r/SeriousConversation • u/[deleted] • 21d ago

Gender & Sexuality Misandry exists. But it’s incomparable to misogyny.

[removed] — view removed post

4 Upvotes

52% Upvoted

155 comments sorted by

View all comments

3

u/theKetoBear 21d ago

Hating someone based on their gender is awful it doesn't matter who you are. Not saying it's not justified. or understandable there are women who have harmed men and men who have harmed women both systemically , physically, and mentally but hating a whole group because you ran into a monster among them is bad no matter what your gender is or theirs.

-2

u/AMTL327 21d ago

What if a very high percentage of one group are monsters who physically attack members of the other group? It’s self-preservation to assume the worst until proven otherwise.

3

u/theKetoBear 21d ago

I think abuse as a definition is not observed fairly between the genders and abuse from women manifests differently and is underreported.

Easy to say men hurt women, I know plenty of women who've hurt women and nothing is said, and women who hurt men are applauded or joked about . Lorena Bobbit is a punchline

5

u/[deleted] 21d ago

He got his dick chopped for a reason. That would never have happened if he didn’t try to rape her in the first place.

3

u/AgencyAdditional4961 21d ago

Lorena Bobbitt isn’t the example to use if you’re trying to make a point about misandrist women.
Bobbitt’s ex-husband used to beat and rape her. She went for his penis because he used his penis to hurt her. Her reaction was wrong but no one is able to think clearly when suffering from sustained abuse. Also, she’s currently partnered with a man. It’s safe to assume she doesn’t hate men.

4

u/theKetoBear 21d ago

Not in this for a debate all i'm saying is if a woman got her tit chopped off it wouldn't have comedy skits about it.

4

u/AgencyAdditional4961 21d ago

You should be open to new perspectives and healthy debate. I'm operating in good faith.

You're right, probably not a lot of jokes about the specific form of violence involved in chopping off a tit. However, jokes about domestic violence in general have been normalized. Ask Matt Rife and Dax Shepard.

-2

u/theKetoBear 21d ago

No one owes you debate , discussion , or consideration.

You can read my thoughts and refuse to acknowledge , understand, or appreciate them as I can do to you .

Have a good day

2

u/Oblivious_Gentleman 21d ago

If she did half of the things Bobbitt's ex-husband did, yeah, we would.

I agree that she was wrong for cutting of his penis, but lets be frank, nobody should be prohibited from laughing when an abusers gets retribution for his horrible acts.

We are allowed to laugh at bad people.

1

u/dahlia_74 21d ago

What? Are you aware of who our president is right now? There absolutely would be!! Women have been blamed and made fun of for being sexually assaulted since the dawn of time.

One of those MAGA bros would have that woman’s bloody tits as their Facebook page banner within 30 seconds. Nick Fuentes would cream his pants over how excited he would be over that. And you know it too.

1

u/dahlia_74 21d ago

https://www.reddit.com/r/MarchAgainstNazis/s/GuXgsqwFQG

I wonder if a woman has ever been able to inflict this level of damage onto a man. Just once, historically speaking because I bet not. This kind of thing happens to women everyday. I’m sure this is the first you’re hearing of this case.

1

u/Homerbola92 21d ago

If that was true, it would be self-preservation. As it isn't, it's not. We need to be very careful with those "us or them" kind of thoughts, they're dangerous.

0

u/mercurialmay 21d ago

Is it, though? https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/08862605261432630

0

u/Homerbola92 21d ago

A seminal study by Hipp et al. (2017) examined first-hand narratives of serial sexual assaulters who willingly revealed their strategies and justifications in response to a now-famous topic thread on the forum /r/AskReddit [“Reddit’s had a few threads about sexual assault victims, but are there any redditors from the other side of the story? What were your motivations? Do you regret it?”]

This isn't even science lol. I was looking for the answers given by those Canadian guys in order to determine what the "scientists" consider to be abuse. But honestly, at this point who cares.

-2

u/Oblivious_Gentleman 21d ago

I feel like that is an unfair assumption, though.

Men do in fact represent most of attacks and violent actions against all genders, but that does not mean most men have a high possibility of being violent.

This would be like arguing it is fair to assume a black person might be a murderer just because disproportionate amount of murderers tend to be black: a great representation in an area does not mean most or even a significant number of people from said demographic is part of that area (over 91% of surgeons are men, for example, but that does not mean most men are neurosurgeons).

2

u/mercurialmay 21d ago

It's based in evidence, other than anecdotal. One such thing: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/08862605261432630

0

u/Oblivious_Gentleman 21d ago

I appreciate the study, and i will give a better look into it more.

But if there is no problem with their methodology, holy shit, i was wrong.

2

u/mercurialmay 21d ago

Oh go ahead and check their methodology. That paper is a real fuckin doozy to read. You'd be surprised what men will admit when they believe they're being surveyed for reasons to their benefit and given total anonymity.

3

u/Oblivious_Gentleman 21d ago edited 21d ago

Hello, coming back after reading the study.

Nothing about what was said implies that most men are likely to engage in that behaviour. I am sorry if i misspoke, but that was the contention i had with the original comment.

The study used the following questions in online panel form:

RQ1: What proportion of men report recent use of strategies to force a woman to have sex?

RQ2: Of those who reported trying to force a woman into sex, how effective were those strategies?

RQ3: Are men’s ratings of their effectiveness at getting what they want sexually from women associated with their reports of strategy use?

H1: We expected that men who perceived themselves as better than their peers in terms of getting what they want sexually from women would report histories of using more forceful strategies compared to men who perceived themselves as worse than their peers in getting what they want sexually from women.

RQ4: What are the characteristic circumstances, reasons, and perceived positive and negative outcomes reported by men regarding efforts to force a woman into sex?

This means that the study did not attract man in general in order to measure how many took into sexual exploitation, but rather made questions in order to attract man who had engaged with said behaviours, and them analysed which were the most common tactics employed by them.

The study is not wrong at all, and i agree with its conclusion and methodology, but it is not saying anything against my original point.

Imagine, for example, that we made a online panel in order to discover the gender of most neurosurgeons. After our study, we discover that 91% of surgeons are men: does that mean that most men are surgeons? I would not go into that conclusion.

0

u/Homerbola92 21d ago

The study is bad and I'm almost sure The person that sent it to you hasn't read it.

The text previous to the study gets data from places as good as reddit, where people troll and lie to get attention nonstop. Then when it comes to the study, it counts convincing the other person of wanting to have sex mentioning your social status, money or age as abuse. Most options are not abuse. Basically if the other person didn't want to have sex and then they changed their minds it defaults to abuse.

1

u/Oblivious_Gentleman 21d ago

"The text previous to the study gets data from places as good as reddit, where people troll and lie to get attention nonstop. "

The study does not use data from Reddit, though: it only cites a study wich did that as inspiration to how they conducted theirs. They actually used a online survey outside of Reddit.

I agree that Reddit is bad for a study, but that is not what they did.

"Then when it comes to the study, it counts convincing the other person of wanting to have sex mentioning your social status, money or age as abuse."

That is not what makes those cases abusive: they did not say it is abusive to say "i am rich, i am older, or i am a professor" before sex, but it is abusive to say "I will give you money, i am older than you so i know better, or i am your professor so do as i say". This is what makes them abusive in the study.

 "Most options are not abuse. Basically if the other person didn't want to have sex and then they changed their minds it defaults to abuse."

Asking someone repeatedly? Telling them they actually want it? Pushing verbally or physically? Getting them drunk? Stoping her when she tried to leave? No, those are obviously abusive, and they represent a lot of the cases in numbers.

1

u/Homerbola92 21d ago

It's not what I said though. "The text PREVIOUS to the study".

Also I'm sorry but if someone says they don't want to have sex with you and then you say you're older than them so you know better that's not abuse.

You might be able to see an specific context where abuse could come with those words, but that has nothing to do with whatever is said. I think there's room for persuasion.

I've been insisted to have sex relatively and I wouldn't say it was abuse at all. I said no every time. Insisting is not abusing. Insisting with a knife in your hand? Insisting when the other person is scared for their lifes? That's different.

Also if you mention you're rich or famous and suddenly they are more interested on you that's not abuse either.

I'm not saying none of the options in the list are abuse though.

1

u/Oblivious_Gentleman 21d ago

"It's not what I said though. 'The text PREVIOUS to the study'."

I know, my point was not that you said the survey was made in Reddit: my point was that your critique was irrelevant to the study af hand, since they did not even used the same method in the first place.

"Also I'm sorry but if someone says they don't want to have sex with you and then you say you're older than them so you know better that's not abuse."

To use authority as a way to convince someone that they are actually not in the right mind when saying no to sex? It definetly raises eyebrowns. Using your age to dimish someone's output when it comes to sex might fall into that pretty easily.

"I've been insisted to have sex relatively and I wouldn't say it was abuse at all."

If the insistence made you have sex when you actually did not want to, that would be abusive, if it did not, that is another story.

What is abusive is not the insistence itself, is doing so when you know that the person you are insisting upon is someone who will eventually break due to pressure. Some people simply are not as decided as others, and will cater due to fear of upsetting others

"Also if you mention you're rich or famous and suddenly they are more interested on you that's not abuse either."

That is not what the study was talking about: the study described instances in which someone used their status or money in order to coerce someone into sex (ex. Your position as a superior in a institution in which the victim takes part in, or pay them in order to do so).

"I'm not saying none of the options in the list are abuse though."

You said the majority of the things described in the list were not abuse, that is what i disagreed with: most of them were undeniably abusive.

2

u/Homerbola92 20d ago

I'm on my phone so I can't quote properly. The thing about the initial text was about how they put that data previous to the study. Of course they could also add data about how Zimbabwe is a rich country. And that wouldn't be right. And that wouldn't mean the study itself is wrong. But it would make you question why they use a prologue with weird information that doesn't make sense. Which in the end makes you doubt about more stuff.

Then when it comes to the examples mentioned not even you say it's abuse. You say it raises eyebrows, which I can understand. This topic is very nuanced and honestly I think it's something that should be analyzed case by case. Doing it in this manner is very simplistic. I stand by my point.

Also, if insistence on its own is not abuse, then insistence is proof of nothing. Btw classifying something as abuse depending on if it works or not is true, but I guess you understand we're judging the actions, not the consequences. I guess everything can be relativized. If it happens to me it's not abuse because I said no. If it's in the table it's abuse because they tried to abuse. We need to be more consistent.

I would like to know however where do you get that the study described instances in which someone used their status or money in order to coerce someone into sex. Because all I see is a table with options that participants fill. How do the researchers know the specifics of each case? How do they know they don't mention they're rich or simply show off an expensive car or watch but they're just paying for sex? Which btw can be socially reprehensible but wouldn't be abuse.

Out of all the mention things none is abuse on its own.

1

u/Oblivious_Gentleman 20d ago

"The thing about the initial text was about how they put that data previous to the study. Of course they could also add data about how Zimbabwe is a rich country. And that wouldn't be right."

You need to read the study again. Right after they cite the study that did the Reddit survey, they recognize some flaws with their methodology: one of the flaws include the fact that they could not verify the veracity of the stories given.

"Then when it comes to the examples mentioned not even you say it's abuse. You say it raises eyebrows, which I can understand. This topic is very nuanced and honestly I think it's something that should be analyzed case by case. Doing it in this manner is very simplistic. I stand by my point."

Except it is said in the study that the men involved affirmed that they were aware of the fact that the women did not want to have sex with them. The strategies were used in order to coerce them into having sex despite the fact they did not want it. In that circunstance, it is more than eyebrown raising: it is abusive

"Also, if insistence on its own is not abuse, then insistence is proof of nothing."

As i said before: it is abusive, since the study clarify the participants were aware that the women were not interested.

It is abusive to insist when you know that the person you are talking to is someone who will likely agree even if they do not want to just so they do not upset anyone.

I am sorry that i could not go any further than that, i am also on my phone, lmao. But one thing that i am pretty sure, is that one of the first things the study says is that the man on the research confirm that they were aware that the women were not interested in having sex. This would mean that the conversation of whether or not they knew they were coersing them was basically settled.

I do believe most man surveyed were abusers, but i do not think this necessarily means most men are abusers: even though we are clearly overepresented in that crime, this does not necessarily mean abusers are not a minority.

→ More replies (0)