We live at the epitome of an ever evolving society. There was once a time, when it was unimaginable to imagine universal suffrage. Today women are not only able to vote, but are able to seek parliamentary positions. Nonetheless the female and her cause of equality has come a long way.
One will wonder why such a problem ever existed in the first place. With such a powerful time in women’s history, and the conversion of feminism to a more mainstream audience, there seems to be a high rise of misandry. This perceived juncture, appears misguided due to the power dynamics at play.
Misandry is the hatred and contempt for men, misogyny is the hatred and contempt for women. Sexism and misogyny go hand in hand. Sexism is the social construct which has been set up to identify people by their genders and the ideality of it. Misogyny imposes that patriarchal system.
Kate Manne, writer of The Logic of Misogyny, calls misogyny the ‘law enforcement branch of patriarchy. Misogyny is the forms in which sexism exists, which pushes to demean the woman whether socially, politically or economically. The sense of entitlement especially by birthright, is what festers the growth of misogyny. If both words are opposites of each other, then misandry seeks to do the same thing as misogyny, to police men and place constraints on their beings. That is not the case.
With the exception of the all too obvious misogyny, there exists a byproduct of misogyny called internalized misogyny. Unlike the typical misogyny, it is unintentional and merely a subconscious reaction to the society’s usual views of women.
This phenomenon affects women greatly, and even men who are more socially aware. It is as simple as a woman being prouder of her feminine side, than other qualities which appear to be more masculine. It is as simple as woman feeling guilty for rejecting a “nice guy”.
This is to say men, are not faced with the same subconscious conditioning due to the existence of misandry. Men do not walk around with internalized hate towards themselves and each other as a result of a system that women have put in place to confine them to traditional roles.
It is very evident that the courage of women has grown. It is now easier for women to shout out “male tears”, “I hate all men”, and the infamous, “All men are trash”.
This new wave of feminism, especially in the mainstream media, has developed both positivity and negativity. What women have done is to humorously attack men. This defense mechanism is as a result of the centuries of oppression that has been lashes out against the female.
The sort of ironic misandry though, creates a problem for the cause of feminism. One of them, diminishes the paramount issues that feminism fights for, such as equal pay and more representation in parliament, and reinforces the notion that all feminists are essentially man-haters.
The focus is no longer on the side of fighting against patriarchy, but against men themselves. However, some feminists believe that it can in no way be equated to any trolling that will be enacted on women. It is too simple for a woman to walk around boldly with a blouse with the word misandrist, clearly printed on it. Let a man do the same, and watch his world and credibility crumble to bread crumbs. The difference with these two situations, is the relativity of power held by one.
Women have not been the ones imposing dangerous stereotypes on men. Women have not been the ones who believe that men are taking away their chances and privileges away from them. In most cases, pain and suffering is not inflicted on men by women, when they do not get their way or when characteristics exhibited by men fall contrary to the status quo.
The female’s very reputation, credibility and capability hinges on the words uttered by men. For the supposed inferiority of a man to be joked about, very little to no damage is done. Whereas for a woman, such words are poisonous and instigate the hateful nature of men towards women.
There is a view that the further propulsion of feminism has caused the oppression of men, a view identified by Men’s Right Activists (MRA). Intending to say, that men are now facing the same stigmatization, disadvantage, discrimination and powerlessness that women have faced for thousands of years. Misandry and misogyny may not be used synonymously or interchangeably because making such a mistake greatly undermines the feminist cause.
There is a reason that misandry does not exist. Women, especially feminists, simply do not have the resources, the sufficient power or the time to impose such a discriminatory system. Not that it is doesn’t exist at all- here comes the notion of ironic misandry- but its effects are effectively powerless.
Ironic misandry uses humor as a defense mechanism to greatly satirize the perception that the growth of mainstream feminism has led to women now hating men. Due to this, it is common to see women saying all sorts of words which can appear harsh. I believe that though it may be harsh it pushes for more accountability.
Whenever a woman says all men are trash, all men are evil, it is not representative of the whole. The main point is not to cause men to whimper and whine about women’s lamentations. By effectively using all, it not only represents a majority, but it is also a call for change.
Professor Dzodzi Tsikata, of the University of Ghana, is of the belief that incessant jokes made against men is what is causing this view of misandry existing. While it is not a rampant movement in our Ghanaian society, its prominence is seen to be growing especially on social media and the newer generation of feminists.
She believes that once jokes are frowned upon when men do it to women, then it must not be accepted when women do the same to men. Consistency should be key throughout to disenable double standards. She does not equate the disapproval of men by women as a form of feminism.
Complicity can occur with both male and female. As long as there isn’t an active attempt to improve the lives of women on a transnational and universal level, such persons actually perpetuate the patriarchal culture.
Dzodzi Tsikata, supports that complicity runs across all borders, regardless of gender.
For so long oppression has been the order of the day, that being humorous seems to be the best solution to block out the injustices which are metered out against. While being demeaning and defamatory doesn’t solve the injustices, it comes out of a place of powerlessness, thus negating the need for an alarm to be raised.
Finding a balance however, is paramount in ensuring that feminism is viewed as a movement, which is concerned with more pressing issues, and not simply the “total eradication” of men. If you do think about it, it silly to actually believe that women have the resources to do exactly as their words say.
People should get comfortable with being uncomfortable. A man should not believe that his emotions are of great concern, when are greater mass of men are still inflictors of hate. Maybe the total inclusivity has to subside. Maybe feminists have to be more responsible with the words they say.
It is possible to joke about a woman’s inferiority: it exists. The same cannot be said for a man, because such a structure is non-existent. The jokes do no harm though, but as Dzodzi Tsikata said there should be “consistency”.
When a woman says, “men are trash”, it is in no way an indicative of a less superior. It is not a stereotype which is imposed but a dissatisfaction of emotionally bankrupt dispositions, displayed in relationships for example.
When a man says, “Your place is in the kitchen,” this reinforces a stereotype which has caused harm over centuries to women. This is not to say that such words should be thrown back and forth between the sexes. There should be a level of civilization. Maybe to further the agenda of feminism, because it would involve a revival from men themselves, the absolutely powerless jokes must be laid off.
–
By: Afua Ayiku
