Not really, but we’ll get to that. First let’s deal with the cartoon:
- There’s no such thing as reverse sexism. It’s just sexism. Prejudice on the basis of sex.
- Dismissing misandry – irrational hatred of men – in a way misogyny would never be dismissed. Of course irrational hatred of men exists, just as irrational hatred of women obviously exists. Spend five minutes on social justice Tumblr and you’ll see plenty of evidence of that.
- Defender of the defended… presumptuous, especially in the context of the gender conversation over which men have very little input and are actively and even violently prevented from doing so. Access to legal representation in the face of discrimination is also virtually impossible for men.
Given that so much of feminism seems to be concerned with addressing broad-brush and prejudicial statements about women, is it not somewhat hypocritical to both make and spread broad-brush statements about men and then to dismiss objections that would be upheld if the positions were reversed? Do you think the statement ‘Bitches be crazy’ isn’t hateful just because it obviously doesn’t apply to all women? Is the statement excused my making fun of those who point that out?
That’s a trivial example, but when feminists are seriously talking about ‘male violence‘ it becomes much more serious, especially since they genuinely seem to believe it applies. This is prejudice, pure and simple and, so long as it continues ‘Not All Man’, ‘Not All Woman’ and all their derivatives will be needed.