Misandry in the Least Likely of Places
Dial up your local Country and Western station and you may soon find your fingers tapping out the beat of Carrie Underwood’s latest hit, Before He Cheats. Underwood suspects her boyfriend is probably cheating on her (in matters of infidelity, I guess “probably” is proof enough).
This how she extracts her revenge:
“I dug my key into the side
of his pretty little souped-up four-wheel drive,
Carved my name into his leather seats…
I took a Louisville slugger to both headlights,
slashed a hole in all four tires…”
Trashing your boyfriend’s car has little to do with sugar and spice and everything nice. But it’s the title — Before He Cheats – that turns this song into a bitter gender tirade. Just imagine a male star reaching platinum for crooning, Before She Aborts.
For years women’s libbers have reviled misogynist societies that disrespect women. And they have a point. But why haven’t we given equal consideration to the other side of the coin – persons who evince contempt and distain for men – and then pretend it’s a joke?
The problem of misandry has reached the point of commanding scholarly attention. McGill University professors Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young have published two books that reveal male-bashing has become commonplace.
Their first book, Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture, examines books, TV shows, movies, greeting cards, commercials, and even comic strips.
Remember Steven Speilberg’s acclaimed movie, The Color Purple? When the movie didn’t win an Academy Award, critics cried “racism!” But how many people objected to, or even noticed the fact that all the male characters were depicted as stupid buffoons or evil tyrants?
Thoroughly documented and persuasively argued, Spreading Misandry sardonically concludes that “men are society’s official scapegoats and [should be] held responsible for all evil, including that done by the women they have deluded or intimidated.”
Last year Nathanson and Young released their second book, Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systematic Discrimination Against Men. Even bolder than their first treatment, they reveal how ideological feminists capitalize on contempt for men to reshape the law in the areas of employment, marriage, divorce, custody, sexual harassment, violence, and human rights.
It’s one thing to peruse a scholarly analysis of gender contempt. It’s quite another to experience it up close and personal, like a bare-knuckled fist shoved into the gut.
That happened last week. I came across an article that announced, “The Spirituality of Moms Outpaces that of Dads.” Based on research by a California-based new-age outfit called The Barna Group, the article purports to show that compared to women, men are spiritual dwarfs. [www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrow&BarnaUpdateID=270]
That’s right, a couple hundred years ago we were debating whether American Indians had souls. Now, it seems the spirituality of men is being called into question.
Over the last decade, we’ve watched as our churches have fallen captive to female bonding rituals, Aphrodite worship, and revisionist versions of the Ten Commandments that begin, “Adore me, the Mother. Know that I, the Mother, am immanent and transcendent.”
I’ve seen this with my own eyes, and worse.
And no surprise, men are leaving the church in droves. And now along comes the Barna Group that pompously informs us that “Men generally lag behind the spirituality of women.” Want proof? Because in a typical week, “mothers are more likely than fathers to attend church.”
Girls, how’s that for a plan – we’ll feminize the church, send the men packing, and then proclaim our moral superiority!
So Gents, switch off the mute button while I indulge in a few moments of unedited indignation. (Ladies, you’re welcome to come along for the ride.)
When you were young and a schoolyard bully insulted your courage and strength, did you turn tail and hide behind your teacher’s skirts? Presumably you confronted the tormenter and told him to lay off, in no uncertain terms – right?
Then why are you allowing ideological bullies who spout feminist mantras to kick you around? Why do you shrug your shoulders when a California guru who purports to “facilitate the spiritual transformation of America” does a shame and blame number on you?
So send an e-mail to director George Barna at tgorka@barna.org . Or call him at 805-658-8885. Get it off your chest. Do it today. (Ladies, you’re welcome to protest this moral hubris, as well.)
I guarantee you’ll recapture some of that warrior spirit. And before long we’ll turn around this torrent of misandry.
| More from Carey Roberts
Stumble It!
August 1st, 2007 at 7:49 am
Male souls are so dwarflike that dozens can stand around on the head of a pin. A female soul stands alone, singular, empowered and proud; proud that she has pushed all the others off.
August 1st, 2007 at 8:05 am
A preacher I know says there would be no churches without women.
He’s probably right, but I suspect many of these women have the time to volunteer at churches because of the financial freedom provided by a husband. It’s the same reason many women can afford to be “primary caretakers”–because dad finances their career choice.
Too many Christian churches cater to women and ignore the spiritual needs of men. They often preach Christianized feminism–woman good, man bad. Perhaps the real conclusion to be reached by this study is that the average church is failing to meet the spiritual needs of men. And women are “more spiritual” because they can afford to be.
August 1st, 2007 at 8:29 am
“To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men, their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism and religious dogmas”. Brock Chisolm, former Director of the World Health Organization
Everything you see is prepping us for the New World Order.
August 1st, 2007 at 9:03 am
tonysprout said
“To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men…”
Or from the minds of women.
August 1st, 2007 at 9:32 am
carey roberts…its great to hear from another man who grew up prior to the 1950’s feminist anti-male propaganda juggernaut!!
It seems the Elders here don’t share the same social fears that paralyze the younger men who have been fully “conditioned”..
August 1st, 2007 at 10:43 am
tgorka@barna.org
George,
Good morning.
After three years at Willow Creek Community Church, I find myself searching for a new church. Recently I learned that Willow Creek legitimizes divorce, among other things.
After a year of attending my church’s Divorce Recovery (DR) workshops, I asked the leadership for help to reconcile my marriage from my divorcing wife (she felt unhappy, and I did not make her happy). My church (read: women leaders) condemned me. Further, they later promoted my divorcing wife to DR group leader.
Later, I an Elder shared with me that Willow Creek has a history of pro-female procedures and policies, albeit established by liberal feminist.
I also recently found “Femme fatale: The feminist seduction of the evangelical church” by Susan Olasky.
http://worldmag.com/articles/229
‘But Wheaton’s Gilbert Bilezikian is confident that the egalitarians will win. “It is a quiet reform movement that is unstoppable,” he says. “In two or three generations from now it won’t even be an issue.” He predicts there may be groups that hold to the traditional view in 100 years, but they will be relegated to the margins.’
Bilezikian is Willow Creek’s founding Elder. “Egalitarian” is church speak for feminist. The “traditional view” is family and conservative.
I’ve renewed my commitment to find a biblically functioning community at a church.
Blessings,
Mark Ruffolo, MS, MBA
August 1st, 2007 at 11:09 am
Thanks Carey. I’ll contact the The Barna Group and not simply whine about it here. Who knows, maybe after I unload my angry resentment on these bastards they may learn something. California is an immensely anti-male environment. Much of this is caused by politically corrected eunuchs such as George Barna. I guess the men there believe the only way to compete for pussy is by seeing who can be the most anti-male and pro-female. This is widespread among the males in California. The legislature, the bureaucrats, the courts, every HR department in every business, the local media, and most of the residents are very pro-female and anti-male. What a pathetic sh*thole California is.
August 1st, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Mark Ruffulo’s experience is similar to my own. The churches give in to women, cater to them, and then wonder why men don’t show up.
It has nothing to do with “spirituality”–just with the pro-woman message many churches pitch. Saying that men are less “spiritual” because they don’t want to hear a pro-woman/anti-male message disguised as spirituality is absurd.
To me, the biggest difference between the churches of today and the churhes of my youth is that the churches of my youth were moral and spiritual leaders. Today’s churches are moral and spiritual followers, adapting to PC culture.
August 1st, 2007 at 12:22 pm
denis..
“I guess the men there believe the only way to compete for pussy is by seeing who can be the most anti-male and pro-female”
Thats the angle the eunech’s come in at!!..that explains it all!!
Thats why there are some males who desperatelly need feminism more than women!!! these men are desperate!!
August 1st, 2007 at 12:57 pm
El Cid #4: It is men who do the fighting and dying. Remove that which they will die for and the war is over.
August 1st, 2007 at 1:09 pm
tonysprout
Excellent point.
August 1st, 2007 at 1:39 pm
What makes it even funnier is when the radfems stand up and scream about how the churches are all about patriarchal oppression and brainwashing of women.
Which shows how few of them actually check out what they’re talking about.
How often do husbands drag their wives into the church? Almost never.
The reverse? All the time.
If the church is a bastion of patriarchy, the gals are lovin’ it.
August 17th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
The American female has a reputation that no-one wants.
They now stand high on their own pedestal, just high enough to see exactly what it is they have become. No-one’s progeny.
August 19th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
“Fathers be good to your daughters… Mothers be good to your daughters. ” From guitarist, vocalist? John Mayer (I think the album is New Deep and Heavier Things is the cut. Or the other way around. Not sure.)
One line is “she saw him walking away, now she cleans up the mess that he made.
And for boys, what?
Boys you can break. You find out how much they can take.
The younger men are so brainwashed that I don’t even know where to start teaching them how crushed they are.
August 21st, 2007 at 7:17 am
Not all churches are this way. Our is very male friendly, it is a Bible based, Elder led church.
I agree that as churches are becoming more liberal they are becomine more female centric. Theonly way to change this is to become more active in the church. That is a tall order for men who are already being puches away. However starting a male study group is a good place to begin.
August 31st, 2007 at 12:50 pm
I’m new to your column but a friend sent me this link and I’m a little confused by one of your points.
What’s wrong with women worshiping a female divinity?
You say that you’ve seen: “revisionist versions of the Ten Commandments that begin, ‘Adore me, the Mother. Know that I, the Mother, am immanent and transcendent.’ I’ve seen this with my own eyes, and worse.”
I’m not sure why this is bad. I understand why you would want men to worship a male god — but why can’t women worship a female goddess? As I said, that I’m not familiar with your column so I don’t know your faith, but do you think it’s wrong for women to find spirituality in a feminine divine? I suspect your answer would be that we (I’m a woman) have removed any masculine from the church, leaving you no options. I’m not sure I agree, but certainly you could form your own, male-centric sects.
And, as you exhort men to “take back” the churches, can you blame women for doing the same? Even if you believe that women’s place is under men, as God in His Heaven Hath Proclaimed, you have to admit that for the past several hundred years, women haven’t had a whole lot of spiritually female-centric places. Maybe all we’re doing is what you have told men to do — telling our tormentors to lay off.
Goddess bless.
September 10th, 2007 at 10:58 am
Don’t start out apologetic!
As I’ve often reminded men on this forum, trying to start out apologetic doesn’t buy you anything that simply being well mannered achieved. For example:
“For years women’s libbers have reviled misogynist societies that disrespect women. And they have a point. “
This statement wasn’t necessary. It could even have been rephrased as: “For years, women’s libbers have sought to expose misogynistic thinking _IN SOCIETY_.”
By classifying societies as “misogynistic”, the writer walks right into the trap set by feminists to declare women as an entitled victim class FOREVER!!!
Our society was NEVER misogynstic although it had misogynstic elements along with misandric ones. If anything, it was CHIVALROUS in nature and more likely to overstate any problems women have to the point of patronization. Women are and WERE so spoiled and protected, that they became arrogant. Radical feminism is merely an extension of this along with the notion of “equality” between the genders as an artificial, paradoxical construct supported by chivalrous entitlements.
I often drive through inner cities and see minority families attending church even as the areas are crime ridden and host to mostly unwed single mother families. I’m reminded of the cute line by Bart Simpson to a girl saying a church-goer like herself can’t be pregnant as a single mother: “You weren’t that church going if you got pregnant.” (And he gets slapped by her showing just how arrogant such women are.)
Clearly, the hypocrisy of these women is evident in the lack of synchronization in their home lives to what they do in church. In that case, I blame the ministers and even priests who continue to want to fill pews by not confronting the spiritual crisis in their midsts and passing out feel-good sermons. The Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a minister yet he supported marxist social policies that devestated the Christian and black community.