Saturday, October 12, 2013

Misandry - the acceptable face of discrimination

Most people reading this blog will, I imagine, be familiar with the term 'misogyny'. It's strict definition is a hatred of women, though its meaning has been broadened in the mainstream media to include any act of discrimination by males against females. It's something which ageing male television presenters seem to be accused of on a fairly regular basis, and of course a misogynistic attitude is wrong, plain and simple.

Who among you, though, is familiar with the term 'misandry'? Scholars of ancient Greek will recognise the fragment of 'andros' in there, the word for 'man', and so it should take no great leap of the imagination to discern that we're discussing a 'male equivalent of misogyny'. That is, after all, the term I put into Google to find 'misandry', though in my defence it's such an underused word that none of the spell-checkers on my computer include it in their standard definitions.

This is wonderful news, isn't it? A term so underused that it doesn't even appear in the dictionary. Surely, then, incidents of misandry are so rare as to be impossible to find. I wish it was so.

Misandry is woven into the fabric of modern popular culture. Don't believe me? Well, I can give you four common examples, and I'd be really surprised if you haven't come across at least one of these in the last six months.

  • Diet Coke ads
    This is one which just keeps running and running, and has even been updated recently. If you're not familiar with the concept, allow me to explain; it's not very sophisticated... The idea is that a bunch of modern career ladies are working hard, and deserve a break. What better than a Diet Coke, because of course women are always worried about their weight, right? This advert is guilty of misogyny too!

    But of course, it's not that simple, because by some convoluted and not quite believable reason, there's a hunky guy strutting around their office performing some manual task or other, over whom they drool, thereby objectifying him in a manner which would cause outrage if the gender roles were reversed. But it's OK, because it's just a man, and they don't mind being made into sex objects, right?
  • Silly Daddy Pig
    Peppa Pig is a very important part of many young girls' lives. I really can't object to the program as a whole - it's harmless, quite funny and moderately educational, and not even too annyoing for the parents (well, me at least. Can't speak for everyone here). However, one character takes a misandric bullet in almost every episode. Daddy pig is clumsy, lacking in common sense, prone to outbursts of anger and/or grumpiness, and generally seen as another dependent for Mummy Pig to look after.

    Wow. Stereotyped much? This falls squarely into a view of the world where the mother in any given modern nuclear family is the capable one, the one who manages the family, and the father is just another kid, albeit bigger. See also, the next point, regarding pharmaceutical adverts.
  • Pharmaceutical and Pharmacy adverts
    What happens when winter comes? Daddy and the kids all mope around the house dying from a minor case of the sniffles, whilst mummy, who is suffering from real flu, period pains (their cliché, not mine) and possibly malaria, runs around doing everything. This usually includes the Christmas shopping, and Christmas dinner. All while holding down a big job in the city, making nativity costumes and curing cancer in her spare time. And how does she manage this? Well, apparently it's by taking Nurofen products and shopping at Boots.

    Really? Doesn't work that way in my house, and I suspect not in yours either. Mums are often amazing, don't get me wrong. But dads can be OK, too; they don't have to be (and often aren't) infantile dependents.
  • Twilight moms
    Possibly the most disturbing case of double standards in recent times is the habit of middle-aged women screaming like pubescent girls over the teenage characters in the Twilight film franchise. I've used the American spelling of 'mom' since it's typically a US trend, though not exclusively so.

    Imagine this was a group of middle aged men getting hot and bothered about a teenage girl in a film. In public. With signs. And screaming. OK, that last part wouldn't happen anyway, one suspects, but just the very idea would have the Daily Mail up in arms about perverts. It's OK the other way around, though.

    Double standards are discrimination by exclusion - why should one group of people be allowed to behave in a certain way when another cannot? Or, rather, why should these women be allowed to get away with behaving in this (quite frankly disturbing) manner?
Why is this such an important issue? After all, haven't men been treating women in this way for centuries? Isn't it time for a bit of payback?

Well, no, not really. You see, even if misandry is deemed acceptable (and it certainly seems to be, according to mainstream media), that doesn't mean we should allow it to be part of our society. You see, following the logic of the 'payback' argument goes something like this:

1) Misandry is no different from misogyny.
2) Misandry is acceptable, because it's only fair.
3) Misogyny, being equivalent to misandry (see point 1), is therefore acceptable.

Um, no. No, it isn't. So, you see, if you make misandry acceptable, you're not only doing damage to the image of men, but serving to counter women's rights. Oops.

There's a second string to the 'damaging women's rights' bow, too - the idea that misandry is quite reasonable only serves to lower the tone of the argument. it says, "Look, we're just as bad as you are, now!" It serves only to reduce everything to the lowest common denominator. It's a race to the bottom, a fight to see who can be more discriminatory.

You might also be thinking to yourself that this isn't quite as important a fight as women's rights, or gay rights, or race rights, or the rights of any other oppressed minority. You're kind of right, I'll concede that. But, you see, if you blithely accept one form of discrimination, that leaves the door open for all of the other sorts. I'm not concerned that this misandry will have a significant effect on the role of men in society. What bothers me is that it is (and I really hate to use this term, because it's always used by those with a not-real-world view of the likely outcomes of anything) the thin end of the wedge. If this is OK, what else will be?