cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/36418433
With surveys reporting that an increasing number of young men are subscribing to these beliefs, the number of women finding that their partners share the misogynistic views espoused by the likes of Andrew Tate is also on the rise. Research from anti-fascism organisation Hope Not Hate, which polled about 2,000 people across the UK aged 16 to 24, discovered that 41% of young men support Tate versus just 12% of young women.
“Numbers are growing, with wives worried about their husbands and partners becoming radicalised,” says Nigel Bromage, a reformed neo-Nazi who is now the director of Exit Hate Trust, a charity that helps people who want to leave the far right.
“Wives or partners become really worried about the impact on their family, especially those with young children, as they fear they will be influenced by extremism and racism.”
This article is disgenuous.
Firstly it conflates “anti femists views” with far right and homophobic views, which is complete rubbish and reminds me of Israel claiming all it’s criticism is antisemitic.
Secondly it contains things like:
There is a lot here. Let’s split into component parts:
Well, it is, by definition.
It is not, but that doesn’t mean men and women position is the same or that men are somehow always advantaged.
Men have advantages in some areas (especially around positions of power) and women have in others (especially when it comes to family law).
Eh? Where is this one coming from?
It is difficult to define since everyone seems to define term “femist” differently. I believe men and women should have equal rights and duties. It means women shouldn’t be disadvantaged but shouldn’t be privileged either. Examples: it may mean gender parity in public companies boards, government or membership of Parliament but also fair outcomes of judicial processes when it comes to custody of children and splitting of assets, identical army service where it is compulsory, the same retirement age etc.
Am I femist or anti-femist, as I always considered myself the former but I have a feeling that the author of this piece would consider me the latter.
Anti-feminist views are far right views and they go hand in hand with other conservative views like homophobia. There’s no conflation required.
It’s a pretty core part of the right’s ideology/fantasy about traditional roles and structures in society. Racism as well, trans rights… It’s all part of the bundle.
I do disagree with this. I’ve already pointed out about family courts and the experience men face. Some aspect of feminism do push to make this worse for men, and objecting to radical feminism doesn’t necessarily mean that person has homophobic and transphobic views. For example, TERF’s claim to be feminists but their views on trans are far right. I think maybe the distinction here is that while feminism is a good and positive thing, objections to radical forms of feminism should not be taken as right wing, as it that line of logic reads as anyone opposed to any form of feminism (extreme in particular) is unacceptable. I don’t think pushing folks who have genuine grievances to feeling their only reasonable political home is right wing is healthy.
To really clarify this point, there are people within the family courts service and social services that actively look to block a fathers access to their children. Risk is often used to create a situation that prevents a fathers access to their children, and more importantly, a child’s access to both parents. In the UK for example, feminists are pushing for the mere suggestion of domestic abuse (proven or not) to seriously affect court proceedings. While it is an important factor, and cannot be ignored, there are some mothers that will use this as part of a strategy to carry out revenge for feeling they have been wronged. For example, as victims of adultery, which while horrible, should not impact on a child’s contact with their father. There are voices within that to reject that parental alienation is even a real possibility and unfortunately it is dangerously widespread and very effective.
That depends how you define them, thus my example with Israel and antisemitism.
Yes, in the past “anti femism” meant “traditional roles” and all that shit. But I am pretty sure person I quoted from the article wouldn’t just define these this way since for her if someone thinks mysogyny and mysandry are both equally bad, this person is an anti-feminist - which is ridiculous.
I’d like to address your comment about misogyny and misandry being equally bad.
If you mean “it is bad to be prejudiced against a man because he is a man, and it is bad to be prejudiced against a woman because she is a woman” then yes, these two things are equivalent.
But misogyny and misandry are not equal in terms of impact.
I take it you have not been through the family courts then?
Most men in that situation would trade 10-15% of their income for fair access to their kids. They also could come out with £30k debt which would be like 10% of their income for 20 years. This isn’t including the mental damage that can be inflicted.
Ask any parent is money or access to their kids more important. Very few would say money.
Most men aren’t CEOs holding women down. Most don’t feel that theoretical privilege.
The funny thing is that folk are so fixated on dogma around feminism they end up losing their audience in a debate. You see “shut up, man child. Acknowledge your privilege” attitudes followed by “why are men listening to Andrew Tate and not feminists”. The first should be locked up (edit: Andrew Tate this refers to) for a long time. The latter (edit: referring to those divisive posters) do contribute to pushing men away to the manosphere.
Did I misread? People who say “shut up manchild. Acknowledge your privilege.” Should go to jail?
But Andrew Tate’s hate platform “contributes to pushing men away to the Manosphere.”
Wut.
I meant it the other way around. Feel free to block me for a mistake as you suggest in your follow up post.
Why would I block you if it was an error? That makes no sense.
I read this, as you didn’t know, so you were going to block. I was informing you it was an error, but the quoted text didn’t read as you were waiting to find out before blocking.
I guess I don’t get how folk just block something they disagree with. I understand blocking bad faith actors. I don’t understand not finding out if someone was operating in good faith or not. My intention is generally to assume folk are in good faith unless there is clear information to the contrary.
I get the feeling they meant to put it the other way around, as yeah it doesn’t really make any sense otherwise.
I sadly just don’t know anymore, and was ready to block and move on when this guy came back with some reasonable reason that doesn’t makes any sense at all…
I have not. I also did not say that this aspect of famiy law is not unfair to men. It is grossly unfair! It also has a complex history that isn’t easy to boil down to “men are bad, women are better”. It comes from patriarchal structures than enforce gendered roles that disadvantage both men and women.
But acknowledging is is unfair to men isn’t the same as saying misandry and misogyny are the same, because they have different effects and require different approaches to counteract them.
For example, misogyny accounts for violence against women at a greater extent than misandry accounts for violence against men. And to be clear: I am not saying that one of these situations is not as bad as the other. But they require different resources to manage the consequence and different approaches to tackle them.
Most CEOs aren’t women. While the average man might not feel that theoretical privilege, they are still represented in a way women are not. The discourse around privilege is not about making someone feel bad for having it, it’s about empowering people to recognise when others don’t have it.
Here’s a good example of male privilege: for decades, automobile safety systems were designed and tested with dummies that advantaged average males over females. For a man stepping into a vehicle, who had nothing to do with the design and testing of the safety systems, he probably won’t feel any more privileged than a woman in the same vehicle. But if the vehicle is in a serious accident, the woman is less protected.
Acknowledging that isn’t saying “shut up, you have no right to complain about the dangers of cars because someone else has it worse than you”. But it’s a reminder that there are other people with different experiences and needs to yours, because of the privileges not afforded to them.
Also, to address your final point: there is a long and storied history of chauvenists derailing conversations about misogyny by centering the dialogue on their complaints and injustices. This is why some men are told “shut up, man child”. I’m not a woman but I can imagine women are exhausted by this.
I agree with this, and don’t think they should be compared. They are separate problems that both need to be solved, not compared. I think problematically, the wealthy would rather pit men against women and vice versa because it diverts anger from the wealthy which are the real priviledged folk. Working class women, and men do not have a good shake of it. People with access to wealth will also get better legal outcomes and suffer less of the same challenges that most would.
What is the value of the representation though. It doesn’t bring in material benefit for most, just suppresses women’s income, and more specifically parents with the lion share of the responsibility for raising offspring as men raising children as single fathers also have an income penalty. It’s less a gender penalty and more of a childrearing penalty. Yes, women will generally be more adversely affected by this, but to treat it as a gendered issue and only solve it for women will not address the issue or make it go away.
I think any reasonable person would acknowledge that and want to fix that. It isn’t acceptable.
I think the response is also exhausting and does contribute to the division that is happening now. Unfortunately vast swaths of positive changes for inclusivity and diversity are getting wiped out because people didn’t want to have fair debates and pushed folk to toxic content creators. The fact society for a long time made talking about men’s issues taboo has created an unfortunate widespread rejection of this which is going to be hard to put back in the box. It is quite disturbing and those negative toxic folks are likely to damage the causes of men fighting against the injustices faced. Ultimately, the goal isn’t division, but solidarity. Solidarity and understanding are hard. It’s very easy to take the carrots and the rage bait and harden our positions rather than push ourselves to find that common ground.
I don’t feel penalising folk or invalidating experiences is fair response to misogynists hijacking men’s issues for their own political goals.
They are both sides of the same coin and have similarly detrimental impact on victims.
No. See, feminism just means that women and men should be equal.
Misogyny, hating women… and misandry, hating men… are not the same at all!
No, wait…
Saying that one half of the population’s problems are more important than the the other half of the population’s problems is by definition misandry and or misogyny….
It should be obvious that women have problems and issues that impact them more than others, and that if women are discriminated against it hurts all of us…
It should also be obvious that men have problems and issues that impact them more than others, and that if men are discriminated against it hurts all of us…
Acknowledging that both men and women have issues and problems is something that some of us find difficult to do. I personally think that arguing over who has it worse is counter productive and does more harm than good.
I personally don’t think feminism is the answer to inequity of the sexes. But it has been successful in getting society to acknowledge a lot of the systemic barriers women have faced. I also dont think we really would like the way “equality” would actually look like. “Equity” I believe would feel a lot better.
Agree it should mean that.
These are EXACTLY the same thing and equally inexcusable.
Yes, I was being facetious… that’s what the “no, wait” was meant to convey
(I was agreeing with you I should have used the /s thing but I assumed it was obvious for everything before the “no, wait”)
I’m not arguing that neither are wrong. But misogyny has very different outcomes to misandry, and I think it’a disingenuous to argue otherwise. They are not the same in terms of repercussion.
They are exactly the same in the terms of the impact - they are ruining victims lives.
The conversation around this is almost always disingenuous. Older people have the views they were raised in, and they think reality is the same for the younger generation.
Meanwhile, there are practices like the progressive stack that send white or male people to the back of the line (literally) in the name of equity. I imagine opposing that would also be “anti-feminist”.
There’s now a generation of young men who were told “shut up, it’s our turn now” and surprise surprise, young men are tuning out those people.
Funny enough, if the gender gap in early teaching were taken more seriously it would be less of a problem.
Right? Especially when some of the Red Pill’s most fundamental teachings say almost the exact opposite: that marriage was a transactional arrangement that women managed to Welch out of over the last two centuries, while continuing to nail men to the wall over if they failed to hold their end of the bargain.
Because when you really look at that transactional arrangement as it was used for centuries, almost all of women’s obligations to the contract have been rescinded, yet almost all of men’s obligations to the contract continue to be enforced. And violently so, by “daddy state”.
Now, how is this in any way fair? It isn’t. If this were any normal contract, a judge would throw it out in a heartbeat for being grossly biased in women’s favour.
And yet, women continue to scream “misogyny” every time men try to re-establish balance/equality in that arrangement, either by restoring women’s obligations, or by reducing their own obligations.
And that isn’t “equality” in any shape or form.
Any man dedicated to true equality should now consider that term to be a pejorative, as it has become a thin veneer of legitimacy over an ocean of anti-male gender bigotry.
I am the true threat to feminism: I am an egalitarianist. because if there is one thing that throws feminists into frothing rages, it’s true equality.