As the tired-but-true expression goes, "You learn something every day." Today, perusing the comments to a post by Jeff Jarvis, (linked twice by Glenn Reynolds) I learned about a new word:"Misandry."

Sinister Sisterhood

After years of brain-wash girls become only too eager to believe in female oppression and assume their mission of countering alleged injustices inflicted on their helpless sister victims. There is no shortage of organisations for them to get involved with, education, media, law, politics and many dedicated institutions. These have a vested interest in maintaining the pretence of discrimination to justify their very existence. Thus the cycle perpetuating the misandrist attitude is completed.

The destructive effect is best illustrated by example: In recognition of a person's right to the bare necessities of life, there is a minimal earning that is exempt from taxation and once upon a time, this level was higher for a married man on the assumption that he would have his wife and children to support. Feminism changed this to a married person's allowance under which, married Dual Income No Kids Yet couples will get twice the allowance of a single income family, while unmarried parents pay even more in taxes... Quite the opposite of what was intended, but without a special interest lobby crying "foul" there is apparently little incentive to put it right.

On a more individual level, we find so called Positive discrimination at work. The principle of this is to redress an imbalance by making the individual's merits subordinate to bias that is contrary to prevailing stereotype. On a number of occasions I have worked for companies who, on this basis, only considered female applicants for some senior vacancies. Male staff in these companies might find themselves in a dead-end career, while the shortage of female applicants could have a less than optimal appointment as it's outcome. The defect in a positive discrimination doctrine is the assumption that gender imbalance would be due to anti-female prejudice and that two wrongs will make a right. It is in today's society more plausible that the job simply does not appeal to women, in the same way that there are roles to which men are less likely to aspire.

When it comes to children, however, it is taken for granted that mother knows best. Most notorious for anti-male injustice are the divorce courts and associated authorities, but regardless of even what they might have ordered, the head teacher at my son's school, for instance, will not allow him to use a school computer to read e-mail from his dad because his mother witholds her permission. Any communication from the father to the school is immediately brought to the mother's attention. Should I, as a dad ask what discussions and decisions affecting my son have taken place, then this same head teacher refuses to disclose anything. The result is that a father has absolutely no say what-so-ever in any aspect of how his child is raised, educated or disciplined, yet must submit his involvement to the mother's often hypocritical and unreasonable control and censorship. It may seem incredible, that intelligent people fail to recognise their own double standards, but in our 21st century egalitarian society, women are simply more equal.

"From 1983-1987 I was a graduate student in European History at the Univ. of Mass. I was, very nearly, the lone 'conservative' and witnessed then and afterwards dozens of instances of left wing bias both in teaching and in the hiring of teachers for the Academy. The one that stands out, I suppose for humorous reasons, is the following: I had a good friend who was taking a class in the Women's History department on advertising and women. I sat in quietly during one of the classes and noticed that it was a fairly well-attended class of around 25 women and one man (not including me.) It was about 2/3rds of the way through the semester and they were thick in the process of presenting to the class their research projects for the semester. The teacher was scheduling these for the next few sessions and she would call on each student by name and schedule their day to present. Eventually, she got to the lone male in the class at which point she asked ... 'What is your name again?'"

If we are all people, is it too much to ask that our common humanity not be infected by endless distinctions that reduce individuals to group stereotypes via mean-spirited identity politics?

Or am I a hopeless liberal?

UPDATE: I am embarrassed to admit that the word "misandry" is not new at all.

misandry: Dislike or disesteem of man by woman; -- opposed to misogyny. Webster's New International (Second Ed., 1958)

Hmmmm......

This website uses the word in quotes in such a way as to imply that such a thing as misandry really does not exist.

Maybe the word "misandry" is sexist?

Here's someone who complains that her inability to find the term indicates (gulp!) male bias!

I am looking for the term, comparable to misogynist, for women who hate men. The dictionary was of no use, as women obviously are not expected to hate men.

How did the word get in there? In 1958?