Just outlaw AI-generated content entirely. Outlaw all investments in AI as well.

Wrong.

Fearless? Maybe. Leader? Yeah. Hero? I wish.

Neo-christian like most westerners

Any way we can get an actual fleet with actual soldiers instead of just getting arrested for attention?

It’s literally a joke I heard at a comedy club. You already said you don’t trust me. I don’t trust you either. Get out of this thread.

Ooooooh that’ll show em’. Trump OWNED!!!

“Generalization bad”

It’s hard to disagree. I wish it was easier to simplify complex issues for a public audience.

The comedian was a woman for the record. I do agree that they would not explicitly make such an extrapolation, but I do think they believe men are generally inferior to trans women. The difference is not all that big

Misandry is nowhere near as common and pervasive as you are making it out to be.

The pervasiveness of misandry is not the topic of my post. I have no clue the extent of the misandry I am talking about beyond my lives experience. I would bet that it is a bigger issue where I live now than where I grew up. It’s likely that it is uniquely relevant in some of the spaces I operate in and especially irrelevant in many other commenters lives.

Is it toxic masculinity if it’s coming from non-men who don’t seem to express masculinity? I think the “misandrists” of concern do ultimately buy in to patriarchal tropes and enforce them while believing themselves to be progressive.

And healing is a collective effort if it is to be successful. If someone is to reject it, they will need support. I’ve grown a lot because of the conversations I’ve had with other people and their willingness to build bridges that make new possibilities. These people are revolutionaries in my eye.

I appreciate your inclusion of bell hooks and your suggestions for terminology. I kinda thought I’d be getting way more posts like this than I did.

I must clarify that I’m not interested in organizing anything around this idea of misandry, only why people are unable to theorize how the valorization of hating men impacts discourse that also impacts women and queer people negatively.

In short, people often say misandry is an obfuscation of the misery of women. I agree, but I don’t think the idea of misandry is the only way it is obfuscating of women’s misery. The expression and denial of misandry (as a function of patriarchy) does too, and is also related to other oppressive structures. Other commenters and yourself have suggested misandry is not the proper term. I accept this may be the case, but have not reached a satisfactory conclusion to rest on this yet because I don’t think my core thesis has been fully critiqued.

I think even if I could outright reject it somehow it would be shoved back down my throat by a politically diverse and unintuitive coalition that has no consciousness they are collaborating.

I’m going to be frank with you: I will never trust the intentions of anyone who will look at the systemic oppression of women through patriarchy & misogyny and has the audacity to ask, “What about men?”

Superfluous. You don’t have my trust either.

Because regardless of your intentions these discussions end up hijacking the narrative and reorienting away from the oppression of women to prioritize men as the focus. This ends up being just another case of women’s issues being sidelined by men’s concerns. There’s nothing “feminist” about this; it’s erasure.

This is my post. What conversation am I hijacking?

Yes, patriarchy does negatively impact men. But why does this deserve to be discussed? What benefit does it bring to feminist analysis or theory? How does pivoting away from the many ways women constantly suffer under patriarchy to the far fewer ones men sometimes suffer under patriarchy help us combat, dismantle, or replace patriarchy? How does this help bring us closer to gender equality - or even gender abolition?

How can a theory of misandry that explains it as a function of misogyny distract us from women?

men are once again being elevated above women.

Part of what I was trying to say in my post was that the valorized hatred of men can be used to elevate men over women.

Capitalism hurts the bourgeoisie too, you know. Capitalists also experience alienation leading to depression from loss of community. Should we pivot away from the exploitation of workers to discuss suicide rates among the elite? Is that a conversation worth having? Will it bring us closer to socialism?

Of course I know. But it would be impossible to “pivot away from the exploitation of workers” while holistically addressing the damaging experiences of capitalism. To be unconcerned with such damages, even to the bourgeoisie, would advance bourgeoisie politics very explicitly and harm proletarians most of all. Of course this can bring us closer to socialism. Your point makes no sense and implies you care more about naming oppressors to extract ethical value for yourself than ultimately ending oppressive systems. I reiterate my lack of trust in you, at least as a feminist and socialist.

For the record, I think we can imagine “men” as a kind of institution that is emergent from a cacophony of gendered relations. I don’t think this is the same thing as class per se, but I do think there is overlap. In terms of scholarship I think federici was great in helping me think more about this. It is not so unlike how being a settler has relevant qualities that heavily impact how class materializes.

I’m not uncomfortable separating the institution of Men from individual men if it can be done correctly, but it is a sensitive matter and few seem to have a methodology robust enough to do that. And if we did, it would be watered down and turned against us by the time we get used to it.

I think what’s also frustrating about “all men” is that is just flattens and misunderstands patriarchy. It is in the interest of patriarchy to reduce feminism to “all men are bad” but many pop-activists along with more cynical characters are not actually invested in the vitality of feminism or in the liberation of women. Rather they extract from it like it’s a dogma. It’s taken for granted.

Your point about antisemitism is really interesting because antisemitism absolutely does disrupt Palestinian liberation by advancing Zionist discourse but on the left you don’t see people in absolute theoretical denial of antisemitism as a means of preserving the importance of Palestinian liberation. At least I think it is more obvious or more known colloquially that doing so is harmful. If anything people are more prone to let antisemitism creep in than deny its existence. We know it’s the illegitimate state of Israel that is to blame, not Jewishness, not even Jews themselves. And while we appreciate Jewish folks that are against Zionism, we also know that we can’t center them over Palestine, but we also aren’t so cruel as to make all Jews answer for Israel.

Im not prepared to double down on this flawed comparison but still I wonder what is different about patriarchy that we shouldn’t approach it in a similar manner. Or rather, what exactly do we have to lose by simply not buying into wholesale pessimism as we grapple with the very real threat of patriarchy?

Also (somewhat conversely but not really) I want to say I feel as if the “all men” sentiment has actually been quite educational for myself and others as a man. I also think it has potentially done something generative for non men as well. I don’t really think it’s some ultimate evil even if it is problematic. I just think its relevance has been changed as poles shift in discourse. It had utility but perhaps we have reached it’s limits and now I’m not sure what positive impacts it can have anymore. We need clarity and vitality in our theory crafting, not just platitudes from 2013.

I think you understand well what I’m trying to discuss. I have much to say I may add later but primarily there is a tension between

But in a place like the US, we have this weird between stuff sometimes where people are sort of pushing back in their language, but the systems aren’t being challenged properly.

And

It means processing any hurt and then understanding where something came from, and not assuming it’s about us.

I feel I am 10 years past the realization that I need this particular consciousness, but it doesn’t work as well when you can’t trust it isn’t coming from a place of hate that is itself reproducing patriarchy.

And even if you are right that somehow this isn’t a problem in China you are still only mentioning it to silence people all over the world.

You mean what about misogyny? Transphobia? Or did you not ready post. I get that no one’s cares about men but Jesus Christ is it obvious that this conversation is needed.

I’m not sure you are replying in good faith. It’s like you are baiting me to just repeat that the impulse to hate men can be weaponized and empowered by misogyny. I’m not talking about grievences. I’m not talking about countering misogyny or patriarchy with violence as some kind of misandry. We have all heard these lectures that misadry can’t exist ad naseum for over a decade but we have not really added much beyond it.

The comedian did frame their wife was a man and that removing being man was what made them better. This is exactly what I’m saying. The impulse to express this harms everyone. It deminishes everyone. It misunderstands and misrecognizes everyone. It shows a lack of care in how they even communicate about their wife just to say they can make a cheap joke that men suck.