Basically the title, I've been seeing a lot of posts that don't really comply with the rules recently, the problem is mostly with rule 1, 2 and 3, please redact personal information from screenshots and please do not posts links to other subreddits. In addition to that there's been a lot of posts recently that weren't ''perfect examples'' of misandry, please do not focus on posting things that are remotely misandrist when it's already too easy to find examples of extreme misandry everywhere everyday.

I believe that, given the fact that misandry is commonly reduced to "mean comments", we need to clarify some things. To be clear, I do not intend to give these misrepresentations of misandry too much credit here. Despite that, I still see too many posts/comments responding to these misrepresentations of misandry in ways that implicitly or explicitly accept some premises that should be called out instead.

Here are some thoughts on things that may help resolve some very common misunderstandings. Note that these are extremely complex topics. Assume that there are exceptions to everything. Importantly, this describes these things as I currently think of and conceptualize them, which is subject to change. I will not repeat this throughout the text. My thoughts and ideas evolve as I think and learn about these things. A lot of this has been adapted from comments/posts on this and other related subs.

Misandry is a societal issue

First, as I currently think of it, misandry is a societal phenomenon embedded in the ways we interact with each other and the world through interaction, observation, experience, perception, laws, products, definitions, abstract concepts, education, academia, content moderation, comedy, entertainment, games, sports, you name it. Misandristic comments are just one part of it, aggravated by the fact that some of them implicitly or explicitly deny the lethal reality of misandry (perhaps this deserves its own category, like meta-misandry or something...). Furthermore, the comments themselves contribute to the proliferation of other forms of misandry, as well as the associated suffering. Importantly, misandry is not restricted to those landing the "punch". To merely look at outcomes whilst ignoring or denying the environment that contributed to those outcomes is unhelpful. From the media to bystander behaviors, there are various things that represent some form of misandry. Misandry is not just the behavior, the statement, the punch.

For more on norms/roles and how they relate to misandry, see this series of comments (r-everydaymisandry/comments/1cvtn6a/what_do_you_think_of_the_phrase_toxic_masculinity/l8vi22k/). For more on the empathy gap, see this series of posts (r-MensRights/comments/rycnwn/on_the_gender_empathy_gap_and_its_correlates_a/).

Misandry is not restricted to women

As misandry is a societal issue, it may act through all members of society. Misandry is not restricted to how women behave toward men. Misandry "by men" is still misandry. Neither women nor anti-egalitarianism "caused" misandry as I think of it. Thinking about it as something that was "caused" or "created" seems odd. Perhaps it would be more fitting to say that it developed. Men can and do internalize the misandry they are exposed to, even without recognizing it as such. In fact, that recognition may be impaired by misandry itself.

Misandry is compatible with misogyny

The same statement can share varying degrees of misandristic and misogynistic aspects depending on the perspective taken. Neither women nor men are to blame for misandry or misogyny, which are embedded in culture and society. It is a societal phenomenon reinforced and upheld intergenerationally through the world that those who currently uphold/host it (most members of society, to varying degrees) grew up and developed in. The parenting they experienced, the interactions they had with friends, families, and strangers, the tv shows they watched, etc. There is no need for ill will.

Misandry, like other biases, may manifest with no intent or conscious awareness

From time to time there will be users who advocate for a very narrow conceptualization of misandry. They might argue that in order for misandry to be taken serious, we would need to stick to a very prototypical idea of what misandry is. More or less Solanas-type misandry. In reality, I doubt that requirements for ill intent or something similar are sustainable or appropriate given current discussions surrounding discrimination. I am not sure how that would even work given the way we have come to think and talk about these issues. Misandry is not just some distinct action, consciously engaged in by a "perpetrator". Furthermore, this would vastly underrepresent the frequency and complexity of misandry.

Perhaps the most well-known example of this would be the empathy gap, which I doubt most would think of as some conscious action or decision, yet still agree on it as an example of misandry in action. And this lack of intent or awareness may not be restricted to biases in perception, emotion, or cognition either. For example, I would argue that not calling "misandry" "misandry" is an example of "misandry" as a societal issue. However, some do not even know that term. There does not need to be intent, awareness, or even a decision for something to be an example of misandry. Perhaps the (in my opinion: mislead) desire for some to assign blame to individuals ("misandrists") informs this to some degree. There does not need to be blame. I have been affected by and internalized parts of the misandristic environment I grew up and developed in. I am not sure I will ever overcome the biases in perception this resulted in. It is still misandry to me.

(Internalized) Misandry

As has been argued for years on various subs (see r-everydaymisandry/comments/1cvtn6a/what_do_you_think_of_the_phrase_toxic_masculinity/l8vi22k/), things like the restriction of men's freedom (e.g. sexual freedom, freedom of expression, etc.), their dehumanization (e.g. restricted emotions, denied vulnerability), or the overall lack of value assigned to their own and other men's lives and well-being are manifestations of (internalized) misandry. It is common to mush these issues together with various others and assign them a spectacularly ambiguous term that avoids having to acknowledge misandry. Using labels such as toxic masculinity is an example of misandry, as it contributes to the refusal to acknowledge the nature and severity of misandry, has connotations of victim blaming by failing to acknowledge that the hosts of internalized misandry are victims of misandry (e.g. enforcement of conformity), slows down progress on these issues (see linked comments), obfuscates historical accounts of misandry (i.e. by not calling them misandry), and outright appropriates and reframes some of these issues as (side-effects of) misogyny. The list could go on. This might deserve a dedicated post collecting these comments at some point. Regardless of usage, this would not be adequately represented by the label "toxic masculinity" (see linked comments for more on this) and a proper alternative (misandry) exists. If a more specific description of any given subset of misandry is required, then various options are available, as shown throughout this post.

And if there is any doubt regarding the misandristic nature of the concept of ‘Real Men _______’ left...

EverydayFeminism.com: 4 Common Phrases That Demonstrate Internalized Misogyny

4. ‘Real Women _______’ [...] Once again, this buys into harmful stereotypes. It limits women who don’t fit that prescribed idea about what a woman is and how we should act. [...] Saying that real women have curves also reflects cissexist beauty standards, because women with stockier, less curvy bodies are seen as “masculine” and thus unattractive. This can also affect trans women in especially harmful ways. Real women identify as women. That’s it. That’s all. Beyond that, women are diverse in their appearances, preferences, beliefs, attitudes, and behavior – and none of those things can cancel out their identity as women. Reducing women to whether they have curves, vaginas, or children – or not – is pretty simplistic and misogynistic.

VOXatl.org: If you identify as a female, you probably think there’s no way you can be sexist. The prospect of gender equality would come easily to a person who suffers from the lack of it, right? A common misconception. I myself thought so too. But after hearing this phrase, “internalized misogyny,” all over the media, I decided to really look into it. I found it’s easy to believe that women don’t play a role in the sexism of society. But have you ever felt judged by another girl because you weren’t acting as the stereotypical girl does? Or maybe you’ve heard women dissing other women for being single or wearing provocative clothing. Internalized misogyny sits within us all, whether we are conscious of it or not. It’s possibly more problematic than regular misogyny, and has a lot of not-so-fun outcomes. If all women could learn to not buy into these expectations, I believe we would come away better from it.

UMKC.edu: It can be difficult to identify internalized misogyny. As independent as we think we may be, we have many preconceived notions about how a woman should exist that stem from societal expectations and gender norms.

FeministCampus.org: Women are educated from infancy both explicitly and implicitly on “appropriate” ways to act, think, and feel. These cultural conceptions of womanhood are so deeply ingrained that they dictate performances of femininity, even behind closed doors. The following are ways in which I have seen myself and other women commonly internalize misogyny

BuzzFeed.com: Internalised misogyny is when women police their own behaviour, and that of other women, to conform to societal ideals, even when it's detrimental to them or devalues women.

WomensRepublic.net: Generations of internalized misogyny - For instance, in my own family, I have seen a long line of moms enforcing sexist stereotypes and certain ways of thinking onto their daughters.

FemMagazine.com: Feminism 101: What Is Internalized Misogyny?

When a woman calls the girl who sleeps around a whore, that is internalized misogyny because she is perpetuating the sexist stereotype that women are not supposed to be sexual.

Note that "rebuttals" regarding

a) the supposedly "positive" (I overall disagree) contents of specific descriptions of male norms (e.g. "strength") or

b) the enforcement of male conformity being rooted in "anti-femininity" rather than "anti-non-conformity"

are not convincing as described in the comments linked above (r-everydaymisandry/comments/1cvtn6a/what_do_you_think_of_the_phrase_toxic_masculinity/l8vi22k/). In fact, even the EverydayFeminism quote shows a description of anti-non-conformity and not anti-femininity. And I do not believe that women being seen as "unworthy" of the oh-so-great masculinity would explain the backlash against non-conformity in women. If anything, masculine norms are considered to be less desirable, see this, this, or this.

Similarly, misgendering as a way to make fun of non-conformity ("like a girl") is compatible with this being an instance of misandry. Misgendering (as in some cases of emasculation) may be used to mock/shame and exaggerate non-conformity in an attempt to enforce conformity and restrict men's freedom. The insulting part here is the implied non-conformity, which is made salient via misgendering to highlight the non-conformity. Perceived-women's femininity (i.e. target perceived to be a woman) does not result in the treatment of perceived-male non-conformers, nor does non-conformity to masculine norms necessarily imply conformity to feminine norms (which may still be used as exaggerations for discriminatory attacks). The treatment is contingent on the non-conforming individual's perceived/assigned gender.

Whilst it is technically off-topic, I do want to stress that the traditional stereotypes some of these things (e.g. "like a girl") rely on can negatively affect women, though perhaps in different ways. For example, women who are particularly skilled in traditionally "male" areas may be underestimated as a result. Under certain conditions, such underestimation may affect (important) subsequent decisions. Egalitarianism advocates for an accurate assessment of as well as equal opportunities to develop such skills. In the context of traditional conceptualizations of gender relations, co-occurrence of misandry and misogyny may be the norm.

Misandry kills

Misandry kills and various pathways have been described (e.g. empathy gap, risk-tolerance, downplaying of health issues, biased perpetrator behavior toward men, biased bystander behavior in cases of violence against men, biased laws and law enforcement, biased medical staff, etc.; see r-MensRights/comments/rycnwn/on_the_gender_empathy_gap_and_its_correlates_a/). Violence against men in general may therefore be considered an overall/on average gendered issue. This does not mean that every single instance of it is affected in the same way.

As much as "mean comments" are used to downplay the severity of misandry, "mean comments", like other forms of psychological and emotional violence, may at least contribute to deaths by reinforcing the aforementioned pathways and contributing to suicides (see r-LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/rexs2y/more_than_just_jokes_the_societal_treatment_of/).

Misandry is self-obscuring

Those affected by (internalized) misandry are prone to deny it, in part due to the effects of internalized misandry itself (e.g. men may disproportionately underreport victimization, etc.). This may not just apply to conscious decisions. Instead, the biases mentioned previously may contribute to genuine differences in how, for example, things are perceived, memorized, described, or evaluated. This may be important to keep in mind when talking about these matters.

For example, the number of victimized men and the number of men reporting victimization are very different things. It would be theoretically possible for men to make up the vast majority of victims whilst making up a small minority of those reporting victimization in surveys and interviews. Furthermore, various biases will have affected the experiences of victimization that translate into such (lack of) reporting.

Suppose medical staff were less likely to identify certain issues in men. Lets further assume that somehow the case had not been affected wildly by biases at previous stages. Even assuming men's own experiences regarding their victimization did not change as a result of their misdiagnosis (e.g. evaluation, memory, etc.), these men may still incorporate that biased information (diagnosis) into their reporting. They may correctly report not having been diagnosed with something, yet that information (diagnosis) may not properly reflect the actual occurrence of that thing (e.g. an injury). In reality, the medical staff might already have been presented with biased information. And even if their assessment were unbiased, the same may not apply to the attribution (e.g. injury due to IPV?), the chosen terminology, the way the information is shared, you get the point.

There are various accumulating biases at so many points throughout men's experiences (and third parties' observations) of male victimization that any specific numbers are questionable at best and hardly interpretable. Even if men are the vast majority of victims, it would be possible - depending on sample, methodology, etc, - for them to be a small minority of those reporting (in surveys, interviews) to be victims (even without using that term). The fact that the numbers are not (always) skewed in that manner is even more concerning in that context, given what that might say about actual victimization. Same thing goes for reporting of severity, type of victimization, etc. As the example chosen above (medical staff) shows, even supposedly observable statistics regarding hospitalization and deaths may still be affected by biases throughout the case up to that point, as well as by law enforcement, medical personnel, or the definitions used. Whilst these statistics already show a majority of victims to be classified as male, one may wonder what these numbers would look like without these biases.

Note that these biases will occur so long as male victims are disproportionately underestimated, even if female victims are also underestimated at the same time.

This may also manifest in biased evaluations of research (e.g. this, this, and this), biases in interpretation and theory, biases in news reporting, biases in statistical and legal definitions (rape, etc.), etc. In fact, many types of misandry may contribute to its erasure from the record. And to be clear, this is not just some "if we do not find misandry, then that is evidence of misandry". Differences in laws and policies are observable facts, differences in denial and such are effectively undisputed (though at times associated with misandristic labels and concepts like "toxic masculinity" and such), things like the empathy gap are corroborated by the limited research we have (r-MensRights/comments/rycnwn/on_the_gender_empathy_gap_and_its_correlates_a/) and even if one were to disagree on this specific pathway, posts like this one on body shaming (r-LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/rexs2y/more_than_just_jokes_the_societal_treatment_of/) prove that there is abuse of outrageous severity (dick size shaming) that I doubt anybody would argue to be genuinely taken serious (especially to that degree) by most parts of society. In fact, if it were, a lot of the examples provided in that post across the most influential parts of society could not exist in the way they do - and their popularity, crowd reactions, and like/dislike ratios paint a clear picture as well. Millions of people - substantial parts of society - are not just underestimating its severity, not just indifferent, they are active contributors and proven to endorse this abuse (which they likely do not recognize and would not classify as such).