cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/36418433
With surveys reporting that an increasing number of young men are subscribing to these beliefs, the number of women finding that their partners share the misogynistic views espoused by the likes of Andrew Tate is also on the rise. Research from anti-fascism organisation Hope Not Hate, which polled about 2,000 people across the UK aged 16 to 24, discovered that 41% of young men support Tate versus just 12% of young women.
“Numbers are growing, with wives worried about their husbands and partners becoming radicalised,” says Nigel Bromage, a reformed neo-Nazi who is now the director of Exit Hate Trust, a charity that helps people who want to leave the far right.
“Wives or partners become really worried about the impact on their family, especially those with young children, as they fear they will be influenced by extremism and racism.”
I’d like to address your comment about misogyny and misandry being equally bad.
If you mean “it is bad to be prejudiced against a man because he is a man, and it is bad to be prejudiced against a woman because she is a woman” then yes, these two things are equivalent.
But misogyny and misandry are not equal in terms of impact.
I take it you have not been through the family courts then?
Most men in that situation would trade 10-15% of their income for fair access to their kids. They also could come out with £30k debt which would be like 10% of their income for 20 years. This isn’t including the mental damage that can be inflicted.
Ask any parent is money or access to their kids more important. Very few would say money.
Most men aren’t CEOs holding women down. Most don’t feel that theoretical privilege.
The funny thing is that folk are so fixated on dogma around feminism they end up losing their audience in a debate. You see “shut up, man child. Acknowledge your privilege” attitudes followed by “why are men listening to Andrew Tate and not feminists”. The first should be locked up (edit: Andrew Tate this refers to) for a long time. The latter (edit: referring to those divisive posters) do contribute to pushing men away to the manosphere.
Did I misread? People who say “shut up manchild. Acknowledge your privilege.” Should go to jail?
But Andrew Tate’s hate platform “contributes to pushing men away to the Manosphere.”
Wut.
I meant it the other way around. Feel free to block me for a mistake as you suggest in your follow up post.
Why would I block you if it was an error? That makes no sense.
I read this, as you didn’t know, so you were going to block. I was informing you it was an error, but the quoted text didn’t read as you were waiting to find out before blocking.
I guess I don’t get how folk just block something they disagree with. I understand blocking bad faith actors. I don’t understand not finding out if someone was operating in good faith or not. My intention is generally to assume folk are in good faith unless there is clear information to the contrary.
Ah, no, not until you came back. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.
Appreciate the sentiment.
I get the feeling they meant to put it the other way around, as yeah it doesn’t really make any sense otherwise.
I sadly just don’t know anymore, and was ready to block and move on when this guy came back with some reasonable reason that doesn’t makes any sense at all…
I have not. I also did not say that this aspect of famiy law is not unfair to men. It is grossly unfair! It also has a complex history that isn’t easy to boil down to “men are bad, women are better”. It comes from patriarchal structures than enforce gendered roles that disadvantage both men and women.
But acknowledging is is unfair to men isn’t the same as saying misandry and misogyny are the same, because they have different effects and require different approaches to counteract them.
For example, misogyny accounts for violence against women at a greater extent than misandry accounts for violence against men. And to be clear: I am not saying that one of these situations is not as bad as the other. But they require different resources to manage the consequence and different approaches to tackle them.
Most CEOs aren’t women. While the average man might not feel that theoretical privilege, they are still represented in a way women are not. The discourse around privilege is not about making someone feel bad for having it, it’s about empowering people to recognise when others don’t have it.
Here’s a good example of male privilege: for decades, automobile safety systems were designed and tested with dummies that advantaged average males over females. For a man stepping into a vehicle, who had nothing to do with the design and testing of the safety systems, he probably won’t feel any more privileged than a woman in the same vehicle. But if the vehicle is in a serious accident, the woman is less protected.
Acknowledging that isn’t saying “shut up, you have no right to complain about the dangers of cars because someone else has it worse than you”. But it’s a reminder that there are other people with different experiences and needs to yours, because of the privileges not afforded to them.
Also, to address your final point: there is a long and storied history of chauvenists derailing conversations about misogyny by centering the dialogue on their complaints and injustices. This is why some men are told “shut up, man child”. I’m not a woman but I can imagine women are exhausted by this.
I agree with this, and don’t think they should be compared. They are separate problems that both need to be solved, not compared. I think problematically, the wealthy would rather pit men against women and vice versa because it diverts anger from the wealthy which are the real priviledged folk. Working class women, and men do not have a good shake of it. People with access to wealth will also get better legal outcomes and suffer less of the same challenges that most would.
What is the value of the representation though. It doesn’t bring in material benefit for most, just suppresses women’s income, and more specifically parents with the lion share of the responsibility for raising offspring as men raising children as single fathers also have an income penalty. It’s less a gender penalty and more of a childrearing penalty. Yes, women will generally be more adversely affected by this, but to treat it as a gendered issue and only solve it for women will not address the issue or make it go away.
I think any reasonable person would acknowledge that and want to fix that. It isn’t acceptable.
I think the response is also exhausting and does contribute to the division that is happening now. Unfortunately vast swaths of positive changes for inclusivity and diversity are getting wiped out because people didn’t want to have fair debates and pushed folk to toxic content creators. The fact society for a long time made talking about men’s issues taboo has created an unfortunate widespread rejection of this which is going to be hard to put back in the box. It is quite disturbing and those negative toxic folks are likely to damage the causes of men fighting against the injustices faced. Ultimately, the goal isn’t division, but solidarity. Solidarity and understanding are hard. It’s very easy to take the carrots and the rage bait and harden our positions rather than push ourselves to find that common ground.
I don’t feel penalising folk or invalidating experiences is fair response to misogynists hijacking men’s issues for their own political goals.
They are both sides of the same coin and have similarly detrimental impact on victims.
No. See, feminism just means that women and men should be equal.
Misogyny, hating women… and misandry, hating men… are not the same at all!
No, wait…
Saying that one half of the population’s problems are more important than the the other half of the population’s problems is by definition misandry and or misogyny….
It should be obvious that women have problems and issues that impact them more than others, and that if women are discriminated against it hurts all of us…
It should also be obvious that men have problems and issues that impact them more than others, and that if men are discriminated against it hurts all of us…
Acknowledging that both men and women have issues and problems is something that some of us find difficult to do. I personally think that arguing over who has it worse is counter productive and does more harm than good.
I personally don’t think feminism is the answer to inequity of the sexes. But it has been successful in getting society to acknowledge a lot of the systemic barriers women have faced. I also dont think we really would like the way “equality” would actually look like. “Equity” I believe would feel a lot better.
Agree it should mean that.
These are EXACTLY the same thing and equally inexcusable.
Yes, I was being facetious… that’s what the “no, wait” was meant to convey
(I was agreeing with you I should have used the /s thing but I assumed it was obvious for everything before the “no, wait”)
I’m not arguing that neither are wrong. But misogyny has very different outcomes to misandry, and I think it’a disingenuous to argue otherwise. They are not the same in terms of repercussion.
They are exactly the same in the terms of the impact - they are ruining victims lives.