misandry doesn't exist

[MitchierInge]

not in a sort of homologous (if that's the word?) way to misogyny anyway - society just isn't that evolved yet

[thunderboltsandlightning]

The fundamental difference between misogyny and so-called misandry, is that misogyny at its base is supported by widespread male violence against women and girls simply for being female.

There is no equivalent "misandry". Badly written sitcoms don't cut it.

[MitchierInge]

if a self-confessed medical misogynist says I have such problems who am I to disagree?

I don't know, probably do have some problems, just don't think misandry is the word for them. I would call it learning, adapting and surviving or something like that.

[jamma111]

In the context of the US only, Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young's trilogy of academic books have widened the debate about 'misandry' somewhat;

Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination Against Men (2006) - concerned with perceived changes to the legal structure in the US

Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture (2006) - concerned principally with the perceived academic teaching of misandry in the US

Sanctifying Misandry: Goddess Ideology and the Fall of Man (2009) - concerned with the increasing conspiracy-theory-driven nature of US feminism (i.e. the manner in which 'patriarchy' is becoming interchangeable with 'The Illuminati' often referenced by the likes of David Icke). Dan Brown's 'The Da vinci code' is extensively deconstructed (!)

These books, though academic, aren't particularly popular in some circles. Some US libraries have attempted to ban them. I have only read one - Legalizing Misandry, and the amount of research that went into it is extraordinary; though reading the footnotes on occasions takes as long as the main pages, which isn't too impressive. Perhaps the worst thing is that Nathanson and Young find it easy to quote people hoisting themselves by their own petard; some of the statements made by folk claiming to be feminist defy belief.

Ultimately although reading the book was a hard thing to do, I don't think it changed my view about feminism. It certainly changed my view about American feminism though, which I now see in a somewhat different light. I think British feminism would be best to identify itself as a 'European' feminism and keep clear of the US version altogether. I also find that I am now willing to challenge misandrist behavior as much as mysologist behavior.

These books though are US-centric. I don't think the UK is anywhere near going as wonky as the American path.

[MitchierInge]

what is misandrist behaviour, and how do you challenge it?

[jamma111]

Well I have one recent example I am pursuing at present.

The journal Trouble & Strife unfortunately hosts numerous misandrist statements, often negating its sensible messages in favour of sheer paranoid hate. Here's one from December last year;

Liz Kelly (T&S 33) has criticised the re-emergence of a professional and popular discourse on ?paedophiles? which sees child sexual abusers as abnormal, as ?other?, thus disguising the connections that they have with ?normal men/normal masculinity?.

What the papers say

Now I know that some folk like to go through torturous processes to avoid the obvious - like the above statement was 'satire' or whatever. And I know that the subject of alleged statements accusing 'all men are rapists' cause some grief, even on this foum. This one though steps beyond that; defining all men are pedophiles. Hurrah for Trouble & Strife!

But, I am though willing to read any explanation, however absurd, to indicate that the quote above isn't an effort to brand ALL men as pedophiles, and pedophile behavior to be a key part of ?normal men/normal masculinity?

Strangely enough the journal hasn't been willing to-date to respond to my correspondance.

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

I would say that, although it is deeply wrong to brand all men as paedophiles, the actual victims of paedophilia are children. Both boys and girls. And it is part of a wider culture in which some people have arrived at the idea that their sexual urge is more important than the body and hurt of another person. IMO that is an idea that is deeply rooted in misogynistic culture. The fact that adult men are collateral damage of this is horrible, but they are not the primary victims of paedophilia and I do not think paedophilia is about misandry.

[jamma111]

^Liz Kelly (T&S 33) has criticised the re-emergence of a professional and popular discourse on ?paedophiles? which sees child sexual abusers as abnormal, as ?other?, thus disguising the connections that they have with ?normal women/normal femininity?.

No problems with that then I guess.

Any other interpretation is obviously 'stupid'.

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

Do large numbers of women paedophiles (a pretty small subset of all paedophiles) have similarities to 'normal' women?

I think - not knowing anything about Kelly as a writer - that she might be thinking of the way that there are men who rape underage girls, who are not men who have a compulsion towards sex with children, but who have had what seem to be normal adult relationships and then decide to (quoting from Gail Dines who quotes such an individual) 'try something new'.

[KRITIQ]

Jamma, Trouble and Strife magazine ceased to publish 10 years ago and even then, it had a very small circulation. It was the antithesis of mainstream and certainly had extremely limited influence on public discourse at the time. I doubt its circulation was more than a couple hundred copies a pop. It's barely remembered now, so surely you could come up with something more recent to "prove" your claims that misandry (as a widespread threat to men) exists.

And, did you actually read Hilary McCollum's article? I don't know when it was originally published, but interestingly I remember a convo with her probably 15 years ago on some of the themes in this article - what the media chooses to report and not report, how the mainstream press chooses to portray perpetrators and victims of gender-based crimes depending on their perceived value (e.g. prostitutes, promiscuous women, unfaithful wives, etc. not as "worthy" of victim status as those seen as "innocent," and making excuses for male perpetrators of violence against women deemed "less than innocent.")

However, the flip side is the media portrayal of perpetrators who are "beyond the pale" as being uniquely evil, demonic, less than human, and men who sexually abuse children tend to fall into the category (unless they take the stand that it was "justified" because the child looked older, behaved provocatively, etc.)

One problem with this is it fails to recognise that most perpetrators of child sexual abuse don't have a special satanic appearance or behaviour. Something like 90% are parents, kinship carers, step parents, etc. and the vast majority are male. In other respects, they don't stand out from any crowd of ordinary men.

So, the media likes to focus on the small percentage of child sexual abusers who aren't related to or known to their victims and sets them up as icons of evil. At the same time, the media fails to give coverage to the vast majority of cases where the perpetrators were in a position of trust, often within the family, and not so easily portrayed as evil or demonic. And, it's not in the interest of the mainstream media to point out the threats to children, or to women, within the home and traditional family set up. So, the perpetrators of child sexual abuse we DO hear about tend to be portrayed as uniquely deviant, as aberrations.

There is absolutely NOTHING in that article that suggests that McCollum, Kelly or anyone believes that all men are evil, bad, abusers, paedophiles, etc. It does state that the media tends to either diminish the significance and gravity of male violence to women and children OR portrays those who fit the mould of "deviant" as being uniquely evil and inhuman, thus nothing like "normal humans" and something we don't need to worry about.

It also suggests that this is highly misleading because male sexual violence against women and children falls at one end of a continuum of male attitudes and behaviours that regard women and children as inferior to men. At least some sections of this continuum of attitudes and behaviours is if not overtly endorsed, at least not universally condemned by our society. And, the boundary between what is acceptable and not acceptable seems to be pretty variable and porous.

[KRITIQ]

The article you linked to refers to an earlier article by Dr Kelly that's not on the website, so unless it can be found elsewhere, it's not possible to get the full context for the statement you keep quoting.

However, I don't see why there is a problem with it, or how this could be seen as evidence of misandry in ANY form.

Liz Kelly (T&S 33) has criticised the re-emergence of a professional and popular discourse on ?paedophiles? which sees child sexual abusers as abnormal, as ?other?, thus disguising the connections that they have with ?normal men/normal masculinity?.

From what I know of Dr Kelly's extensive writing on the issue, I think her article would have been critical of those who try to frame the practice of seeking or having sex with children as just a "lifestyle choice," or perhaps an "illness" worthy of understanding, sympathy and treatment. I believe her argument (and mine) would be that while there may be a small number of adults who have or want to have sex with children, or non-consenting adults for that matter caused by recognised psychological or physiological conditions, that's not the case in the vast majority of cases.

More often, it is perhaps an extreme extension of "male entitlement" where perpetrators feel justified in their actions either because they minimise and deny what they do (e.g. it was just a cuddle), minimise or deny the impact of their actions (e.g. she came onto me, he liked it, etc.) or both.

And, your problem with that analysis is what exactly?

[jamma111]

Immediatelty the word 'paedophile' is used, we move away from recognition of abusers as 'ordinary men' - fathers, brothers, uncles, colleagues, neighbours - qand are returned to the more comfortable view of them as 'other', a small minority who are fundamentally different from most men.

Page xv. From the Forward to Child Sexual Assault: Feminist Perspectives, by Dr. Liz Kelly, book edited by Pat Cox, Sheila Kershaw and Joy Trotter - Palgrave 2001.

Oh, go on. Provoke me to quote from Sara Nelson's essay in that book, with her reference to Joan Coleman's essay.

Go on, do it.

[MitchierInge]

I suppose in an ideal world abusers wouldn't be so adept at masquerading as 'ordinary men' and we could all avoid them.

If we are going to derail can we talk about something a bit nicer?

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

Can I just be gobsmacked again that you're still pushing, as evidence of misandry, a crime that has actual, real, defenseless victims, both boys and girls?

D'you not feel, I dunno, a tiny moral twinge?

[jamma111]

Oh no!

It must be satire.

Unfortunately Child Sexual Assault: Feminist Perspectives (2001) doesn't make for comfortable reading. And unfortunately I have access to plenty of Dr. Kelly's work, and that of Sarah Nelson going back to the mid-1980s to this century, and of course Catherine Itzin.

But do I really want to provide evidence of misandry? Not really, it seems these authors provide the MRA's with as much ammunition as they need (Dr. Kelly and the now-deceased Itzin a-plenty).

But if you take the time to determine me stupid, I'll take the time to copy relevant extracts from their own work.

A combination of the CWASU web site and an Athens login is a dangerous thing...

[jamma111]

LRDtheFeministDragon

^Can I just be gobsmacked again that you're still pushing, as evidence of misandry, a crime that has actual, real, defenseless victims, both boys and girls?

D'you not feel, I dunno, a tiny moral twinge?^

What, are you trying the 'you must condone pedophilia' number?

Wasn't that tried on Professor Jean La Fontaine by Beatrix Campbell OBE some years ago?

We've gone through the usual routines now;

• You must be stupid
  
• You must be a paedo
  
  What next?

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

Are you wilfully trying to misunderstand me, jamma?

No, the fact you object to any men ever being associated with paedophila did suggest to me you don't think you're doing anything to condone it. However, that doesn't make using a crime agaisnt children as a central argument that misandry exists any more ok, or any less entitled.

HTH.

[KRITIQ]

Jamma, take off your hair shirt for pity sake. No one is accusing you of being a paedophile except perhaps in your own mind. However, the fact that you are drawing bizarre, unsubstantiated assumptions and conclusions from texts based on information that is clearly not there, might lead some to wonder if you were lacking in some kind of comprehension or analytical faculties (or in lay person's terms, "stupid.")

I don't believe you are stupid. I believe, however, that you are deliberately misrepresenting writings to suit your own objectives.

The comment from MitchierInge (Tue 10-Jan-12 14:30:28) really sums up the point that the point of the article from Hilary McCollum that you linked earlier and the statement from Dr Liz Kelly quoted within it. Basically, if men who commit child sexual abuse were really so abnormal, so deviant, so demonic as the mainstream media, popular culture and even some professionals (e.g. psychology, sociology, criminology, etc.) would have us believe, you could spot them miles away and avoid them.

But, they're not like that. They are very adept at passing for "normal" men because that is how they are able to perpetuate their abuse, mostly undetected. Surely you get that concept.

If, however, you deny that, then you are starting to sound rather like an apologist for perpetrators of child sexual abuse, imho.

And please, spare us the agonising adjectives about the material you are reading. Folks who research the phenomenon of child sexual abuse read and those of us working with young people hear harrowing content ALL THE TIME and don't suffer from bouts of the vapours every five minutes. Folks do it because they give a damn, because they want to help those who've experienced abuse and especially want to be part of preventing other boys and girls from suffering in the future.

Next to this, I'm afraid your tutting and hand wringing sounds a bit self-indulgent and whiny, imho.

[MitchierInge]

they ARE normal men

in the same way as the Nazis were normal people

normal people do atrocious things, men either get caught at these things more often than women or they actually do horrible things more often (or some combination) but how is not pretending otherwise misandric?

[Himalaya]

Misogyny, to me I think exists at two different levels.

There are misogynists - people who hate women - you know them when you meet them (...or have to work with them...). Its an unpleasant personality trait probably to do with insecurity or somesuch thing but shouldn't be acceptable behavior anywhere. (...and institutions that condone it are condoning bullying)

Then there is casual/unthinking misogyny - offensive cultural portrayals of women, nasty t-shirts and jokes etc... that some people who are not misogynists, think are edgy and funny, but in most cases because they haven't really engaged their brain and are a bit emotionally immature anyway.

I am sure that misandry exists as a parallel to both the two levels - people who hate men, and people who make stupid jokes and generalisations about men.... but the context in which this takes place is different. Just like people making stupid jokes and generalisations about black people is different from people making stupid jokes and generalisations about white people - given the history and reality of oppression and discrimination.

I don't think that 'its misogyny' is a good explanation for complex phenonmena like domestic violence, rape, sex specific abortion, the status of women, lack of reproductive rights, child marriage of girls to older men, trafficking and exploitation of women etc....

When these things change - become more common or less common over time, or we compare different countries etc...we can see all kinds of systemic factors - economic, legal, cultural etc.. which make change happen. Its not just ' ah, well men must hate women more in India than in Sweden' or 'men must have hated women more in 1950 than they do now'.

And when people with privilege resist change that would undermine their privilege... that's something different again (and not necessarily sex specific)

By wrapping the whole thing up as 'misogyny' I think that is where you fall into the trap of people who would argue that there is a parallel situation in misandry.

[jamma111]

Fascinating stuff. Got some typing to do.

I hope you are aware of the source material from those mentioned as being folks who research the phenomenon of child sexual abuse 'cos unfortunately I do, and political, gender and religious dogma dominates any such discourse.

You perhaps didn't read the quotes in themselves;

(the) re-emergence of a professional and popular discourse on ?paedophiles? which sees child sexual abusers as abnormal, as ?other?, thus disguising the connections that they have with ?normal men/normal masculinity?.

And what drives this? Well many professionals are shedding the political, gender and religious dogma that dominated such research in the past and are genuinely working on identifying what factors do see pedophile men (and increasingly in recent years) women.

Catherine Itzin had a weakness for employing Ray Wyre in her work (Home Truths About Child Sexual Abuse: A Reader) features his work in profiling pedophiles - identifying them as being those who try to fit-in but can nonetheless are not the same as ordinary males/boys.

She though had different opinions and was inclined to the view that all men, by default are paedophiles,

And unfortunately that view was first established back in 1987 in a pre-Clevland scandal conference;

The crucial difference between the feminist approach and the family dysfunction model is that we argue that it is not in families that have 'gone wrong' that child sexual abuse occurs, but in traditional families, carried out by ordinary men. Neither the individual man, nor the family are seen as 'sick' or 'dysfunctional'.

(from Child Sexual Abuse: Towards A Feminist Professional Practice Report of the Conference held by The Child Abuse Studies Unit 6,7 & 8 April 1987 at The Polytechnic of North London)

You'll no doubt remember the Cleveland RAD Scandal of 1987. I certainly did (being a social worker at-the-time). Men were supposed to be systematically buggering and sodomising their children without leaving any injuries, forensic evidence, disclosures, confrontations and justifiable homicides by their girlfriends and spouses...

Cleveland of course begat the satanic ritual abuse frenzy (recent British history is fascinating) and the efforts to literally demonize poor families and portray men as satanists and women as witches (take a look at Valerie Sinason's 1994 book Treating Survivors of Satanist Abuse, adored by Sarah Nelson in Child Sexual Assault: Feminist Perspectives if you fancy some jaw-dropping not-light-reading.)

It all seems so far back, but unfortunately dogma trumps reality and the religious and politial/gender dogma hobbled research into child sex abuse for over a decade. Only now are the lost decades being recovered-from.

[MitchierInge]

it puts me in mind of those weird claims that women are perpetrating domestic violence almost as often and severely as men, but these men don't seem to be hospitalised or buried quite as often - their bodies must be very well hidden

[MitchierInge]

aren't buggery and sodomy the same thing though?