So. Misandry. I'm going to assume most of you haven't heard of this word, because it is rarely used. It is the male equivalent of misogyny. I want to know why it is so generally accepted that men are hated on, but if you say anything against a woman, it's "SHAME ON YOU FOR BEING SEXIST." I'm not going to lie, if anyone, regardless of sex, is about to, or has hit me, I have no issues hitting back. When a man gets raped, he's lucky. If a woman gets raped, it's nothing but sympathy. There are more examples, but I'll leave it at that. Anyhow, KHV, give me your insight. Why is misandry accepted while misogyny not accepted? And please no "Women have been looked down upon all the time and they are the weaker sex, so it's okay" bullshit. PS: I think neither should be accepted.
Because men are more provably more violent and egotistical, making them provably worse than women. It is more acceptable because they are more deserving of distaste.
That doesn't make it right, does it? A woman is praised for standing up for herself by punching a man, or kicking him, outright assaulting him - but if the same happened the other way, it would most likely end in someone pressing charges.
Incorrect. That only happens in certain parts of the world. For instance, public molestation is legal in Japan. Women who fight back are viewed as at fault for making a scene. And you know of many others where women are not even allowed to look a man in the eye. The reason why that is more acceptable is the same as the first answer. Women are less violent than men on average, so when a woman assaults a man, it is assumed she was defending herself. But that is also a result of women being seen as and treated as weak. If you bruise a man, he can take it. To ask for help is seen as cowardly for a man. If you bruise a woman, you have crossed a line, and she is expected to ask for help—presumably because she cannot take it. Consider what happens when another man hits a man, and then when another woman hits a woman. Which one is more likely to result in a court proceeding?
In most parts of the world, when a woman hits a man, it is not thought about, except for where they are discriminated, and it can end up badly. Which is only a 3% difference, which is not very much, which somewhat nullifies your argument, in a spousal setting. If you bruise a man, he shouldn't have to take it. Due to the social stigma, which you just showed, men are less likely to report domestic abuse. Also, there is more to abuse than physical alone. As far as rape goes, about 5% of women (in England and Wales) said they were raped in some point of their life from 16 and upwards. 3% of men from the UK reported non-consensual sex in adulthood. (On the other hand, in the US, in 1997 there was a humongous difference, 90%+ of rape victims were women) So yes, more women are raped. That does not mean a man who gets raped should have to take it. If a man hits a man, there is a bigger chance the other man will get injured, because he is stronger. That does not mean it is okay for anyone to hit anyone, regardless of sex. (And the point is not discrimination, we all know that happens)
I posit that the discrimination exists, it just has varying results depending on the other values in the society. That is due to reports, however, and spousal settings are quite different. The rate of spousal abuse that is not reported is very high compared to that which is reported. The amount of domestic abuse between unmarried couples is as well, and it is almost always the man who is the more violent. I have seen many instances of male on female violence firsthand, but perhaps one or two instances of female on male. To be clearer, a man may be violent and it will be within the expectation for his behavior and he will be called out as just being abusive, but if a woman is more violent, she is straight-out seen as a psychopath because it is contrary to the expectation placed on her. I am not placing a moral value in my statements. You asked for reasons. One of the main reasons why this unbalance exists is because women are seen as weak, and picking on the weak is very much against the convictions of most adults. An adult hitting a child, a bigger person hitting a smaller person. If you get rid of the sexism that makes women the weaker sex in society, then maybe the favoritism will go away. The problem is not that people favor the weaker party, because that is generally a good trend, but that women are viewed as weaker. In a nation where the weaker are seen as inferior or sub-class, favoritism in the opposite direction will happen. Both nations will see women as weaker, but it is how they treat weaker parties that decides how they treat them. That is my position. Oh, and how much do you wish to bet that those men who were raped were raped by other men? I forgot to mention it, but I have never heard a story of a woman raping a man except in erotica. That is not to say that it does not happen, but not only are women physically weaker than men (making rape of them difficult), they are also far less likely to commit rape on either sex.
