zippy2006
Dragonsworn
- Nov 9, 2013
- 7,931
- 3,965
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
There are three basic streams here. The first two are different approaches to justice and the third is just a natural phenomenon.I see that this is apparently a mindset that exists today that misandry (which is contempt for men, either an attitude, policy or "all men suck" rage) is seen as justified or at least understandable because of mistreatment of women in the past and that still perceived to happen today. When men call out perceived misandry in society today, they are seen as just whining, privileged, etc. How is this right or fair?
The first approach to justice is the classic approach (think Aristotle or Cicero). On this approach what is just is what is due. On this view reactionary misandry is unjust (as is reactionary misogyny, which is also happening).
The second approach to justice is Marxist, where the marginalized must be favored above everyone else. On this view reactionary misandry is just (as is reactionary misogyny). There is unfortunately a lot of this in the culture right now.
The natural phenomenon is a sort of tit-for-tat applied to groups. So if there is a lot of black crime in Chicago, people will tend to become racist against blacks. And if there is a lot of misogyny, people will tend towards misandry.
The first stream must be upheld, for it is true justice. The second stream must be opposed, for it is false justice. The third stream must be reckoned with, for it does exist (for good or for ill). What this means is that the causes of misandry are also men's problem; and the causes of misogyny are also women's problem. Men contribute to misandry and women contribute to misogyny, and even the ones who are not directly contributing must work to rectify the problems on their own side.
Upvote
0