UK Writer Discovers Misandry - Figures It's OK
July 2nd, 2009 by Robert Franklin, Esq.Again, I thought of my son's question. Why? Why are so many male characters in books such idiots?
That's what William Leith asks in this article that raises a lot of good questions, but ultimately gets sidetracked (Daily Mail, 6/2/09).
Leith has a young son to whom he reads. And recently Leith has had a revelation - his son's books are "full of bad male stereotypes - deadbeat dads, absent fathers, wimps and fools." Now, that's not exactly news to anyone but Leith. Although I'm not aware of studies done on misandry in children's books, there've been plenty done on other parts of pop culture that have been around for years. Nathanson and Young's Spreading Misandry was first published in 2001 and Jim McNamara of the University of Western Sydney did an extensive study of misandry on television in 2005.
So Leith's dramatic realization of the education he was giving his son through the books they were reading comes a bit late. But, in my opinion, better late than never. Leith, like all of us, is a product of his time. He grew up swimming in a sea of misandric social messages, so it's hard for him to stand outside his own cultural learning and understand that it doesn't have to be this way and indeed, for most of history, hasn't been.
Unfortunately, he turns to Susan Faludi for help - always a bad move. Here's a rule to live by: if you want to know something about the nature of masculinity or how to live as a man in today's world, don't ask a radical feminist. Take my word on that; it's an invariable rule.
For several decades now, feminists have been explaining to all and sundry what men are like, and, not surprisingly, they got it wrong. More to the point, masculinity, according to radical feminists, is a very narrow set of behaviors, most of them violent and all of them bad. Men are rapists and murderers. Men have all power but deserve none of it. Men's sole aim in any situation is to dominate, particularly in relationships with women; the masculine principle asks only one question, "who's top dog?" Etc., etc.
I can't begin to go into all the variations on the theme, but radical feminism always had a political purpose to its narrative of male brutality - to so narrowly confine our understanding of masculinity that it comes to be understood as something that is per se bad and therefore in need of change.
And that's precisely where Faludi is coming from. The only thing clever about her particular refinement of the feminist mythology is that she pretends to sympathize with men's plight. So according to her, men are (as feminists have always claimed and as she unquestioningly accepts) beasts and, since society, technology, etc. have so changed, male qualities of aggressiveness and violence are in little demand. Hence, men feel lost, at sea, and Faludi affects the sincerest sympathy.
All of which is perfectly self-consistent, and all perfectly wrong. The glitch comes in the conception of masculinity by radical feminists. If men actually aren't all rapists, if we really aren't the ravening animals that the Andrea Dworkin, Marilyn French and countless others would prefer us to be, the entirety of their carefully-constructed mythology falls to pieces. If people ever start to simply look at men, how we actually behave and what we accomplish, the feminist narrative will vanish like morning mist.
As I've said before, throughout history, people have understood men and masculinity far better than we do today. Humans, essentially in all places and at all times, have understood the richness and depth of men and our roles in society. Men have rightly been seen not only as warriors and kings, but as spiritual leaders, artists and healers. We've always been known as scientists and engineers, explorers, musicians and poets. None of that is new or unusual except to people like Susan Faludi and, sadly, William Leith.
Leith concludes by saying that men have "messed up. And everybody knows it." Hmm, really? Of course what he, and everyone else who spouts that line, forget is that in order to "mess up" one has to endeavor in the first place. Among the many almost uniformly ignored (these days) facts of human history is that, for the most part, women haven't attempted very much. And when you don't try, you don't fail. That's not a very positive way to live life, but there you have it.
Which brings us to whether one sees the glass as half empty or half full. Leith sees it as half empty. The world is undeniably a product of masculine striving, and men, according to him, have "messed up." Well, that's one way to look at things, and few would deny that, from the threat of nuclear holocaust to global warming, to AIDS, much is wrong with humankind.
But isn't it fascinating that the people who, like Leith, seem to see nothing but wretchedness and waste, are by far the most privileged and well-off the world has ever seen? I, for one, am finding it harder and harder to take seriously people in the U.S., Western Europe, Canada, etc., who have the highest standards of living, the best health,the greatest longevity, the best education and the greatest freedom, moaning like occupants of the ninth level of the Inferno.
Without overlooking all that is wrong with the world, I suggest that we look at all the things that are right with it too. Leith wails about the evils men did in the twentieth century, but overlooks everything from polio vaccine to the discovery of DNA to jazz music to solar power. He doubtless sees that Hitler and Stalin were men who wrought unspeakable horrors on humankind, but ignores the fact that plenty of women in Germany and the Soviet Union avidly supported their atrocities. Into the bargain, he shows no sign of knowing that, overwhelmingly, it was men who fought and died to defeat fascism and communism. Leith, like so many others, condemns all men for the wrongs of a few, but forgets to credit men for their manifold contributions to the welfare of all. That, Mr. Leith is not our fault, it's yours.
Leith begins by realizing some of the misandry in popular culture, but concludes that it's justified. It's not, unless you scrupulously ignore all the contributions men have made, and make daily, to the betterment of the human condition. And if you do that, it says a lot more about you than it does about men. Come to think of it, it makes you look a lot like the authors of the children's books Leith so reviles.
Thanks to Duncan for the heads-up.
"));
19 queries. 0.358 seconds.
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:48 pm
One of the best pieces you have written Robert.
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Leith sees himself in these negative misandrist roles. That is not my view. Is he giving up the computer, modern medicine, refrigeration, automobiles and airplanes, a high living standard and willing to live for the benefit of women in a fascist or communist state?
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:39 pm
"As I've said before, throughout history, people have understood men and masculinity far better than we do today."
Robert, a brilliantly written piece. I respectfully disagree with this one statement, quoted above. Ask ten people on the street about masculinity, and nine of them get it right. The radical feminist metanarrative is nonsense; it can't pass the straight face test, and it simply does not comport with the average person's everyday experience. That is why that movement is marginalized and is popularly believed to be populated by man-hating persons with no sexual desire to be with men. The only people who buy into it are those who do not, because they cannot, produce anything, or provide any service, of value to society, so -- they write. There is, after all, a market for leftwing victim mythologies, and these pathetic souls fill that need.
Even in family law court, the real danger to men is not marginalized feminism but antiquated notions of chivalry.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Anybody living in a bid city with big bookstores might want to try this experiment. I did it in Manhattan. Go to the "young adults" section (not for younger ages, different situation in this market). Ask the sales person to point out which ones include positive images of fathers. I did this several times in stores with HUGE selections of books for teens ("Young adult" in publishing lingo).
The answer: "Zero." Gee, what a surprise.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:56 pm
The Leith article is mostly well written and high quality journalism. It does at least raise the issue of how men are portrayed - the huge flaw of course is that he comes up with completely the wrong conclusion.
People shouldn't judge the Daily Mail too much for this misandry, generally speaking Men's Right's issues are the one thing they do exceptionally well. They can go a bit overboard sometimes, or even occasionally write sexist nonsense such as this, but nine times out of ten they are better than perhaps any other newspaper out there (proven by the number of Daily Mail articles that get a mention on this very blog).
The reason this specific article is so sexist is undoubtedly due to the target audience. If you look closely you'll see the article wasn't actually written for the Daily Mail proper, but for its "Femail" section - a magazine section aimed at women.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:01 pm
I, for one, am finding it harder and harder to take seriously people in the U.S., Western Europe, Canada, etc., who have the highest standards of living, the best health,the greatest longevity, the best education and the greatest freedom, moaning like occupants of the ninth level of the Inferno.
Great observation. It seems the people I meet who are most opposed to men's rights (or devoutly stuck in the feminist mantra) are the ones who are sitting higher and higher up.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:43 pm
"Take the American writer Susan Faludi. In her book Stiffed, she says that men have lost something essential to their self-esteem - their role as hunters and frontiersmen.
For the past 100 years or so, male qualities, she says, have been getting less and less important. These days, in our safe, modern, information-based society, we don't need the classic male qualities of brute strength and aggression. We don't need people flexing their muscles and jutting their chins out. No, what we need are female qualities, such as empathy and multi-tasking."
Really. That is news to me. In Australia over the past few years there has been a shortage of skilled manual workers, and the people who have been making the most money are miners, tradesmen, plumbers etc., while many people with university degrees have had lower earnings.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:54 pm
Young men today are commonly exposed to books like leith describes.Some of them in the home,purchased by parents not aware of the content,and some in the schools.Its very important to create an awareness in parents of what their sons may be exposed to in books they read or that are read to them.I dont have a son,but I have a nephew,and I have,with his parents approval,provided him with male-positive books,both fiction and non-fiction.His dad was surprised when I pointed out that many books aimed at young people and children are misandrist in nature.He has since thrown the bad books in his home away.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:57 pm
Nick S said...
I'll back you up here.
I'm a tax consultant. My employer has offices in WA. We charge 50% more over there because the miners are absolutely rolling in it. A couple of years ago the majority of those earning over $100,000 in my own client base - in eastern Aus - were machine operators.
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:13 pm
The fact this nonsense was written specifically for a female target audience speaks volumes at how people like him peddle their overboard message to impressionable women.
Masculanity and feminity complement one another. We live in a current society of slandering the former and impeding anyone from exploring it in a healthy, human way. All because they had a problem with the dark side so it justifies putting it in a cage and having it rot while feminity is trotted out to be the solution to the world's maladity. Last thing we need is another one of these articles masquerading as a "Positive message" for both genders.
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:34 pm
Robert: this was a very good post! Very well written and hits the nail on the head!
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:42 pm
Gwallan, perhaps you could do a survey among all those miners and tradies making six figure salaries and see whether they have any issues about feeling unneeded and redundant. lol.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:11 pm
Pierce says "The radical feminist metanarrative is nonsense; it can't pass the straight face test, and it simply does not comport with the average person's everyday experience."
On the contrary, I would argue that the feminists have been all too successful in getting their narratives accepted as fact by the population at large. Look at the way they have been able to suppress issues like DV against men or false rape allegations. Of course, you can only suppress reality for so long before the truth begins to become self-evident and so things are gradually changing.
Even though the bulk of the population does not identify with feminism or agree with them on everything, most people have still absorbed the idea that men generally get a better shake of things than women. Indeed, a lot of women I speak to tend to believe that women have things harder. And these women are usually fairly decent and reasonable people, certainly not vicious man-haters.
For you or I, the notion that women are worse off than men in today's society seems absurd and risible. But the majority of people are not that bright or able to see through the prevailing wisdom.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:31 pm
women have it better than men today....all kinds of govt support.....criminal and divorce court discount.....i started voting republican years ago...just to get away from the deomcratic party that is the home of the feminists...
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:44 pm
Unfortunately, he turns to Susan Faludi for help - always a bad move. Here's a rule to live by: if you want to know something about the nature of masculinity or how to live as a man in today's world, don't ask a radical feminist. Take my word on that; it's an invariable rule.
Oh you can ask but be prepared to go ask someone else afterwards.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:53 pm
Nick -- I think you are among the most astute commentators here, but I part company with you on this one. Nick says: ". . . I would argue that the feminists have been all too successful in getting their narratives accepted as fact by the population at large. Look at the way they have been able to suppress issues like DV against men or false rape allegations."
And I am glad you raised this point because your second sentence does not necessarily follow from your first, and I respectfully suggest your first sentence is incorrect. I stand by what I said: "The radical feminist metanarrative is nonsense; it can't pass the straight face test, and it simply does not comport with the average person's everyday experience."
Here is perhaps the single most important point that the men's movement fails to understand -- it is a point I remind my readers over at False Rape Society whenever I can: a noisy minority that is determined to push through legislation or other laws will have far greater success than a vast majority whose members do not take the issue personally.
Take false rape claims, for instance. If you took a vote and asked people if one-in-four women are raped in college, if women never lie about rape, if women should have no responsibility for rape when they drink, and on and on and on, I am convinced that everything we preach would win easily (and I don't say that lightly). The problem is that a determined, radical minority controls the discourse on this issue because no one else cares nearly as much about it. They are rabid, and they have Women's Studies departments as their "intellectual" firepower (please note the quotation marks).
Moreover, it is a terrible mistake to forget that they have the chivalrour and law and order-types on their side for DV and rape (groups that normally have nothing to do with feminism) -- Fed. Rule Evid. 413, the worst rule in the history of the men's movement by far, was passed NOT by feminists (many of whom opposed it!) but by law-and-order types, like Bob Dole. Without the law-and-order types, the rape shield laws would not have been passed, either. Chivalry, not feminism, steers Family Law Courts; it always has.
So, Nick, I believe, based on having followed one issue very, very closely, that feminist thinking is not, and never will be, mainstream. But that does not mean it is not dangerous to innocent men. It only means that we must somehow mobilize the "silent majority" to make these issue personal. And that, my friend, is why I think Glenn Sacks is a genius for latching onto the one issue with which no sane person can disagree -- father's rights.
July 3rd, 2009 at 1:13 am
feminists over the years have complained about everything....i even remember about 15 years ago....one of the men from the kids show sesame streat....was commenting on how he was pressured from feminists on the characters on the show...feminists have complained everywhere...maybe we could hire some of these hateful women called feminists and have them fight for mens rights
July 3rd, 2009 at 2:02 am
"a noisy minority that is determined to push through legislation or other laws will have far greater success than a vast majority whose members do not take the issue personally"
Especially when they mostly use bureaucratic back channels instead of lobbying or other methods which are exposed to more public scrutiny. Most of the anti-male legislation and other changes, have come about relatively unnoticed.
July 3rd, 2009 at 3:18 am
Pierce, you make some good points here. I will just clarify a few points.
It is true that it is often the case that noisy but well-organised minorities can get their way on issues even when the majority disagree with them. If you have a situation where 10% of the population support one position and 90% support another, if the 10% are more well-organised, motivated, or perhaps more likely to change their vote on that issue, they can often get their way over a silent majority. I have studied public choice theory and been attempting to establish myself as a political consultant so I am well aware of these dynamics. This goes a long way to explaining how feminists are able to get their laws on the books, but it doesn't quite address their influence on the wider culture.
As far as to what extent feminism has been embraced by the mainstream, I agree that radical feminism has never been accepted by most people and is generally regarded as a joke. And it is true that mainstream feminists have never convinced the majority of people to support all of their falsehoods hook, line and sinker.
But I would argue that feminists have still influenced mainstream opinion to a large extent, even if they haven't quite got people to accept everything they claim. If you conducted a random survey to find out what people think about certain feminist claims, I suspect you would get the following responses:
- most people would agree that false rape allegations are higher than 2%, but would heavily underestimate how common they are
- most people would agree that discrimination is not responsible for most or all of the gap between female and male earnings, but would agree that some of the gap is due to discrimination and that men generally get a better deal in the workforce
- most people would agree that women were historically more oppressed than men
- most people would agree that women are more likely to be the victims of various kinds of family or relationship abuse than men, even though they wouldn't discount male victims entirely
The point I am getting at is that even though feminists have not succeeded in getting people to accept all of their BS, they have still influenced public opinion in a direction that is more sympathetic to their claims.
July 3rd, 2009 at 9:12 am
"Most of the anti-male legislation and other changes, have come about relatively unnoticed." A very astute point by a very astute commentator, Norman.
The vast majority of DV and rape legislation that has passed has been enabled not so much by a feminist mindset but by the mindset typified by the macho guy who lives in the cul-de-sac who's ready to take on "anyone who messes with my family." Our biggest enemy is not marginalized feminism, it's chivalry.
If feminism were a predominant force for change in our culture, would the bridal, the make-up or the fashion industries be multi-billion dollar industries? The question scarcely survives its statement. The modern day manifestation of feminism doesn't like any of them. It also doesn't like organized and religion, to which most Americans have an allegiance. It doesn't like capitalism, which (the assaults by the current administration aside) isn't going anywhere. It doesn't like right wing talk radio, which rules the radio airwaves. It doesn't like women's magazines, since they highlight beauty tips and tricks to snare men. It doesn't like the print or electronic media, claiming ads and television shows objectify women. It doesn't like Hollywood, claiming that female characters are marginalized in the movies and that women directors are never given a fair chance.
In short, it is difficult to think of anything it does like. A lot of you know more about their twisted movement than I do, but it seems to me that it is not -- as many a young feminist would stomp her foot and insist, a movement designed to treat women as human beings -- it is a movement that preaches the Gospel of Anger and Hate and it is bent on upsetting pretty much everything. And very few women buy into much of it.
July 3rd, 2009 at 11:12 am
Nick, I think we are pretty much on the same page (thankfully -- if we weren't I'd be concerned about me).
Feminism is like tossing a little gasoline on the bonfire of chivalry that subordinates men to women. Feminism isn't the main problem, but it certainly adds to our problems.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Robert:
Did you send your post to Leith?
It would be good if he learned there is another explanation besides Faludi's
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Pierce Harlan:
Feminism is like tossing a little gasoline on the bonfire of chivalry that subordinates men to women.
I like this. And I may quote.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:42 pm
The author of this piece is a disgusting flake. How can anyone conclude that the media portrays men as idiots because, well, men are irrelevant.
The fact is that the world is in the dire straits it is in today precisely because men haven't been running it for the last 50 years - women, homosexuals, and other effeminates have been.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:53 pm
men over look too much....time to start seeing women as people not the innocent, sugar and spice victims
July 4th, 2009 at 1:44 am
Pierce says "The vast majority of DV and rape legislation that has passed has been enabled not so much by a feminist mindset but by the mindset typified by the macho guy who lives in the cul-de-sac who's ready to take on "anyone who messes with my family." Our biggest enemy is not marginalized feminism, it's chivalry."
There is a certain amount of truth to that. Indeed, much of the draconian treatment of men in the United States (such as jailing child support defaulters) is driven as much by a macho culture and belief in traditional gender roles as it is by feminist influence.
This is partly evidenced by the fact that in countries like Australia, the UK or Scandinavia the treatment of men in the family law system is not quite as draconian, even though these countries have been influenced at least as much, if not more, by feminism. Indeed men in these countries are generally put down and marginalised, but are amongst the free-est second class citizens in the world!
July 4th, 2009 at 11:26 am
Nick and Pierce,
I would also add that so long as men are not organized and women are that we will continue to have the sort of problems that we are having. A large or small well organized group will always be the most successful if they do not have any real opposition. Right now it is open field running for women.
I was watching C-SPAN yesterday. They were covering Senate hearings on the VAWA form June 10, 2009. Sens Lehy and Sessions were interviewed a half a dozen "women" who were pushing for everything from more funding to stricter penalties for stalking and rape. There was nary a man who testified. Lehy was a typical feminist and Sessions was a chivalrist and no one shared our concerns. While many of the women had touching stories it was one long sob story. At the end of the show anyone who was a casual observer whould have walked away with the impression that men commit all the violence and that women are the ones who are discriminated against 100% of the time. I kept wishing Glenn Sacks would come on and testify.
Being motivated is not enough. We need to be organized to be effective.