Poster @tomcar just posted this in a thread. I don’t want to hijack that thread, but he made some unusual assertions.
Now I’m totally confused by this post. I really want some justification for these statements.
What do you mean “our psychology is misandry?” Are you talking about our human thought processes? Or are you saying that science of psychology is based on misandry?
Support in that community to turn women into men? Are you asserting, then, that psychologists are prone to want to turn men into women?
Are you asserting that transwomen are a product of psychologists?
And what about trans men? You appear to be ignoring the “women being turned into men” side, to phrase it the same way.
Where is all this misandry in our industries and institutions?
Devaluing men is part of the patriarchy? And patriarchy is in quotes, suggesting you are using that term in an insincere or ironic manner.
I’m going to venture a guess that maybe that post in the OP was an indirect reference to the “women are wonderful” phenomenon.
Society does often assign a halo effect to women, and psychologists are not immune to this tendency. So it could be that part of the support for MtF is the idea that women represent better ideals of what people should be than men, so there is this subtle unspoken notion that a man becoming more like a woman is a good thing.
Another poster asked for clarification in the thread, which I don’t see as a problem. The quoted post is just a bunch of assertions without any backup, and to me it sounds like some kind of Men’s Rights propaganda (i.e. we shouldn’t say women are great, because it talks down the value of men, etc.)
The question in the thread asked about who was we and our in the comments. I don’t think that sufficiently addresses what confuses me, and I suspect there will be a lot to argue against.
But I’m hoping @tomcar will join us to express his ideas instead of leaving us to guess at what he meant.
I didn’t get to cross post yet because I was interrupted by dinner with my parents.
If that statement is true, the past many thousands of years of history is hiding the truth from us.
The statement does not gain more than an ounce of truth if the intended word was “matriarchy.” Some loud voices have uttered sentiments than might be interpreted this way, but they no more represent standard thought or reality than any other set of loud voices one might encounter online.
Why are these linked? Probably because Simone de Beauvoir first described the philosophy in The Second Sex. And she was a prominent advocate for a woman’s right to abortion.
The entire post we’re discussing here is IMO gibberish, but understanding who the poster was even talking about seemed to me a necessary precondition to making any headway on converting the gibberish into some articulable assertions and conclusions.
Which assertions & conclusions we could then debunk as the uninformed garbage they doubtless are.
P.s. it was also intended as an explicitly non-confrontational request for the poster to return.
I expect he’ll prove to be a one-and-done poster at SDMB.
This is a confused person, a poor writer, and someone who appears to be throwing around jargon that they don’t understand at all.
If I were to guess what they meant:
They seem to believe that critique of the patriarchy is the same as “the patriarchy” itself.
They seem to be using “misandry” to include any discussion of how male behavior can be problematic.
I’ve seen the latter mistake in social media quite a bit – the slightest observation that men aren’t always good, or that someone prefers a certain aspect of women, and a certain type of guy will start yelling “misandry”. Sort of how fragile white people cry “reverse racism” in any situation where whites don’t get their accustomed level of deference.
As to the former, it’s pretty weird to see someone refer to critique of the patriarchy as “the patriarchy”, but I see no other way to make any sense out of the utterance “devaluing men is a huge part of the ‘patriarchy’”. That’s the opposite of true, it’s quite literally the opposite of what the patriarchy actually is.
All in all it sounds like someone’s gotten het-up enough about feminist-theoretical language to form a counter-theory of their own, but without bothering to learn much about the thing they intend to critique.
Of course, maybe I’m the one operating in ignorance here, because:
Y’all hear that? We just can’t handle his ideas, our brains would be paralyzed by Ontological Shock.
I’ve heard feminist discuss how damaging the patriarchy is to men. Look at the rates of suicide, incarceration, homicide, and deaths and injuries due to accidents for men compared to women. (Men, particularly young men, do stupid things, yes, but men are also the ones more likely to engage in occupations that are physically demanding and dangerous.) We’re so used to shoving men into the meat grinder that it’s utter unremarkable to to most of us.
I think this hits close to what that poster was trying to convey. My guess is they were trying to say that we, as a society, tend to see men at the bottom of the ladder as more disposable / less worthy than women who are at the bottom of the ladder.
Nothing is more fragile than the egos of oppressor communities when the oppressed make strides toward equality. The oppressed are instantly pelted with abuse and accused of horrible crimes - mostly imaginary - that the oppressor community has always committed. Our hearts must therefore bleed for those who have had the world tilted their ways for untold generations because they have lost a tiny bit of the power.
In America the oppressors have typically been straight white male Christians, but the basic pattern can be found in other communities that have had dominance. Straight white male Christians are therefore typically the ones to cry out the loudest and deny that the conditions the oppressed are protesting even exist.
If they lived even one day without all four aspects of dominance they would see the signs everywhere. And those of us who aren’t straight white male Christians would laugh and laugh.
The “support in that community to turn men into women physically” part sounds like the sort of thing that comes from the same people who talk about conspiracies to “transgender schoolchildren”.
I appreciate that. That was the intent of this thread, but it seems to have taken off without him taking the opportunity to enlighten us.
I have the ability to guess. I was hoping for the original commenter to offer his actual thoughts.
From the use of quotes, I’m speculating that that remark is ironic, and meant to indicate something about the criticism of male dominance in society.
That is my perception as well.
If I try to make sense of this, it appears to be a critique of psychology as an approach to make men more open and understanding and less reserved and selfish. The interpretation of psychology already trying to turn men mentally into women. So why not go all the way?
This part eluded me, but @Odesio’s remarks suggest an interpretation.
Again, rather confused. I was thinking that was somehow directed at feminism, using the scare quote term to mock that concept.
Now I think it might me a suggestion that what we call “patriarchy” is a misnomer, because culturally men are served up for hard labor, military fighting, etc, whereas women are protected by society. Think “women and children first”. Thus, even though men hold power and control over women, not all men have power, and the perception is they are more expendable.
This is the part that I was really hoping to have explained. I think I want some ontological shock to overcome my political dread.
Sadly it does appear this was a “one and done” poster.
Honestly there is too much nonsense in this thread to comment on it. My statements triggered deeply dysfunctional people who can’t really intellectually parse this out. Oppressors lol. My comment about “turn women into men,” was tongue in cheek. I have a deep sympathy for the trans community. My point is that there are forces in society that we aren’t ready to deal with. Women built the patriarchy and maintain it. This is just biology and the man/woman cohabitation that has gone on for all of our existence. Anything that comes out of extreme feminism is literally projection.
There is a comment in this thread about the fragility of white men. Which is literally the weirdest projection of all time. If there is a human group that has withstood the most scrutiny, it is white men. If you call a man, fat and gross, it does not raise an eyebrow. If you call a woman fat and gross, it is a crime against humanity. The level of fragility of women is unparalleled. So hitting men with the fragility thing is a weird projection. Go watch Ranging Bull. Go watch the Shining. White men have nothing to hide. Try to engage without being childish.
Women utterly and completely objectify men, but can’t stand a drop of scrutiny. This is possibly the biggest projection of all.
Thousands of years men have been war fodder, filled up prisons and keep your lights on at night so saying the term patriarchy as a high status for all men is literal insanity, and it is just plain sexism.
And yes, “Matriarchy” and “Patriarchy” Act and look the same. Women bosses and CEOs are just as dehumanizing when they take leadership rolls. And expecting women to be ethical is sexist. So when the head cheerleader does not become the prom queen, as a country we are once again scolded for being sexist.
Yeah I get some bits at what the OP is getting at, but obviously it’s way overstated.
Even assuming we’re just talking about the US, and not societies where women have fewer rights*, there remains a great deal of misogyny and MAGA has helped the US take several steps backwards. It remains a patriarchy, some way off equality.
OTOH Yes, being a man is not all sunshine and roses. There’s an expectation of bringing value, so if you’re poor, or worse than that, lacking confidence, no-one wants you around and most won’t be nice about it either. Hence why a lot of men can fall out of society and get drawn into the alt-right vortex.
* Of course the abortion bans are a restriction on women’s freedom, so I was just speaking relatively.