Is misandry and racism towards whites real? — Anonymous
I feel like this depends on how you define the terms. By your definitions, yes, sure, they exist.
It’s first important to remember that these aren’t just our definitions, they’re common-use definitions that have arisen naturally. There are some, like you, who wish to redefine terms to suit their ideological ends, but in the end we have to call that what it is: they’re co-opting existing language that already belongs to others, not the other way around.
But we who disagree with you are using the terms in context of societal oppression. Are whites oppressed? No. Are men oppressed? No. Can there be prejudice against them? Yes.
Could you give an explanation of your definition of “oppression” and “societal oppression”? Under your definition, do you believe that women are currently oppressed in the First World? How about in the United States? Do you believe that Afrikaners are currently oppressed?
By your definition, does oppression require an “oppressor class,” and if so, can you define what you mean by that term? Can the oppressor class itself be oppressed?
But the terms “racism” and misandry’s conjugate “misandry” are commonly used by already existing communities to refer to experiences of oppression.
Could you explain what you mean by “‘racism’ and misandry’s conjugate ‘misandry’”? You’re not quite coming through.
Regardless, if we’re understanding you correctly this calls back to our earlier point: these words have preexisting definitions already in common use. You are doing the co-opting, not the other way around.
It’s my opinion that to use those terms for the experience of oppressORs fundamentally undermines the ability of the oppressed to speak about their experiences. It sidelines them, particularly when people jump in on discussions of women’s oppression to talk about prejudice against men. Things that are not parallel and not relevant to the discussion. Parallelling the two asymmetric situations devalues those who experience oppression and robs us of the ability to speak on that oppression with the terms that have come to be accepted — regardless of the dictionary definitions of those words, which may indeed support what you are claiming.
Does belonging to a particular race or gender mean that you can’t be assaulted, murdered, or suffer institutional discrimination? Speaking personally, I use accepted common-use language to describe discrimination against others. Does that at all alter my ability to describe what happens to me as a POC trans woman?
The use of this language does not preclude derailing. And, while derailing can definitely be harmful, even you must admit that discussions on women’s issues often fail to be intersectional and inclusive. Oftentimes, the plight of men is similar, relevant, and parallel to the plight of women, and this is not acknowledged nearly enough.
You say whether racism oppresses someone or not is irrelevant, but that’s not how the broader social justice community uses the term. We don’t talk about racism as separate from oppression; racism is a form of oppression. Racism against white people, in that context, cannot exist.
Sure. However, the way the “broader social justice community” uses the term is also not how the “rest of the world” uses the term. You can play the “wider group” game if you want, but it’s really not going to work here.
At this point, it might be more profitable for you to just acknowledge what you’re doing for what it is: an attempt to control the terms of the debate in order to manipulate people’s emotional responses. ”Racism” (just like all -isms) comes with connotations and emotional impact. By attempting to force people from certain groups to use different terminology, you attempt to delegitimize their claims without having to address their content. In short, the goal is to force them away from the commonly accepted vernacular, and in doing so open an avenue for attack on their argument.
It’s not a bad tactic, but it’s also certainly a dishonest and underhanded one.
Prejudice against white people, sure, but that’s an entirely different issue. There’s no structural oppression against white people reinforced with the bloody slaughter and/or enslavement of our people for centuries.
Are you really ignorant of the Afrikaaners? The Barbary slave trade? The entire Ottoman empire? If you wish to remain ignorant to historical oppression against your people, be my guest, but don’t try to spread your ignorance to others.
To use the same word distracts from the discussion of the oppressed.
How? Please tell me. How? It doesn’t for me! If it distracts you, that’s your problem, because everyone else seems to be doing just fine.
To put it bluntly, yep.
To put it less bluntly, racism is defined as discrimination/prejudice towards someone’s race. Whether or not this oppresses someone is irrelevant. As for misandry, it means ‘the hatred of/contempt/prejudiced towards men.’ Since this site already displays that kind of behaviour proudly, as do others offline, yes, misandry exists.
There are enough spaces for white people and for men. Shouldn’t this one, if nothing else, these words which are currently in use as a forum for discussing oppression, be left to us?
Again, that simply isn’t what you’re asking for. What you’re asking for is for others to change their language to suit your wants. If you really want that so badly, you’re at least going to have to come up with a better justification, because this one makes no sense whatsoever.