Defining Misandry

What is Misandry? The Dictionary definition is simple: hatred of men. Another definition offered up is similarly straightforward: an extreme dislike of males, frequently based upon unhappy experience or upbringing. What I want to put forward is a more pervasive, and reality-based definition of the word.

Misandry: dehumanization of the male sex. The view of males as non-human, not of intrinsic worth.

Men in our society are valued predominantly on their utility to others.

This is as true today as it was 5000 years ago. It’s true in general society (employer to employee), as well as in personal relationships (women love a ‘good provider’). Men are the protectors, the producers, the creators of society – precisely because without producing, protecting, or creating those same men would be considered a drag on society; a cost, not a benefit.

And society does not like supporting men. Ask the homeless about income supports and social housing. All for ‘young familes’ (read: single mothers). Ask the domestic violence shelters (if they admit male victims exist) about services for men. Ask your local University about support for boys wanting a better life through education.

The answer throughout society to men falling behind is always the same, from Kay Hymowitz to Rush Limbaugh:

“Pull up your socks, you lazy slackers”.

More misandry.

The world we live in is truly unforgiving to the man who ‘falls through the cracks.’  Nevermind the child support victims and the men who have lost it all in divorce. There are vast swaths of men who have had neither happen to them, and they still find themselves scraping from paycheque to paycheque for decades on end. They still find there are no helping hands available.

They still find that the taxes they have to pay still go towards ever more programs for women. Scratch that…I meant ‘young families’ (read: single mothers). It’s like the Government doesn’t know about all the struggling men. Of course, we know different, but when you view men as non-human cannon fodder, the Darwinian way government treats disadvantaged men becomes much more understandable.

The media is a major culprit of this mindset, reducing men to mere statistics, or job descriptions. When a bunch of miners are trapped underground, it’s always “The workers are trapped”, or “24 Miners were killed today”. Never do they say “The 24 men were underground for 3 days before they were rescued” – their sex is carefully excised from all reports. But should a slaughter in some village happen, for example, it’s “52 people dead so far, including women and children”.

See that? We’re supposed to really care, because it’s not just men that are killed. Women and children are involved too. Men have no value except as filler. It’s the women and children you are meant to care about.

Misandry shows up in our daily lives far more often than even we MRA’s care to admit.


Every time someone holds a man to a different standard than women, that’s Misandry. Refusing to listen to complaints because it’s “sad” when men complain is also Misandry (‘Real Men’ don’t complain is a veryconcise definition of Misandry). Believing that no matter what forces are against a man, his success (or lack thereof) is entirely his ‘fault’ is also Misandry.

Essentially, refusing to believe there are social forces arrayed against the average man succeeding is a manifestation of Misandry, since it is an expression of the “Real Men can handle anything” strain of the definition – with the implied “if you can’t handle it, you’re not a Real Man, and therefore not worth a toss.”

So how exactly does one know when they are in the presence of a man-hater?

Simply ask that person their opinions on such things as social supports for men (make sure to say this will reduce the funds available for women). If they are unable to see value in reducing services to women, in order to provide ANY services to men…well, you have a man hater in your face. In point of fact, you have a ‘that issue is important to get to once all this other stuff is accomplished’ type feminist, in all likelihood.

Alternatively, you could just listen to what they say. Most man-haters will let their opinions be known fairly easily, in some cases even being proud of their hatred. Any woman that demands a man ‘treat her like a woman should be’ is demanding servitude and beast-of-burden status from men. That is a misandrist. So are the folks who demand men ‘shut up and take it.’ In common parlance, “Man Up.”

Someone who feels that all of the issues facing men couldn’t possibly be affecting men as a whole, the “Don’t let it bother you, and pull up your socks” crowd, are also Misandrists, in that they refuse to recognize the humanity of men, preferring to view them as machines capable of anything regardless of circumstance.

Demanding men live up to impossible standards is Misandry. Refusing to see men in need, as men, is Misandry. Seeing men as beasts of burden, as a means of production, rather than human beings with feelings and hopes, is Misandry. Seeing men as a Class, rather than people, is Misandry.

More discussion is needed on this subject, but I believe it is time that we as a movement started to define a few terms on our own. So again, here’s my definition:

Misandry: dehumanization of the male sex. The view of males as non-human, not of intrinsic worth.

Recommended Content

Skip to toolbar