Misandry

Misandry (Greek μῖσος misos 'hatred' and ἀνήρ anēr 'man', genitive ἀνδρός andros German) is the term used to describe a dislike of, a contempt for, or a set of deeply rooted prejudices about men. Lexically, the term misandry appeared in the early 19th century.

According to journalist Judith Levine, misandry is a form of misanthropy directed at men and a "collective cultural problem" that is a consequence of the oppression of women by men. It is internalised (socialisation, habitualisation) by both women and men themselves in the course of psychosocial development. It is thus the basis for a devaluation of men, interpersonal sexism and linguistic discrimination on the basis of gender, which is widespread in elite culture and popular culture. Misandry, according to David Gilmore, is directed against a particular form of masculinity and a culture of machismo. Unlike misogyny, the hatred of women, misandry is not directed against men as such, but against a certain ideology.

According to Christoph Kucklick, misandry is socially considered a legitimate feeling that is anchored in modern human cultures but contradicts social norms or ideals. For this reason, misandry is usually concealed socially and individually - for example through denial, taboo, apologising for feminism or socially desirable rhetoric.

The use of the term misandry has been criticised by feminists. A study by Alice Marwick, among others, examined discourses on the Internet and found that the term was initially used primarily in anti-feminist discourses in the 1990s, while it was later taken up ironically by feminist bloggers and finally by journalists. The term thus brings with it the intrinsically misogynistic frames of the manosphere. Furthermore, it is criticized for a possible equation with misogyny.

History of the emergence of the negative image of men in modern times

In his dissertation Das unmoralische Geschlecht - Zur Geburt der Negativen Andrologie (The Immoral Sex - On the Birth of Negative Andrology), sociologist Christoph Kucklick analyzes the history of the emergence of modern masculinity and the negative image of men. The thesis of this dissertation is that the stereotype of the immoral, violent, sexually insatiable man arose far before modern feminism, namely around 1800 at the beginning of modernity by bourgeois thinkers such as John Millar, Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Wilhelm von Humboldt. The male self-doubt that these authors helped to fuel brought about the turn towards a gender heterarchy that helped to constitute modernity, towards a more complex inter-gender relationship than the simple hierarchy represented, for example, by Bourdieu's theory of the male habitus.

Kucklick sees the emergence of the negative image of men as the result of an insecurity associated with the transformation from a society characterized by strata to a functionally differentiated society. The philosopher Luca Di Blasi considers this thesis "not very plausible" and suggests instead a connection with mass literacy in the 18th century, which led to women also increasingly learning to read and thus becoming more relevant as a target group. With the negative image of men, scholars of the time could have "counted on approval and sales success among women, who were largely excluded from social participation." Precisely because men were socially privileged, an openly negative portrayal was possible.

Misandry in Popular Culture and Society

In 2001, religious scholars Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young published Spreading Misandry: Teaching Contempt for Men in Popular Culture. In it they stated that misandry is widespread in popular culture and in parts of elite culture. Like misogyny, misandry is culturally propagated, but unlike misogyny, misandry is considered legitimate and not perceived as problematic. The basic assumption of men's humanity has been undermined by ignorance and prejudice, they argue. The authors were accused by sociologist Michael Kimmel of having neglected essential findings of gender research due to their anti-feminist basic stance, of omitting the reception of cultural products and of providing their theses with "a good pinch of conspiracy-theoretical hysteria". The work is "profoundly shallow," a fevered imagination on the part of the authors. Nathanson and Young objected that their work explicitly did not claim to be an empirical study; they lacked the resources to do so. Rather, they had called for an empirically based study to be conducted with the question of misandry in the media in mind.

In his study Media and Male Identity: the Making and Remaking of Men (2006), the Australian media researcher Jim R. Macnamara deals with Nathanson and Young's theses and addresses the remaining research gaps. His own empirical research confirms and exceeds the findings of Nathanson and Young. Men are largely demonized, marginalized, trivialized, and objectified in modern Anglo-American media. Masculinity is widely presented as innately and culturally evil. Seventy percent of portrayals are negative, and 80 percent are unflattering. Positive things about men are usually portrayed as "feminine traits". His analysis shows that gender discrimination in language and discourse has reversed or at least now affects both genders. The social consequences still need to be researched, but the increasing importance of the mass media in contemporary societies is obvious.

The political scientist Thomas Gesterkamp wrote in 2012 that "in the last twenty years (...) a kind of cultural reinterpretation of the man from respected breadwinner to mocked fool has taken place". However, the "sexual denunciation of men", in which the entertainment industry has played an important role, has now passed its peak. Moreover, the satirical devaluation of masculinity "does not necessarily imply an 'established misandry,' that is, a general hatred of men in the culture industry."

"Black Misandry"

Intersectional analyses call the discrimination faced by Black men and boys in the USA "black misandry". This refers to an excessive pathological aversion to Black men, which is generated and reinforced by social, institutional and individual ideologies, practices and behaviour. It justifies and reproduces oppression and violence against Black men and boys and manifests itself, among other things, through their discrimination in the education system.