Former The Good Men Project Executive Editor Joanna Schroeder recently issued a “lesson in ‘misandry,’ in 11 tweets.” 1Actually 14 tweets. In the past we’ve found her work while at TGMP to be something of a mixed bag, but it’s been a while since we checked in with her at FC 2Well TBH it’s been a while since we’ve done anything here at FC. — she’s left TGMP and moved on to YourTango — so let’s see how she’s evolved:
Misandry = A prejudice against men … And yes, it's real. But stay with me here.
— joanna schroeder (@iproposethis) March 22, 2017
She acknowledges that misandry is real … that’s a great first step that has often eluded many top tier feminists. She follows that with “But stay with me here” … as if she just said something ridiculous. That’s actually good, too. She’s not preaching to the converted, she’s aiming this lesson at those who are skeptical. This is good.
Misandry is the complicated process by which society enforces dangerous, damaging myths about men and masculinity.
— joanna schroeder (@iproposethis) March 22, 2017
Um, OK. It’s a helluva a lot more than just “myths about men,” but maybe she’s just winding up.
Misandry happens when we excuse bad choices or behavior of a man or boy with "boys will be boys" or invoking the "locker room talk" defense.
— joanna schroeder (@iproposethis) March 22, 2017
Uh oh. I hope this isn’t the old ‘misandry is not demanding men do more/be more’ trope.
Misandry = implying that there should be lower, lesser expectations for men when it comes to humanity, humility, respect, or empathy.
— joanna schroeder (@iproposethis) March 22, 2017
Doh!
Misandry is the implication that men are somehow less than women in their ability to love and care for children or the home.
— joanna schroeder (@iproposethis) March 22, 2017
This could be read in one of two ways. Giving JS the benefit of the doubt, yes, we need to stop presuming that men are potential pedophiles and predators, or subscribing to stereotypes that women know best when it comes to the domestic sphere. 3But I can’t help but wonder if JS actually meant the opposite here. Fingers crossed, though!
Misandry, then, is the expectation that men should be breadwinners, while women should be caretakers.
— joanna schroeder (@iproposethis) March 22, 2017
I have a lot of mixed feelings about this one, TBH. The thing is, a big driver of the “expectation that men should be breadwinners” is women’s dating preferences. Is Joanna prepared to say that vast swaths of women are misandrist? 4I suspect not. FTR, I’m not making that claim either.
I find this to be a challenging issue. I think people should be free to choose who they want to choose for their mates, but at the same time there’s no question that women’s apparent preference for socially dominant men (including men with high status and high incomes) has a toxic impact on men’s ability to be emotionally authentic. 5Similarly, men’s disproportionate attraction to female youth has a burdensome impact on women as a whole.
Now, I want to be clear. I’m not claiming that women’s dating preferences are the only part of this dynamic. What we are talking about is the male dominance hierarchy which is often enforced by other men. However, women are (largely) spared having to participate in that hierarchy 6Though they are subject to others. and despite the reams of feminist literature out there, I’ve rarely encountered one that acknowledged how key this hierarchy is to the whole patriarchal structure, and how oppressive it is to the vast majority of men who are compelled to participate in it and do not end up sitting at its apex.
It’s a challenging topic and I’d be interested to know more about where Joanna actually stands on this. I’ve rarely seen mainstream feminists acknowledge how big an impact women’s dating choices have on the maintenance of patriarchal expectations.
Misandry, then – though harmful – is not equal to misogyny in its danger to individuals or society.
— joanna schroeder (@iproposethis) March 22, 2017
OK, this tweet is completely out of the blue and lacks a foundation in this particular stream, though it certainly seems to be an article of faith among many mainstream feminists. I suppose, depending on your metrics, it’s conceivable it could be true, but when you consider that in the US, men are overwhelmingly the main victims of genital mutilation, overwhelmingly the gender which is killed on the job, 7Including the gender most murdered on the job, contrary to misleading articles you might see in places like HuffPo. and overwhelmingly the gender most populating the hellholes we call prisons, as well as the gender most frequently targeted for violence by both men AND women, that would have to be a supremely ‘well-crafted’ 8Some might say ‘morally gerrymandered. set of metrics.
Misandry doesn't oppress men or keep them down. It doesn't limit their ability to earn. in fact, it empowers them by excusing bad behavior.
— joanna schroeder (@iproposethis) March 22, 2017
OK, this is head-desk territory. It’s infuriating (and frankly, inspired me to write this post).
Joanna Schroeder is an extremely intelligent woman who has spent a good part of her career immersed in gender issues affecting men. How can she possibly make this absurd claim? The level of ideological bias one would have to have internalized in order to tweet this after having been exposed to the issues described by some excellent writers and many great commenters at TGMP is astounding.
Joanna herself has even acknowledged some of these issues. I recall her rather pointedly and courageously standing by her assertion that male circumcision is a “human rights issue.” How can she then claim that misandry doesn’t oppress men?
Misandry empowers toxic masculinity by EXPECTING it. It elevates men who harm others. It oppresses femininity by its very nature.
— joanna schroeder (@iproposethis) March 22, 2017
OK, I guess I agree with this to some extent. Joanna appears to be critiquing the male dominance hierarchy I was just talking about. My suspicion, though, is that she doesn’t actually understand this, and hasn’t fully thought through the implications of it.
Moreover, I suspect disagree with her use of “femininity” here. I think part of the misandry of our culture is that we take much of everyone’s emotionally vulnerable nature and put it under the “feminine” brand instead of under the “human” brand where it really belongs.
Misandry's real, but it doesn't harm men most. Because the "prejuding" done in our misandrist system has put men into power for generations.
— joanna schroeder (@iproposethis) March 22, 2017
Sigh. This is so wrong.
The only real solution for misandry is, of course, feminism. Needed not just for girls/women but for boys who'll be harmed by misandry, too.
— joanna schroeder (@iproposethis) March 22, 2017
Joanna’s prior tweets have sadly completely undercut her claim here. A feminism that is willfully blind to the reality that misandry oppresses men is incapable of providing a genuine solution for those men.
The truth is, misandry is IMPOSSIBLE to unwind from patriarchy. They are two side of the same coin, fed by the same system.
— joanna schroeder (@iproposethis) March 22, 2017
I could agree with this, but I strongly suspect that Joanna and I have very different definitions of the word “patriarchy.” My definition is that it’s a gender system that elevates certain kinds of men and women while oppressing other kinds of men and women. Since it’s become clear that few in the genderverse use the term in this way, I’ve started to refrain from using it (unless I’ve had the opportunity to clarify my usage first).
Stereotypes about men, prejudices against men, toxic masculinity are all part of what has made patriarchy so powerful, made men so powerful.
— joanna schroeder (@iproposethis) March 22, 2017
I’m not sure this is entirely true, but I suppose it’s true to an extent. However, if — as appears clear — Joanna’s idea is that misandry is ONLY comprised of stereotypes, myths, and low expectations, then she’s missing much more than half the picture.
REMINDER: If you’ve never posted an approved comment at FC before, your comment will need to be approved before it appears. There may be a delay. Also, if you’ve never been to FC before, please read through the commenting guidelines (see the links in the upper right part of the site). Thanks!
| ⇡1 | Actually 14 tweets. |
|---|---|
| ⇡2 | Well TBH it’s been a while since we’ve done anything here at FC. |
| ⇡3 | But I can’t help but wonder if JS actually meant the opposite here. Fingers crossed, though! |
| ⇡4 | I suspect not. FTR, I’m not making that claim either. |
| ⇡5 | Similarly, men’s disproportionate attraction to female youth has a burdensome impact on women as a whole. |
| ⇡6 | Though they are subject to others. |
| ⇡7 | Including the gender most murdered on the job, contrary to misleading articles you might see in places like HuffPo. |
| ⇡8 | Some might say ‘morally gerrymandered. |
That’s very much head-desk territory. It’s frustrating how many feminists seem to be so dedicated to exposing the belief that patriarchy is the root of everything bad in society (and of course feminism is the source of everything good).
(And it’s good to see things still being posted here!)
And it’s good to see we still have a few readers!
I have to say I’ve spent so much more time on Reddit than here I had to refresh my memory about blog formatting instead of slipping into Reddit formatting.
I think this is a big example of why it’s tough for me to not ignore the actual issue being discussed and slip the other way. Everything she said, would probably be better applied to certain forms of feminism that promotes powerlessness and a lack of agency in terms of misogyny. (As a feminist myself, not all feminism of course).
Do you see, every once in a while some guy getting away with something that he shouldn’t? Yeah. Is it because of his gender? No, it’s really not. Usually it’s about fame or status or something like that. And quite frankly, the sort of “zero tolerance” stance that happens..that if it happens once it happens universally…isn’t helping.
I feel the the assumption that Schroeder is making is that every man has that status in our society. And that’s so far from the truth I find it mind-boggling.
Good point, Karmakin.
“Joanna Schroeder is an extremely intelligent woman”
IQ and smarts doesn’t obfuscate the fact she holds some seriously ignorant opinions about men as a group. This is also the same Joanna who staunchly defended Hugo Schwartzer while he consistently contributed articles for GMP. Additionally, she tried to guilt-trip me via e-mail when I debated her once in the commentary sections. Unfortunately, I fell for it. One of my regrets.
Nice to see you’re still around, Eagle35. Sorry to hear that JS may have given you a bad time in the past, but our focus should be on critiquing the actual issues (and someone’s views on same) and not on rendering a judgment about someone’s character.
I realize I may have inadvertently ‘opened the door’ a bit on this by talking about what appeared to me to be her biased take on the issue at hand. It can be a tricky assessment to figure out what’s ‘over the line’ in this realm, but I do think it’s important to try to make sure there IS a line. Talking about how someone is wrong about something is fine; vilifiying someone is not.
All you have to do is look at WHY she has spent a good part of her career immersed in gender issues affecting men. You can perform the grandest deed but if you have ill motive and intent it will be all for naught.
Sure the knight killed the dragon and saved the princess…..so he could use the dragon’s hoard of gems and the reward from the king and queen to raise an army to overthrow their rule.
Point being when your motive for immersing yourself in gender issues affecting men just so you can figure out how to use men and their issues to the advantage of women (even to the point of harming men if it benefits women) its no wonder she would say such a thing.
I’ll try to hold my tongue because I have a good bit of personal history with her so I’ll keep it short.
She is just another in a long line of feminists that only care about men when it’s convenient to women and feminism. Otherwise they give no fucks.Also good to see you back in the groove. I’ve been getting back into it myself.
http://dannyscorneroftheuniverse.blogspot.com/2017/03/a-mans-modesty-mans-respect-mans-voice.html
Im curious. Just what was out of line about that strikeout portion? I quantified so as not to generalize and I think this is an accurate description of how some feminists operate.
Hey Danny, good to see you’re still around.
I’m trying to avoid having a discussion about Joanna Schroeder’s character (see my comment to Eagle35), hence my edit. I largely disengaged from TGMP quite a while ago, though every once in a while I’ve stopped back in just to see how it was going. I know you, Eagle35, John Anderson, and a few others continued to engage a long time after I stepped away — some of you still do — and for all I know there may be sound grounds for the rancor towards JS, but it’s still a self-defeating approach to take here.
Thanks, though it’s probably a little premature to say I’ve gotten back in the groove here at FC. *lol* I have been pretty active on Reddit for a while now at r/FeMRADebates, though.
Cool; I’ll check it out.
Both that portion, and the paragraph beginning “Point being when…” were objectionable conjectures about Schroeder’s movivations and intent. As I have said on many occasions, focus your critique upon what a person says and does, instead of speculating about their internal mental states.
Speaking as someone with “a good bit of personal history” myself with several feminists, I can certainly sympathise with both you and Eagle35. However I agree with ballgame that it’s not helpful to raise such matters here. Let’s keep the discussion focussed.
I understand.
Maybe it’s the sour aftertaste left over from my stint at GMP. Writing an article, then contributing more, only to see the very people who I thought held egalitarian opinions turn out to perpetuate the same toxic narrative that leads to feeling invisible.
Like what Joanna is doing here: Implying men are to blame for their problems.
And her “Stay with me here…” is an obvious foreshadowing of what her true intentions are with her commentary.
Oh, and something else I meant to say…
ballgame:
Agreed, of course, but I don’t see Eagle35’s remarks as vilification. I realise you didn’t say they were, but your words could be read that way.
This is something Schroeder did repeatedly on The Good Men Project, so I am not surprised to see her doing it again on Twitter. On TGMP, Schroeder would initially acknowledge the unique issues that men and boys face, but either through explaining her position in the article or in the comment section turn the subject into why the problem is really “patriarchy” and why feminism is the solution. There was very little acknowledgement on her part that men’s issues were important on their own merits or that feminism may not be the solution to men’s problems.
To the contrary, mentioning either of those, especially the latter, would prompt a hostile response from her.
What I failed to understand then and now is how blaming “patriarchy” solves men’s problems. This angle does not address men’s actual complaints or experiences, so how can one expect to provide an adequate solution, let alone the best one?
It is also baffling how she can admit that “Misandry = A prejudice against men” yet within four tweets state “Misandry, then, is the expectation that men should be breadwinners, while women should be caretakers.” She follows this with claiming that misandry “is not equal to misogyny in its danger to individuals or society”, saying “it empowers [men] by excusing bad behavior.” So where is the prejudice against men?
And if “Misandry [is] real, but it doesn’t harm men most,” why call it “misandry”? Calling is “misandry” implies that it primarily affects males. If it really affects females, do we not have a word to describe that?
Also incomprehensible is Schroeder scare-quoting her own comment: “Because the ‘prejuding’ done in our misandrist system has put men into power for generations.” She introduced the notion that misandry is a prejudice against men, without any quotes, yet after five minutes changes her mind.
Again, this is what I have seen Schroeder do dozens of times during her stint at TGMP, so I would not say that she evolved in her opinion. Rather, I would say her opinion is akin to a digimon. It digi-volves to a higher form during an argument, but when challenged or when it contradicts her feminist views, her opinion devolves back to its original state.
It would be comical but for the people who may read her comments and take them as a serious critique and understanding of men’s issues.
Precisely why I very rarely, if ever, either take a brief glimpse into what The Good Men Project has to offer nowadays or listen to those who have driven the content of their magazine for a long time, Jacobtk.
If Joanna, one of the head editors and moderators, remains of the same opinion that Misandry somehow “Puts men in power” (What? Really?) or doesn’t harm men as much as misogyny (if she claims to have looked at Men’s Issues really closely then she wouldn’t be saying this at all), why should I waste my time?
In my view, JacobTK, this would not be a problem IF she embraced a view of feminism as a movement seeking the relief of gender oppression for BOTH women AND men, and she embraced a view of patriarchy as a gender system that oppressed BOTH women AND men. Unfortunately, she — like the majority of orthodox feminists AFAICT — doesn’t do that.
Agreed.
I don’t think she was actually ‘scare-quoting’ there. I think she was doing something that I often do, which is using quote marks — I typically use single quotes for this instead of double quotes — to indicate that I’m using a term in a somewhat atypical manner. I don’t think she was saying that the ‘prejudging’ wasn’t actually real. (OTOH, the net effect of the way she characterizes misandry really does have the practical effect of saying it’s not actually real.)
Can’t find “digimon” in my dictionary (guessing it’s a Pokemon term or something?) but your description does seem apt, sadly.
Digimon was sort of a male version of the tamagotchi.
“She follows this with claiming that misandry “is not equal to misogyny in its danger to individuals or society”,”
You can say something like this only from inside so safe a bubble of privilege that war and being sent off to war is something you never have to deal with.
“The thing is, a big driver of the “expectation that men should be breadwinners” is women’s dating preferences. Is Joanna prepared to say that vast swaths of women are misandrist?”
I have seen other, younger. more rigorous feminists come to that conclusion. I’d be dumbfounded if JS did.
“Misandry happens when we excuse bad choices or behavior of a man or boy with “boys will be boys” or invoking the “locker room talk” defense.”
More of the privilege bubble. No, JS, misandry happens when we consider men and boys disposable, as you explicitly did with me at GMP in a discussion about men’s duty to risk everything by picking up female hitchhikers.
“Misandry doesn’t oppress men or keep them down. ”
Mass incarceration, JS? but that’s outside the bubble too.
And then she crosses right over into arguing in bad faith:
“The only real solution for misandry is, of course, feminism. Needed not just for girls/women but for boys who’ll be harmed by misandry, too.”
There was a huge blow up at GMP over her contention that men’s place in feminism was subordinate. Fair enough, as long as you are willing to marginalize and sideline feminism in the discussion of gender. But clearly she is not. And when she identifies feminism as the cure for men’s problems and then demotes us to subsidiary status, that’s …..misandrist. Maybe she doesn’t understand misandry all that well, for all her demonstrated intelligence.
It’s good to see everyone back after so long!
From what I can tell, criticism of “boys will be boys” outnumbers actual people defending boys’/men’s actions with that phrase by about 100:1.
“Do you see, every once in a while some guy getting away with something that he shouldn’t? Yeah. Is it because of his gender? No, it’s really not. ”
In fact the dynamic works in the opposite direction and has several names. I don’t approve of some of them, however catchy they may be.
The way I read those tweets is that she’s saying that misandry (the hatred of men) is actually beneficial to men and harms women. I view many of the other things you’ve characterized as “on point” or not that bad as a faux attempt at positioning her as a even handed moderate. Wow, I’ve spoken with her a few times when she was with TGMP and she seems to have devolved a lot since she left.
“Wow, I’ve spoken with her a few times when she was with TGMP and she seems to have devolved a lot since she left.”
“Devolved”? How do you mean?
“Because a very small amount of men have power, that means society benefits men in general. Even though men with power often get it by backstabbing other men.”
Ah, the Apex Fallacy.
I think Jo is using “misandry” as a synonym for “sexism about men”. Not against men. Just involving men.
This would be a lot more believable if she hadn’t just seemingly implied that women get hurt worse by prejudice against men than actual men.
To turn a popular feminism meme from a few years back, “misogyny is just the side effects of misandry”.
If feminists in general are helping men, it would help the “optics” if they eradicated and disavowed the ‘male tears’, ‘fragile masculinity, and ‘mansplaining’ memes that lots of feminists like to use. As well as those feminist sneers at #notAllMen. And maybe if they used “sexism against men” more often, instead of “toxic masculinity”.
Heck, publicly saying “women have privileges over men” would do a lot for the movement’s image.
And maybe TGMP in particular shouldn’t host articles by gynocentrists like Futrelle, Marcotte, or Doc Nerdlove.
Also, notice how it’s just “boys”, not “boys/men”. She could’ve removed a few superfluous words to hit the 140 character limit and get “/men” in there. Maybe she was in a hurry, idk.
Wait, wait, I see where this is going. She’s going to say that fighting “the Patriarchy” will lead to trickle-down equality for men, while carefully not explaining why mainstream feminism usually deals with women’s issues directly, but not men’s.
Or, in fact, discussing whether feminism could do better about men’s issues, or the fact that most of the world, including many feminists, don’t really see feminism as fighting for men.
Oh, and JacobTK isn’t describing a Digimon. It’s the Motte-and-Bailey tactic. You say X, but when you’re challenged, you backpedal to Y.
What amazes me about progressives and I include this blog under that definition is that you simply refuse to accept that any of this could be biological. Dominance hierarchies, women choosing men who are socially dominant…its probably the most ubiquitous behavior found in human societies. Its pretty hard to find societies that don’t operate this way anywhere in the world.
Its a bit ridiculous and stupid. Anyone proposing that this is biological has all the evidence on their side. And all progressives have literally no evidence on their side. Yet the default explanation for these gender patterns is the progressive one.
I’ll have to classify the whole of this post under the heading: Not even wrong.
SYABM:
Its like playing a Shell Game where the person swapping the shells around gets to move them AFTER you pick the one that you think the ball is under.
SYABM, her whole argument seems to be a form of femsplaining in the service of gaslighting. She is basically claiming to have the authority to define misandry and then to define how it affects men and then to define whether these effects are harmful or not. (Spoiler alert…well, no; you already know the ending on that one.)
While at the same time ready to dismiss men doing the same to women as ‘mansplaining’.
Oh, yes – large and in charge. This is a well-loved and well-worn tactic to maintain control of the conversation.
Interesting. Have you stopped blogging?
Hey guys where have you been?
Its been a little over 2 years since your last post. Are you guys still online anywhere?
Hello!!!!
I don’t know if anyone is still here but your friend Schreoder is at it again….
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1161130456286289920.html?fbclid=IwAR0YmPGFaEPrly-eTb0HSNEqx_qxBSy-_TW4AEVnDhBDvBJYyUm6AUWll8w
Seriously, it’s gone too quiet here 😉
Hello, anyone out there?
Not many.
Good to see that FC is still around. For various reasons, I have not looked in here for ages. I like your new look; it is easy on eyes.
My outlook on feminism has not changed — I am still of the view that it has “got to go”. However, I have learned to voice that opinion far more effectively than in years past.
I know you guys make a big point of being even-handed and “balanced”, but frankly, on balance, you do feminism a lot more harm than good, and I love perusing the smorgasbord of counter-feminist arguments which appear in your pages.
The analysis of Joanne Schroeder’s rhetorical tactics was spot on for the most part, although I disagreed on a few points.
I will check in from time to time, and contribute occasionally (in a devil’s advocate style).
~Fidelbogen~
Whoops, I guess this website is virtually dead. I didn’t notice that.
~Fidelbogen~
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbE8E1ez97M
It was down completely for many months. I could have brought it back up at any time, but with a job and a care commitment, I had neither the time nor the energy to moderate or contribute.
Well, the job’s gone because pandemic, and the care commitment has finally been rehoused in a place suitable for her disabilities, so she no longer needs my help just to leave her home.
I don’t like having all the menus at the bottom.
I do like the minimalist appearance. In truth, I dumped the old theme and all the old plugins out of fear that they would be incompatible/insecure with the latest version of WordPress. This theme was one of three that comes with a default installation. I haven’t
had timebothered to look for a better one.And I that it has “got to change”, though I don’t see that happening soon, quickly, or even at all.
I’d be interested in your ideas on voicing your opinion more effectively.
We’ve never pretended to have a neutral point of view. We are courteous to our guests, and demand courtesy from them toward other guests, particularly toward the occasional feminist.
We tilt the discursive playing field in feminists favour, but not so far that critics cannot make their substantive arguments, which is what we find when we try to argue in most feminist spaces.
What did you disagree with?
This is kind of the gender equivalent of replacing the definition of racism exclusively with the racism inherent in the soft bigotry of low expectations. It’s primarily focused on how misandry harms others (presumably women) rather than how it harms men, and therefore the prescription that the answer is feminism is hardly surprising.
Particularly troubling to me is that while she explicitly prescribes feminism, she implicitly prescribes increasing social pressures for men, which would- in effect, make manhood even more precarious than it currently is. I think that this approach completely misses a root cause of the behaviors she is concerned with, as I detail in this post:
https://www.reddit.com/r/GenderDialogues/comments/lalvjv/the_boyman_dichotomy/
Also- good to see FC back and running. Sorry it took so long for me to notice.