On Feminism and Misandry

The following is an adaptation of a post to a heated facebook thread that was started with the uncharitable question, (not mine) "By default, do feminists hate ducks?"

The discussion turned to whether the kind of hostile, misandrous feminism that we commonly run across on the internets represents the majority of feminists or the minority and whether it is really feminism at all. The Santa Barbara shooter was mentioned in the context of men's rights, as was the "PATRIARCHY", and generally a good time was had by all. Enter yours truly:

I think the question of how a movement should deal with their radical fringe is a really interesting one. Should we hold moderate Muslims accountable to those who do terrible things in the name of Islam? Is murderous hostility toward non-Muslims the "true" Islam? I think not.

That said, what do we think of the Occupy movement? Personally, I fault them for allowing their message to be hijacked by crazy hobos and black block anarchists. The "true" Occupy was well-intentioned and had good ideas, they just failed to get the right message to the top of the heap. That's kind of on them.

So there does seem to be a degree of culpability. I'd take issue with a Muslim who refused to emphatically condemn religious terrorism, after all.

By the same turn, the feminist movement has a duty (if not to anyone else, then) to itself to keep its message on point. You can write off misandry as "oh but men have it so great", but misandry is extremely toxic, and not just to men. Misandry is toxic to individual women and it is toxic to feminism. It is the very antithesis of feminism, lurking right under feminism's protective wing.

This toxic, misandrist brand of "feminism" is worthy of attention because it has hit the mainstream. It is all over Jezebel, XoJane, Slate, Salon, Daily Kos, etc. It is not some "fringe" thing that can be dismissed with a wave. Much of what is said passes for honest feminism. The biggest danger is that the two things, feminism and misandry, become so inextricable from one another that they cannot be thought of as separate animals, as the increasingly common refrain of "feminists hate men" illustrates is already happening.

Men will inevitably bring this issue up more than women. That is because we are understandably more sensitive to it, because it affects us directly. Misandry, for men, is an emotional thing. It gets us riled up the way misogyny used to only get women riled up.

I don't see a reason to dismiss that sensitivity as "too early". The pendulum is swinging right now, and misandry will increasingly affect men in real ways (like in the workplace). When we discuss the power dynamic between women and men we are not talking slaves and slave owners here. We are talking men and women, hand in hand, and on our darkest days, icy dagger met with icy dagger. "The Patriarchy" is such an outmoded, myopic, intrinsically sexist (in both directions) way of thinking of gender relations it makes me blanch. Do you need to read about Hera torturing the ill-fated sons of Zeus's mistresses to realize that power has never been held entirely in the hands of one sex?

It is for this reason that the true feminism, the always feminism, is the pursuit of equal rights for both sexes and the fighting of prejudice in its many forms. To take on misandry masquerading as feminism is just as central to the ideology as taking on misogyny masquerading as paternalism, and just as crucial to its success.

End Note: Sorry, I got a little carried away there at the end. Please indulge me.