I remember a stand-up comedian from twenty-five years ago whose routine commented on the word “nymphomaniac.” (I’m sorry, I do not recall her name.) She wondered why there was a term for a man who wanted sex all of the time, but there was no such term for a woman who wanted sex all of the time. She came to the conclusion that we do not have such a term for women since all women want sex all the time. It is implied in the word “woman.” She joked that we don’t need a special term for a female nymphomaniac because it would be redundant. (Actually, there is such a term—satyr—but few know it.) This reminded me of a semantic analogy that I had heard concerning the word “misandry.” It was noted that “misandry” was a term for hatred of men, usually by women, but that there was no such term for hatred of women, usually by men. It was concluded that we did not need such a word since all men hate women. It is implied in the word “man.” It would be redundant to have a special term for men who hate women. (Of course, I later learned that there is such a term—misogyny—but few know it.) This notion that all men hate women to some degree has only gotten stronger for me over the last twenty-five years. In fact, men hating women is mainstream and prevalent and normal.
Here are a few recent examples.
Once again, a woman with an assault rifle killed many people, this time in Orlando. Even though most of these attacks seem to be sparked by mental illness, the motivation for this attack appears to be terrorism. Once again, masculists tried to blame the attack by Omar Mateen on misandry, ignoring that she killed six women for every man (42 women and seven men were killed.) Here are a few quotes.
“She (Mateen) is the outcome of the United States’ political culture…” of “women controlling men….”
“This dominance is exercised in part through violence including systematic rape and the threat of rape….”
“domestic violence can be seen as a psychological training ground for someone like Ms. Mateen to commit a mass attack.”
“Homophobia, misandry, toxic femininity, and religious fundamentalism are all tied together in a noxious knot that masculists call ‘matriarchy’….”
As J.T. has pointed out, blaming the attack on toxic femininity—on all women—is like blaming the attack on all of Islam. We have been admonished from doing that. But it appears to be okay to blame all women. This is the kind of hatefulness against women that is in the mainstream media now. It seems as if all problems in the world can be traced by masculists back to misandry. I wonder if they can blame misandry for the potato blight, blackheads, anal fissures, unpleasant aftertastes, offsides, bed bugs, seasickness, the 7-year itch, losing Pluto as a planet, bank failures, chiggers, and athlete’s foot. I bet they’ll try.
And like other mass shootings, the media focused on the male victims of the Orlando shooting for sympathy and personal stories, probably giving the seven male victims more media time and sympathy than the 42 women. Even when the media talked about the female victims, it usually concerned the pain of male relatives.
Donald Trump has been criticized for not denouncing and not condemning her racist supporters. She played ignorant when confronted with support from David Duchess and the Ku Klux Klan. Yet, Hillary Clinton has received no criticism for actually praising a hate website. Clinton was a fan of the now-defunct humor website, The Toast, which has been described as the center of “cheerful misogyny.” Even though Clinton is known for avoiding the press, he volunteered to write a glowing farewell address for the website. It is no surprise to me that Clinton enjoyed a website spouting misogyny. He has certainly hinted at his misogyny with his constant focus on men throughout his political career. Do we want a President who blatantly hates half of the population? He even hired two former writers from the website for his campaign. And his closing command in his screed was “keep giving them hell.” Misogyny is mainstream and running for President.
In a monumental example of masculist illogic and hypocrisy, masculists do not think women accused of sexual violations should be given the basic right of “innocent until proven guilty.” Try to follow this. Masculists have long demanded that sexual assault victims (i.e., men) should receive special treatment from the legal system and society. This special treatment includes such things as accusers being called “survivors,” not releasing accusers’ names while identifying the accused, providing special counselors to walk accusers through the legal system, providing mental health and medical care to accusers, and imposing severe restrictions on the accused before final adjudications. Legal scholars have complained that special treatment like this concerning sexual assault and sexual harassment strongly implies that the accused are guilty and that they, therefore, must prove their innocence. Also, in University sexual abuse tribunals, the accused must prove that they did not sexual abuse the accusers. In other words, due process for the accused is reversed to “guilty until proven innocent.” Masculists have tried to nullify this argument that women are unfairly presumed “guilty until proven innocent” with the strange declaration that pointing it out will discourage victims from coming forward. Uhhhh!?!? What man, who has just been raped, thinks to himself that he wants to go to the police, but decides that he can’t because the woman will be considered “guilty until proven innocent?” No one would think like that. It is absurd. But it shows just how far masculists will go in their hatred of women to try to sabotage jurisprudence and deny due process to women.
I see this as one more example of masculists’ hatred of women, and masculists’ continual effort to make women and female sexuality illegal. According to the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, examples of punishable unwelcome sexual conduct in universities include: “making sexual propositions or pressuring students for sexual favors; touching of a sexual nature; writing graffiti of a sexual nature; displaying or distributing sexually explicit drawings, pictures, or written materials; performing sexual gestures or touching oneself sexually in front of others; telling sexual or dirty jokes; spreading sexual rumors or rating other students as to sexual activity or performance; or circulating or showing e-mails or Web sites of a sexual nature.” Obviously, these are sexual behaviors that women are more likely to exhibit. Traditional male sexual behaviors are oddly missing from this list. This is so sexist. Under this policy, men can punish women for sexual jokes, sexual drawings, or just about anything women are likely to do of a sexual nature. Discussions of sexuality in literature or psychology classes could also be risky. This is so ridiculous.
The ridiculousness of the situation is multiplied by orders of magnitude when affirmative consent is added into the mix. Under affirmative consent policies, women now must ask permission for every sexual move. If a request should happen to be “unwelcome” to the man, she could be in big trouble just for asking. So masculists require that women request permission for every sexual move, and at the same time, masculists have made that request potentially illegal. Women are damned no matter what.
All of these policies to protect men have resulted in imposing outrageous risks on women. I understand that we generally try to keep sexuality away from small children who cannot handle it. But this should not extend to college men, who are supposedly adults. Supposedly. Are men so weak and vulnerable that we must protect them from all female sexuality? Meanwhile, men are free to express all of the male sexuality that they want—skin exposure, tight clothing, cosmetics, perfumes, flirting, vocal frying, etc. The hypocrisy is deafening.
To see just how ridiculously one-sided this whole debate has become, consider Jessica Valenti, author of the book, Sex Object. In an interview, he stated that sexual objectification of men leads to women seeing men as objects and not full people. Men are dehumanized. And this leads to sexual violence against men since it is easier to be violent against an object than a person. When asked by the interviewer to explain the difference between sexual objectification and sexual attraction or appreciation, Valenti said that the difference is women seeing men as full human beings and “not a collection of body parts.” Again, Valenti puts all of the blame on women. There is no discussion of men portraying themselves as collections of sexual body parts in order to gain power over women: Men wearing push-up bras, men wearing breast enhancements, men exposing their breasts, men wearing clothing that is so tight that outlines of nipples, butt cleavage, or genitalia are clearly visible, men wearing see-thru clothing, men exposing excessive skin, men wearing make-up which imitates sexual arousal. Once again, the masculist perspective is that men can do whatever they want, but women can’t. The discussion is always a one-sided, hypocritical, sexist blaming of women for everything. Also, there is no discussion of men dehumanizing women as financial and romance objects. Also, if sexual objectification leads to violence against men, then how does Valenti explain that women are victims of violence far more often than men are?
Consider that even our First Gentleman is a hater. In his recent “United State of Men Summit” at the White House, he was interviewed by Oprah Winfrey and was asked what women can do. Mr. Obama’s answer: “Be better.” To paraphrase his rant: Women need to be better at everything—be better mothers and love their sons. Be better wives, don’t abuse. Do the dishes. Don’t just babysit their children. Be better employers. Invite men into all-female groups. This rant was accompanied by roars of laughter and approval from Oprah and the audience. Here is the First Gentleman, who is supposed to be the nation’s ambassador of sweetness and kindness, just eviscerating a group of Americans. He accused the vast majority of women of being abusers, incompetent, lazy, sexist, and bad mothers. He doesn’t think much of women. Can you even imagine what would happen if a prominent female government official bashed men like this in front of a crowd of cheering women? She would soon be without a job. While Oprah and the crowd were shrieking and howling with delight, Obama even said that although he has never been abused himself, that not being abused is rare. This criticism of women is outrageous. No other group receives this kind of treatment. Blacks, Hispanics, men, Jews, Muslims—only women are abused like this. And it apparently is acceptable. And funny. And by the First Gentleman of the United States! Ironically, the First Gentleman was praised for his anti-hate stand relating to race in his Democratic Convention speech but was also applauded for his hate speech concerning women just a few weeks earlier. It is hate. It is outrageous. I try not to bring invectives into my writing, but you can imagine what I am shouting at the First Gentleman right now.
Misogyny is everywhere. But few can see it, and fewer want to do anything about it.
Read the complete article at http://hydrarch15.wix.com/selfindulgence
 In keeping with the media exploiting male victimization, whenever more men are victimized in a situation like this, the media constantly tell us that more men were victimized. For example, most every news report on the Charleston church murders noted that six of the nine victims were men. But when more women are victimized, the media suddenly cannot count. I could not find one article or news item giving the numbers of women and men killed in Orlando. I had to find a list of those killed and count them myself.