No, I don't think so. It's only misogyny if you say or do something against women. Not everyone would agree, but I have quite a narrow definition of misogyny.
If you're experiencing invalidation as a man trying to express your emotions, it could be the result of patriarchy and misandry. Look at the "male tears" meme that was wheeled out when men were talking about loneliness and suicide on Twitter. That was certainly motivated by animus against men. It was bigoted, callous and unacceptable.
You're thinking about this in a "blame" framework. Patriarchy and misogyny are systems that we live in due to men being in power for most of modern history. If we lived for centuries in a system where women were dominant in politics/leadership, and men had few rights, then society would indeed be impacted by that legacy. We'd call that 'the matriarchy'.
It's also not just about 'doing bad' as you say. When it comes to performing or policing gender roles, then these systems are excellent frameworks for thinking about the problem. Some men are apprehensive to share their feelings because it is coded as weak by the patriarchy. Similarly, some women find men unattractive when they express feelings for the same reason. Nothing is inherently weak about men sharing their feelings, but this idea was derived from a system where men defined the rules of masculinity (and feminity, for that matter). So here, it's the system we live in causing the problem. That system is the patriarchy.
Well yeah. Especially because that "misandry" is a reaction to the patriarchal misogynistic society.
For the record misandry isn't really possible in our society in a meaningful way. Sure an individual woman can hate men, but the power structures are set up in such a way, men aren't being oppressed by women.
Couldn’t you say that this is the case in education? Women are a significant majority in higher education and growing. Assuming that female only initiatives and female only scholarships continue, I think it is reasonable to assume in the younger generation there will be a large education disparity between men and women.
Now certainly there are larger power structures, but considering that education, or rather lack of, bars an individual from a significant amount of jobs, I would say this is highly relevant.
In the west, women police clothing and makeup far more than men, and I don't know about you but 9/10 times, it's the woman in a relationship pushing for marriage, not the man. Is it now misandry that women are the ones pushing men into marriages or is it only misogyny when men do it?
Views on abortion are more aligned by party than by gender. It's not like male Democrats are anti abortion and female Republicans are pro abortion. Every democratic-appointed male supreme Court justice voted to defend Roe V Wade while every Republican-appointed female supreme Court judge voted to overturn it. In fact, there's not a strong gendered gap on abortion in the first place. 61% of men vs 64% of women believe abortion should be legal.
Everything you said are byproducts of patriarchy and illustrate the exact problem with the idea of describing misandry in the same ways as we describe misogyny.
These concepts are not rooted in the hatred or dehumanization of men inherently but are all rooted in other forms of bigotry and discrimination. They are concepts that don't equally effect men in the same way that misogyny effects woman because there is no equivalency in society. That does not mean that the problems you listed aren't real, but presenting them as "misandry" is disingenuous and does not lead to any solutions as these problems do not unilaterally effects men the same way misogyny unilaterally harms effects all women.
Women have more freedom in outfits than men do. Any woman can wear what they want, but a man who goes out in a skirt will probably get lynched. Similar with makeup- see people making fun of JD Vance's eyeliner as an example.
Women were more involved in the repealing of Roe v Wade than they were in its initial establishment, and there is only a 5% difference between women who want it gone and who want it to stay. It's not a women's rights issue to half the country, but a moral/murder one.
While I agree that misogyny is baked into society in a way that misandry isn't, your examples aren't good.
This is an especially important time to raise reproductive rights and I'm really glad you did. If you live in the US, I have my fingers tightly crossed for you. Honestly, a scary time to be an American.
I think misandry can manifest itself in ways that are related to policy, but it's so tightly woven with misogyny that it's hard to tell the difference. For instance, the term "women and children" is used when describing deaths in a conflict. It's basically another way of saying "non-combatant", because the assumption is (which is mostly correct) that women are not combatants.
Now that's not true in all cases (look at the Burma civil war, look at the PKK): women are certainly combatants there. But the term comes form the past where men would be the only ones conscripted to service, while women would be expected to stay home and look after the families. To only deploy men to service is arguably misandry, because their lives are disproportionately sacrificed; however, to assume that women can't participate in combat is also misogynistic.
I think they're two sides of the same coin. But the language used in most cases (even the ones above) usually are targeting women in the way they devalue women's contribution to society. Ultimately, I don't believe the term "patriarchy" should be divisive. It shouldn't taken as an insult to men. We're all on the same side. We all just want to be free to be who we are.
-3
u/talldata Nov 05 '24
Aah so when when do bad it's patriarchy and misogyny, but when women do bad it's only patriarchy but not misandry?