone went back to the Greek roots that make "misanthropy" and reconstructed them to make "hatred of women" instead of "hatred of people".

I feel that misandry is an important word and we shouldn't let it go. Anti-masculism sounds like hatred of masculinity, which is probably a very valuable word in its own right, and not exactly the same thing as hatred of men. (Among other things, the anti-masculist would dislike butch women and would have no problems with femme men, if it meant hatred of masculinity rather than hatred of men.) I'm convinced that the campaign against misandry originates from the radfems, and that's why feminists now believe "misogyny" has to mean a systemic oppression. But there's nothing in the roots of the word to imply such a thing, and it's not very useful to take a word with a specific meaning and then make it mean something else we already had a word for.

i'm probably gonna add this in the revamped pin post im planning but i think an issue we have when discussing "misandry" is that people tend to interpret it as "the man version of misogyny." because we are under the false belief that if x is true for one gender, the inverse must be true for its "opposite"

i think its use comes from having a word to put to Genderism Based On Male Gender Roles. gender is a thing that impacts everyone and changes everyone's experiences. i want to be able to say "this person is using stereotypes about how men and people associated with manliness should or do think/behave to be hurtful" in a single word/phrase. ^ that does not require there to be an overarching system, controlled by another group, that oppresses all men. i came up with the term "antimasculism" to have a word that accomplishes this but doesn't have the baggage of "misandry" (maybe "anti-" isnt the best prefix, maybe "mal-masculism" wouldve been more accurate)

& its especially important because there is a pattern of behavior centering masculinity that is used constantly to hurt marginalized people. "men are aggressive and strong" becomes either a way to demonize men, people seen as men, or people seen as masculine, or a way to mock any of the above groups for failing that requirement. this hurts cis men, trans men, queer men of all kinds, masculine-presenting people, butches, trans women- not because they have some innate masculine quality but because people see them as masculine in some way, shape, or form, and attach certain expectations to them and read into their choices in certain ways. masculinity or association with manliness being punished in some people/situations does not mean that all manliness is punished. why would it? misogyny is about controlling women & others grouped in as resources to be controlled. men's gender roles are about constant competition with each other. under the patriarchy women are always objects while men are sometimes allies and sometimes enemies that need to be crushed or failures that need to be held up as an example of what will happen if you aren't good enough at the competition.

& even more: you can have antimasculist misogyny! you can have misogynistic antimasculism! if a woman (cis or trans) is alienated from her womanhood and treated like a threat for being seen as too masculine, is she being mistreated for being masc or being a woman? the answer is both. her failure to be appropriately feminine means her masculinity is a crime she needs to be punished for. same with a man & being seen as too masculine: he fails to be a man in the right way and his femininity needs to be punished. especially when it comes to queer people & anyone whose gender performance is seen as queer, there is very rarely only 1 form of genderism going on because queerness is fundamentally about blurring the lines of which genders can do what.

tl;dr there doesn't have to be an overarching systemic hatred for all masculinity/manhood for it to be useful to have a word to describe the way that genderism around male gender roles is used to hurt people, marginalized people most of all.

[victorianlesbian]

Today I bought pink lace underwear, and at the time of paying the salesman told me that I had a "lucky boyfriend"

I bring two bracelets to my wrists, one says "pride", the other says "lgbt"

The sad thing is that it does not even go through the brains of people that a woman can want to feel beautiful just for herself, and if she buys something it isn't to please a man ...

[hadesoftheladies]

hey there. this post was inspired by marilyn frye's own essays and some analysis of her work.

Separatism means separating from men.

Yes it does. And this is done in multiple modes. A gathering of women that excludes men is separatism. That can be anything from a feminsit rally to a knitting club. Disengaging from parasocial relationships with men (not consuming their art, movies, music, etc) is a form of separatism. Working with only women, living with only women, going to an all-girls school, having friendships with only women . . . all separatism.

The truth of the matter is these kinds of conflicts keep happening on here because separatist theorists have not found it very important to focus on what "true separatism" is. We talk of separatism as a movement (6B4T) or as a strategy ("10 ways to practice separatism") when really, to most of the separatist theorists it seems, separatism is a feminist principle that can be demonstrated in many different ways.

"Feminist separation is, of course, separation of various sorts or modes from men and from institutions, relationships, roles, and activities which are male-defined, male dominated, and operating for the benefit of males and the maintenance of male privilege—this separation being initiated or maintained, at will, by women. (Masculist separatism is the partial segregation of women from men and male domains at the will of men. This difference is crucial.) The feminist separation can take many forms." -Marilyn Frye, Reflections on Separatism and Power

Separatism itself is a very scarce subject in feminist literature. Most feminist literature discusses anthropology, history and economy and focuses strategy on those axes. Separatism is uniquely focused on what parts of women's oppression is systemically unique to them.

Even the theoretical history of separatism is mostly just political lesbianism (lesbian feminism) and Frye acknowledges this. I don't think this necessarily means that because separatism is under-discussed that means it's fundamentally useless (because the immediate assumption is that few political theorists have taken it seriously). I think this has more to do with the fact that separatism is uncomfortable and frightening because it challenges the fundamental structure of society. It attacks what is most dear to patriarchy and the economy: the nuclear home + male access to women.

I think it's important to recognize that right now (and this may seem corny but it's true) radblr is really the main if not the only place where modern discussion is being had on separatism. Radblr is playing a part in consciousness-raising on the internet and has started to influence sites outside of it. There's frankly not many other places that are talking about any of this (I'd be happy to know of any, honestly).

So what am I saying? Well, it's something I've been considering for a while as I've watched separatism and even "what makes a feminist radical" discourse unfold on here. I think we need to recognize that movements evolve, and we are playing a part in that evolution. How radical feminism was defined then (for example, that it technically allowed for transsexualism) isn't gonna be true forever and so it is with separatism..

I think we should continue to dialogue on this and even take it upon ourselves to come up for terms to distinguish between separatism as a movement that focuses on celibacy and separatism as a principle that can be practiced in multiple forms.

Because if you're trying to appeal to theory as proof that separatism only means celibacy, Frye herself won't stand by you.

I agree with the rest of both of your points, though. And I'd be really interested in a post where you discuss what you mentioned in your tags @imjusthereforashorttime :) i found it really thought-provoking and would like to see more of your thoughts on how dating misogynists (even "tame" ones) will usually still inevitably lead to mellowing feminist women.

btw separatism is mutli-modal and you can still be het-partnered and practice separatism. as much as i believe the most effective kind of separatism is not partnering with men, i don't think that excludes women from other forms of separatism bc it doesn't.

[arco-pluris]

Monosexism × Zedsexism

Both result from heterosexism, and I’m making this post to explain the words, I didn’t invent, to show they describe things common and accepted by many people inside and outside the variant/LGBTQIAPN+/IMOGA community.

Definitions

Heterosexism: belief in social normality is to be straight (strict perioriented allo-mono-heterosexual).

· Monosexism: belief that people are only attracted to one gender (aphobia, biphobia, phobia, polyphobia, omniphobia…). Within this are:

} Zedsexism / Allosexism / Zedism: belief that all people will be affectively attracted to others, like sex/romance/touch/friendship, and want that. Within this are:

- Aphobia (acephobia / arophobia): discrimination against people of the a- spectrum (aromantic, asexual, asensual, aplatonic, etc.)

- Allonormativity / Zednormativity, umbrella term for:

Sex-normativity: the idea that everyone is sexually attracted / interested in sex;

Amato-normativity: the idea that everyone is romantically attracted or interested in romance. Similar to monogamism (mononormative polyphobia/monogamist polymisia);

Touch-normativity / Sense-normativity: the idea that everyone is corporeally/physically/tactilely attracted or sensually/sensorially interested in touches/sensory (hugs, kisses, hands given, etc);

Socio-normativity (plato-normativity): it is the idea that everyone is platonically/amically/socially attracted and must be interested in friendships; the platonic/social/amical norm merged into the nonromantic nonsexual relationships, including impersonal/professional ones in public life sphere; bigotry experienced by asocials/anamicals/aplatonics and anattractionals;

Look-normativity (lookism/unatractiphobia): the idea that everyone is aesthetically attracted and interested in appearance, or aesthetic discrimination against aesthetic celibacy;

~ [others]

} Homosexism: thought that all people are homosexual until proven otherwise, as in political lesbianism and exorsexist mascunormativity (masculist andrinism, binarist androsexism). Another thought advocated by homonationalists and self-defined homosexists that they should only relate to other <perioriented> homosexuals (gays with gays and lesbians with lesbians). Basically respectability politics glorifying homonormativity.

} Perism/Periorism (periorientism or variphobia): bigotry against varioriented people, the idea that everyone shouldn’t be cross-oriented, being all perioriented, when the romantic and sexual orientations have to be the same (perioriented);

} Orientation/Identity Binarism: limiting the existence of orientations/identities into a duality/binarity, as: homo and hetero; mono and bi; bi, ace and mono (as if there was only man and woman as genders, a dualism). Within this are:

- Pomophobia/Labelism: the thought that people can’t have undefined attractions, as in macrolabel supremacism vs identity skepticism. A monolabel and macrolabel supremacism;

- Strictism/Suptilicism (abrophobia/amplusphobia/orientation suptilism): belief that nobody has fluid nor flux attraction, everyone has to be suptilic, as in ace/asexual elitism (greyphobia/grayphobia/gray-aphobia/gracephobia/graymisia/greymisia/grey-amisia) [usually with a bioessentialist innatism too];

- Bisexism: belief everyone is bisexual, reinforcing/enforcing the binormativity.

- [other] (panphobia/polyphobia/etc)

Note: peri/dycisheterosexism is a substitute for LGBTphobia / MOGAIphobia.

Aspec people aren’t attracted by one gender, except when they are gray-mono (singular attraction in grey area), but this is just adherent, and suptilic a-specs (of black area, omniaces/omniaros) are totally non-mono.

People always assume what kind of gender we might relate to, and when they don’t know and we never show or express something more for someone, people will always want to define us, and when we get out of social normality, which is dycishet² (cis-hetero-dyadic pattern), we have to give explanations, they call us confused, complicated, ill, etc. All this because our orientation is dissident/variant, and when we express what we feel, where the allonormativity is unmasked, we have to prove our sexuality / affectivity.

Almost all of society treat relationships as if everyone must kiss, have sex, romance, etc. as a requirement for existing, and that if there is not all of it, it’s just friendship.

A- Spectrum (a-spectral): inclusion for asexual, aromantic, asensual, aplatonic/asocial, ansthetic/nonaesthetic, analterous and aqueerplatonic people (avoid using aphilia, since a-spec is not synonymous with loveless/unaffective, these people can rather love and have affection).

Dycishet/Pericishet (a strict perioriented heterosexual dyadic/perisex cisgender cissex/ual person): a conformant person, with suptilic heterosexuality, monoallosexual/zedsexual periorientation, suptilian monocom-cisgenderness and perisexuality [read more here].

Dyadicity (perisex/endosex): non-intersex person, of vulval or testicular dyadic corporeality/body [read more].

MOGAI or IMOGA: intersexualities, marginalized orientations and gender alignments. People whose sexuality/romanticity/gender/sex diverge the pericishet/dyallomonocishet pattern (pericisheterodissident).

Note: I’m sorry if I translated something bad, English is my second language. Helpful sources: x x.

[zoolon]

SHE COULDN'T HELP HERSELF

SHE COULDN’T HELP HERSELF

‘Black Widow Marionette’ – Artwork by Johan Swanepoel

All decent blokes support the feminists. However, in one society the masculists – is that a real word? – need a helping hand. You probably knew this already. In case you didn’t, ‘Black widow spiders are arachnids that are known for the females’ unique appearance and tendency to eat their mates’ – courtesy of livescience.com.

The spider…

[odinokoveng]

Review: The Red Pill

(Translated from Russian for the Against the Odds FB Group.)

Just watched The Red Pill, a documentary about the MRM (Men's Rights Movement), not related to the reddit pickup forum of the same name.

The production of the movie is of a very high quality.

The problems of men are well-disclosed, although the problems of boys and male youth could be given more attention. It is well-shown that MRAs as a whole are, like feminists, also against traditional gender roles and not opposed to change. That they, on the contrary, see the problem in how traditionalist society is still trying to keep men in place, while the paradigm of "femininity" has been successfully progressing for decades now, thanks to feminism. That the function of a woman as the muse, the guardian of the hearth, and the incubator for infants is forced less with each generation, while the function of men as an expendable and replaceable material is still firmly embedded in culture, and their individual value continues to be measured by social and financial success — with all the tragic consequences. It is mentioned in passing that the oppression of men by the society should not be conflated with the mythical oppression of heterosexuals or white people and that gender works differently from sexuality or race. This, it seems to me, could be emphasize a bit stronger.

The problems within the MRM itself are not analyzed in any way, namely:

— destructive elements of the approaches and views dominating within the movement;

— excessive reliance on anecdotal evidence (i.e. private, heard or read somewhere, rarely verified and often narratively distorted stories without showing general statistics), which have also appeared in the film a couple of times;

— words and actions of repugnant central figures of the movement, such as Paul Elam, who is shown here all white and fuzzy;

— the belief that "satirical" gender-swapped rewritings of misandric clickbait articles are a good, eye-opening practice and not misguided making two wrongs in an attempt to make a right;

— a blind militant antifeminism, which, in recent years, has almost completely consumed the activities of prominent Western MRA, with blind demonization of the Duluth model and calls to overthrow the anti-DV systems based on the Model; the speakers completely overlook the fact that systems are actively evolving, studies based on the model already include male victims, and the "use of male privilege" part of earlier versions of the Duluth "power and control wheel" is increasingly replaced by plain "use of privileges" (sometimes with the specification "social privileges" or "gender privileges"), "manipulating the system" (which includes abuse of systemic bias to consider the man as an aggressor by default), and "domination", and prominent feminists, including those most hated by antifeminists, do not forget to inform the public about the male victims of abuse and rape.

Obviously, due to the same blindness, the conflict between the MRM and feminism is portrayed unpleasantly one-sidedly. Feminism is shown strictly as a camp of antagonists, including angry saboteurs and close-minded ideologues, carriers of an ignorant, irrelevant, and completely false view: "Legally, there is no discrimination," which is much more popular within antifeminists than feminists. Yes, this part of the conflict is necessary to show, but it is not fair to stop there. Difficult and important questions are not asked to either one of the "sides" shown, and this is why the "side" on which the film does not focus looks too superficial, while the "side" at the center of the narrative gets away with almost everything.

For example, without any corrections, Erin Pizzey voices incorrect data about domestic violence:

— as if in the absolute majority of cases, family violence is "a two-way street" (actually, it is only true for a half of the cases across the population);

— as if family violence experienced in childhood is an indicator of a high probability of becoming a source of family violence in the future (firstly, in view of the psychological mechanism of imitation, the probability does increase, but not by much, secondly, because of denial, self-blame, and the "victim" role learned through the mechanism of child adaptation thrown off a healthy course, in adulthood, it is just as likely to be re-victimized or have a relationship with an abuser; thus, individual by individual, having learned about family violence experienced by a person in childhood, we can not assert their own inclination to violence with any certainty).

You CAN describe the societal hypocrisy, the invisibility of male victims and LGBT+ victims, as well as the harm brought by the (cis)genderization of the topic of domestic violence, without deceitful statistics. Just as you can discuss gender nuances within the topic of domestic violence without its (cis)genderization.

If you don't count the author — and she eventually takes such a position that she, IMO, should not be counted — there is absolutely no representation of feminist "denominations" that do not mock masculist ideas and do not fight them (only their harmful elements), and of those who also considers patriarchy not as an expression of male attempts to retain social power but as a product of a self-perpetuating gender binary system that assigns social functions, demands, expectations, and taboos to individuals according to their genitals. I mean, yeah, there is no representation of me personally.

The bias and the polarization of positions is understandable here, just as with any other documentary. But unpleasant nonetheless, just as with any other documentary.

Personally, I'd like to see a clearer emphasis made on the asymmetry and incomparability of gendered oppression of women and men by the traditionalist society. Yes, it seems to be implied in the film, but it is TOO implicit for my taste. So, the topic of "apples and oranges", meaning asymmetric problems produced by a culture for individuals based on their assigned gender, is not discussed to my satisfaction. There is only one segment mentioning statistics within the fields where men are unequivocally disadvantaged. The point "This is not a competition!" is not voiced in any shape or form.

In general, I don't think there is anything in the film that is worthy of protests or boycotts. But there is a lot of things worthy of analysis and criticisms. As well as just watching. First of all, by feminists and feminist allies in order to deepen their views on gender issues. And I'm not sure if the documentary should be watched by MRAs. It is almost entirely a product of the MRA echo-chamber; a typical masculist already knows about all the problems described there, while the perspective on the feminist/MRA conflict shown there is not a very healthy one and can only aggravate the already hostile attitudes. This, I believe, is the primary disadvantage of the film.