A conversation between an average man and an average woman in 2021: Woman: kill all men is a literal joke that gets men in their heads because their masculinity is so fragile that they can’t bear to even try to understand why it’s a term in the first place. plus it’s nothing compared to being threatened, harassed, followed, etc. just because ur a girl Man: Sorry that being told you should die is funny for you and not for me Woman: well what happens to dogs who kill and bite other dogs? they’re put down. men kill, rape, torture, harass and threaten women on the daily. sorry but “kill all men” is not an actual issue. Man: Easy to say from your perspective b. Hating men is popular and we can’t be upset because we “deserve it” it hurts man Woman: you gotta go get educated or listen to what i’m telling you.
Women can be man-haters sure. And I don't understand why many have such an extreme aversion to being complimented on their looks. But I've never been a woman. I'll just ignore the crazy ones. The current culture makes the workplace less fun for men I guess, but better to get stuff done and then go home anyway.
Women can be sexist against men. Misandry exists. And current culture doesn't make it taboo in the same way that sexism against women and misogyny are taboo. Hopefully this will change over time.
Misandry does exist. However, the premise of why it's different for men versus women is because it's a patriarchal world. Men have the upper hand. That's not an excuse but an explanation. It's the same concept as white privilege. All American students have to learn the history of our country regardless of their race or school (ie. public, private, parochial). Now, CRT has been introduced and many white people are angry. To white people, learning *their* history in America IS essential while other races and cultures historical contributions, until CRT, has been NOT required or even acknowledged. It's the same concept as the question about sexuality. Heterosexual couples have the benefit of social constructs such as marriage, next of kin rights for medical decisions and adding their spouse and children to their workplace insurance policy. Those same rights don't exist everywhere for homosexual or bisexual people. So, looking at this question from your (CCitizen) perspective, it's not that hatred against men isn't important or is okay. It's that men, like white people and heterosexual people almost always have the advantages and as our demographics are changing more and more people in those "other groups" are speaking out and speaking up. And, the pushback is (and will always be) that the person in the position of power wants to retain those rights (whatever they are) and not only limit those rights for others, but outright deny they have the advantage.
Here's an example of what I'm talking about. Have you ever heard of the Empire Carpet Company? They used to have a commercial with a cute jingle. I don't know if they do now because I don't watch television. About 10 years ago, our neighbors, a heterosexual couple told us about their experience with the company. The wife called them to set up an appointment to come out and measure and provide quotes for carpeting. The salesperson asked if she was married and she said "yes". He asked to speak to her husband. She asked "Why?" and he told her that they will not set up appointments for home visits unless the husband AGREES to it. Naturally, she was surprised by this and asked the man if the reverse applies (would they require her permission had her husband called to set up the appointment?) and the answer was "no". It doesn't matter if she is the breadwinner and he stays at home with the kids or if she earns more money than him or if he doesn't care about what she does to the house. And, all of that was true for this couple. They had five kids and he was the stay-at-home parent and she was the sole income for their household. The female in a couple is NOT allowed to set up an appointment without the male's permission. This happens all the times in countless businesses and it's something that most men would not even think about because it doesn't usually happen to them.
That depends entirely on what aspect of life you are talking about. A few select rich powerful men have historically enjoyed power and influence, while nearly all women served as domestic servants and the majority of men's lives were (and often still are as compared to women's lives) considered expendable and put into hardship and extreme risk, ranging from cannon fodder to unsafe and dirty jobs. The narrative that men (generalized) have advantages over women (generalized) in modern society still very much depends on what aspects you speak of. Men do enjoy some advantages and privilege. For sure. But so do women. And the latter is something we almost never think about. And yes, one gender having advantages over the other is no reason or justification for any gender to embrace misogyny or misandry. Not really, no. I see the similarity you are pointing to with this analogy, but there are also some very big differences. While both women and black people were once considered the property of white men, women always had a power over men as well, both sexually and socially. Black slaves had neither. The lives and comfort of women have usually throughout history, and still are usually held as more important to society and to most men, than the lives and comfort of other men. It is unfortunate that CRT was born in and remains activism instead of academic study, because I wholeheartedly agree that history should be taught from numerous perspectives. History is just as much the daily life of the serf or slave than of the King or master. I actually take a pretty unusual stance on this one. I don't think such implied contractual rights and obligations should exist for homosexual marriage. Why? Because I don't think such implied contractual rights and obligations should exist from marriage at. I think people should actually know what they are signing on for and actually put such rights and obligations into written contracts if they are to be bound by them. That doesn't excuse or explain misandry or anti-whitr bigotry. I am not saying that you are using what you wrote this way, but many actually rush to what you wrote above in a form of misandry or anti-white bigotry, as they apply that to any man or white person not because they have taken any such stance, but just because they are male or white.
