chapotraphouse

The terminology is far less important than getting agreement on the sentiment, and eventually getting people to take action in a better direction

what's wrong if some people use rhetoric that rejects misandry vs. not then? clearly the former still works or there wouldn't be people advocating it here

but i'll explain how this discourse functions anyway: misandry is semantically coequal to misogyny. they have the same prefix and suffix, they're used the same way. it is not unreasonable to think these equivalent words describe equivalent things, that's how words usually work. what i want to avoid is validating this, because it does not reflect reality. in rejecting misandry, we hop over the semantic hurdle and contextualize struggles of men in the system of oppression they live in, where it is never unclear whose oppression is salient--patriarchy.