I find it both deeply troubling and kind of awesome that this study in the Psychology of Women Quarterly was done. I mean, aren't we past the whole feminists-hate-men thing yet? (I know, I know - that one will never get old.)
Three researchers from the University of Houston found that feminists aren't "man-haters" and - get this! - anti-feminists are the ones who have more negative attitudes about men.
"Our work finds that, indeed, non-feminists believe in traditional gender roles such as men being breadwinners and women being caregivers. At the same time, these non-feminists actually appear to resent the confines of the traditional roles they advocate, which presents a paradox for women and men in traditional heterosexual relationships," says researcher Melinda Kanner. (Emphasis mine)
If that's right, the folks at the Independent Women's Forum and Concerned Women for America must be the most man-hatingest ladies out there! (Watch your back, Solanas!)
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: New study says feminists aren't manhaters after all .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15225
Well, just duh!
I'm a man and my (female) feminist friends think I'm the shit!
ROFLMAO you're, like, my new hero.
I don’t think this is a “duh” study. I agree that it is a “duh” study for feminists and those who understand what feminism is about. But all you have to do is consider how feminists are spoken about in the media and especially on conservative stations and blogs. MRAs in particular think EXACTLY this way. But it’s not just MRAs. People believe the caricature of the man-hating feminist because it is promoted so successfully by people like Rush Limbaugh and others. And nothing can change their minds.
I know from my experience that the ones who talk about men being pigs and scum do not at all consider themselves to be feminists. My feminist friends do express their dislike of some men—rapists, child molesters, wife beaters, etc.
I've personally been called a man-hater by MRAs so many times I can't even remember. And I stopped trying to correct them. No study will ever convince those Koolaid drinkers that feminists are anything but evil and filled with hate. Feminism is, I’ve been told multiple times, nothing more than a hate movement. Ignorance.
If that's right, the folks at the Independent Women's Forum and Concerned Women for America must be the most man-hatingest ladies out there!
Dog bites man. (Man subsequently bristles at confines of traditional role as bite victim but chooses to do nothing about it because 'that would be unnatural.')
Where did you get that fantastic poster? Is it real?
I found the actual article (link below) very interesting. It actually makes a lot of sense. Women who identify themselves as feminists -- according to the authors operational definition of any refrence to equal rights for women or the acknowledgement of women's inequality -- had a lower index of "hostility toward men" (2.08 our to 5) than women who identified as nonfeminists (2.63 out of 5). Basicaly the authors conclude that feminists feel LESS hostility toward men than women who operate within traditional gender roles because they are exposed LESS to the typical power differential. Kudos to these researchers. Great work.
What was concerning to me though was how low the correct operational definition of feminsm was: only 60% of people got it right!
http://psych.umb.edu/faculty/kogan/files/Anderson%202009_Are%20Feminists%20Man%20Haters.pdf
Operational definitions vary by study in psychology.
In my senior thesis, our definition of Sexually Explicit Material was slightly different than the definitions other researchers had used.
Part of psychology is that since they're often looking at an impact of any certain concept on people, that concept needs to be defined in a way that's quantifiable. Quantifiability is the big problem more than anything else.
As for the "duh" comments, psychology often does "duh" studies to set precedent into the changes within society. It actually needs to be proven through "duh" studies before it can be accepted as fact.
I've felt less hostility toward men since I learned how inequality works. I see how I benefit from my own privileges, and I can therefore relate to men who don't quite understand what male privilege means. And, I have the tools to help them understand different worldviews.
Being a feminist helps me appreciate men more, especially the awesomely supportive, equally feminist ones.
love that they finally did an exhaustive study to prove what we already knew! ha!
michael kimmel wrote about this exactly in our july f-word issue of skirt!. here's a link: http://charleston.skirt.com/node/54509 - it's a great piece :)
Not surprising, but refreshing to have acknowledged!
If you dissect that anti-feminist position on just about everything, it usually boils down to "men can't help themselves."
Woman raped? She was wearing a short skirt? Well, she shouldn't have worn that short skirt because the animal instincts of the man took over and he lost control of himself and raped her.
Women in the workforce? We can't have that. She needs to stay home and take care of the house so that the man can go out and be manly and bring home the bacon. If she starts bringing home said bacon, why, he'll be emasculated, and he'll start to go out and look for a woman who will make him feel like a big important man. He won't be able to help himself!
Rinse, repeat. Seriously, as an adult woman, I expect the adult men around me to act like adults because I know they're capable of it. I've met very few feminists who believe that men are animals incapable of controlling themselves. That sentiment is always coming from the retrogressive types.
Exactly. If a man beats his girlfriend or wife, it's her fault because she shouldn't have provoked him. Or, she should have left him. No comment about the abuser himself.
If a man cheats on his wife, it's because she wasn't attending to his needs enough. (Thanks, Dr. Laura.)
At the end of the day, if you have to make that many excuses for someone, aren't you ultimately contemptuous of him?
Now here's an even bigger question: Do anti-feminist women hate women even more than they hate men?
Hmmmmm ... .
"Now here's an even bigger question: Do anti-feminist women hate women even more than they hate men?"
Yes they do. If by "anti-feminist women" you mean "female MRAs", then yes, yes, yes. Women who don’t call themselves feminists because of their mistaken ideas of what feminism is don’t hate their gender. But I’ve found that female MRAs are almost as bad and sometimes worse than male MRAs. Men are inventors and explorers—never women, men have dangerous jobs and women sit on our butts in safe, air-conditioned offices, women are leeches who suck men dry of all their money and cry rape falsely at the drop of a hat, women ask for beatings and then are so wimpy that they can’t “man up” and take a pummeling but instead have to go to the hospital, etc. Women are nothing without men. And the male MRAs eat it up because in order to love and support men, you must hate women. And hate they do.
Mighty Ponygirl,
but you do realize that you're in a discourse (like your post) that is constantly blaming men for x, y, z, that is, at the same time, claiming to be defending the notion that "men are not animals incapable of controlling themselves". So, while *you* may consider it "manhating" to believe that men are incapable of controlling themselves, while *other people* may consider the kind of discourse itself as "manhating".
Mighty Ponygirl is not actually blaming the men for the behavior. She's quoting what anti-feminists say to excuse men when they do behave badly.
And, there's nothing inherently "man-hating" when feminists point out the injustices that are being committed against them. That's just stating facts that happen every day to women.
On the other hand, it IS man-hating to say that women should just accept violence and sexism from men because men can't control themselves--which is what traditionalists argue.
Vicky,
hmm, well, this is mostly a matter of perception. It's the same argument often made by feminists about the mainstream media and the general social discourse being misogynist - women being referred to as this and that, in this way and that way that is considered problematic by feminists - so they(you?) perceive this discourse as misogynist. It's the same here - feminist discourse has a tendency to only look at certain things and therefore produce a biased version of what I would consider reality. So in my perception that discourse has a misandrist bias. Maybe that's impossible to change, but in that case it will likely also be hard for feminism as such to get rid of the manhating prejudice.
What are you nattering on about? It was obvious from my post that I wasn't describing the feminist view of men, I was describing the anti-feminist view of men. Vicky in Seattle even went so far as to explain the point of the post in plain English. And yet you come back with "waaaah, feminists think men are like this" ...?
It's like if you wrote a comment saying "I can't agree with people who drown kittens in bag. All of their reasons (kittens are expensive, they destroy things, they're loud) don't excuse that it's reprehensible behavior."
To which I replied "How dare you suggest we should drown kittens in bags because they're expensive and destroy things and they're loud?!"
Hey! I've got a BINGO!
So, then, is it your perception, or your proposed "other" perception, that the following is NOT man-hating: the belief that all men are animals incapable of controlling themselves?
And that the following IS man-hating: the belief that all people should take individual responsibility for their actions while we also recognize the influence society has on individuals' actions?
Who cares if we do? Please don't bother answering that question; it is rhetorical.
The important question is: Where can I get that book? I love lesbian pulp fiction and I've finished all of Ann Bannon's work.
Word Hollywood Marie!
Agreed! Where can we get that book?
@Hollywood Marie: Thank you for mentioning Ann Bannon. I had never heard of her before so I Googled her. I'm getting Odd Girl Out from the library tomorrow. :)
Glad I could help. I actually liked that book the least, but I guess it's the first in the series. My favorite is "I am a Woman..."
Any news on the book in this article?
ANYONE???
hey i'm a feminist and i like men hehehehe @ gabidaz thanks for the article i shall use it for future a-holes.
This is an extremely helpful article. Can't wait to show it to my feminist boyfriend. Thanks a lot!
From reading the study, and the study which released the AMI which they used in the study, it would seem to suggest feminists (with the exception of male feminists it seems although that doesn't look significant) are simply less willing to agree with very overt sexist statements than the general populace (causing them to score lower in both categories).
But that does little to show how long those feelings hold true when a support for equality comes into conflict with key feminist issues. I'd be personally interested in a study with slightly more pointed questions.
Hi,
I think the obvious explanation is that there are different notions of what "manhating" contains. I'm a guy and while I do think that feminism is partly necessary for men as well, I also do believe that feminist discourse is often one that starts by blaming men and then, upon being called on this, stating, "oh, it's not about the individual, it's about the system". So, I don't think all feminists are man-haters, but I still do think that feminism as such is having a certain inherent misandrist tendency, particularly when it comes to sexuality, as Naomi Wolf once wrote. Feminism has a lot, and rightly a lot, to say about violence committed by men, but there's not any kind of vocabulary to honor male sexuality. Just do a test. Count all feministing.com posts related to male violence, sexual violence, etc. of the last month, and then count all that were talking about male sexuality in a positive vein. I think that will be pretty obvious.
Well, like any social justice movement, feminism is an effort to rectify women's lot in society by pointing out and opposing the injustices that they experience.
Feminist literature "honoring male sexuality" (when the real challenges are to fight the occurrence and acceptance of male violence) would be akin to civil rights activists honoring, say, Southern cooking, while fighting segregation. Or Gandhi honoring English literature while opposing their occupation of India. How is that relevant?
Besides, every culture "honors male sexuality" --what more is there to do to "honor" it? (Heterosexual) men's sexuality is celebrated as a sign of their prowess and virility. In some cultures, men's sexuality is privileged with the right to multiple wives or a mistress or two on the side, while the wife is required to stay faithful to her one spouse.
What feminism seeks to do is fight the violent manifestations of male sexuality and carve out a new sexual dynamic between men and women that is based on mutuality and consent.
The whole damn world honors male sexuality. Why would you feel some distorted sense of being misrepresented when the world which is built upon a patriarchy has done nothing but exalt male sexuality? Simultaneously it has denigrated womens. Why put in the place where were exalting womens sexuality, a exaltation of male sexuality on a feminist forum when its not needed? Why use this alternative space that could ne used to showcase an enlightened but rarely expressed sentiment about women into one oft expressed about men?
Gopher,
thank you for explaining to me how my perception is wrong. I wasn't aware. I guess we're lucky that's just a bit condescending, not misandrist ;)
But...what about teh menz??
Kidding...VickyinSeattle is right. Feminism does not seek to oppress men--it seeks to achieve a balanced relationship between women and men.
Vicky,
"Besides, every culture "honors male sexuality" --what more is there to do to "honor" it?"
Well, here the question was whether feminism/feminists are "manhaters" and my suggestion was that there is an inherent misandrist notion in the discourse that may not be apparent to feminists but to other people. While the mainstream discourse would probably benefit from a more feminist approach to male sexuality, feminist discourse (broadly defined) could definitely have a different attitude towards male sexuality...
http://tigerbeatdown.blogspot.com/2009/06/dear-andrea-dworkin.html
"What feminism seeks to do is fight the violent manifestations of male sexuality and carve out a new sexual dynamic between men and women that is based on mutuality and consent."
See, I don't know any rapists or victims of rape. A lawyer friend once had a case involving sexual violenc. I'm not saying that this shouldn't be the focus of feminist activism/writing to the extent that it is, just that it creates a discourse that may be considered a counterweight to what is considered a biased social discourse, but also one that definitely has a taste of misandry, however often the opposite is stated. You may not consider this discourse misandrist, or manhating, other people may. Just like you may find the topical choices of a "Mens Rights" forum misogynist while they probably don't.
I wouldn't find a men's forum misogynist...as long as it didn't state in some form or another "women are bad."
That being said, I disagree 100% with you that feminism is inherently misandrist. Just because women want to focus on our rights and have our own space does not make it misandrist. We do talk a lot about negative things that are largely done by men--rape, domestic abuse, etc, but that doesn't make it misandrist, either. Those things most often happen to women, so it's only natural that they are discussed in a feminist community. Nowhere on feministing have I ever seen the sentiment that all men are bad.
I understand what you are saying about different people perceiving feminism in different ways. However, I still don't believe that feminism is misandrist. It doesn't say that men are bad, it encourages men and women to support equality between the sexes. Because women have usually been on the lower end of things, that's who gets all the attention here.
I don't know how clear this is coming through--I don't know how to explain it any more clearly than that. Feminism is not inherently misandrist just as a men's rights forum would not be inherently misogynist. Having gender-specific issues and focusing on improving the situation for one group doesn't make it anti-everyone else, it just makes it pertain largely to women.
Beth,
"I wouldn't find a men's forum misogynist...as long as it didn't state in some form or another "women are bad.""
So when I, as a man, have the impression that a certain, non-negligeable part of feminist discourse, is, in my perception saying that "in some form or another" then - wouldn't that make that part of the discourse misandrist from my point of view?
"That being said, I disagree 100% with you that feminism is inherently misandrist."
I didn't say feminism is inherently misandrist, but that feminist discourse has an inherent misandrist bias that has its origin in the topical choices. Just like the "women are bad" discourse is always implicit on men's rights boards simply because people talk about their experiences the "men are bad" discourse is always implicitly present on feminist boards in my opinion. There's a difference between feminism as such (which can be, but need not be misandrist) and the implicit misandry of said discourse, which is probably an inevitable side-effect, and which may be seen (and mistaken) as necessary fundamental misandry.
"We do talk a lot about negative things that are largely done by men--rape, domestic abuse, etc, but that doesn't make it misandrist, either. ... Nowhere on feministing have I ever seen the sentiment that all men are bad."
Well, example - just like feminists seem to infer a lot about the way men "objectify" women from the way they perceive the male discourse, can't you see that the way men are talked about in feminism can give the impression of misandry even if no one ever says "all men are bad"?
"Having gender-specific issues and focusing on improving the situation for one group doesn't make it anti-everyone else, it just makes it pertain largely to women."
Of course not, but it *can* be anti-someone else, as we have seen even in this thread, that's even a matter of intellectual honesty for some feminists. And it can even easier be mistaken as being against other people/groups simply by choice of words and topics.
I'm not saying that should necessarily be of concern. But when feminism/feminists are concerned about being perceived as manhating, then they should be aware that it's not an improbable assumption based on reading much of feminist discourse. And even if that reading may not be easily comprehensible to feminists, simply because they may have a different understanding of misandry - as I think is perfectly illustrated by MightyPony's post.
Correction: Feminist discourse has an inherent ANTI-PATRIARCHY bias. There is a difference between anti-man and anti-patriarchy. Patriarchy is the very reason feminism is necessary, so there's no use in complaining that our discourse focuses too much on destroying patriarchy. That is the whole point.
What makes you so sure about that?
I have a lot of femle friends, most of them more or less feminist, and it's a small town. If one of them had been raped, they wouldn't put up with it. They'd report it, and people would know. Of course, I don't positively know, but I am positive that none of them would remain silent about such an incident. I'm not so sure about the men I know, but while I suppose they'd not speak up because of the social risk associated, they're not as likely to become a rape victim in the first place. So, yes, I'm indeed very sure that I don't know a rape victim.
You know what, you don't know what you would do if you were raped until you were raped.
It's not that women who don't report rape "put up with it" as you so eloquently stated, it's that they feel ashamed, afraid, or otherwise cowed into silence. It may be that they have an iron-clad case but they don't want their friends who think of them as "not as likely to become a rape victim in the first place" to think that they failed at the expectations that they were rape-proof. It may be that the rape happened a long time before they became feminist, like maybe when they were six and a sitter molested them and they don't go around shouting this from the rooftops. It may be that they had sex that they know was not consensual (they were drunk/high, they didn't feel comfortable saying no, etc) but they can't admit to themselves that they were raped.
This "I don't know anyone who raped/was a rapist" line is nonsense. You do not know what happens in the dark recesses of your friends' souls. You don't know all of your friends' secrets, no matter how small your town is.
If they're feminist, they probably know that unless their rapist jumped out of the bushes (which is a tiny minority of rape cases), he probably won't be convicted. It's not so much about "putting up with it", but choosing not to be reviolated by friends/family, the police, court system, press, etc., for little to no societal or personal benefit. A lot of people get really nasty when they find out you've been raped. They'll call you a liar or start blaming you for it, because they believe only bad girls get raped. It gives them a false sense of security. As long as only bad girls get raped, rape is preventable by its potential victims; as long as they act like 'good girls', they think they're "less likely to become a rape victim in the first place."
"See, I don't know any rapists or victims of rape."
Your first problem is that you honestly believe this.
Just wondering - why do you suspect that *your* assumptions about my reality are true while my account of *my* reality is not? Imagine what would happen if someone told a woman here that "her understanding of reality" is wrong.
You're not talking about your reality. You're making wild assumptions about the realities of every woman you know, and those assumptions just don't mesh with the realities of most women. Sure, it's possible you live in a magical pocket of society where rape doesn't exist, and it's also possible that gravity is caused by magical unicorns dancing around in the core of the sun. I'll believe it when I have proof, though.
I'm just saying this statement doesn't mesh with reality. Even at the low end, statistics say that 1 in 6 women will be raped in their lifetime. Higher estimates say 1 in 3. If no woman in your life has ever been raped or sexually assaulted, then it's because she hasn't told you. I wouldn't, especially with that attitude of yours that REAL rape victims don't "put up with it."
To help illuminate things further, I was assaulted by a guy I had been flirting with all evening. I "put up with it" because I knew that I wouldn't be believed if I reported, because a) I had been flirting with him and b) I had sex with him, consensually, at a later date. Even though those two factors do not lessen the fact that I was assaulted, I know, based on mountains of legal precedent, that I would not be believed. So it wasn't fucking worth reporting. How DARE you imply that true victims don't "put up with it."
Do you see the problem now?
jellyleelips,
actually, not what I said. I said based on my knowledge of the women in question *they* would not have put up with it. I assume it's in general quite common for victims to put up with it. As for your story - for me that's confusing things more. So you didn't report a sexual assault because no one would believe you and then later had consensual sex with the same person?
Your last sentence crosses the line jayjay322. More comments like that and you will be reported to admin. Your question also shows a clear lack of knowledge about the interaction between relationships and assault. Do some research before you question victims on their actions.
See, I don't know any rapists or victims of rape.
Yes you do. It's just that the rapists don't think of themselves as such, and the victims haven't shared it with you.
Jayjay,
Others have replied since I logged off but since you were addressing me, I wanted to respond:
Re. your statement: "See, I don't know any rapists or victims of rape."
Well, I don't know any murderers or murder victims either, but that doesn't mean that murder doesn't happen or that it happens so infrequently that it's not a societal problem.
Re. your comparisons between perceived misandrism in feminist writing vs. misogyny in men's rights boards:
1) Whether one agrees with them or not, every group seeks to highlight injustices so that supporters can take action to change things. That's just the nature of any "rights" organizations--civil rights, gay rights, pro-family values, pro-choice or anti-abortion rights, enviro groups, etc. No one on any of these sites will waste time posting, "Now for some good news about puppies and kittens..." You could argue that they all have a "biased" worldview because they are focusing on just the issues that concern them, but they're not being biased--they're just being focused.
2) Others have pointed out that there is a huge difference between notifying the public about injustices against women and claiming that "men are bad." If we thought men were bad and incapable of change, then why bother doing anything, including speaking up?
3) Please don't assume that men and women are at a level playing field, and the feminists are just harping on the "bad stuff" while overlooking all the good stuff. Sadly, there is an overwhelming amount of "bad stuff": Look up the US Justice Department's stats on the number of women killed by abusive partners. Look at the stats on rape.
And, that's just in the U.S., where things are soo much better than in other parts of the world.
So if you're complaining that feminists always highlight the bad things men do, it's because there are so many of wrongs to fight against. And, frankly, while I am sympathetic to men's issues such as child custody law, men aren't facing the threats that women do here and worldwide.
Vicky,
"but they're not being biased--they're just being focused."
well, maybe it's both at the same time. As you say, if you're focused on the bad stuff, you don't mention the good stuff as often, and that may be fair and well for those who believe it's necessary to point out the bad stuff. But then, and that's my point, they should not be surprised to be seen as misandrist (in this case). Maybe you can square that in your definition of misandry, but I suppose a lot of other people won't be able to. And that's why many people think a discourse that is constantly highlighting the bad stuff while not talking about the good stuff has an inherent misandrist bias.
Can you explain the purpose of "highlighting the good?" What purpose would that serve, to activists, in their quest to eradicate oppression? Just to make the oppressors feel good about themselves every now and then?
Rape is about power and control not sex. Besides this isnt a site thats about doing PR for men.
I've long wondered to what extent feminists ought to interest men in feminism, not to prove that it is non-threatening, but to actually work toward its goal(s) - there is no way that change can be effected in isolation. And, just a thought, perhaps feminism ought to request men's involvement as much as it requests women's.
I don't understand why anybody responds to 'what about teh menz' because it seems counterproductive. Yup, centering all the attention on the male, as usual. Nothing new there. But on a feminist blog? Common.
I'm not sure if you're referring to me when you suggest that somebody is centering all the attention on the men - do you mean my comment focuses on men because I'm replying to one?
Suggesting that feminists ought to persuade men (who are hugely complicit in maintaining sexism) to be interested in feminism isn't that wild an idea. Do feminists want change or do they just enjoy the analysis? Do they want to engage with everybody or just each other? Do they want their analyses and their messages to breach the confines of their comfort zones with each other, or are they fine reducing their impact as long as they don't have to engage with men?
Let's ask more difficult questions that many feminists have avoided long enough that we've still got to have these conversations, and let's try not to reduce meaningful discussions to some catchy online saying about "teh menz."
There's a big fucking difference between hating men and not kissing their collective ass. You're so used to having your ass kissed that when it's not, you think you are being hated on. Welcome to a world where it's not about you.
Frumious... I... I think I love you.
I really don't understand the purpose of these studies. It's like the GOP coming out with a study saying how really open and diverse they are. Just hire a press agent.
Sadly enough, we're actually not over the idea that feminists are man haters, it even still comes from other feminists. Be sure to skim through the comments, it's freaky.
With friends like these...
Shit. Radical feminists expressing their opinions. Can't have that. It might scare away men. And we know that 97% of feminism these days is reassuring men that we don't hate them and won't really change anything about the power dynamic that puts them on top.
"Don't worry, dudes. We'll be satisfied with sort of equal pay and a little less rape, if that's okay, but we won't ask you to give up your phallocentric worldview. And we'll still make you feel like MEN!"
The problem with radicals is that they have this habit of spouting off stuff like this: "My life would improve immensely and immediately if every single man on the planet suddenly dropped dead".
Sorry, but if that's "radical feminism" then it's stupid. Clearly the people who voice these opinions have been hurt, a lot. That is tragic and wrong, but it does not make them right.
There's plenty of ground between advocating the eradication of men, and asking nicely to get raped a little less. Fortunately for everyone who wants to see actual change, very few people seem to subscribe to those extremes.
Absolutely!
I must say, I actually agree with the spirit of rageagainstthemanchine's post. Once you get past her initial tirade and the rather questionable example (I think that her interpretation of the man's behavior could have been strongly colored by her being in a generally foul mood at the time), her actual point is pretty spot on.. I quote:
I really do hate most men, because I hate what masculinity and maleness mean and the kinds of behaviors they produce.
It's hard to argue with that. The comments on the other hand... :X
@ Nepenthe
Thanks, I just love having words put in my mouth. I have no interest in reassuring men that I "won't really change anything about the power dynamic that puts them on top." However, I really don't think declaring hatred for the half of our species that is currently in charge is very helpful to actually advancing feminism.
@ Taslavar
I see what you're saying, but I don't think I really agree. I don't object to hating masculinity or maleness. In fact, I tend to feel at least a strong dislike for them myself. But, I also hate femininity and femaleness and the kinds of behavior that they produce.
Does that mean I should rant about how much I hate women? Would I be supported as a feminist voicing my opinion if I did? I don't think so, and I really hope not. There's a difference between hating the way that gender is structured in our society (and how that affects people's lives and behavior) and hating people. I think that distinction is important.
I am actually really really surprised by these results. They don't make much sense. I'm being serious.
Here are the questions on the Ambivalence Towards Men Inventory. I've put a *** next to the items I think feminists would endorse more than nonfeminists:
CATEGORY C - Heterosexual Hostility
1) ***When in positions of power, men sexually harass women.
2)***Men have no morals in what they will do to have sex
3) ***Men usually try to dominate coversations with women
CATEGORY B - RESENTMENT OF PATERNALISM
4) ***Men will always fight for greater control in society.
5) Even sensitive men want traditional relationships
6) ***Men pay lip service to equality, but can't handle it
CATEGORY C - COMPENSATORY GENDER DIFFERENTIATION
7) Most men are really like children
8) Men would be lost without women to guide them
9) Men act like babies when they are sick.
Here is what I think happened.
EXPLANATION ONE: I'd be willing to bet that feminists scored higher on 1 and 3 (feminist concerns with men seeking and maintain control and power), and then maybe higher on 2 and 4(feminist concern with rape and harassment promoting culture) and 6 (Some men simply feign interest in equality). Folks with more traditional gender role beliefs endorsed 7-9 more, which situate men as needing women to survive as their complementary partners (Women need men and men need women). So the relatively higher scores by feminists on the early questions might have balanced out by relatively lower scores on the last three.
EXPLANATION TWO: Feminists are trained to reject categories. So feminists would be less likely to endorse items that men or women inherently are one way or the other, even if they believe many men do #1, #3, etc. Non-feminists don't have that kind of training so are more comfortable endorsing questions that put all men in one category.
If I were a reviewer on the paper I would have requested that they report the subscales, not just the overall scale averages.
Assuming your characterizations are correct, I’d have to say that feminists are more aware of sexual harassment and rape issues and the quest for male domination. I would hardly call this awareness “Heterosexual Hostility”. How about renaming the category “Reality”?
I personally believe that nonfeminists would agree with all of this, although many would not be troubled by it because it’s as it should be in their eyes. And let’s be honest, most everyone, feminist and nonfeminist male and female, agrees with #2 (although I’d replace “no morals” with “few morals” and “Many men” instead of “Men”).
Recognizing problems in society and pointing them out and working to eradicate them does not make you a man-hater. Why does that surprise you?
Hi Jeana - They aren't my names for the subscales. They are the names of the subscales created by the authors of the instrument.
In response to your comment: "Recognizing problems in society and pointing them out and working to eradicate them does not make you a man-hater. Why does that surprise you?"
I think you may have misinterpreted my point. I was not saying "feminists are manhaters". I was saying that on this scale, I would have expected feminists to score higher, because they are generally more concerned and aware of issues of male dominance in society measured by the scale (male dominance of conversation, sexual assault and harassment). In other words, what you said is exactly the same as what I was saying. If the first category is "reality", why aren't feminists endorsing those items more strongly because of the awareness of these problems brought on by learning feminist perspectives?
Given that many of the actual items aren't assessing "man-hating", the fact that feminists scored lower requires explanation. I offered two explanations. The explanation in your middle paragraph also makes sense (awareness vs. concern).
But the media/journal spinning the story as this was a study of "manhating" is confusing because that is not the main focus of the scale. It's not like the scale had items like "I hate men" or "Most men are evil".
I had to read what you wrote several times. Now I understand what you are saying. I would also like to know how feminists vs non-feminists scored on the different scales. Sorry if I appeared hostile. It was my inherent man-hating, I think.
This doesn't surprise me. The women I know who are more conventional and anti-feminist are the ones who seem to complain about men the most, make man-bashing jokes, etc.
Next up a study will reveal that water is wet.
Even though this is a "duh!" study, I think it's important. Studies from respectable sources turn opinions into facts in our society, even if the opinion is so obviously fact for many of us,
Isn't there some study that showed that feminist heterosexual couples were happier and more egalitarian than more traditional heterosexual couples? Oh, and add me to the list of women who don't hate cock owners.
"Men" and "cock owners" are not actually the same thing, although I get your point.
I am aware.
Two thoughts come to mind:
1) Most women I interact with aren't particularly feminist nor anti-feminist. They might even say some positive things about feminism (equal pay, etc.), but if prodded would say it sometimes "goes too far". They may or may not think of themselves as feminists, and their overall beliefs may be inconsistent. (My mom, for example is very pro-career woman but has really slut-shaming views about sex.) Anyway, the man-bashing I've witnessed is considered by them to be a "feminist" activity. It's regarded as kind-of a bonding thing that you do occasionally, but making it a major tenet of your life would be problematic.
2) The same women would rarely confront men directly with those sentiments. The feminists that I know would be more likely to speak their minds to men (possibly in an angry way, but not so much in a hateful way).
Thus, it makes some degree of sense that feminists would have a reputation for "man-hating". It's not a FAIR characterization, but I think these two factors together contribute to that.
I think this study will prove very useful for young feminists (and by young I include older people who are newly idetifying with the term "feminist"). When I was in high school and early college, I remember not wanting to indetify as a feminist because I believed all that "man-hater" propaganda. Having more access to studies that disprove that stereotype may help other young feminists in devlopeing a feminist identity.
Unfortunately, the study does not actually demonstrate what it claims. For one, the ethnicity of the study was skewed. Contrary to what the researchers attempted to argue, the majority of feminists in the United States are white females, and certainly the majority of the most vocal and prominent feminists are white. However, only 80 white students participated in the study. Later the researchers excluded 172 people from the study who did not agree with the researchers admittedly overbroad defintiion of feminism, so it is unclear how many of those participants were white. That creates a rather skewed report on feminist views, not only because of the very small sample, but also because the sample group does not accurately represent the actual ethnic population distribution of feminists. When the same distribution is applied to other scenarios, such as determining whether police are more hostile towards black and latino men than civilians, one can see how an over-representation of ethnic minorities could skew the results.
Secondly, the methodology itself is somewhat questionable. The pdf linked to by someone does not include the questions that the researchers asked, so it is unclear how skewed or neutral the questions were or whether they were loaded. In other words, it is unclear how many of the statements and questions were relatively benign in appearance or what exactly the researchers considered middle ground or neutral answers. The reason this is important is because the researchers admittedly demonstrated an element of bias by first using an overbroad definition of feminism and then wholly excluding anyone who would not meet their definition. It is possible then that researchers, led by their own bias, counted general feminist statements as neutral. Without knowing exactly what was asked, which answers were considered neutral or even which questions people responded more hostilely too, we end up with an imperfect result.
The study results simply does not provide enough information to accurately claim that feminists are less hostile towards men. I do, however, agree with the researchers that another larger study should be conducted, and I think they should include non-feminists in the process to avoid any potential bias on their part.
I wonder what would happen using a Gender Implicit Association Test with association terms more like those in the Race IAT to test this hypothesis.
Contrary to what the researchers attempted to argue, the majority of feminists in the United States are white females, and certainly the majority of the most vocal and prominent feminists are white. However, only 80 white students participated in the study.
That the racial composition doesn't exactly mirror does not condemn the results as false. It's a start, a jumping-off point for larger, more representative samples. The researchers in this study don't make the claim, in fact are very careful to state the limitations of their study, about ALL feminists.
Furthermore, it seems as though you are dismissing valid data because it doesn't include enough white people, as though it's only white people who have the "real" opinions. It's true that this may not represent society at large, but it does fairly accurately represent the opinions of this subset of people.
The pdf linked to by someone does not include the questions that the researchers asked, so it is unclear how skewed or neutral the questions were or whether they were loaded.
They gave the citations for the exact measures they used:
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1999). The Ambivalence Toward Men
Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent beliefs
about men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 519–536.
They don't need to recreate the questions in their article because a curious researcher can go directly to the source. It's not a failing that they didn't provide the actual questions. Most researchers actually don't have the room in their articles to recreate every detail because many journals cap the number of pages submissions can have. This was referenced properly and it included the alphas and compared them to the original study. This is completely adequate.
The study results simply does not provide enough information to accurately claim that feminists are less hostile towards men.
This is only true if you don't account for the references given. They have given all of the information necessary. Every article doesn't have to re-invent the wheel and completely restate the validity of measures used, including every question, because there is just not time or paper enough for the journal to print it out.
I do in-depth quantitative studies as a part of the research I do. I have at least a dozen measures that I use in my research, most of which have over 50 separate items. Rather than reproduce every single item of each measure, I reference the studies that have already proven them valid.
Psychology of Women Quarterly is a respected, academic journal with strict peer-review policies. Just because you're too lazy to look up the references doesn't mean that the study is "biased." The references are there for a reason. And I agree with the editors of PWQ that this study had something important to contribute to the research community.
I did not state the results were false, only that they do not demonstrate the conclusion the researchers reached. It is not a question of white people having "real" opinions (as that would dismiss my own opinions), but that white people, particularly white women, encompass the majority of feminists in the United States.
Nevertheless, the researchers do claim that feminists in general are less hostile towards men, and the limitations they acknowledge do not alter that assertion. Although, it is curious they did not conduct the study in a Women Studies department. Given that the issue is whether feminists are hostile towards men, going into an environment where they would find many different types feminists could have lead them to determining whether certain feminists are more hostile towards men than others.
As for the measures that were used, the issue is the questions that were asked. This is important is because if the questions are skewed in favor of feminists, the results do not mean that the feminists respondents were actually less hostile, only that their answer was scored as less hostile. Having seen and taken the female-focused ASI test, I can say that the questions are certainly biased. The same slant may be evident in the male-focused variant the researchers gave, meaning, practically by default, feminists would score as less hostile more often than others. That is why it is important to see the questions they asked, particularly because much of what is considered hostile does not necessarily come across as such to feminists.
That a feminist-run academic journal is respected does not mean that politics cannot be at play, nor does it mean the journal would not accept studies with skewed results that bolster certain positions. More so, simply because a methodology has been used in other studies does not mean it is itself unbiased. That is not a matter of laziness, only a matter of objective critique, one which would likely be applied if three police officers presented a study claiming that police officers are less likely to harbor racial biases than civilians in which white officers composed less than twenty percent of those questioned and active officers composed an even smaller percentage.
Good points about the female-focused ASI test, thats why I always take these things with a huge dose of salt because you can skew questions to get whatever result you want.
Can you even *be* a feminist if you hate men? I don't think so.
For certain values of "hate" and "men", I'd say it's not only possible, but necessary.
In point of fact, they think I'm the shit. However, being feminists means they like me for my uh, intelligence and it has nothing whatsoever to do with my rugged good looks and smoldering sex appeal.