Misandry and Other Thoughts

[lesbiaphrodite]

Since it seems that we so often have an abundance of threads dealing with the issue of women, their roles and our perspectives on them, I think that it's time (in the interest of fair play) to discuss men.

To my view, most of what the threads about women devolve into are pretty much misogynistic crap. That's just my opinion of course. But, it got me to thinking about the opposite of that: MISANDRY (defined as the hatred of men).

I copied/pasted below something off of Wiki related to the subject and I just wonder if anyone has any thoughts on the validity of these classifications:

Misandry and feminism
In My Enemy, My Love (1992), Judith Levine classifies these stereotypes of men as targets of women's misandry within intimate relationships:

Infants: the Mama's Boy, the Babbler, the Bumbler and the Invalid
Betrayers: the Seducer, the Slave, the Abandoner and the Abductor
Beasts: the Brute, the Pet, the Pervert, the Prick and the Killer

 

[Huckleman2000]

[...]
Misandry and feminism
In My Enemy, My Love (1992), Judith Levine classifies these stereotypes of men as targets of women's misandry within intimate relationships:

Infants: the Mama's Boy, the Babbler, the Bumbler and the Invalid
Betrayers: the Seducer, the Slave, the Abandoner and the Abductor
Beasts: the Brute, the Pet, the Pervert, the Prick and the Killer

Sheesh. We just get Madonna and Whore.

 

[rgraham666]

When you're at war with someone, it helps if you objectify them.

 

[lesbiaphrodite]

When you're at war with someone, it helps if you objectify them.

Amen, brother. Go have a look at how that is being done in that thread about porn serving women. Pfffff. LOL.

 

[rgraham666]

That thread must be started by someone on my ignore list. Don't see it.

 

[lesbiaphrodite]

That thread must be started by someone on my ignore list. Don't see it.

LMAO!!! You make me smile, Rob. There's a thousand reasons why I like you. Now, you just gave me another one.

 

[Safe_Bet]

Since it seems that we so often have an abundance of threads dealing with the issue of women, their roles and our perspectives on them, I think that it's time (in the interest of fair play) to discuss men.

To my view, most of what the threads about women devolve into are pretty much misogynistic crap. That's just my opinion of course. But, it got me to thinking about the opposite of that: MISANDRY (defined as the hatred of men).

I copied/pasted below something off of Wiki related to the subject and I just wonder if anyone has any thoughts on the validity of these classifications:

Misandry and feminism
In My Enemy, My Love (1992), Judith Levine classifies these stereotypes of men as targets of women's misandry within intimate relationships:

Infants: the Mama's Boy, the Babbler, the Bumbler and the Invalid
Betrayers: the Seducer, the Slave, the Abandoner and the Abductor
Beasts: the Brute, the Pet, the Pervert, the Prick and the Killer

What I don't like about them is that they ARE "stereotypes." If you create enough "boxes" you will be able to fit just about anybody into one of them, but the concept of categorization is inherently limiting. ALL of us (male & female) have some of each of those in us, but in most cases they don't define us.

I can't really speak to how guys act in the bedroom (differently?), but most of the guys I know (straight and gay) aren't "women haters/baiters/traitors" they are just "guys." I don't know; maybe because there is "0%" physical attraction on my part, I can pay closer attention to their individual personalities.

I also wonder how aptly these stereotypes apply to gay guys. In my interactions, more gay guys seem to be antagonistic toward women then het guys do.

 

[Huckleman2000]

[...]
I also wonder how aptly these stereotypes apply to gay guys. In my interactions, more gay guys seem to be antagonistic toward women then het guys do.

I think there may be a lot of "gay" guys who were bisexual men who have been abused by women. I see far fewer bisexual men than women, and when I've discussed that with gay friends, they often say that they used to sleep with women, but have simply decided it's not worth the time and effort when sex with men is so much simpler to negotiate.

 

[lesbiaphrodite]

What I don't like about them is that they ARE "stereotypes." If you create enough "boxes" you will be able to fit just about anybody into one of them, but the concept of categorization is inherently limiting. ALL of us (male & female) have some of each of those in us, but in most cases they don't define us.

I can't really speak to how guys act in the bedroom (differently?), but most of the guys I know (straight and gay) aren't "women haters/baiters/traitors" they are just "guys." I don't know; maybe because there is "0%" physical attraction on my part, I can pay closer attention to their individual personalities.

I also wonder how aptly these stereotypes apply to gay guys. In my interactions, more gay guys seem to be antagonistic toward women then het guys do.

Interesting thoughts, chere. I feel ya on the problem with stereotypes and categories. The thing is that it doesn't seem to be much of a problem for the mainstream to do that to women all the time and most people just consider that "business as usual." But, when you turn that around and start questioning the whole male thing (i.e. What makes them tick?; Are they all just pervs ready to fuck whatever moves? and other BOSH like that), people just get pissed off or don't know what to say.

I don't hate men, but I do dislike the way SOME of them categorize women. What I dislike even more is that many of them do it with the blessings of the political, literary and social machines.

 

[Safe_Bet]

I think there may be a lot of "gay" guys who were bisexual men who have been abused by women. I see far fewer bisexual men than women, and when I've discussed that with gay friends, they often say that they used to sleep with women, but have simply decided it's not worth the time and effort when sex with men is so much simpler to negotiate.

LOL. Nice try Huck, but I don't think that this thread is about how "mean, heartless women" have caused guys to seek the affection of other guys.

Interesting thoughts, chere. I feel ya on the problem with stereotypes and categories. The thing is that it doesn't seem to be much of a problem for the mainstream to do that to women all the time and most people just consider that "business as usual." But, when you turn that around and start questioning the whole male thing (i.e. What makes them tick?; Are they all just pervs ready to fuck whatever moves? and other BOSH like that), people just get pissed off or don't know what to say.

I don't hate men, but I do dislike the way SOME of them categorize women. What I dislike even more is that many of them do it with the blessings of the political, literary and social machines.

Oh, I whole heartily agree. If I had to assign a "don't like your ass" box it would be the "women are here to be fucked categorizers" and "Life support system for a pussy" gang. Thankfully, I don't have to associate with most of them.

I find it interesting that it seems to be more prevalent here due to the sexual nature of the forum and the anonymity of the internet. I wonder if any of the "WAHTBFC"ers would act that way in person (way doubt it). To me it boils down to their maturity level and their own self-esteem (which nobody but yourself really has an impact on).

The other part of it, cuz I'm kind of a glass half-fuller, is that even here there are guys who are WAY cool. They interact with me on an adult level and even when they perv a little bit they do it respectfully and it is done in more of an "inquisitive" manner than some of the others who are "assumptive" or "dismissive" (which as I said reflects more on THEIR personal failings.)

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Speaking on behalf of America's misogynists, misandry concerns us about as much as the price of tea in China. We'd rather watch grass grow.

Hey ROB? Since when is pussy-whipped a disability?

 

[rgraham666]

Hmmm. Before someone smacks Huck around has anyone noticed how many of the lesbian themed stories have "Women driven into other women's arms because men are clueless and cruel" as their central thesis?

Because, to me, it seems a somewhat common idea.

 

[john-the-author]

What I don't like about them is that they ARE "stereotypes." If you create enough "boxes" you will be able to fit just about anybody into one of them, but the concept of categorization is inherently limiting. ALL of us (male & female) have some of each of those in us, but in most cases they don't define us.

I'm not entirely sure about this statement, Safe_Bet. I've got a lot of boxes in my head for people, but it's the ones that don't fit into boxes that are the ones who achieve full human status to me. If I can summarize someone with a label that'll fit on a box, then they're not likely to be significant to me as a friend. The people that I enjoy and want to know and keep in my life are folks who fit in no box whatsoever, even if they may be describable.

Unfortunately, I have to say that many, many guys do fit into boxes pretty well. Men are shabby creatures.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Hmmm. Before someone smacks Huck around has anyone noticed how many of the lesbian themed stories have "Women driven into other women's arms because men are clueless and cruel" as their central thesis?

Because, to me, it seems a somewhat common idea.

Thanks, Rob. I meant my post as serious. There are very few uncloseted gay men in the AH - certainly far fewer than there are lesbians, anyway. Were more here, I've no doubt some would probably speak up.

 

[Safe_Bet]

Hmmm. Before someone smacks Huck around has anyone noticed how many of the lesbian themed stories have "Women driven into other women's arms because men are clueless and cruel" as their central thesis?

Because, to me, it seems a somewhat common idea.

That is true, but your are basing the supposed commonality on a.) these stories having ANY connection to reality and b.) that females (most especially queer females) write them.

If you read the stories of most "lesbians" writers, you don't find hardly any of these types of situations. I think for the most part they are simply "Loving Wives" stories with the genders changed (which covers a LOT of the stuff posted for Survivor, for example).

(and yeah, I do the same thing for my "straight" stories, which is why I have to ask my friends "dick" related questions... )

 

[3113]

I think there may be a lot of "gay" guys who were bisexual men who have been abused by women. I see far fewer bisexual men than women, and when I've discussed that with gay friends, they often say that they used to sleep with women, but have simply decided it's not worth the time and effort when sex with men is so much simpler to negotiate.

Um, actually, Huck a reliable source (one of the gay male writers here who very often writes on such topics) has told me that, in his experience, most men who say that they're bisexual, but end up with men, are likely gay and lying about it

Which is not to say that there's no such thing as bi-men or that it couldn't happen. I think we all agree here that sexual orientation rides on a sliding scale and that we really should be assessing sexual orientation according to a percentage--how much we're attracted to one sex over the other percentage wise. Meaning that I think we all agree that there are a lot more of us out there who are "bi" to some degree than either straight or gay.

That said, there are gay men (i.e. percentage wise way more attracted to males) who don't want to admit this, and who, eventually, will cop to being bisexual as that seems the lesser evil and allows them to be with men. From there it's just a hop-sip-and-a-jump to saying that they were driven away from women into the arms of men, rather than admitting outright that they're gay and always wanted to be with men and only men.

 

[3113]

That is true, but your are basing the supposed commonality on a.) these stories having ANY connection to reality and b.) that females (most especially queer females) write them.

But the L-Word's all true, right? I mean, lesbians are all beautiful and know instantly when another woman is attracted to them (and is probably a secret lesbian) and have sex with her right there and...um...right?

 

[Huckleman2000]

Um, actually, Huck a reliable source (one of the gay male writers here who very often writes on such topics) has told me that, in his experience, most men who say that they're bisexual, but end up with men, are likely gay and lying about it

Which is not to say that there's no such thing as bi-men or that it couldn't happen. I think we all agree here that sexual orientation rides on a sliding scale and that we really should be assessing sexual orientation according to a percentage--how much we're attracted to one sex over the other percentage wise. Meaning that I think we all agree that there are a lot more of us out there who are "bi" to some degree than either straight or gay.

That said, there are gay men (i.e. percentage wise way more attracted to males) who don't want to admit this, and who, eventually, will cop to being bisexual as that seems the lesser evil and allows them to be with men. From there it's just a hop-sip-and-a-jump to saying that they were driven away from women into the arms of men, rather than admitting outright that they're gay and always wanted to be with men and only men.

Copping to bisexuality is the lesser evil? What about if both chicks and guys just make their dick hard? Or are you implying that bisexuality is a choice, while gay is not?

 

[lesbiaphrodite]

Nobody thinks the L-Word is true. LOL.

I agree with what Safe Bet said about the fact that almost NO lesbians write about women who fall into the arms of other women simply because they were driven to them by bad men.

That kind of storyline never even occurred to me. In fact, men are rarely featured in my stories and they have no relevance to my stories either as motivators or detractors from what the lesbian characters in my realm get up to.

It's like prison or boarding school stories which imply that women only get into each other when men aren't around. Mostly, these stories are written by men or at the very least for them.

 

[Safe_Bet]

But the L-Word's all true, right? I mean, lesbians are all beautiful and know instantly when another woman is attracted to them (and is probably a secret lesbian) and have sex with her right there and...um...right?

Yeah, pretty much! You are very perceptive!




Seriously, I am not sure what you are saying in the context of Rob's posting. That sentence is not / was never intended as a stand alone statement.

Originally Posted by rgraham666: has anyone noticed how many of the lesbian themed stories have "Women driven into other women's arms because men are clueless and cruel" as their central thesis?

Because, to me, it seems a somewhat common idea.

Originally Posted by Safe_Bet
That is true, but your are basing the supposed commonality on a.) these stories having ANY connection to reality and b.) that females (most especially queer females) write them.

 

[3113]

In My Enemy, My Love (1992), Judith Levine classifies these stereotypes of men as targets of women's misandry within intimate relationships:

Infants: the Mama's Boy, the Babbler, the Bumbler and the Invalid
Betrayers: the Seducer, the Slave, the Abandoner and the Abductor
Beasts: the Brute, the Pet, the Pervert, the Prick and the Killer[/I]

I'm curious to know how "The Slave" is a betrayer and "the Pet" is a beast. By name alone, I'd assume that "The Slave" would be loyal and "The Pet" would be tame.

Interesting one that I don't see on the list: Peter Pan.

Very common misandry label for men who women feel haven't "grown up." Close to the Mama's boy but not quite the same. Peter does want Wendy to be his mother, but the Mama's boy wants Mama telling him what to do, what to eat, how to think. Peter Pan wants a mother there to read stories, keep house, and apply bandages, but otherwise aims to do what he pleases, which means have fun and hang out with his friends. Be a boy forever.

I find this stereotype particularly interesting. On the one hand, like all the stereotypes, I'm sure there are guys like this, meaning the adult man is acting like an irresponsible juvenile, and expects the woman to do all the work while he has all the fun. On the other hand, it's often wrongly applied to men who still like to read comic books or collect toys. And it's often used as an excuse by women to take away those things, which seems, to me, counter productive. A woman who wants a man to stop reading comic books and playing with toys is erasing not only an important part of him, but a connection that man might have with his children.

 

[3113]

Copping to bisexuality is the lesser evil? What about if both chicks and guys just make their dick hard? Or are you implying that bisexuality is a choice, while gay is not?

I'm implying that much of society still raises gay men to think that gayness is evil, wrong and unmasculine. And that many gay men, raised to think and believe this, will desperately try to pass as hetero and, when that fails, assert that they're bi-sexual in the hopes of avoiding the "gay" label.

In no way would I try to argue that this behavior is logical or makes much sense. But then it makes no sense in the first place for a society to apply labels to people which carry artificial negative connotations, like "gay = bad" but "bisexual = not-as-bad-as-gay" or "black = bad" but "light brown skin = not so bad." If society does this, then people raised in that society will try to avoid those labels anyway they can. And you end up with stories of black people using chemicals on their skin to make them a lighter color.

I am in no way implying that any sexual orientation is a choice and I never will imply such a thing.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Hmmm. Before someone smacks Huck around has anyone noticed how many of the lesbian themed stories have "Women driven into other women's arms because men are clueless and cruel" as their central thesis?

Because, to me, it seems a somewhat common idea.

ROB, in your case its your tan shoes & pink shoelaces, the pokadot vest, and the panama hat with with the purple hat band.

 

[xssve]

I think there may be a lot of "gay" guys who were bisexual men who have been abused by women. I see far fewer bisexual men than women, and when I've discussed that with gay friends, they often say that they used to sleep with women, but have simply decided it's not worth the time and effort when sex with men is so much simpler to negotiate.

I wish I were gay sometimes - men are less complicated.

Just big babies, that's why we're so easy to handle.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I wish I were gay sometimes - men are less complicated.

Just big babies, that's why we're so easy to handle.

Uh-huh. The human male is a remarkably simple species. Keep us warm, fed and well screwed and we'll do anything you want. Any woman who isn't getting everything she wants from her guy simply isn't paying attention . . . or has picked a real loser that she needs to dump ASAP.