One of the cleaner voices in a discussion that has mostly produced more noise than argument. The platform governance case is well-constructed, and the point about the manosphere's transgressive allure being partly manufactured by exclusion is one that almost nobody on the pro-ban side is willing to sit with.
One place where I'd push the argument further: the "misandry isn't real" position you handle carefully but doesn't quite follow to its conclusion. The framework that makes misandry "not real" — folding prejudice into systemic power, so that contempt only counts when it flows from dominant to subordinate — is the same framework that makes misogyny only conditionally real. Dependent on accepting structural premises that are genuinely contested. If your condemnation of misogyny requires the other person to first accept a specific sociological model of power, you've built your moral argument on ground that shifts the moment someone disputes the model.
The stronger position — and the more defensible one — is that contempt for people based on their sex or their skin colour is wrong in both directions, full stop. The systemic power analysis is interesting sociology. It is a poor substitute for basic ethics.
I wouldn't build a platform to have Andrew Tate, but I understand your point that it is what makes Substack into Substack. Furthermore, we should, above all of this, build healthier paths for boys to deal with their problems and struggles.
Perhaps, as well, the algorithm of this social media should reward more constructive criticism and conversations? I don't know how this could be achieved, but it seems necessary for sanity.
One thing you didn't cover, is that most of Tate's misogynistic views on women are actually pretty mainstream in much of the world. For example, his views on the inferiority and rightful subjugation of women are fairly mainstream tradition Islam; and in fact a lot of his views are in tune with traditional Islam, which is exactly why he converted to Islam in 2022 when he became infatuated with Dubai and its culture.
So, the usual suspects who are calling for him to be banned from Substack - are they calling for mainstream and conservative Islamic writers to be banned from Substack for the same behaviour? There's debate about the meaning of An-Nisa 34 (the paragraph dealing with the treatment of "disobedient" wives, that is the Koranic basis of striking a wife "as a third and final step") - presumably anyone who concludes the traditional view here should be banned from Substack? Are they calling for that? Well, I think we all know the answer to that. The usual suspects are doing their tedious thing of holding all their favoured in-groups to much lower standards than their out-groups...
Yes, I have not gone into that and you see this when the survey which found a quarter of young men to think Tate had some good ideas down into ethnic and religious groups. That is a piece for another day though and including it in that one would be falling into the ‘whataboutism’ which gets in the way of discussing this specific issue specifically.
Unfortunately the search function on Substack is dreadful so I haven't wasted my time on that. But rather than a Muslim arguing that the Quran says to beat your wife, I do have an excellent article of an ex-Muslim arguing that the Quran says to beat your wife:
I’ve just been removed from Threads for actions incommensurate with their community values. They do not feel any obligation to tell me what posts of mine caused them to do so. It may be because I called someone a fucking racist moron for trying to appropriate Jewish suffering by referencing “ICE concentration camps”, it could be when I replied FOAD to one of Boy George’s pile-ons to Jo Rowling, or it could be because I’d taken to calling Labour/ Lib Dems/ Greens/ SNP/ Plaid Cymru the ladydick Left. Either way, this is what we are proposing for Substack when we call for the banning of the one simple, indisputable rule they have - no calling for direct violence.
Gosh Helen I am thinking of the old wise saying “what a complicated web we weave when first we learn to deceive” I know little of Tate but what I have gleaned from what is said and what I have read is that he is a complicated individual but not one who is intentionally deceptive I am sure there is no way to guard vulnerable readers from misinterpretation and insult regarding his rhetoric as is there in our lives in being human I am one who is focused on human rights and justice and the only way I am able to judge others and who they are is by their actions and the results of them How much have they done to bring unity and peace to lives or to destroy I am finding as I age only too fast there are no borders to learning and to finding new ways of thinking and doing as long as it helps me in helping others
1. Stopped clocks. If Tate said something sensible, or elements of something sensible, use it, build on it, because it's the right thing to do. Famously, allegedly, "Nazi Germany made the trains run on time". I don't even know if that's true, but either way, it's probably a good idea to make the trains run on time. If we can learn from how they made the trains run on time, we should. If, as you hint, we can learn any good lessons from Tait's prattling, we should. The best lesson may indeed be: there's a need for somebody to talk to boys and young men in a way that builds them up...now let's do that better than Tait.
2. Inoculation. If we tell ourselves, each other, that we need safe spaces, we're losing agency. You're right to say we can block, ignore, argue back as it suits us. Those are all better mechanisms than "wanting Big Brother to protect me from hurty words". If we know there is nastiness and we manage it ourselves, we become stronger both individually and collectively.
3. Immunity. The best defence against bad arguments isn't to silence them, it's to have better arguments. We need to be exposed to the former, so we can refine, improve and articulate the latter, even thought it's difficult, and because it's difficult. When Tait's audience see him blocked, they perceive a lack of counter-argument, and that makes him the more appealing.
4. Imperfection and risk. When we seek to block what we don't like, we need to zoom out. That's what we're against, but (to paraphrase JD Vance) what are we for? I'm for a pluralistic, messy, disagreeable society, but a society that's free, real, and exciting. That concern applies to so many domains. I don't like being caught in the rain, but I don't avoid that risk by never heading outside, because what I really like is the open air. Etc.
Tate is not so much a problem but the symptom of a problem. Part of which is the constant devaluing and demonisation of in the media and elsewhere over the last 10-15 years or so. What effect of this on boys and young men coming of age did people expect? smh...
Unfortunately the search function on Substack is dreadful so I haven't wasted my time on that. But rather than a Muslim arguing that the Quran says to beat your wife, I have an excellent article of an ex-Muslim arguing that the Quran says to beat your wife:
" it would need to call upon empirical research into which ideas are radicalising people into hateful, contemptuous stances on great swathes of the population"
I report anti-semitic paranoid conspiracy theories on Substack because, as we all know, they led directly to the murder of 6 million people. I would argue that the murder of 6 million people is not part of the "marketplace of ideas."
There is no comparison between "misandry," which is a neologism, and misogyny, which is a documented phenomenon going back thousands of years. Misogyny has led directly to female genital mutilation in Africa, mutilation/disability of women's feet in China, and a lower standard of living and mental health problems in the West. "Misandry" is simply a term made up to describe the resentment toward men that some women have. It has had no real life effects whatsoever.
Racism, in the US, is a more complicated issue. White racism created segregation and the denial of civil rights to black people. It led to horrific murders of black men. Where black racism has harmed white people, it is actually misogyny, as some black male rapists were motivated to rape white women because they were seen as white men's property. Black racism toward white people usually takes the form of misogyny.
The whole phenomenon of "hate speech" is only relevant if the hate resulted in actual crimes. It has, in fact, resulted in actual crimes against Jews and against women and against black people.
But I don't care that Andrew Tate is on Substack. I took a look at his sub and it's the usual manosphere slop. I wouldn't even know he was here except people complained about him so I looked him up.
""Misandry" is simply a term made up to describe the resentment toward men that some women have. It has had no real life effects whatsoever."
You don't think the demonisation of men and pathologisation of masculinity has contributed at all to the male loneliness problem, suicide rate and rise of the manosphere? Did that just happen in a vacuum unconnected to any socially sanctioned anti-male rhetoric?
The suicide rate for men has always been higher than that for women, because men use more lethal methods. Women in fact make more suicide attempts. This has been true for MANY DECADES.
As a mental health professional, I am sick and tired of people outside my profession thinking they are mental health professionals when they are not.
There has been no "pathologisation of masculinity." Masculinity is glorified in Hollywood movies, in video games, and in pornography. Or rather, all of these glorify an extremist and pathological view of masculinity. Perhaps that's a problem don't you think? All of the above, plus the fashion industry and the advertising industry, portray women as inferior, submissive, and objects to use for men's pleasure. I would say that's a problem.
Men aren't "demonized" except by a few columnists in media that no one reads.
The manosphere was created by 1. Late stage capitalism and income inequality, leading to hopelessness among young men and 2. Misogyny. See above.
OK, then. Everything continues to be the fault of the people and ideas you don’t like and misandrist strains of feminism bear absolutely no responsibility for anything.
Men don't read misandrist strains of feminism. The only true misandry I have come across is among lesbian writers. I am pretty sure zero men read these writings. Therefore, these misandrist writings, which are also not cited in the mainstream media, have zero effect on the lives of men.
This is nonsense anyway. Feminists who make this claim would never accept that patriarchy and misogyny only affect women’s lives if they read texts advocating it. They pick out elements of culture which they claim to have been infused with it - Scarlet pointed at action movies and the fashion industry - as clear evidence of those but then insist that only very explicit expressions of hatred for men count as misandry. Scarlet has also, in this thread, indicated that only Muslim men advocating wife-beating on Substack would indicate misogyny coming from that quarter. Apparently, there are no indications of it in key texts and dress codes there. There’s little point in trying to engage with a worldview that has such stark bias in evidentiary standards.
thank you! as an intellectually curious high school straight boy i did definitely familiarize myself with “all heterosexual sex is rape” stuff just because i felt like being edgy.
You don’t think it affects men to scroll social media for 20 minutes and see multiple casual comments like “all men are disgusting” with little pushback? I see that stuff all the time.
That’s odd. I don’t recall seeing “all men are disgusting” anywhere except the lesbian essays. On Facebook I see wry comments about men under reels by people such as Farideh who is a comedian. I assume she shows up in my feed because I’ve expressed interest in feminist comedians. Farideh is married and her husband occasionally makes an appearance. Where are you seeing this stuff?
Read anything by Janice Fiamengo and you will very quickly begin accumulating examples both anecdotal and statistical that men in the West -- yes I am generalizing -- have been scapegoated and victimized by women simply for the crime of being a man.
This conversation is truly wild. You claim that misogyny is a more valid concept than misandry, because only the former is associated with violence. Even conceding that for the purpose of argument, surely you realize that the current, common usage of “misogyny” has become much, MUCH broader than the one you’re giving it? It now can be, and typically is, used to describe practically anything bad that happens to a woman, or a part of her life that she doesn’t like—including her own self doubt and/or poor treatment by other women (aka internalized misogyny).
As for misandry and the pathologization of masculinity: there is a constant stream of content, by women, that treats any form of male behavior they don’t like, or don’t understand, as defective at best, dangerous at worst. Commercials for online therapy products that suggest no man is worth dating unless he deals with emotional issues like a woman would by going to therapy. Books like Boymom, in which feminist mothers talk about the travails of trying to save their sons from their own, fundamentally broken, masculine natures. The entire genre of “I divorced my husband for feminism” media, which invariably find the authors declaring that men are fundamentally incapable of being worthy partners to women. A disquieting number of contemporary feminist writers really seem to struggle with seeing men as fundamentally human, honestly.
Liberal and educated spaces are so saturated in a default female chauvinism that you don’t even notice it. Doesn’t mean it isn’t there.
“Sexism” and “misogyny” are used interchangeably in recent years, and it’s an unfortunate trend. They used to be distinct ideas: sexism was about adhering to or failing to question stereotypes while misogyny was about woman-hating. Semantic inflation now puts someone who thinks women make better nurses or men make better mechanics in the same category as a Republican clamoring for the death penalty for women who terminate unwanted pregnancies.
Confused and imprecise language makes discussion quite difficult.
I'm not familiar with "Boymom." Are you saying that the author advocates telling boys that they are inferior, that they are misogynists, they are flawed for being male? Maybe it's true but I would have to see the evidence. I would find it hard to believe a parenting book gave such advice.
Men don't read books about the dating travails of women. They don't follow those authors on social media either, just like I don't follow Andrew Tate. Explain how the existence of these books or social media postings affect men when men never read them and probably never even see them. Are you saying that they affect men indirectly because then women don't want to date them? Is a woman not wanting to date men a form of misandry? Are men entitled to be able to date women? What exactly is misandry?
It sounds like both of you are saying there are books and social media postings that say things you find offensive about men. Fair enough. But what is the practical effect of this on men's lives? Do men care? How exactly does any of this affect men? Is there any evidence that advice books and columns for women that say negative things about men affect men?
Andrew Tate and many others in the "Manosphere" COMPLETELY and TOTALLY REJECTED all of the coronavirus nonsense. They were about the only ones. They always knew it was all a big lie.
Arguing that misandry doesn't matter -- or matter less -- because men are usually physically stronger is pretty silly. Like the quote in your post says: men die from suicide something like a factor of 4 more often than women do. A fact that all by itself should be enough to convince anyone who is doubting it, that the consequences of emotional or verbal violence are real. (I'm not claiming that all the men who die from suicide die from verbal violence of course -- just that it's a factor for a subset of them)
Women attempt suicide more often than men. Men succeed more often because they use guns instead of pills. And this has been true for many decades now. You don't know this because you aren't a mental health professional.
Women die from suicide less often than men even when you compare attempts using the same method. If a man and a woman both attempt suicide by pills, the man is more likely to die. If a man and a woman both attempt suicide by cutting, the man is more likely to die. If a man and a woman both attempt suicide by CO-poisoning the man is more likely to die and so on.
There's as far as I can see three possible explanations for this.
First, it's possible that suicide-attempts that don't lead to death are more under-reported for men than for women. This seems likely to me. Men are less likely to be in touch with mental health professionals, and men are socialized to not show vulnerability, and few things are as vulnerable as talking about suicidality.
Secondly, it's possible that women on the average have a less serious commitment to actually dying when they attempt suicide, i.e. that the odds it's a cry for help are larger, and the odds that it's a genuinely serious attempt to die, are lower.
Thirdly it's possible that woman on the average are equally serious about dying, but that they nevertheless systematically fail to actually kill themselves a lot more often than men do, in other words that women are just systematically less competent.
Personally I think the first two are likely both true. I don't believe in the third -- I think women who have the same commitment to a given goal, are equally competent as men in reaching it. What's your thinking?
I'm curious why you resorted to a personal attack on me and making random guesses about my background and knowledge instead of engaging with the actual content of my comment. Usually when people do that, it's because they've run out of actually rational arguments. It's not very convincing.
I'm someone who has volunteered for a mental health hotline for years now, and who's had a fair amount of education surrounding that. I must've talked with hundreds of suicidal people, and of course I'm aware of the basic stats. (this work also confirms what I talked about above: The vast majority of people who contact the mental health helpline and talk about feeling suicidal are women -- despite the fact that most of the people who die from suicide are men; as I said men are socialized not to talk about this stuff, that's something we should change!)
But I'm not paid for it, so yes you're technically right: I'm not a mental health professional.
If you're still out of actual arguments, I recommend you try insulting me based on my looks or what you imagine my IQ to be next.
Thanks! I appreciate your clear thinking and writing very much, Helen!
I posit the best way to handle Tate is to relentlessly dunk on him. It's not a high bar to clear.
One of the cleaner voices in a discussion that has mostly produced more noise than argument. The platform governance case is well-constructed, and the point about the manosphere's transgressive allure being partly manufactured by exclusion is one that almost nobody on the pro-ban side is willing to sit with.
One place where I'd push the argument further: the "misandry isn't real" position you handle carefully but doesn't quite follow to its conclusion. The framework that makes misandry "not real" — folding prejudice into systemic power, so that contempt only counts when it flows from dominant to subordinate — is the same framework that makes misogyny only conditionally real. Dependent on accepting structural premises that are genuinely contested. If your condemnation of misogyny requires the other person to first accept a specific sociological model of power, you've built your moral argument on ground that shifts the moment someone disputes the model.
The stronger position — and the more defensible one — is that contempt for people based on their sex or their skin colour is wrong in both directions, full stop. The systemic power analysis is interesting sociology. It is a poor substitute for basic ethics.
As usual, Helen Pluckrose hits the nail on the head.
I’ve said it till I’m blue in the face and won’t stop saying it:
The answer to speech one doesn’t like is MORE speech, not less!
I can't wait to tell him how much his perpetual scowl reminds me of Greta Thunberg's!
I wouldn't build a platform to have Andrew Tate, but I understand your point that it is what makes Substack into Substack. Furthermore, we should, above all of this, build healthier paths for boys to deal with their problems and struggles.
Perhaps, as well, the algorithm of this social media should reward more constructive criticism and conversations? I don't know how this could be achieved, but it seems necessary for sanity.
Good post, as usual.
One thing you didn't cover, is that most of Tate's misogynistic views on women are actually pretty mainstream in much of the world. For example, his views on the inferiority and rightful subjugation of women are fairly mainstream tradition Islam; and in fact a lot of his views are in tune with traditional Islam, which is exactly why he converted to Islam in 2022 when he became infatuated with Dubai and its culture.
So, the usual suspects who are calling for him to be banned from Substack - are they calling for mainstream and conservative Islamic writers to be banned from Substack for the same behaviour? There's debate about the meaning of An-Nisa 34 (the paragraph dealing with the treatment of "disobedient" wives, that is the Koranic basis of striking a wife "as a third and final step") - presumably anyone who concludes the traditional view here should be banned from Substack? Are they calling for that? Well, I think we all know the answer to that. The usual suspects are doing their tedious thing of holding all their favoured in-groups to much lower standards than their out-groups...
Yes, I have not gone into that and you see this when the survey which found a quarter of young men to think Tate had some good ideas down into ethnic and religious groups. That is a piece for another day though and including it in that one would be falling into the ‘whataboutism’ which gets in the way of discussing this specific issue specifically.
Can you cite any Muslim writers on Substack who have written posts advocating for hitting wives?
Unfortunately the search function on Substack is dreadful so I haven't wasted my time on that. But rather than a Muslim arguing that the Quran says to beat your wife, I do have an excellent article of an ex-Muslim arguing that the Quran says to beat your wife:
https://nushuz.substack.com/p/if-daraba-doesnt-mean-strike-then
I don't mean the Quran, which was written around 1,400 year ago. I mean today can you find any Muslim writers advocating for men hitting their wives?
I’ve just been removed from Threads for actions incommensurate with their community values. They do not feel any obligation to tell me what posts of mine caused them to do so. It may be because I called someone a fucking racist moron for trying to appropriate Jewish suffering by referencing “ICE concentration camps”, it could be when I replied FOAD to one of Boy George’s pile-ons to Jo Rowling, or it could be because I’d taken to calling Labour/ Lib Dems/ Greens/ SNP/ Plaid Cymru the ladydick Left. Either way, this is what we are proposing for Substack when we call for the banning of the one simple, indisputable rule they have - no calling for direct violence.
Gosh Helen I am thinking of the old wise saying “what a complicated web we weave when first we learn to deceive” I know little of Tate but what I have gleaned from what is said and what I have read is that he is a complicated individual but not one who is intentionally deceptive I am sure there is no way to guard vulnerable readers from misinterpretation and insult regarding his rhetoric as is there in our lives in being human I am one who is focused on human rights and justice and the only way I am able to judge others and who they are is by their actions and the results of them How much have they done to bring unity and peace to lives or to destroy I am finding as I age only too fast there are no borders to learning and to finding new ways of thinking and doing as long as it helps me in helping others
This was very good. I have a few builds:
1. Stopped clocks. If Tate said something sensible, or elements of something sensible, use it, build on it, because it's the right thing to do. Famously, allegedly, "Nazi Germany made the trains run on time". I don't even know if that's true, but either way, it's probably a good idea to make the trains run on time. If we can learn from how they made the trains run on time, we should. If, as you hint, we can learn any good lessons from Tait's prattling, we should. The best lesson may indeed be: there's a need for somebody to talk to boys and young men in a way that builds them up...now let's do that better than Tait.
2. Inoculation. If we tell ourselves, each other, that we need safe spaces, we're losing agency. You're right to say we can block, ignore, argue back as it suits us. Those are all better mechanisms than "wanting Big Brother to protect me from hurty words". If we know there is nastiness and we manage it ourselves, we become stronger both individually and collectively.
3. Immunity. The best defence against bad arguments isn't to silence them, it's to have better arguments. We need to be exposed to the former, so we can refine, improve and articulate the latter, even thought it's difficult, and because it's difficult. When Tait's audience see him blocked, they perceive a lack of counter-argument, and that makes him the more appealing.
4. Imperfection and risk. When we seek to block what we don't like, we need to zoom out. That's what we're against, but (to paraphrase JD Vance) what are we for? I'm for a pluralistic, messy, disagreeable society, but a society that's free, real, and exciting. That concern applies to so many domains. I don't like being caught in the rain, but I don't avoid that risk by never heading outside, because what I really like is the open air. Etc.
Hope this helps.
Great essay.
Tate is not so much a problem but the symptom of a problem. Part of which is the constant devaluing and demonisation of in the media and elsewhere over the last 10-15 years or so. What effect of this on boys and young men coming of age did people expect? smh...
Unfortunately the search function on Substack is dreadful so I haven't wasted my time on that. But rather than a Muslim arguing that the Quran says to beat your wife, I have an excellent article of an ex-Muslim arguing that the Quran says to beat your wife:
https://nushuz.substack.com/p/if-daraba-doesnt-mean-strike-then
" it would need to call upon empirical research into which ideas are radicalising people into hateful, contemptuous stances on great swathes of the population"
I report anti-semitic paranoid conspiracy theories on Substack because, as we all know, they led directly to the murder of 6 million people. I would argue that the murder of 6 million people is not part of the "marketplace of ideas."
There is no comparison between "misandry," which is a neologism, and misogyny, which is a documented phenomenon going back thousands of years. Misogyny has led directly to female genital mutilation in Africa, mutilation/disability of women's feet in China, and a lower standard of living and mental health problems in the West. "Misandry" is simply a term made up to describe the resentment toward men that some women have. It has had no real life effects whatsoever.
Racism, in the US, is a more complicated issue. White racism created segregation and the denial of civil rights to black people. It led to horrific murders of black men. Where black racism has harmed white people, it is actually misogyny, as some black male rapists were motivated to rape white women because they were seen as white men's property. Black racism toward white people usually takes the form of misogyny.
The whole phenomenon of "hate speech" is only relevant if the hate resulted in actual crimes. It has, in fact, resulted in actual crimes against Jews and against women and against black people.
But I don't care that Andrew Tate is on Substack. I took a look at his sub and it's the usual manosphere slop. I wouldn't even know he was here except people complained about him so I looked him up.
""Misandry" is simply a term made up to describe the resentment toward men that some women have. It has had no real life effects whatsoever."
You don't think the demonisation of men and pathologisation of masculinity has contributed at all to the male loneliness problem, suicide rate and rise of the manosphere? Did that just happen in a vacuum unconnected to any socially sanctioned anti-male rhetoric?
The suicide rate for men has always been higher than that for women, because men use more lethal methods. Women in fact make more suicide attempts. This has been true for MANY DECADES.
As a mental health professional, I am sick and tired of people outside my profession thinking they are mental health professionals when they are not.
There has been no "pathologisation of masculinity." Masculinity is glorified in Hollywood movies, in video games, and in pornography. Or rather, all of these glorify an extremist and pathological view of masculinity. Perhaps that's a problem don't you think? All of the above, plus the fashion industry and the advertising industry, portray women as inferior, submissive, and objects to use for men's pleasure. I would say that's a problem.
Men aren't "demonized" except by a few columnists in media that no one reads.
The manosphere was created by 1. Late stage capitalism and income inequality, leading to hopelessness among young men and 2. Misogyny. See above.
OK, then. Everything continues to be the fault of the people and ideas you don’t like and misandrist strains of feminism bear absolutely no responsibility for anything.
Men don't read misandrist strains of feminism. The only true misandry I have come across is among lesbian writers. I am pretty sure zero men read these writings. Therefore, these misandrist writings, which are also not cited in the mainstream media, have zero effect on the lives of men.
If you mean academic writings of course not because few read any academic writing.
But hatred of men is a solid portion of like the entire internet. 100% you’re just refusing to recognize it for what it is when you see it
Men do actually read a lot more lesbian separatist blogs/zines/essays than you might think, ditto for other radfem tendencies.
This is nonsense anyway. Feminists who make this claim would never accept that patriarchy and misogyny only affect women’s lives if they read texts advocating it. They pick out elements of culture which they claim to have been infused with it - Scarlet pointed at action movies and the fashion industry - as clear evidence of those but then insist that only very explicit expressions of hatred for men count as misandry. Scarlet has also, in this thread, indicated that only Muslim men advocating wife-beating on Substack would indicate misogyny coming from that quarter. Apparently, there are no indications of it in key texts and dress codes there. There’s little point in trying to engage with a worldview that has such stark bias in evidentiary standards.
thank you! as an intellectually curious high school straight boy i did definitely familiarize myself with “all heterosexual sex is rape” stuff just because i felt like being edgy.
You don’t think it affects men to scroll social media for 20 minutes and see multiple casual comments like “all men are disgusting” with little pushback? I see that stuff all the time.
That’s odd. I don’t recall seeing “all men are disgusting” anywhere except the lesbian essays. On Facebook I see wry comments about men under reels by people such as Farideh who is a comedian. I assume she shows up in my feed because I’ve expressed interest in feminist comedians. Farideh is married and her husband occasionally makes an appearance. Where are you seeing this stuff?
Read anything by Janice Fiamengo and you will very quickly begin accumulating examples both anecdotal and statistical that men in the West -- yes I am generalizing -- have been scapegoated and victimized by women simply for the crime of being a man.
I don’t have time. Can you summarize what Fiamengo says about “misandry” and its effects on men?
So who gets to define “true”’misandry?
Presumably since feminists would (rightly) say women get to define misogyny presumably defining misandry falls to men?
Ok. Define “misandry.”
This is so not true that men citing Dworkin shows up on bingo cards.
This conversation is truly wild. You claim that misogyny is a more valid concept than misandry, because only the former is associated with violence. Even conceding that for the purpose of argument, surely you realize that the current, common usage of “misogyny” has become much, MUCH broader than the one you’re giving it? It now can be, and typically is, used to describe practically anything bad that happens to a woman, or a part of her life that she doesn’t like—including her own self doubt and/or poor treatment by other women (aka internalized misogyny).
As for misandry and the pathologization of masculinity: there is a constant stream of content, by women, that treats any form of male behavior they don’t like, or don’t understand, as defective at best, dangerous at worst. Commercials for online therapy products that suggest no man is worth dating unless he deals with emotional issues like a woman would by going to therapy. Books like Boymom, in which feminist mothers talk about the travails of trying to save their sons from their own, fundamentally broken, masculine natures. The entire genre of “I divorced my husband for feminism” media, which invariably find the authors declaring that men are fundamentally incapable of being worthy partners to women. A disquieting number of contemporary feminist writers really seem to struggle with seeing men as fundamentally human, honestly.
Liberal and educated spaces are so saturated in a default female chauvinism that you don’t even notice it. Doesn’t mean it isn’t there.
“Sexism” and “misogyny” are used interchangeably in recent years, and it’s an unfortunate trend. They used to be distinct ideas: sexism was about adhering to or failing to question stereotypes while misogyny was about woman-hating. Semantic inflation now puts someone who thinks women make better nurses or men make better mechanics in the same category as a Republican clamoring for the death penalty for women who terminate unwanted pregnancies.
Confused and imprecise language makes discussion quite difficult.
I'm not familiar with "Boymom." Are you saying that the author advocates telling boys that they are inferior, that they are misogynists, they are flawed for being male? Maybe it's true but I would have to see the evidence. I would find it hard to believe a parenting book gave such advice.
Men don't read books about the dating travails of women. They don't follow those authors on social media either, just like I don't follow Andrew Tate. Explain how the existence of these books or social media postings affect men when men never read them and probably never even see them. Are you saying that they affect men indirectly because then women don't want to date them? Is a woman not wanting to date men a form of misandry? Are men entitled to be able to date women? What exactly is misandry?
It sounds like both of you are saying there are books and social media postings that say things you find offensive about men. Fair enough. But what is the practical effect of this on men's lives? Do men care? How exactly does any of this affect men? Is there any evidence that advice books and columns for women that say negative things about men affect men?
In regard to politically-motivated violence, Batya Ungar-Sargon has som interesting counterarguments to makes in regards to data: https://batyaus.substack.com/p/debunking-the-data-that-claims-to?r=1b6i4z&utm_medium=ios
Andrew Tate and many others in the "Manosphere" COMPLETELY and TOTALLY REJECTED all of the coronavirus nonsense. They were about the only ones. They always knew it was all a big lie.
Arguing that misandry doesn't matter -- or matter less -- because men are usually physically stronger is pretty silly. Like the quote in your post says: men die from suicide something like a factor of 4 more often than women do. A fact that all by itself should be enough to convince anyone who is doubting it, that the consequences of emotional or verbal violence are real. (I'm not claiming that all the men who die from suicide die from verbal violence of course -- just that it's a factor for a subset of them)
Women attempt suicide more often than men. Men succeed more often because they use guns instead of pills. And this has been true for many decades now. You don't know this because you aren't a mental health professional.
Stay in your own lane.
Hello, this is the comments thread of my essay. Please accept that people have the right to speak in it or I will have to block you from commenting.
Women die from suicide less often than men even when you compare attempts using the same method. If a man and a woman both attempt suicide by pills, the man is more likely to die. If a man and a woman both attempt suicide by cutting, the man is more likely to die. If a man and a woman both attempt suicide by CO-poisoning the man is more likely to die and so on.
There's as far as I can see three possible explanations for this.
First, it's possible that suicide-attempts that don't lead to death are more under-reported for men than for women. This seems likely to me. Men are less likely to be in touch with mental health professionals, and men are socialized to not show vulnerability, and few things are as vulnerable as talking about suicidality.
Secondly, it's possible that women on the average have a less serious commitment to actually dying when they attempt suicide, i.e. that the odds it's a cry for help are larger, and the odds that it's a genuinely serious attempt to die, are lower.
Thirdly it's possible that woman on the average are equally serious about dying, but that they nevertheless systematically fail to actually kill themselves a lot more often than men do, in other words that women are just systematically less competent.
Personally I think the first two are likely both true. I don't believe in the third -- I think women who have the same commitment to a given goal, are equally competent as men in reaching it. What's your thinking?
I'm curious why you resorted to a personal attack on me and making random guesses about my background and knowledge instead of engaging with the actual content of my comment. Usually when people do that, it's because they've run out of actually rational arguments. It's not very convincing.
I'm someone who has volunteered for a mental health hotline for years now, and who's had a fair amount of education surrounding that. I must've talked with hundreds of suicidal people, and of course I'm aware of the basic stats. (this work also confirms what I talked about above: The vast majority of people who contact the mental health helpline and talk about feeling suicidal are women -- despite the fact that most of the people who die from suicide are men; as I said men are socialized not to talk about this stuff, that's something we should change!)
But I'm not paid for it, so yes you're technically right: I'm not a mental health professional.
If you're still out of actual arguments, I recommend you try insulting me based on my looks or what you imagine my IQ to be next.