Is this really what you mean by “safe space”?  How can you have any hope of actually creating discourse if by default any dissenting opinions are removed?

Creating an echo chamber in order to insulate yourself from ideas contrary to your dogma is generally unproductive unless your goal is to form a cult.

This sentence seems to be saying that misogyny somehow makes misandry impossible.  If this is the correct reading of this sentence, it’s an incredibly bold claim, one that’s almost impossible to support.  At the very least, this article offers none of the support that statement would require.

We don’t.

Wrong.  Rape is a relatively gender-symmetric crime; statistics that paint men as overwhelmingly the perpetrators and women as overwhelmingly the victims tend to ignore the fact that forced envelopment is rape.  Since you seem to only understand comparisons involving women, it’s basically the equivalent of saying “well, rape is rape, but rape doesn’t count if they’re married.”

Just as we should ignore female victims of any other type of violence, right?  Remember, men are the overwhelming victims of every form of violence that isn’t sexual or domestic.

Except the fact that rape is a relatively gender-symmetric crime makes your point entirely moot.  Your attempt to paint this as a problem with men is an example of misandric erasure of victims, and it’s as sexist as “who gives a shit, it’s just black people killing each other” is racist.

Also wrong.  Much like rape, domestic abuse is relatively gender-symmetric.  In fact, on average women are slightly more likely to be abusive than men, and that’s even with most studies entirely excluding avenues of abuse most favored by women.

Crimes are ignored by society at large in a powerful demonstration of misogynistic hatred?  What crimes?  Rape?  Domestic violence?

Compare the reaction to those to any other kind of crime and you’ll realize that they get the most notice.  When was the last time you saw a mass protest or march in the streets regarding assault or burglary?  Rape allegations have similar attrition and conviction rates to other crimes, which is astounding when we consider that most rape allegations involve no concrete evidence whatsoever.

Ironically, the misogynistic hatred thing is almost a bit true - the reason these crimes are seen as so terrible is because the gender binary kyriarchy.  In this case, though, you’re strengthening it, not fighting it.

This really isn’t a strawman, considering feminism’s history of erasing male victims of crimes that are seen as traditionally suffered by women.  Feminists are more than happy to throw male victims under a bus to benefit women, and they’ve done so more than a few times in the past.  If feminists really want every individual to have justice, they’re doing a spectacularly awful job of it.

This is reframing the issue and derailing.  The fact that women are hurt in one area doesn’t change the fact that men are hurt in another.  We could leave it at that, but let’s take a look at some of the individual portions.

If we’re to examine the number of women that are tired stereotypes, it’s only fair that we do the same for men.  Yes, men are more likely to be main characters than women, but how many of them fall outside a small handful of protagonist stereotypes?  If we look at all the men to show up on screen, we find that overwhelmingly one stereotype asserts itself: cannon fodder.  Of the men on screen, how many are nameless mooks set up to be killed (or defeated, humiliated…) by the main cast?  How many women are?  When it comes to stereotypes, neither men nor women get off easy.  However, there’s a separate and uniquely noxious set of stereotypes targeted at men that would not be tolerated if directed at women.

As for the Chippendales, you’re heavily confusing cause and effect.  Women make up a major TV audience, which means that their tastes dictate as much (and depending on the area, often more) of what shows up as men.  In the case of large sections of advertising (where some of these stereotypes are particularly common) the skew is even greater.  In both cases, the comparison is meant to make the target audience (in this case “women”) feel good about themselves.  An easy way to do that is to make them feel superior by offering them an idealized portrayal to empathize with and an acceptable target to look down on.  This is a similar argument to the feminists claims regarding men’s and women’s idealized figures in graphic media, except that being unusually well-endowed and sexual isn’t an inherently negative portrayal.

Finally (entirely irrelevant link to Forbes ignored), we come to the all-too-common claim of the “second shift”; women are supposedly taking an equal share of the workplace duties while still pulling more than their share of the load at home.  The problem with this claim is simple: when both paid and unpaid work in the aggregate are taken into account, men and women do roughly equal amounts of work.  In fact, a whole host of studies have come to the same conclusion.  Part of the problem was that original methods of quantifying “housework” didn’t adequately measure (and indeed often completely ignored) the types of housework men were most likely to do such as property maintenance.  When all of these things are accounted for, men do as much if not more overall work as women and a larger portion of housework than previously believed.

Reframing the issue.  Again.

First, femmephobia's not at fault.  Gender roles are.  After all, exceedingly butch bearded ladies aren’t loved by society, are they?  Not all aspects of masculinity are appreciated in women, and many of those that are have become that way as a result of half a century of advocacy and active social change.  In other words, you’re taking a spectacular success of feminist activism and labeling it “patriarchal.”

Society likes masculine men and feminine women and has accepted, however grudgingly, some level of masculinity in women after being pressured for longer than most people have been alive.  You do not get to then turn around and argue that the real reason is that it’s all actually misogyny.  If misandry is magical, then misogyny must be quantum: despite being a real-life phenomenon with important implications to certain things, when it gets into the hands of a scriptwriter it can suddenly do whatever the plot demands.

How else could you take clear evidence that men are more restricted by society and argue that it’s all because society hates women?

The wage gap isn’t what you think it is.  Your “hiring discrimination” link is a dead end.

Even if it were, you’d just be derailing and reframing - the fact that one group is hurt in an area doesn’t mean another group isn’t hurt in a different area.  Do you really think rights are some sort of zero-sum game?  We certainly hope not.

Separately, how on earth would workplace issues faced by women after graduation justify efforts to increase the number of women attending university when they already make up a significant and increasing majority of university students?  We’re not sure where you’re getting your logic, because that makes about as much sense as us saying, “men should be given special consideration in university entrance because more men die on the job than women.”

Reframing.  You do realize that the current state of the family court system is a direct result of the Tender Years Doctrine, itself a direct product of feminist advocacy, right?  The “coded misogyny” you’re claiming exists here is the direct product of the movement supposedly devoted to fighting sexism in general and misogyny in specific (given that most members, including you, refuse to admit the other half of sexism exists).

An incredible amount of doublethink is necessary in order to stagger through that line of reasoning.  When men have more obligations due to being seen as being better at something, you label it “misogyny.”  When women have more obligations due to being seen as being better at something, you also label it “misogyny.”  How could you ever support these sorts of blatantly sexist double standards?

I’m sure you can understand why we might come to question the integrity of your conclusions when your definition of “misogyny” is sufficiently flexible and unfalsifiable that you can interpret any case of gender inequity (and indeed many cases of gender equity) as being misogyny.  When every possible outcome can be taken as confirming the beliefs you already hold, that’s called “faith,” not “knowledge.”

What does any of this even mean?  If we’re reading this right, you’re boldly stating outright what we thought you were smart enough to only imply: regardless of the situation, you will label all sexism as misogyny to the point where you do not even distinguish the two.  Sexism against men is misogyny, sexism against women is misogyny.  If someone shoots another person in the head simply because they’re a man, that’s a hate crime against women.  Your statement is absolutely insane.

Except discrimination against men is institutional in nature, and you’re falling into the apex fallacy quite badly right here.  Everything in your argument is assumed as premise, you label things as “inarguable” and “undebateable”, and you need a prescriptivist power + prejudice definition that is only accepted within a relatively small community of like-minded activists for any of it to make sense at all.  Suffice it to say that your “point” isn’t exactly the most valid.  Basically, you’ve defined men as unable to experience sexism, then turned around and used that as evidence of why men don’t experience sexism.  It’s circular, fallacious, and just plain stupid.

A line-by-line refutation to this section isn’t really even necessary when you realize that the gender binary kyriarchy isn’t the fault of men.

In that case, women should do the same when discussing misogyny.

Keeping in mind that men are overwhelmingly the victims of violence, this sentence seems extremely silly.

Think about the social freedoms afforded to women that aren’t to men.

Think of the similar number of men who were attacked, and think about how people won’t even acknowledge that they exist.

I’m asking you to stop being self-serving, short-sighted and partisan.  I’m asking you to stop acting like you’re the only victim.  I’m asking you to try and understand others, and empathize with them.  I’m asking you to not erase other victims to make your own problems seem more important.  I’m asking you, simply enough, to not be a bad person.

  1. jalopyrustbucket reblogged this from permutationofninjas
  2. entemos reblogged this from mothernatureisamisogynist
  3. awliterate reblogged this from beaconsoftomorrow
  4. beaconsoftomorrow reblogged this from mothernatureisamisogynist
  5. mothernatureisamisogynist reblogged this from permutationofninjas
  6. harmozel reblogged this from checkmateyourprivilege
  7. skyeviking reblogged this from mothernatureisamisogynist
  8. brett-caton reblogged this from feduptoinfinity
  9. galaxee23 reblogged this from checkmateyourprivilege
  10. nostlenne reblogged this from neverendinginquiry and added:
    Wow.
  11. greenrangerjustice reblogged this from feduptoinfinity and added:
    Its insane how much I love that blog. Seriously
  12. viredae reblogged this from feduptoinfinity and added:
    The blog is as loquacious as it is informed.
  13. neverendinginquiry reblogged this from feduptoinfinity
  14. feduptoinfinity reblogged this from checkmateyourprivilege and added:
    I love PoN so much.
  15. checkmateyourprivilege reblogged this from permutationofninjas
  16. frauvelv reblogged this from fucknointernetignorance
  17. usagi-angelique reblogged this from fucknointernetignorance
  18. fluttastic reblogged this from fucknointernetignorance
  19. yarriinwonderland reblogged this from permutationofninjas