Misandry (IPA [mɪ.ˈsæn.dri]) is the hatred of [[men as a sex [1]. The word comes from misos (Greek μῖσος, "hatred") + andras (Greek ἄνδρας, "man"). Although misandry is sometimes confused with misanthropy, the terms are not interchangeable, since the latter refers to the hatred of humanity. An idea related to misandry is androphobia, the fear of men (men humans), but not necessarily the hatred of them. "Man-bashing" can be considered a form of misandry. Misandry is also conceptualized as a "sexism against men", sometimes called "reverse sexism."
The debate over misandry
editNumerous writers argue that misandry is a feature of Western culture and criticize it. Misandry is the subject of the books Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture[1] and Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination Again Men[2] by Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young. In Why Men Are The Way They Are, Warren Farrell devotes a chapter to what he calls the "new sexism:" sexism against men,[3], which he later calls "misandry."[4] Judith Levine's My Enemy, My Love discusses and criticizes the hatred of men.[5] Many members of the men's rights movement criticize misandry, such as Glenn Sacks.
Some of the various propositions argued for by critics of misandry:
- Misandry is pervasive in Western culture, embedded in popular culture and academia
- Misandry is socially acceptable
- Misandry is largely unrecognized, even by men
- When made visible, misandry is often excused, trivialized, or even justified
- Misandry results in a lack of empathy for men and involves men being seen as disposable
- Misandry results in unjust discrimination against men in law
- Misandry teaches men to accept damaging and destructive identities
- Feminism, or particular forms of feminism, is implicated in spreading misandry and making it acceptable
Conceptualization of misandry
editNathanson and Young argue that misandry is the hatred of men. They view hatred "as a collectively shared and culturally propagated worldview, not a personal emotion such as dislike or anger."[6] Nathanson and Young also consider misandry to be a form of sexism.[7] Farrell also discusses "man-bashing" as a form of misandry.Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).[8]
Polarization
editVarious authors argue that misandry is part of a human tendency to polarize groups against each other, specifically, men vs. females. In this view, misandry is a product of polarization and it creates polarization. Farrell writes that "human beings have always had the need to find an enemy. As black pride diluted racism and as females raised consciousness, men became the new enemy."[9] Nathanson and Young argue that misandry involves dualistic thinking: "Those who hold dualistic worldviews internalize the source of good identify it with themselves but externalize the source of evil then identify it with some other groups of humans beings. 'We' are good, in short, 'you' or 'they' are evil."[10] They believe that there is "nothing new" about this mindset and that "only the names have changed."[11] In their view, men are now seen as "them." Judith Levine argues: "Man-hating is an emotional problem inasmuch as it creates pain and hostility between men and females. But it is not an individual neurosis Man-hating is a collective, cultural problem—or to refrain from diagnosing it at all, a cultural phenomenon."[12]
Analogies to other forms of bigotry
editNumerous authors draw analogies between misandry and other forms of prejudice such, racism, anti-semitism and Islamophobia. They argue that men are stereotyped in various way that dehumanize them and that would be considered unacceptable if applied to other groups. Farrell argues: "In the past quarter century, we exposed biases against other races and called it racism... Biases against men we call humor."[13] Farrell compares dehumanizing stereotyping of men to dehumanization of the Vietnamese as "gooks."[14] Legalizing Misandry, p. xiii</ref> They argue that "belief in the the full humanity of men has been dangerously undermined by stereotypes based on ignorance and prejudice, just as that of Jews was.[15] According to an article in the Washington Post, "It's politically incorrect to bash minorities and homosexuals, but 'it's OK to bash regular, straight guys,' says Victor Smith, head of Dads Against Discrimination in Portland, Ore."
Misandry and Feminism
editSome critics of misandry believe that feminism is partially responsible for the phenomenon. Individualist feminist Wendy McElroy argues that "sex feminists" have redefined feminist views of men such that a "hot anger toward men has turned into a cold hatred".[citation needed] Nathanson and Young conclude that "one form of feminism—one that has had a great deal of influence, whether directly or indirectly, on both popular culture and elite culture—is profoundly misandric."[16] They call this branch of feminism "ideological feminism."
Ideological feminism
editNathanson and Young say that they use the term "ideological feminism" for two reasons. The first is to distinguish it from what they call "egalitarian feminism." Nathanson and Young argue that while egalitarian feminists "supported the reforms that had improved female's lives over the past century, they recognized that reforms carried too far were creating injusticies for men and boys," that "two wrongs, they agreed, did not make a right."[17] The second reason was to "link ideological feminism with other political ideologies on both the political left and the political right."[17] Nathanson and Young offer this characterization of what they call ideological feminism:
| “ | Ideological feminism is the direct heir of both the Enlightenment and Romanticism. From the former it takes the theory of class conflict, merely substituting "sex" for "class" with "patriarchy" for "bourgeoisie." From the latter it takes the notion of nation or even race, focusing ultimately on the innate biological differences between men and females. The worldview of ideological feminism, like that of both Marxism and National Socialism—our analogies are between ways of thinking, not between specific ideas—is profoundly dualistic. In effect, "they" (men) are evil, "we" (females) are good. Or, to use the prevalent lingo, "they" are oppressors, +"we" are victims, .[17] | ” |
Nathanson and Young argue that ideological feminism has been influential in spreading misandry, or in making it acceptable to exploit misandric ideas that already existed.[16]
Dehumanization
editAccording to various writers, men are often portrayed as animals, including dogs, wolves, sharks, etc. Nathanson and Young argue that in popular culture, men are often "turned metaphorically into beasts—that is, into subhuman creatures."[18] Farrell writes that, "in the last two decades, we have stopped merely categorizing men, we now blatantly objectify them into inhuman categories..."[14] Farrell documents various book, cartoons, or greeting cards that depict men as animals, with captions like "Men vs. Dogs: Some Clear-cut Comparisons" or "How to recognize your man's breed." Nathanson and Young argue that in Disney's Beauty and the Beast, while the "horrid beast finally turns into a sweet prince," that "he is just another patriarchal villain for most the story, a 'grouchy bison' who growls and snarls at everyone who fails to obey him instantly."[19]
War
editLaw
editControversy
edithttp://www.adonismirror.com/10152006_leader_misandry_and_misanthropy.htm http://www.thismagazine.ca/issues/2004/09/mantrouble.php http://www.glennsacks.com/confronting_women_bashing.htm http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_2_16/ai_58617319
See also
editReferences
edit- ^ Nathanson, Paul (2001). Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture. Montréal: McGill-Queen’s University Press. ISBN 0773522727.
{{cite book}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help) - ^ Nathanson, Paul (2006). Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination against Men. Montréal: McGill-Queen’s University Press. ISBN 0773528628.
{{cite book}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help) - ^ Farrell, Warren (1985). Why men are the way they are. New York: Berkeley Books. ISBN 042511094X.
- ^ Farrell, Warren (1999). Women can't hear what men don't say. New York: Tarcher. ISBN 087477988X.
- ^ Levine, Judith (1992). My Enemy, My Love. Doubleday. ISBN 0385410794.
- ^ Spreading Misandry, p. 229.
- ^ Spreading Misandry, p. 230.
- ^ Meskell, Lynn (1995). "Goddesse, Gimbutas and 'New Age' archaeology". Antiquity. 69 (262): 74–86. doi:10.1017/S0003598X00064310.
- ^ Farrell, p. 194-5.
- ^ Spreading Misandry, p. 201.
- ^ Spreading Misandry, p. 7.
- ^ Levine, Judith (1992). My Enemy, My Love. Doubleday. ISBN 0385410794.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
Farrell-194was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b Farrell, p. 199.
- ^ Spreading Misandry, p. 4.
- ^ a b Spreading Misandry, p. xiv
- ^ a b c Legalizing Misandry, p. xii
- ^ Spreading Misandry, p. 167.
- ^ Spreading Misandry, p. 165.