Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination Against Men
Paul Nathanson, Katherine Young
Language: English
Pages: 971
ISBN: B01FKS4DV8
Format: PDF / Kindle (mobi) / ePub
Lurid and sensationalized events such as the public response to Lorena Bobbitt after she cut off her abusive husband's penis, prurient fascination provoked by Anita Hill's allegations about Clarence Thomas, and the exploitation of the mass murder of fourteen women in Montreal have been processed through popular culture since the 1990s to produce pervasive misandry - contempt for men, the counterpart of misogyny. Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young believe that this reveals a shift in the United States and Canada to a worldview based on ideological feminism, which presents all issues from the point of view of women and, in the process, explicitly or implicitly attacks men as a class. They argue that ideological feminism is silently reshaping law, pubic policy, education, and journalism. Legalizing Misandry offers lively and compelling evidence to demonstrate the pervasiveness of this new thinking - from the courts, classrooms, government committees, and corporate bureaucracies to laws and policies affecting employment, marriage, divorce, custody, sexual harassment, violence, and human rights.
this revolution had entered a new phase that was made possible by the Internet. No longer were ideological points of view on either side of the political spectrum limited to a few initiates at universities and their immediate social or professional networks. Websites welcomed everyone. And just as ordinary people began investing eagerly and heavily in the stock market, ordinary people began reading and responding to what they found on the Internet. Many observers warned of websites produced by
“public consumption” (even though she had personally announced them on national television) but only for “guidance” among advocates in women’s groups. “It would have been more honest for the feminists who initiated the campaign,” writes Sommers, “to admit that there was no basis for saying that football fans are more brutal to women than are chess players or Democrats nor any basis for saying that there was a significant rise in domestic violence on Super Bowl Sunday.”56 On 31 January, Ringle’s
Women, 1976–1985, the United Nations established many institutions to improve the status of women, including the International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women and the United Nations Development Fund for Women. In 1979 the General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (abbreviated here as “the Convention”). This Convention is the major document on sexual discrimination. Some passages use cautious language, which
research was required only to provide a suitably political explanation and back it up with evidence. What the question calls “unprecedented opposition to girls’ achievement,” after all, could have been much less tendentiously called an unprecedented concern for boys’ achievement. Why assume from the get-go that concern for boys is synonymous with lack of it for girls or even active opposition to them? At any rate, three authors – Pierrette Bouchard and her two research assistants, Isabelle Boily
movement, feminists mobilized again in the 1960s. In 1972, it was approved by Congress as a proposed Twenty-seventh Amendment, which had to be ratified by three-quarters of the states within seven years.12 Section 1 reads as follows: “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.” Section 2 adds that Congress “shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” And section 3