"not all men"
If you you say Not All Men Are Like That, you really are just saying But I Am. Because you are valuing people’s perception of you over the expression of the woman’s pain.
So does that mean that I’m allowed to say that women are violent, murderous rapists unless proven otherwise, and that trying to point out the sexism in that is “valuing people’s perception of you over the expression of men’s pain”? Or is misandry acceptable and misogyny not because… reasons? Or is your reason to deny the evidence presented?
Also, prejudice, whether it takes the form of misandry, misogyny, racism, or whatever, is not an “expression of pain.” It’s just mindless hate. And if you’re causing yourself pain because of your own mindless hate, I reserve the right to not give a shit.
To focus on one aspect, let’s examine rape. Yes, many laws still represent the heteronormative view of penetrative rape. Laws written and enforced primarily by men. Women have been trying to get those laws fixed because rapists sometimes get free because of not actually penetrating.
I have known many women who have told me they were raped. No men. Now there is even more social stigma attached to men being raped because it is identified as emasculating (again, a patriarchal concept). But I have had close enough male friendships that surely one person would have shared their pain.
I used to do pest control in homes and business. Probably been in 2000 different buildings. I have been in foreign countries. Frequently lost as that is something I do. And never once have I felt the need for mace. Never felt like I might be sexually attacked (the closest was in Germany by some guys). But avoiding being raped is something women have to do frequently.
Prejudice is not a good thing, but it only really becomes a problem when combined with power. If you have a male boss and a female employee, both prejudiced. He says “you are fired, I dislike women” and she replies “you are fired, i HATE men with a burning passion”. Do you really think that they were both wrong and hurtful? Maybe she was worse because it was much stronger in wording? But He still has a job and She does not. Misogyny is real, misandry is not. Because men have institutional power. If you don’t believe that to be true, despite the mountain of evidence (ex. 100% of presidents have been men) then you are purposely choosing to be ignorant.
Racial Prejudice + Institutional Power = Racism
There you go, denying evidence. If there’s gender symmetry in rape, why is it that “avoiding being raped is something women have to do frequently” and not men? This claim is not based on the practicality of one sex facing a problem more often than the other; this claim is built around misandry and the denial of male rape victims. Again, you completely dodged the issue here. Furthermore, the precedent of researchers defining rape as one person penetrating another without their consent sure as hell wasn’t set by a man.
Any time someone talks about the “patriarchy” or “a patriarchal concept” and how it “hurts men,” I have to just sit and stare in amazement. We’re talking about a conspiracy theory whose core concept is that it is to protect the interest of men… and yet it seems that every single man alive has been harmed by it… seriously, in fact. How does that even work? Aside from that, it must be the most ineffective conspiracy to date, given the success of the women’s suffrage movement and other things I will discuss later in this post.
Before I get into that, though, let’s talk about power. First of all, you make the false assumption that the only power someone can have is political, and only if it’s “institutional.” This flies in the face of pretty much everything history has taught us about political power, but you know what? We’ll get back to that. A more pressing issue is about presidents. In 2008, when Hillary Clinton decided to try for the presidency, the Democratic party chose (via democratic primaries) Obama over her. The Democratic party, in case you didn’t know, has a fairly strong gender gap in favor of women. This was for an election that the Democratic party was going to win, hands-down. The Democratic primaries were essentially choosing the next President, thanks to the state of the economy and the public opinion on the wars being fought at the time. In other words, women made the choice for there to not be a female president (side note: WTF? Clinton was a far better candidate than Obama). In fact, women make up the majority votes period. In the Democratic theory of a Democratic Republic, where the people in power are either elected or appointed by the elected (and, for the Democratic part, laws are enacted directly by voters), officials serve at the pleasure of the voters. So while a president may hold overt power, it is only because said president represents the interests of the voters (or can make the appearance of doing so), who hold practical power. In a country that has such an extreme gender gap in voters, this means that women hold the practical power in the US by Democratic theory.
But there’s an interesting feature of Republics and incomplete Democracies not represented by voting statistics: Lobbying power. This lobbying power extends not just to influence on politicians, but voters as well. This is best illustrated in the modern age by pointing out how much of an issue education is. Only a tiny percent of voters directly benefit from improved education (those in school at 18 will have graduated before they have a chance to vote if on track, so only those whose graduation is delayed benefit directly). Why is it such an issue? Simple: Children have lobbying power with their parents and others that seek to protect and benefit them. This is an especially important example, because it’s an example where the lobby itself doesn’t even enforce the lobbying power it has; that power is passive. There is a multitude of evidence that women held voter lobbying power (over their husbands, sons, etc) before suffrage, but since you seem only to care about representatives (and representatives in the US over any other country to boot) and not the individual voters, let’s talk about a couple of examples of women’s lobbying power over representatives in the US. Just a couple, as this post is already going to be fairly long, though this could be a world history course in and of itself.
The first example is the Women’s Christian Temperance Union. This was the first major prohibition lobby (the prohibition party being a political party and, therefore, not a lobby), and the ASL owed pretty much the entirety of its existance to the WCTU. Not only did the WCTU successfully sway public opinion in favor of prohibition enough to lead to a Constitutional Amendment on the issue, but it also lobbied very successfully for other laws and policy changes long before the 19th Amendment, something else for which it lobbied.
But hey, let’s talk about that little paradox of Patriarchy Theory. Somehow, an agenda designed solely for the detriment of women to the benefit of men decided that women, who are the majority, should have equal voting rights as men. Yet it goes even further than that. You see, the “right” to vote was actually a myth at the time. Just a few years before the 19th Amendment was ratified, the Supreme Court said as much. The “rights” of citizenship (including, but not limited to, the “right” to vote) were not rights at all, but rather were part of an exchange. One that included compulsory military service, should the government decide it necessary. In fact, one of the arguments that women opposed to suffrage made involved the problem of this exchange. Another argument, you’ll note, is the argument of women already possessing political power without the vote (I would be remiss if I did not point out that a number of their arguments are somewhat sexist, but these are a red herring to the point of the illusion of the “right” to vote).
If men hold such power, as you claim, and are interested in using it primarily for the benefit of men (including holding that power), as Patriarchy Theory implies, why is it that women received, as a right, what men had only as a life-threatening exchange? Why is it that men still have to go through that exchange (one that includes more than just the “right” to vote, though that aspect has been removed) in many states, but women don’t? It’s not because of “patriarchy,” either. Suffragists were just completely disinterested in this. Their drafts of the 19th Amendment did not include obligations placed on men in exchange for citizenship as part of their call for a right to vote. The feminist response to the Selective Service Act was to ensure that they’d have a political say, whether they would be required to register for the draft or not. Once it was clear that this exchange was not and would not be a requirement for women, they dropped the issue. Why, if men held such power and were interested in keeping that power for themselves, would they give women (the majority) the right to vote without even bothering to make the same demands of them as are made of men?
The last time a major draft happened was during Vietnam, true. But when was the time that a major draft happened before that? And before that? Major drafts don’t happen often, but they do happen. They did in the past and dismissing the possibility of it in the future is absurd on the face of it, even setting aside the issues that men that did not register (for whatever reason) face (as mentioned above). Remember: We’re not talking about voluntary military service here. We’re talking about forced conscription.
Let’s move on to the evidence you so conveniently ignored when you were making your grand argument about “men in power” and how misandry doesn’t exist because women have no power to enforce it. In fact, let’s discuss that violence link. First of all, those women hardly needed any political power to be abusive their husbands and boyfriends. But the real kicker is the existance of “Predominant Aggressor” policies. Women certainly didn’t need to hold majority “institutional power” for feminist groups to enact these policies when they didn’t like the way the numbers looked without them. A man being ignored after being attacked with a frying pan because he’s larger than his wife or one being arrested for a woman fracturing her arm on his while trying to stab him seems to me to be cases where we might consider misandry to be a thing that affects men negatively. Funny how feminists were successful in getting those laws—laws which benefit female abusers to the detriment of male victims—passed, and yet we still have the sexist definition of rape.
Before they bothered trying to deal with victims of female-on-male rape, they also decided that it would be a good idea to lobby for lower physical standards for female police officers in some areas (as well as other life-or-death jobs), putting men and women at risk for the sake of arbitrary quotas. And yet, they still haven’t been successful in getting society to recognize that that “99% of rape victims are women” statistic is crap because it’s the way we define rape. In fact, there seems to be a lot more support for spreading that statistic than there is among feminists for pointing out the flaws.
I wonder what these issues could tell us about feminism as a whole and where the majority power lies in that movement. Could it be that it lies with the sort of woman that would send death threats to the first woman to open a women’s shelter for victims of domestic violence for daring to suggest that most abuse is reciprocal or those that seek to hide the evidence that it is? Is it any wonder that she’s become an active supporter of the Men’s Rights Movement, given that she’s never received death threats from them for suggesting such a thing? Or maybe it lies with the women that would burn a book because it explains how, in the 90’s, boys and girls were struggling in school and policies were enacted that focused on the way girls learn, effectively sacrificing the education of boys for the benefit of girls. Funny how those girls that have benefitted didn’t need to hold “institutional power” over the boys that suffered and still do suffer for those policies to take effect.
And, of course, when did Valerie Solanas need “institutional power” to attempt to murder three men because she couldn’t find her publisher and those three were just… good enough for her? I suppose it’s the patriarchal system that caused her gun to jam before she could actually be successful in killing them?
And that’s to say nothing of social power. For example, laughing at male victims of rape (I’m sure she’s real concerned at the definition of rape) or posting articles expressing glee over the majority abusers in relationships being women. That article was posted seven years ago, has been viewed more than 60,000 times, has many comments with women gleefully recalling beating up their partners (or expressing dismissive attitudes towards abuse), and it still stands. It’s still considered a socially acceptable article by one of the top 500 sites in the US, and certainly one of the top sites aimed at women.
And, since the whole “not all men” thing started with Elliot Rodger, let’s discuss that. Here was someone that killed more men than he did women and had multiple motivations for his killing spree—not just misogyny—and yet the primary issue in the media is that he killed women and that he was a misogynist, along with misattributing him as a Men’s Rights Activist when he actually had no connection with any MRM group whatsoever. Some articles have even gone so far as to list the various “pick up artist” sites on which he posted and then claim that these show he had a connection to the MRM, a movement that has literally nothing to do with PUAs and wants nothing to do with them. No one cares about his other motivations, properly fact-checking the accusations against MRAs, or the men that died (3 of whom he killed because of his racism) in the slightest.
Women are afraid that men will kill them? Well, men are afraid that they’ll be forgotten.
One more point on Elliot Rodger and social power. There’s a lot of claims that go around about women and “slut shaming,” but slut shaming is not a generally acceptable practice, especially when it comes to women (imagine Ted telling Robin that she “should be tested” or Marshall telling her that she’s disgusting). Virgin shaming of men, on the other hand, is. This is why men regret their sexual experiences more than women. It isn’t their partners pressuring them to have sex. It’s society. And this is why Rodger being a virgin was such an issue for him. This is why he turned to “pick up artists” (and later anti-PUAs, not MRAs) for advice.
So… no. “Institutional power” is not necessary for actual power, nor is it necessary for hate to be detrimental. Keep in mind that I didn’t address anywhere close to half the issues and already this post is too long. Hell, I could double its size just talking about the gender bias in divorce courts (how many divorce court judges are female, I wonder). Unless the man gets an amazing lawyer and the woman a pretty shitty one, the woman can essentially make any demands she pleases and the courts will grant her those demands. Nor did I discuss bias in criminal sentencing, both when it comes to perpetrators and victims. I certainly feel that my interests as a man are super protected when, say, killing a man with no other crime is punished less severely than killing a woman with no other crime, and these are just two of a multitude of issues.
You know, I take it back. Men aren’t afraid that they’ll be forgotten. Men are afraid that they’ll be killed and no one will care.
I suppose I should point out that I did address the whole “male boss/female employee” thing not too long ago as a side note to the wage gap issue (and that’s aside from the absurdity in your claim and a complete lack of understanding of the legal system, which maybe you can see from these examples is very biased towards women).
Now, brevity is not a strength I have. This post is… really long (4 pages in Word, not counting the content of the links) and trying to argue against the entirety of it would be even more absurd than actually making a post like this. I don’t expect you to try, and I know that I certainly wouldn’t. All I ask is that you have a little intellectual honesty and not treat the argument like it ended with your post. Whether you agree or disagree, please reblog this and just say so. No one should expect a reply longer than that to a post like this. Besides, I’m sure someone else as crazy as me will work on it if you reblog it.
Edit: Let’s be clear on something: Feminism itself is not the problem. The problem is misandric feminists that hold power in the feminist movement and their ideals, confirmation bias, outright lies, and things like that affecting other feminists. Heck, how many women self-identifying as feminists even know that men are just as likely to be raped by “forced envelopment” as a woman is to suffer rape or attempted rape? And that doesn’t even count other times a man would be raped, such as by penetration or via “alcohol/drug facilitated” envelopment. Ask a feminist and they’ll tell you that rape is a women’s issue. The same thing for domestic abuse. They’ll tell you that Elliot Rodgers was an MRA and MRAs feel that they have a “right” to women’s bodies. The reason why they’ll say this isn’t because feminism itself is flawed or necessarily that they’re not well-meaning, but rather because of misandric feminists affect the views of the gender equality crowd and have a disproportionate amount of power in our society, including inspiring misandry in other women (and in men… I used to be a misandrist).