What is 'misandry' and what is 'anti-misandry'?
Misandry is the hatred of males as a sex, as opposed to misogyny, the hatred of women; or misanthropy, hatred of the human species. Misandry comes from misos (Greek μῖσος, "hatred") + andr-ia (Greek anér-andros, "man"). Those holding misandric beliefs can be of either sex. Thus it holds to common sense that Anti Misandry is to work toward removing misandry from our culture.

Can you give me some demonstrations of misandry?
Sure. Have a look at the second-wave feminist view of men for an example. Valerie Solanas, the radical feminist who shot Andy Warhol in 1968, provides a famous example of misandry in her self-published SCUM Manifesto. In case you're wondering, SCUM is an acronym for 'Society for Cutting Up Men', practically a call for gendercide, the culling of men. Quite literally, Solanas expressed her desire to "institute complete automation and destroy the male sex."

Wow, this is pretty bad stuff - what can I do about misandry?
For one thing, you can stop accepting it as a 'way of life'. Once upon a time, respect was a two-way street. These days it is more a one-way street where men are demanded to be respectful to women (even those who do not earn, or even try to earn it) while simultaneously disrespect of men is expected, condoned, perpetuated and even taught. You can make a difference by refusing to live this way.

Did you just say misandry is 'taught'?
Yes, that's right! The next time you switch on the television, count how many programmes have the token 'stupid boyfriend' or 'abusive husband' or 'paedophilic father' figure. Switch over to a children's channel / time window and watch how many cartoons or programmes reflect 'silly daddy' characters or 'bullying big brother'. Don't forget, of course, nearly all the women in these same programmes will be smart, sexy, sassy and full of beans, capable of juggling a career lifestyle with children, a husband and a social circle - let's not forget that she's undoubtedly a wonderful cook and always remembers everybody's birthdays. If these images are being constantly spread out over our airwaves, what does that tell our children who are growing up watching & learning daily, hourly, that men are just so stupid, abusive and ... well, useless?  

So is it more feminism's fault, or the media's fault?
A lot of both, but neither would be able to indoctrinate our youth without the support of.... the government.

Ahh - yes. The government. Tell me about their involvement?
Well, they positively support and enforce feminist programmes of anti-male bias.

Uh?
Think 'Violence Against Women Act' - notice something wrong in that? Notice how violence against men or children is not mentioned? VAWA implies, through it's title alone, that men are the primary perpetrators of violence - despite 30 years of research and in excess of 130 scientific studies proving that intimate partner violence is roughly mutual. Time and time again, the results say the same "men and women are equally violent towards one another". And yet, when feminists demand preferential treatment or additional 'rights', the government promptly delivers, like a good boy.

That was excellent Karl. I especially like the part where you call out to people to simply quit accepting misandry as the status quo.

Aye, cheers, bud - but this is just a testing thing at the moment... it's just a copy (in html, instead of bb codes) of this article; http://antimisandry.com/?q=node/4

Homer's got a Wii!! Damn, I still can't afford one.

'K, peeps, I've gotta take issue with some stuff.

1) Taking quotes from radical 60's/70's era feminists, and claiming it represents the whole movement, is silly.

2) Feminists HATE most pop-culture depictions of characters, male and female. The stupid, lazy boyfriend? Not cool. I certainly wouldn't date the 'stupid, lazy boyfriend'. The over-emotional girlfriend? Also not cool. Being depicted as a 'bad mother/person' if you place career over family (think Devil Wears Prada) to the point where that's a marker of being a bad mother? Not cool again. Feminists are anti-stereotype, of both men and women

3) Violence Against Women Act was in response to studies such as the one available here:
Notable quotes:
"From their data, we can say that in 1998, women experienced at least 900,000 violent offences at the hands of an intimate, and men were victims of at least 160,000 violent crimes by an intimate partner."

"Women make up 3/4 of the victims of homicide by an intimate partner. Actually, 33% of all women murdered (of course, only cases which are solved are included) are murdered by an intimate partner. Women make up about 85% of the victims of non-lethal domestic violence. In all, women are victims of intimate partner violence at a rate about 5 times that of males."

VAWA addresses a significant problem suffered by a specific group. Frankly, you'd be hard pressed to find a feminist who would oppose a 'Violence Against Men Act', though.

4) For serious? Your required registration question is 'Does feminism seem anti-male?' with an answer of 'No' meaning no registration? Wow, dudes. Talk about encouraging honest discussion.

5) To the extent that y'all are angry about gender bias that harms men, we're with you 100%. To the extent you're mad that male privilege is being eroded, we're not.

Did you follow a link from a recent editorial?

Strange that, but isn't Valerie Solanas and Andrea Dworkin (and a host of other rad-fems) 'required reading' in many womens studies (Political propaganda and deception masquerading as "scholarship") and social science courses?

These radical feminists aren't held up as an example of where feminism went horribly wrong in academia, but as role models to be glorified and revelled in. It's these very graduates who then go into prominent and influential positions in politics and the media, and take this poisoned mindset with them (Hillary Clinton and Harriet Harman as two examples).

So, I'd say these quotes are very relevant!

Furthermore, there's plenty of contemporary rabid man-hating quotes by prominent feminists that have continued from the 60's/70's era to the present day, unabated .

What study exactly? Provide links also.

This is biased nonsense! All the empirical evidence shows otherwise.

One example being, Martin Fiebert's 249 scholarly investigations: 194 empirical studies and 55 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 241,700.
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm



Obviously history wasn't your strongest subject, otherwise you'd realize, now as then, historically only a tiny elite had any real privilege (both men and women), the working class majority (both men and women) certainly had no privilege. And, within that working-class group it was women who enjoyed more privilege (read Belfort Bax writings from the early 1900's).

One thing is absolutely certain! It's women today who are the privileged. Excessively so! And, it's not at the expense of any mythical male privilege. No. It's at the expense of the basic rights of men!

Also, before rampaging around the forum blasting at everything in sight, why not spend some time reading some threads first, before calmly participating in the discussion? Oh, and citing credible and peer reviewed data would also help in proceedings.

1) Dworkin is considered influential in the development of feminism, she's not considered the pinnacle of what feminist writing is. And she's not the one quoted in the article. Further, never having taken a women's studies, course, I wouldn't know what's required reading. Imagine that, huh? Someone who believes and works for equal rights, and hasn't even been indoctrinated! However, I'm going to go with wikipedia as a pretty mainstream definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism.
First sentence: "Feminism is a political discourse aimed at equal rights and legal protection for women."

2) Glad we agree here =)

3) Sorry, forgot to copy the link:
http://www.findcounseling.com/journa...tatistics.html

This is for pretty strict definitions of violence and abuse, and is based of reported crimes. There's discussion of the problems of underreporting and the definitions used at the link.

"this is biased nonsense! All the empirical evidence shows otherwise."

False, as the above shows. The above study was conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics in 2000, and is based largely off of reports from the FBI. Doesn't get a lot more empirical than that.

Further, the studies you cite are nowhere near as precise. For instance, one studies the rate at which men vs. women commit violence (rather than who is targeted, which would be the point of a Violence *Against* Women Act). I'm not going through them all, but 12 of the first 17 studies were only studying *self-reported* rates of *initiating* aggressive behavior. It's also not clear that there was a standard definition of abusive behavior across or even with these studies.

For instance, another study you cite finds women are more aggressive by 2%, except that they "slap, kick, bite, punch and hit with an object", while the male partners "strangle, choke, or beat up". If you're looking for which cases get reported to the FBI, I'm betting on cases of strangling over ones of slapping. Another study shows women were more likely to be injured - in short, while self-reported rates of instigating violence were higher among women, they were also the ones more likely to wind up dead or injured.

Also, though you seem to find the idea amusing, I don't generally consider emoticons an argument for why women would be opposed to legislation to protect male battered partners.

5) Privilege, like many things, comes on a sliding scale. The most privileged have generally been the wealthy. That doesn't mean that within a socio-economic group, the relative privilege levels can't be analyzed (you obviously realize this, as you do it in the next sentence, after asserting that the poor had no privilege). Men have been more privileged than women across social groups by any reasonable measure of privilege (social status, economic opportunity, economic success, and educational opportunity, for instance)

Examples: History is littered with examples of societies where women were property, and certainly couldn't own their own. Very few (none that I can think of, but I haven't researched) have the same true of men. It's hard to claim that the household chattel is 'privileged'.
Haven't read Bax, don't have time - want to provide some summary of the conclusion, and what it's based off of? Because name-dropping isn't really an argument.

As for the modern day, there are several examples of how women lack privileges men do.
1) Earning power - there is still a substantial wage gap even in cases where women were doing the exact same job (see Lily Ledbetter).
2) Continuing sexism at all levels. Ex - Sotomayor being lectured on her temperment to her face and labelled 'not that smart' despite finishing at the top of her class at Princeton. Scalia received no such lecture on temperment, Joe Biden isn't called a lightweight for going to the University of Deleware. This conflates sexism and racism, but they are both clearly at play.

But I'm curious - what basic rights are violated? Could you give me some examples?

Also, I was under the impression that I was 'calmly participating in the discussion', in the threads specifically for feminists visiting the site. I guess exclamation points and animated emoticons make for calm discussion around these parts... (and how exactly does one 'rampage' on a moderated internet forum? I'm having trouble conjuring an image.)

"" Someone who believes and works for equal rights, and hasn't even been indoctrinated""

sure you have been indocrinated - to a turn actually !!

anyone that says they have not been indocrinated by the feminit claptrap and then quotes the value to Andrea Dworkin the misandric slob has all the presence and credibility of a fart in a whirlwind to me

feminit wimyn think and communicate by slogans and cant

it is crystal clear by the feminit specious slogan you quote "equal rights" feminit wimyn read this as ascendancy to be shoehorned in by other slogan lines of dogma like affirmative action - preferential treament; quotas - arbitrary allocation of nice positions to wimyn and other whining subset social pressure lobbys; sexual harassment - the normal attraction of men to wimyn has been criminalised right accross the board

eg nowadays a man takes a wimyn out to dinner wines and dines her and she assents to accompny him back to a mutually convenient place where agreed sexual intercourse takes place - the next day the leos are pounding on his door with a rape charge because she was too inebriated to give legal consent she whines

read about the Duke Lacrosse outrage - the malicious feminit lies and conniving agin the innocent students

feminits like you have a brain full of cant that youse order your thinking by which has nothing to do with reality and this reality is reflected in the skewed rulings your Family Court which bequeaths peonage on the heads of sincere fathers as we speak - even other mens children can be included under such orders the feminit courts are mindless star chambers imposing haute feminit dogma ad practise on the heads of innocent fathers

feminit wimyn are a nation of arrogant whining free loaders driven by base emotions as ingratitude, spite and avarice for unearned benefits from men folk

what beneficial earth changing inventions have wimyn ever invented

even you ability bear children is seen by feminit wimyn as an impost and accounts for the 50 000 000 since Roe n Wade

once prolific chattering feminit on this forum referred to abortion as induced birth and I mentioned to her the life extinguished has as much value to her a a turd - everything subsume to the slogan "right to choose about her body" others can meet her invoices

I can't express the joy I felt when they blew away the late term abortionist a few months ago

You're either naive or willfully ignorant. The dictionary definition of feminism has no correlation whatsoever regarding it's implementation in the real world.

Agree on what pray tell?

This is all I got. Hmm, the page you're looking for can't be found.

It's not false. You've given one study (which I can't facilitate the link) by the U.S. Department of Justice Bureau, who are known to use flawed methodologies (much govt research is tainted by overbearing feminist influence. So it's hardly empirical is it?) vs 498 scholarly investigations, empirical studies and reviews and/or analyses (and growing) http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm .

Although some cited studies use different methodologies because of specialized areas of interest in domestic violence, cumulatively the data shows overwhelmingly that women commit at least as much violence, or even more. Though you only mention looking at the first 17 of 504, so I'm not suprised at you're convenient response.

You originally said why feminists would be opposed, not women. That's a different question.

Although the emoticon I posted (in my experience) might be reflective of how, not just feminism itself, but how many women would react to the idea of legislation for battered males (I can just hear the shaming comments of "wimp," and "be a man"). Even more telling on you're part is the inadvertent admission men don't have sufficient protective legislation currently, hence the need for some.

Here's what you actually said originally.

I'd thoroughly disagree. The upper echelons of feminism are never going to concede any political power to men, let alone the billions of dollars that is the VAWA gravy train.

Privilege is a subjective term isn't it. Whilst economic and educational opportunity were more limited due to traditional roles within a functioning society (women benefitted directly from these proactive roles by male family members). They were not, as feminism vehemently contends, a patriarchal conspiracy to subjugate women. If this was so (and this is where female privilege becomes apparent), why were only men conscripted, do all the laborious and dangerous jobs, serve harsher sentences (for hundreds of years throughout Europe, during the medieval period, males would be routinely punished for the crimes of their womenfolk), the last on the life-rafts, etc?

Littered with examples? If we take slavery as the most extreme example, historically you'll find far more males then females as slaves.

You're wrong about women not being able to own their own property.

Married Women's Property Act: 1848, New York State. http://womenshistory.about.com/od/ma...rty_1848ny.htm

Married Women's Property Act 1882 (British Law). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Married...perty_Act_1882

Ironically unmarried women had property rights even earlier! And, let's not forget that the vast majority of men (the working class) didn't own property either, just the privilged male and female elite.

You admit you haven't researched, yet still proceed on to wildly speculate?

Women as "property"? http://counterfem.blogspot.com/2008/...-property.html

Do you're own research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Belfort_Bax

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Fraud_of_Feminism

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Le...jection_of_Men

Ironic how Bax was a socialist.

Oh dear, the "wage gap myth" resurfaces again like a hastily dumped corpse. This has become so thoroughly debunked now it's rather embarrasing that you're desperately regurgitating it here to an informed membership, rather than an audience of sheeple. Even a growing number of feminists, albeit mostly moderates, are now accepting this "reality." I'll put Warren Farrell (Why Men Earn More) http://www.warrenfarrell.net/ against Lily ledbetter any day.

It's painful for western feminists to realize they no longer have any genuine complaints left, so they keep recycling all the well rehearsed lies, comfortable in the knowledge that the general public is gullible to their emotional sensationalism.

Firstly, feminists have become so accustomed to slapping a sexist sticker on any disagreeable male who deviates from proffering his allegiance to gynocentrism, nearly all such allegations are disproportionate and out of context.

However, if men applied the same' ever expanding paranoic definitions as to what constitutes sexism and chauvinism, we'd invariably see women not only as guilty, but far worse!

Gynocentric politicking via excessive feminist influence has seen men's child custody and divorce rights evaporate, no domestic violence protections, longevity gap through disparitive health and disease funding, disparity in sentencing from theft to murder, as a few (meaningful) examples.

I don't believe that you'll concede any valid points, as you have too many benefits and privileges to protect. The truth will conflict with this of course. This response is more for the undecided lurkers who can decide for themselves objectively.

@Jalmondale...

First of all my signature "Willkommen" to you, then I guess it is time to adress some of your points.

First of all if we talk about opression we can talk about indicators of opression. You brought up economics and it seems to me this is the only direction you were looking at past and present. Some food for thought for you, in the past was it a privilege to die in WW1 and WW2? Was it a privilege to die X years earlier? If you look at the very top, you will find men, but what if you look at the bottom? Almost exclusevile men, too. And those are more than the men on top.

Something about the wage gap these days, posted by me on feministing (interestingly no feminist was able to refute this data or even tried to)

The difference in the wage gap can almost exclusively be explained by women being stay-at-home-mums. Imho more women are stay-at-home-mums because women almost always marry up and I believe being pregnant and probably breast feeding as a difference in experience leads to more women who want to stay at home.

And if you look at another direction, who is spending this money?

- 85% of consumer spendings by women
- 51% of wealth controlled by women

So we conclude, group A earns the money and works a decade longer than group B, while group B spends most of it. Which group do you want to be in?

----------------------------------------------

Then you were talking about domestic violence. Luckily this is a topic I studied a bit so I´ll be able to explain some of the myths and common misconceptions.

If you look at all data about domestic violence you will come to the conclusion that DV is gender-neutral (just look at the Fielbert list. There is so much evidence that just can not be denied, not even by you attacking one study). Anyhow when we look at official data suddenly men seem to be the perpetrators not the victim. This difference in reporting has been adressed by more than one study. Some of those are:

So if you ask for crime or look at police data you won´t find men, but if you ask for acts of violence, or for injuries, you can´t deny the equality of DV

Besides the fielbert list there was a very well made analysis about worldwide incidents of DV by a German researcher: Sebastian Schwithal - Weibliche Gewalt in Partnerschaften (Female violence in relationships) ISBN 3833431563

Some of his findings:

Attention the numbers above don´t add up. Schwithal used different columns for violence perpetrated and violence suffered depending on what the study asked for. (Example when I say "In an analysis of 42 studies that ask for minor violence he found out that 54.8% of the perpetruators in that studies were women while 50,7% of the victims were men." There was a perpetrator column for men (45.2%) and one perpetrator column for women (54.8%) as well as a victim column for men (50.7%) and again one for women (49,3%). I was just giving you the high number for the victim and perpetrator column)

Included in that studies are not only CTS studies but official studies as well. And no matter in what way he looked at the more than 300 studies he cites, the difference is almost always equal.


----------------------------------------------

On to the indicators of opression of men compared to racism:

When we hear that white folk live longer than black folk it is accepted as sign of racism, yet the shorter life of men (white women > black women > white men > black men) is not accepted as opression.

When we hear black people have a higher mortality or suicide rate in all age groups we accept that as sign of racism. Yet when the same is true for men compared to women this is not seen as a sign of opression.

Crime rate is one of this indicators as well. It depends on the way where you have been brought up. Of course a son of an academic is less likely to comit a crime than a son of a single mother born in a trailerpark. So the higher crime rate of black people is obvious a sign of racism. And when men have a higher crime rate than women this is seen as a sign of female benevolence.

If we hear that black folks receive longer sentences for the same crime it is accepted as sign of racism yet when men receive longer sentences for the same crime, feminist frame this as benevolent sexism against women. (imagine I would frame the longer sentences of black folk as benevolent racism against white people). Same is true for people with death penalties. Black men on top white women on the bottom.

If we hear black people are doing worse in schools as white people we accept this as sign of racism yet when the underperforming of boys is brought up (even though boys do as well as girls when schooled at home) boys are framed as less intelligent as girls.

Unemployment rate - Black men on top, white women on bottom

Drug addiction, alcohol abuse - Black men on top, white women on bottom

People living on the street - 85% men

The list goes on and on....and I haven´t even touched the divorce court yet. If men were able to keep women legally from seeing their children feminist would go on the barricades, yet when this happens the other way round there is just silence.

That is why I can´t take feminism seriously. It is mainly a group of privileged white women empowering privileged white women even more. So it seems to me. Did feminism do anything against the issues I mentioned above?

----------------------------------------------

This text usually is an eye opener when it comes to opression:

Btw it would be interesting to know from which study that was cited.

Ha, show them facts and they run away....so predictable....ah well

Yes Feck. We have the truth and facts on our side, something so utterly repellant to the institutional underhandedness that earmarks the slithering amorality of feminist machinations.