What expressions are actually okay to use?

Christian Taylor3 said:Why make up terms when we already have one? It’s called misandry. And honestly, it’s unconstitutional—though I suppose that goes for misogyny too, especially when you look at folks in executive or legislative positions, regardless of how you slice it. It isn't that the European Court of Human Rights doesn't overturn rulings like the ones you're talking about; once we are fully integrated into those international frameworks, I suspect we'll see even more corrections coming from the American court system.

From Wikipedia: Misandry (from Ancient Greek: μισανδρία) is the hatred (or contempt) of men and/or boys. The word is derived from the Ancient Greek words misos (μῖσος, “hatred”) and anēr, andros (ἀνήρ, ἀνδρός; “man”). Misandry can be compared to misanthropy, which denotes a general hatred of humanity.

I’ll say it again, though—I’m looking for a term that encompasses much more than just simple, raw hatred toward men. I’m talking about a concept that describes a SYSTEM; a sort of cross-section that runs from the internal psyche or heart of a misandrist individual, through the actual actions of those individuals and their groups, all the way down into the anti-male provisions found in documents, regulations, laws, and judicial precedents.

I guess one of the real headaches in this whole mess is that most people involved in this entire cycle probably aren't even aware of their own misandry, or maybe they aren't even misandrists to begin with. For instance, many of those controversial decisions in various official documents are basically passed through sheer inertia, and that even applies to a good portion of the men working within the decision-making hierarchy.

I mean, how are we supposed to describe the operations of something like the "Office of Gender Equality" (which, mind you, is an official body funded by the American government), when its five-point national strategy includes a specific point titled "women's health care" (meaning, care focused solely on the health of just one gender!!!!!)?

Is that a misandrist body? Is the strategy itself misandrist? Or are we actually dealing with a gender-discriminatory (anti-male) system that really ought to be called something else entirely?

...even though feminazism shows up in Merriam-Webster, the term itself—definitely used as a jab—was actually coined by Rush Limbaugh. Regardless, he’s the one who launched this particular toxin into the global consciousness.

Perhaps it’s Iocaste-society: The blindness of men for The feminist totalitarian regime of contemporary "postmodern" civilization perpetuates the iocaste-society.

Or maybe it's Gynecocracy: A form of rule that is imposed on the man by the woman.

Brenda Cook4 said:...even though feminism shows up in Merriam-Webster, the term was definitely coined (and predictably used as an insult) by Rush Limbaugh; regardless, it was launched into the global consciousness from his toxic platform.

Maybe it's Iocaste-society: The blindness of men for The feminist totalitarian regime of contemporary "postmodern" civilization perpetuates the iocaste-society.

Or maybe it's Gynecocracy: A form of rule that is imposed on the man by the woman.

You never stop learning, I guess. 😁

Quote : Origin of FEMINAZI blend of feminist and Naza First Known Use : 1989
blend of feminist and Nazi
First Known Use: 1989

That’s not really where the issue lies. You can't just call some George from a federal agency or the Department of Civil Rights a "feminazi" simply because their agenda includes a bullet point for "women's health care." If that national strategy happens to include support for single fathers—like helping them sort out legal status or chasing down child support from mothers—then there isn't even a conflict. But if she refuses to help a Single Parents Association or a group for abused fathers, then yeah, I'll be the first one here to label her a "feminazi."😬

@silentridge3

That isn't even the real problem (and nobody on the other media outlets was defending that, especially when it was actually explained), the only REAL PROBLEM is that at some point (maybe in the Politics section?), you and several other forum users started throwing that ugly little slur around like it was nothing. Stop the madness! Go ahead, try telling me, or anyone else on this board, that I'm some "chauvinistic Nazi." Just try it.🙂

BTW, here's a solution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazons

😍

It feels rather extreme to lump feminists into the same category as those answering for cold-blooded murders, simply because they hold exceptionally strong convictions. These two sociological groups aren't even remotely on the same playing field, making such a comparison deeply insulting on several different levels.

I think I'll just go with "hyper-feminism." It seems perfectly fitting.

Sarah Sanders34 said:I personally opt for the term "hyper-feminism." It feels more accurate.

If we define "feminism" (and I realize that is a massive oversimplification here)—as the pursuit of equality—then I suppose "hyper-feminism" is simply a poor choice of words used to mask the exploitation of those very ideals. I mean, fighting for expanded (or perhaps even total 😬 dominance) for women just can't be done under the banner of equality. It’s a logical contradiction, really.

It seems to me this might just be a form of sham feminism—perhaps "pseudo-feminism"?

I feel like pseudofeminism wouldn't even work if it actually tried, mostly because what people point to as male discrimination is really just the leftover baggage from traditional gender roles in our families and society.