MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

Is Misandry in Society becoming excessive?

Filed under: Gender Politics,General — Bruce S @ 12:15 pm Sat 7th July 2012

Back in January 2010; the “Futurist” published an expose on misandry; entitled The Misandry Bubble. Today a poll is being taken by the author asking one simple question; Is Misandry in Society becoming excessive? If you would like to cast your vote; then the link is here:
A First Quarter Poll on the Misandry Bubble

For those who haven’t read the original misandry bubble article; there’s an imbedded link to it in the poll. Well worth a read.


  1. ANY amount of misandry in society is excessive – period.

    Comment by Skeptic — Sat 7th July 2012 @ 12:22 pm

  2. since i first went through family court and then started reading this site and the links provided it opened my eyes and misandry is everywhere

    Comment by Ford — Sat 7th July 2012 @ 12:49 pm

  3. Any sexism is excessive, I have seen women screwed in the Family Court by smart talking lawyers also! It is everywhere!

    Comment by Gwaihir — Sat 7th July 2012 @ 2:05 pm

  4. Quite right all. The questions in the poll were strange, implying that misandry has to be as bad or worse as misogyny before it might be considered excessive. The poll is well-intended but imagine if someone asked whether hatred towards Asians in society was becoming excessive, and the answers included “No, Asians and gays are hated to the same extent so that’s ok” and “No, Islanders still have it worse than Asians”.

    Let’s see, excessive must be when 50% of the population express that hatred. No wait, it might be 10%. Oh, that’s right, the official figure is 90%. Until then, no worries. That settles it then.

    Comment by Hans Laven — Sat 7th July 2012 @ 11:17 pm

  5. I think the poll makes sense. There was always some level of misandry in society, since men were the ones who died in wars, and every single society would send cohorts of men to die before any women met harm.

    But now things are becoming worse than normal. That is why it is a ‘Bubble’ as the author indicates. After the bubble pops, there may still be some misandry, but less than now (which is really getting ludicrous).

    Comment by Jimmy — Sun 8th July 2012 @ 4:42 pm


    sick sick sick…

    Comment by kirannjiharr — Mon 9th July 2012 @ 3:53 pm

  7. #6..the mother seem to have decided she wants a new life and dosent want the father involved as he has now become a hindrance to her plans so she has to make up lies to try and get him out

    Comment by Ford — Mon 9th July 2012 @ 7:10 pm

  8. I noticed a disturbing acitivity. I was waiting on the street for my buddy to pick me up, I was in front of a daycare facility. I saw a line of kids at a slide. A boy was about to ascend, when a girl came up, yanked him off the ladder, and started climbing up in front of everybody. The boy went up, pulled her down, whereupon she started hitting the boy. Out of nowhere descended the female harem leader, yanked the boy off, and made him sit, screaming, on a stoop. It then occured to me, gee, how much of this goes on, and into what grade level? Seeing as there are now known pedophile female teachers, is the real reason perhaps favoritism from the female teachers? What if they just don’t find the young boys attractive? Will there conditioning and brainwashing actually confirm their beliefs that males are actually incapable of learning unless they please a woman’s eyes? Three days ago, I was in an isle of a grocery, comparing prices on a shelf, when this 12 yr old voice popped up suddenly “Mommy, why ins’t he just moving out of our way?” I looked to my left, a mom with her two twins had parked a half inched from my shoe, and they were fanned hand in hand across the isle. I got some dirty stare from their mother. I didn’t move out of the way. I’m tired of being bullied by females. And, lastly, credit must be given to the reality that yes, some women out there are as flabbergasted and appalled by these disturbing issues. They are genuinely ignorant of what is going on until confronted, simply because they do not think like these hate-mongerers we are up against. I say this, because approached civily, I find they often band together with us, because this misandry can wreck them as well. We all should remember Rosa Parks, she did give a speech in 1997. I swear, with all the violence (yes, violence) levelled at me, I feel like I am Mr Parks. I was out of the way in the aisle, plenty of room for them to move around in a civilized way.

    Comment by John — Sat 13th October 2012 @ 12:20 pm

  9. Oops, I accidentally obscured a sentence, sorry. It had to do with boys’ declining grade scores and fropping out, whilst girls suddenly are the only intelligent species coming out of school.

    Comment by John — Sat 13th October 2012 @ 12:24 pm

  10. Slam Dunk.
    Is there a woman in NZ so splendid as the Canadian GirlWritesWhat?

    Comment by Skeptic — Sat 13th October 2012 @ 12:31 pm

  11. Here’s one to ponder: BIIAA…somehow stands for the “Girls are Better” Fund drive. Canvassers on city streets, soliciting donations that are going to be given to African mothers, for education. Sounds like a nice idea on the surface, yes? And personally, I’m appalled at how developed countries have neglected to help that continent with water, hydro, sewer, etc.. Yet, the discursive side to the reality, is that these cash starved women will quickly realize that if they give birth to boys, they will not get education and money. If abortion is an option, betcha they try for baby girls as much as possible. These dirty underhanded stunts of deliberate sexism are a worldwide war on males, yes? And yet, funding for better education for girls only is ok in some womens’ eyes.

    Comment by John — Sat 13th October 2012 @ 1:57 pm

  12. Looks like China might avoid the mistake of Western nations giving women too much power.

    If this is feminism, give me more.

    Comment by Skeptic — Sun 14th October 2012 @ 2:53 pm

  13. Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination Against Men.
    Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young,
    Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press, 2006. 650 pages

    This book is, in a word, courageous, in one sense in particular: it exposes how ideologies, “isms”
    based on an assumed superiority in which one group feels entitled to power over another, have no
    place in the quest for social justice, equality among human beings, because a state of inequality is
    inherently undermining of human well being. The example presented by Paul Nathanson and
    Katherine K. Young of McGill University, in their book Legalizing Misandry, is that of ideological
    feminism. This is the second book in their trilogy, Spreading Misandry being the first and Transcending
    Misandry the forthcoming concluding volume.
    Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination Against Men, despite
    its breadth, may have only skimmed the surface of the topic of institutionalized hatred against men
    in North American society, a “top-down” phenomenon with ideological third wave feminism as its
    source. Yet the book brings the full range of the current anti-male discourse in US and Canadian
    academic and legal circles into the spotlight, examining, among otherissues, sexual abuse, violence
    against women, workplace harassment, child custody, prostitution and pornography, and human
    rights as entitlements.
    Each of these topics is dealt with in a remarkably detailed and thoroughly-referenced manner. The book presents a bleak outlook. In the years since its publication, however, there is mounting
    evidence of a recognition of the flaws of ideological feminism, of the inherent misandry and undermining
    of gender equality that Nathanson and Young expose, and policy shifts away from an ideological
    feminist position: examples include the rise of equal shared parenting legislation in
    numerous US states and abroad; the recognition of the centrality of both parents in children’s lives
    in discussions about the need for universal child care benefits; and beginning attempts at inclusion
    of men’s studies in university curricula, all hopeful signs of the decline of “superiority feminism” in
    favor of a more egalitarian orientation in the realm of gender relations.
    Despite the significant contribution made by this volume in the field of genderrelations, the
    work of Nathanson and Young has largely been discounted by and excluded from the curricula of
    departments of women’s studies and genderrelations in North American universities. Yet in regard
    to challenging dominant assumptions in these fields, their book is without parallel. In the chapter
    on child custody, for example, the authors expose the false assumption that fathers’ legal claims are
    unwarranted because most have been largely uninvolved in the routine daily care of their children;
    the book details fathers’ valiant efforts to share parental responsibility despite the many constraints
    to their active involvement. The outcome is bleak for many responsible fathers, however, as they are
    relieved from their parenting duties by misguided sole custody decisions made by judges, in the absence
    of abuse, based on the belief that children are better off with only one “primary” parent when
    parents disagree on post-separation parenting arrangements. The authors are clear about the injustice
    of removing loving parents from their children’s lives in such cases, and as in other chapters,
    present a viable social policy alternative, in this case in the form of a legal presumption of joint custody
    or equal shared parenting after parental separation.
    The equally contentious issue of family violence is dealt with squarely as a phenomenon that
    implicates both women and men, as both are capable of abuse, which is manifested in different ways.
    The separation of violence against women from other forms of violence is ill-advised, according to
    the authors; as Don Dutton and others have shown, men are represented as primary perpetrators
    of physical abuse in intimate relationships although data from meta-analytic studies show otherwise,
    and indirect aggression is scarcely mentioned in the literature, although prevalent in research on
    aggression. Physical violence directed towards children is actually more likely to be mother-perpetrated.
    The authors discuss the issue of legal abuse as a particularly injurious yet common example
    of abuse of men in our society.
    In regard to the many instances of gynocentrism, the “self-centred counterpart of androcentrism,”
    discussed in the book, and institutionalized misandry in the form of discrimination in favor
    of women in a variety of social and legal institutional contexts, one suspects that Legalizing Misandry
    is only partially exposing the “emperor with no clothes.” Although the authors note that misandry
    co-exists with misogyny, in factthe two feed off and reinforce each other,resulting in a hostile climate
    between women and men in North American society. The alternative of formal, not substantive,
    equality between men and women, is explicitly ruled out by ideological feminism, with its emphasis
    on “unequal treatment of (assumed) unequals,” expressed by groups such as the (Canadian) National
    Association of Women and the Law. The lack of recognition that only the equal treatment (of “unequals”)
    can lead to equality, which is equal respect forthe basic needs of all, reinforces the existing
    polarization between the genders and the current “gender wars.”
    Ideological feminism, as distinguished from egalitarian feminism, the book argues, continues
    to dominate US and Canadian academic circles, resulting in a conformist and censorious atmosphere
    intolerant of diverse perspectives, and making a sham of “academic freedom.” Legalizing Misandry
    scrutinizes the research cited by academic proponents of ideological third wave feminism and finds
    much of it seriously flawed and lacking in credibility. The authors identify biological determinism
    as the “received wisdom” underpinning such a world view, nested within a rights-based discourse
    that pits women and men against each other. Most alarming, however, are the ways in which judges
    and legislators are basing their decisions and policies on such misguided ideological principles, supported
    by groups such as the Legal Education Action Fund, National Action Committee on the Status
    of Women, and the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, political advocacy groups
    within government itself, on the assumption that women constitute a “victim” class (and thereby
    devalued as inherently weak), and therefore need and deserve special protection, including infringing
    on the rights of other citizens. In fact, although “officially” a victim class, as men are the “oppressor”
    class, few segments of North American society currently have more political clout than
    The book’s most important contribution is its discussion of the price we have paid for our
    passivity in the spread of ideological third wave feminism, an ideology that has become firmly entrenched
    and institutionalized, undermining the quest for equal and respectful genderrelations and
    resulting, the authors argue, in moral damage to society as a whole. We live in a society characterized
    by an increasing gulf and conflict between women and men. There are many whose interests are
    furthered by perpetuating and exacerbating the conflict, including those whose academic and professional
    careers are dependent on continuing polarization. Most men and women, however, including
    those subscribing to the ideals of equality feminism, are seeking egalitarian relations and
    mutual respect between the genders. Misandry has not replaced misogyny, as the authors claim.
    The two feed off and exacerbate each other. To the degree that men and women are mindful, respectful
    and responsible vis-à-vis the essential needs of each other, the gender-based wars may be
    brought under control. A responsibility-to-needs, as opposed to a rights-based, framework is fundamental
    in this regard.
    In sum, the book is clear in its ethical bottom line: the good end never justifies the evil
    means; that is, sacrificing the needs, interests and rights of some people to serve the interests of
    other people. All of the worst human catastrophes have been done in the name of some greater
    good, in the cause of one or another ideology which we believe to be good and right. What is rarely
    discussed is the interrelationship of means and ends, and the fact that unequal treatment can never
    lead to equality, but only to disregard of the needs of certain groups and individuals, a “power-over”
    mentality, and an ideology based on a sense of entitlement-and ultimately hatred of the other.

    Edward Kruk is an Associate Professor of Social Work at the University of British Columbia

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Mon 14th September 2015 @ 8:08 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Skip to toolbar