Los Angeles Times
May 14, 1990
In
Academe, Misogyny Meets Its Match: Misandrosy
Behavior: The uproar at Mills College illustrates a nasty new trend:
man-hating. What parent would send a son into such an environment?
Author: PATRICK M. ARNOLD; Father Patrick M. Arnold, SJ,
assistant professor of theology at the University of San Diego, is writing a
book on masculine spirituality
Op Ed Desk
Edition: Home Edition
Section: Metro
Page: B-5
Index Terms: Opinion
The images in the news were startling: distraught women
students sobbing uncontrollably, their faces contorted in pain and anger. The
ensuing interviews bespoke rage and revenge: student strikes called,
resignations demanded, marches organized, donations cut off. What atrocity had
merited such an outbreak? What injustice had the students suffered?
The trustees of all-women Mills College in Oakland had just
decided to permit young males to begin their college education at this school.
Next year, unless the protests succeed, a few teen-age boys will arrive at
Mills and, amid 772 women, start using the library, taking notes, reading
and--worst of all--asking questions in class. Which is exactly what the
hysterical students and some of their ultra-feminist professors are afraid of.
Why? Because, a Mills teacher tells us, research "proves " that the
presence of men victimizes women students: that male students talk too much,
ask too many questions and interrupt too often, thereby intimidating women and
preventing their education. (This, by the way, was news to my students at co-ed
Univers ity of San Diego.)
All of this uproar and rhetoric, and the pseudo-research
behind it, exemplifies an emerging social force that is increasingly making
itself felt on modern men, especially the young. It is the shadow side of the
extreme feminist movement, an ideology of hate whose name is not yet found in
the dictionary. I term it misandrosy (Greek: "hatred of men"), the
mirror opposite of misogyny. Misandrosy, not yet as widespread or harmful as
misogyny but not yet as well recognized, either, is beginning to show itself
mainly in liberal circles in the arts, literature, religion, media and
academia.
In general, this man-hating ideology holds that most males
are naturally violent, dominating and patriarchal, and therefore forever on the
verge of rape, child abuse and wife-battering. Talk-show hosts like Oprah
Winfrey traffic in this male-bashing prejudice with lurid programs during the
afternoon television hate-hour ("Male Child-Molesters and the Women Who
Love Them"). Popular novels and movies portray males, especially
African-Americans, as inevitably cruel and nearly worthless ("The Color
Purple," "The Women of Brewster Place"). Shelves of sexist books
(Riane Eisler's "The Chalice and the Blade") claim that men (and
their male gods) have ruined all history since the idyllic days of the
Neolithic Age when women (and their goddesse s) held beneficent sway. Carl
Sagan even pompously informs us that the whole planet is imminently endangered
by "testosterone poisoning."
In this climate, any pride in being male is quickly
squelched ("male chauvinism"). Men are supposed to submit to
continual brow-beating about their "problem" of masculinity in order
to expiate for their past sins and, possibly, get the cure.
Like all hate ideologies (racism, anti-Semitism,
homophobia), misandrosy portrays itself as righteous and its purveyors as
victims, put-upon, endangered and beleaguered. Special steps are therefore
demanded to prevent the dangerous "them" from living in
"our" neighborhood, taking "our" jobs, or, in the case of
Mills, going to "our" schools. The rest of "us," in turn,
are supposed to feel sympathetic to such victimization and therefore supportive
of the protests, demonstrations and strikes.
In the case of Mills, the rhetoric seems to have worked.
None of the many media stories that I saw contained the slightest criticism or
questioning of the professors' "research" or the students' demands.
Yet these attitudes are no less hateful than white students screaming at James
Meredith in Mississippi or ignorant teachers trying to prevent Ryan White from
studying in Indiana. In those two cases, public opinion rightly rejected the
notion that a young black man or an AIDS sufferer pursuing his education
endangered or victimized anyone. Not so at Mills.
Perhaps that is because misandrosy is more widespread and
subtle than we thought. Remember: The Mills trustees voted to allow males at
their school, not because young men in Oakland might desperately need more
opportunities for obtaining a solid education, or even to expose female
students to different companions and viewpoints. Men will come to Mills, we are
told, solely to bring in more revenue. Because that is the one thing people
think men are good for--making money.
That is why I would discourage parents from sending their
teen-age boys into the toxic sexist environment at Mills. Send them to a mature
co-ed college instead, a school where they can study, read, think and ask all
the questions they want--and not feel hated for it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Los Angeles Times
May 31, 1990
Misandrosy and Mills College Students' Battle to Bar Men
By Letters Desk
Edition:
Home Edition
Section: Metro
Page: B-6
Index Terms: Letter to the Editor
As
a male who has suffered the slings and arrows of outrageous feminism, I have
some sympathy for the complaints of Arnold about the blatant misandrosy now
raging in the land.
However,
Arnold's debating techniques do not inspire confidence. In referring to the
research cited by the Mills rebels he calls it "pseudo-research." He
does not offer any rebuttal; he evidently thinks name-calling can pass for
argument.
Also,
in attacking misandrosy, Arnold picks some mighty strange targets. Riane Eisler
seems to me entirely free of misandrosy; indeed her book is dedicated to her
husband, and her ideal "partnership society" is one of equality,
unlike the matriarchies posited by the real man-haters in the feminist
movement, such as Robin Morgan or Susan Brownmiller.
It
is a pity that Arnold has discredited his argument with these shoddy techniques
because misandrosy is a real and dangerous trend. If anybody spoke of Jews,
African Americans, Latinos, gays, or even foot-fetishists in the way many
leading feminists speak of men in the major media he would be suspended, forced
to apologize and perhaps successfully sued for libel.
Incidentally, the misandrosy of our time, nutty as it is, is a direct response to the misogyny spouted by the Christian clergy for 2000 years. Why does not the Rev. Arnold address that issue?
ROBERT ANTON WILSON
Los
Angeles
(submitted
to RAWilsonFans.com by RMJon23)