Actually because Joanne decided to bully trans women and then threaten the police with her Harry potter money, she’s technically created a legal precedent for not enforcing the law specifically when it comes to trans women. As the police publicly stated that they didn’t believe a crime has been committed.
But that’s actually one of the reasons they avoided putting her up there. Better to set precedent using someone who can’t throw all the money at a lawyer. Stops the rich from buying a precedent.
Its horrid that that level of politicking is even relevant in crime like this, but it is, so its good she’s not the precedent. Need to set that precedent then get back to her next criminal act.
Technically speaking the laws mostly already existed for everyone but since they were buried in disparate bills it wasn’t well known about or spotty in enforcement. This is more just improved codification rather than a lot of new laws.
So be assured all those death and rape threats, criminal damage and abuse based on sex are still a crime to do to men.
Getting an appropriate Misandry law on the books might not be terribly popular though since a lot of masculine folk themselves look at misandry as being just “apex manhood” and have bought into it wholesale. They probably wouldn’t thank you and would react poorly if you showed them the full scope of what counts.
The conversation around misogyny has reached a point of reasonable concensus regarding what counts and it’s damages. Misandry as a concensus needs a few more years in the oven as the center is still soft.
Well, since feminists say that issues and discrimination affecting men are ackshually misogyny, I guess it’s all covered now right?
Male only draft? Ackshually misogyny. Men work more dangerous jobs? Misogyny. Men discriminated against in schools? You guessed it, also misogyny. Men having a higher retirement age than women, despite having a shorter life expectancy? Both are misogyny!
Well, since feminists say that issues and discrimination affecting men are ackshually misogyny, I guess it’s all covered now right?
Ackshually toxic masculinity is the explanation for most of those things you listed, but I’m betting you have the wrong idea about what that phrase means and will reply in a way that makes it clear you think the phrase is an attack on men.
Different dude, but I’d like a definition from you if you don’t mind.
I’m personally not a fan of it but I’d love never had a formal definition shared with me so I’m willing to have my mind changed.
For me the issue lies in masculinity being a gendered (in my mind) term and the behaviors often described under toxic masculinity being behavior that are expressed by anyone. So I’d just call them toxic behavior and treat the people as toxic people.
I guess I’m on the fence about it. I definitely can see the use in calling out that it’s things that certain subsections of society expect of men, but it’s still just “toxic behaviors” to me. Thank you for answering my question though!
There is a considerable overlap between misandry and misogyny. Things like gendered participation in society like a mens only draft is misogynistic because it posits that only men are of value in combat wartime defense but the issue does get muddier. Consider also alot of organized resistance to the draft for all American conflicts after WWII were actively participated in by women even though they were not directly effected. A lot of the social resistance to the conflict was female coded imploring to think in terms of social losses of sons, brothers and husbands in a plea to make men more humanized. The topic of having a draft at all regardless of whether it only effects men is generally unpopular demographically with women as a whole usually because they care directly for the welfare of men they know. So using that as any kind of “gotcha” isn’t going to be recieved well.
Misandry as an issue is tied into gender politics in a weird way. It pushes aptitude for being capable of dangerous work and disruptive classroom behaviours as a masculine trait… But the buy in comes from all sides. A lot of the victims of heavy misandry are queer and gender non-conforming youth and guys who are told they are too emotional, quiet and cautious. The whole “alpha male” discussion for instance is peak misandry. Take other issues of gender bias is court custody cases that tend to paint men as victims of gendered bias but less than 1/3 of judges are female and there is evidence that gender bias cuts both ways regardless of the judge so while there are definitely things female judges should consider they are not the majority that needs to be spoken to.
On a lot of misandry related issues “the call is coming from within the house”. Should we be looking at laws to combat misandry? Yes. Would these initiatives likely just be ultimately termed “woke feminizing indoctrination” by the right and be ridiculously unpopular with men demographically as a whole - also yes. Misandry comes in a lot of flavors not just the kind that comes in the forms disliked by “manly” men.
As a discussion point we as a society are in the infant stages of concensus on misandry. At the beginnings of the feminist movement a lot of misogyny came from inside the house too. Women were looking at other women with disgust at them being loud and brash and “man like”. Treating their desire for expanded social roles as an affront to the delicate nature of correct womanhood and saying nonsense like “what man would ever want you” or claiming that behaving like men would impact their fertility. That’s basically the genderflipped version of where we are now with a lot of men actually being quite on board with a lot of misandry.
And it’s people like you who go around calling women who you don’t find attractive Trans… I hate to break it to you but no matter how much you try to bring Trans women down they still won’t date you either.
If a trans person walks past you, and you you don’t clock them, do you realize you assumption might be wrong or do you notice nothing and contuine being the textbook definition of confirmation bias?
Add comment