Jillian Horowitz, author of Collecting Male Tears: Misandry and Weaponized Femininity on the Internet, says that ironic misandry turns things that represent overt and stereotypical femininity into symbols of feminist anger.
She points out that misandry jokes don’t cater to men; instead, they appeal to members of the same in-group (feminist women). Being in on the joke can help foster a connection and a sense of solidarity between women with common feminist goals, and for those who need it, it can serve as a coping mechanism for living in a world that wasn’t build for you.
Horowitz acknowledges the criticism that “misandry rhetoric often elides the intersections of race, class, gender, and sexuality in ways that are not always productive.”
How do you feel about ironic misandry, as illustrated in the examples below?
One thought on “Week 10 Day 2 Question 3”
I think ironic misandry is a cathartic practice for women. It is an effective community builder and relief from active men’s rights discourses and culture wars that appear on timelines and in the news. However, I also agree that it can become dangerous to deal in strict universals. Fagan wrote, “To pretend as though the 22-year-old white female blogger talking about her hatred of men from the comfort of her prepaid dorm at an Ivy League school does not hold many tangible privileges over, say, the undocumented male worker who is cleaning the bathroom stalls of her building at night, is ludicrous” (Fagan). Misandry, when promoted as an aestheticized slogan, often does elide considerations of race and class. Besides, the formation of gender and men as concepts do not elide race and class. Not every man is socialized in the same way, and not every man has the same amount of political and social leverage over women, and misandry as theory ignores this. I hope, maybe too wishfully, that the white wealthy women who do promote misandry are truly punching up on those who are equally or more white and wealth privileged.