UK Writer Discovers Misandry – Figures It’s OK
Again, I thought of my son's question. Why? Why are so many male characters in books such idiots?
That's what William Leith asks in this article that raises a lot of good questions, but ultimately gets sidetracked (Daily Mail, 6/2/09).
Leith has a young son to whom he reads. And recently Leith has had a revelation - his son's books are "full of bad male stereotypes - deadbeat dads, absent fathers, wimps and fools." Now, that's not exactly news to anyone but Leith. Although I'm not aware of studies done on misandry in children's books, there've been plenty done on other parts of pop culture that have been around for years. Nathanson and Young's Spreading Misandry was first published in 2001 and Jim McNamara of the University of Western Sydney did an extensive study of misandry on television in 2005.
So Leith's dramatic realization of the education he was giving his son through the books they were reading comes a bit late. But, in my opinion, better late than never. Leith, like all of us, is a product of his time. He grew up swimming in a sea of misandric social messages, so it's hard for him to stand outside his own cultural learning and understand that it doesn't have to be this way and indeed, for most of history, hasn't been.
Unfortunately, he turns to Susan Faludi for help - always a bad move. Here's a rule to live by: if you want to know something about the nature of masculinity or how to live as a man in today's world, don't ask a radical feminist. Take my word on that; it's an invariable rule.
For several decades now, feminists have been explaining to all and sundry what men are like, and, not surprisingly, they got it wrong. More to the point, masculinity, according to radical feminists, is a very narrow set of behaviors, most of them violent and all of them bad. Men are rapists and murderers. Men have all power but deserve none of it. Men's sole aim in any situation is to dominate, particularly in relationships with women; the masculine principle asks only one question, "who's top dog?" Etc., etc.
I can't begin to go into all the variations on the theme, but radical feminism always had a political purpose to its narrative of male brutality - to so narrowly confine our understanding of masculinity that it comes to be understood as something that is per se bad and therefore in need of change.
And that's precisely where Faludi is coming from. The only thing clever about her particular refinement of the feminist mythology is that she pretends to sympathize with men's plight. So according to her, men are (as feminists have always claimed and as she unquestioningly accepts) beasts and, since society, technology, etc. have so changed, male qualities of aggressiveness and violence are in little demand. Hence, men feel lost, at sea, and Faludi affects the sincerest sympathy.
All of which is perfectly self-consistent, and all perfectly wrong. The glitch comes in the conception of masculinity by radical feminists. If men actually aren't all rapists, if we really aren't the ravening animals that the Andrea Dworkin, Marilyn French and countless others would prefer us to be, the entirety of their carefully-constructed mythology falls to pieces. If people ever start to simply look at men, how we actually behave and what we accomplish, the feminist narrative will vanish like morning mist.
As I've said before, throughout history, people have understood men and masculinity far better than we do today. Humans, essentially in all places and at all times, have understood the richness and depth of men and our roles in society. Men have rightly been seen not only as warriors and kings, but as spiritual leaders, artists and healers. We've always been known as scientists and engineers, explorers, musicians and poets. None of that is new or unusual except to people like Susan Faludi and, sadly, William Leith.
Leith concludes by saying that men have "messed up. And everybody knows it." Hmm, really? Of course what he, and everyone else who spouts that line, forget is that in order to "mess up" one has to endeavor in the first place. Among the many almost uniformly ignored (these days) facts of human history is that, for the most part, women haven't attempted very much. And when you don't try, you don't fail. That's not a very positive way to live life, but there you have it.
Which brings us to whether one sees the glass as half empty or half full. Leith sees it as half empty. The world is undeniably a product of masculine striving, and men, according to him, have "messed up." Well, that's one way to look at things, and few would deny that, from the threat of nuclear holocaust to global warming, to AIDS, much is wrong with humankind.
But isn't it fascinating that the people who, like Leith, seem to see nothing but wretchedness and waste, are by far the most privileged and well-off the world has ever seen? I, for one, am finding it harder and harder to take seriously people in the U.S., Western Europe, Canada, etc., who have the highest standards of living, the best health,the greatest longevity, the best education and the greatest freedom, moaning like occupants of the ninth level of the Inferno.
Without overlooking all that is wrong with the world, I suggest that we look at all the things that are right with it too. Leith wails about the evils men did in the twentieth century, but overlooks everything from polio vaccine to the discovery of DNA to jazz music to solar power. He doubtless sees that Hitler and Stalin were men who wrought unspeakable horrors on humankind, but ignores the fact that plenty of women in Germany and the Soviet Union avidly supported their atrocities. Into the bargain, he shows no sign of knowing that, overwhelmingly, it was men who fought and died to defeat fascism and communism. Leith, like so many others, condemns all men for the wrongs of a few, but forgets to credit men for their manifold contributions to the welfare of all. That, Mr. Leith is not our fault, it's yours.
Leith begins by realizing some of the misandry in popular culture, but concludes that it's justified. It's not, unless you scrupulously ignore all the contributions men have made, and make daily, to the betterment of the human condition. And if you do that, it says a lot more about you than it does about men. Come to think of it, it makes you look a lot like the authors of the children's books Leith so reviles.
Thanks to Duncan for the heads-up.
|
| More from Robert Franklin, Esq.
Stumble It!
