Too often there is this separation we invent where misogyny is a ubiquitous tool of patriarchy while misandry is somehow separate. This becomes so intense that many are not even able to admit that misandry is even theoretically possible, and even if it's undeniable it is still seen as highly irrelevant to patriarchy.
But misandry does advance patriarchy and it is a force that intensifies misogyny.
Consider homophobia. This is an obvious case where misandry advances heretopatriarchy. Certain men can entrench their status through an infrastructure of hatred against homosexual men that can be accessed by nearly everyone else as well.
Consider transphobia. Another obvious realm where misandry is at play. Trans men are shown hatred in ways that are unique to the experience of cis men, and these experiences drive cis heteronormativity.
Consider how our actions and ideas impact the world. If we live in denial of misandry we live in denial of patriarchy. Denying misandry does not make you a quality feminist. It does not make you theoretically sound. Hating men just gets in the way of challenging patriarchy.
Consider how misandry enforces gender roles. Misandrous discourse functions to discipline people. When misandry is denied, there is almost always an element of "you have to man up, because women are weak." The narrative is familiar; women are subjected to patriarchal violence and are thus too hysterical to have sound or reasonable options about men, thus, men must internalize misandrous attitudes out of sheer emotional intelligence and masculine willpower. The men who fail to do this are weak, unable to maintain a rational, stoic attitude and are thus lesser, unmasculine men. Men who can master their performance of masculinity in a self-denying or sacrificial way will benefits from misandry but will certainly be thoroughly disciplined by it.
Women, other non men genders,and queer communities often play a role in policing masculinity for patriarchy which may obfuscate the patriarchal power at play. This ultimately reinforces misogyny by haphazardly enforcing binaries, devaluing feminity, and promoting a supremacist view of masculinity.
Let me paint a situation. Imagine a comedian making a joke about their trans wife; that she removed the worst part of her--being a man. Everyone laughs in support of trans women and implicitly they laugh AT trans men and cis men. Next joke is about how stupid bisexual women are for dating men, how they make the queer community worse.
Now imagine you are a man who wants a little clarity in life. How should you feel about such language which is clearly both misandrous and misogynistic? How should you feel that it is directed at you, as a man? I'll tell you:
You should feel safe because you are a man. If you don't feel safe it's because you are a weak man, incapable of performing.
I'm not sure why you are talking about the oppressor class per se when in manys ways I am describing the experience of traversing discourse that misunderstands the oppressor class and how to challenge it.
This is part of my why I made this post, bringing these things up always baits a red herring or a lecture I've heard (and given) dozens of times. Why can't there be a more satisfying answer that is aligned with the mission of feminism?
Further, if I were to use your formulas to make similar points in other domains they would not hold up. You may not be concerned, but it leads me to ask why don't you think there is no power attached to the hatred of men? Is it because you naturally view women as powerless? Do you think patriarchy is powerless?
I'm going to be frank with you: I will never trust the intentions of anyone who will look at the systemic oppression of women through patriarchy & misogyny and has the audacity to ask, "What about men?"
Because regardless of your intentions these discussions end up hijacking the narrative and reorienting away from the oppression of women to prioritize men as the focus. This ends up being just another case of women's issues being sidelined by men's concerns. There's nothing "feminist" about this; it's erasure.
Acknowledging the power imbalance between men and women is vital to understanding the systemic nature of patriarchy. If you can't do this any analysis you try to make is going to be based purely on vibes rather than material conditions.
Yes, patriarchy does negatively impact men. But why does this deserve to be discussed? What benefit does it bring to feminist analysis or theory? How does pivoting away from the many ways women constantly suffer under patriarchy to the far fewer ones men sometimes suffer under patriarchy help us combat, dismantle, or replace patriarchy? How does this help bring us closer to gender equality - or even gender abolition?
It doesn't. It hijacks the narrative. It weakens the voices of women to amplify the voices of men. In the end this just recreates the conditions of misogyny; men are once again being elevated above women.
Capitalism hurts the bourgeoisie too, you know. Capitalists also experience alienation leading to depression from loss of community. Should we pivot away from the exploitation of workers to discuss suicide rates among the elite? Is that a conversation worth having? Will it bring us closer to socialism?
Superfluous. You don't have my trust either.
This is my post. What conversation am I hijacking?
How can a theory of misandry that explains it as a function of misogyny distract us from women?
Part of what I was trying to say in my post was that the valorized hatred of men can be used to elevate men over women.
Of course I know. But it would be impossible to "pivot away from the exploitation of workers" while holistically addressing the damaging experiences of capitalism. To be unconcerned with such damages, even to the bourgeoisie, would advance bourgeoisie politics very explicitly and harm proletarians most of all. Of course this can bring us closer to socialism. Your point makes no sense and implies you care more about naming oppressors to extract ethical value for yourself than ultimately ending oppressive systems. I reiterate my lack of trust in you, at least as a feminist and socialist.
No one "valorizes" the hatred of men. The hatred of men is a completely social phenomenon. It affects virtually no one and has virtually no significant on society. Just bringing up the fact of its existence is pointless, much less trying to analyze it. The goth subculture has had more influence on society than women who hate men. This entire talking point is a product of the misogynistic manosphere and feeds directly into incel narratives.
I repeat: by shifting discussion from the systemic reality of misogyny to the mythological fiction of "misandry" you are hijacking the focus from that of women's emancipation toward that of patriarchal retrenchment even if you try to obfuscate it with a veneer of concern about the harmful effects patriarchy.
We don't need discussions about how colonialism hurts colonists. We don't need discussions about how slavery hurts slave owners. We don't need discussions about how fascism hurts fascists. A system harming those that perpetrate it is an accident of its poor design; not an intention of its designers. Ergo their oppression at its hands isn't relevant beyond being used as a reminder that the system is poorly designed.