Just wanted to spitball a bit and hear your thoughts about how invisibility of men’s issues might work.

It seems that unlike misogyny, the invisibility of misandry is inscribed into misandry itself. I have always had trouble expressing this when talking about men’s issues, because it is a paradox . A. The stats on men’s issues show men are getting screwed. B. There are no serious stats on men’s issues because men are getting screwed. So screwed that there is no real field of study, nor a government department.

We all know that sexism against men is seen as an oxymoron, hard to picture, that is at the root of the sexism itself.

My question is, does invisibility go through stages, or have levels to it? We might know that native Americans are doing worse than African Americans, with a few exceptions. But i doubt this is in mainstream consciousness.

Yes, black people outnumber natives several to one, but non Americans are very aware of black issues in the US, while many wonder if native Americans even still exist. Within the US, i would wager that black issues are 1000 times more known than native issues. I think this is not because of the population differences, but because black people simply have more capital and political leverage of every kind.

I would assume that people are not usually worried about racism against Native Americans, the 40 year life expectancies and toxic waste dumps, missing murdered men and women, the sterilization in the 1970s, etc ., because their problems are so invisible they have not yet risen to that level. Part of red marginalization is invisibility itself. A crime was committed back when you existed, but now you are gone, except the 5 minutes a month people remember you never left.

Now, I don’t know that much about black American history in the south. But my assumption, correct me if I’m wrong, is that at some point in the 20th century almost nobody was studying black peoples’ issues, all knowledge was practical and theoretical within the black community. There was little to no broader concept of these issues or of racism against Black people, because tragically, it was a given that to society, Black people just didn’t matter. Black uprisings were seen as unrelated to human dignity. And I am assuming that at some point, perhaps let’s say, maybe the 1950s (?), this changed to denial of racism against Black people, or more commonly, justifying racism against Black people. Racism was now imaginable -whether white southerners denied it , or approved of it- but it was on the map. And inquiry into it started from new quarters, and in new forms. (I know the US communist party was doing this with black groups in the thirties, but i assume little results appeared until the fifties and sixties. )

And then some decades after that, we get society realizing racism against Black people is a not only real, but serious and non blacks don’t want to be publicly associated with it, whether you are racist, not racist or totally apathetic. No more open justification in polite society, at least among public servants, without risking backlash. Civil rights laws and affirmation action are well established.

Race is different than sex, disanalogous. But i am interested to understand what happens in between invisibility and mainstreaming.