Misandry as a myth (an addendum)

My last blog, which caused some controversy, asked ‘is misandry a myth?‘ – I published it on hackeryblog as well and another contributor wrote a reply to it here.

I realise I wasn’t particularly clear about where I stood on the issue exactly, what I believed, or what sort of conclusion I came to. It was actually originally intended to be a piece mooting whether or not it could be argued as a myth in theory, rather than me actually arguing that it was or wasn’t. I wanted to just explore the arguments. As such it was a bit inconclusive or unclear what I generally thought.

However, I’ve now read a bit more on the subject, namely this piece at Adonis Mirror which looks at the etymology of misogyny, misandry and misanthropy. It helped me to realise exactly why the word seems a bit off to me – I’ll explain the arguments it sets out in the rest of this post. It basically argues that the word ‘misandry’ doesn’t work in the same way that ‘misogyny’ does. That is to say, misandry was invented by antifeminists as a way of turning the tables on women when they tried to assert themselves. Thus, the real myth here is that misandry as a word works as the exact opposite to misogyny – that the two words are equally weighted.

Of course there are people who dislike men, but when I talk about misogyny I tend to mean institutionalised, generalised misogyny. It’s not particularly that individuals are inherently misogynist or bad people – but that they have been brought up in a misogynist society and they have not questioned why they think women are their property, or why women can or should be humiliated sexually, etc. Furthermore, it is possible for women to be misogynistic, too. On the other hand, the accusation of misandry is only ever levelled at women, by men. So, misogyny is ‘hatred of women’, and misandry is ‘hatred of men by women’.

I have only ever heard it being said in arguments about feminism, when women are fighting too strongly against the oppression they face every day; when women want to try and assert themselves or try to explain how society oppresses women still, to a great extent – this is misandry. And these general statements – ‘I hate men’ etc – are turned into genuinely personal attacks by those men who hear it. Misandry enables men to feel that they are the victim in these situations, because it sounds like it means the same thing as misogyny, but the other way.

I also see a distinction between the two in that misogyny is usually aimed at an individual woman in particular. To me, it’s  the description of a woman being collectively oppressed by society, and by individuals too. Whereas misandry is usually used in the context of a conversation between two people. It’s one man being ‘oppressed’ by one woman because she wants to assert herself and fight back against the situation she’s found herself in. To me, “I hate women” seems to mean that individual women are hated. When someone says it to me, I genuinely get the impression that I, as a woman, come under that umbrella and that they have no respect for me. “I hate men” is, to me, clearly a generic term for ‘men’ as in, a group of men – society, the patriarchy, etc – not individual men that are encountered in everyday life.

To surmise, I have issues with the assumption that misandry is the other side of the coin when it comes to hating a particular gender. I believe it doesn’t come anywhere close to expressing the flip-side of what I see as institutionalised misogyny and a general loathing of women, or the belief that women get in the way, or that they should be used for sex, or are only useful for babies… I could go on and on about the many different ways in which I come across misogyny in my life but I won’t. The truth is, there are people out there who will dislike people based on gender, race, sexuality, etc – but I think we should be careful about what labels we assign to them. By all means, call people out when they are doing this, I just don’t think we should use words like ‘misandry’ because the word suggests more than it actually means.

Is misandry a myth?

I was talking about racism a while ago with a friend – the kind of friend who really makes you think; one that forces you question your world view, introduces new concepts and challenges you to stand up for your beliefs. I said that years back, when I was walking home from school, I was the victim of a ‘racist attack’. “What do you mean racist attack?” he said. I explained was walking home from school when I got called “white prostitute”, “white bitch” and more by a group of 3 black boys, only slightly older than me.

“That’s not racist abuse, Soph” he said. And he rationalised it for about ten minutes, and I sat there wondering why he probably had a point; it dawned on me that actually it probably wasn’t racially motivated. If I had been a white man, I would not have been shouted at – I am almost certain of this. Had I happened to have been non-white, would I have been shouted at? Possibly. And then I realised, the part that scared me the most, the part that really angered me about that interaction was that I was referred to as a ‘bitch’ and a ‘whore’ – words with sexual connotations. Words that belittled me as a woman. I realised, had they just shouted “Hey, whitey!” would it have bothered me? Nope.

Someone tweeted me the other day saying that if anyone accuses me of misandry (it happens to me a lot) then they are inherently sexist, no questions asked. So, this kind of idea got me thinking. Is it possible for an oppressed minority section of society (by any means – race, gender, sexuality etc) to be ‘hateful’ towards the other and for it to be as unacceptable as it is for those in the majority to do so?

The idea that misandry is not actually possible is not a new one. I suppose for me it makes sense most when you consider that every interaction between two people does not take part in a social ‘vacuum’ free of assumptions, pressures, individual background and history, and a whole host of other variables. If interaction took place in an ideal society, where “isms” did not exist; where individuals are treated as individuals, then clearly this would not be the case – clearly it would be misandrist to say certain things, and the word would carry as much weight as the term ‘misogyny’. But we live in a society where women are consistently put down, not by individuals, but by their culture; by most men they meet (without a thought as to that potentially being the case!) and where women are stereotyped as characters of fantasy… Princesses in pink, ruthless bosses, etc. When men are misogynistic to women, it contributes to a wide range of experiences carried down for generations and perpetuated throughout her life in everything she does. When the situation is reversed it’s hardly comparable.
Much like me and my ‘racial abuse’ story: Why would it matter for someone to call me white? I am. I’ve never had the burden of being oppressed because of my race. And so men have never had the burden of being born a woman.

Sociologist Allan Johnson says: “Given the reality of women’s oppression, male privilege, and men’s enforcement of both, it’s hardly surprising that every woman should have moments when she resents or even hates ‘men’.” This suggests that not only is it reasonably normal for women to feel exasperated at their treatment in society, but that misandry is actually a valid response to oppression that women face. And they are right to do so, as they are restricted in varying degrees from doing what they want to in the same way that men are allowed to.

What’s more, the accusation of misandry tends to come out when discussing feminism and womens’ issues. It’s more of a cynical attempt to turn the very real and very prevalent ongoing victimisation and subordination of women into ‘what about the menz?!‘ It’s a classic derailment tactic when you don’t have a leg to stand on: Turn a genuine social problem around and make it about you, personally. Ignore the fact that we are not discussing your personal issues here, and continue. Tell me how bloody unfair it is that some girl you met five years ago broke your heart, and doesn’t even send you Christmas cards anymore. What a bitch she was, eh?

The fact is that misandry is an insult resorted to when there is very little capacity for honest and truthful debate. Why, otherwise, would you offer such a retort that generally shuts down debate and, ironically, proves the point that women do not feel listened to? It’s a way that, to me, men signal that they are not willing to even see it from a woman’s point of view – it is the clue that they have lost the argument and they are no longer willing to engage. Shutting down debate because you are a woman and he is a man… It’s sort of like mansplaining.

In looking for definitions of misandry, even the Urban Dictionary definition of misandry points to Allan Johnson’s work, which posits that misandry has no place in a patriarchal society. He states that “mainstream patriarchal culture offers no comparable antimale ideology (for women), and so their resentment is based more on experience as a subordinate group and men’s part in it.” (From The Gender Knot: Unraveling our patriarchal legacy) In other words, we are oppressed by a group of ‘men’ (in very general terms) so we are entitled to dislike this vague group of ‘men’ – and it’s not misandry to do so.

I could probably write a lot more about this and I may well do in the future. But to surmise: to say that women are misandrists is to completely ignore the clear gender divides in society, ignore thousands of years of marginalisation, and ignore social and cultural traditions that seek to dominate women, sometimes in the most subtle of ways. And it makes you a twit to boot.

Catch up post

A few things I wanted to let you know – a couple of announcements, some requests, and shout outs. Figured it would be easier to put it all in one blog post than for it to get lost on Twitter.

Announcements

I got my degree results yesterday and I will graduate with a 2:1 degree. More importantly (to me), I got a first in my dissertation. Obviously the introduction has been changed from what is there, but I thought I would let you know – seeing as so many of you helped me out with it! So thank you very much.

I’ve also started cross-posting stuff from here over at Hackery Blog (which is great, and still accepting contributors if you’re interested) and this morning I wrote my first post on the phone-hacking scandal for a Twitter friend, @DanielFurrUK on his blog Too Liberal – hopefully I will post there more often.

Shout-outs

Two projects I’m hoping to get more involved in.

Firstly, there’s a mental health blogging project called It’s Not Just You. Once a week, over the course of a year, an interview will be published with someone who considers themselves to have had or has a mental illness. There are more details to it (you’d need to be okay with your photo and first name being published, etc) but I’m taking part and I thought I would ask if any of you would want to do it. If you want to participate, please let me know and I will put you in touch with the person who is running the project. (@ me on Twitter)

Secondly, I’ve been introduced to one of the co-founders of Youth Project UK and I thought it might be something a few people would be interested in. It’s in its embryonic stages at the moment but the intention is to campaign and try to address problems that young people face today.
One of the ideas they have at the moment is about getting young people to understand politics on their terms and really getting them engaged with current affairs, which is something that I’m really interested in and passionate about. On Dream School earlier this year, Alistair Campbell engaged the students by asking them what they care about – and then illustrated how it is political. It made them rethink what exactly politics is. This is the sort of thing that we should be doing in schools across the country – an informed population is important for democracy.

That Johann Hari thing

Last week, Brian Whelan discovered that Johann Hari had taken quotes from books and used them in interviews as if they were said to him. Hari issued an apology of sorts, on his website, explaining that where concepts and ideas are touched on in interviews he uses quotes from books written by the people he’s interviewed. Sometimes ideas expressed in writing are clearer than those expressed in speech. Fair enough.

But at the New Statesman, Guy Walters asked readers to do more research before accepting his apology. Guido Fawkes did more digging and found that Hari was kicked off his University newspaper for making up facts. Consequently, the Orwell Prize Council have been told by the Media Standards Trust that they should inquire into Hari’s 2008 Orwell Prize.

There’s been a lot of to-ing and fro-ing on the internet about this. Guardian writer Polly Toynbee joined in the fray:

Johann Hari, one the best, is no plagiarist. Save your wrath for the abominartions and harrassments by the Murdoch/Mail press.

And again:

Hari didn’t pretend someone else’s words were his own. Minor peccadillo, unwise, not wicked. Yes, I’d say same of any right wing writer too.

You would, Polly? Well that’s good. I wonder what she has to say about the fresh allegations that he took 42 quotes from a book and used them in his interview with Malalai Joya?

Hari’s defenders have claimed that critics are being homophobic; repeatedly affirm that Hari is “one of the good ones” and that as such he should be protected from criticism. Not to mention that he was only 23 when he started working in journalism. Those who criticise him say “If he was writing academically, he would be done for plagiarism”.

Both sides miss the point somewhat. 1] Criticism of someone’s writing does not automatically make it about their sexuality, or whatever it is about them that makes them a minority. 2] Yes, Hari is/was largely seen as a great journalist – as a prize-winning journalist we expect nothing less. It’s the last two points I want to look at.

Does being young when you start in an industry mean that you can, or should be able to, get away with this sort of thing? It is unprofessional at best. And at worst… Well. It throws every single journalist into doubt, and has repercussions for the industry as a whole. At a time when journalists are being scrutinised for phone-hacking allegations, and the public are losing faith in politicians and journalists, it is rather bad timing for someone to pick this up in Hari’s work.

The cries of “if he was writing academically…” have no grounds either. It’s true that he would not pass a degree if he did his work in this way. But he isn’t writing academically! He is writing for a national newspaper. As such, he has a duty to be more thorough and more transparent than any academic writing, because he has a wide and trusting audience. So instead of levelling it to “I would have been kicked off my degree if I did this” why don’t we look at it in context of, he is a practising journalist, who has a huge platform for his work and – it would appear – has lied in his work. Surely this is much more serious.

Both of these points about his age, and the lack of academic scrutiny lead me to the conclusion that far from being ‘useless’, journalism courses are actually more valuable than we first thought. Hari, who did not go to journalism college and learned ‘on the job’, clearly was not taught basic journalistic skills – some may call it common sense… But whatever it is, it was not encouraged or talked about in the workplace. This is worrying.

Does this mean that newspapers are not training their junior journalists well enough?
Are they doing the opposite – actively encouraging journalists to make up facts, or perhaps turning a blind eye to any indiscretions with regards to writing?

This raises further questions about the news industry, and the standard of journalism that we should expect.

Should newspapers be allowed to take on employees that have not been through rigorous journalism courses that teach them these basic skills?
Should trainee schemes be more closely looked at by professional bodies (the NCTJ in this case) to see that the schemes would be suitable for someone who is coming from a non-journalistic background? To check that those that go through it are up to scratch and meet good journalistic standards?

What’s more, is that if someone like Hari, who has won numerous prizes over the years, can fall foul of some seriously basic concepts of writing for a newspaper (credit your sources, explain that it wasn’t explicitly said to you, etc) – then what of the hundreds of other journalists out there who don’t win prizes? If he is the best we have, then we’re losing a battle of integrity.