[ SECRET POST #3034 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3034 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.














Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 096 secrets from Secret Submission Post #434.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 1 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

*yawn*

Setting aside how this is almost certainly a troll, I can think of two ways in which someone could sincerely describe the Bond movies as misandric.

1. They believe the movies portray a negative and toxic form of masculinity as the default.
2. They believe the movies trivialize and normalize female-on-male violence.

I would disagree with both those arguments, but I can imagine someone making them.

[herpymcderp]

Well I dunno. The last movie (Skyfall) had Bond casually accosting a former child prostitute in the shower without asking for consent.

I'd say that does a disservice in the portrayal of men as much as it's kind of an egregious depiction of what sexuality should look like.

I'm not OP though, before anyone gets any ideas.

[philstar22]

Yes, but that's misogyny. Men are hurt by misogyny, but the primary thing going on is sexism against women, not against men.

[herpymcderp]

Nah, I'd argue that presenting that kind of performative masculinity as something to aspire to is misandry as much as it is misogyny. It is damaging in that Bond is ostensibly our heroic figure, and our heroic figure is so sexually aggressive that it's hard to define whether or not that sex scene was even consensual.

Plus, Bond pretty much embodies the male power fantasy stereotype (although that's a tiny bit mitigated by some of the choices in Daniel Craig's iteration of Bond). So, imo those movies are misandrist as well as misogynist in that they perpetuate the unattainable masculine ideal as much as they make nods to rape culture in general.

...They're not misandrist because they show a woman beating up a man though, as I think the OP meant to imply.

[philstar22]

Yes, but those things are all geared towards male fantasy and male power. I don't believe that there is such a thing as misandrist, but if there were it would be about either hating men or about not letting them have any power.

Like I said, misogyny hurts men too. Gender norms hurt men, but they are geared towards male power and control and therefore not misandry.

[herpymcderp]

I don't believe there is such a thing as misandrist

But there is. There unequivocally is, only it's not what you think it might be. Misandry doesn't usually involve women hating men (although I might make an example of some radfem groups); by and large it is a state of regard that happens between men when they attempt to define what it is to be "real man" in impenetrable, exclusionary terms. For example: you can only be a "real man" if you are over 6'2", you can grow a beard, you have had sex with x amount of women, you aren't gay, you can lift a certain amount of weight, you make a certain salary... etc. etc. ad nauseum.

It is an ideal set by men in order to damage other men into believing they don't have personal power (like you noted above). It happens ALL THE TIME, and the so-called male power fantasy characters like Bond perpetuate it.

[philstar22]

We're not going to agree on that because I don't think that is misandry.

[herpymcderp]

Then I have to assume you've never spent any time in male spaces or seen any radfem groups advocating downright hateful shit.

Perhaps you should try it, it might change your mind.

[(Anonymous)]

My guess here is that some would label that more toxic masculinity rather than misandry.

Misandry is dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against men (i.e., the male sex).

I do agree with the spirit of your argument though. I think I would just describe that as toxic masculinity rather than misandry because I don't think it's particularly hateful/prejudiced/contemptuous towards men as a whole. But harmful? Absolutely.

Though there are radfem groups that are legitimately misandristic.

Like I said, though, I agree with the thrust of your argument. I'd just use a different word.

[(Anonymous)]

Luckily for the world, radfems are not a group who hold any significant power (at least, not over men).

[herpymcderp]

I don't think it's particularly hateful/prejudiced/contemptuous towards men as a whole

Well, that's definitely what it looks like from the outside, so I see where you're coming from. But unless you were actually subject to it, I think it can be very difficult to judge the intent of supportive statements encouraging toxic masculinity.

Like the more subtle female-female misogyny that exists in female dominated spaces, the male-male misandry that comes under the guise of toxic masculinity can be pretty damn hateful, actually. A lot of the hatred stems from the same place as racism, homophobia, and transphobia (and those are often elements that are also included) but hatred of non-conforming men is a real thing. If you want a good example just watch a thread of people reacting to femdom where the woman takes a dominant role in the relationship. The hatred towards "weak" men flows freely, like a giant stream of watery diarrhea.

I'll grant you, it's not always about hate and disempowerment but it is in certain situations.

[diet_poison]

dude, Philstar isn't saying those things don't exist. They're saying they don't think "misandry" is the right word for them. Disagreeing on semantics doesn't mean they're trying to trivialize peoples' experiences or hate groups' bullshit.

[herpymcderp]

The distinction of whether or not those things are misandry and whether or not misandry exists is a mighty large one, I think. I took that to mean philstar said they didn't think it exists period, and that's what I was going off of. But let's be clear for a minute:

Is toxic/performative/unattainable masculinity always misandry? No. Of course not. It depends on the context and intent of its usage.

Does misandry exist? I think so. I think there are a lot of examples of it, and I was only using one to illustrate my point.

Is misandry as big a problem as misogyny? Absolutely not. Not even close. But denying that it exists simply because the patriarchy still exists is kind of a black and white way of looking at it.

[(Anonymous)]

pssst, radfem groups advocating against men is not misandry. Because women do not have power over men in any human society. It's just bawwwwww poor men :((((((

[blitzwing]

No one cares about your shitty attempt at trolling. I would appreciate a little effort, and to see some unique artistic style, something that really says you as a troll, in your next try.

This generic quoting of "privaluge equals power pluz privilege" or w/e shit just doesn't cut it.

[diet_poison]

While I can see both sides of this particular thread because I essentially think it's a semantics argument, I agree with this.

[(Anonymous)]

What you're missing is, misandry isn't a real thing.

[herpymcderp]

See above.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, it is. There might be less of it around, but it still exists. There will never be equity in society as long as women and men face discrimination.

[(Anonymous)]

No, it really isn't. Because in no human society today do women hold any sort of power over men.

If you are not from earth or are from some secret Amazonian society, I apologize and retract my statement.

A few women hurting a few men's feefees is not misandry.

[(Anonymous)]

it may not be misandry, but i'm not sure that's an argument for ignoring it as "hurt feefees"

i mean, i can't believe i'm making this argument, but - do you really want to argue that society as a whole ought to not give a shit about peoples' emotions and mental well-being? is that the broad line of argument you want to endorse?

or do you not care about bad things that happen to men?

or what?

[(Anonymous)]

Wow, being a feminist apparently involves having a lot of contempt for women's accomplishments and the great strides made in the past few generations.

Or would, if I thought you were actually making that point in good faith rather than just trying to write yourself a license to be an asshole to people.

[(Anonymous)]

Like weasels?

[(Anonymous)]

da

They're both just made-up words.

[(Anonymous)]

You appear to get it.