This is an edited
extract from the conclusion of Spreading
Misandry by Katherine K. Young & Paul Nathanson
There have probably
always been feminists who have recognized misandry and been troubled by it. It
flies in the face of everything feminists have learned from the experience of
women and everything that some feminists claim about the innate decency of women.
But it is worth pointing out that this extraordinary phenomenon, the
dehumanization of half the population, has gone almost unnoticed not only by
the reviewers and journalists who work for the mass media but also by the
critics and theorists who write for academic journals. 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.
Until very
recently, moreover, the few feminists who dared to speak out against misandry
were usually declared to be enemies of feminism, or even enemies of women, and
thus effectively silenced. Most feminists deny misandry. When challenged, which
happens occasionally, they use three strategies: excusing it, justifying it, or
trivializing it.
Women who try to
excuse misandry acknowledge it as a moral problem. They do not approve of it,
but they are willing to tolerate it, at least for the time being. There are
several characteristic excuses. One of them is based on psychology. It is a
lamentable but inevitable fact, some observe, that most women see nothing wrong
with attacks on men, masculinity, or even maleness itself. People always find
it hard to feel sympathy for those they consider privileged (although that did
not prevent many women from feeling sympathy for the unhappily married Princess
of Wales, who had access to privilege and status beyond the wildest dreams of most
women or men). It is even harder for people to feel sympathy for those they
consider rivals or enemies.
Another excuse is
based on expediency. It is a lamentable but inevitable fact, some say, that
many women succumb to misandry. However, when feeling endangered, people tend
to close ranks. In a more secure future, maybe women will address the problem
of misandry. Maybe, or maybe not.
Underlying all
excuses for misandry is the tenacious belief that men have "all the
power." Resistance to men's studies, for instance, is often based on the
belief that only victims are worthy of study. The response among female
academics is often as follows: "Oh, please. Something like 90 per cent of
the world's resources are owned and operated by 3 per cent of the population,
all of whom are white males." Never mind that this 3 per cent is a tiny
fraction of the male population, even of the white male population. The
underlying assumption, in any case, is that men cannot be damaged by misandry.
Anyone who complains should "take it like a man." These women seldom
take seriously forms of power other than physical, political, or economic
power. The fact that many men do not have godlike power in any of these realms,
something anyone can observe merely by walking down the street or watching the
nightly news, makes no difference. Neither does the fact that not even
physical, political, or economic power can generate emotional invincibility
(assuming that this would be a good thing). They see men as a
"class," in any case, not as individuals or even as a class with a
"diversity" of "voices." Rendering women either unwilling
or unable to see men as fully human beings, as people who can indeed be hurt
both individually and collectively, might well be the single most serious flaw
in feminism. If men are truly vulnerable in any way, after all, then they can
surely be expected either to fight back or to withdraw sullenly when threatened
at a fundamental level. And the level of identity is about as fundamental as
you can get.
Women who
trivialize misandry belong in a second category, probably the most popular one
(although they could be included in the first category on the grounds that the
easiest way to excuse misandry is to argue that it is a trivial phenomenon.)
They sometimes acknowledge misandry as a moral problem but not a serious one.
They are willing to tolerate it, therefore, though not necessarily to encourage
it.
Both
unsophisticated women and ideological feminists are likely to say, for
different reasons, that pop cultural misandry is ephemeral and trivial; lapses
in good taste, common sense, or even common decency may be excused. But they
would never tolerate that argument in connection with pop cultural misogyny:
feminists have argued very effectively that there can be no such thing as
taking that too seriously. In fact, they have made popular culture one of the
chief battlegrounds in their struggle for women.
The world presented
in movies or on television, they continue, is merely a fantasy world. Well,
yes, but it is also a self-contained and often convincing simulation of the
real world. Indeed, movies fail at the box office and shows fail in the ratings
when they do not convince viewers of a likeness between the fantasy world and
the real one, when they do not encourage the willing suspension of disbelief.
With both this and their own intellectual or political interests in mind, those
who create these productions carefully select features of everyday life that
they consider significant and reject others that they consider insignificant.
Virtually nothing of the real world that appears onscreen, in theatres or at
home, is there by accident. Similarly, virtually nothing of the real world that
"disappears" onscreen is absent by accident. In other words, movies and
shows are never direct transcriptions of reality; they are always
interpretations of reality. What would otherwise be dry theories of interest
only to academics become powerfully evocative experiences of interest, if made
with skill, to all viewers. They are secular myths. Their moral value,
therefore, depends more on what kind of secular myth than on their correlation
with empirical information that can be verified by historians or social
scientists. It could argued that misandric movies such as those discussed in this
book are either immoral or unhealthy, for instance, because they encourage
people to stereotype men as evil, psychotic, or, at best, inadequate. The same
argument would apply to movies that stereotype other groups of people,
including women. But moral consistency is not always a high priority among
critics or, for that matter, the population at large.
When criticized for
their silence in the face of misandry, at any rate, these women usually argue
that only "radical" feminists on the "lunatic fringe" could
ever be found guilty of hatred. Others argue that misandry might have been
common in the past — in the 1980s, say — but is no longer. Maybe they actually
believe that. We have been told for decades that women are innately "nurturing"
beings and thus virtually immune to hating. Women who do hate must therefore be
rare anomalies, either the crazed victims of a male-dominated society or the
crazed victims of some psychological or physiological disorder. Theory
not-withstanding, the evidence presented to everyone in everyday life indicates
that women are no less capable of prejudice and hatred than men.
Women who try to
justify misandry are in an entirely different category. They do not acknowledge
it as a moral problem, but on the contrary see it as a moral and practical
duty. Thus, they are willing not merely to tolerate it but also to encourage
it.
Some women try to
justify misandry as a legitimate "choice" for women, a
"voice" for those who have been "silenced." Expressing
anger is useful, they believe, as one feature of collective therapy for women.
But they make the dubious assumption that misandry is about anger, not hatred.
Even feminists who disapprove of Andrea Dworkin's misandric claim that any act
of sexual intercourse with men amounts to rape, for example, often defend her
as someone who "pushes the boundaries" and thus promotes the cause of
women (albeit in a way that embarrasses some of them).
In its most
sophisticated form, this attempt at justification is couched in terms of
postmodernism. Once that became de rigueur among feminists, they could argue
that man-hating was merely one example of the "diversity" or
"pluralism" within feminism. According to one variant of this
strategy, misandry is not aimed at all men but only at those with "privileged"
status: rich men, white men, or any other group of elite men. Yet the
distinction is often more theoretical and politically correct than practical,
because they go on to argue that all men benefit from the behaviour of those
few. Implicit, therefore, is the belief that all men are intentionally or
unintentionally the enemies of Women and therefore legitimate targets of attack
in popular culture.
Other women try to
justify misandry on the purely practical grounds of political expediency. Even
passive sympathy with men in connection with misandry would be tantamount to
sympathy for the enemy or even, as one feminist put it in when her university
was considering the establishment of a men's studies program, sympathy for
Nazis. Whether in connection with movies and talk shows or greeting cards and
comic strips, moreover, misandry is seen as a legitimate attack on those who
foster misogyny. That is fighting fire with fire. They are not troubled by the
moral non sequitur. The continued existence of misogyny has nothing whatever to
do with the existence of misandry, after all — not unless two wrongs make a
right. To those who point out that misogyny is being fought directly through
legislation and indirectly through the manipulation of public opinion, some
would reply that it persists in the form of a "glass ceiling" (even
though the explanation of that problem does not necessarily involve misogyny)
or that it persists in non-Western countries and in non-Western subcultures
within the West. Once again, though, what has one thing got to do with the
other? How does the existence of misogyny justify misandry, whether in our
society or any other?
Still other women
try to justify misandry with something far more sinister in mind: revenge. They
argue that negative stereotypes of men are long overdue, because negative
stereotypes of women have been around for so long. If that argument is to be
taken seriously on moral grounds, those who use it would have to demonstrate
that revenge is synonymous, or at least compatible, with justice. But if
negative stereotyping is wrong when applied to women, how can it be right when
applied to men? Is there nothing inherently wrong with promoting contempt or
hatred for an entire group of people? If not, then things are right or wrong
only when it is politically expedient to say so. In addition, advocates of this
approach would have to demonstrate on purely pragmatic grounds that it is
likely to bring about the desired results. The practical problem with revenge,
of course, is that it quickly becomes a vicious circle. Once it is accepted as
a legitimate political device, there is no way to prevent or terminate
vendettas. And the current state of relations between men and women could well
be described in precisely that way.
Underlying all of
these attempts to justify misandry is a fundamental problem. Morality and
practicality sometimes seem incompatible. Some women believe that feeling or
expressing concern for men as the victims of misandry would mean indulging in a
luxury that women cannot afford — this despite the vaunted capacity of women
for compassion. But since when is compassion like money? Must it be carefully
budgeted by reserving it for one's own people? Must we avoid squandering it on
those judged "undeserving" for one reason or another? The fact is,
nevertheless, that the more compassion is "spent," the more there is
to go around.
Other women believe
that taking any problem of men seriously would mean taking a non-feminist point
of view. In fact, it would mean taking men as seriously as they see themselves,
as people. The worldview of ideological feminism, like that of every other
religion or movement, is all inclusive; nothing is beyond its purview. From
that perspective, it would seem that men can be understood best through its lens.
The trouble is that this form of feminism has no philosophical or moral
framework for the notion that women, like men, can succumb to sexism or that
men, like women, can be seriously damaged by hatred. To the extent that
feminists refuse to focus much attention on their own gains (mainly because
doing so would undermine their call for continuing political action), and to
the extent that they refuse to acknowledge the problems of men (including
misandry as the intentional or unintentional fallout from ideological
feminism), they are morally implicated in the problem. That perspective leaves
women largely unaccountable for their own behaviour.
What about the
reactions of men to misandry? Ironically, many ordinary men have a vested interest
in not seeing the pervasive misandry of everyday life. Misandry, no matter how
trite it might seem on the surface, is an attack on men. Even worse, from a
traditionally masculine point of view, it is an attack from the perspective of
women (though not necessarily by women). To acknowledge being under attack is
to acknowledge vulnerability. And to acknowledge vulnerability, for many men in
our society, is to deny their own manhood, even if doing so would be in their
own best interest. Being a man, they have been taught, means being in control,
not necessarily of others but certainly of themselves and their own fate. These
are often the men who find it easier to hide behind macho posturing than to
admit being threatened by women (or by other men presumably acting on behalf of
women).
Many men,
therefore, find that acknowledging the problem of rampant misandry is too
painful. Some ignore it. That usually happens at a subconscious level. Other
men, though, deny it. That happens on a conscious level among those who are
sincerely motivated by the need to ensure justice for women, not merely by the
pressure of political correctness. (Some of these men, unfortunately, actually
believe that men are morally responsible for most or all of women's problems.)
This could mean internalizing a negative identity, which would be both neurotic
and self-destructive. But "male feminists" have discovered a way of
getting around that problem: they maintain their self-respect not as members of
a group (men) but as individuals at its expense (as what could be called
"honorary women"). They expect nothing from other men, but they do
expect to be rewarded by women for being politically correct. Not many men are
impressed by the self-righteousness inherent in that position. They are alienated
not only from feminists in general, therefore, but from "male
feminists" in particular (even though many of them believe that men are
morally obliged to help create a more egalitarian society).
Most men, however,
are probably too confused to take a position specifically on misandry. They are
aware at some level of consciousness that something is wrong, but they are not
equipped to identify or analyse it. Even the few men who really are equipped to
do so often find it difficult to say anything in public. The taboo on male
vulnerability is not only experienced internally, remember, but also enforced
externally. Men who admit to feeling vulnerable are attacked as cowards, and by
no group more effectively than women. The ability to shame men has always been
among the most useful of women's weapons. In this case, men are shamed into
silence, a form of abuse that few women today would tolerate.
What is happening
to men as a result of this massive assault on their identity? How do men feel
about being portrayed over and over again as psychotic or sinister thugs? What
does it mean for a group of people to be identified as a class of victimizers?
We will not know the full effect of all this misandry for many years. Given the
predictable results of unleashing institutionalized anger against identifiable
target groups (which is hatred) and the unpredictable results of manipulating
collective guilt (which would be either destruction or self-destruction), this
is a questionable method for pursuing social change, to say the least. In the
meantime, one thing is certain: attacking the identity of any group of human
beings per se is an extremely dangerous experiment. People are not like rats in
a laboratory. They cannot be manipulated conveniently and safely with fairly
predictable results. Misandry could convince some men to seek new sources of
identity. To be effective, however, these would have to be chosen by men, not
dictated by women. At issue here is identity, in short, not sociology. It
should be obvious that most men consciously or unconsciously resent misandry.
That is because all people resent having their identity undermined or attacked.
Less obvious, perhaps, is the fact that misandry can backfire on women. What if
men feel the need to reassert their identity as men? Ironically, misandry could
encourage other men to reassert their identity as macho aggressors. Since our
society tolerates a high level of hostility towards men as such, why be
surprised when they resort to misogyny? That, after all, is a major feature of
machismo. And it is surely no accident that the resurgence of machismo in the
1980s — consider movies such as Rambo and Top Gun, which suddenly ended two decades of glorifying
the mentality of those men who had rejected both Vietnam and Wall Street —
coincided with the flowering of ideological feminism. This particular response
to misandry is clear. If men are told over and over again that they are not
only brutal sub humans in general but also hostile to women in particular, they
are likely to say, "So be it." Whatever their own inclinations, they
realize that even a negative identity is better than no identity at all. Thus,
when women think about misandry in popular culture, they should consider the
danger of self-fulfilling prophecies. What goes around, according to the old
saying, comes around. Or, for those who prefer biblical allusions, whoever sows
the wind shall reap the whirlwind.
That possibility is
often denied by those who view misandry as a political weapon to fight
misogyny. They argue that the immediate result might be polarization but the
eventual result will be reconciliation. In other words, the end justifies the
means. But if polarization can bring about changes for the better, it can also
bring about changes for the worse. How do we know that polarization will give
rise to reconciliation? We do not. At the moment, things are moving in the
opposite direction.
At any rate, the
possibilities for mutual understanding between women and men did not increase
in the 1990s. On the contrary, they diminished. Women such as Andrea Dworkin
openly advocated that women become vigilantes and murder the men who afflict
them. If any of this indicates the shape of things to come — and much of the
material we have analysed might have been produced by Dworkin herself — those
who hope for healing and reconciliation have every reason to look ahead with
foreboding. The popular culture of misandry had a life of its own in 2000.
Ideological feminists had to make only occasional appearances to ensure that it
stayed that way.
Fostered by
political correctness, misandry was the characteristic pattern of the 1990s. At
first, it was actively promoted in academic and political circles as
justifiable "anger" or a way of "pushing the boundaries."
And this tendency, directly promoted on talk shows and either directly or
indirectly in other genres of popular culture, quickly went mainstream. Popular
culture both mediated and fostered the teaching of contempt for men. This was
now the establishment. Androcentrism, often accompanied by misogyny, did not
cease to exist but generally went underground (although it probably declined
too, because many men really did take seriously the message that an
androcentric world was unjust to women). It surfaced only in the music of very
alienated subcultures, among individual men who "forgot" the new
rules, and in some traditional or isolated communities. To the extent that
gynocentrism and androcentrism can be described as worldviews, then the
dominant worldview of this period, at least in public, was clearly
gynocentrism. The fact that it has a dark underside has been ignored, excused,
and trivialized. The revolution has been successful, as Marxists would say,
because the new values are now so firmly embedded in everyday life that we can
hardly see them, let alone challenge them. That is why we have written this
book.
