Attitudes towards women are hostile and contemptuous, according to the standard model of prejudice (as described by Glick & Fiske, 2001). This view is prevalent:
A “culture of misogyny” is “deeply-rooted in our society” (Kathleen Wynne, Premier of Ontario). “We live in a culture of casual misogyny” (Megan Leslie, former deputy leader, New Democratic Party in Canada). We live in a “patriarchal misogynistic society” (Tina Garnett, Equity Committee Coordinator, York University). “Misogyny runs so deep in this society […] all the women-hating, woman-blaming, woman-fearing instincts” (Polly Toynbee, columnist for The Guardian). “[W]e should look in the mirror for woman-hating culture” (Stephen Hume, columnist for the Vancouver Sun). “This Is How Much America Hates Women” (Anne Helen Petersen, PhD, writer for BuzzFeed News). “America really, really hates women […] there is actually nothing women can do that is right” (Megan Murphy, Feminist Current).
But the actual psychological research on gender attitudes and stereotypes paints a very different picture, one where women are viewed more positively than men. Glick and Fiske describe this phenomenon (the women-are-wonderful effect) as an “extremely robust” finding (although it is found more strongly among women than among men).
Continue reading “The Women-Are-Wonderful Effect (We Don’t Live in a “Culture of Misogyny”)”
We treat male and female sexuality differently. The most well-known example of that is the slut double standard for women (casual sex is seen as degrading and disgraceful for them to an extent that it isn’t for men), but we also have some important sexual double standards for men. The first and second (player and virgin) involve having or not having sex, while the third and fourth (creep and objectifier) are about expressing sexual desire. The fifth (“male nudity is funny, not sexy”) is a difference in how we tend to see men’s and women’s bodies. The sixth is “male homosexuality is uniquely offensive”.
Continue reading “Sexual Double Standards for Men? Player, Virgin, Creep, Objectifier (also: Male Nudity and Male Homosexuality)”
News organizations and human rights groups reporting on tragic events commonly single out the victimization of certain groups (based on gender, nationality, religion, age, etc.) as especially noteworthy. Sometimes this is based on the circumstances of the incident, like if a group is disproportionately targeted or affected (“Gunmen shot dead 11 people, mostly Christians, in central Syria on Saturday”). Other times it is based on properties of the group, such as if they’re more relatable to the audience (“At least 2 Americans among the dead in Nice, France attack” in an American outlet).
Singling out “women and children” is especially common in this reporting. Sometimes it happens when they’re disproportionately affected (“Dozens killed in Aleppo; mostly women and children among the dead”), but even when men are disproportionately affected—which is very often—it’s still generally “women and children” whose victimization is singled out. I consider this an example of male disposability and finding the suffering/death of men less distressing than that of women (and children).
Continue reading “Men’s Lives Matter Less? “Among the Dead Were Women and Children””
“Yes, dear” is the characteristic phrase of a one-sided relationship dynamic where the woman functions as the “boss” of the relationship and the man is said to be “henpecked” or “whipped”. This is a common portrayal of marriage on TV or in jokes, but it also underlies a lot of real relationship advice for men. It’s a problem because taking it to heart can leave men unable to stand up for themselves in relationships.
Stories and jokes aren’t obliged to portray healthy relationships, but in light of these portrayals and especially the serious advice, men (particularly young men) need to learn that this is not ideal, and certainly not inevitable, in a relationship. It’s likely that we’re not as concerned about teaching men to stand up for themselves in relationships due to the history of men being head of household, but that’s largely a thing of the past.
Continue reading ““Yes, Dear”: Henpecked Husbands and One-Sided Relationship Dynamics”
There’s a saying going around that “political correctness is just common decency”. If the issue in question is not calling groups by names that they consider demeaning or insulting (e.g. not saying the word “tranny” for someone who’s transgender) then that is just common decency, but political correctness is so much more than that. In a 2015 article, American journalist Jonathan Chait calls political correctness a “style of politics in which the more radical members of the left attempt to regulate political discourse by defining opposing views as bigoted and illegitimate”, which involves treating “even faintly unpleasant ideas or behaviors as full-scale offenses”.
Continue reading ““Sexist! Racist! Homophobe!” Political Correctness and Illegitimate Speech”
This page is a resource on suicide as a gender issue for men. It includes first some statistics demonstrating the concerning fact that men are a lot more likely to kill themselves, and second some possible explanations for why that’s the case, including in the context of the “gender paradox of suicide” where men kill themselves much more but women consider and attempt it somewhat more.
Continue reading “Spotlight on: Men’s Suicide Rates”
Male disposability is our society’s tendency to have less concern for the safety and well-being of men than of women. The concept is central to many men’s advocates’ critiques of society similarly to how women’s traditional lack of access to power (and their current lower levels of participation in it) are central to most feminist critiques of society. This page is a primer on male disposability: what it means (and doesn’t mean), the evidence for its existence, whether it should exist, etc.
(Cet article est également disponible en français.)
Continue reading “Defining, Demonstrating, and Understanding Male Disposability”
One of the ugliest elements of the social justice movement is that “privileged” groups (especially men, white people, and straight people) are considered acceptable targets for various types of mistreatment that would not be tolerated for sympathy-worthy groups (especially women, racial minorities, and LGBT people). Many people become disillusioned with “social justice” after realizing that inside the movement, acceptable treatment depends less on the action itself and more on which group is targeted.
Continue reading “Social Justice’s Punching Bags: Men, White People, Straight People”
As mentioned in the Non-Feminist FAQ, it’s commonly assumed or believed that violence against women is more common or worse than violence against men, even though the actual statistics do not actually support that. On this page I examine a few different ways that people talk about gender and violence that have the effect (whether it’s their intention or not) of downplaying or side-stepping violence against men and contributing to that misconception.
Continue reading “Methods for Downplaying or Side-Stepping Violence Against Men”
It’s a common misconception (seen from e.g. Emma Watson, Maisie Williams, and the Geek Feminism wiki) that if you believe in gender equality then you must be a feminist. That’s like saying that if you believe in morality then you must be a Christian, or if you care about the working class then you must be a socialist. In reality, feminism doesn’t have a monopoly on gender equality; it’s just one approach (or more accurately, a group of related approaches), whose beliefs and actions are up for debate.
Continue reading “A Non-Feminist FAQ”