Contempt for Men in Today’s Society: An Interview with Dr. Paul Nathanson

Contempt for Men in Today’s Society: An Interview with Dr. Paul Nathanson

McGill researcher Dr. Paul Nathanson interviewed at the event “Contempt for Men in Today’s Society,” the inaugural event of the McGill Men’s Issues Awareness Society, on March 2, 2012.

Join/Support Canadian Association for Equality
http://www.equalitycanada.com/support-us

Contact us to get involved in our on campus efforts
info@equalitycanada.com

Misandry — defined as contempt — for men, is a shockingly common and unquestioned feature of modern society. Whether represented by high or popular culture, its negative effects bias important debates about the role of gender with respect to the workplace, the education system, family law and even our understanding of violence.

Featuring a live interview with Paul Nathanson, McGill Professor and author of Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture (2001) Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination Against Men (2006) and Sanctifying Misandry: Goddess Ideology and the Fall of Man (2010)

A truly interesting interview.

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination Against Men by Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young (Mar 21, 2006)

Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture by Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young (May 31, 2006)

Sanctifying Misandry: Goddess Ideology and the Fall of Man by Katherine K. Young and Paul Nathanson (Feb 8, 2011)

Next bit of money is going in this direction.

Advertisements
Tagged , , ,

8 thoughts on “Contempt for Men in Today’s Society: An Interview with Dr. Paul Nathanson

  1. M. Friday says:

    I’m honestly working through all three videos, but so far, I’m disgusted. This man’s impression of a member of an oppressed, and misunderstood demographic is sick and disturbing. It is immature and tit-for-tat at best.

    Next he’ll be talking about the white man’s burden, and how hard it is to walk down the street without fear of your body being violated and your genitals being mutilated; I mean, hows a man to feel wanted, right?

    • Francis Roy says:

      What an interesting reply. When you say this man’s impression of “a member of an oppressed, and misunderstood demographic […]” can you be more specific about which demographic you speak of?

      That you use such loaded terms as “sick and disturbing” doubles my curiosity.

      I understand your comment is general in nature, I’d like to hear the specifics of your thoughts. If we’re to have this conversation–and for all we know, I might agree with you–I’d find it helpful if you could make note of which video and starting time so that I can re-listen to the claims that he makes while considering your counter-response(s).

      • M. Friday says:

        I apologize for the offensive and volatile nature of my comment.As well as the intensely vague and general assertions.

      • Francis Roy says:

        I considered it neither offensive nor remotely volatile. I sincerely thought that you’d have some good counter-arguments. When I say that I welcome thoughtful counter-arguments, I mean it sincerely, not as a challenge, but as an invitation. There’s only so far I can test my ideas* without external feedback.

        *Note: Ideas that I find interesting or agree with. Theses are not my ideas in the sense that I have not originated them.

  2. M. Friday says:

    In terms of what I meant by “a member of an oppressed, and misunderstood demographic”, take your pick. It honestly doesn’t matter that much, considering the speaker is clearly an affluent, educated, white, American male. When considering these realities, it’s difficult to take him seriously when he talks about “misandry”, or implies any kind of oppression.

    The argument for misandry lacks empathy, understanding, and education.

    I would say that it lacks masculinity. I would actually say that it is the opposite of masculinity. It displays no empathy, emotional maturity, identity security, or respect for others and their plight in the community.

    I wouldn’t call it misandry in most cases, because I wouldn’t dare call the “perpetrated”, or “victims”, men in any capacity other than for what they pack in their jeans.

    • M. Friday says:

      That being said, in regards to your challenge to make specific claims and cite times during the videos, I’m afraid that I’m rather impotent in my ability to rise to that.

      I did not watch all of the videos. I didn’t even watch the entirety of the first one. I’m afraid that my statements are of strong opinion and little more.

      I deeply respect your response to my comment, and your inclusive nature. As much as I would love to have a conversation, it must be noted that my opinions are contemptuous, to say the least.

      • Francis Roy says:

        That being said, in regards to your challenge to make specific claims and cite times during the videos, I’m afraid that I’m rather impotent in my ability to rise to that.

        Nothing stops you from taking the time to do it. You’ve got your whole life ahead of you to do so, and I’m patient.

        I did not watch all of the videos. I didn’t even watch the entirety of the first one. I’m afraid that my statements are of strong opinion and little more.

        Well, it’s an honest admission.

        I deeply respect your response to my comment, and your inclusive nature. As much as I would love to have a conversation, it must be noted that my opinions are contemptuous, to say the least.

        So your opinions are contemptuous, I don’t really mind. I’m not sure if you’re being ironic, considering that the title of talk is “contempt for men in society” and that you, someone who claims to be contemptuous speak of men, so–then you claim that his ideas, only half-listened to are unacceptable in some sense.

        Contempt: the feeling that a person or a thing is beneath consideration, worthless, or deserving scorn.

        Do you understand that you’ve just labelled yourself a raging hypocrite? I will at least acknowledge your honesty, this is something that most Feminists don’t bring to the table. I find it refreshing.

        Now, I have a challenge for you to carry around in your mind for a while.

        1. You acknowledge that you haven’t taken the time to listen to what he’s said.

        2. You acknowledge that you reject his ideas, and that the reasons given are derived from Feminist ideology.

        3. You acknowledge that empathy, understanding, emotional maturity and respect are important to you as well as a sense of community.

        Do you believe that your beliefs are consistent? Empathetic? Understanding? Educated? Emotionally mature? That they respect the community?

        If you believe in intellectual integrity, emotional honesty, fair dealings among people, do you believe that thinking as you do is tenable in the least bit? Put aside your own sense of integrity. Do you believe that it is fair to be prejudiced against someone for no reason other than they had a 50-50 chance of being born male or female and that random chance made them male?

        Does this fit within your value system?

        If not, how will you resolve that?

        Answer or not, but take some time to think about it. I’ll be here if you want to continue speaking, or you can address me privately via email from my About page, if you prefer.

    • Francis Roy says:

      In terms of what I meant by “a member of an oppressed, and misunderstood demographic”, take your pick.

      This is a non-answer. “This member’s impression of a member of group X is negative and this is sick and disturbng.”

      […] considering the speaker is clearly an affluent, educated, white, American male […] it’s difficult to take him seriously when he talks about “misandry”, or implies any kind of oppression.

      You make a number of mistakes here. The first, is a simple ad hominem: his arguments regarding misandry are unacceptable because of who he is. Your arguments are invalid because you have access to, and the skills to use the internet. Doesn’t fly, does it?

      A second error is a strawman argument. He does not claim that men are “oppressed”, that is your Radical Feminist mindset filtering his words. He claims that we have issues to deal with.

      Nathanson, by the way, is Canadian. This interview was at McGill. That you aren’t aware of this tells me that you’ve paid very little attention to the content of the description as well as that of the video “McGill researcher Dr. Paul Nathanson interviewed at the event “Contempt for Men in Today’s Society,” the inaugural event of the McGill Men’s Issues Awareness Society, on March 2, 2012.”

      The argument for misandry lacks empathy, understanding, and education.

      “Bob, my car’s got a problem. Can we talk about it?” How is this statement “lacking empathy?” Men have issues that we must deal with, and we speak of them. Empathy is the ability to put one’s self in another’s shoes, to consider things from a second party’s point of view. You make the error of thinking that attention to one is the rejection of another, that they are mutually exclusive. This is not true. You claim that it lacks understanding. What make you think that? You claim that it lacks education. How do you know that? We are not speaking of bicycles at the moment; would you claim that this discussion demonstrates a lack of understanding or education about bicycles? Of course not, it does not follow. It is a non sequitur.

      I would say that it lacks masculinity.

      I would say that you need to unpack that statement. Masculinity is merely the properties of having a male body. Again, a non sequitur. The statement is incoherent.

      I would actually say that it is the opposite of masculinity.

      See above.

      It displays no empathy, emotional maturity, identity security, or respect for others and their plight in the community.

      You are making a lot of fancy accusations based on an unspoken presupposition. That presupposition is this: men, especially if they’re white or wealthy may not speak of their own issues, that any man’s issues are insignificant compared to other’s issues. Your error is denying that men are human beings that are part of society, and that men have issues that stand on their own. Your argument is “Yes, but what about everybody else’s problems?” This is irrelevant to one conversation focusing on our own stuff. Has it occurred to you that men are part of the community?

      Stop looking at every non-white, male as being a victim. That’s the Radical Feminism speaking.

      I wouldn’t call it misandry in most cases, because I wouldn’t dare call the “perpetrated”, or “victims”, men in any capacity other than for what they pack in their jeans.

      You wouldn’t call what, misandry in most cases? This last sentence is somewhat incoherent to me. Can I ask you to rephrase it, please?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: