Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Mister Ed

(5,995 posts)
Wed May 28, 2014, 08:24 PM May 2014

Misandry is real, misandry is out there...

..and honestly, I gotta tell ya: it doesn't affect me in the least.

Let's face it: there really are some women out there who just innately hate men. There have to be. Heck, I think I've even encountered a couple of them in my life. And that there hatred of men is what you'd call misandry.

Whoever and wherever they are, I guess what's made their hatred of me so bearable is that they seem to have so much self-restraint about it. I mean, really. They've never harmed me a bit - or even tried to.

They've never hurt me or hit me, they've never beat me or raped me. And they've never once murdered me! (I have to admit, that's one of my personal favorites. I love not being murdered! But doesn't everyone?)

Amazingly, though, their self-control seems to extend way beyond just eschewing violence. Comes right down to it, they've never even used the threat of violence, implicit or explicit, to intimidate me, or demean me, or try to subjugate me. So that part's good.

Plus, they're not out there making unwelcome sexual advances on me to creep me out and make me feel vulnerable and stuff.

They might sit at home at night and stew about how they hate men. I don't know. And the reason I don't know is that they're not out there all around me, making their hatred plain and casting a cloud over my life. If I want to find stuff they've written about hating me, I have to go hunting for it. And if I find it, it seems like its really abstract and impersonal and academic. Which still might hurt my feelings. But it's waaay better than threats of violence and stuff.

It's also lucky that they're not using the power of government, or religion, to keep beating me down just because they hate me. 'Cause that would really suck.

So all in all, I'd have to say these misandrists are pretty civil about the way they hate me. All in all, I have to think that if we could ever get to where all the world's misogynists would follow their lead, well, that would be the next best thing to no hatin' at all.

All in all, I think I'd have to be one sorry-assed, self-possessed, sniveling sonofabitch to sit here snug and secure in the cushy cocoon of my straight-white-male life complaining about these misandrists. All in all, I guess if I wanna think about that kind of stuff, my time's probably better spent trying to figure out what I, as an individual, am gonna be doing to keep from causing anger, and even hatred, to take root in other women or girls.

P.S. Don't think for a minute I'm done here. One of these days, when I get around to it, I'm going to go off on a little rant about "reverse racism", and how oppressed I am by all those people of other races who hate me. Spoiler alert: it's going to be a lot like this rant here.

107 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Misandry is real, misandry is out there... (Original Post) Mister Ed May 2014 OP
There's a few of them Prophet 451 May 2014 #1
And they don't have *institutional* backing, either. So that counts for something, IMO. nt AverageJoe90 May 2014 #17
Okay, who are you and what did you do with AJ90? ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2014 #26
lol. i saw another one along the way. cant remember where. seabeyond May 2014 #33
People can always learn, and improve themselves. Even cynical ol' me acknowledges as much. n/t nomorenomore08 May 2014 #34
I think black folks can be racist... MellowDem May 2014 #39
The definition of racism is ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2014 #41
According to you, that's the definition of racism... MellowDem May 2014 #45
No, according to post-civil rights social scientists ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2014 #55
According to your link, your view of racism is dangerously naive... MellowDem May 2014 #80
I don't think the first snippet that you cite ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2014 #90
You make thoughtful points... MellowDem May 2014 #91
Sorry BS. In the military met plenty of racists of both races that used their rank. Katashi_itto May 2014 #57
You met plenty of bigots ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2014 #59
You overlook my experience in govt service too and in civilian life Katashi_itto May 2014 #60
Yes ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2014 #61
why? noiretextatique May 2014 #63
My friend , I have something that will help you with this conversation randys1 May 2014 #78
Discouraging discussion doesn't help with a conversation... MellowDem May 2014 #81
He has been right quite alot lately. bravenak May 2014 #51
They can personally, but not institutionally eridani May 2014 #86
That "personally, but not intstitutionally" ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2014 #87
Very true Prophet 451 May 2014 #40
But they also gather at the polls and vote insane misogynists into office to harm women. freshwest May 2014 #20
Was that directed at me? n/t Prophet 451 May 2014 #42
It's not a swipe at you, just a response to the: freshwest May 2014 #43
Misogynists, yes but I was talking about misandrists n/t Prophet 451 May 2014 #49
Sorry, I was still in the realm of the OP's satire. You are correct, and I was thinking of the other freshwest May 2014 #50
Righteous Rant, Mister Ed! tytyty n/t chervilant May 2014 #2
What he said. nt geek tragedy May 2014 #3
An Elaboration Of What I Said In Another Thread ProfessorGAC May 2014 #4
AND I will repeat ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2014 #27
Unfortunately my ignore list is growing over this Nobel_Twaddle_III May 2014 #5
73 posts and you already have an ignore list lol nt msongs May 2014 #7
Since I do all most all my reading at work, I can not sign in. Nobel_Twaddle_III May 2014 #10
why is this so amusing? TorchTheWitch May 2014 #11
a newbie is whining about people picking on white men. 99/100 that indicates Republican troll geek tragedy May 2014 #13
It indicates sulphurdunn May 2014 #29
My ignore list is blank. Spitfire of ATJ May 2014 #21
thank you ! Nobel_Twaddle_III May 2014 #25
You would be much happier at Discussionist. Welcome (back?) to DU. nt geek tragedy May 2014 #12
Yeah, I hear you. AverageJoe90 May 2014 #18
oh I like this site, and it will recover. Nobel_Twaddle_III May 2014 #44
and I'm proud to to be on AJ90's ignore list. kwassa May 2014 #82
If you are seeing... CSStrowbridge May 2014 #22
Projection is exactly what it is. And maybe a dash (or more) of narcissism. n/t nomorenomore08 May 2014 #36
At the risk of becoming a part of your ignore list ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2014 #28
But that would involve toning down the ego. And some simply can't handle that. n/t nomorenomore08 May 2014 #37
Message auto-removed Name removed May 2014 #48
projection noiretextatique May 2014 #62
I'm revisiting mine right now...[n/t] Maedhros May 2014 #73
This white male disagrees utterly and wholeheartedly... arcane1 May 2014 #6
On first reading, that there word tripped me up too Flying Squirrel May 2014 #68
Ahh... I should've read it in my birth-accent arcane1 May 2014 #72
I don't know but a personal situation occurred in my life jimlup May 2014 #8
Thank you. bravenak May 2014 #9
Some women hate me so much, you'd think they actually LIKED me. Ken Burch May 2014 #14
Well said. nt el_bryanto May 2014 #15
I once knew a woman who detested men, but she had no power over anyone, so she was simply annoying. Throd May 2014 #16
Nice surprise of an OP. Bravenak says 'Misandry is their Benghazi.' Awaiting your Reverse Racism OP. freshwest May 2014 #19
"Misandry" never phases me either Puzzledtraveller May 2014 #23
Mr. Ed, BlancheSplanchnik May 2014 #24
Why would you put someone on an ignore list? sulphurdunn May 2014 #30
some people are so stupid they are not worth the effort Skittles May 2014 #83
misandry turned me into a newt! mwrguy May 2014 #31
You should write a country song called "the next best thing.. spooky3 May 2014 #32
I don't know any treestar May 2014 #35
Far more of a bogeyman than anything tangible or real. nomorenomore08 May 2014 #38
Oh fer criminy sakes Flying Squirrel May 2014 #46
Enthusiastically recommended! Heidi May 2014 #47
This is one of the best posts ever on DU Tsiyu May 2014 #52
I would love to see some of these guys' bullshit turned back at them. nomorenomore08 May 2014 #53
Oh I was talking about going all out Tsiyu May 2014 #56
No disagreement with any of that. n/t nomorenomore08 May 2014 #64
No, two wrongs won't make a right, or right a wrong Demeter May 2014 #67
Really, Dad? Tsiyu May 2014 #71
It's mom, and I'm 4 years older than you. Demeter May 2014 #74
Bite me Tsiyu May 2014 #77
Perfect HangOnKids May 2014 #85
Thanks Tsiyu May 2014 #93
This is one of the best OPs JustAnotherGen May 2014 #54
I really hate all the anti-male laws being passed noiretextatique May 2014 #58
This is simply fantastic. redqueen May 2014 #65
That was stellar, Mister Ed Demeter May 2014 #66
There now, you see? That right there is what's so great about being a guy. Mister Ed May 2014 #69
You said it Demeter May 2014 #75
Well done Mr. E! thucythucy May 2014 #70
Kick. LOVE it. Squinch May 2014 #76
I like the way you rant. K&R Tuesday Afternoon May 2014 #79
Great post! UtahLib May 2014 #84
T L0oniX May 2014 #88
Thanks! Enjoyed this. ancianita May 2014 #89
This is one of the best OPs I've read in my 10 years at DU. Heidi May 2014 #92
great post! Kali Jun 2014 #94
Oh, my wryter2000 Jun 2014 #95
Misanthropy is also out there. MineralMan Jun 2014 #96
Trying to be cute, fail. Scott6113 Jun 2014 #97
I think we need to talk. Mister Ed Jun 2014 #98
oh Mister Ed, you've done it again! Tuesday Afternoon Jun 2014 #99
reply Scott6113 Jun 2014 #100
I think I see the problem here. Mister Ed Jun 2014 #103
More than semantics Scott6113 Jun 2014 #104
Kindness and respect it is, then. Good watchwords for us all. n/t Mister Ed Jun 2014 #105
Lol Sheldon Cooper Jun 2014 #107
K&R Jamastiene Jun 2014 #101
Mr. Ed, you're my new hero!!!! DesertDiamond Jun 2014 #102
Nice! ismnotwasm Jun 2014 #106

Prophet 451

(9,796 posts)
1. There's a few of them
Wed May 28, 2014, 08:31 PM
May 2014

I figure it's the law of statistics, there's someone at the far end of every statistical curve. I hang out a lot on "Fundies Say" and we get the occasional misandrist comment submitted there. There aren't many of them and it's only the web that allows them to gather in any sort of numbers.



(31,849 posts)
26. Okay, who are you and what did you do with AJ90? ...
Wed May 28, 2014, 10:26 PM
May 2014

You have just explained why women can't be misandrists and Black folks can't be racist.


(5,018 posts)
39. I think black folks can be racist...
Wed May 28, 2014, 11:22 PM
May 2014

It's possible to understand that racists with institutional power can do more damage without denying the existence of black racists.



(31,849 posts)
41. The definition of racism is ...
Wed May 28, 2014, 11:29 PM
May 2014

bigotry + institutional power/support ... while Black people CAN be bigots, they lack the institutional power to be racist.

That what AJ90's post suggest he has finally come to understand.


(5,018 posts)
45. According to you, that's the definition of racism...
Thu May 29, 2014, 12:24 AM
May 2014

I don't think that is what racism is. It's not a useful definition IMHO. Since you have told me what you think racism is, here is what I think it is, and why I think it is the definition, and useful at that.

Racism is just the belief that races (another man made idea) are inferior and superior relative to each other. I think this is the definition of racism.

Racism isn't the same bigotry. Bigotry is a state of mind. It is viewing people with fear or distrust based off of prejudice. Bigotry is a human condition. Our brains are wired to stereotype. Racism is an idea. It hasn't been around since the dawn of time. Racism might be informed by bigotry at times, or not. Some people subscribe to racism on prejudice, others on theological grounds, still others on scientific grounds, etc.

If a person believes some races are inferior or superior to others, then they're a racist. They may also be a bigot when it comes to race, they may be a racist due to their bigotry, but they're still a racist. If we want to convince that person not to be racist, we have to address why they are a racist, attack the reasoning that causes them to believe such a thing. It may not just be prejudice, or prejudice at all.

If, as is currently much more common IMHO, a person is scared of another race (or their own) or fearful based on prejudices or anecdotal evidence or personal experiences or crime statistics or whatever, but doesn't subscribe to the idea of racism, we can attack the idea of racism all we want, that person will still be a bigot. We have to address their prejudices, which may have nothing to so with the idea of racial superiority.

This is why I think it's important to make a distinction, to address the actual problem/reasoning.

As for institutional power/support, that's all it is, it's not part of the definition of racism. It's just a system that supports that idea. Also a critical distinction to make, and one that is lost in your definition.

Your definition isn't useful because bigotry has all sorts of flavor beyond race. Under your definition, many black churches and denominations are racist. Many theological views are bigoted towards homosexuals, and that bigotry is given institutional support and power by many black churches. Under your definition, blacks definitely can be racist. And if you wanted to address bigotry in black churches towards homosexuals, calling it racism would be a poor way to begin.

Your definition is useful for combatting the exaggerated use of black racism by conservatives to drum up fear from their base, but it does so by supposedly defining away the possibility of black racism, which not only is disingenuous, it's harmful in effectively addressing why people are racist, or bigoted, or both in a manner that will combat racism as an idea, and combat bigotry as a state of mind.

I think my definition of racism can still be used to point out that much of what the right calls black racism is really just bigotry, and to point out that white racism and bigotry is a much bigger issue due to institutional power. I think it gives room to make important distinctions and understand how to address racism and bigotry more effectively.



(31,849 posts)
55. No, according to post-civil rights social scientists ...
Thu May 29, 2014, 08:19 AM
May 2014

For example: http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/faculty/winant/what_is_racism.html

Your definition isn't useful because bigotry has all sorts of flavor beyond race. Under your definition, many black churches and denominations are racist. Many theological views are bigoted towards homosexuals, and that bigotry is given institutional support and power by many black churches. Under your definition, blacks definitely can be racist. And if you wanted to address bigotry in black churches towards homosexuals, calling it racism would be a poor way to begin.

That makes no sense ... Yes Black churches, as institutions, can be bigoted, and when that bigotry is expressed toward the GLBTQ community (or individuals) it is called homophobia; not racism (which is race-based).

But not to complicate this discussion, but yes, Black people can be/do racist stuff; but not the way you think ... not when they act bigoted toward whites (the is not institution support for that), but rather when they act bigoted against other Black folks, based on race.


(5,018 posts)
80. According to your link, your view of racism is dangerously naive...
Thu May 29, 2014, 07:16 PM
May 2014
On the other hand, I hear from other students (from my black and brown students particularly, but by no means only from them), that racism is a "system of power." This idea implies that only whites have power, and thus only they can be racists. We should also recognize the origins of this idea, which exhibits a different but no less dangerous naivete -- for it is highly problematic to assert that racially-defined minorities are powerless in the contemporary U.S. -- in the radicalized later years of the civil rights era.

Their definition doesn't seem to be your definition at all. They seem to oppose your definition. They never bring up my definition. They only seem to bring up two other definitions besides their own.

I don't agree with your definition, but I think it's far less problematic than the "colorblind" definition they also argue against, which is much more widespread.

It was in interesting read. I agreed with almost all of it, except for their definition they come up with to some degree. Here seems to be their proposed definition:

Today, a racial project can be defined as racist if it creates or reproduces hierarchical social structures based on essentialized racial categories. This approach recognizes the importance of locating racism within a fluid and contested history of racially based social structures and discourses. It allows us to recognize that there can be no timeless and absolute standard for what constitutes racism, because social structures undergo reform (and reaction) and discourses are always subject to rearticulation. This definition therefore does not invest the concept of racism with any permanent content, but instead sees racism as a property of certain political projects that link the representation and organization of race -- that engage in the "work" of racial formation. Such an approach focuses on the "work" essentialism does for domination, and the "need" domination displays to essentialize the subordinated.

I think it is very important to have a well understood and accepted definition of racism so that it can be addressed. I don't think it's easy coming to a conclusion of what it should be. I do disagree with their definition.

Their definition requires an action or process of some kind in order to find the action racist or not. But what about ideas and ideologies? I think it's much more accurate and more useful to recognize racism as an idea that can be implemented in all sorts of actions or processes. That is what racism has been since its invention as an idea. It also has the advantage of being simpler to define as well. Whether some policy supports a status quo or not is not always so clear either.

Also, it assumes the hierarchical social structure will always remain stratified along racial lines and be undesirable to support.

I understand that under my definition, it's hard to divine who believes what. Therefore, how do we know a policy that happens to support the social structure of whites on top is based on racist ideas or on something else? This is a weakness of my definition, but their definition doesn't address it any better. Under their definition, the assumption must be made that it's racist. And I think that leads to addressing the wrong problem many times. Under my definition, it's a question to be answered through the best means possible, looking at the evidence, the legislative history, the ideas of those who proposed it, etc. If the reason given isn't racist, but supports the status quo, then it needs to be addressed and undermined based on that idea, not on the accusation that secretly, it's racist. Even if that's true, it won't be effective.

For example, I think the idea that we live in a perfect meritocracy is a bad idea that maintains the status quo. It is used as a way to oppose affirmative action, for example. But to call it racist misses the mark, and makes it tough to undermine the idea because it distracts from what that idea is based on.

I guess the ultimate point is that the idea of racism as I describe it could vanish from the earth tomorrow, along with all racial bigotry, and if everything else remained the same, racial disparities would continue far into the future, because ideas or policies that keep the status quo don't necessarily rely on racism or bigotry. It's an important distinction to be made.



(31,849 posts)
90. I don't think the first snippet that you cite ...
Thu May 29, 2014, 09:37 PM
May 2014

says/means what you think it means ... In the context it was written, the author was merely presenting competing schools of thought.

However, you did identify what the author indicated was his definition of "Racism", i.e., an act is racist "if it creates or reproduces hierarchical social structures based on essentialized racial categories"; but one must also include in that definition the author's recognition that:

... we must also recognize that today, as in the past, there is a hegemonic racial project -- that of the "new right" -- which in general defends white racial privilege. It employs a particular interpretive schema, a particular logic of racial representation, to justify a hierarchical racial order in which, albeit more imperfectly than in the past, dark skin still correlates with subordination, and subordinate status often, though not always, is still represented in racial terms.

The only beef I have with this article that I cited is his hedging ... he started the above-cited passage with:
Although we can conclude that racism is not invariably white

He's attempting to have it both ways, in that he cited to clear examples of "white on Black" racism; but completely neglects any examples of "Black on white" racism. Further, his prospect of "Black on white" racism, entails the possibility/eventuality/never, never world, where Black folks are the hegemonic racial project(ion).


(5,018 posts)
91. You make thoughtful points...
Thu May 29, 2014, 11:06 PM
May 2014

but I still disagree with the idea that blacks can't be racist, under your definition or mine. Under yours, in the US, blacks hold power locally in institutions over other local minorities. And of course, there's the fact that in many countries of the world, blacks have control of all major institutions in a country.

Under my definition, there are certain tenets of certain ideologies like the Nation of Islam that could be interpreted as racist.

I don't think black racism is a major problem, I just think the definition of racism that purports to support that claim isn't an accurate or useful definition.

I think it's a lot less problematic than saying that talking about race is racist. That is such a widespread, right-wing meme that I see quite often, and not just said by whites, but almost always said by those with lots of power and privilege, racial or otherwise.



(10,175 posts)
57. Sorry BS. In the military met plenty of racists of both races that used their rank.
Thu May 29, 2014, 09:46 AM
May 2014

In Govt service saw the same thing. Racists come in all shapes sizes and race. I'm half-Japanese and run into several racist Japanese who had a problem with me because I was Hafu.



(31,849 posts)
59. You met plenty of bigots ...
Thu May 29, 2014, 10:41 AM
May 2014

that used their rank in the military, not their racial class membership in American society, to effectuate their bigotry. That military rank is meaningless outside of the context of the military; but racial class membership extends beyond those narrow confines.



(31,849 posts)
61. Yes ...
Thu May 29, 2014, 10:48 AM
May 2014

Racists are aplenty.

As someone that is "half-Japanese", I have no doubt that you experienced your share of racism ... as well as race-based bigotry; but the two are NOT the same.

Please read more post-civil right era writings on racism ... as with all fields of academic study, terms are refined to more accurately reflect the findings of the state of study. The definition of racism is but an example of such evolution.


(27,275 posts)
63. why?
Thu May 29, 2014, 12:03 PM
May 2014

With privilege comes the power to warp definitions to benefit the privileged. The non-sequitur "reverse racism" is a prime example. Joe the Plumber, Cliven Bundy, Bill O'Really and others believe they know more about race and racism than all those social scientists combined.


(16,286 posts)
78. My friend , I have something that will help you with this conversation
Thu May 29, 2014, 06:21 PM
May 2014

The trick is to bang your head against a hard surface, do it repeatedly until you are unconscious, it is in this state of unconsciousness where you will achieve more than arguing with someone who doesn't understand what the action of racism is...

Now, start the banging...


(5,018 posts)
81. Discouraging discussion doesn't help with a conversation...
Thu May 29, 2014, 07:22 PM
May 2014

and implying one's opinion is the end-all-be-all shows a high level of arrogance and contempt for others. Deciding on the definition of racism is a complicated, subjective enterprise. It's not 2 + 2 = 4. Heck, defining any word is probably the hardest part of any deep conversation.


(51,907 posts)
86. They can personally, but not institutionally
Thu May 29, 2014, 08:24 PM
May 2014

Women who hate men and POC who have whites have no means of making others suffer for their personal feeiings.



(31,849 posts)
87. That "personally, but not intstitutionally" ...
Thu May 29, 2014, 08:53 PM
May 2014

Is the distinction between bigotry (i.e., race-based/sex-based hatred) and racism/sexism.

Prophet 451

(9,796 posts)
40. Very true
Wed May 28, 2014, 11:27 PM
May 2014

The misandrists might be raging but they're powerless. Unlike the misogynists, a worrying number of whom have power.


(53,661 posts)
20. But they also gather at the polls and vote insane misogynists into office to harm women.
Wed May 28, 2014, 09:41 PM
May 2014
4REALZ, but then they are GOP and not Democrats. We have a platform that protects civil rights for women and all minorities.


(53,661 posts)
43. It's not a swipe at you, just a response to the:
Wed May 28, 2014, 11:49 PM
May 2014
There aren't many of them and it's only the web that allows them to gather in any sort of numbers.

They appear to be a range of them, from misogynists, conservatives and fundies, and they do vote, and are taking rights away from people in the real world.

What I'm saying is that while you may only see a few online, they exist in real life and affect the real lives of people.

Hope you don't mind the use of a little bit of Lolcat speech. Peace Out.


(53,661 posts)
50. Sorry, I was still in the realm of the OP's satire. You are correct, and I was thinking of the other
Thu May 29, 2014, 02:29 AM
May 2014


(66,178 posts)
4. An Elaboration Of What I Said In Another Thread
Wed May 28, 2014, 08:43 PM
May 2014

Whether it exists or not, and whatever the word means, it has no impact on me. It's never affected me and it never will. It just doesn't work that way.

That's why it's just a word. Someone being a mysandryst will never have a negative impact on me. Just because there is word the opposite of mysogeny doesn't mean there is an opposite effect.

Never has been, never will be.


(323 posts)
5. Unfortunately my ignore list is growing over this
Wed May 28, 2014, 08:47 PM
May 2014

And that is too bad, because when these posters are not behaving this way, I will miss out on their post.
I wish we could treat each other with the dignity and respect each of us deserves.
Until then my ignore list grows.
Maybe when the “all men are evil, especially the white ones” threads die down, I can revisit the ignore list.


(323 posts)
10. Since I do all most all my reading at work, I can not sign in.
Wed May 28, 2014, 08:59 PM
May 2014

I have been reading this sight for years, but did not make an account until March or so.
And yes there are a few that just pissed me off.

Yes, I have a slacker job.


(11,065 posts)
11. why is this so amusing?
Wed May 28, 2014, 09:15 PM
May 2014

I put people on ignore the first day I was here. It isn't hard to recognize a poster you want nothing to do with by only one post.

Geez, why do people make such a big deal out of what other people do or don't do with their ignore option? Too bad more people didn't think it was some kind of badge of honor to put no one on ignore yet argue with them constantly to the point everyone else wishes they'd get a room.

It's almost as stupid as members that take pot shots at people just because of their "low" post count.

Kindergarten BS.


geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
13. a newbie is whining about people picking on white men. 99/100 that indicates Republican troll
Wed May 28, 2014, 09:19 PM
May 2014

who has been previously banned



(6,891 posts)
29. It indicates
Wed May 28, 2014, 10:39 PM
May 2014

nothing of the kind. It does indicate the positing of the ad hominem fallacy, which is running neck and neck with begging the question around here lately. Mix those things with generally rude, mocking and irrational discourse, and you have the oxymoron of a progressive teabag movement developing.



(10,745 posts)
18. Yeah, I hear you.
Wed May 28, 2014, 09:35 PM
May 2014

I've had to put a few people on ignore myself, for acting the fool, or being jerkasses, etc. And before this whole problem started, I had put maybe one person on ignore(he was a particularly annoying climate doomer. And he didn't even stay on there). Now it's five. And I hope that number never goes up, either.

I wish we could treat each other with the dignity and respect each of us deserves.

Me too, me too. But with all this site's faults, there's still some interesting stuff to be found, and most people here are pretty decent; that isn't something that can be said for ANY of our opposite numbers, such as the "Conservative Cave&quot A fitting name if there ever was one), and FreeRepublic.


(323 posts)
44. oh I like this site, and it will recover.
Thu May 29, 2014, 12:09 AM
May 2014

I have spent most of the last 5 years working second shift as a "just incase something goes wrong engineer". This left me lots of time on the internet, with lots of hours at DU. Never needed an account as logging in was not allowed on a company computer.


(267 posts)
22. If you are seeing...
Wed May 28, 2014, 09:44 PM
May 2014

If you are seeing a lot of "all men are evil, especially the white ones" threads here, I suspect that has something to do with projection.



(31,849 posts)
28. At the risk of becoming a part of your ignore list ...
Wed May 28, 2014, 10:30 PM
May 2014

there are no “all men are evil, especially the white ones” threads. Maybe you should take a moment to read what is really being said.

Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #28)



(38,613 posts)
6. This white male disagrees utterly and wholeheartedly...
Wed May 28, 2014, 08:49 PM
May 2014

...with your one misuse of the word "there." Other than that, it's spot-on!


Flying Squirrel

(3,041 posts)
68. On first reading, that there word tripped me up too
Thu May 29, 2014, 05:54 PM
May 2014

I imagine you and I both believed it should be "their".

That there would probably be a mistake


(7,968 posts)
8. I don't know but a personal situation occurred in my life
Wed May 28, 2014, 08:55 PM
May 2014

that caused me to realize that men could become victims of women. It was personal (though much more so for my son) so I'm not going to give the details.

And it probably wasn't misandry specifically, rather the actions of someone emotionally confused, but it was pretty vile and almost ruined my sons life.

But still, it isn't necessarily a null set. That is all.


Ken Burch

(50,254 posts)
14. Some women hate me so much, you'd think they actually LIKED me.
Wed May 28, 2014, 09:20 PM
May 2014

Obviously, their kind words and friendly treatment of me and every other man they know could only mean they want to feed all of us into woodchippers, feet first.

The one that married me must only have done that so I'd let my guard down and then she and her friends could tie me up and throw into the piranha tank.

And I'm sure that all through her labor, the woman who gave birth to me was plotting to sneak me out of the nursery and drop me in the nearest deep-fat fryer.

Yes indeed...misandry is ALL around. Can't trust a one of 'em.


(7,208 posts)
16. I once knew a woman who detested men, but she had no power over anyone, so she was simply annoying.
Wed May 28, 2014, 09:22 PM
May 2014

She seemed unhappy in general.


(5,937 posts)
23. "Misandry" never phases me either
Wed May 28, 2014, 09:46 PM
May 2014

to the extent i ever felt that it existed and I was effected by it. I do think we are misogynistic at the cultural level so it does little to address it to men exclusively as we, men and women, in this culture of ours condone it without even thinking about it, much less knowing it.


(20,219 posts)
24. Mr. Ed,
Wed May 28, 2014, 09:49 PM
May 2014

You gave me the answer that I endorse!

Anyone who claims not to get this truly is an arrogant narcissist. In fact, the dudes who snark about their disrespected machismo actually do sound like a good few diagnosed pathological Narcissists I've had the displeasure of knowing. The intelligent ones all sound the same, and the <average ones also sound alike.

That's one hallmark of pathology. Can't respond to ideas or dialogue in a connected, authentic way. The script and tricks are always the same, no matter how hard you try to get them to engage.



(6,891 posts)
30. Why would you put someone on an ignore list?
Wed May 28, 2014, 10:46 PM
May 2014

I thought the idea of a site like this was to agree and disagree without being too disagreeable.


(34,708 posts)
32. You should write a country song called "the next best thing..
Wed May 28, 2014, 10:50 PM
May 2014

...to no hatin' at all." I can almost hear the melody.

Great OP. And I think some replies show that it hit its mark.


(13,324 posts)
38. Far more of a bogeyman than anything tangible or real.
Wed May 28, 2014, 11:05 PM
May 2014

Those who complain about "misandry" largely strike me as the hiding-under-the-bedsheets type.


Flying Squirrel

(3,041 posts)
46. Oh fer criminy sakes
Thu May 29, 2014, 12:29 AM
May 2014

Quit showing off your amazingly good writing skills.

And making some of us wish so fervently for extra recs to give out.


(18,186 posts)
52. This is one of the best posts ever on DU
Thu May 29, 2014, 03:51 AM
May 2014

Best of the best.

This morning, getting ready for work, I started thinking "What if?"

See, I am one of those people who says, if you make me miserable I will make you more miserable. I should be more pro-active than re-active but PTSD has made me otherwise.

It's better as I've gotten older.

But what if we women started pushing back? What if we said to hell with it and just en masse started giving these internet trolls the full measure of their violent threats and sickening insults right back to them?

Is it time for women to become Amazons and push back cruelly and completely in response to rape threats just to give them a taste of their own medicine?

There are probably a million reasons why we shouldn't, but when I hear some men say "What, men have to LET you do stuff? You had to wait for them to LET you have the vote?" I start thinking maybe they are right. Maybe we need to get mean and nasty and ugly and evil and threaten the trolls ( not all men, so it wouldn't be exactly as the MRA types do, but only threaten men who make rape comments or "you owe me sex" comments .)

maybe we need to start returning the fire, so to speak.

Being nice, ignoring them, trying to reason with them: none of these have worked.

How would they like a sudden onslaught of female rage in return for their ignorant, evil comments and threats?

It's an idea I had today in a moment of disgust. Untenable perhaps but rolling around in my angry brain nonetheless.

What if?

Thank you Mister Ed for such beautiful writing.


(13,324 posts)
53. I would love to see some of these guys' bullshit turned back at them.
Thu May 29, 2014, 04:17 AM
May 2014

The response doesn't even need to be overtly violent in content or tone, merely assertive and even aggressive. Let them know that the rest of us - women or men - aren't going to put up with their cowardly tactics any longer.


(18,186 posts)
56. Oh I was talking about going all out
Thu May 29, 2014, 09:35 AM
May 2014

finding out who they are, posting their pictures and phone numbers and addresses on the internet, the whole nine yards.

And in truth, all of us should be doing as you said = letting them know they won't be tolerated anywhere they put their violent threats or any time they attempt to silence a woman through fear and intimidation.

When I read how Rodgers made a U-turn just to throw a drink at two women in public who would not return his hello, it reminded me of all the men who have cursed me, spit at me, called me names or said "Whatsa matter B**ch, too good to talk to me?" etc just because I walked past them without acknowledging their whistling/catcalling/ "Psssst1" or other beastly public behavior.

This has happened in clubs, convenience stores, walking down a sidewalk. What a relief to turn older!

But these people should not feel that society thinks they are engaging in acceptable behavior. When this would happen, other men around would turn their heads and ignore it instead of standing up for me.

Maybe it's time we just stand up for ourselves.


(18,186 posts)
93. Thanks
Fri May 30, 2014, 12:55 AM
May 2014

The irony: people who truly have "good manners" don't act condescending toward others.

So that person got the manners they deserved...

And Grumpy old farts piss me off, too.



(85,373 posts)
66. That was stellar, Mister Ed
Thu May 29, 2014, 01:54 PM
May 2014

Thank you! You've cured me, for sure! I now know that at least one man gets it....so that means it is possible for all of them to get it.

And if I ever get to meet you in person, I'd like to offer you a home-made pie, as a small token of my gratitude. Your choice of filling and crust.

Mister Ed

(5,995 posts)
69. There now, you see? That right there is what's so great about being a guy.
Thu May 29, 2014, 05:57 PM
May 2014

The bar of expectations is just set really, really low for you if you're a guy. So low that people will actually be grateful to you for just acknowledging the obvious.



(56 posts)
97. Trying to be cute, fail.
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 03:48 PM
Jun 2014

Back in 2001, a 70 year old man and his wife were going trough a divorce. The marriage was long term, all the assets were in joint name. The guy was trying to be nice about it. Her lawyer was a shark and tied up all the assets. The wife lived in the house, he in his van, which he parked at the Beverly airport, where he made a little cash money to survive on from instructing and charter flights. His life was pretty desperate, so when a guy waved $200 under his nose for a flight, even though it was night and low clouds, and even though his night vision was bad and his proficiency wasn't up to date on flying on instruments, he took the money and tried. Three people died. His name was Paul Bonaiuto.

And you tell me over and over again that misandry doesn't exist, that because the preponderance of suffering is on the female side, that just makes the male side go away. Ignore it. Not real.

But it is.


Mister Ed

(5,995 posts)
98. I think we need to talk.
Tue Jun 3, 2014, 11:32 PM
Jun 2014

Now, I'm going to admit right off the bat that I was tempted to give you a wise-assed answer here. But really, I think it's better for me to reply sincerely.

Can you see, when you sit back and think about it, that when you set out to convince people that misandry is a matter of concern, and the most damning evidence you can cite is this story, then you're kind of making my point for me?

I've done you the courtesy of reading the entire thread that you linked to, from top to bottom, and frankly, it doesn't support your claims at all. There's nothing to indicate that Mr. Bonaiuto was was destitute and despondent over a divorce at the time of the 2001 airplane crash. One newspaper article does mention, in passing, that he'd been disbarred in 1997, and convicted in a $30 million fraud scheme in 1993. But no mention of the fallout of a divorce.

Far from being just "a guy who waved $200 under (Bonaiuto's) nose for a flight", the other man in the plane was one Joseph LeBlanc, who was a pilot of some three years' experience and a former flight student of Bonaiuto's. The third person on board was LeBlanc's girlfriend, with whom he was described by friends as being ecstatically in love. The scuttlebutt around the airport was that they'd made a casual decision to fly to another airport, and then get some coffee.

It wasn't determined which man was at the controls when the plane crashed shortly after takeoff, or who made the decision to fly in conditions of such low visibility. It should be noted, though, that Bonaiuto was an experienced and certified IFR (instrument-only) pilot, and well-qualified to fly in those conditions. (Certification of the plane itself for IFR had apparently lapsed, although the plane was fully equipped for IFR.) Mr. Bonaiuto's night vision would not have been a significant factor in IFR flight, in which one relies solely on dashboard instruments.

Coming as I do from a family of aviators, that discussion is interesting to me. But I'm afraid it leads us far, far away from questions of misandry and misogyny. So let's return to that discussion, and to your post.

Now, assuming that the story is just as you tell it: can you please help me find the misandry in this picture?

Who is the misandrist in the story? Not Mr. Bonaiuto, obviously. Is it that shark of a lawyer who, at least temporarily, tied up all the couple's assets and put Mr. Bonaiuto in such a bind? I don't know the lawyer's gender, or the lawyer's feelings about men, but I think it's pretty safe to say this was just what you called it: the work of a shark lawyer. And not a misandrist.

Now, of course, the prime suspect for misandry would be Mrs. Bonaiuto. If she went along with that shark attorney, and eventually took her husband to the cleaners, then she may be guilty of greed and unfairness. But is she really a misandrist - a woman who harbors a pathological hatred of men in general? I sure can't see any evidence of that. And hey, she even seemed to have some kind words for her ex at the funeral.

Maybe you feel the divorce statutes that have given such advantage to wives ever since the dawn of our republic are the work of misandrists. If so, I have to ask you to stop and think again. You're actually aware that those laws have always been drafted and passed by our male-dominated legislatures, and not by some mob of angry, man-hatin' women. Right?

By the way, if you're of a mind to work to make those divorce laws more equitable, you'll have my assent. And if you want to work to make all laws more equitable, across the board, well then, you'll have my unreserved admiration. But I'm afraid that admiration is something I'll never be able to muster for people who tilt at this windmill of "misandry" while assuring us all that it's really a deadly and dangerous dragon.


(56 posts)
100. reply
Wed Jun 4, 2014, 10:36 AM
Jun 2014

Last edited Wed Jun 4, 2014, 03:54 PM - Edit history (2)

I know some of this from beyond the news story.
He was medically barred from night flight. Paul was depressed. I know about the payment. Men commit suicide 3x as often as women. No one cares. Everyone makes a joke of misandry as though men have it so great. If that were true, why the 3x figure?
It was a breathtaking lapse in judgement, so the ace of the base said. I think he didn't care if he lived or died.
On the night in question the clouds were so low they obscured the tops of streetlights.

Ever tried to fly at night in a plane of that vintage? The instrument lighting is poor at best. It is made to not affect night vision. In other words, be extremely dim. Not a good match for 70 year-old eyes.

Discussions on the field laid the blame for the death on the wife's attorney. Yet, the wife could have said no, give him enough to live on. I'm reminded of something Black Elk said,
“I did not see anything, in New York 1886, to help my people. I could see that the Wasichus [white man] did not care for each other the way our people did before the nation's hoop was broken. They would take everything from each other if they could, and so there were some who had more of everything than they could use, while crowds of people had nothing at all and maybe were starving. This could not be better than the old ways of my people.”

Problem is with divorce, participants believe it is unfair. Both parties feel cheated. That's because two households are more expensive than one.

For every story of a man ground down to dust by the process there is probably another on the woman's side. Yet, from what I've seen the tradition of the law, pre-dating the era of the working wife, and the feminist take to prisoners mentality have made men destitute, especially when their income goes down with no relief from the courts.

Not all men fight back, and with the way it is in this state, if you don't you're doomed. Anyone who has had the misfortune of being a party in a civil matter knows that the process is the product. Deep pockets wins. You have to be able to outlast your opponent emotionally and financially. It's war. If you don't have the resources or stomach for it, you'll never get to the judge, or to the approximation of a fair settlement. It will drive you under. Men go into a cave, lack support of close friends too often, don't call the doctor or the therapist and don't live as long. Silence surrounds the problem and your ridicule is not helping.

Mister Ed

(5,995 posts)
103. I think I see the problem here.
Wed Jun 4, 2014, 10:13 PM
Jun 2014

You seem to believe that "misandry" means "anything cruel or unfair that's done to a man". That's not what it means at all.

Misandry simply means "hatred of men". Hatred of men did not draft our terribly lopsided divorce statutes. Hatred of men did not disbar Mr. Bonaiuto, nor divorce him, nor drive him into destitution and depression. And hatred of men did not down that aircraft, nor any other aircraft in history.

It's indisputably true that you cannot help a despondent and demoralized man by ridiculing him. It's equally true that you cannot help him by convincing him that he is the victim of a nebulous mob of hateful feminists, when in fact he is not. If you do that, you will doom him to a life of bitter despair, frustration, and futility, for he will never be able to defeat or overcome such an imaginary, phantom foe.


(56 posts)
104. More than semantics
Thu Jun 5, 2014, 08:14 AM
Jun 2014

Yes, I do believe that the cruelty and unfairness that can happen to a man is not always the result of blind chance, the misfortunes that unintentionally befall practically everyone to some degree. I do not blind myself to causes, the intent of the persons who inflicted the cruelty or unfairness.

In this case, it should have occurred to wife's lawyer that he/she was going too far. It didn't.

While as you say, "hatred of men did not draft our terribly lopsided divorce statutes" you don't actually know that. That is quite a bit of mind reading. Many people over many years contributed. And just because they were mostly men doesn't mean they weren't prejudiced against men, just as women can be prejudiced against women. See the Goldberg study. I don't think the laws themselves are to blame, at least in this state, where the complexity of them gives a lot of wiggle room. It is in their current implementation. It isn't what they do for children, it is what they do to men. And, again, the lack of a speedy trial.

Is there "a nebulous mob of hateful feminists"? Would you like to see some golden oldies from DU here? How about visiting a family law courthouse?

As far as how to help the Pauls who are still living, I'd agree that prattling on about his victimization is no better than ridicule. What I suggest is kindness and respect. I did so, but too little too late.

Sheldon Cooper

(3,724 posts)
107. Lol
Thu Jun 5, 2014, 11:51 AM
Jun 2014
Is there "a nebulous mob of hateful feminists"? Would you like to see some golden oldies from DU here?

Wanna tell me how many of us hateful feminists here on DU have written all those awful misandrist laws and administered misandrist justice from the bench?
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Misandry is real, misandr...