Verified by 
The strange thing about misandry is its rapid rise. Until the 1950s men were generally respected, I think. They were the heroes who had defeated fascism, at huge costs to themselves. They were usually the sole providers: 80% in the U.S. in 1960, according to researchers cited in the Economist. They were “Father Knows Best” on TV, and doctors were especially beloved as do-gooders: “Dr. Welby” and “Dr. Kildare” were kind, compassionate and wise. Then in the 60s and 70s, feminism struck: Robin Morgan (men as the enemy), Marilyn French (The War against Women), Susan Faludi (The Undeclared War against Women), Betty Friedan (husbands as SS guards), Germaine Greer (“Women have no idea how much men hate them.”), Andrea Dworkin (banned as hate literature in Canada), Valerie Solanas (The S.C.U.M. Manifesto)…
Their work for equal rights, and equal pay for equal work, and against domestic violence is estimable of course; their misandry, not so much. But one is bound to hate one’s (alleged) oppressor, (a major redefinition of men) so perhaps the rapid rise of misandry is not so strange; though hatred and contempt are negative emotions.
“I see misogyny everywhere.” (So wrote one woman in response to my last post). I don’t. But admittedly we see what we look for. Misogyny is certainly out there, not least in some comments on my posts. But so is misandry. Fear is apparent in some female behaviour, from fear of underground parking to walking late at night to locking car doors at the approach of a male. Contempt is endemic in our institutions, as mentioned previously. Contempt is prevalent in the sitcoms which portray the men as fools, and socialize viewers into such beliefs. Contempt permeates the “humour” books: “Men and other Reptiles,” “Totally Stupid Men,” “Women are from Venus, Men are from Hell,” “Why dogs are better than men,” “Why cucumbers are better than men,”… and more. Despite searching I have not found similarly “humourous” books about women. Oh equity! The internet is different: vicious and anonymous.
I also see the wastage of men everywhere and most days, in the press and on the news, sometimes victim-precipitated. And the politics: The CBC announced today that Canadian women earn 81% of what men earn, and Time just reported that American women earn, on average, 78 cents for the male dollar, (“and the average American CEO makes 300 times as much as his [or her] lower-level employees.”) Neither made any attempt to explain that more women than men work part-time, and work fewer weeks per year, and fewer years per career, often due to maternity. Perhaps everyone knows this already; but if not, such bald pronouncements might lead many to believe that this pay gap is due to discrimination, and the news will generate or reinforce misandry.
And then there’s Bond, James Bond, the archetype of one style of masculinity: the hero and the warrior — patriotic, tough, ruthless and brave. Daniel Craig recently said that Bond was not a role model for men, because he is/was a misogynist. Well, I do agree that he is not a role model, but nor was the Marlborough Man nor the Old Spice Guy, but I don’t think he is/was a misogynist. He loves women, at least, he loves beautiful women; but they do have the unfortunate habit of getting killed, which tends to terminate relationships. In “Spectre,” which is Bond 24, Craig is back. The previous Bond movie, “Skyfall,” generated over $1 billion internationally. Men seem to love the movies: guns, car chases, explosions, adventure and Bond gets the girl, saves the world, and lives to fight another day. (I don’t know if women are quite as keen.) Those were the days, when men were men, and women loved them, and good triumphed over evil. But one has to wonder about the socialization impact of all that violence on men, not only Bond but also terminators, westerns, TV violence, video games. Collectively and cumulatively they almost seem to define men and masculinity, which is worrisome.
There is a lot of hate out there, and many dead men. Many men ignored in their distress, and many men who cannot find a place in society, under-educated and under-employed, part of the digital, class and race divides.
Some blame men for all their adversities of hatred, victimization and anomie: blaming the victim (Kimmel on dysfunctional men, Connell on “toxic” traditional masculinity). Some blame the systems: educational, political and economic, or capitalism (Farrell, Economist). Some blame feminism, committed ostensibly to equity but in reality (some say) committed to women’s rights not men’s, women’s health not men’s health (which is far worse), violence against women but not violence against men (which is far worse), women’s educational achievements which are far superior to men’s, and so on (Summers, Paglia, Hise). Perhaps it all began with the American anthropologist, Ashley Montagu and his book The Natural Superiority of Women (1956). Wisdom for some, no doubt, self-hatred for others. Though I think both Mary Wollstonecraft and Simone de Beauvoir got the analysis right, without the hatred or contempt or supremacism.
Misandrists, and the rest of us, know that there are villains out there, and bad men (and women). ISIS and the new terrorists are the latest in a long line of (mostly male) terrorists. The villains generated all those victims but also heroes, like Adel Termos, who tackled the second suicide bomber in Beirut as he was preparing to detonate. He was killed but saved the lives of dozens or even hundreds. In the U.S., school shootings continue, with almost all male shooters. In Canada 505 homicides were committed in 2013, the majority of the killers were male, and 71% of the victims were male: a number 2.4 times higher than the females. In Intimate Partner Homicide, the ratio was reversed: 56 women were killed (82%) and 12 men (18%). These three totally different types of violence demonstrate the commonality and ubiquity of (largely male) violence.
On the rise of female violence in the U.K., and the double standards in sentencing, please watch this documentary.
Misandrists tend to see only female victims, misogyny and a patriarchy oppressive of women. While there is some truth and validity here, my (controversial) take is that it was men (the patriarchy) who liberated women, upon request, with a minimum of violence, since it was the men who had the power. This was surely the greatest peaceful transfer of power in history. Misandrists also tend to forget that there are also male victims out there as well as female, victims of many of the same adversities, if usually in different degrees; and also that there are good men and heroes too. To explain misandry (or misogyny), look at the bad; to reduce it or eliminate it, look at the good: it’s everywhere.
It’s ironic. The new anti-male sexism is institutionalised in academia, in some feminism, not all, in media, in cartoons, sitcoms, T-shirts, gift shops, “humour” books. But not against homosexuals, for homophobia is not PC. And a snapshot: our student newspaper, The Link, in its November 10, 2015 issue, headlined on the front page, not Remembrance Day but: “Sexism Still Exists.” Fair enough, but it only discussed misogyny, which I thought was both ironic and sexist. Sad. It’s a long way to go to Tipperary and to equity.
So in post-modernity everything has been turned upside down. The old male supremacism from Aristotle, Genesis and Hesiod has been replaced in part by egalitarianism and relatively equal rights, and in part by misandry and female supremacism. And the old construction of homosexuality as a sin, a crime and sexually deviant has suddenly been reconstructed as neither sin nor crime nor deviant but within the range of normal sexuality. Now homophobia is the problem, and gays are not, but straight men are. It is PC to be anti-male (misandry) but not PC to be anti-gay. As the young lady who insisted on holding the door for me the other day remarked: “It’s a whole new world!” And as someone commented “About time too.” Well, yes, except for misandry.
There is a fair amount of literature on Bond, including
Tony Bennett and Janet Woolacutt, Bond and Beyond. 1987
James B. South and Jacob H. Held, James Bond and Philosophy. 2006.
Anthony Synnott, “The Beauty Mystique: Ethics and Aesthetics in the Bond Genre.” The International Journal of Politics and Culture 1990. 3:3:407-26.
On evil women, see:
Charlotte Greig, Evil Serial Killers. 2005.
Shelley Klein, The Most Evil Women in History. 2003.
Patricia Pearson, When She was Bad. Violent Women and the Myth of Innocence. 1997.
Adam Cotter, “Homicide in Canada 2013” Juristat 2014,
Other references, details and specific examples may be found in my book.
