Well, my mom is abusive, too. But cis men being abusive is something structural. That is the difference between the two.
And sure, I know that cis men are just people like everybody else and they also suffer from patriarchy. But in the same time they just don’t show any (or not enough) progress in emancipating themselves from their roles as men. I’m not against the humans that are cis men per se, but I would love to see manhood abolished and these same people to be free themselves. But I guess the problem is that most of them have so many privileges and perceive themselves as the default humans that they have a hard time reflecting upon their role and their privileges.
while i am sympathetic to the how and why of this position–and i certainly don’t think you mean to come off this way–i would just like to chime in and say that at least some of this feels dangerously close to misandry and i can definitely see why people are uncomfortable with it beyond the usual objections to not being treated as the default.
Hm yes, I’m probably a bit more extreme in my position and I try to be reflective about what portion of it is a legitimate criticism and what is a trauma response. I get it has to do a lot with growing up perceived as a boy and being repeatedly penalized by society for not fulfilling the role of a boy/man that led me to my misandrist tendencies.
But apart from that, actually most of my friends have the policy to distrust cis men until they prove not to be assholes (with an unfortunately low success rate). I’m very much open to the idea of cis men emancipating themselves from gender roles and patriarchal expectations. But until this happens, it will be necessary for anyone who isn’t a cis men to distrust them and be careful around them.
(Btw, is there an acronym in English for saying “everyone that isn’t a cis men”? In German there is an acronym to say women, lesbians, inter, trans, nonbinary and agender people -> FLINTA*)
Well, my mom is abusive, too. But cis men being abusive is something structural. That is the difference between the two.
And sure, I know that cis men are just people like everybody else and they also suffer from patriarchy. But in the same time they just don’t show any (or not enough) progress in emancipating themselves from their roles as men. I’m not against the humans that are cis men per se, but I would love to see manhood abolished and these same people to be free themselves. But I guess the problem is that most of them have so many privileges and perceive themselves as the default humans that they have a hard time reflecting upon their role and their privileges.
while i am sympathetic to the how and why of this position–and i certainly don’t think you mean to come off this way–i would just like to chime in and say that at least some of this feels dangerously close to misandry and i can definitely see why people are uncomfortable with it beyond the usual objections to not being treated as the default.
Hm yes, I’m probably a bit more extreme in my position and I try to be reflective about what portion of it is a legitimate criticism and what is a trauma response. I get it has to do a lot with growing up perceived as a boy and being repeatedly penalized by society for not fulfilling the role of a boy/man that led me to my misandrist tendencies.
But apart from that, actually most of my friends have the policy to distrust cis men until they prove not to be assholes (with an unfortunately low success rate). I’m very much open to the idea of cis men emancipating themselves from gender roles and patriarchal expectations. But until this happens, it will be necessary for anyone who isn’t a cis men to distrust them and be careful around them.
(Btw, is there an acronym in English for saying “everyone that isn’t a cis men”? In German there is an acronym to say women, lesbians, inter, trans, nonbinary and agender people -> FLINTA*)