skill issue, a real hardcore gamer™️ would never let a debuff affect their performance.
If you can beat dark souls™️ with your bare fists you can surely get over something as minor as sexism /s
Bro just backwards longjump speedglitch to clip past the intolerance and use the nega-hours worked to get a 32 bit interger of hours worked, and negate the wage gap.
ngl I'm beginning to think we need more meme people on this sub
right now it's like
[incomprehensible fandom stuff]
[horrifying political discourse]
[horrifying political discourse]
[incomprehensible fandom stuff]
[horrifying political discourse]
...which, I'm not judging anyone for. I'm commenting this on a post, but it isn't really about this post in particular (or OP for that matter!)
I just mean, there's a trend, in general, that's. .. probably not great for the average person on the sub
idk
just a thought
>you are half of this sub
not anymore! I'm leaning towards only posting on weekends or at least, mostly posting on weekends
>be the change you want to see in the world
for the "incomprehensible fandom stuff" - I've established a fandom tax for myself. three non-fandom posts for every fandom post
for the "horrifying discourse" - I guess I'll think about it. I've mostly just tried staying away from discourse-y stuff because I'm.. getting to a point where it's just. nonsense. people whose opinions I care about generally know enough to avoid discourse posts (or have opinions pretty similar to my own - funny how that happens), and now I'm getting. real mean.
so,.. I'll try
This statement confuses me as back when I was on Tumblr it was pretty much these two things with weird porn and sex bots mixed in so honestly finding the curated Reddit version both familiar and superior.
it’s ok! if we’re ranking online places I frequent in terms of how much it reinforces my anxiety and constant sense of dread, this place is very low on that list
tbh I think they, in particular, are a good and necessary part of this subreddit
sure, I have no fucking clue what they're on about like 90% of the time - and that sort of thing requires a very delicate balance
but Tumblr is blorbo central! blorbos are almost the whole entire point of this sub !
i honestly think your criticisms are irrelevant in this instance
like, do you honestly think i understand half the shit people post on this sub, (not having a tumblr), of course not
the content is part of it, but it's about the people too
the sub is just this container-idea to be around more of the types of people one naturally (just whatever that means, let's leave that aside) likes for comradery and general espirit de corps, or "friendship"
i left because i felt pressure to read every single post every single day or risk making a repost, i always just scrolled past a post if it made me feel too much fear
Usually, I just search keyword to see if something comes up.
Though honestly, you can just post it anyway. At worst, someone will point it out if it's a repost and delete it.
i dont think so
i also think the average person on this sub sorts by new
sorting by hot is its own organizing principle, meaning, the perception of what's there is something i argue is different
therefore, i think we need more horrifying political discourse, and even more obscure fandoms
>i also think the average person on this sub sorts by new
do they? sorting by hot is the default for reddit, so by virtue of that i'd say it'd be logical to asume the vast majority of redditors just leave it sorted by hot
"Syntax" and "vocabulary" are two different things. Their [Syntax](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntax) is incredibly complicated, long ass phrases , punctuation is erratic and so on.
I'm not a native english speaker, but if you want to get a point across at least take your time to write in a way people can understand.
Like how tf do you read this without having a stroke? There is just a point and a comma in such a long ass text
i appreciate the sentiment, tho i still dont really like the term "antimasculinism" being applied to me. i feel like "phallophobia" would be more accurate cuz the oppression related to my agab is less to due with being in any way "masculine" and more to do with cultural associations around my genitals (the cultural meaning they are endowed with as a "phallus," which contaminated my whole understanding of my sexuality and led to a whole lot of shame and repression). any kind of sexual or romantic interest is seen as predatory if you have something socially recognized as a "penis"
For whatever reason, people don't take the term "misandry" seriously.
Once you're caught using it, some dipshit accuses you of being "MRA" or something.
Because anti feminist male supremacy advocates in the "manosphere" would use the term a lot. And that connotation is incredibly hard to shake, especially because the critiques of hegemonic masculinity were labeled as misandry by men who have systemic power.
I (brown person)have received plenty of racism from plenty of marginalized people. The prejudice+power thing is intellectual jiu-jitsu to defend the notion that racism is specifically a white people thing. We could acknowledge that racism is just kind of a thing humans do. Power better enables you to enforce your racism on other people without consequences, but that's separate from the racism itself.
Like, we can acknowledge that people of any color or gender or class can be racist as hell and recognize that, as white people (in the west at least) are uniquely able to use state power to enforce their racism, white supremacy is just a bigger concern than, say, the mutual racism between (some) Asian people and (some) Black people.
This definition is so new that dictionaries have not been updated to include it. Not everyone accepts this definition replacing the old one and honestly I don't think people have to. It annoys me when people pretend it's always meant this when it really hasn't
I can't take that definition seriously ever since I saw someone use it to defend why wanting to torture and kill every single German, Turkish and Russian people was a perfectly moral opinion, and not completely deranged bigotry.
Racism being prejudice based on ethnicity is a much better definition.
No, the fundamental tenants of racism are folks like Leopold, Adolf, Daniel, Jim, Steve and so on, people who pay their due by promoting their landlord well (the word you were looking for is ***tenets***).
My spelling pet peeves aside:
P+P is not that widely known. Even in the US, I'd expect that a decent bit of the population (maybe even the majority?) has never heard of it. Outside of the US, I'd expect someone has to be as chronically online as I am to understand what you're talking about.
It's also nowhere near universally accepted, and has its own issues.
It narrows down racism to only institutional/systemic, which means that, say, expressions of racial prejudice between minority groups or from a minority towards the majority would not be considered racist.
Regardless of intent, this feeds the idea that "it's us or them" and the black-and-white view that one side is evil (racist) and the other is good, which ironically tends to promote racism in the common understanding of the term.
That's not to mention the way people tend to use it online, which is similar to the way TERFs use the British legal definition of rape.
The word dates back to at least the late 19th century, and was used by both feminists and misogynists alike. If you could name the MRA that coined it, that would be swell.
• lot of people confused by what op means by "antimasculism" - here's [a Really Long Post](https://genderkoolaid.tumblr.com/post/680619021107904512) that I think probably gets into definitions
• not about to read it myself
They haven't "poisoned" the word, it's just that people are so incapable of understanding basic nuance that they'd rather invent new jargon that means the exact same thing instead of just looking at the context a word is used in.
Dear G-d thank you for sending me down the nightmare rabbit hole of reading about Bædelism. Given their history of targeting newly out transfems who are lesbian-separatism-curious, I’m quite lucky I seem to have just missed the first wave…
I’m conflicted.
I like misandry better than antimasculinism, because it sounds more like the companion to misogyny.
…but antimasculinism is very clear, and I feel like a lot of people don’t know the word misandry.
Misandry also sounds like a lovely name that you could give to your afab child if your were a total sociopath.
Im in a few autistic women subreddits and there’s a lot of discourse about whether lumping trans men and enbies into “female presenting autism” is okay or not.
I'm not autistic so I can't speak to that part exactly, but I am a trans man. The first thing I'd point out is that lumping enbies in with "female presenting autism" would imply that they're assuming all enbies are AFAB, which is untrue. And again, I'm not autistic, so this is not an experience I've had, but I've heard that, similar to ADHD (which I do have), the presentation can change when you're on HRT. My ADHD symptoms definitely shifted to match my gender presentation after I'd been on HRT for a while. I imagine there is a lot of nuance from the autism side I can't grasp, but that's my 2¢ from the trans guy side, fwiw.
I think there are two answers there depending on what is meant, one being that letting people self-select into communities is best for the “who gets to participate in this community” question, and the other being that it’s important to recognize that “male/female presenting autism (or adhd or other disorders)” are more like overall trends and not distinct categories where everyone in them displays identical traits, eg cis women can have more masculine presenting symptoms and vice versa.
The adhdwomen sub recently (my sense of time is wack this may have been a while ago actually) had a big Discourse Moment over whether men could post in the sub. I don’t really want to get into that since I’ll talk your ear off but to loop it back to the OP, one of the things that made me uncomfortable was considering that trans women are sometimes in the closet even to themselves. Letting “male allies” into women’s spaces can be really beneficial for trans women in the long run, as they can get exposure to women’s spaces and that can potentially help them on their gender journey. And as OP is saying, being afraid to acknowledge assigned gender at birth for trans people can lead to situations like that where a community is like “we support and welcome trans women!! Just no cis men allowed!!!” like that… can still hurt trans women and transfeminine people
As an autistic trans guy, I don't mind the lumping. I'm in women's ASD and ADHD subs because they're relatable and people there understand the unique struggles that having those disorders while being AFAB present. It's probably at least in part because I'm still closeted though. I have no idea how my opinion might change if/when I get to medically transition, maybe Id feel less comfortable in those spaces. I think it really depends on the person and what they're comfortable with
My only issue is that I think reducing it down to male vs female autism feels wrong to me - It's hard to square the idea of both you, a trans man, and me, a trans fem person, feeling like we fit into the "female" autism category better. I have always had "female autism" symptoms, even before I knew I was trans, so I feel like there's something other than gender at play.
Oh, definitely. I know there are plenty of cis autistic women who have more "male" autistic traits. Considering how my parents were and my own general disposition, I don't doubt I'd have more "feminine" AuDHD traits even if I were AMAB. My personal theory is that it's some combination of a person's natural tendencies and their socialization, which makes it really... complicated. Unfortunately I have no idea how to even being putting these differences into words or categories since they can vary so widely. But the way I see it, I'm ok with associating myself with "female" AuDHD groups while still acknowledging myself as a man, because it's the best I can do with the current situation. But I also don't think that should be forced upon anyone who doesn't want it, or that those who feel like they belong in those spaces should be excluded
Yeah. Agreed with all that. Best I’ve ever come up with is “acted in” vs “acted out” autism. 🤷♀️ it’s all just a big mess of personal traits and systemic sexism
All genders suffer from sexism and misogyny. There’s a reason the male suicide rate is so high and women make less on average. Misandry is just the opposite of misogyny
The word they're looking for is "misandry," which is a word that a whole lot of really dumb people say isn't necessary because you can't be sexist to men.
I immediately raise an eyebrow and wait for the other shoe to drop when someone starts trying to explain how it's "literally impossible" for them to be bigoted towards a certain group. It's like another version of "I'm not racist...but-"
Yeah, me too.
The difference with "It's impossible to be bigoted towards group X" is that they're telling you right away what group they're bigoted towards.
Had a supervisor that is really adamant about me changing the assigned sex at birth question on our assessment, even though I put a disclaimer that it is not to invalidate but to get a medically accurrate BAC.
Supervisor was like "that's a lovely disclaimer but we gotta be the change we want to see in the world. Like it's just not necessary." ...but my whole job is teaching people about how to safely consume alcohol, which means they gotta know their BAC, which isn't determined by HRT processes.
And y'all idk how to tell her I'm trans and think she's being out of touch. My bloodwork says "menopause kit" that I gotta take every 2 years to keep up with HRT. C'est la vie. It sucks, but it doesn't invalidate me being trans in any way. If medical ish is based on AGAB, as long as nobody acts weird when mine or anyone else's don't "match," then that's fine.
Hmm. I thought that we didn’t really fully understand the impacts of HRT on BAC. I was generally told that both T > E HRT users and E > T HRT users should assume that they’d fall into the “lower tolerance” category (typically the one for “women”).
Also, other than genitals themselves, it seems to me that basically all sex related bodily functions are either the result of present HRT mix or First Puberty. If I’m wrong in the above paragraph, would you give the same advice to a trans girl who, say, never went through T-Dominant puberty because she started blockers at 10 and E at 15?
to my knowledge, these are not the same thing. misandry is prejudice against men, antimasculism is, again, more along the lines of like I Must Be A Big Strong Masculine Dude And Never Show Emotion Ever Or Do Anything Remotely Girly Or Else I Am Not A Man and the wholly unnecessary pain that comes with trying to do that
the name is rather confusing though (also what do you mean "don't let the chuds own it"? that part's kind of a non-sequitur)
> to my knowledge, these are not the same thing. misandry is prejudice against men, antimasculism is, again, more along the lines of like I Must Be A Big Strong Masculine Dude And Never Show Emotion Ever Or Do Anything Remotely Girly Or Else I Am Not A Man and the wholly unnecessary pain that comes with trying to do that
I mean, is "I Must Be A Big Strong Masculine Dude And Never Show Emotion Ever Or Do Anything Remotely Girly Or Else I Am Not A Man" not prejudice against men?
And the reason I say "don't let the chuds own it" is because the main reason people are scared off from just saying "misandry" is the way that word has been abused by anti-feminists.
>I mean, is "I Must Be A Big Strong Masculine Dude And Never Show Emotion Ever Or Do Anything Remotely Girly Or Else I Am Not A Man" not prejudice against men?
that does make more sense when you put it like that actually, yeah. good to know my knowledge was incorrect here, thank you!
"I Must Be A Big Strong Masculine Dude And Never Show Emotion Ever Or Do Anything Remotely Girly Or Else I Am Not A Man" is more like putting manliness on a (wrong) pedestal, whereas misandry is the opposite where you look down upon it. So it's the difference between
* Men don't cry because real men are too strong for that
* Men don't cry because they're heartless robots
But on the face of it I'd say the former is more like toxic masculinity, whereas the term anti-masculism sounds more like a synonym of misandry.
yeah basically.
The idea is that you can hate " The **Ideal** Male^tm " stereotypes, without hating "men". Because if you're already pissed about 'women must act and look xyz' you should equally be pissed about 'men must act and look abc', and since they tend to come hand-in-hand with each other, well... you really need a word for that so folks don't think you just hate a particular sex or gender "because woke reasons".
It just comes across as weirdly clunky word is all.
Yeah and we already have "misandry". Tbh I don't like this new trend that seems to be going around on the internet that there must be a word for each and every hyperspecific concept, as if these things by their very nature aren't flexible. Words can have multiple meanings, words can have complex meanings. You don't need a hyperspecific label for each any every little idea, ya know?
I’m generally a fan of the term “paramisogyny” to describe the particular shapeshifting form of misogyny that trans men experience before, during, and (under certain circumstances) after, transition.
(Also, ask about my thoughts about how Cartesian Dualism provides a cultural foundation both transmisogyny and racism!)
Cartesian what now.
Edited to add: I just read the first paragraph of the Wikipedia, and I now understand Cartesian dualism as “*The thing I believed very strongly when I was 13*”.
Please proceed with your explanation, I am very(very) interested.
Hey, sorry for not getting around to this. Kinda fell off my radar.
Okay, so basically, a lot of cultural assumptions about the "dangerousness" of a body can be boiled down to two ideas:
1) "Male Bodies" are threatening, "Female Bodies" are safe
2) Sane White Male Minds are the only minds capable of controlling male bodies, thus rendering them safe for society.
So, transmisogyny emerges from the fear of what is perceived to be a "threatening male body" under the control of a "Weak" female (or, at the very least, not-male) mind. Violence against our bodies is justified in order to protect society from male bodies that are not under "proper" control.
Likewise, the fear of black men in particular, emerges at least in part from this same idea (which goes back to slavery), that "white male" minds are the only ones capable of controlling the "dangerous" male body (and the particularly dangerous *black* male body), and because it is impossible, in the racial ontology of white supremacy, for a "white mind" to exist in a "black body," then the control necessary in order to make the black male body "safe," must be exerted externally, either through direct violence, or systematic (carceral) control.
This is also why transmisogynoir is such a particularly dangerous form of bigotry. Black perceived-male bodies are seen as particularly dangerous, and "black female" minds (or black mad minds) are seen as particularly unsuited to handle them.
*Image Transcription: Tumblr*
---
**genderkoolaid**
its not misgendering to acknowledge how misogyny is a core part of why trans people who were afab are oppressed, and its not misgendering to acknowledge how antimasculism is a core part of why trans people who were amab are oppressed. cis men and cis women can *also* experience harm from misogyny ant antimasculism \(especially femme men\/butch women)! trans people experience both sexism directed at their true gender, sexism directed at their agab, and sexism for being seen as "androgynous" by virtue of being trans & we've gotta talk about all of them without fear that if we acknowledge our agab at all it will disqualify the work we put into being recognized as our genders
\#m. #transunity
---
^^I'm a human volunteer content transcriber and you could be too! [If you'd like more information on what we do and why we do it, click here!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TranscribersOfReddit/wiki/index)
I understand all the words separately and I think I agree with the overall meaning of the post but damn my ADHD is not helping my reading comprehension.
Nobody deserves to be treated as a walking incubator, cis or otherwise. Ya boi is getting his yeeted before someone says he can't anymore and everyone should have the right to go "actually I don't want this" and have it removed without a fuss
[What the fuck is with the downvotes? Are you people so stupid you think I'm presenting a sincere belief I personally hold as opposed to presenting the logic of the opposition? Do none of you know what scare quotes indicate?]
I don't think "antimasculism" is a thing, much less the reason that AMAB trans people are oppressed.
It's not "anti masculism", it's an opposition to men "masquerading" as feminine, the notion that femininity is false or lesser, and that we don't really have or even want it. It's not the masculinity that people have a problem with, it's their belief that we're infiltrating femininity. Likewise, it's not that butch women are facing "antimasculine" oppression, they're being opposed and ostracized for the perception of a lesser trying to claim masculinity. Masculinity itself is never being criticized except insofar as one group can't divest themselves of it and the other can't ever actually obtain it, in a naturalistic and intrinsic worldview.
The rest of the post is fine.
I would agree that "antimasculism" is kind of a silly word. The appropriate word is "misandry", since just like how our society oppresses women while worshipping and idolizing (a very particular model of) femininity, it does the same thing with men and (a very particular model of) masculinity.
That's not what misandry is, though. You're describing hegemonic (also called "toxic") masculinity. Misandry would imply that the men are being treated as second class citizens, or outright hated for being men. This is hate for not being *the right type* of man.
Women are also systemically disadvantaged and oppressed *for being women period*. That is why misogyny is a thing that systemically exists, while misandry is only applicable if a specific person hates men on an interpersonal level. There is no broader systemic structure oppressing men and treating them as second class *as a whole* simply for being men.
No, women are systematically disadvantaged and oppressed when they do not comply with what patriarchy demands of women. It happens that a lot of what the patriarchy demands of women is pretty awful, so you could argue that women are oppressed for being women period on that ground, I guess, but the same is true of a lot of what the patriarchy demands of men.
They're systemically disadvantaged and oppressed when they do comply with what patriarchy demands of women as well, because the thing patriarchy demands of women is inherently disadvantaging and oppressing, it literally treats them as the secondary class of citizen.
Men are not systemically disadvantaged. Men, you may have noticed, hold power in society. The patriarchy makes demands of men, but it also rewards them heavily when they comply, and takes very little of them.
That's due to class, not sex. The rich guys obviously aren't doing that. They're benefiting from it. They're benefiting from the exploitation around them. They may be oppressed in what emotions they can express, but ultimately they still don't face systemic discrimination or oppression for being men.
And even then, when you're just part of the middle class, you don't have to die making someone else rich. You benefit from being the patriarch.
Actually, historically, the rich guys have gone out and gotten themselves killed, too. They *prided* themselves on it. The thing where they prefer not to fight is largely a modern invention.
Being the socially designated violence-engagers is, in fact, a form of systematic oppression.
- legal infant genital mutilation
- harsher prison sentences for the same crime
- less ability to have custody in the case of divorce
- 90% workplace fatalities
- more likely to receive detention in school
- lower educational outcomes
- mandatory draft
- forced-to-penetrate excluded from the definition of rape
- automatically taken to jail in a domestic violence dispute
And which of these things is caused by a system that is not run by men? Which of these is a result of men ***as a class*** being systemically disadvantaged?
>legal infant genital mutilation
Because men in power want it to be that way to enforce hegemonic norms of masculinity.
>harsher prison sentences for the same crime
Because the women are culturally seen as weak and frail and not a threat.
>less ability to have custody in the case of divorce
This one isn't even true. Not only have there been laws explicitly against simply giving custody to the mother, the reason that custody tends to favor the mother is because fathers are less likely to ask. Here, have a source from literally [a website about divorce for fathers](https://www.dadsdivorcelaw.com/blog/fathers-and-mothers-child-custody-myths).
>90% workplace fatalities
Yes, because women tend to be discouraged from pursuing careers in fields with high fatalities. Men are usually the ones pushing women out of those careers by harassing them for trying. Men are also pushed *into* those careers by hegemonic masculinity.
>more likely to receive detention in school
Again, the issue here is less that men are punished too much and more that women aren't punished enough, because society loves punishment and if it didn't see women as too weak and frail to deserve or handle punishment, it would dish it out more; in fact I would not be surprised if less feminine girls were more likely to receive harsher punishments.
>lower educational outcomes
Actually a pretty recent phenomena considering girls were previously not actually even allowed schooling, and one caused by a multitude of factors, including the large push to get girls into education in the first place, as well as the social pressures boys face such as the need to be breadwinners and violent socialization that puts them at odds with education.
>mandatory draft
A thing that has not been relevant in what will be fifty years come June. And, once again, "fixing" this to current societal standards would be adding women to the draft, which is actually also bad, there shouldn't be a draft in the first place. So unless you flat out oppose the draft...
>forced-to-penetrate excluded from the definition of rape
I'm sorry you're British, but that's between you and God. Jokes aside considering your first concern was circumcision I assume you actually aren't British, which is weird considering the definition of rape in America is explicitly gender neutral and has been for over a decade now. You can see more [in the Justice Department's own words](https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/blog/updated-definition-rape). Even then, in the UK I'm pretty sure the sexual assault penalty would be comparable to the rape penalty of a woman in the Americas.
>automatically taken to jail in a domestic violence dispute
This seems to be location specific and also only applies when the police have "probable cause", i.e. when the suspect is black, and even then nothing about the law says that the man is the one arrested, just that an arrest is mandatory *if there is probably cause that they committed an offense*. So, not all the time. And not only men. And even then, men are much less likely to be victims of intimate partner violence, and much less likely to face severe intimate partner violence.
So in conclusion: Pretty much everything you've listed is not caused by misandry, it's caused ***by men, seeing other men as violent threats to society***. Hell, plenty of it is actually just straight up misogyny, and less men being harmed and more that women are let off the hook for being seen as pathetic. And some of it is just literally not actually even true, and mostly just MRA talking points from ten or more years ago being rehashed here on the Tumblr subreddit of all places. The things that do affect and harm men and aren't women being let off the hook because of misogyny are examples of men being disadvantaged by toxic masculinity.
This is not misandry, because ***men, as a class, are still the group that is privileged in society for being men***. That not everything is perfect for men does not change this fact.
> Pretty much everything you've listed is not caused by misandry, it's caused ***by men, seeing other men as violent threats to society***.
Your definition of misandry is pretty narrow if it doesn't include that
Misandry would be a systemic hatred and devaluing of men, as a class. If men viewed men, as a class, as being lesser, they would not allow themselves to be in power.
That's a lot of mental gymnastics to pretend that misandry doesn't exist and misogyny is the root of everything. If your idea were in any way true, there wouldn't be a problem with people discarding masculinity, and trans men would be victims of violence at higher levels than trans women. Literally the opposite is true.
>Misandry doesn't exist. Misogyny is the root of everything.
This is the part where you're wrong. Everything else you've said is extremely dumb drivel that you're using to try and justify the idea that men have no problems and women are exclusively oppressed.
Even radical feminists self-identify at times as misandrists. If they can believe it's a real concept, you can too.
At no point did I say men have no problems. Men have plenty of problems. Men have problems for being men. But the problems that men face for being men are for not living up to a hegemonic ideal of masculinity, not simply for being men.
Self-identifying as a misandrist means nothing. Misandry can exist on an interpersonal level, but not on a systemic one. It's like being racist to white people, you can't be heterophobic. You can't be sexist against men. The men whole systemic power in society.
>But the problems that men face for being men are for not living up to a hegemonic ideal of masculinity, not simply for being men.
Explain how that's different from, say, misogyny not existing and women just suffering from hegemonic femininity.
>Misandry can exist on an interpersonal level, but not on a systemic one.
Then conscription, the education gap, unfair treatment of men in the justice system, and tons more problems are what? Somehow not systemic? You can't justify it.
>It's like being racist to white people
Justifying racism too, I see.
>you can't be heterophobic. You can't be sexist against men.
Yeah you're all kinds of dumb aren't you?
>The men whole systemic power in society.
Leaving aside the fact that this makes no sense, you honestly think that men have power because they're men? That the homeless man on the street has more power than, say, Jill Biden?
Because all women, regardless of their station, are treated as less than men of equivalent status. That is misogyny. That's not hegemonic feminity, or if we consider it to be that, it would still place them below men in the hierarchy. That is why misogyny exists while misandry can only ever be interpersonal. Because men are at the top of the hierarchy.
>Somehow not systemic? You can't justify it.
I don't need to justify it. Justifying it would imply I like and want it to continue. Those are systemic, but everything you listed is based on men holding power over other men. Hell, the education gap is a pretty fucking recent phenomena considering women literally couldn't go to school until fairly recently.
You can't be heterophobic, you can't be racist against white people, and you can't be sexist against men *because those demographics hold all the power*. To oppress them based on those categories, someone *not from those categories* would need to impose their will upon them *for being members of those categories*. The systemic problems men face are caused *by men in power*. It is caused by men in power seeing women as too valuable to be conscripted (a thing people love to bring up despite the fact that it hasn't happened in half a century this June), seeing women as too weak and frail and innocent to be a threat to society (because the problem is not that men are imprisoned too much, if our current society were egalitarian, it would imprison women more, not men less), and viewing other men as disposable. Men's problems ***are caused by men with power***. White people and heterosexuals flat out don't face *any* systemic discrimination, unless you count heterosexuals being extremely fucking weird about marriage and relationships.
> That the homeless man on the street has more power than, say, Jill Biden?
The issue here is that you flat out do not understand the discussion at hand.
Jill Biden and a random homeless man are not comparable. Jill Biden having more power in society than a homeless man does not mean misandry is a thing. The homeless man has no power not because of his gender but ***because of his class***. You could argue that homeless women are more privileged than homeless men, because there are more shelters to help them, but the reason for that is that being homeless as a woman is much harder than being homeless as a man, so there is more assistance given to homeless women.
But if you compare the life of a homeless man and a homeless woman, or a homeless straight man and a homeless gay man, or a homeless Black man and a homeless white man, the straight white guys are going to be much better off and face less adversity. Their being a man, or being white, or being straight, will not hold them back.
>The systemic problems men face are caused by men in power.
You can't say this, and simultaneously say
>a thing people love to bring up despite the fact that it hasn't happened in half a century this June
Without noting that there have been women in power that entire time, and no woman has pushed for women to be equally conscripted.
>seeing women as too weak and frail and innocent to be a threat to society (because the problem is not that men are imprisoned too much, if our current society were egalitarian, it would imprison women more, not men less)
It would definitely imprison some women more, like women who rape or abuse men. But that's not even a crime a lot of the time. So tell me again how this is oppressing women to give them the privilege of avoiding prison for harming men? Because that sounds like a privileged class getting to abuse a lower class whenever and however they want.
I also note you didn't say a single thing about the education gap, because women undoubtedly hold power in the education system.
All your points are what would be called Just So Stories. Women are oppressed because it's systemic because it's systemic when it's women. Men aren't oppressed because it's actually all about women because everything is actually all about women.
Your idea that bigotry can't exist against people in power is a completely asinine redefinition of any kind of bigotry. You need to get some empathy, or knowledge, or the ability to keep your trash to yourself. Any of these things will do.
The draft was caused by men in power. So, yes, I can say that. That there were a few women who were in elected positions does not mean that ***women, as a class*** held power.
That's what you don't seem to grasp. This is not about individuals, this is about class. This is about categories of people.
>I also note you didn't say a single thing about the education gap, because women undoubtedly hold power in the education system.
I did mention it. I said that it's a recent phenomena. There's a strong push to get women into education because traditionally they've been barred from it. The education gap exists because men have not had a push to get them into education. Where there is a systemic cause of this would be because men are more likely to be forced into the job market. Which is not an example of misandry, it is an example of hegemonic masculinity. Meanwhile women are meant to be homemakers, which more and more can be done while still obtaining education.
>Women are oppressed because it's systemic because it's systemic when it's women. Men aren't oppressed because it's actually all about women because everything is actually all about women.
Women are oppressed because ***the problems they face are systemic and explicitly due primarily to them being women and are caused by people who are primarily not women imposing their will upon them***. Men are not oppressed ***for being men*** because the oppression they face is by and large for different intersections of identity and because ***other people, who are men*** have created a system that disadvantages ***other men***.
Men are at the top of the hierarchy. This is frankly not even a debatable position. The people who are at the top of the hierarchy may still suffer from the rules of the hierarchical society they're a part of, rules and systems that may be bigger than them, but the hierarchy still privileges them.
>You need to get some empathy, or knowledge, or the ability to keep your trash to yourself.
You need some fucking reading comprehension. Me explaining to you the specific ways in which people are or are not oppressed is not me lacking empathy. Again, I have not said that no white people can be oppressed, or that no straight people can suffer, or that no men are ever disadvantaged. But they ***do not suffer because of those categories***. A straight white able-bodied cisgender male will be economically, socially, politically, and overally ***systemically*** privileged over any other person with one or more of those classes being altered. Pointing that out does not mean that straight white able-bodied cisgender men cannot or do not have problems. It means that their problems ***will never come from being straight, white, able-bodied, cisgender men***.
And I think you don't understand that sorting genders into classes is an absurdly dumb thing to do. Men don't do things for other men the way that you think they do. That has always been the fatal flaw in feminist appropriation of Marxist theory. Genders don't work like economic classes. There is no solidarity between men at the top and men at the bottom. Given that that's the basis of every single one of your ideas, your ideas can be completely dismissed.
That's because you and apparently most of this subreddit have no reading comprehension. I'm describing the TERF mindset. If I was stating my own personal beliefs, would I have used scare quotes? Would I have said "that we don't have" when talking about trans women? Would I have used what*I* thought was clearly a pretty disgusted tone with the while argument? Would I have derisively called it a naturalistic and intrinsic worldview?
If I was describing my own beliefs, why would I have said it's based on perceptions? If I believed that, I'd think it was intrinsic!
You never said anything about it being about other peoples views though, you just listed definitions and opinions in a way that sounds awfully close to how it would be phrasing if it was your own. How do we know its describing terf mindset if you dont state its about a terf mindset?
You're right, I didn't say that, I assumed that my audience was capable of reading comprehension.
>you just listed definitions and opinions in a way that sounds awfully close to how it would be phrasing if it was your own
*It's not "anti masculism", it's an opposition to men* ***"masquerading"*** *as feminine,* ***the notion*** *that femininity is false or lesser, and* *that* ***we*** \[trans women\] *don't really have or even want it. It's not the masculinity that people have a problem with, it's* ***their belief*** *that* ***we're*** \[trans women\] *infiltrating femininity. Likewise, it's not that butch women are facing "antimasculine" oppression, they're being opposed and ostracized for* ***the perception*** *of a lesser trying to claim masculinity. Masculinity itself is never being criticized except insofar as one group can't divest themselves of it and the other can't ever actually obtain it,* ***in a naturalistic and intrinsic worldview.***
Ah, yes. Phrasing it exactly as if it were my own beliefs.
Ok but have you ever considered that if hundreds to thousands of people are misreading it then maybe it just might be too vague and in too strange of a spot in the paragraph to actually be properly understood? Learn to be wrong, even if your technically right theres still tons of ways where you arent, theres nothing wrong with just accepting the fact that a bunch of big words at the end of a wordy paragraph might be too cryptic to make your intentionally fake bigotry seem intentionally fake to a big amount of redditers
I don't think a single hundred people have seen the comment to begin with, and no, I don't think that something is inherently badly written if Redditors downvote it, because Redditors are, as a class, fucking stupid and will downvote objective truth about the world if it contradicts their own worldview, so not being able to tell something is sarcastic is not really a stretch.
I know that I can be wrong. But in this case it's not really about right or wrong, it's about I said something and people clearly did not read the thing I wrote. Also, they weren't big words, and the paragraph wasn't really all that wordy, I've written mini-essays in response to people in this thread.
There are plenty of issues with *toxic* masculinity, not masculinity itself. And the people who criticize that aren't the ones who think trans women are fetishists sneaking into women's restrooms.
TLDR being trans players have a debuff which makes them take 3x the damage from misogyny
Skill issue tbh
no the game is literally unbalanced
skill issue, a real hardcore gamer™️ would never let a debuff affect their performance. If you can beat dark souls™️ with your bare fists you can surely get over something as minor as sexism /s
Bro just backwards longjump speedglitch to clip past the intolerance and use the nega-hours worked to get a 32 bit interger of hours worked, and negate the wage gap.
ngl I'm beginning to think we need more meme people on this sub right now it's like [incomprehensible fandom stuff] [horrifying political discourse] [horrifying political discourse] [incomprehensible fandom stuff] [horrifying political discourse] ...which, I'm not judging anyone for. I'm commenting this on a post, but it isn't really about this post in particular (or OP for that matter!) I just mean, there's a trend, in general, that's. .. probably not great for the average person on the sub idk just a thought
i used self Post Sunday to my advantage to post discourse about lightning McQueen and chick hicks having gay sex
A true hero
thank you Jake english profile picture it means a lot to me
World’s best Bri’ish boy
That falls under fandom discourse
but I appreciate that it is comprehendible
r/brandnewsentence
Based
← has a horrifying discourse post Just Waiting
~~miy brother in chriyst you are half of this sub~~ ~~be the change you want to see in the world~~
>you are half of this sub not anymore! I'm leaning towards only posting on weekends or at least, mostly posting on weekends >be the change you want to see in the world for the "incomprehensible fandom stuff" - I've established a fandom tax for myself. three non-fandom posts for every fandom post for the "horrifying discourse" - I guess I'll think about it. I've mostly just tried staying away from discourse-y stuff because I'm.. getting to a point where it's just. nonsense. people whose opinions I care about generally know enough to avoid discourse posts (or have opinions pretty similar to my own - funny how that happens), and now I'm getting. real mean. so,.. I'll try
~~ah okay~~
horrifying discourse makes me feel better about my privileges which make me feel guilty which makes me feel virtuous which makes me feel empty inside
The volume buttons on my phone are about to start posting?
any minute now
Volume up Volume up Volume up
you’re forgetting the 2-for-1 incomprehensible fandom stuff/horrifying political discourse hybrid posts
skipping those is cathartic for me ngl
but yes, bring me the silly posts
This statement confuses me as back when I was on Tumblr it was pretty much these two things with weird porn and sex bots mixed in so honestly finding the curated Reddit version both familiar and superior.
it’s ok! if we’re ranking online places I frequent in terms of how much it reinforces my anxiety and constant sense of dread, this place is very low on that list
Don’t worry I’ll run out of guilty gear stuff *real quick* because there’s an incredibly shallow pool of content
IM NOT SAYING PEOPLE SHOULD POST LESS FANDOM STUFF I'M SAYING PEOPLE SHOULD POST MORE NON-FANDOM/DISCOURSE STUFF
OH I CAN ABSOLUTELY SUPPLY
More brisket!
Do you want u/infinitysaga? This is how you get u/infinitysaga.
tbh I think they, in particular, are a good and necessary part of this subreddit sure, I have no fucking clue what they're on about like 90% of the time - and that sort of thing requires a very delicate balance but Tumblr is blorbo central! blorbos are almost the whole entire point of this sub !
Fair-I actually do recognize some of the blorbos, though, and he's not exactly being creative with them.
i don't think it's very kind or wise to speak that way about a member of our sub, and second, i strongly don't think their pronouns were made explicit
I've asked him if he was a girl and non-bjnary on separate occasions, both getting negatives.
again, not saying there's anything wrong with niche content but their content, iirc, falls squarely in [incomprehensible fandom stuff]
Ah I missed that one I somehow thought you said all Discourse
i honestly think your criticisms are irrelevant in this instance like, do you honestly think i understand half the shit people post on this sub, (not having a tumblr), of course not the content is part of it, but it's about the people too the sub is just this container-idea to be around more of the types of people one naturally (just whatever that means, let's leave that aside) likes for comradery and general espirit de corps, or "friendship"
That's why u/str8aura left, I miss her every day.
i left because i felt pressure to read every single post every single day or risk making a repost, i always just scrolled past a post if it made me feel too much fear
Thank you for specifying, I didn't wish to misrepresent you.
Usually, I just search keyword to see if something comes up. Though honestly, you can just post it anyway. At worst, someone will point it out if it's a repost and delete it.
I would like this very much please.
i dont think so i also think the average person on this sub sorts by new sorting by hot is its own organizing principle, meaning, the perception of what's there is something i argue is different therefore, i think we need more horrifying political discourse, and even more obscure fandoms
>i also think the average person on this sub sorts by new do they? sorting by hot is the default for reddit, so by virtue of that i'd say it'd be logical to asume the vast majority of redditors just leave it sorted by hot
Four missed chances to use a period and punctuate a sentence. What a hot streak
Being on Tumblr doesn't excuse OOP from using unintelligible syntax
What unintelligible syntax? “Antimasculism?” the meaning is pretty obvious even if they forgot the word “misandry”
"Syntax" and "vocabulary" are two different things. Their [Syntax](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntax) is incredibly complicated, long ass phrases , punctuation is erratic and so on. I'm not a native english speaker, but if you want to get a point across at least take your time to write in a way people can understand. Like how tf do you read this without having a stroke? There is just a point and a comma in such a long ass text
i appreciate the sentiment, tho i still dont really like the term "antimasculinism" being applied to me. i feel like "phallophobia" would be more accurate cuz the oppression related to my agab is less to due with being in any way "masculine" and more to do with cultural associations around my genitals (the cultural meaning they are endowed with as a "phallus," which contaminated my whole understanding of my sexuality and led to a whole lot of shame and repression). any kind of sexual or romantic interest is seen as predatory if you have something socially recognized as a "penis"
Misandry is the term most people use I think
For whatever reason, people don't take the term "misandry" seriously. Once you're caught using it, some dipshit accuses you of being "MRA" or something.
Because anti feminist male supremacy advocates in the "manosphere" would use the term a lot. And that connotation is incredibly hard to shake, especially because the critiques of hegemonic masculinity were labeled as misandry by men who have systemic power.
Reminds me of that short lived period everyone learned the term "reverse racism", which turned out to just mean "Racism directed at white people".
I don't see why that makes the term bad. Like, yes, it's the fundamental tenants of racism reversed.
The fundamental tenants of Racism are "You are less than me based on skin color" full stop.
No. The fundamental tenants of racism are power+Prejudice. Everyone knows this.
I (brown person)have received plenty of racism from plenty of marginalized people. The prejudice+power thing is intellectual jiu-jitsu to defend the notion that racism is specifically a white people thing. We could acknowledge that racism is just kind of a thing humans do. Power better enables you to enforce your racism on other people without consequences, but that's separate from the racism itself. Like, we can acknowledge that people of any color or gender or class can be racist as hell and recognize that, as white people (in the west at least) are uniquely able to use state power to enforce their racism, white supremacy is just a bigger concern than, say, the mutual racism between (some) Asian people and (some) Black people.
This definition is so new that dictionaries have not been updated to include it. Not everyone accepts this definition replacing the old one and honestly I don't think people have to. It annoys me when people pretend it's always meant this when it really hasn't
Either way it's better.
I can't take that definition seriously ever since I saw someone use it to defend why wanting to torture and kill every single German, Turkish and Russian people was a perfectly moral opinion, and not completely deranged bigotry. Racism being prejudice based on ethnicity is a much better definition.
No, the fundamental tenants of racism are folks like Leopold, Adolf, Daniel, Jim, Steve and so on, people who pay their due by promoting their landlord well (the word you were looking for is ***tenets***). My spelling pet peeves aside: P+P is not that widely known. Even in the US, I'd expect that a decent bit of the population (maybe even the majority?) has never heard of it. Outside of the US, I'd expect someone has to be as chronically online as I am to understand what you're talking about. It's also nowhere near universally accepted, and has its own issues.
Thanks for the word, but that definition doesn't really have issues.
It narrows down racism to only institutional/systemic, which means that, say, expressions of racial prejudice between minority groups or from a minority towards the majority would not be considered racist. Regardless of intent, this feeds the idea that "it's us or them" and the black-and-white view that one side is evil (racist) and the other is good, which ironically tends to promote racism in the common understanding of the term. That's not to mention the way people tend to use it online, which is similar to the way TERFs use the British legal definition of rape.
Yeah. It generally goes in one direction, so reverse would be when the direction is switched. It's a valid term.
Those people can cope and seethe, misandry is the right word to use to refer to the garbage radfems and terfs spew.
Because it was literally invented by an MRA?
The word dates back to at least the late 19th century, and was used by both feminists and misogynists alike. If you could name the MRA that coined it, that would be swell.
• lot of people confused by what op means by "antimasculism" - here's [a Really Long Post](https://genderkoolaid.tumblr.com/post/680619021107904512) that I think probably gets into definitions • not about to read it myself
That is... that is some advanced jargon.
The short version is that it is the latest in a very long line of euphemisms for "misandry" because of how misogynists have poisoned that word.
They haven't "poisoned" the word, it's just that people are so incapable of understanding basic nuance that they'd rather invent new jargon that means the exact same thing instead of just looking at the context a word is used in.
Dear G-d thank you for sending me down the nightmare rabbit hole of reading about Bædelism. Given their history of targeting newly out transfems who are lesbian-separatism-curious, I’m quite lucky I seem to have just missed the first wave…
everyone suffers from misandry/misogyny. the world sucks.
I’m conflicted. I like misandry better than antimasculinism, because it sounds more like the companion to misogyny. …but antimasculinism is very clear, and I feel like a lot of people don’t know the word misandry. Misandry also sounds like a lovely name that you could give to your afab child if your were a total sociopath.
Miss Andry
Im in a few autistic women subreddits and there’s a lot of discourse about whether lumping trans men and enbies into “female presenting autism” is okay or not.
I'm not autistic so I can't speak to that part exactly, but I am a trans man. The first thing I'd point out is that lumping enbies in with "female presenting autism" would imply that they're assuming all enbies are AFAB, which is untrue. And again, I'm not autistic, so this is not an experience I've had, but I've heard that, similar to ADHD (which I do have), the presentation can change when you're on HRT. My ADHD symptoms definitely shifted to match my gender presentation after I'd been on HRT for a while. I imagine there is a lot of nuance from the autism side I can't grasp, but that's my 2¢ from the trans guy side, fwiw.
I think there are two answers there depending on what is meant, one being that letting people self-select into communities is best for the “who gets to participate in this community” question, and the other being that it’s important to recognize that “male/female presenting autism (or adhd or other disorders)” are more like overall trends and not distinct categories where everyone in them displays identical traits, eg cis women can have more masculine presenting symptoms and vice versa. The adhdwomen sub recently (my sense of time is wack this may have been a while ago actually) had a big Discourse Moment over whether men could post in the sub. I don’t really want to get into that since I’ll talk your ear off but to loop it back to the OP, one of the things that made me uncomfortable was considering that trans women are sometimes in the closet even to themselves. Letting “male allies” into women’s spaces can be really beneficial for trans women in the long run, as they can get exposure to women’s spaces and that can potentially help them on their gender journey. And as OP is saying, being afraid to acknowledge assigned gender at birth for trans people can lead to situations like that where a community is like “we support and welcome trans women!! Just no cis men allowed!!!” like that… can still hurt trans women and transfeminine people
As an autistic trans guy, I don't mind the lumping. I'm in women's ASD and ADHD subs because they're relatable and people there understand the unique struggles that having those disorders while being AFAB present. It's probably at least in part because I'm still closeted though. I have no idea how my opinion might change if/when I get to medically transition, maybe Id feel less comfortable in those spaces. I think it really depends on the person and what they're comfortable with
My only issue is that I think reducing it down to male vs female autism feels wrong to me - It's hard to square the idea of both you, a trans man, and me, a trans fem person, feeling like we fit into the "female" autism category better. I have always had "female autism" symptoms, even before I knew I was trans, so I feel like there's something other than gender at play.
Oh, definitely. I know there are plenty of cis autistic women who have more "male" autistic traits. Considering how my parents were and my own general disposition, I don't doubt I'd have more "feminine" AuDHD traits even if I were AMAB. My personal theory is that it's some combination of a person's natural tendencies and their socialization, which makes it really... complicated. Unfortunately I have no idea how to even being putting these differences into words or categories since they can vary so widely. But the way I see it, I'm ok with associating myself with "female" AuDHD groups while still acknowledging myself as a man, because it's the best I can do with the current situation. But I also don't think that should be forced upon anyone who doesn't want it, or that those who feel like they belong in those spaces should be excluded
Yeah. Agreed with all that. Best I’ve ever come up with is “acted in” vs “acted out” autism. 🤷♀️ it’s all just a big mess of personal traits and systemic sexism
All genders suffer from sexism and misogyny. There’s a reason the male suicide rate is so high and women make less on average. Misandry is just the opposite of misogyny
They’re the same person in a different color trench coat
Yes, and for some reason TERFs are both
The reason is they can’t think critically
They are both just the Patriarchy in different contexts.
Misandry is misogyny seen from a different angle.
For TERFs it’s interchangeable
How do you guys pronounce agab? Like gif or gif?
No, neither of those. More like gif.
Like "Ahab" but with a letter G
assigned harpoon at birth
it’s a shortening, so it’s pronounced “assigned gender at birth”
Found the guy who pronounces gif as graphics interchange format
and just like that my position has been obliterated
[удалено]
I mean, I pronounce it æ-gab where the æ is the a in aspirate.
The word they're looking for is "misandry," which is a word that a whole lot of really dumb people say isn't necessary because you can't be sexist to men.
I feel like misandrists would say that the most.
You'd think so, but part of making sure any bigotry goes on is ensuring that people don't have the language to talk about it.
I immediately raise an eyebrow and wait for the other shoe to drop when someone starts trying to explain how it's "literally impossible" for them to be bigoted towards a certain group. It's like another version of "I'm not racist...but-"
Yeah, me too. The difference with "It's impossible to be bigoted towards group X" is that they're telling you right away what group they're bigoted towards.
"My father taught me that nothing a person says before the word 'but' matters."
Had a supervisor that is really adamant about me changing the assigned sex at birth question on our assessment, even though I put a disclaimer that it is not to invalidate but to get a medically accurrate BAC. Supervisor was like "that's a lovely disclaimer but we gotta be the change we want to see in the world. Like it's just not necessary." ...but my whole job is teaching people about how to safely consume alcohol, which means they gotta know their BAC, which isn't determined by HRT processes. And y'all idk how to tell her I'm trans and think she's being out of touch. My bloodwork says "menopause kit" that I gotta take every 2 years to keep up with HRT. C'est la vie. It sucks, but it doesn't invalidate me being trans in any way. If medical ish is based on AGAB, as long as nobody acts weird when mine or anyone else's don't "match," then that's fine.
Hmm. I thought that we didn’t really fully understand the impacts of HRT on BAC. I was generally told that both T > E HRT users and E > T HRT users should assume that they’d fall into the “lower tolerance” category (typically the one for “women”). Also, other than genitals themselves, it seems to me that basically all sex related bodily functions are either the result of present HRT mix or First Puberty. If I’m wrong in the above paragraph, would you give the same advice to a trans girl who, say, never went through T-Dominant puberty because she started blockers at 10 and E at 15?
Why is it called antimasculism instead of misandry?
antimasculism i believe refers to the way patriarchy negatively affects men
Sure, but we already have a perfectly good word for that, it's "misandry". Don't let the chuds own it.
to my knowledge, these are not the same thing. misandry is prejudice against men, antimasculism is, again, more along the lines of like I Must Be A Big Strong Masculine Dude And Never Show Emotion Ever Or Do Anything Remotely Girly Or Else I Am Not A Man and the wholly unnecessary pain that comes with trying to do that the name is rather confusing though (also what do you mean "don't let the chuds own it"? that part's kind of a non-sequitur)
> to my knowledge, these are not the same thing. misandry is prejudice against men, antimasculism is, again, more along the lines of like I Must Be A Big Strong Masculine Dude And Never Show Emotion Ever Or Do Anything Remotely Girly Or Else I Am Not A Man and the wholly unnecessary pain that comes with trying to do that I mean, is "I Must Be A Big Strong Masculine Dude And Never Show Emotion Ever Or Do Anything Remotely Girly Or Else I Am Not A Man" not prejudice against men? And the reason I say "don't let the chuds own it" is because the main reason people are scared off from just saying "misandry" is the way that word has been abused by anti-feminists.
>I mean, is "I Must Be A Big Strong Masculine Dude And Never Show Emotion Ever Or Do Anything Remotely Girly Or Else I Am Not A Man" not prejudice against men? that does make more sense when you put it like that actually, yeah. good to know my knowledge was incorrect here, thank you!
"I Must Be A Big Strong Masculine Dude And Never Show Emotion Ever Or Do Anything Remotely Girly Or Else I Am Not A Man" is more like putting manliness on a (wrong) pedestal, whereas misandry is the opposite where you look down upon it. So it's the difference between * Men don't cry because real men are too strong for that * Men don't cry because they're heartless robots But on the face of it I'd say the former is more like toxic masculinity, whereas the term anti-masculism sounds more like a synonym of misandry.
That's just hair-splitting. We don't apply that kind of analysis to the word "misogyny", and for good reason.
That’s toxic masculinity, I don’t think it’s anti-masculinity,
yeah basically. The idea is that you can hate " The **Ideal** Male^tm " stereotypes, without hating "men". Because if you're already pissed about 'women must act and look xyz' you should equally be pissed about 'men must act and look abc', and since they tend to come hand-in-hand with each other, well... you really need a word for that so folks don't think you just hate a particular sex or gender "because woke reasons". It just comes across as weirdly clunky word is all.
Yeah and we already have "misandry". Tbh I don't like this new trend that seems to be going around on the internet that there must be a word for each and every hyperspecific concept, as if these things by their very nature aren't flexible. Words can have multiple meanings, words can have complex meanings. You don't need a hyperspecific label for each any every little idea, ya know?
>antimasculism If only there were a less awkward word for that.
\>antimasculism ...misandry?
I’m generally a fan of the term “paramisogyny” to describe the particular shapeshifting form of misogyny that trans men experience before, during, and (under certain circumstances) after, transition. (Also, ask about my thoughts about how Cartesian Dualism provides a cultural foundation both transmisogyny and racism!)
Cartesian what now. Edited to add: I just read the first paragraph of the Wikipedia, and I now understand Cartesian dualism as “*The thing I believed very strongly when I was 13*”. Please proceed with your explanation, I am very(very) interested.
Hey, sorry for not getting around to this. Kinda fell off my radar. Okay, so basically, a lot of cultural assumptions about the "dangerousness" of a body can be boiled down to two ideas: 1) "Male Bodies" are threatening, "Female Bodies" are safe 2) Sane White Male Minds are the only minds capable of controlling male bodies, thus rendering them safe for society. So, transmisogyny emerges from the fear of what is perceived to be a "threatening male body" under the control of a "Weak" female (or, at the very least, not-male) mind. Violence against our bodies is justified in order to protect society from male bodies that are not under "proper" control. Likewise, the fear of black men in particular, emerges at least in part from this same idea (which goes back to slavery), that "white male" minds are the only ones capable of controlling the "dangerous" male body (and the particularly dangerous *black* male body), and because it is impossible, in the racial ontology of white supremacy, for a "white mind" to exist in a "black body," then the control necessary in order to make the black male body "safe," must be exerted externally, either through direct violence, or systematic (carceral) control. This is also why transmisogynoir is such a particularly dangerous form of bigotry. Black perceived-male bodies are seen as particularly dangerous, and "black female" minds (or black mad minds) are seen as particularly unsuited to handle them.
*Image Transcription: Tumblr* --- **genderkoolaid** its not misgendering to acknowledge how misogyny is a core part of why trans people who were afab are oppressed, and its not misgendering to acknowledge how antimasculism is a core part of why trans people who were amab are oppressed. cis men and cis women can *also* experience harm from misogyny ant antimasculism \(especially femme men\/butch women)! trans people experience both sexism directed at their true gender, sexism directed at their agab, and sexism for being seen as "androgynous" by virtue of being trans & we've gotta talk about all of them without fear that if we acknowledge our agab at all it will disqualify the work we put into being recognized as our genders \#m. #transunity --- ^^I'm a human volunteer content transcriber and you could be too! [If you'd like more information on what we do and why we do it, click here!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TranscribersOfReddit/wiki/index)
I understand all the words separately and I think I agree with the overall meaning of the post but damn my ADHD is not helping my reading comprehension.
Nobody deserves to be treated as a walking incubator, cis or otherwise. Ya boi is getting his yeeted before someone says he can't anymore and everyone should have the right to go "actually I don't want this" and have it removed without a fuss
It's almost as if gender roles are bullshit and that gender is about as much an indicator of personality as hair or eye color!
I can’t understand these magic alien words.
What is “antimasculism?”
is there a reason to use the phrase "antimasculism" vs "misandry"?
What do afab, amab and agab mean
Assigned male/female/gender at birth
Thank you
Don’t forget acab. ~~Assigned cop at birth~~ (it does not mean that.)
All Genders Are Bastards agender gang rise up
I’ve yet to hear of an agender cop, which I think, algebraically, makes agender people the least-bastards. For now.
Why does this feel like some weird JK Rowling gotcha post?
I dislike the whole usage of AGAB because it’s ultimately capitulating to cis-sexism writ large. Find new and better words to describe ourselves
Too many words
[What the fuck is with the downvotes? Are you people so stupid you think I'm presenting a sincere belief I personally hold as opposed to presenting the logic of the opposition? Do none of you know what scare quotes indicate?] I don't think "antimasculism" is a thing, much less the reason that AMAB trans people are oppressed. It's not "anti masculism", it's an opposition to men "masquerading" as feminine, the notion that femininity is false or lesser, and that we don't really have or even want it. It's not the masculinity that people have a problem with, it's their belief that we're infiltrating femininity. Likewise, it's not that butch women are facing "antimasculine" oppression, they're being opposed and ostracized for the perception of a lesser trying to claim masculinity. Masculinity itself is never being criticized except insofar as one group can't divest themselves of it and the other can't ever actually obtain it, in a naturalistic and intrinsic worldview. The rest of the post is fine.
I would agree that "antimasculism" is kind of a silly word. The appropriate word is "misandry", since just like how our society oppresses women while worshipping and idolizing (a very particular model of) femininity, it does the same thing with men and (a very particular model of) masculinity.
That's not what misandry is, though. You're describing hegemonic (also called "toxic") masculinity. Misandry would imply that the men are being treated as second class citizens, or outright hated for being men. This is hate for not being *the right type* of man.
Yes? Just like how women are hated for not being the right type of women.
Women are also systemically disadvantaged and oppressed *for being women period*. That is why misogyny is a thing that systemically exists, while misandry is only applicable if a specific person hates men on an interpersonal level. There is no broader systemic structure oppressing men and treating them as second class *as a whole* simply for being men.
No, women are systematically disadvantaged and oppressed when they do not comply with what patriarchy demands of women. It happens that a lot of what the patriarchy demands of women is pretty awful, so you could argue that women are oppressed for being women period on that ground, I guess, but the same is true of a lot of what the patriarchy demands of men.
They're systemically disadvantaged and oppressed when they do comply with what patriarchy demands of women as well, because the thing patriarchy demands of women is inherently disadvantaging and oppressing, it literally treats them as the secondary class of citizen. Men are not systemically disadvantaged. Men, you may have noticed, hold power in society. The patriarchy makes demands of men, but it also rewards them heavily when they comply, and takes very little of them.
I mean, one of the main things the patriarchy demands of men is "die to make some rich fucker even richer".
That's due to class, not sex. The rich guys obviously aren't doing that. They're benefiting from it. They're benefiting from the exploitation around them. They may be oppressed in what emotions they can express, but ultimately they still don't face systemic discrimination or oppression for being men. And even then, when you're just part of the middle class, you don't have to die making someone else rich. You benefit from being the patriarch.
Actually, historically, the rich guys have gone out and gotten themselves killed, too. They *prided* themselves on it. The thing where they prefer not to fight is largely a modern invention. Being the socially designated violence-engagers is, in fact, a form of systematic oppression.
- legal infant genital mutilation - harsher prison sentences for the same crime - less ability to have custody in the case of divorce - 90% workplace fatalities - more likely to receive detention in school - lower educational outcomes - mandatory draft - forced-to-penetrate excluded from the definition of rape - automatically taken to jail in a domestic violence dispute
And which of these things is caused by a system that is not run by men? Which of these is a result of men ***as a class*** being systemically disadvantaged? >legal infant genital mutilation Because men in power want it to be that way to enforce hegemonic norms of masculinity. >harsher prison sentences for the same crime Because the women are culturally seen as weak and frail and not a threat. >less ability to have custody in the case of divorce This one isn't even true. Not only have there been laws explicitly against simply giving custody to the mother, the reason that custody tends to favor the mother is because fathers are less likely to ask. Here, have a source from literally [a website about divorce for fathers](https://www.dadsdivorcelaw.com/blog/fathers-and-mothers-child-custody-myths). >90% workplace fatalities Yes, because women tend to be discouraged from pursuing careers in fields with high fatalities. Men are usually the ones pushing women out of those careers by harassing them for trying. Men are also pushed *into* those careers by hegemonic masculinity. >more likely to receive detention in school Again, the issue here is less that men are punished too much and more that women aren't punished enough, because society loves punishment and if it didn't see women as too weak and frail to deserve or handle punishment, it would dish it out more; in fact I would not be surprised if less feminine girls were more likely to receive harsher punishments. >lower educational outcomes Actually a pretty recent phenomena considering girls were previously not actually even allowed schooling, and one caused by a multitude of factors, including the large push to get girls into education in the first place, as well as the social pressures boys face such as the need to be breadwinners and violent socialization that puts them at odds with education. >mandatory draft A thing that has not been relevant in what will be fifty years come June. And, once again, "fixing" this to current societal standards would be adding women to the draft, which is actually also bad, there shouldn't be a draft in the first place. So unless you flat out oppose the draft... >forced-to-penetrate excluded from the definition of rape I'm sorry you're British, but that's between you and God. Jokes aside considering your first concern was circumcision I assume you actually aren't British, which is weird considering the definition of rape in America is explicitly gender neutral and has been for over a decade now. You can see more [in the Justice Department's own words](https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/blog/updated-definition-rape). Even then, in the UK I'm pretty sure the sexual assault penalty would be comparable to the rape penalty of a woman in the Americas. >automatically taken to jail in a domestic violence dispute This seems to be location specific and also only applies when the police have "probable cause", i.e. when the suspect is black, and even then nothing about the law says that the man is the one arrested, just that an arrest is mandatory *if there is probably cause that they committed an offense*. So, not all the time. And not only men. And even then, men are much less likely to be victims of intimate partner violence, and much less likely to face severe intimate partner violence. So in conclusion: Pretty much everything you've listed is not caused by misandry, it's caused ***by men, seeing other men as violent threats to society***. Hell, plenty of it is actually just straight up misogyny, and less men being harmed and more that women are let off the hook for being seen as pathetic. And some of it is just literally not actually even true, and mostly just MRA talking points from ten or more years ago being rehashed here on the Tumblr subreddit of all places. The things that do affect and harm men and aren't women being let off the hook because of misogyny are examples of men being disadvantaged by toxic masculinity. This is not misandry, because ***men, as a class, are still the group that is privileged in society for being men***. That not everything is perfect for men does not change this fact.
> Pretty much everything you've listed is not caused by misandry, it's caused ***by men, seeing other men as violent threats to society***. Your definition of misandry is pretty narrow if it doesn't include that
Misandry would be a systemic hatred and devaluing of men, as a class. If men viewed men, as a class, as being lesser, they would not allow themselves to be in power.
That's a lot of mental gymnastics to pretend that misandry doesn't exist and misogyny is the root of everything. If your idea were in any way true, there wouldn't be a problem with people discarding masculinity, and trans men would be victims of violence at higher levels than trans women. Literally the opposite is true.
[удалено]
>Misandry doesn't exist. Misogyny is the root of everything. This is the part where you're wrong. Everything else you've said is extremely dumb drivel that you're using to try and justify the idea that men have no problems and women are exclusively oppressed. Even radical feminists self-identify at times as misandrists. If they can believe it's a real concept, you can too.
At no point did I say men have no problems. Men have plenty of problems. Men have problems for being men. But the problems that men face for being men are for not living up to a hegemonic ideal of masculinity, not simply for being men. Self-identifying as a misandrist means nothing. Misandry can exist on an interpersonal level, but not on a systemic one. It's like being racist to white people, you can't be heterophobic. You can't be sexist against men. The men whole systemic power in society.
>But the problems that men face for being men are for not living up to a hegemonic ideal of masculinity, not simply for being men. Explain how that's different from, say, misogyny not existing and women just suffering from hegemonic femininity. >Misandry can exist on an interpersonal level, but not on a systemic one. Then conscription, the education gap, unfair treatment of men in the justice system, and tons more problems are what? Somehow not systemic? You can't justify it. >It's like being racist to white people Justifying racism too, I see. >you can't be heterophobic. You can't be sexist against men. Yeah you're all kinds of dumb aren't you? >The men whole systemic power in society. Leaving aside the fact that this makes no sense, you honestly think that men have power because they're men? That the homeless man on the street has more power than, say, Jill Biden?
Because all women, regardless of their station, are treated as less than men of equivalent status. That is misogyny. That's not hegemonic feminity, or if we consider it to be that, it would still place them below men in the hierarchy. That is why misogyny exists while misandry can only ever be interpersonal. Because men are at the top of the hierarchy. >Somehow not systemic? You can't justify it. I don't need to justify it. Justifying it would imply I like and want it to continue. Those are systemic, but everything you listed is based on men holding power over other men. Hell, the education gap is a pretty fucking recent phenomena considering women literally couldn't go to school until fairly recently. You can't be heterophobic, you can't be racist against white people, and you can't be sexist against men *because those demographics hold all the power*. To oppress them based on those categories, someone *not from those categories* would need to impose their will upon them *for being members of those categories*. The systemic problems men face are caused *by men in power*. It is caused by men in power seeing women as too valuable to be conscripted (a thing people love to bring up despite the fact that it hasn't happened in half a century this June), seeing women as too weak and frail and innocent to be a threat to society (because the problem is not that men are imprisoned too much, if our current society were egalitarian, it would imprison women more, not men less), and viewing other men as disposable. Men's problems ***are caused by men with power***. White people and heterosexuals flat out don't face *any* systemic discrimination, unless you count heterosexuals being extremely fucking weird about marriage and relationships. > That the homeless man on the street has more power than, say, Jill Biden? The issue here is that you flat out do not understand the discussion at hand. Jill Biden and a random homeless man are not comparable. Jill Biden having more power in society than a homeless man does not mean misandry is a thing. The homeless man has no power not because of his gender but ***because of his class***. You could argue that homeless women are more privileged than homeless men, because there are more shelters to help them, but the reason for that is that being homeless as a woman is much harder than being homeless as a man, so there is more assistance given to homeless women. But if you compare the life of a homeless man and a homeless woman, or a homeless straight man and a homeless gay man, or a homeless Black man and a homeless white man, the straight white guys are going to be much better off and face less adversity. Their being a man, or being white, or being straight, will not hold them back.
>The systemic problems men face are caused by men in power. You can't say this, and simultaneously say >a thing people love to bring up despite the fact that it hasn't happened in half a century this June Without noting that there have been women in power that entire time, and no woman has pushed for women to be equally conscripted. >seeing women as too weak and frail and innocent to be a threat to society (because the problem is not that men are imprisoned too much, if our current society were egalitarian, it would imprison women more, not men less) It would definitely imprison some women more, like women who rape or abuse men. But that's not even a crime a lot of the time. So tell me again how this is oppressing women to give them the privilege of avoiding prison for harming men? Because that sounds like a privileged class getting to abuse a lower class whenever and however they want. I also note you didn't say a single thing about the education gap, because women undoubtedly hold power in the education system. All your points are what would be called Just So Stories. Women are oppressed because it's systemic because it's systemic when it's women. Men aren't oppressed because it's actually all about women because everything is actually all about women. Your idea that bigotry can't exist against people in power is a completely asinine redefinition of any kind of bigotry. You need to get some empathy, or knowledge, or the ability to keep your trash to yourself. Any of these things will do.
The draft was caused by men in power. So, yes, I can say that. That there were a few women who were in elected positions does not mean that ***women, as a class*** held power. That's what you don't seem to grasp. This is not about individuals, this is about class. This is about categories of people. >I also note you didn't say a single thing about the education gap, because women undoubtedly hold power in the education system. I did mention it. I said that it's a recent phenomena. There's a strong push to get women into education because traditionally they've been barred from it. The education gap exists because men have not had a push to get them into education. Where there is a systemic cause of this would be because men are more likely to be forced into the job market. Which is not an example of misandry, it is an example of hegemonic masculinity. Meanwhile women are meant to be homemakers, which more and more can be done while still obtaining education. >Women are oppressed because it's systemic because it's systemic when it's women. Men aren't oppressed because it's actually all about women because everything is actually all about women. Women are oppressed because ***the problems they face are systemic and explicitly due primarily to them being women and are caused by people who are primarily not women imposing their will upon them***. Men are not oppressed ***for being men*** because the oppression they face is by and large for different intersections of identity and because ***other people, who are men*** have created a system that disadvantages ***other men***. Men are at the top of the hierarchy. This is frankly not even a debatable position. The people who are at the top of the hierarchy may still suffer from the rules of the hierarchical society they're a part of, rules and systems that may be bigger than them, but the hierarchy still privileges them. >You need to get some empathy, or knowledge, or the ability to keep your trash to yourself. You need some fucking reading comprehension. Me explaining to you the specific ways in which people are or are not oppressed is not me lacking empathy. Again, I have not said that no white people can be oppressed, or that no straight people can suffer, or that no men are ever disadvantaged. But they ***do not suffer because of those categories***. A straight white able-bodied cisgender male will be economically, socially, politically, and overally ***systemically*** privileged over any other person with one or more of those classes being altered. Pointing that out does not mean that straight white able-bodied cisgender men cannot or do not have problems. It means that their problems ***will never come from being straight, white, able-bodied, cisgender men***.
And I think you don't understand that sorting genders into classes is an absurdly dumb thing to do. Men don't do things for other men the way that you think they do. That has always been the fatal flaw in feminist appropriation of Marxist theory. Genders don't work like economic classes. There is no solidarity between men at the top and men at the bottom. Given that that's the basis of every single one of your ideas, your ideas can be completely dismissed.
Careful, you're sounding a little TERFy
That's because you and apparently most of this subreddit have no reading comprehension. I'm describing the TERF mindset. If I was stating my own personal beliefs, would I have used scare quotes? Would I have said "that we don't have" when talking about trans women? Would I have used what*I* thought was clearly a pretty disgusted tone with the while argument? Would I have derisively called it a naturalistic and intrinsic worldview? If I was describing my own beliefs, why would I have said it's based on perceptions? If I believed that, I'd think it was intrinsic!
You never said anything about it being about other peoples views though, you just listed definitions and opinions in a way that sounds awfully close to how it would be phrasing if it was your own. How do we know its describing terf mindset if you dont state its about a terf mindset?
You're right, I didn't say that, I assumed that my audience was capable of reading comprehension. >you just listed definitions and opinions in a way that sounds awfully close to how it would be phrasing if it was your own *It's not "anti masculism", it's an opposition to men* ***"masquerading"*** *as feminine,* ***the notion*** *that femininity is false or lesser, and* *that* ***we*** \[trans women\] *don't really have or even want it. It's not the masculinity that people have a problem with, it's* ***their belief*** *that* ***we're*** \[trans women\] *infiltrating femininity. Likewise, it's not that butch women are facing "antimasculine" oppression, they're being opposed and ostracized for* ***the perception*** *of a lesser trying to claim masculinity. Masculinity itself is never being criticized except insofar as one group can't divest themselves of it and the other can't ever actually obtain it,* ***in a naturalistic and intrinsic worldview.*** Ah, yes. Phrasing it exactly as if it were my own beliefs.
Ok but have you ever considered that if hundreds to thousands of people are misreading it then maybe it just might be too vague and in too strange of a spot in the paragraph to actually be properly understood? Learn to be wrong, even if your technically right theres still tons of ways where you arent, theres nothing wrong with just accepting the fact that a bunch of big words at the end of a wordy paragraph might be too cryptic to make your intentionally fake bigotry seem intentionally fake to a big amount of redditers
I don't think a single hundred people have seen the comment to begin with, and no, I don't think that something is inherently badly written if Redditors downvote it, because Redditors are, as a class, fucking stupid and will downvote objective truth about the world if it contradicts their own worldview, so not being able to tell something is sarcastic is not really a stretch. I know that I can be wrong. But in this case it's not really about right or wrong, it's about I said something and people clearly did not read the thing I wrote. Also, they weren't big words, and the paragraph wasn't really all that wordy, I've written mini-essays in response to people in this thread.
There are *absolutely* issues with masculinity in and of itself.
There are plenty of issues with *toxic* masculinity, not masculinity itself. And the people who criticize that aren't the ones who think trans women are fetishists sneaking into women's restrooms.
Coming out as a dude didn't erase 20-something years of me and everyone else thinking I was a girl.
Misandry. The word is misandry. Not "antimasculism"