What do you think?
Rate this book
Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture
Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young argue that since the 1990s men have been portrayed in popular culture as evil, inadequate, or honorary women, from Designing Women, Home Improvement, Oprah, and Cape Fear to Hallmark cards, comic strips, and the New York Times columns of Anna Quindlen. The first of a three-part series, Spreading Misandry offers an impressive critique of popular culture to identify a phenomenon that is just now being recognized as a serious cultural problem - misandry, the sexist counterpart of misogyny.
Nathanson and Young urge us to rethink prevalent assumptions about men that result in profoundly disturbing stereotypes that foster contempt. Spreading Misandry breaks new ground by discussing misandry in moral terms rather than purely psychological or sociological ones and by criticizing not only ideological feminism but other ideologies on both the left and the right.
Nathanson and Young urge us to rethink prevalent assumptions about men that result in profoundly disturbing stereotypes that foster contempt. Spreading Misandry breaks new ground by discussing misandry in moral terms rather than purely psychological or sociological ones and by criticizing not only ideological feminism but other ideologies on both the left and the right.
392 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2001
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
September 24, 2013
Paul Nathanson and Katherine White’s three massive studies on the systematic misandry of our times have the virtue that trumps all other virtues: They are right. Their thesis is right---that powerful propaganda strains in this culture are determined to debase or even dissolve the mere notion of honorable manhood in this century. Their evidence is massive, even torrential. Their logic calm and humane. This series should be read by everyone interested in the gender issues of our era.
But it won’t be. The scholarly gifts that enable Nathanson and White to marshall the relentless abundance of their evidence is intellectually inspiring. But it does not make for a great polemic. They have ferreted out the truth about one of the great lies. They have not found a way to make that truth heard.
An exception is the third book in the series, “Sanctifying Misandry,” which I gather is primarily the work of Professor White. This volume demolishes the prime pillars of radical feminist theology with a cold, lethal economy of means that leaves not one brick on brick, and that is missing in the other two books.
And yet, the whole series cries out to have someone meet its challenge. Nathanson and White should be read, and if possible answered, by every feminist polemicist in the West. These two distinguished scholars throw down the gauntlet. They dare---they defy---their adversaries to meet their challenge. And the responses? I have yet to see even one. Meanwhile, a trivial pseudo-study such as Hannah Rosin’s "The End of Men,” or the glisttening man-hatred-as-snobbery featured in the New York Times by Maureen Dowd (and her many little Dowds all across journalism) is mistaken as having some relevance to lived social or moral truths.
Nathanson and White speak with the voice of scholarship at a moment when what’s most needed is the voice of prophecy,
But it won’t be. The scholarly gifts that enable Nathanson and White to marshall the relentless abundance of their evidence is intellectually inspiring. But it does not make for a great polemic. They have ferreted out the truth about one of the great lies. They have not found a way to make that truth heard.
An exception is the third book in the series, “Sanctifying Misandry,” which I gather is primarily the work of Professor White. This volume demolishes the prime pillars of radical feminist theology with a cold, lethal economy of means that leaves not one brick on brick, and that is missing in the other two books.
And yet, the whole series cries out to have someone meet its challenge. Nathanson and White should be read, and if possible answered, by every feminist polemicist in the West. These two distinguished scholars throw down the gauntlet. They dare---they defy---their adversaries to meet their challenge. And the responses? I have yet to see even one. Meanwhile, a trivial pseudo-study such as Hannah Rosin’s "The End of Men,” or the glisttening man-hatred-as-snobbery featured in the New York Times by Maureen Dowd (and her many little Dowds all across journalism) is mistaken as having some relevance to lived social or moral truths.
Nathanson and White speak with the voice of scholarship at a moment when what’s most needed is the voice of prophecy,
August 2, 2015
An excellent and well researched analyses of misandry in the modern media and it's roots in feminism. Nathanson & young are clearly very Literate and well read authors. The first 200 pages were a hard read as it goes into an analysis of many movies and TV shows which I found somewhat repetitive. It is however such an eye opener that I can't help but see it in everything I watch now and it is impossible to ignore. Of course the stories of damsels in distress and villains are old ones however the modern media have slipped into a man hating micro universe. This book is a revelation for any man or woman brainwashed by decades of belief in the so called sanctity of the feminine. Expect hateful reviews from women and so called men. There are many who will find the truths in this book a cut too deep.
January 7, 2021
This book is definitely dated, and that can often undermine the overall argument of the authors, which is that misandry is a problem in modern American (and Canadian) society and that media influence the spread of it. I would say the second half of this book does a better job articulating these points, as it moves away from the pattern set in the first half of the book of ignoring the intersectionalities of gender, class, etc in society. I appreciated, especially, the analysis of Beauty and the Beast (both the Disney and Cocteau versions). Spreading Misandry, I will also note, writes about misandry with a focus on feminist ideologies. The book talks about misandry through a gynocentric lens and often criticizes feminist theory in one dimensional ways. Misandry is a term that most people do not know and it is a very important issue that needs to be addressed, but I don't think this book is effective enough to convince those who are not familiar with or do not believe in misandry of that fact.
November 13, 2008
A disjointed collection of reactionary misinterpretations of media texts, broached from a undefined theoretical patchwork, purporting to demonstrate the "dehumanization" of men. A welcome intervention into gender and media studies, however its prejudice and wanton ignorance of the literature only serves to validate the theories that this book challenges. The logical bound from representation to referent that the authors repeatedly employ is highly problematic. Moreover, a cursory study of empirical data on domestic violence or the political economy of media and labour would lay such claims to rest.
September 19, 2011
Although I am not convinced by every assertion made by these authors - not least their assumption that the problem of the book's title is as pervasive in society, generally, as it is in pop culture - I commend the authors' courage and convictions for addressing an issue that few people seem to want to acknowledge, let alone discuss.
December 10, 2022
Is there a problem with the way we portray men in the popular culture? I, as a man myself (duh!) thinks that, yes, definitely, there is. If you pay careful attention to soaps, series, and blockbusters movies, we, men, are either depicted as inadequate, immature, incompetent jerks; silly action heroes figurines-like type of characters; idiots with the emotional maturity of a teenager but the toilet sense of humour of toddlers; or, no less concerning, plain violent, dangerous, psychopaths and abusers especially towards women. Is it a problem?
For decades, women have been complaining about how the portrayals of women in the popular culture (from the submissive housewife to the tarty bimbo) had done nothing to serve women's causes and issues, many otherwise very serious indeed -as was embraced by the feminist movement. What we have now, though, is the other side of the pendulum that is, that of men being depicted no less counter-productively (and falsely!) at a time when masculinity, having been redefined, is leaving men facing no less serious issues of their own. This book, then, is very important because it outlines that.
Critically analysing a multitude of movies, talk shows, and series, it shows how the portrayal of men as being, either inadequate, or, violent towards women, has served nothing but a toxic brand of feminism purporting that men are just so that is, relying on misandry. The point might seems harsh. To anyone familiar with the recent history of feminism, though (its morphing from a liberal one to a radical one) it's everything but. But what about the popular culture? Are the authors having a point?
First of all, it relies on analyses of cherry-picked movies from the 1990s. This, then, no matter how relevant, must be pointed for what it is: a tunnel vision (they did not analysed absolutely every movie that came out during that decades!). Then, it implies that the readers ought to trust them on how they interpret such movies, and here's an issue for two obvious reasons.
First, because most reader, I guess, will be like me -they will not have seen all the shows they are talking about. Are the authors right, then, or not? It's impossible to assert, unless and only for those that the reader himself/ herself will have seen. Then, because art being subjective, some such interpretations will be right on spot, while others will be questionable, to say the least. Personally for example, I fully agree with their interpretation of 'The Handmaid's Tale' (they are spot on!); not so with that of 'Thelma and Louise' (I think that they read too much into it).
So, where does that leaves us? They are right: the portrayal of men in the popular culture is an issue. They are right too: it echoes, not the reality, but how a whole trend of feminism has been viewing men for the past five decades at least. Being part of a wider societal phenomenon (the spreading of fear in the name of a supposed 'endemic' violence against against women and girls -which is everything but 'endemic', but that's another debate...) they are also right on another point: such mis-portrayal can have a very toxic impact indeed. But does it means that it leads to an increase of misandry?
For that, we would have to accept that the popular items they chose are representative of the culture as a whole, which is questionable (although, I, personally, think that they do). More to the point, it means accepting that the average viewer read into it (even at a subconscious level) what they, as academics, read into it, a claim no less questionable. In the end, then, this book surely is a very important brick added to a very important debate indeed, but it will have to be balanced by other view.
Less partisan maybe, but still in the same vein and adopting the same approach, on the issue I personally prefer Men to Boys: The Making of Modern Immaturity. Maybe the two ought to be read back to back?
For decades, women have been complaining about how the portrayals of women in the popular culture (from the submissive housewife to the tarty bimbo) had done nothing to serve women's causes and issues, many otherwise very serious indeed -as was embraced by the feminist movement. What we have now, though, is the other side of the pendulum that is, that of men being depicted no less counter-productively (and falsely!) at a time when masculinity, having been redefined, is leaving men facing no less serious issues of their own. This book, then, is very important because it outlines that.
Critically analysing a multitude of movies, talk shows, and series, it shows how the portrayal of men as being, either inadequate, or, violent towards women, has served nothing but a toxic brand of feminism purporting that men are just so that is, relying on misandry. The point might seems harsh. To anyone familiar with the recent history of feminism, though (its morphing from a liberal one to a radical one) it's everything but. But what about the popular culture? Are the authors having a point?
First of all, it relies on analyses of cherry-picked movies from the 1990s. This, then, no matter how relevant, must be pointed for what it is: a tunnel vision (they did not analysed absolutely every movie that came out during that decades!). Then, it implies that the readers ought to trust them on how they interpret such movies, and here's an issue for two obvious reasons.
First, because most reader, I guess, will be like me -they will not have seen all the shows they are talking about. Are the authors right, then, or not? It's impossible to assert, unless and only for those that the reader himself/ herself will have seen. Then, because art being subjective, some such interpretations will be right on spot, while others will be questionable, to say the least. Personally for example, I fully agree with their interpretation of 'The Handmaid's Tale' (they are spot on!); not so with that of 'Thelma and Louise' (I think that they read too much into it).
So, where does that leaves us? They are right: the portrayal of men in the popular culture is an issue. They are right too: it echoes, not the reality, but how a whole trend of feminism has been viewing men for the past five decades at least. Being part of a wider societal phenomenon (the spreading of fear in the name of a supposed 'endemic' violence against against women and girls -which is everything but 'endemic', but that's another debate...) they are also right on another point: such mis-portrayal can have a very toxic impact indeed. But does it means that it leads to an increase of misandry?
For that, we would have to accept that the popular items they chose are representative of the culture as a whole, which is questionable (although, I, personally, think that they do). More to the point, it means accepting that the average viewer read into it (even at a subconscious level) what they, as academics, read into it, a claim no less questionable. In the end, then, this book surely is a very important brick added to a very important debate indeed, but it will have to be balanced by other view.
Less partisan maybe, but still in the same vein and adopting the same approach, on the issue I personally prefer Men to Boys: The Making of Modern Immaturity. Maybe the two ought to be read back to back?
September 20, 2015
There are a few pieces of this book that cause the reader to stop and think about society and gender relations. But, overall, the book is a compilation of movie, TV show, and book reviews which draw absurd conclusions from scant evidence.
May 26, 2012
Great examination of the birth and growth of Misandry in modern culture.
July 7, 2022
This book deserves five stars for exposing the hate movement known as "feminism."
As any true scholar knows, feminism was never about "equality." Feminism was always about women's supremacy.
Feminism relies upon misandry as a tool for demeaning and silencing men, and this book provides the documentation. Although the book is dated, it was one of the first books to break the ice on the subject. The feminists commenting, here, simply demonstrate the relentless will of the feminist movement to silence men on gender debates.
This book is written by two very accomplished investigative journalists. They provide numerous anecdotes to support their conclusions. As I write this, our culture is at the beginning of a paradigm shift on gender issues. This book was one of the first to help precipitate that paradigm shift towards true gender equality in which men's rights are now receiving attention and support, while feminism is being exposed as a movement designed to confer and sustain privilege for women over men.
As any true scholar knows, feminism was never about "equality." Feminism was always about women's supremacy.
Feminism relies upon misandry as a tool for demeaning and silencing men, and this book provides the documentation. Although the book is dated, it was one of the first books to break the ice on the subject. The feminists commenting, here, simply demonstrate the relentless will of the feminist movement to silence men on gender debates.
This book is written by two very accomplished investigative journalists. They provide numerous anecdotes to support their conclusions. As I write this, our culture is at the beginning of a paradigm shift on gender issues. This book was one of the first to help precipitate that paradigm shift towards true gender equality in which men's rights are now receiving attention and support, while feminism is being exposed as a movement designed to confer and sustain privilege for women over men.
January 2, 2012
Truly this book got me thinking on many things, but some of the arguments started feeling a bit petty and redundant after a while. I get the idea of being thorough with examples and a need to show multiple cases where your hypothesis is proven, but I started feeling like I was reading the same thing over and over again. Most of it boiled down to the idea of noticing when ideological feminists propagate the idea that men are innately evil and/or the cause of all evil (woman are only victims or products of evil that comes from patriarchal bases), and that when watching movies and/or TV shows, have an eye for when all female characters are seen entirely as a victim and innocent while all male characters are flawed/inadequate and/or evil.
A good book to get some thoughts started about misandry, but not as powerful as I had thought it would be.
A good book to get some thoughts started about misandry, but not as powerful as I had thought it would be.
February 28, 2015
At first I was hesitant to give this five full stars, after all, how am I expected to finish this without pictures? But then I took a break, bolstered my confidence by gazing into my own facade glistening in the bronze of my numerous hunting trophies, and returned with a fresh perspective.
After hours of staring into my own rugged bone structure, I've now decided that this is the book I've been waiting for! For too long I've been saying the exact same things. It's not right for a woman to be a feminist. Soon they start speaking their minds and thinking...
A leather-bound copy of this will be in proud display between all the antlers I use in my decorating.
--Gaston
After hours of staring into my own rugged bone structure, I've now decided that this is the book I've been waiting for! For too long I've been saying the exact same things. It's not right for a woman to be a feminist. Soon they start speaking their minds and thinking...
A leather-bound copy of this will be in proud display between all the antlers I use in my decorating.
--Gaston
October 27, 2012
Very redundant, doesn't have the greatest (or worst) style, the theory behind it is not as well thought out as it should be. Still, it's a decent observational study with some valid critiques. Plus it got me thinking about how MBTI can overlap with gender stereotypes in the Thinking v. Feeling dichotomy. So... I didn't think reading it was a waste of time, but I have to admit, I skimmed a few parts where it was just going through examples supporting its claims. I preferred the abstract parts to the concrete parts in this boo (which is often not the case for me).
March 24, 2015
Spreading Misandry exposes the double standards and hypocrisy of feminism by looking at how pop culture is spreading the hatred of men. It started off quite well but taken a radical course such as saying Beauty and the Beast is misandric or Dolores Claiborne is misandric. Otherwise it offers a pretty accurate insight to the operation of misandry.
November 16, 2025
Follow/Subscribe: YouTube, Patreon, Instagram
3.5 Stars
Feelings about the book:
- This has been on my TBR for years, but it wasn't as good as it should be.
Premise/Plot:
- This book, using media examples from late 20th century media, analyses Western popular cultures portrayal of men media. The authors' thesis is that the negative portrayals of men through certain archetypes, is essentially misandry. And it shouldn't be taken as satire or just jokes. Essentially, they use the same framework feminists used to draw attention to misogyny.
Themes:
- Media propaganda against men, unveiling negative views about men, gender representation, cultural bias, identity politics and more
Pros:
- This contains a fairly good critique of feminism's negative influence on media
- Gets quite philosophical towards the end and that was the best part
- Their thesis was correct, and this is important to talk about
Cons:
- The philosophical aspect needed to be written throughout the book, not just at the end
- The repetitive media analyses didn't do much for me, it wasn't really engaging at all
Quotes:
‘To put it another way, why do so many people respond favourably to misandry – or at least not complain of sexism? Our hypothesis is that, like misogyny once upon a time, misandry has become so deeply embedded in our culture that few people – including men – even recognise it.’
‘Like misogyny, misandry is culturally propagated hatred. And like misogyny, it is often expressed as negative stereotypes of the opposite sex. But unlike misogyny, misandry is not closely monitored, because, from a gynocentric perspective, it is considered morally and legally acceptable.’
3.5 Stars
Feelings about the book:
- This has been on my TBR for years, but it wasn't as good as it should be.
Premise/Plot:
- This book, using media examples from late 20th century media, analyses Western popular cultures portrayal of men media. The authors' thesis is that the negative portrayals of men through certain archetypes, is essentially misandry. And it shouldn't be taken as satire or just jokes. Essentially, they use the same framework feminists used to draw attention to misogyny.
Themes:
- Media propaganda against men, unveiling negative views about men, gender representation, cultural bias, identity politics and more
Pros:
- This contains a fairly good critique of feminism's negative influence on media
- Gets quite philosophical towards the end and that was the best part
- Their thesis was correct, and this is important to talk about
Cons:
- The philosophical aspect needed to be written throughout the book, not just at the end
- The repetitive media analyses didn't do much for me, it wasn't really engaging at all
Quotes:
‘To put it another way, why do so many people respond favourably to misandry – or at least not complain of sexism? Our hypothesis is that, like misogyny once upon a time, misandry has become so deeply embedded in our culture that few people – including men – even recognise it.’
‘Like misogyny, misandry is culturally propagated hatred. And like misogyny, it is often expressed as negative stereotypes of the opposite sex. But unlike misogyny, misandry is not closely monitored, because, from a gynocentric perspective, it is considered morally and legally acceptable.’
May 3, 2026
It does open one's eyes to the origin on the thinking behind misandry and what might surprise is that this is really a feminist work. Just as feminist ideology is really a critic of masculinity, this is an open critic of feminism's short comings, mainly when it turns from being a movement about equality into an ideology of misandric hate.
It walks through many, many examples of how misandry has been coded into entertainment in the 1990s. This easily carries forward to to present day as it has only gotten more prevalent with the "gender wars" that are raging right now thanks to rage-bait relentlessly being pushed by algorithms on all social platforms online. Its also reveals possible origins of these codings, drawing on mythology that is latent in western culture from thousands of years ago.
Its not "cross sectional" (aka LGBTQIA+, an acronym that didn't exist at the time) but not everything has to be. Considering that the majority of misandry is in the name of feminism and their angle of attack isn't really different from that of the LGBTQIA+ misandry, not much is lost in this regard.
In the end I didn't finish it because after about five or six examples one gets the idea an there were other things I was keen to start reading. What I would have like to see would be a more comprehensive dataset spanning a whole time period rather than antidote examples, which are illustrative, but not giving one a sense of the breath of the problem.
It walks through many, many examples of how misandry has been coded into entertainment in the 1990s. This easily carries forward to to present day as it has only gotten more prevalent with the "gender wars" that are raging right now thanks to rage-bait relentlessly being pushed by algorithms on all social platforms online. Its also reveals possible origins of these codings, drawing on mythology that is latent in western culture from thousands of years ago.
Its not "cross sectional" (aka LGBTQIA+, an acronym that didn't exist at the time) but not everything has to be. Considering that the majority of misandry is in the name of feminism and their angle of attack isn't really different from that of the LGBTQIA+ misandry, not much is lost in this regard.
In the end I didn't finish it because after about five or six examples one gets the idea an there were other things I was keen to start reading. What I would have like to see would be a more comprehensive dataset spanning a whole time period rather than antidote examples, which are illustrative, but not giving one a sense of the breath of the problem.
June 10, 2014
Wordy, and repetitive. Powerful though in it's premise, with much documentation to back it up.
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews