DoesNotLikeMen vs. HeManWomanHater

Does Not Like Men

He-Man Woman Hater

I think if we are to discuss Double Standards, THESE are the ones we ought to start with, for the difference in attitudes towards misogyny and misandry are in a way sort of a "meta-double-standard" that reflects on so many others.

I often get the impression that misandry is more likely to be treated as excusable than misogyny. If a girl who was treated cruelly by guys ends up hating guys in general, she is considered "a victim who simply made a mistake in how she interprets what happened." If a guy who was treated cruelly by girls ends up hating girls in general, that's HIS problem for being sexist.

Well, isn't there something fundamentally sexist about THAT?

For what it's worth, I believe in erring on the side of compassion; we all make mistakes, and just because the mistakes of "bigots" happen to go against political correctness doesn't mean they should be looked at more judgmentally. Given human nature, however, it is probably more realistic to expect popular opinion to become more judgmental towards misandrists than sympathetic towards misogynists.

Issue is, though, these kinds of double standards are the symptom, but the disease would be whatever led to these kinds of double standards in the first place. How do you explain stuff like this?

edited 30th Apr '11 3:29:57 PM by neoYTPism

Does Not Like Men is not misandry and therefore not the Distaff Counterpart to He-Man Woman Hater.

Does Not Like Men is more disinterest than hate.

edited 30th Apr '11 4:23:10 PM by BlackHumor

Then Psycho Misandrist, Feminazi, and Misandry probably shouldn't redirect to Does Not Like Men.

And in a way, He-Man Woman Hater isn't really a misogynist either (well they are literally, but see below).

Sherlock Holmes is a He-Man Woman Hater, and like others of this type, he's on not someone who was wronged by a woman- he's more like disinterested to contemptuous and considers women a distraction.

Does Not Like Men characters differ in that they typically are motivated by being harmed by the opposite sex.

Not sure how much this has to do with real world gender relations, but that's what the tropes are about.

Edit- Redirects are free, but shouldn't be that free.

edited 30th Apr '11 4:28:47 PM by Jordan

Misuse of the trope names aside, my point remains.

What is male privilege?

Misandry from women is a forgivable reaction from the oppressed class. He-man misogyny is like white supremacy.

Neither Misandry nor Misogyny are tolerable within reason. They are alienating and belittling attitudes and only increase problems and solve none.

By the time I got to "every man, by virtue of being read as male by society, benefits from male privilege." I realized I wasn't going to be taking this article seriously. Issues like Abuse Is Okay When It Is Female on Male are counterexamples to that assumption by its very nature.

Then it treats silly symbolic things like "taking the male's name" as symptomatic of "male privilege" and the like, while not seeming to address more obviously severe double standards in the opposite direction.

Oh, and calling something "so ubiquitous it's invisible" strikes me as arbitrary, at best; one could in theory make that claim about almost anything in society. It doesn't strike me as solid proof, more so as a placebo for it.

At the end of the day, who is "better off" is subjective, at most. Men may hold more power on average, at least in business and politics, but to an individual male who cares more about having someone to believe him if he is abused than about being a bit more likely to make it big in business or politics, would you blame him for feeling men are oppressed?

It all depends on priorities.

edited 30th Apr '11 6:39:00 PM by neoYTPism

It's not the job of the feminist movement to respond to male issues, though.

It strikes me that you don't take seriously at all the possibility that women can be subject to unequal treatment and that rightly or wrongly, the majority of people are biased in the opposite direction.

edited 30th Apr '11 6:54:17 PM by Jordan

Is that burning straw I smell?

I don't think so. It seems pretty obvious to me. You and Neo don't take women's rights seriously. Why are you surprised other people are biased in the opposite direction?

Edit- As for the OP topic. Whether someone has a "decent" Freudian Excuse depends on the person. I don't think there's a good excuse for hating an entire gender, but I'd guess some people's experiences with the opposite gender probably give them a better justification than do other people's.

I'm not going to say across the board that misogynists deserve more sympathy, and don't think that about misandrists either.

edited 30th Apr '11 7:10:22 PM by Jordan

I need to find that topic I started that had a men's rights movement. The conversation went on for quite a few pages and covered this much better.

@neo: None of your arguments are actually arguments.

Try disproving male privilege without resorting to the non-argument "but men have it worse!". Even if you're right it's irrelevant.

A poor farmer in Africa has it worse than an American panhandler, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't help the panhandler.

"It's not the job of the feminist movement to respond to male issues, though." - Wicked

That's not what LH said, nor what the article's author said. The article's author said that all males are advantaged by male privilege, (which I frankly found subjective AND presumptuous) and then LH, starting from that premise, used it to imply that therefore misandry can't reasonably be compared to misogyny. (At least the article backed up the premise, even if I don't agree with the logic, but LH's conclusion seemed non sequitur.)

And Jordan, I made very clear that I was referring to the idea that all males are advantaged by male privilege. Like others said, your response is a strawman.

EDIT: Also...

"Try disproving male privilege without resorting to the non-argument "but men have it worse!". Even if you're right it's irrelevant." - Black Humor

Except that wasn't my argument. You too are misrepresenting it.

edited 30th Apr '11 7:18:41 PM by neoYTPism

blackhumor: Should I take it that you say that men may have it off better but we should not ignore the set of issues that are based upon their gender?

I would agree with that.

And Neo, I'm not "misrepresenting your argument". Maybe misunderstanding it, but not trying to misrepresent it. At least as I'm understanding it, you believe that society gives too much attention to women's problems and not enough to men's, and that it should be flipped in the opposite direction (or at least that men's should get more attention- which I can agree with).

edited 30th Apr '11 7:20:38 PM by Jordan

@Tuefel:If you add a "not" after "may", that's accurate.

@Neo: If that wasn't your argument, what was?

"And Neo, I'm not "misrepresenting your argument". Maybe misunderstanding it, but not trying to misrepresent it." - Jordan

Fair enough, but I'm kind of left wondering why you didn't start out with a "could I have some clarification" inquiry if that's the case.

"At least as I'm understanding it, you believe that society gives too much attention to women's problems and not enough to men's" - Jordan

In the context of some issues, at least. More than anything else, my concern was the meta-issue relating to how different kinds of discrepancies are approached, as advocacy for things labelled "women's concerns" doe seem to gain more sympathy than advocacy for things labelled "men's concerns."

"and that it should be flipped in the opposite direction" - Jordan

Not at all. I don't think equality's a realistic goal in the first place, but the point isn't to advantage men automatically. The point is consistency. I'm more so worried about the hypocrisy implied by such inconsistency. (Not to mention the dire consequences hypocrisy can have for other issues.)

I was about to say "as I said earlier" but I guess I deleted this question from my earlier post. My question was, "who are the hypocrites?"

edited 30th Apr '11 7:57:24 PM by neoYTPism

Sorry for not asking for clarification. I will in the future. I do think though that you aren't really asking who the hypocrites are, you're saying that people are hypocritical in attitudes toward women's vs men's rights.

Thinking about it, I am conflicted on whether I'd say that no group deserves across the board sympathy, because I'd admit to finding it justified for some groups. I would say though that just because a group has a legitimate grievance doesn't mean any given person in that group does, and it does seem like some examples of misogynists (like the Love Shy people and other GIFT examples) are instances where I don't feel sympathy (nor do I for Allecto, the misandrist equivalent).

@neo: Again, what was your argument?

Why does anything you say in that post invalidate the observation that (for example) women get ogled and men don't? Because I didn't see any argument against the actual concept of male privilege, but I did see a lot of bluster about how men have it worse than women.

Hey, of course no group should be given blanket sympathy, it's too fundamentally individual a thing to begin with.

What I dislike, though, is the automatically judgmental approach I've seen (to be fair, more so on other sites than here) towards attitudes that could be labelled "misogynistic." Someone voices worry that as a nerdy guy a girl who dates him would be likely to want to toy with him for her own amusement than be in a relationship, and then responses like "yeah, well, serves a misogynist like you right" go unrebuttalled except by me. Meanwhile, a girl who voices similar concerns about guys gets met with a far more sympathetic response.

Anyone who voices either of those is paranoid.

People do not generally spend large amounts of time and energy "just to toy with people". I suspect the real problem is that the people who say that don't have enough self-esteem to process the notion that someone would honestly want to go out with them.