العربية
中国
Français
Deutsch
Ελληνική
हिन्दी
Italiano
日本語
Português
Русский
EspañolNATHANSON AND YOUNG
Authors 'Paul Nathanson' and 'Katherine K. Young' are collaborators on a series of books on the subject of misandry, which they consider to be a form of prejudice and discrimination that has become institutionalized in North American society.
★ ''Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture''
★ ''Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination Against Men''
These are part of a projected trilogy which they entitle ''Beyond The Fall Of Man''. The book ''Spreading Misandry'' examines popular culture; ''Legalizing Misandry'' gives consideration to trends in law.
Nathanson and Young consider misandry to be "a collectively shared and culturally propagated worldview, not a personal emotion such as dislike or anger." They treat misandry as a form of sexism,, dualistic thinking analogous to other forms of prejudice such as racism, anti-semitism, and homophobia.
Nathanson and Young say that there is "nothing new" about this mindset, "only the names have changed."[1]
Nathanson and Young write "misogyny, unlike misandry, has been carefully monitored, declared politically incorrect, and publicly excoriated."[2] 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.[3]
They argue that men are stereotyped in various way that dehumanize them, and that would be considered unacceptable if applied to other groups such as women and minorities.
In researching their book ''Spreading Misandry'', Nathanson and Young observed the following types of man-hating behavior, which they see as prevalent in popular culture
In this form of misandry, sexism is applied to popular forms of humor. Men are routinely made the objects of steoreotypical ridicule in ways that would generate sustained outrage were the sexes reversed. Nathanson and Young note that feminists "may sometimes find it hard to laugh at themselves as feminists, though not as women, but seldom find it hard to laugh at men."
What Nathanson and Young call "misandric" feminists "... have convinced many people that women are somehow superior to men". Like other groups, feminists interpret differences between the sexes as "an excuse to assign superiority and inferiority" in the usual hierarchical fashion.
In this view, men are "not necessarily evil, just superfluous". Nathanson and Young give as example feminist writers like Andrea Dworkin, who urge as little contact as possible with men, separation of the sexes and indifference to men (rather than hostility toward men). Men are considered useless as lovers, husbands, fathers and as human beings.
To blame men for all of human history, "gender-feminists" use the conspiracy theory of history to claim that "all of human history can be reduced to a titanic conspiracy" of men oppressing women. Nathanson and Young note that "evidence is often deliberately falsified to make (misandric) political claims about gender". The result is that "men are collectively or vicariously responsible for most or all of human suffering".
In this form of misandry, men are shown as inherently evil while women are seen as inherently good or even heroic. Men are highlighted as the evil predatory sex that preys on an innocent, morally superior sex as represented by women. In essence, men are considered morally unredeemable beasts while women are considered morally redeeming human beings.
In Nathanson and Young's critique of Disney's 1991 film 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."[1]
Men are shown as demonic, like sinister subhumans and evil superhumans. Men are directly demonized by being portrayed as devils or as evil aliens. They are also demonized indirectly by being relentlessly identified with aggressive men whose actions "''either are not or cannot be explained entirely or adequately to viewers in rational terms''".
Nathanson and Young devote their 2nd volume, ''Legalizing Misandry'', to identifying trends in law.
Nathanson 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.
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".
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."''Spreading Misandry'', p. xiv They call this branch of feminism "ideological feminism."
Nathanson and Young argue that all schools of feminism are "gynocentric" (i.e. centered on the needs and concerns of women),[5] but that "being woman-centered, by definition, gynocentrism ignores the needs and problems of men."[6] In their view, gynocentrism doesn't necessarily to lead to misandry on its own, but "even though misandry is not an inherent feature of gynocentrism, it is an inherent ''possibility.''"''Legalizing Misandry'', p. 310 Nathanson and Young believe that gynocentrism can easily lead to misandry: "all it takes to produce misandry is the ideological proposition that 'they' are not merely irrelevant but inadequate or evil."
Nathanson and Young give two reasons for using the term ''ideological feminism'':
# to distinguish it from what they call ''egalitarian feminism''. Nathanson and Young argue that while egalitarian feminists "supported the reforms that had improved women's lives over the past century, they recognized that reforms carried too far were creating injustices for men and boys," and that "two wrongs, they agreed, did not make a right."''Legalizing Misandry'', p. xii
# to "link ideological feminism with other political ideologies on both the political left and the political right." Nathanson and Young offer this characterization of what they call ideological feminism:
They describe features (besides dualism) of ideological feminism:
★ Essentialism ("calling attention to the unique qualities of women")
★ Hierarchy ("alleging directly or indirectly that women are superior to men")
★ Collectivism ("asserting that the rights of individual men are less important than the communal goals of women")
★ Utopianism ("establishing an ideal social order within history")
★ Selective cynicism ("directing systematic suspicion only toward men")
★ Revolutionism ("adopting a political program that goes beyond reform")
★ Consequentialism ("asserting the beliefs that ends can justify means")
★ Quasi-religiousity ("creating what amounts to a secular religion")
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.
Other writers argue like Nathanson and Young that misandry is a feature of Western culture.
In ''Why Men Are The Way They Are'', Warren Farrell devotes a chapter to what he calls the "new sexism", sexism against men, Why men are the way they are, , Warren, Farrell, Berkeley Books, 1985, ISBN 042511094X which he later began calling "misandry." Women can't hear what men don't say, , Warren, Farrell, Tarcher, 1999, ISBN 087477988X Many members of the men's rights movement criticize misandry, such as Glenn Sacks.
Negative reviews for ''Spreading Misandry'' and ''Legalizing Misandry'' argue that the books have several flaws:
Nathanson and Young explain they are not social scientists, and their book is "based primarily on moral arguments"[7]; they propose "Someone in the social sciences should do this research"[8].
1. Spreading Misandry, , , , , ,
2. ''Legalizing Misandry'', p. xiii
3. ''Spreading Misandry,'' p. 4.
4. Spreading Misandry, , , , , ,
5. ''Spreading Misandry'', p. xv
6. ''Legalizing Misandry'', p. ix
7. ''Legalizing Misandry'' p. 347
8. ''Legalizing Misandry'' p. 438
★ ''Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture'' ISBN 978-0773522725
★ ''Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination Against Men'' ISBN 978-0773528628
★ ''Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture''
★ ''Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination Against Men''
These are part of a projected trilogy which they entitle ''Beyond The Fall Of Man''. The book ''Spreading Misandry'' examines popular culture; ''Legalizing Misandry'' gives consideration to trends in law.
Concept of misandry
Nathanson and Young consider misandry to be "a collectively shared and culturally propagated worldview, not a personal emotion such as dislike or anger." They treat misandry as a form of sexism,, dualistic thinking analogous to other forms of prejudice such as racism, anti-semitism, and homophobia.
Nathanson and Young say that there is "nothing new" about this mindset, "only the names have changed."[1]
Nathanson and Young write "misogyny, unlike misandry, has been carefully monitored, declared politically incorrect, and publicly excoriated."[2] 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.[3]
They argue that men are stereotyped in various way that dehumanize them, and that would be considered unacceptable if applied to other groups such as women and minorities.
Misandry in popular culture
In researching their book ''Spreading Misandry'', Nathanson and Young observed the following types of man-hating behavior, which they see as prevalent in popular culture
Laughing at Men
In this form of misandry, sexism is applied to popular forms of humor. Men are routinely made the objects of steoreotypical ridicule in ways that would generate sustained outrage were the sexes reversed. Nathanson and Young note that feminists "may sometimes find it hard to laugh at themselves as feminists, though not as women, but seldom find it hard to laugh at men."
Looking Down on Men
What Nathanson and Young call "misandric" feminists "... have convinced many people that women are somehow superior to men". Like other groups, feminists interpret differences between the sexes as "an excuse to assign superiority and inferiority" in the usual hierarchical fashion.
Bypassing men
In this view, men are "not necessarily evil, just superfluous". Nathanson and Young give as example feminist writers like Andrea Dworkin, who urge as little contact as possible with men, separation of the sexes and indifference to men (rather than hostility toward men). Men are considered useless as lovers, husbands, fathers and as human beings.
Blaming Men
To blame men for all of human history, "gender-feminists" use the conspiracy theory of history to claim that "all of human history can be reduced to a titanic conspiracy" of men oppressing women. Nathanson and Young note that "evidence is often deliberately falsified to make (misandric) political claims about gender". The result is that "men are collectively or vicariously responsible for most or all of human suffering".
Dehumanizing Men
In this form of misandry, men are shown as inherently evil while women are seen as inherently good or even heroic. Men are highlighted as the evil predatory sex that preys on an innocent, morally superior sex as represented by women. In essence, men are considered morally unredeemable beasts while women are considered morally redeeming human beings.
In Nathanson and Young's critique of Disney's 1991 film 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."[1]
Demonizing Men
Men are shown as demonic, like sinister subhumans and evil superhumans. Men are directly demonized by being portrayed as devils or as evil aliens. They are also demonized indirectly by being relentlessly identified with aggressive men whose actions "''either are not or cannot be explained entirely or adequately to viewers in rational terms''".
Misandry in law
Nathanson and Young devote their 2nd volume, ''Legalizing Misandry'', to identifying trends in law.
How misandry is hidden
Nathanson 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.
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".
Misandry and feminism
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."''Spreading Misandry'', p. xiv They call this branch of feminism "ideological feminism."
Gynocentrism
Nathanson and Young argue that all schools of feminism are "gynocentric" (i.e. centered on the needs and concerns of women),[5] but that "being woman-centered, by definition, gynocentrism ignores the needs and problems of men."[6] In their view, gynocentrism doesn't necessarily to lead to misandry on its own, but "even though misandry is not an inherent feature of gynocentrism, it is an inherent ''possibility.''"''Legalizing Misandry'', p. 310 Nathanson and Young believe that gynocentrism can easily lead to misandry: "all it takes to produce misandry is the ideological proposition that 'they' are not merely irrelevant but inadequate or evil."
Ideological feminism
Nathanson and Young give two reasons for using the term ''ideological feminism'':
# to distinguish it from what they call ''egalitarian feminism''. Nathanson and Young argue that while egalitarian feminists "supported the reforms that had improved women's lives over the past century, they recognized that reforms carried too far were creating injustices for men and boys," and that "two wrongs, they agreed, did not make a right."''Legalizing Misandry'', p. xii
# to "link ideological feminism with other political ideologies on both the political left and the political right." Nathanson and Young offer this characterization of what they call ideological feminism:
They describe features (besides dualism) of ideological feminism:
★ Essentialism ("calling attention to the unique qualities of women")
★ Hierarchy ("alleging directly or indirectly that women are superior to men")
★ Collectivism ("asserting that the rights of individual men are less important than the communal goals of women")
★ Utopianism ("establishing an ideal social order within history")
★ Selective cynicism ("directing systematic suspicion only toward men")
★ Revolutionism ("adopting a political program that goes beyond reform")
★ Consequentialism ("asserting the beliefs that ends can justify means")
★ Quasi-religiousity ("creating what amounts to a secular religion")
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.
The debate over institutionalized misandry
Other writers argue like Nathanson and Young that misandry is a feature of Western culture.
In ''Why Men Are The Way They Are'', Warren Farrell devotes a chapter to what he calls the "new sexism", sexism against men, Why men are the way they are, , Warren, Farrell, Berkeley Books, 1985, ISBN 042511094X which he later began calling "misandry." Women can't hear what men don't say, , Warren, Farrell, Tarcher, 1999, ISBN 087477988X Many members of the men's rights movement criticize misandry, such as Glenn Sacks.
Responses to Nathason and Young
Criticism
Negative reviews for ''Spreading Misandry'' and ''Legalizing Misandry'' argue that the books have several flaws:
Lack of theoretical connection
Inconsistencies in methodology
Failure to demonstrate misandry on a structural level
Nathanson and Young explain they are not social scientists, and their book is "based primarily on moral arguments"[7]; they propose "Someone in the social sciences should do this research"[8].
Praise
References
Citations
1. Spreading Misandry, , , , , ,
2. ''Legalizing Misandry'', p. xiii
3. ''Spreading Misandry,'' p. 4.
4. Spreading Misandry, , , , , ,
5. ''Spreading Misandry'', p. xv
6. ''Legalizing Misandry'', p. ix
7. ''Legalizing Misandry'' p. 347
8. ''Legalizing Misandry'' p. 438
Bibliography
★ ''Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture'' ISBN 978-0773522725
★ ''Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination Against Men'' ISBN 978-0773528628
This article provided by Wikipedia. To edit the contents of this article, click here for original source.
psst.. try this: add to faves
