Our thanks to Elizabeth Hobson, leader of J4MB in 2020/21 during the time we were a political party (2013-23), for this image of the cover of an International Women’s Day leaflet brought home from school recently by one of her sons:
Eli writes:
“There are feminist myths in this document that IWD has cascaded down through my sons school to my inbox – and the token “issue” cited [not enough women in F1!] is so niche it’s hilarious. I knew a young man who was hoping to get there, years ago, and by age 18 his family had poured unbelievable sums into training and equipment for him to compete in races miles away from that pinnacle. Almost everyone who wants to be anywhere near F1 will never have a ghost of a hope. But then they also signal boost various women in teams coming up through universities currently – so it’s presented as a problem being resolved, rather than a problem showing how badly women have it.
There’s no mention of the value that normal women can bring to society through supporting their families and performing sex-typical jobs (which I think is a shame – most young women will end up doing normal things like that but schools haven’t mentioned that to us for years so it can come as a bit of a shock when we realise we weren’t born to be female astronauts or CEOs and have to find an identity within a relentless drudgery that was never presented as an option for our lives). But it’s clear that some thought was given to choosing the inspirational women cited, and almost all of them are undeniably remarkable and interesting.
And then there’s page 3. Not only accepts that misandry exists [J4MB: Although it refers to it as “misandrism”] but puts it before misogyny which appears to me to make clear that it’s not a less important secondary phenomenon but quite the equal. I know they’ve been going hard on opposing “Andrew Tate” and “misogyny” and all this in schools generally – but it looks to me like whoever put this booklet together is aware that we are certainly past the point where it can be denied that prejudice against men exists, and I’m refreshed to see a tone significantly less lamenting regarding women’s place in society than I’m used to from feminists.”
If you’d like email notifications of our new blog pieces, please enter your email address in the box near the top of the right-hand column and click ‘Subscribe’.
We shall shortly be posting this piece on our X channel.
Our YouTube channel is here.
Justice for Men & Boys 
I was pleased “misandrism” got a mention. It does at least identify that there is misandry. I actually think the term could be very useful to promote. Using “ism” suggests a set of beliefs rather than just hating men or males. As such its closer to the real truth, that in fact there is a sort of “religion” that is based on the idea males are inherently bad, even when apparently doing good things. Of course we know it as Feminism and its adherents as “feminists” but maybe the world would take more note if we use the labels “Misandrism” and “Misandrists” and get these out into the on line world. For of course “Feminism” is deeply embedded in our society as being exra specially nice to females and successfully hooks into what is variously called “Gamma Bias” or “Gynocentrism” or “Benign Sexism” all of which describe the pretty much inevitable default men and women stepping in to “protect” and “support” females. In effect MRAs are always on the back foot as overtly pushing against “Feminism” is easy cast as attacking “women”. Whereas using the term “Misandrism” to describe the areas that are pretty widely understood to be where males are discriminated against; family courts, divorce, acute mental health/suicide, education, imagery in media output, Abuse by partners/family members, employment …… Then the focus is on the negative effects on males as people and what those effects are rather than being about “feminism” which is taken to be a covert attack on women. Over time the organised nature of this Misandrism will become evident and the penny will drop that what drives it is in fact “feminism” (and actually some Conservativism).
So the feminist civil war over “trans” highlights “misandrism” because the sides in the battle both use arguments based on an ideology that males are always and inevitably bad and a threat. No where does either side even mention “trans” men let alone consider their experiences. The “battle is in effect over just how much they think males “toxic”. One side saying being made into a woman makes them better people the other that even an eunuch pumped with female hormones can’t escape being a toxic threat! Clearly the conspiracy to do nothing about boys education is Misandrism, for as Mary Curnock-Cook found out the reasoning for doing nothing to help boys is because holding them back makes up for the expectation that “the patriarchy” and “toxic masculinity” will push them ahead in the employment market in their middle age. In other words deliberate handicapping of male children. As we have seen the changes in the law to further prevent fathers from contact with their children is driven directly that in divorce fathers as a whole are to be automatically considered a threat without any evidence! Because all men are inherently monsters. I could go on but I really do think “Misandrism” can easily be shown by cleverer minds than mine (Prof. Fiamengo perhaps).
Misandry exists of course but sounds more random. Misandrism I believe hits the mrk that this isn’t some random set of emotions but a set of beliefs about the moral value and qualities of men and women. Describing, as the leaflet does, at set of prejudices that males are lesser beings morally.
I have to add also I’m not averse to boys being taught “equality between the sexes” “both sexes are equal” because armed with this they will observe all the inequality that is based on “Misandrism” (aka. Feminism). Like Elizabeth I did chuckle at the idea of the key issue being F1 drivers.
LikeLiked by 1 person