Replacing Misandry: A Revolutionary History of Men

by Paul Nathanson, Katherine K. Young

In the first three volumes of this series, Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young challenge theories about patriarchy that ideological forms of feminism have promoted. In this volume, they argue that we must replace those misandric theories with one that takes seriously the needs and problems of boys and men no less than those of girls and women; at the same time, they add, we must maintain the reforms that egalitarian forms of feminism have promoted. With both factors in mind, they trace the history of men – that is, culturally organized perceptions of the male body and its masculine functions – over the past ten thousand years. They show how these perceptions have evolved in connection with a series of technological and cultural horticultural, agricultural, industrial, military, and now reproductive. This new approach sets the stage for understanding a profound and growing problem that our society must the increasing inability of boys and men to create or sustain a healthy collective identity. The authors define this as an identity that is distinctive, necessary, and therefore publicly valued. Without a healthy and positive identity, two current trends will giving up (dropping out of school, society, or even life itself) and attacking a society that has no room for men specifically as men, believing that even a negative identity, acted out in antisocial ways, is better than none at all.

Genres: Gender, Nonfiction

244 pages, Hardcover

First published June 1, 2015

Reviews

[Jonathan · Rating 5 out of 5]

I consider myself a feminist at heart, but for a paper I have been working working on for an Arthurian romance class required me to take a look at how men have been exploited throughout history. I was skeptical to say the least at first, but this book makes misandry make sense. It does not belittle the feminist movement or argue against many of the feminist movement's claims. Rather, it presents a picture that the feminists have ignored and few pieces of hypocrisy in their rhetoric. The best written chapter in this argument is chapter three where the authors discuss men and war. Specifically, the war is waged in the twentieth century when nearly all Western countries instituted the draft and put the burden of war solely on men's shoulders. Many people do not even consider this as unfair because men are suited both mentally and physically for combat. Nathanson and Young tear this argument down step by step and show how that our culture has made this part of masculine identity, when it has not always been so. They also point out where many feminists fall short in that they will fight for a woman's right to volunteer to be soldier and face combat situations but they do not believe that women should have to register for the draft like men do. If you are even remotely interested in feminism, I believe that you should also read this to have a well rounded view. It is also eye opening to anyone interested in gender or masculinity studies as women are not the only victims of the awful straight white male patriarchal system.

[Brittany · Rating 2 out of 5]

Nathanson and Young need to remove the words "implicitly" and "imply" from their vocabulary. They are the most flagrant abusers of the words, dating back to the deconstruction of the term "bad boy" (as in "Let's take this bad boy for a spin") in Spreading Misandry, and they get worse with the terms over time, as demonstrated in this volume of their series.

Go ahead and use terms like "objectify" without the (feminist) scare quotes.

It's jarring to see a couple dozen of pages go by with virtually no mention of feminism and then they start easing into the feminist pot shots without reason...'Academics - including feminist ones - frequently ignore this.' Instead of simply arguing their point, their message inexplicably becomes an explicit call out on feminist academics when, by their own admission, feminist academics aren't the only type of academic who commit this supposed crime.

Trying to neatly encompass all feminist opinions on major topics in the explanation of two belief systems (ideological feminism and egalitarian feminism) is a recipe for trouble, something they repeatedly do throughout the third and fourth chapters.

The frequent justification of some men's terrible actions and the vilification of women for theirs is grating. A man hits his wife with a spear in the leg because what else is he to do to maintain his collective identity As A Man (TM), but women are just the worst for wanting bodily autonomy (because naturally we use it to oppress men)? K.

If the authors could make their points without relying on "implications" that stretch beyond one's reasonable faculties and do away with their pot shots on the (apparently) two types of feminism that are to encompass all of feminism, this book would be so much better.