Too often there is this separation we invent where misogyny is a ubiquitous tool of patriarchy while misandry is somehow separate. This becomes so intense that many are not even able to admit that misandry is even theoretically possible, and even if it’s undeniable it is still seen as highly irrelevant to patriarchy.
But misandry does advance patriarchy and it is a force that intensifies misogyny.
Consider homophobia. This is an obvious case where misandry advances heretopatriarchy. Certain men can entrench their status through an infrastructure of hatred against homosexual men that can be accessed by nearly everyone else as well.
Consider transphobia. Another obvious realm where misandry is at play. Trans men are shown hatred in ways that are unique to the experience of cis men, and these experiences drive cis heteronormativity.
Consider how our actions and ideas impact the world. If we live in denial of misandry we live in denial of patriarchy. Denying misandry does not make you a quality feminist. It does not make you theoretically sound. Hating men just gets in the way of challenging patriarchy.
Consider how misandry enforces gender roles. Misandrous discourse functions to discipline people. When misandry is denied, there is almost always an element of “you have to man up, because women are weak.” The narrative is familiar; women are subjected to patriarchal violence and are thus too hysterical to have sound or reasonable options about men, thus, men must internalize misandrous attitudes out of sheer emotional intelligence and masculine willpower. The men who fail to do this are weak, unable to maintain a rational, stoic attitude and are thus lesser, unmasculine men. Men who can master their performance of masculinity in a self-denying or sacrificial way will benefits from misandry but will certainly be thoroughly disciplined by it.
Women, other non men genders,and queer communities often play a role in policing masculinity for patriarchy which may obfuscate the patriarchal power at play. This ultimately reinforces misogyny by haphazardly enforcing binaries, devaluing feminity, and promoting a supremacist view of masculinity.
Let me paint a situation. Imagine a comedian making a joke about their trans wife; that she removed the worst part of her–being a man. Everyone laughs in support of trans women and implicitly they laugh AT trans men and cis men. Next joke is about how stupid bisexual women are for dating men, how they make the queer community worse.
Now imagine you are a man who wants a little clarity in life. How should you feel about such language which is clearly both misandrous and misogynistic? How should you feel that it is directed at you, as a man? I’ll tell you:
You should feel safe because you are a man. If you don’t feel safe it’s because you are a weak man, incapable of performing.
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.
Great points. Thank you.
I can go on with this. i’m neurologically predisposed to see patterns very easily.
All cops for example is different in the point that it is a job. Although there is an argument to be made for having to provide in capitalism, even after glowing up as a communist for example.
I think the common point here is banally easy:
“Generalization bad”
In general I’d say the answer to most of these situations is: if someone uses a broad generalization while a person of that group is present, they’re being very insensitive and it is okay to reprimand them.
It’s hard to disagree. I wish it was easier to simplify complex issues for a public audience.