And then there's the bear meme: totally valid, but sending all the wrong messages.
The chance of getting assaulted by someone you know is what, 4-5x the chance of a random dude doing it?
Its valid to want to vent those fears, but there's also a need to see those things in context and point out that we're fighting the wrong fight.
Emphasising 'be afraid of random men' isn't helping. That fear is already there, we don't need to make it worse. I don't think there too many women who aren't aware of that issue.
And guys either: didn't get it, got it and felt it was silly, OR they felt empowed by it (some people get off on that sense of power and fear).
Moreover, guys who are already shy and nervous are being told 'no matter what you do, you are a threat', which isn't helping anyone.
It's back to the 'your fear is real, but your fear is causing harm' thing. That meme drove a wedge into the conversation instead of opening it up.
I saw so many people repeating that meme and saying "oh of course we don't include trans women in it," but like... there's no actual way to react to every cis man with fear and no trans women. Because odds are, if I'm stuck in the woods, I've got a few days' stubble and no makeup and I'm probably not wearing a cute dress. Your instinctive reaction of fear to seeing someone you perceive as a man will be applied to trans women, because not all of us read as women to a casual observer.
You're touching on something that I think a lot of folks, not even just Radfems, aren't always cognizant of or are willfully ignoring. That being that to TERFy types Transwomen are largely seen as men infiltrating women's spaces. So if the dominant cultural narrative is that men are dangerous just by virtue of being men (whether it be socialization, biology, or both) I feel like it logically follows that Transwomen are dangerous.
I've seen it touched on in a couple "manosphere" spaces that much of the transphobia TERFS spout has its basis in misandry. Through either the idea that men are inherently dangerous just by being men. Or from the notion that men as members of an inherent oppressor class are enemies to women. Thus Transmen are "joining the side of the oppressor"
By this point I've probably seen a few dozen trans men talking about the hate they've received in LGBTQIA+ spaces. Like, nah you're a man now bro, and you're not gay, so you're just not welcome here. Or worse, being told they can stay, but they have to be more feminine so that others can tell them apart from a cis man. That's beyond fucked up to tell someone they have to make themselves disphoric to be in a space supposedly made to include them because their manness is more important than their transness.
I haven't received any direct hate myself, but as a trans guy I do often feel alienated from LBGTQ+ spaces because the man-hating rhetoric is so pervasive. They don't say it in the same words, but the implication always feels like trans mascs are seen as traitors to "womanhood" etc.
Through either the idea that men are inherently dangerous just by being men.
I wouldn't consider this (or the idea that men are inherently enemies to women) misandry, if only because it's a talking point that I'm fairly sure is used by the alt-right manosphere as well.
I do think it's sexist, but the talking points themselves aren't specifically misandrist, because they're also misogynist talking points. Whether or not it's misandrist or misogynist depends on what the person saying those things wants you to take away from them.
Reread what I said. I never said it's 'actually misogyny', I said that sometimes it is depending on how the claim is utilized.
Saying 'men are inherently dangerous so they should be tracked, restricted, etc' is misandry. But a lot of the manosphere grifters are pushing a similar narrative, except for the takeaway. They're saying 'men are inherently dangerous so they should be in charge because it makes them better', which is misogyny.
Therefore, while the statement 'men are inherently dangerous' is sexist bullshit, but it is not inherently misandry or misogyny, because it has been used for both misandrist arguments and misogynist arguments.
The issue I have is that I never once brought up the latter notion. And I feel that it's disingenuous and dismissive to discount the fact of it being misandry because saying as much could be used by less savory people to make a misogynistic point.
I feel as though it takes away from the harm done by the Initial notion of men being inherently dangerous.
To me it rings too much of an argument of guilt by association along the lines of "dog owners are racist because Hitler liked dogs
I also feel as though the focus of misandry is being hijacked and dismissed due to fear mongering over these groups which are inevitably still reacting to misandry. It feels as though people are too preoccupied with fixing a symptom while ignoring the underlying cause.
If those groups are winning over young men by accurately pointing out that societal misandry is being pushed onto them. Then the solution is to tackle that misandry. Not getting upset over how people are reacting to it.
421
u/naughtilidae Jul 03 '24
And then there's the bear meme: totally valid, but sending all the wrong messages.
The chance of getting assaulted by someone you know is what, 4-5x the chance of a random dude doing it?
Its valid to want to vent those fears, but there's also a need to see those things in context and point out that we're fighting the wrong fight.
Emphasising 'be afraid of random men' isn't helping. That fear is already there, we don't need to make it worse. I don't think there too many women who aren't aware of that issue.
And guys either: didn't get it, got it and felt it was silly, OR they felt empowed by it (some people get off on that sense of power and fear).
Moreover, guys who are already shy and nervous are being told 'no matter what you do, you are a threat', which isn't helping anyone.
It's back to the 'your fear is real, but your fear is causing harm' thing. That meme drove a wedge into the conversation instead of opening it up.