Skip to main content
Commonmark migration
Source Link

Misandry is a tricky thing, but it's important to remember it hurts both genders. Next time you hear something misandristic, bring up how it hurts women. However, how you phrase it is important. People don't like being told "that thing you said was bad." That's probably a large part of why plainly telling people they're being misandristic hasn't been working for you.

Instead, I'd phrase my responses as questions if you can. I'm an adamant believer of the Socratic Method. Hopefully, your question demonstrates the point you're trying to articulate without too explicitly calling the person out for what they said. With luck, as they think of a response, they might also think about the point you're trying to demonstrate. You can't change someone's beliefs on a topic like this overnight; I really think your goal should be to get people thinking about the ways these statements affect people, and hope they open up to idea that they should cut back the amount of misandristic things they say.

For example:

Of course men are allowed to cry, but to be honest it kinda does make them less manly.

 

Doesn't that imply women are weaker because they cry though?

.

That will be done by robots soon and we won't need men.

 

Well women do that work too, right?

.

What is he good for if he can't (insert stereotypical manly skill)

 

What do you mean? I know all sorts of women who can do (stereotypical manly skill) too!

The idea here is that misandry and misogony are two sides of the exact same coin. Cutting out offensive statements towards one gender almost necessarily cuts out the offensive statements towards the other. Although it appears these responses try to get people thinking about how their words affect women, they're actually trying to get people to think about how their words affect people.

In these examples, you're bringing up how it's pretty unreasonable to split certain actions/roles up across gender. Using the way this affects women simply appeals to your audience; they're more likely to digest what you've said than if you were defending the gender they're making fun of. However, if you can successfully get them to think "Oh yeah. Why would I say (stereotypical manly skill) is just for guys?", then you've accomplished your goal. It's less important now how you got your foot in the door. I'll admit it's a rather indirect approach, but I've found in cases like this one, direct approaches seldom work.

Misandry is a tricky thing, but it's important to remember it hurts both genders. Next time you hear something misandristic, bring up how it hurts women. However, how you phrase it is important. People don't like being told "that thing you said was bad." That's probably a large part of why plainly telling people they're being misandristic hasn't been working for you.

Instead, I'd phrase my responses as questions if you can. I'm an adamant believer of the Socratic Method. Hopefully, your question demonstrates the point you're trying to articulate without too explicitly calling the person out for what they said. With luck, as they think of a response, they might also think about the point you're trying to demonstrate. You can't change someone's beliefs on a topic like this overnight; I really think your goal should be to get people thinking about the ways these statements affect people, and hope they open up to idea that they should cut back the amount of misandristic things they say.

For example:

Of course men are allowed to cry, but to be honest it kinda does make them less manly.

 

Doesn't that imply women are weaker because they cry though?

.

That will be done by robots soon and we won't need men.

 

Well women do that work too, right?

.

What is he good for if he can't (insert stereotypical manly skill)

 

What do you mean? I know all sorts of women who can do (stereotypical manly skill) too!

The idea here is that misandry and misogony are two sides of the exact same coin. Cutting out offensive statements towards one gender almost necessarily cuts out the offensive statements towards the other. Although it appears these responses try to get people thinking about how their words affect women, they're actually trying to get people to think about how their words affect people.

In these examples, you're bringing up how it's pretty unreasonable to split certain actions/roles up across gender. Using the way this affects women simply appeals to your audience; they're more likely to digest what you've said than if you were defending the gender they're making fun of. However, if you can successfully get them to think "Oh yeah. Why would I say (stereotypical manly skill) is just for guys?", then you've accomplished your goal. It's less important now how you got your foot in the door. I'll admit it's a rather indirect approach, but I've found in cases like this one, direct approaches seldom work.

Misandry is a tricky thing, but it's important to remember it hurts both genders. Next time you hear something misandristic, bring up how it hurts women. However, how you phrase it is important. People don't like being told "that thing you said was bad." That's probably a large part of why plainly telling people they're being misandristic hasn't been working for you.

Instead, I'd phrase my responses as questions if you can. I'm an adamant believer of the Socratic Method. Hopefully, your question demonstrates the point you're trying to articulate without too explicitly calling the person out for what they said. With luck, as they think of a response, they might also think about the point you're trying to demonstrate. You can't change someone's beliefs on a topic like this overnight; I really think your goal should be to get people thinking about the ways these statements affect people, and hope they open up to idea that they should cut back the amount of misandristic things they say.

For example:

Of course men are allowed to cry, but to be honest it kinda does make them less manly.

Doesn't that imply women are weaker because they cry though?

.

That will be done by robots soon and we won't need men.

Well women do that work too, right?

.

What is he good for if he can't (insert stereotypical manly skill)

What do you mean? I know all sorts of women who can do (stereotypical manly skill) too!

The idea here is that misandry and misogony are two sides of the exact same coin. Cutting out offensive statements towards one gender almost necessarily cuts out the offensive statements towards the other. Although it appears these responses try to get people thinking about how their words affect women, they're actually trying to get people to think about how their words affect people.

In these examples, you're bringing up how it's pretty unreasonable to split certain actions/roles up across gender. Using the way this affects women simply appeals to your audience; they're more likely to digest what you've said than if you were defending the gender they're making fun of. However, if you can successfully get them to think "Oh yeah. Why would I say (stereotypical manly skill) is just for guys?", then you've accomplished your goal. It's less important now how you got your foot in the door. I'll admit it's a rather indirect approach, but I've found in cases like this one, direct approaches seldom work.

Source Link
Lord Farquaad
  • 2.7k
  • 1
  • 15
  • 31

Misandry is a tricky thing, but it's important to remember it hurts both genders. Next time you hear something misandristic, bring up how it hurts women. However, how you phrase it is important. People don't like being told "that thing you said was bad." That's probably a large part of why plainly telling people they're being misandristic hasn't been working for you.

Instead, I'd phrase my responses as questions if you can. I'm an adamant believer of the Socratic Method. Hopefully, your question demonstrates the point you're trying to articulate without too explicitly calling the person out for what they said. With luck, as they think of a response, they might also think about the point you're trying to demonstrate. You can't change someone's beliefs on a topic like this overnight; I really think your goal should be to get people thinking about the ways these statements affect people, and hope they open up to idea that they should cut back the amount of misandristic things they say.

For example:

Of course men are allowed to cry, but to be honest it kinda does make them less manly.

Doesn't that imply women are weaker because they cry though?

.

That will be done by robots soon and we won't need men.

Well women do that work too, right?

.

What is he good for if he can't (insert stereotypical manly skill)

What do you mean? I know all sorts of women who can do (stereotypical manly skill) too!

The idea here is that misandry and misogony are two sides of the exact same coin. Cutting out offensive statements towards one gender almost necessarily cuts out the offensive statements towards the other. Although it appears these responses try to get people thinking about how their words affect women, they're actually trying to get people to think about how their words affect people.

In these examples, you're bringing up how it's pretty unreasonable to split certain actions/roles up across gender. Using the way this affects women simply appeals to your audience; they're more likely to digest what you've said than if you were defending the gender they're making fun of. However, if you can successfully get them to think "Oh yeah. Why would I say (stereotypical manly skill) is just for guys?", then you've accomplished your goal. It's less important now how you got your foot in the door. I'll admit it's a rather indirect approach, but I've found in cases like this one, direct approaches seldom work.