The antagonist of feminism is obviously men and whether or not it was intentional, has that general view of men lead to the discrimintion of men in society today and the effort to portray them as batterers.
And in the process of vilifying men has our society given women a free pass when they do wrong?
2007-09-08 16:56:04 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science ➔ Gender Studies
Not only has the modern feminist movement led to discrimination of men in portraying them as the bad guy, it is setting up an unintended backlash. What I have seen is a large number of women who abuse the system, such as claiming abuse in a divorce case when it isn't present. As more of these claims are found to be false, the ones who will suffer are the ones who really are victims of domestic violence but will not be believed.
2007-09-08 17:10:32 · answer #1 · answered by Jennifer C 4 · 5⤊ 2⤋
I am a believer in equal rights. Unfortunately, I don't see equality between the sexes. Women are given wide latitude in society in the present day.
In past years, men indeed were benevolent rulers. What we said went - if we pushed it. Women always had power, but it wasn't re-enforced by society, now it is. If fact now women have 2 power bases that swing the pendulum of power to their side. Feminism and tradition. This has caused a backlash against men in general. Sly women can essentially "double-dip" by taking full advantage of newer freedoms, quotas and traditional male allowances.
I see male bashing everywhere. Men are portrayed as lazy, stupid, beer swilling fools. Women have wonderful careers, and with quotas attain positions sometimes not deserved. Then on the other hand they are treated very traditionally. Men pick up the tabs, buy them gifts etc. Any women I would like to date expects me to out earn them (by a substantial amount) etc as well. In divorce, women are treated as the victim, unable to care for themselves.
I see 3 types of women:
1. The traditionalist
2. The equalitist (is this a word?)
3. The feminist
Many men are very confused with this and women too. The 1st wants things as they were. She will weild power in the traditional ways. The 2nd, wants equal rights and will be honest about all the responsibilities that go with it. They treat men as equals and nothing less. The 3rd, wants not equallity, but superiority. They may better be termed opportunist. They take everything they can. They use all that is offered to the equalitist, exploit quotas etc., bleed the tradionalist male of all that can be had, then bash men in general and ask for more.
As far as being portrayed as batterers, It's a freebie. Playing on tradition, women can claim anything, with proof or not. Is there battery happening? Sure, unfortunately, women are as likely to batter males as the other way around. Assault is a bad thing, women and men should not be subjected to it. But as another answer pointed out it is abused and fabricated by many unscrpulous women. Once the claim is made, men's reputations are ruined whether it occured or not. On the other hand men's claims are often dismissed and treated with a snicker by the courts. Look at what happens to the women teachers having sex with boys. When they are caught they serve short terms in jail, men serve many, many more years.
I hope for equality some day. I don't believe a true feminist wants this inequity, but the opportunist have over ruled the true nature of equal rights.
Jennifer's answer is true as well. Many good women will suffer because of this.
2007-09-09 02:26:10 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Let me take a crack at this from the perspective of a writer. I think the three words you use here in this example are clearly defined and very specific as to what their context is. Those that alter them to fit their own "agenda" do a great disservice to the English language; clutter the general understanding of the word; and in the end, often just end up looking like idiots. I think it's fine when the scope of a word is extended, or develops additional usage. Overboard going from strictly a maritime phrase, to now include those that go to extremes is worthwhile. It helps to enhance the language. Conversely, using the word misogyny in a context that isn't reflective of a hatred of women is unacceptable.
2016-05-20 00:42:58 · answer #3 · answered by ciara 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In circles where feminism has an impact misandry appears to be a more frequent occurrence. Thankfully, I don't run in those circles.
So, I only see misandry from afar and am grateful not to be a recipient of it. The ladies in my life and circle of associates are not feminists and harbor no animosities toward males in 2007 for past sins or for "the patriarchy."
2007-09-08 17:08:17 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
am afraid that it is and has been yes.
you will also notice that to even bring this up or challenge them with the facts on this topic gets you labeled a troll with in this forum. welcome to the strife lol i say that because the time that you picked to join it is a time that they are now using the YH product management to assist in there efforts to ride there space of what they have decided constitutes a troll.
good luck to you on being heard and giving a thought on misandry.
2007-09-08 19:42:04 · answer #5 · answered by just another man 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Cases of 'misandry' were so rare in our ancient culture, that it was not until 1945-50 that men needed to look for a word for it. They invented a new word to describe the entirely new phenomenon of women's dissent. It was a 'tit-for-tat" reaction to women's response for centuries of male domination and gynocide.
Our troll contributors will be relieved to read that Steve Sider - of Yahoo's upper-management - does not move in the company of feminists and is untainted by their influence.
2007-09-08 19:26:14 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋
Yes. The system has given an incredible amount of power to women concerning the legal system. If it's he said she said. He goes to jail. It is in my sincerest hope that women don't abuse the power they have.
2007-09-08 17:03:19 · answer #7 · answered by whatever87654321 2 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Do you think that Andrea Gates was given a free pass? Or Anna Nicole Smith? Even Hillary Clinton is picked on because of her "cankles". Sheesh. You got it alll wrong, buddy.
Women who are 5 lbs. larger than a magazine ideal are harangued and harassed in today's society.
Women are sliding through "spa" doors everyday to get their hair torn from their bodies and wrinkles sliced into by lasers to live up to some male ideal. I say male because most of the business executives of most of the companies that do this stuff are MALE.
I am a feminist and in no way hate men but I will call them on what they do, just as I call women on what they do. It's just that you men are hearing our voices now and some of you don't like it.
Tough. Let me call the WAAAHHHmbulance for ya.
2007-09-08 17:13:21 · answer #8 · answered by Cerulean 3 · 4⤊ 7⤋
Many of us have been harmed at the hands of men; In fact, I dare say that most of us who have been harmed by men have been harmed repeatedly by them. It is a miracle that most of us are NOT misandrists.
Women were long-time victims of violent crimes perpetrated by men long before feminism was even a gleam in civilization's eye.
2007-09-08 18:49:37 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
No, there have always been women who don't like men. The difference now is that they don't have to get married to them like they did in the past.
2007-09-08 17:10:33 · answer #10 · answered by RoVale 7 · 1⤊ 5⤋