Can Women be Sexist?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misandry
That's the definition as it appears right now on Wikipedia. I may go back and correct it, but most people will look at that and think it is correct. Let's clarify the terms. Androphobia means "fear of men," but is not equivalent to misandry, which means "hatred of men". Both are aversions, but they aren't really synonymous. Misanthropy refers to a dislike for people in general, and is not specific enough to clearly express the idea of an aversion just to males.
Sexism is a word that should never have been embraced by feminists. It's a bad frame. I believe it comes from either feminist or Marxist theory where the dominant hierarchical structure of patriarchy is defined by the violent and economic imposition of an entire set of oppressive practices: classism, racism, sexism, ethnocentrism, jingoism, etc. The "ism's" work together very well, but separate the term "sexism" and it becomes unclear. A more accurate term would be gender bias, which is still too non-specific, or misogyny, which it the most accurate. Other terms that are relevant, but not synonymous, are femicide (murder of women), femiphobia or gynophobia (both meaning fear of women).
If we go purely by the definition of the terms, any gender (I won't say both, because there are more than two) can be biased toward any other gender, including one's own. In colloquial usage, however, sexism means "oppression of women." In that context, feminists are not sexist, though a woman may be every bit a patriarchist, like Phyllis Schlafly or Ann Coulter (both of whom should turn in their ovaries, IMO). Electing a woman like that to office doesn't count as affirmitive action - it's the same old shit in a deceptive, but equally poisonous, package.
I'm not going to deny that there are misandrous women - usually very extreme lesbian separatists or women who have been badly abused by men. They're rare, but they do exist. One of my favorite authors, Mary Daly, belongs to the former category and I have no problem with that. To paraphrase her writing, when you know what men have inflicted on women, what forgiveness can there be? Men like to leave comments and emails accusing me of belonging to that category, but that is simply inaccurate. I don't want to get rid of men - I adore men, and I love humanity.(Though those who know me will attest that sometimes I can stand people...) My hatred is reserved for patriarchy and its proponents of any gender. Only you, the reader, can decide if that includes you or not. If you've accused me of being a "Nazi" or a sexist, I'm talking directly to you.
Women have only ever asked for equality. I think that's a mistake, but that doesn't make me misandrous, just observant - I see the results of 6,000 years of male rule and it's appalling. I see remaining matriarchies and see peace, cooperation, sensuality, positive hedonism, mutual respect among the genders and a lack of all those "ism's" listed above. That sounds good to me. So good, in fact, that I have to question the judgement of a thinking person who prefers war, poverty, elitism, exploitation, oppression, and a sociopathic admiration of competition and greed.
The Women's Autonomy Movement is not anti-male. It is pro-female. We seek the simple right to sovereignty over our own bodies, and equal rights with all others. Yes, that will end the special "rights" and favoritism that men have enjoyed within a patriarchal system. That doesn't make you less. It makes you equal (i.e. no longer special). This is not an either/or dichotomy so prevalent in patriarchal structure. My gaining a fair and reasonable level of respect and opportunity takes nothing away from a man, it simply brings me up to his level. We stand on equal ground. Considering that women are more than half of the population, do the bulk of the work for least of the money, and are living in a state of war virtually everywhere on the planet including within our own homes, I don't think that's too much to ask, and how dare anyone suggest we continue to settle for less?!
Misandry, sometimes called androphobia, is the hatred of men, for being men. While usually ascribed to women, it is also theoretically possible for males themselves to be misandrist. Unlike misogyny (a pathological aversion towards women), misandry has been little discussed or investigated. Some masculists maintain that misandry has been rampant for thirty years, due to feminist advocacy, and has become a social pathology. Some feminists believe that, while misogyny is a social disease, misandry does not exist. Others in both feminist and masculist camps consider the "war of the sexes" arising from traditional gender roles to be a powerful source of both misogyny and misandry.
This term is sometimes used interchangeably with misanthropy.
That's the definition as it appears right now on Wikipedia. I may go back and correct it, but most people will look at that and think it is correct. Let's clarify the terms. Androphobia means "fear of men," but is not equivalent to misandry, which means "hatred of men". Both are aversions, but they aren't really synonymous. Misanthropy refers to a dislike for people in general, and is not specific enough to clearly express the idea of an aversion just to males.
Sexism is a word that should never have been embraced by feminists. It's a bad frame. I believe it comes from either feminist or Marxist theory where the dominant hierarchical structure of patriarchy is defined by the violent and economic imposition of an entire set of oppressive practices: classism, racism, sexism, ethnocentrism, jingoism, etc. The "ism's" work together very well, but separate the term "sexism" and it becomes unclear. A more accurate term would be gender bias, which is still too non-specific, or misogyny, which it the most accurate. Other terms that are relevant, but not synonymous, are femicide (murder of women), femiphobia or gynophobia (both meaning fear of women).
If we go purely by the definition of the terms, any gender (I won't say both, because there are more than two) can be biased toward any other gender, including one's own. In colloquial usage, however, sexism means "oppression of women." In that context, feminists are not sexist, though a woman may be every bit a patriarchist, like Phyllis Schlafly or Ann Coulter (both of whom should turn in their ovaries, IMO). Electing a woman like that to office doesn't count as affirmitive action - it's the same old shit in a deceptive, but equally poisonous, package.
I'm not going to deny that there are misandrous women - usually very extreme lesbian separatists or women who have been badly abused by men. They're rare, but they do exist. One of my favorite authors, Mary Daly, belongs to the former category and I have no problem with that. To paraphrase her writing, when you know what men have inflicted on women, what forgiveness can there be? Men like to leave comments and emails accusing me of belonging to that category, but that is simply inaccurate. I don't want to get rid of men - I adore men, and I love humanity.(Though those who know me will attest that sometimes I can stand people...) My hatred is reserved for patriarchy and its proponents of any gender. Only you, the reader, can decide if that includes you or not. If you've accused me of being a "Nazi" or a sexist, I'm talking directly to you.
Women have only ever asked for equality. I think that's a mistake, but that doesn't make me misandrous, just observant - I see the results of 6,000 years of male rule and it's appalling. I see remaining matriarchies and see peace, cooperation, sensuality, positive hedonism, mutual respect among the genders and a lack of all those "ism's" listed above. That sounds good to me. So good, in fact, that I have to question the judgement of a thinking person who prefers war, poverty, elitism, exploitation, oppression, and a sociopathic admiration of competition and greed.
The Women's Autonomy Movement is not anti-male. It is pro-female. We seek the simple right to sovereignty over our own bodies, and equal rights with all others. Yes, that will end the special "rights" and favoritism that men have enjoyed within a patriarchal system. That doesn't make you less. It makes you equal (i.e. no longer special). This is not an either/or dichotomy so prevalent in patriarchal structure. My gaining a fair and reasonable level of respect and opportunity takes nothing away from a man, it simply brings me up to his level. We stand on equal ground. Considering that women are more than half of the population, do the bulk of the work for least of the money, and are living in a state of war virtually everywhere on the planet including within our own homes, I don't think that's too much to ask, and how dare anyone suggest we continue to settle for less?!
3 Comments:
I assert that women can be sexist (semantically) but that any sexism on behalf of women is trumped by the very real world-wide oppression that women endure. The sexism of women is so miniscule in comparison to the reality of misogyny as to be disregarded altogether.
Other people have said, and I agree, that the most sexist women are generally *not* feminists; they're the Republican-voting soccer moms who believe all men are stupid/incompetent, sexually voracious, inherently violent, etc.
Breaking out of dichotomic thinking can be so difficult. Just convincing people that women's liberation and feminism is not a zero-sum game is a struggle. People think anything for women only or pro-female is by definition anti-male. Sometimes, boys, it's not about you; but that seems to be an impossible concept to grasp.
I'm confused. In the second to last paragraph, you advocate matriarchy, but in the last paragraph you say that you just want equality. As a male, I fully support equality, but the supremacy of one gender over another is wrong and I will do whatever I can to oppose it. I feel the same outrage, and a bit of nausea, whether men or women are being mistreated. I think that the negative feelings some men and women have about feminism is due the demands of some feminists going way past equality and firmly in the territory female supremacy, like a world where men have no rights to vote, hold office, own property, take part in raising the children, have child visitation and are basically only kept around for reproduction. Those feminists who actually do hate men, rather than those stereotyped as hating men, are not helping either. Other feminists must forcefully separate themselves from such women if they are ever going to gain the trust of men. Also, feminists should stop even joking about, let alone seriously calling for, the removal of men's penises or testicles. It scares the hell out of them and they will not listen to what you have to say after that and will likely be wary of all feminists for a long time (mortal terror of castration, penis removal and humiliation (especially humiliation by or in front of women, especially concerning his masculinity), is a big part of the male psyche). Feminists would be more successful in achieving their goals if they stuck to real world things, like equal pay, rather than a vision of a female dominated world that freaks men out. Also, stay away from the things that are trivial, like atheists' complaints about "In God We Trust" appearing on coins because it makes you seem silly and petty (and I'm an atheist). Finally, given the chance, women can be just as mean, corrupt, greedy and power hungry as men. Ann Coulter is a wonderful example. Instead of just switching the gender of the leaders, there should be an equal representation and the culture and teaching (or lack of teaching) that produce those undesirable traits must be changed.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home