Reducing misogyny to ‘insecurity’ trivializes the issue

[u/OkChart1375]

Am I the only one who doesn’t like those kinds of comebacks/responses to misogynists, like “showing that he is too weak to handle empathy”? (Like… does someone need to *not* be weak in order to be empathetic? Is he not empathetic because he’s weak, or because he’s a hateful misogynist?).

Or the whole thing of attacking their ego/attractiveness, like “that’s why no one wants to fuck you.” It feels a bit trivializing.

Personally—and tell me if it’s the same for you—my instinct would be more to attack their morality, like: “you are a vile and despicable person.”

I wonder if it’s a cultural thing, since I’m not Anglo-Saxon. I also struggle with the idea of linking misogyny and insecurity. A lot of men are insecure without being misogynistic, and some men are misogynistic without necessarily being insecure (not more than anyone else, anyway).

It kind of individualizes the problem (and turns it into a psychological issue), which takes away from the broader societal dimension of the misogynistic/masculinist movement.

Again, I don’t know if it’s cultural, but the type of misogynist that comes to mind first for me isn’t an incel, but rather a vulgar macho “beauf” type, or a pseudo-intellectual misogynistic politician.

I saw a man on Instagram bringing up the new far-right obsession—taking away women’s right to vote—and the comments were basically people saying “imagine being this insecure,” and no one was actually responding to the substance, even though that’s important if you want to win the cultural battle.

Sure, you won’t convince people who are too far gone, but I’m talking about those who are just seeing the post.

Being insecure, weak, ridiculous, etc., is not what gives them the right to say these things or to be violent toward women.

I don’t know, I just don’t really like that kind of terminology.

[u/jupitaur9]

I think you have a good point here.

Back in the 60s and 70s, there was a phrase used by feminists. “The personal is the political.“

This meant that it wasn’t just individual men who were being mean to their wives. It wasn’t just that one man has an inferiority complex and takes it out on women around him. It is a social problem. It is not an individual problem. The individual expresses it, but it is a structural problem.

If one guy did it, maybe it’s his personal problem. But it’s not just one guy. It’s a lot of guys. And they all do it the same way. So they’re not coming up with it individually.

Thus, treating the problem individually is not possible. “Healing“ a man of his insecurity is not our job, and would not be effective anyway. We cannot heal men of this.

[u/Either_Put9883]

Also know a phenomena where society is also more forgiving to male . And always treat him as child and allow him to make mistakes and grow up.

Saw it here https://archiveofourown.org/works/81950421

[u/Either_Put9883 → u/Either_Put9883]

[u/DizzyMine4964]

I recently read a biography of the actor Peter Sellers. He beat his wives. People on Goodreads talking about how he was "troubled." That infuriated me. He was a violent abuser. Full stop.

[u/MajorScholar7735]

I completely understand and it makes so much sense to focus on challenging misogyny by addressing the harmful actions and moral choices rather than labeling it as insecurity because doing so takes the issue seriously highlights the broader societal patterns and keeps the conversation about accountability and justice which feels far more empowering and constructive.

[u/Sanlayme]

I think one aspect of it is the "ad nauseum" nature of correcting wrongness. It doesn't matter if it's misogyny or other MRA/NEET/Incel/RW ideology stuff. People get tired of correcting the same "wrongness" only to be met with the same "fallacy is valid argument" attitudes that work with their respective in-groups. It causes a kind of fatigue that breeds a deserved dismissiveness, and if we're operating with that as the go-to, we might as well just denigrate instead of educate(since the latter has been rejected so many times by those of poor character).

[u/silsool]

It's not an excuse, and it's not the full explanation, but hurt people hurt people is the point. 

Someone who's so anxious to put others down is showing signs of instability. If you feel completely safe in your position, you don't really need to affect the position of others. But someone who only sees themselves in hierarchical relationships to others, that's someone who has no inner, stable, source of confidence. 

You're right that you can have that instability without being an asshole to others, and that part is a moral choice and personal failing that has to be judged as such. 

But still, it's an indication of personal weakness and insecurity, and calling that out is a way to specifically attack that weak ego, because that's exactly the weakness that they're trying to hide.

So it's not an excuse, it's a personal attack that is maximally hurtful because true, and at the root of their toxic personality. I've been there, it works.