|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Misandry (IPA [mɪ.ˈsæn.dri]) is the hatred of males as a sex,[1] as opposed to misogyny, the hatred or fear of women. Misandry comes from misos (Greek μῖσος, "hatred") + andras (Greek ἄνδρας, "man"). Although misandry is sometimes confused with misanthropy, the terms are not interchangeable, for the latter refers more generally to the hatred of humanity. A concept related to misandry is androphobia, the fear of men, but not necessarily hatred of them. The opposite of misandry is philandry, the love of men. Misandry is not discussed very often compared to misogyny. The prevalence and extent of misandry is still disputed.[citation needed] Research into misandry is fairly recent and therefore controversial. Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young, authors of the 2001 book Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture, are primarily responsible for the introduction of the concept of misandry as a serious (though controversial) term in gender politics in popular and academic discussion. Judith Levine calls misandry "the hate that dares not speak its name."[2]
Political Definition of Misandry
Nathanson and Young assert that political correctness, academic deconstructionism, and "fronts"[specify] are strategies that feminists use to make the world safe, and therefore promote a misandric worldview.[citation needed] They posit that the underlying ideological feminism is an ideology that derived from Marxism and romanticism, with class and nation replaced respectively by gender" to perpetrate the hatred of men as a class. Individualist and feminist Wendy McElroy believes that "gender feminists have redefined the view of the movement of the opposite sex" as "a hot anger toward men seems to have turned into a cold hatred".[3] Men as a class are considered irreformable, 'all' men are considered rapists, and marriage, rape and prostitution are seen as the same things. In agreement with the assertions of Nathanson and Young she states "a new ideology has come to the forefront... radical or gender, feminism", one that has "joined hands with political correctness-a movement that condemns the panorama of western civilization as sexist and racist: the product of 'dead white males.'"[4] Types of misandry in popular cultureNathanson and Young, in their book Spreading Misandry, noted the following types of man-hating behavior, which they see as prevalent in popular culture; it is listed in order from what they consider most benign to most malignant. While Nathanson and Young attempt to show the full scope of misandry, other independent authors have weighed in as well with similar but more specific observations.[citation needed] Therefore, for brevity, this section uses Nathanson and Young's classifications and characterizations as a preliminary guide within which to contain the anecdotal observations of other authors.
Intimate, parental, and familial misandry by women
Levine classifies the following steoreotypical men as targets of women's misandry within intimate relationships:
Within the family, she asserts that father-abandonment of daughters, familial gender standards that discriminate against daughters and paternal neglect of daughters are a root cause of misandry in women. She also shows fathers, brothers and husbands as misandric targets of the (modern) feminism that smashed the "Family" so that a "politically conscious battalion of daughters" could replace male familial roles "by banding together as sisters" to "run everything" by themselves. Misandry and misogynyChristina Hoff Sommers notes what she calls a 'corrosive paradox' of feminism that she considers misandric: what she believes is an idea "that no group of women can wage war on men without at the same time denigrating the women who respect those men." She says, "it is just not possible to incriminate men without implying that large numbers of women are fools or worse." To Hoff Sommers, women who respect men are seen as being 'in the camp of the enemy" by what she has coined "gender feminists". Therefore, "mysandry becomes misogyny," perpetrated by feminists whom Hoff Sommers sees as a radical and unrepresentative minority of both feminists and women. (Christina Hoff-Sommers, 'Who Stole Feminism', 1995, p 256) Degrees of misandryMisandry may be exhibited to differing degrees. In its most overt expression, a misandrist openly hates all men simply because they are 'men', exhibiting 'masculine' traits that are not to the speaker's liking. Stereotypically, these 'masculine' traits include machismo, emotional bluntness, and a loutish demeanor. Or, a misandrist might simply hate men for a perceived common physical attribute, such as large muscles, a large gut, or copious body hair. Other forms of misandry are more subtle. Some misandrists simply hold all men under suspicion, or hate men who do not conform to one or more acceptable categories. Entire cultures may be said to be misandrist if they treat men in ways that are perceived hurtful. Misandry is often not recognised, since it exists under many different guises, disguised and qualified. {Judith Levine, 'My Enemy, My Love', 1992} Misandry is a negative attitude towards men as a group, and as such need not fully determine a misandrist's attitude towards each individual man. The fact that someone holds misandrist views may not prevent them from having positive relationships with some men. Conversely, simply having positive relationships with some men does not necessarily mean someone does not also hold misandrist views. Misandry can also be used as an excuse to attack feminist groups. Rush Limbaugh has attacked the women's movement claiming it as an excuse to give men the disadvantage. Responses to misandryNathanson and Young believe that "many ordinary men have a vested interest in not seeing the pervasive misandry of everyday life." For a man to see himself as a victim of attacks by women he would have to acknowledge his vulnerability and therefore become less masculine. This creates a double-bind for men vis a vis confronting misandry because men "who admit to feeling vulnerable are attacked as cowards, and by no group more effectively than women." Nathanson and Young assert that women can easily shame men into silence, "a form of abuse that few women today would tolerate." Thus despite what Nathanson and Young argue is a "massive assault" on men's identities, most men remain too confused to honor their unconscious knowledge that something is wrong. Most are not "equipped to identify or analyze" misandry. Those few men who are able to see misandry for what it is are rarely rewarded and are usually shamed for speaking about it in public. Although, Men's Rights movements appear to be on the rise.[citation needed] According to Nathanson and Young, until very recently the "few feminists who dared to speak out against misandry were usually declared enemies of feminism, or even enemies of women, and thus effectively silenced." They state that "most feminists deny misandry" and that "when challenged" most feminists excuse, justify, and/or trivialize misandry. They note that "despite the vaunted capacity of women for empathy, only a few feminist publications, albeit ones of profound moral significance, have so far expressed sympathy for men in general, except as a way of encouraging men to believe that feminism is in their own interest." Man-hating is an emotional problem inasmuch as it creates pain and hostility between women and men. But it is not an individual neurosis ala 'Women Who Hate Men and the Men Who...' Man-hating is a collective, cultural problem — or to refrain from diagnosing it at all, a cultural phenomenon — and men, as the object of man-hating, are part of it too. CriticismNancy Lewis-Horne criticises Nathason and Young's views on misandry, saying it is "seriously flawed in three important areas: lack of theoretical connection, especially in its use and misuse of feminist theory, of weak methodology, and its inability to link culture with structure". She goes on to challenge certain points stated in the book: "Contrary to the authors’ comment that work on gender means work about women, there is an excellent literature examining the social construction of masculinity." Lewis-Horne also states that "The methodology that selectively examines some examples of popular culture and not others and then asks us to accept their interpretation as relevant and not others severely limits the potential of the research findings. Nathanson and Young promote sexism and gender polarization in their oppositional approach to gender."[7] See also
References
Bibliography
News articles
|
Sites |
Searched sites for "Misandry" |
|
No sites found. |
Sorry, no matching site records were found. |
Want your site listed here?
|
||||||||||||||||||
