What do you think?
Rate this book
Moi les hommes, je les déteste
" Je vois dans la misandrie une porte de sortie. Une manière d'exister en dehors du passage clouté, une manière de dire non à chaque respiration. Détester les hommes, en tant que groupe social et souvent en tant qu'individus aussi, m'apporte beaucoup de joie – et pas seulement parce que je suis une vieille sorcière folle à chats.
Si on devenait toutes misandres, on pourrait former une grande et belle sarabande. On se rendrait compte (et ce serait peut-être un peu douloureux au début) qu'on n'a vraiment pas besoin des hommes. On pourrait, je crois, libérer un pouvoir insoupçonné : celui, en planant très loin au-dessus du regard des hommes et des exigences masculines, de nous révéler à nous-mêmes. "
Si on devenait toutes misandres, on pourrait former une grande et belle sarabande. On se rendrait compte (et ce serait peut-être un peu douloureux au début) qu'on n'a vraiment pas besoin des hommes. On pourrait, je crois, libérer un pouvoir insoupçonné : celui, en planant très loin au-dessus du regard des hommes et des exigences masculines, de nous révéler à nous-mêmes. "
96 pages, Paperback
First published August 19, 2020
452 people are currently reading
15383 people want to read
About the author
Pauline Harmange
10 books1,372 followersPauline Harmange is an author and a feminist, writer of "I Hate Men", the feminist outburst published in 18 languages. She strongly believes that fiction has a crucial role to play in shaping representations.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 2,330 reviews
February 8, 2021
LOL. This is a delightful book, an argument for misandry that’s convincing af. It’s only shortcoming is that it lacks depth. Feels more like an essay than a book. Which is fine. It’s a fun essay. I would have loved to see the author really go beyond the idea of hating men but a book doesn’t need to be everything to everyone. I liked this. No surprise there.
December 3, 2020
I'm so confused as to why this is a. so controversial and b. so lauded. It says literally nothing new. It's like basic white girl feminism 101. It makes no attempt at intersectionality, the arguments are basically 'men oppress women as a group and that's bad' (i.e. the idea that was quite controversial in Simone de Beauvoir's era, but less so now) and the author is a middle class white woman who's married to a man. Revolutionary, this ain't.
It's probably fine if you're just getting into feminist ideology, but for anyone who's read literally more than two other feminist texts, it just retreads the same old ground as most Dua Lipa lyrics.
Lads, if you think this one's controversial, you'll absolutely burst a vein at polemics with more meat on the bones of their thesis. Try Vivek Shraya's 'I'm Afraid of Men' as a follow-up to this one; it's equally short and has a very similar cover, but might actually make you think.
It's probably fine if you're just getting into feminist ideology, but for anyone who's read literally more than two other feminist texts, it just retreads the same old ground as most Dua Lipa lyrics.
Lads, if you think this one's controversial, you'll absolutely burst a vein at polemics with more meat on the bones of their thesis. Try Vivek Shraya's 'I'm Afraid of Men' as a follow-up to this one; it's equally short and has a very similar cover, but might actually make you think.
Read
January 12, 2022I have a few thoughts about this, but before we start, let’s address the elephant in the room: I’m a man. And since that makes me part of the majority that the author is devoted to hating, I’m probably not 100% unbiased.
This essay is what it says it is. Don’t expect a “well, actually, I don’t hate men, but you know what I mean.” It’s not going to happen. The author hates men and calls for other women to hate men too.
And I think that’s where my problem with the book lies. That I don’t believe hating, expressing hate, devoting your life to hate, leads you or anyone to a better place in the long run.
That being said, I hate men too. Yes, men are trash. Yes, all men, whether they like it or not, form part of a powerful majority that oppresses everyone else in the world. It’s an all-pervasive structure that no man can ever fully escape, even if these men try to do the work and want to deconstruct the patriarchy. In a world where you a born into privilege and power, you will always benefit from being a man, even if you despise this system.
Most of what the author says is true. Women are murdered, abused, raped, violated, traumatized, etc. every day of their lives. Through the hands of men. So yes, you are entitled to that anger, you are entitled to that hate. These are valid feelings. And it’s exhausting when you try to change that injustice but with every step you take, it seems like nothing ever changes for good. Instead, you pour your soul into a lost cause that never gives you anything in return.
Let’s take that thought one step further. Say all women are fully committed to hating men and completely erase them from their lives, other minorities start doing the same thing. All Black people refuse to interact with white people, which then also means that all Black women refuse to share a sisterhood with any white woman. Furthermore, all queer people fully commit to hating straight people, meaning again that queer Black women will no longer interact with straight Black women, widening the divide further. We can keep playing this game, but I’m sure you know where we’re going.
Maybe you’re shaking your head thinking, this is not *really* what the author means, she doesn’t *really* want a world without men, she doesn’t *really* hate them and calls for all other women to hate them too. But that’s exactly what this book is. It says it right there, on the cover, in bold letters. And then again, several times once you turn the page. It’s not a solution-based approach, it’s not thought-through, its only answer is hate and the shallow promise of healing and sisterhood, but if everyone only has hate for the people that oppress them, there can be no sisterhood, and no healing. Because your sisters will turn from you, since you as a white woman have peak privilege and benefit from the patriarchy and white supremacy in a way that no BIPOC woman does. In the end, the essay fails to think intersectionally and even reinforces a binary in which men just cannot help to be manly men, and women are simply womanly women with all the stereotypes attached to their gender.
That being said, anger and frustration need expressing. And this book is angry, rightly so. There is so much to be angry about. It’s a satisfactory feeling too. It’s easy to hate, and by god it’s hard to love.
Lastly, I want to recommend an amazing feminist and anti-racist book that talks hate crimes, rape culture, white supremacy and how to strive in a world that threatens to swallow you whole. It’s almost a direct answer to this essay, and on top of that it’s an extremely good book: See No Stranger: A Memoir and Manifesto of Revolutionary Love by the amazing Valarie Kaur.
Find more of my books on Instagram
This essay is what it says it is. Don’t expect a “well, actually, I don’t hate men, but you know what I mean.” It’s not going to happen. The author hates men and calls for other women to hate men too.
And I think that’s where my problem with the book lies. That I don’t believe hating, expressing hate, devoting your life to hate, leads you or anyone to a better place in the long run.
That being said, I hate men too. Yes, men are trash. Yes, all men, whether they like it or not, form part of a powerful majority that oppresses everyone else in the world. It’s an all-pervasive structure that no man can ever fully escape, even if these men try to do the work and want to deconstruct the patriarchy. In a world where you a born into privilege and power, you will always benefit from being a man, even if you despise this system.
Most of what the author says is true. Women are murdered, abused, raped, violated, traumatized, etc. every day of their lives. Through the hands of men. So yes, you are entitled to that anger, you are entitled to that hate. These are valid feelings. And it’s exhausting when you try to change that injustice but with every step you take, it seems like nothing ever changes for good. Instead, you pour your soul into a lost cause that never gives you anything in return.
Let’s take that thought one step further. Say all women are fully committed to hating men and completely erase them from their lives, other minorities start doing the same thing. All Black people refuse to interact with white people, which then also means that all Black women refuse to share a sisterhood with any white woman. Furthermore, all queer people fully commit to hating straight people, meaning again that queer Black women will no longer interact with straight Black women, widening the divide further. We can keep playing this game, but I’m sure you know where we’re going.
Maybe you’re shaking your head thinking, this is not *really* what the author means, she doesn’t *really* want a world without men, she doesn’t *really* hate them and calls for all other women to hate them too. But that’s exactly what this book is. It says it right there, on the cover, in bold letters. And then again, several times once you turn the page. It’s not a solution-based approach, it’s not thought-through, its only answer is hate and the shallow promise of healing and sisterhood, but if everyone only has hate for the people that oppress them, there can be no sisterhood, and no healing. Because your sisters will turn from you, since you as a white woman have peak privilege and benefit from the patriarchy and white supremacy in a way that no BIPOC woman does. In the end, the essay fails to think intersectionally and even reinforces a binary in which men just cannot help to be manly men, and women are simply womanly women with all the stereotypes attached to their gender.
That being said, anger and frustration need expressing. And this book is angry, rightly so. There is so much to be angry about. It’s a satisfactory feeling too. It’s easy to hate, and by god it’s hard to love.
Lastly, I want to recommend an amazing feminist and anti-racist book that talks hate crimes, rape culture, white supremacy and how to strive in a world that threatens to swallow you whole. It’s almost a direct answer to this essay, and on top of that it’s an extremely good book: See No Stranger: A Memoir and Manifesto of Revolutionary Love by the amazing Valarie Kaur.
Find more of my books on Instagram
July 17, 2022
there are two wolves inside me : one wants to make a fully detailed review of this book to highlight its flaws but to also explain that some points might be fair, and the other one wants to simply write "fair enough, i hate men too"
November 29, 2020
Short and to the point. Men suck.
June 9, 2021
Prendete 100 persone e chiedete loro se preferiscono una verità amara o una dolce bugia. Vi assicuro che tutti e 100 vi risponderanno allo stesso modo. Sulla carta naturalmente.
Nella realtà quello che succede è un'altra cosa.
Ho letto questo libro perché ne parlavano tutti e iniziava a fare un certo rumore, il titolo mi sembrava provocatorio e quindi ho deciso di leggerlo per farmi la mia idea. Ho scoperto presto che il titolo era tutt'altro che provocatorio. L'autrice infatti non ha problemi a dire che odia gli uomini.
Tutti.
Nonostante ne abbia sposato uno e sostenendo che lo ama anche molto (mh).
Il libro è una sorta di elenco di idee che l'autrice utilizza per supportare la sua tesi. Che odiare gli uomini è giusto. Che gli uomini sono degli esseri violenti, egoisti, pigri e vigliacchi. Che odiare gli uomini la riempie di gioia. Che anche se un maschietto non è daccordo, cito testualmente «il minimo che possa fare .. di fronte ad una donna che avanza una tesi misandrica è ascoltare in silenzio»
E io mi chiedo: Perchè?
Perché dovrei stare in silenzio nel momento in cui vedo una che manco ha trent'anni e si permette di sparare sentenze generalizzando in questo modo? Perché sta combattendo una disuguaglianza? Perché si batte a favore delle donne?
Intendiamoci, chi legge la mia roba sa che sono sempre sopra le righe, ma allo stesso tempo ho la mentalità molto aperta. Non ignoro cosa succede nel mondo. Ma non è questo il Femminismo sano che aiuta la (giusta) causa per cui si batte.
Non sono tuttavia sicuro che la venticinquenne sia allo stesso modo aggiornata su certe cose che riguardano il mondo, visto che tra le sue argomentazioni troviamo: (parafraso)
- Che la donna alle cene di famiglia viene vista come sfigata se single a differenza dell'uomo. E qui mi verrebbe voglia di farle vedere i filmini dei miei pranzi passati coi miei.
- Che la donna si sforza sempre di più dell'uomo per farsi piacevole ai suoi occhi, quando in tutta onestà mai come in questa era io ho visto uomini esperti in skincare e cazzi e mazzi, palestra e lampade.
- Che la donna «non è che deve sposarsi perché il signorino ha bisogno di organizzarsi l'agenda e lavare la biancheria»
Quindi l'idea che l'autrice sostiene di essere legittima vede l'uomo come un violento, che non si cura, che non sa come gestirsi la giornata e che manco sa farsi una lavatrice. Ma che significa? Intendiamoci, ci sono sicuramente dei casi in cui la situazione è questa, ma da qui a generalizzare ci sta un abisso.
Una canzone una volta diceva «Lo sai che è facile odiare il terremoto, il difficile è costruire» e credo si applichi bene in questo contesto. Solo perché certi problemi esistono non significa che sia sano combattere il fuoco con il fuoco. Pensate se i neri scrivessero un libro in cui odiano tutti i bianchi. Tutti quanti, sostenendo sia legittimo odiarli perché ogni giorno centinaia di disugualianze razziali affliggono un nero per mano di un bianco. Un bianco come voi. Non vi girerebbe il cazzo?
Io penso di sì.
Ma naturalmente io sono un maschio etero bianco quindi cosa volete che conti la mia opinione. Cosa volete che sia se libri di questo tipo fanno cadere i coglioni anche alla gente a cui interessano certe tematiche.
Capitemi, non sono stupido e so che la maggior parte degli utenti su Goodreads è di sesso femminile. E ho visto che il libro ha preso un sacco di giudizi positivi. Avrei potuto tranquillamente scrivere una roba tipo «Un po' oltre le righe ma ci voleva una battaglia portata avanti in questo modo!» e prendermi un sacco di like e bei commenti.
Quindi secondo voi perché non l'ho fatto?
Perché certe cose sono più importanti. Perché è troppo facile combattere l'odio con altro odio.
Pensatela come volete, leggete il libro e fatevi la vostra idea.
Ma vi prego, vi supplico, vi imploro.
Usate la testa.
Peace Off
---
Videorecensione: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jP15G...
Nella realtà quello che succede è un'altra cosa.
Ho letto questo libro perché ne parlavano tutti e iniziava a fare un certo rumore, il titolo mi sembrava provocatorio e quindi ho deciso di leggerlo per farmi la mia idea. Ho scoperto presto che il titolo era tutt'altro che provocatorio. L'autrice infatti non ha problemi a dire che odia gli uomini.
Tutti.
Nonostante ne abbia sposato uno e sostenendo che lo ama anche molto (mh).
Il libro è una sorta di elenco di idee che l'autrice utilizza per supportare la sua tesi. Che odiare gli uomini è giusto. Che gli uomini sono degli esseri violenti, egoisti, pigri e vigliacchi. Che odiare gli uomini la riempie di gioia. Che anche se un maschietto non è daccordo, cito testualmente «il minimo che possa fare .. di fronte ad una donna che avanza una tesi misandrica è ascoltare in silenzio»
E io mi chiedo: Perchè?
Perché dovrei stare in silenzio nel momento in cui vedo una che manco ha trent'anni e si permette di sparare sentenze generalizzando in questo modo? Perché sta combattendo una disuguaglianza? Perché si batte a favore delle donne?
Intendiamoci, chi legge la mia roba sa che sono sempre sopra le righe, ma allo stesso tempo ho la mentalità molto aperta. Non ignoro cosa succede nel mondo. Ma non è questo il Femminismo sano che aiuta la (giusta) causa per cui si batte.
Non sono tuttavia sicuro che la venticinquenne sia allo stesso modo aggiornata su certe cose che riguardano il mondo, visto che tra le sue argomentazioni troviamo: (parafraso)
- Che la donna alle cene di famiglia viene vista come sfigata se single a differenza dell'uomo. E qui mi verrebbe voglia di farle vedere i filmini dei miei pranzi passati coi miei.
- Che la donna si sforza sempre di più dell'uomo per farsi piacevole ai suoi occhi, quando in tutta onestà mai come in questa era io ho visto uomini esperti in skincare e cazzi e mazzi, palestra e lampade.
- Che la donna «non è che deve sposarsi perché il signorino ha bisogno di organizzarsi l'agenda e lavare la biancheria»
Quindi l'idea che l'autrice sostiene di essere legittima vede l'uomo come un violento, che non si cura, che non sa come gestirsi la giornata e che manco sa farsi una lavatrice. Ma che significa? Intendiamoci, ci sono sicuramente dei casi in cui la situazione è questa, ma da qui a generalizzare ci sta un abisso.
Una canzone una volta diceva «Lo sai che è facile odiare il terremoto, il difficile è costruire» e credo si applichi bene in questo contesto. Solo perché certi problemi esistono non significa che sia sano combattere il fuoco con il fuoco. Pensate se i neri scrivessero un libro in cui odiano tutti i bianchi. Tutti quanti, sostenendo sia legittimo odiarli perché ogni giorno centinaia di disugualianze razziali affliggono un nero per mano di un bianco. Un bianco come voi. Non vi girerebbe il cazzo?
Io penso di sì.
Ma naturalmente io sono un maschio etero bianco quindi cosa volete che conti la mia opinione. Cosa volete che sia se libri di questo tipo fanno cadere i coglioni anche alla gente a cui interessano certe tematiche.
Capitemi, non sono stupido e so che la maggior parte degli utenti su Goodreads è di sesso femminile. E ho visto che il libro ha preso un sacco di giudizi positivi. Avrei potuto tranquillamente scrivere una roba tipo «Un po' oltre le righe ma ci voleva una battaglia portata avanti in questo modo!» e prendermi un sacco di like e bei commenti.
Quindi secondo voi perché non l'ho fatto?
Perché certe cose sono più importanti. Perché è troppo facile combattere l'odio con altro odio.
Pensatela come volete, leggete il libro e fatevi la vostra idea.
Ma vi prego, vi supplico, vi imploro.
Usate la testa.
Peace Off
---
Videorecensione: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jP15G...
October 1, 2024
Truth! Misandry FTW
December 11, 2020
What a terrible book. The writer seems to be having a past traumatic experience that is yet to heal. Thus, her writing sounds pretty much like a diary of a mad bonkers spouting nonsensical gobbledygook. She has a highly questionable and delusional belief that hating men will make the world a better place to live. She forgets that her entire being was, after all, originated from a single drop of sperm of a man. I hate to admit it, but let's be honest here. Being a feminist is so tiring. I would rather be happy. That said, don't ever waste your preciously limited time reading this garbage. It would get you nowhere. There is way much better literature out there that you can find, peruse, and experience. Go and explore the vastness of the world.
May 30, 2024
“Strangely, not many men actually stop to wonder why feminists dislike them so much – if they did they might notice the statistics are quite damning. But they’re too busy explaining to us that they’re not like that, that it’s really not nice to generalise like that. And if we alienate them with all that talk of men are trash, the risk is they won’t join in and help us in our struggle. As if we were incapable of organising our struggle without them, as if we haven’t been doing precisely that for years – and as if, when they invited themselves into our ranks to join the struggle, they didn’t always end up taking over, talking over us and even imposing their decisions on us while they were about it.”
”We have to stop praising men for such pathetically trivial things as leaving work early to pick up their kid from school. Do not forget that in exactly the same situation a woman is blamed and criticised, whatever her choice.”
”Anger and violence are often conflated, though the two don’t necessarily go hand in hand. Anger at being treated as an inferior is not remotely comparable to the violence committed by the men who humiliate, rape and kill us, or even the violence committed by the men who ignore us, turn their backs on us and mock us. We have everything to gain by distancing ourselves from the limited role of the patient, gentle, almost passive woman, and insisting that men make the effort to become better people.”
”Misandry and misogyny cannot be compared, quite simply because the former exists only in reaction to the latter.”
”It’s true that not all men are rapists, but it’s also true that almost all rapists are men – and almost all women have or will suffer some kind of violence at the hands of men.”
”We have to stop praising men for such pathetically trivial things as leaving work early to pick up their kid from school. Do not forget that in exactly the same situation a woman is blamed and criticised, whatever her choice.”
”Anger and violence are often conflated, though the two don’t necessarily go hand in hand. Anger at being treated as an inferior is not remotely comparable to the violence committed by the men who humiliate, rape and kill us, or even the violence committed by the men who ignore us, turn their backs on us and mock us. We have everything to gain by distancing ourselves from the limited role of the patient, gentle, almost passive woman, and insisting that men make the effort to become better people.”
”Misandry and misogyny cannot be compared, quite simply because the former exists only in reaction to the latter.”
”It’s true that not all men are rapists, but it’s also true that almost all rapists are men – and almost all women have or will suffer some kind of violence at the hands of men.”
December 1, 2020
Almost banned in France, translated into English, and adored by yours truly.
"But what if misandry were necessary – healthy, even? I get why women reject it. It’s unnerving to be accused of being a horrid extremist who hates men. Thousands of women were burned at the stake for less. But you know what? I’m going to have a go. I’ll admit it: I hate men. All of them, really? Yes, the whole lot of them." (!!)
"That doesn’t, however, stop me from wondering why men are as they are. They’re violent, selfish, lazy and cowardly. It doesn’t stop me wondering why we women are supposed graciously to accept their flaws – what am I saying, I mean their deficiencies – even though men beat, rape and murder us. Boys will be boys. Girls, on the other hand, will become women, and will learn to make their peace with this, because there’s no way to escape the narrow vision of our destiny as refracted through the crystal ball of the patriarchy. . . . So much existential dread, for which I don’t feel a great deal of sympathy. All that time they spend sniveling about how hard it is to be a poor persecuted man nowadays is just a way of adroitly shirking their responsibility to make themselves a little less the pure products of the patriarchy. "
"Ultimately, misandry is a principle of precaution."
"But beware of the man who slopes off in the other direction, and starts beating himself up with a great wailing and gnashing of teeth; no woman, and certainly no misandrist, has the slightest desire to listen to a man bemoaning his lot as a privileged male, playing the martyr."
"This is how they become misandrists. Because there simply aren’t very many other options, and because, once they’ve had their eyes opened to the profound mediocrity of the majority of men, there’s no good reason to carry on liking them by default."
"Anger and violence are often conflated, though the two don’t necessarily go hand in hand. Anger at being treated as an inferior is not remotely comparable to the violence committed by the men who humiliate, rape and kill us, or even the violence committed by the men who ignore us, turn their backs on us and mock us. We have everything to gain by distancing ourselves from the limited role of the patient, gentle, almost passive woman, and insisting that men make the effort to become better people."
"And if you’re a misandrist, you deserve no better than a misogynist. In the collective imagination, misandry and misogyny are two sides of the same coin, that of sexism. . . . Misandry and misogyny cannot be compared, quite simply because the former exists only in reaction to the latter. . . . We misandrists stay in our lane. We might hate men, but at best we put up with them, frostily, because they’re everywhere and we don’t have any choice (incredible but true: it’s possible to hate someone without having an irrepressible urge to kill them). At worst we stop inviting them into our lives – or at least we make a drastic selection beforehand. Our misandry scares men, because it’s the sign that they’re going to have to start meriting our attention. Having relationships with men isn’t something we owe them, a duty, but, as in every balanced relationship, all the parties involved have to make an effort to treat one another with respect."
"This priority, to be a trusted friend for women, has become a matter of urgency, and not only in cases of trauma, not only in the darkest of situations. I have made sisterhood my compass. I have a circle of radiant, talented, passionate, extraordinarily spirited female friends, who deserve all my support and all my love. I’ve chosen to devote to them – to all women – all my relational energy. . . . So now I’ve decided to privilege women, in the books I read, the films I watch, the culture I imbibe, and in my close friendships, so that men just aren’t that important any more. Instead I privilege this sisterhood, which is so supportive, which nourishes me – in my creativity, my radicalism, my thinking both about myself and about society – in so many areas of my life, where, I’ve finally realised, I have no need of men to shape the person I am. . . . Because female solidarity is never frivolous, it’s always political."
"We have the power to create spaces and times in our lives where we do not serve the interests of men. Where they merely float in the air, just beyond our field of vision, and only if we summon them. Where we’re free to say whatever we like about them, and also the opposite: not to talk about them at all, to make space for every other subject in the world and in our lives. "
"But what if misandry were necessary – healthy, even? I get why women reject it. It’s unnerving to be accused of being a horrid extremist who hates men. Thousands of women were burned at the stake for less. But you know what? I’m going to have a go. I’ll admit it: I hate men. All of them, really? Yes, the whole lot of them." (!!)
"That doesn’t, however, stop me from wondering why men are as they are. They’re violent, selfish, lazy and cowardly. It doesn’t stop me wondering why we women are supposed graciously to accept their flaws – what am I saying, I mean their deficiencies – even though men beat, rape and murder us. Boys will be boys. Girls, on the other hand, will become women, and will learn to make their peace with this, because there’s no way to escape the narrow vision of our destiny as refracted through the crystal ball of the patriarchy. . . . So much existential dread, for which I don’t feel a great deal of sympathy. All that time they spend sniveling about how hard it is to be a poor persecuted man nowadays is just a way of adroitly shirking their responsibility to make themselves a little less the pure products of the patriarchy. "
"Ultimately, misandry is a principle of precaution."
"But beware of the man who slopes off in the other direction, and starts beating himself up with a great wailing and gnashing of teeth; no woman, and certainly no misandrist, has the slightest desire to listen to a man bemoaning his lot as a privileged male, playing the martyr."
"This is how they become misandrists. Because there simply aren’t very many other options, and because, once they’ve had their eyes opened to the profound mediocrity of the majority of men, there’s no good reason to carry on liking them by default."
"Anger and violence are often conflated, though the two don’t necessarily go hand in hand. Anger at being treated as an inferior is not remotely comparable to the violence committed by the men who humiliate, rape and kill us, or even the violence committed by the men who ignore us, turn their backs on us and mock us. We have everything to gain by distancing ourselves from the limited role of the patient, gentle, almost passive woman, and insisting that men make the effort to become better people."
"And if you’re a misandrist, you deserve no better than a misogynist. In the collective imagination, misandry and misogyny are two sides of the same coin, that of sexism. . . . Misandry and misogyny cannot be compared, quite simply because the former exists only in reaction to the latter. . . . We misandrists stay in our lane. We might hate men, but at best we put up with them, frostily, because they’re everywhere and we don’t have any choice (incredible but true: it’s possible to hate someone without having an irrepressible urge to kill them). At worst we stop inviting them into our lives – or at least we make a drastic selection beforehand. Our misandry scares men, because it’s the sign that they’re going to have to start meriting our attention. Having relationships with men isn’t something we owe them, a duty, but, as in every balanced relationship, all the parties involved have to make an effort to treat one another with respect."
"This priority, to be a trusted friend for women, has become a matter of urgency, and not only in cases of trauma, not only in the darkest of situations. I have made sisterhood my compass. I have a circle of radiant, talented, passionate, extraordinarily spirited female friends, who deserve all my support and all my love. I’ve chosen to devote to them – to all women – all my relational energy. . . . So now I’ve decided to privilege women, in the books I read, the films I watch, the culture I imbibe, and in my close friendships, so that men just aren’t that important any more. Instead I privilege this sisterhood, which is so supportive, which nourishes me – in my creativity, my radicalism, my thinking both about myself and about society – in so many areas of my life, where, I’ve finally realised, I have no need of men to shape the person I am. . . . Because female solidarity is never frivolous, it’s always political."
"We have the power to create spaces and times in our lives where we do not serve the interests of men. Where they merely float in the air, just beyond our field of vision, and only if we summon them. Where we’re free to say whatever we like about them, and also the opposite: not to talk about them at all, to make space for every other subject in the world and in our lives. "
January 26, 2021
No.
While I try my hardest to remember that even if the majority of a group are awful garbage people it doesn't mean they're all bad, sometimes it feels so good to hate them all.
I've heard the word misandry for the first time in my life today, and I love it. I like how this book is not about compromise. It's angry and articulate.
I still feel like there must a way that isn't "we don't negotiate with terrorists"-like to deal with men's awfulness. But then we really shouldn't negotiate with terrorists. Rage on, women.
While I try my hardest to remember that even if the majority of a group are awful garbage people it doesn't mean they're all bad, sometimes it feels so good to hate them all.
I've heard the word misandry for the first time in my life today, and I love it. I like how this book is not about compromise. It's angry and articulate.
I still feel like there must a way that isn't "we don't negotiate with terrorists"-like to deal with men's awfulness. But then we really shouldn't negotiate with terrorists. Rage on, women.
June 10, 2021
A clear and direct essay, short and incisive, in which the title is immediately explained for what it really means: hatred for men is not hatred per se, and in any case not for all men, but generally for wealthy, heterosexual, cisgender and able-bodied white men, who are at the top of the pyramid of social privilege, enjoy it fully and, above all, do nothing about it.
The book focuses on some of the main reasons why men should be "hated". Women do not need men to be happy, nor should they be conditioned by their opinions, their mocking gaze, their power exercised through the privilege of a heteropatriarchal society. Women need to stop pleasing men and start thinking about their own happiness.
And if to make this leap it is necessary to first hate men in order to stop justifying them, understanding them, resigning to the idea that this is how things are in this world – then this hatred, this misanthropy, is welcome.
However, misanthropy is never to be intended as the opposite of misogyny (in the same way that feminism is not the opposite of male chauvinism). The author explains this difference very well through recent statistics – hating women, for men, means rape, abuse, and killing. For women it means at worst not letting mediocre men step into their lives anymore.
The book focuses on some of the main reasons why men should be "hated". Women do not need men to be happy, nor should they be conditioned by their opinions, their mocking gaze, their power exercised through the privilege of a heteropatriarchal society. Women need to stop pleasing men and start thinking about their own happiness.
And if to make this leap it is necessary to first hate men in order to stop justifying them, understanding them, resigning to the idea that this is how things are in this world – then this hatred, this misanthropy, is welcome.
However, misanthropy is never to be intended as the opposite of misogyny (in the same way that feminism is not the opposite of male chauvinism). The author explains this difference very well through recent statistics – hating women, for men, means rape, abuse, and killing. For women it means at worst not letting mediocre men step into their lives anymore.
January 13, 2021
"The accusation of misandry is a mechanism for silencing women, a way of silencing the anger-sometimes violent but always legitimate-of the oppressed standing up to their oppressors."
I loved this essay. Ms. Harmange frees misandry from the confines of a weaponized insult hurled against feminists to its rightful position as an appropriate response to misogyny, violence against women, and inequality.
As a social group, men ( and yes, a lot of them as individuals), suck.
If you can't allow a woman her rejection of a system that oppresses her and yes, even kills her, then you should not read this book.
As for me, Pauline Harmange is a sister and a friend. I celebrate her courage to say out loud what so many women have muttered under their breath for centuries. I heard her loud and clear.
The evidence is very clear about men's hatred of women, the death rates of women killed by their partners, is a daily tally that barely rates a mention in the media. The sexual assaults and intimidation in every sphere of a woman's life are just now being spoken about. That women do not feel safe to speak up, to walk about late a night, to look ugly, to be loud without being censured or attacked has long been the eco-system of our lives.
Waiting for the dominant oppressor to see the error of his ways and try to understand a woman's experience is like waiting for cats to become vegan.
“Feminists have spent a lot of time and energy reassuring men that no, we don’t really hate them, that they’re welcome,” Harmange said. “Not much has happened in exchange.” -NY Times
It is a woman's prerogative to claim her own space as men have done for millennia. That people find that so hard to support, is interesting to me. If a Black person tells me they hate white people, I can nod, and understand that. I do too. If a Jewish person says they hate Nazis, I can nod and understand that. I do too. But when a woman says she hates men, all hell breaks loose. Books get banned, she gets called vile names. Interesting. Why doesn't everyone just shut the fuck up and hear her experience. Because no one is interested, especially those who benefit from the patriarchal system and its inequalities.
"What we want is for men to put their power and privilege to good use: by policing their male friends and acquaintances for example, instead of explaining to women how to go about fighting their own battles...Actually no, what we really want is for them to learn how to take up less space. They don't get to play the lead, and they are going to have to get used to that."
I have lived in this androcentric, misogynistic world for 69 years, I have learned to dodge and parry, fight my way through the prejudices and biases aimed at my sex. I am so tired. This essay was a balm to my soul, yes, a joyful proclamation to feel and say what needs to be said. That it was said by such a young woman gives me heart. Brava!
I loved this essay. Ms. Harmange frees misandry from the confines of a weaponized insult hurled against feminists to its rightful position as an appropriate response to misogyny, violence against women, and inequality.
As a social group, men ( and yes, a lot of them as individuals), suck.
If you can't allow a woman her rejection of a system that oppresses her and yes, even kills her, then you should not read this book.
As for me, Pauline Harmange is a sister and a friend. I celebrate her courage to say out loud what so many women have muttered under their breath for centuries. I heard her loud and clear.
The evidence is very clear about men's hatred of women, the death rates of women killed by their partners, is a daily tally that barely rates a mention in the media. The sexual assaults and intimidation in every sphere of a woman's life are just now being spoken about. That women do not feel safe to speak up, to walk about late a night, to look ugly, to be loud without being censured or attacked has long been the eco-system of our lives.
Waiting for the dominant oppressor to see the error of his ways and try to understand a woman's experience is like waiting for cats to become vegan.
“Feminists have spent a lot of time and energy reassuring men that no, we don’t really hate them, that they’re welcome,” Harmange said. “Not much has happened in exchange.” -NY Times
It is a woman's prerogative to claim her own space as men have done for millennia. That people find that so hard to support, is interesting to me. If a Black person tells me they hate white people, I can nod, and understand that. I do too. If a Jewish person says they hate Nazis, I can nod and understand that. I do too. But when a woman says she hates men, all hell breaks loose. Books get banned, she gets called vile names. Interesting. Why doesn't everyone just shut the fuck up and hear her experience. Because no one is interested, especially those who benefit from the patriarchal system and its inequalities.
"What we want is for men to put their power and privilege to good use: by policing their male friends and acquaintances for example, instead of explaining to women how to go about fighting their own battles...Actually no, what we really want is for them to learn how to take up less space. They don't get to play the lead, and they are going to have to get used to that."
I have lived in this androcentric, misogynistic world for 69 years, I have learned to dodge and parry, fight my way through the prejudices and biases aimed at my sex. I am so tired. This essay was a balm to my soul, yes, a joyful proclamation to feel and say what needs to be said. That it was said by such a young woman gives me heart. Brava!
April 21, 2021
"Misandre isteriche e fighe di legno"
✿ Non farò l'iperbole facile paragonando questo libro a quello famoso del nazista austriaco, però capiamoci, di base sono la stessa cosa. Questo libro è ciò che succede quando le ideologie del femminismo radicale (o tossico, se preferite) si distaccano talmente tanto che vanno avanti, fanno un giro, tornano indietro e diventano esattamente come quel maschilismo che tanto odiano. Non mi metterò a parlare del libro perchè non lo voglio prendere sul serio, è ridicolo e ipocrita come ridicole ed ipocrite sono le femministe radicali. Mi limiterò a prendere qualche stralcio e a percularlo perchè questo si meritano.
✿ L'autrice ci tiene a dirci che si, odia gli uomini ma se ne è addirittura sposato uno mica cotica. Che è come se io dicessi si odio gli uomini ma mi piace scopare e mi serve il cazzo. Non contenta dice che si se l'è sposato ma lei è bisessuale ed è stata l'omofobia della gente a spingerla verso un uomo (che è pure offensivo nei confronti di quelle coppie omosessuali che stanno insieme alla luce del sole nonostante gli insulti, tu stai dicendo di essere stata talmente codarda da aver sposato un uomo). Che tra l'altro, chi te l'ha chiesto, scusa? Mica è un obbligo sposarsi? Se li odi così tanto potevi benissimo evitare invece di parlare della cosa come se ti aspettassi una pacca sulla schiena per l'impresa compiuta.
Lei comunque lo ama eh, talmente tanto che lo odia e lo mette insieme a tutti gli altri uomini. Poi aggiunge "Io odio gli uomini. Ma proprio tutti? Sì, tutti." Salvo poi cagarsi in mano e specificare che no solo quelli cisgender, bianchi, ricchi e non disabili.
"Ma ciò non mi impedisce di chiedermi perché gli uomini siano come sono. Vale a dire degli esseri violenti, egoisti, pigri e vigliacchi." Tutti, dal primo all'ultimo. Lei userà le generalizzazioni anche per parlare delle donne, che sono TUTTE brave persone, dolcissime e tante altre belle cose.
Per tutto il primo capitolo c'è una retorica idiota sul fatto che gli uomini sono mediocri e le donne accettano questa mediocrità. Non viene chiarito in quale aspetto venga accettata ma forse basterebbe smettere di darla a uomini mediocri, per esempio. Invece di continuare a vedere la situazione di single come una vergogna e accontentarvi del primo simp poraccio magari dovreste iniziare a pretendere fin da subito qualcosa di più e non accontentarvi della mediocrità? E magari iniziare a smettere di congratularvi con gli uomini per ogni cosa basilare che fanno come se avessero vinto la medaglia d'oro e trattarle invece come fosse qualcosa da aspettarsi? Invece di scendere a compromessi, dovreste iniziare a rompere il cazzo, magari? Invece vi accontentate, ve li tenete e poi piagnuccolate perchè sono come sono.
✿ Questo libro non va preso sul serio anche solo per il fatto che l'autrice parla di statistiche senza mostrare mai mezzo dato, mezzo studio. In questo libro c'è lei che proietta le sue impressioni rendendole verità universale, infatti è un continuo dire 'ho l'impressione che, a me sembra che, io penso, io ritengo, a me è successo questo'. Generalizzando tutto. Non esistono sfumature. Tutto è bianco o nero. Gli uomini sono merde perchè si e le donne sono brave perchè si. In Francia evidentemente non succedono casi di maestre d'asilo che picchiano bambini o di assistenti in case di riposo che legano gli anziani. In Francia evidentemente non esistono casi di donne che ammazzano i propri figli, che stalkerano i propri ex, che picchiano i fidanzati, che gli gettano l'acido addosso. Nei suoi libri di storia non c'erano foto o nomi di SS donne, evidentemente.
✿ "Se è vero che la misandria è la caratteristica di chi odia gli uomini e la misoginia quella di chi odia le donne, bisogna pur ammettere che in realtà questi due concetti non si equivalgono né in termini di pericolosità per i loro bersagli, né di mezzi usati per esprimersi". Marco Crepaldi e il Cerbero Podcast avrebbero qualcosa da ridire. Ma come loro anche tante donne che hanno ricevuto shitstorm online con auguri di morte ed insulti per aver osato criticare una posizione estremista. Persino l'associazione Perseo, che gestisce un centro per aiutare vittime di violenza è stata attaccata con minacce e insulti perchè 'osa' aiutare gli uomini. Ovviamente la cara Pauline non dice che nei centri antiviolenza non ti accettano se sei un uomo abusato da una donna. Non ti accettano nemmeno se sei un uomo picchiato da un altro uomo. Perché gli uomini non sono mai vittime. Non ti accettano nemmeno se sei una donna picchiata da un altra donna. Perchè le donne non sono mai carnefici. Non hanno forza di volontà, non hanno libero arbitrio. Ogni loro scelta è dettata da qualcun'altro. Anche se sbagliano è colpa del patriarcato, del sessismo, degli uomini brutti e cattivi che le costringono a vivere oppresse. Noi donne veniamo descritte come madonnine incapaci di prendere decisioni autonome perché tutto ciò che pensiamo o facciamo è plasmato dagli uomini, siamo come bambole. Questo è il sessismo, ritenere le donne delle incapaci senza cervello, e lo sta facendo una donna. Ma le donne mica sessualizzano, mica hanno le bio su Tinder: alto almeno 1,80, no pelati, palestrato, automunito. Mica lo stesso patriarcato opprime anche gli uomini, mica gli uomini si trovano precluse alcune carriere perchè ritenuti non adatti a certi ruoli (scuole d'infanzia, per citarne una).
"Nel 2017, il 90 per cento delle persone che hanno subito minacce di morte da parte del coniuge erano donne." Cominciamo chiedendoci "dove sono i dati?" e proseguiamo con perchè sorprende una cosa del genere? Poi questo dato cosa dovrebbe dirmi? Che il restante 10% delel vittime sono uomini? Quindi ci sono donne violente? Come faccio a sapere che quel 90% di carnefici è composto solo di uomini etero bianchi? Ma non è importante contestualizzare i dati se non supportano la tua tesi quindi mi porti un dato fallace. Ah, poi però lei ci fa sapere che gli uomini oppressi sono oppressi dagli uomini quindi intrinsecamente gli uomini dovrebbero odiare loro stessi.
"Non tutti gli uomini saranno degli stupratori, ma quasi tutti gli stupratori sono uomini". E quindi? Che giustificazione del cazzo è? È come dire non tutte le persone del sud sono mafiose ma tutti i mafiosi sono del sud, che cazzo vuol dire? Aspè, ma con quel 'quasi tutti' mi stai forse dicendo che esistono stupratori non uomini? Tipo chessò, donne? Quindi mi stai dicendo che le donne non sono tutte carine, innocenti, dolci, brave, buone e sempre vittime come continui a ripetere? Ti contraddici così?
✿ Poi anche qui, stereotipi su stereotipi, le donne si occupano della casa e dei figli mentre i padri sono quelli che ci giocano. Ma dove? Ma quando? Ma mica in tutte le famiglie. Basta generalizzare come fosse verità divina. Subito dopo racconta di come una ragazzina le diede uno schiaffo da piccola (sempre perchè le donne sono remissive, buone, carine, gentili e dolci) e lei non reagi perchè tutti le dissero di lasciar perdere. Allora, è gia la seconda volta che dici di aver fatto o non fatto cose perchè ti hanno condizionata altri. Quindi non sei nemmeno in grado di prendere decisioni autonome. Secondo, tu sei semplicemente un ameba che è stata incapace di reagire allo schiaffo. Vuoi dare la colpa ad altre persone per la tua non reazione quando è soltanto legata al tuo carattere. Adesso è colpa degli uomini se tu hai la personalità di uno stuzzicadenti e non sai reagire ad uno schiaffo? E comunque sia gentile, non ci accomuni perché io a quella ragazzina na testata gliel'avrei data.
La sorellanza, io non sono come dirtelo figliola ma, non esiste, non è mai esistita e mai esisterà probabilmente. Perchè deve esserti sfuggito il fatto che il peggior nemico delle donne spesso sono le donne. Le stesse donne che ti cagano il cazzo se ti trucchi o ti depili o ti piace fare sesso. Le stesse donne che ti danno della puttana se fai la prima mossa con un uomo, che ti licenziano perchè circolano foto nuda di te, che se la prendono con te che sei una troia se il marito le tradisce. Ma forse le donne di cui parla lei sono quelle brave, buone, gentili, dolci e puritane, quelle che qualche tempo fa cercarono di far passare il sesso penetrativo come stupro? O di bandire il porno? O forse sono quelle che attaccano le bambole gonfiabili perchè incitano allo stupro e sono deumanizzanti ma poi inneggiano all'utilizzo del dildo? Se quella è la sorellanza tenetevela perchè è una merda.
Lei poi ha pure degli amici e io vorrei conoscerli. Vorrei chiedergli cosa ne pensano del fatto che sono amici di una tizia che li odia.
✿ Lei, comunque, rivendica il diritto ad odiare gli uomini. Quindi un bianco può legittimamente rivendicare il diritto ad odiare i neri, o gli ebrei, o i rom. Un etero potrà rivendicare il diritto ad odiare i gay. Gli uomini potranno rivendicare il diritto ad odiare le donne. La sua ideologia è fallace (ma è femminismo radicale, non ci sorprende). Quanto devi essere psicopatica per, addirittura, rivendicare il diritto di odiare. Ma da quando odiare è un diritto? Poi voi siete quelle che fanno gli hashtag OdiareTiCosta? Si, vero?
Dovreste anche capire che nel momento in cui provate a giustificare il vostro odio siete gia nel torto. E lo sapete benissimo perchè altrimenti non leggereste un libro tentando di pararvi il culo e cercando una qualche assoluzione che vi faccia sentire meglio per il fatto che siete delle stronze.
Poi magari qualcuno mi spiegherà dov'è la linea sottile che divide le femministe tossiche dagli incel tanto odiati. No dai, ve la spiego io. La differenza non c'è perchè sia le femministe tossiche che gli incel odiano gli uomini. Come ho detto all'inizio, alla lunga diventi ciò che odi.
✿ Non farò l'iperbole facile paragonando questo libro a quello famoso del nazista austriaco, però capiamoci, di base sono la stessa cosa. Questo libro è ciò che succede quando le ideologie del femminismo radicale (o tossico, se preferite) si distaccano talmente tanto che vanno avanti, fanno un giro, tornano indietro e diventano esattamente come quel maschilismo che tanto odiano. Non mi metterò a parlare del libro perchè non lo voglio prendere sul serio, è ridicolo e ipocrita come ridicole ed ipocrite sono le femministe radicali. Mi limiterò a prendere qualche stralcio e a percularlo perchè questo si meritano.
✿ L'autrice ci tiene a dirci che si, odia gli uomini ma se ne è addirittura sposato uno mica cotica. Che è come se io dicessi si odio gli uomini ma mi piace scopare e mi serve il cazzo. Non contenta dice che si se l'è sposato ma lei è bisessuale ed è stata l'omofobia della gente a spingerla verso un uomo (che è pure offensivo nei confronti di quelle coppie omosessuali che stanno insieme alla luce del sole nonostante gli insulti, tu stai dicendo di essere stata talmente codarda da aver sposato un uomo). Che tra l'altro, chi te l'ha chiesto, scusa? Mica è un obbligo sposarsi? Se li odi così tanto potevi benissimo evitare invece di parlare della cosa come se ti aspettassi una pacca sulla schiena per l'impresa compiuta.
Lei comunque lo ama eh, talmente tanto che lo odia e lo mette insieme a tutti gli altri uomini. Poi aggiunge "Io odio gli uomini. Ma proprio tutti? Sì, tutti." Salvo poi cagarsi in mano e specificare che no solo quelli cisgender, bianchi, ricchi e non disabili.
"Ma ciò non mi impedisce di chiedermi perché gli uomini siano come sono. Vale a dire degli esseri violenti, egoisti, pigri e vigliacchi." Tutti, dal primo all'ultimo. Lei userà le generalizzazioni anche per parlare delle donne, che sono TUTTE brave persone, dolcissime e tante altre belle cose.
Per tutto il primo capitolo c'è una retorica idiota sul fatto che gli uomini sono mediocri e le donne accettano questa mediocrità. Non viene chiarito in quale aspetto venga accettata ma forse basterebbe smettere di darla a uomini mediocri, per esempio. Invece di continuare a vedere la situazione di single come una vergogna e accontentarvi del primo simp poraccio magari dovreste iniziare a pretendere fin da subito qualcosa di più e non accontentarvi della mediocrità? E magari iniziare a smettere di congratularvi con gli uomini per ogni cosa basilare che fanno come se avessero vinto la medaglia d'oro e trattarle invece come fosse qualcosa da aspettarsi? Invece di scendere a compromessi, dovreste iniziare a rompere il cazzo, magari? Invece vi accontentate, ve li tenete e poi piagnuccolate perchè sono come sono.
✿ Questo libro non va preso sul serio anche solo per il fatto che l'autrice parla di statistiche senza mostrare mai mezzo dato, mezzo studio. In questo libro c'è lei che proietta le sue impressioni rendendole verità universale, infatti è un continuo dire 'ho l'impressione che, a me sembra che, io penso, io ritengo, a me è successo questo'. Generalizzando tutto. Non esistono sfumature. Tutto è bianco o nero. Gli uomini sono merde perchè si e le donne sono brave perchè si. In Francia evidentemente non succedono casi di maestre d'asilo che picchiano bambini o di assistenti in case di riposo che legano gli anziani. In Francia evidentemente non esistono casi di donne che ammazzano i propri figli, che stalkerano i propri ex, che picchiano i fidanzati, che gli gettano l'acido addosso. Nei suoi libri di storia non c'erano foto o nomi di SS donne, evidentemente.
✿ "Se è vero che la misandria è la caratteristica di chi odia gli uomini e la misoginia quella di chi odia le donne, bisogna pur ammettere che in realtà questi due concetti non si equivalgono né in termini di pericolosità per i loro bersagli, né di mezzi usati per esprimersi". Marco Crepaldi e il Cerbero Podcast avrebbero qualcosa da ridire. Ma come loro anche tante donne che hanno ricevuto shitstorm online con auguri di morte ed insulti per aver osato criticare una posizione estremista. Persino l'associazione Perseo, che gestisce un centro per aiutare vittime di violenza è stata attaccata con minacce e insulti perchè 'osa' aiutare gli uomini. Ovviamente la cara Pauline non dice che nei centri antiviolenza non ti accettano se sei un uomo abusato da una donna. Non ti accettano nemmeno se sei un uomo picchiato da un altro uomo. Perché gli uomini non sono mai vittime. Non ti accettano nemmeno se sei una donna picchiata da un altra donna. Perchè le donne non sono mai carnefici. Non hanno forza di volontà, non hanno libero arbitrio. Ogni loro scelta è dettata da qualcun'altro. Anche se sbagliano è colpa del patriarcato, del sessismo, degli uomini brutti e cattivi che le costringono a vivere oppresse. Noi donne veniamo descritte come madonnine incapaci di prendere decisioni autonome perché tutto ciò che pensiamo o facciamo è plasmato dagli uomini, siamo come bambole. Questo è il sessismo, ritenere le donne delle incapaci senza cervello, e lo sta facendo una donna. Ma le donne mica sessualizzano, mica hanno le bio su Tinder: alto almeno 1,80, no pelati, palestrato, automunito. Mica lo stesso patriarcato opprime anche gli uomini, mica gli uomini si trovano precluse alcune carriere perchè ritenuti non adatti a certi ruoli (scuole d'infanzia, per citarne una).
"Nel 2017, il 90 per cento delle persone che hanno subito minacce di morte da parte del coniuge erano donne." Cominciamo chiedendoci "dove sono i dati?" e proseguiamo con perchè sorprende una cosa del genere? Poi questo dato cosa dovrebbe dirmi? Che il restante 10% delel vittime sono uomini? Quindi ci sono donne violente? Come faccio a sapere che quel 90% di carnefici è composto solo di uomini etero bianchi? Ma non è importante contestualizzare i dati se non supportano la tua tesi quindi mi porti un dato fallace. Ah, poi però lei ci fa sapere che gli uomini oppressi sono oppressi dagli uomini quindi intrinsecamente gli uomini dovrebbero odiare loro stessi.
"Non tutti gli uomini saranno degli stupratori, ma quasi tutti gli stupratori sono uomini". E quindi? Che giustificazione del cazzo è? È come dire non tutte le persone del sud sono mafiose ma tutti i mafiosi sono del sud, che cazzo vuol dire? Aspè, ma con quel 'quasi tutti' mi stai forse dicendo che esistono stupratori non uomini? Tipo chessò, donne? Quindi mi stai dicendo che le donne non sono tutte carine, innocenti, dolci, brave, buone e sempre vittime come continui a ripetere? Ti contraddici così?
✿ Poi anche qui, stereotipi su stereotipi, le donne si occupano della casa e dei figli mentre i padri sono quelli che ci giocano. Ma dove? Ma quando? Ma mica in tutte le famiglie. Basta generalizzare come fosse verità divina. Subito dopo racconta di come una ragazzina le diede uno schiaffo da piccola (sempre perchè le donne sono remissive, buone, carine, gentili e dolci) e lei non reagi perchè tutti le dissero di lasciar perdere. Allora, è gia la seconda volta che dici di aver fatto o non fatto cose perchè ti hanno condizionata altri. Quindi non sei nemmeno in grado di prendere decisioni autonome. Secondo, tu sei semplicemente un ameba che è stata incapace di reagire allo schiaffo. Vuoi dare la colpa ad altre persone per la tua non reazione quando è soltanto legata al tuo carattere. Adesso è colpa degli uomini se tu hai la personalità di uno stuzzicadenti e non sai reagire ad uno schiaffo? E comunque sia gentile, non ci accomuni perché io a quella ragazzina na testata gliel'avrei data.
La sorellanza, io non sono come dirtelo figliola ma, non esiste, non è mai esistita e mai esisterà probabilmente. Perchè deve esserti sfuggito il fatto che il peggior nemico delle donne spesso sono le donne. Le stesse donne che ti cagano il cazzo se ti trucchi o ti depili o ti piace fare sesso. Le stesse donne che ti danno della puttana se fai la prima mossa con un uomo, che ti licenziano perchè circolano foto nuda di te, che se la prendono con te che sei una troia se il marito le tradisce. Ma forse le donne di cui parla lei sono quelle brave, buone, gentili, dolci e puritane, quelle che qualche tempo fa cercarono di far passare il sesso penetrativo come stupro? O di bandire il porno? O forse sono quelle che attaccano le bambole gonfiabili perchè incitano allo stupro e sono deumanizzanti ma poi inneggiano all'utilizzo del dildo? Se quella è la sorellanza tenetevela perchè è una merda.
Lei poi ha pure degli amici e io vorrei conoscerli. Vorrei chiedergli cosa ne pensano del fatto che sono amici di una tizia che li odia.
✿ Lei, comunque, rivendica il diritto ad odiare gli uomini. Quindi un bianco può legittimamente rivendicare il diritto ad odiare i neri, o gli ebrei, o i rom. Un etero potrà rivendicare il diritto ad odiare i gay. Gli uomini potranno rivendicare il diritto ad odiare le donne. La sua ideologia è fallace (ma è femminismo radicale, non ci sorprende). Quanto devi essere psicopatica per, addirittura, rivendicare il diritto di odiare. Ma da quando odiare è un diritto? Poi voi siete quelle che fanno gli hashtag OdiareTiCosta? Si, vero?
Dovreste anche capire che nel momento in cui provate a giustificare il vostro odio siete gia nel torto. E lo sapete benissimo perchè altrimenti non leggereste un libro tentando di pararvi il culo e cercando una qualche assoluzione che vi faccia sentire meglio per il fatto che siete delle stronze.
Poi magari qualcuno mi spiegherà dov'è la linea sottile che divide le femministe tossiche dagli incel tanto odiati. No dai, ve la spiego io. La differenza non c'è perchè sia le femministe tossiche che gli incel odiano gli uomini. Come ho detto all'inizio, alla lunga diventi ciò che odi.
March 25, 2021
Come immaginavo tutta l'indignazione per questo libretto non è assolutamente giustificata, dato che è ben chiaro come l'autrice intenda il concetto di "misandria", che non é neanche lontanamente paragonabile all'odio razziale per gli ebrei (come ho letto e sentito da più individui). La questione è di riconoscere che la misandria è un effetto della completa misoginia della nostra società. Provare astio per gli uomini come categoria, che denigrano, sfruttano, stuprano e uccidono le donne (si si, ma non tutti eh, lo abbiamo capito) è un sentimento umano, e Harmange ci spiega che è inutile continuare a fingere di non provarlo. A questo punto, prima di offendersi a caso, ne consiglio la lettura.
3/4 per il testo, ma sento di dover dare 4 per compensare con le "valutazioni" di chi non lo ha nemmeno letto prima di giudicarlo.
3/4 per il testo, ma sento di dover dare 4 per compensare con le "valutazioni" di chi non lo ha nemmeno letto prima di giudicarlo.
February 22, 2021
Yes. I did pick this book up because I saw it listed as a book that was banned in France. I’m probably going to come of as a ‘pick me girl’ for this opinion. (Which is a sexist term in itself but don’t get me started on that.)
Let me just start by saying that I’m a feminist in that I believe that men and women should in an ideal world be equal and have the same rights and opportunities. That means I advocate for women’s rights to drive, have sex without stigma, not be mutilated and raped and killed, but it also means I want to stop men from killing themselves in record numbers, I want it to be accepted for men to cry and wear makeup and I want boys and men to be allowed to feel things and free themselves from toxic masculinity (which is a product of that wonderful thing that fucks us all over; society.) I don’t hate men. I honestly didn’t think the author did either. I was expecting a ‘I don’t actually hate men,’ thrown in there somewhere but she really does seem to hate men. Even though she’s married to one.
I have a few criticisms. First: the patriarchy doesn’t work for all men. There is an abhorrent lack of intersectionality here. This is white feminism at its worst. Men of color do NOT benefit from the patriarchy in the same way white men do. (Or at ALL really in places where they are the minority.) I as a white woman am in many ways more privileged than a black man. Cause yk... I don’t have to worry about getting SHOT every time I leave the house. Funny how that works.
This is a book littered with contradictory statements. The funniest claim in the book is that misandry doesn’t exist. Not systematically I guess but of course it exists... because you openly admit to being a misandrist. How can it not then?
'If you tell men they’re trash they won’t want to join you, but we’re capable of organizing our struggle ourselves because we’ve done so for years.' If that’s the case, why do you think we’re still fighting, then? Why do you think we aren’t there yet if we can do this on our own, just 50 % of us? "We don’t need men." But we do. We need all of us.
The author defines misandry as ‘suspicion of men’ but that’s not what it is. That’s being dishonest. It is definitely contempt for men. Hatred. Not a general suspicion. Every woman is unfortunately SUSPICIOUS of men. That doesn’t make us misandrists.
I will say that I do not believe in banning books. I’m 100 % for free speech and no matter how dangerous we believe books to be we should never burn them. Instead we ought to educate people on why we believe that to be true. So advocating for this book to be banned was a bad idea regardless of my dislike for it.
There are some good points here though.
Misandry is often a reaction to misogyny and there are reasons to hate men and little reason to violently despise women because we haven’t really done anything. I also agree that neither passivity nor violence works to fight injustice.
If I’m being honest I like hanging out with women more than I like hanging out with men too. I feel safer with women. Women are awesome! I want to celebrate women without putting anyone else down because I believe us all to be better than the men who hurt us. We’ll be BETTER and raise better boys. I truly believe that.
There are indeed beautiful women with low self-confidence who settle for mediocre men who don’t treat them right though. I’ve seen that too often. And the phrase: "God give me the confidence of a mediocre white dude" did make me laugh.
Growing up a girl and not wanting to be like other girls is relateable. Despising ‘other girls’ is relateable and we’ve all been there. Or maybe just me... ‘nyways
We shouldn’t idealize men, I agree with that. we should be allies to women, I agree with that too.
So I’m not saying she has no points and I’m also not claiming the author isn’t articulate, because she is. I just disagree with the conclusions she’s drawn from those points (no matter how well she articulated them,) and I think her book leaves a lot to be desired. That’s all.
Let me just start by saying that I’m a feminist in that I believe that men and women should in an ideal world be equal and have the same rights and opportunities. That means I advocate for women’s rights to drive, have sex without stigma, not be mutilated and raped and killed, but it also means I want to stop men from killing themselves in record numbers, I want it to be accepted for men to cry and wear makeup and I want boys and men to be allowed to feel things and free themselves from toxic masculinity (which is a product of that wonderful thing that fucks us all over; society.) I don’t hate men. I honestly didn’t think the author did either. I was expecting a ‘I don’t actually hate men,’ thrown in there somewhere but she really does seem to hate men. Even though she’s married to one.
I have a few criticisms. First: the patriarchy doesn’t work for all men. There is an abhorrent lack of intersectionality here. This is white feminism at its worst. Men of color do NOT benefit from the patriarchy in the same way white men do. (Or at ALL really in places where they are the minority.) I as a white woman am in many ways more privileged than a black man. Cause yk... I don’t have to worry about getting SHOT every time I leave the house. Funny how that works.
This is a book littered with contradictory statements. The funniest claim in the book is that misandry doesn’t exist. Not systematically I guess but of course it exists... because you openly admit to being a misandrist. How can it not then?
'If you tell men they’re trash they won’t want to join you, but we’re capable of organizing our struggle ourselves because we’ve done so for years.' If that’s the case, why do you think we’re still fighting, then? Why do you think we aren’t there yet if we can do this on our own, just 50 % of us? "We don’t need men." But we do. We need all of us.
The author defines misandry as ‘suspicion of men’ but that’s not what it is. That’s being dishonest. It is definitely contempt for men. Hatred. Not a general suspicion. Every woman is unfortunately SUSPICIOUS of men. That doesn’t make us misandrists.
I will say that I do not believe in banning books. I’m 100 % for free speech and no matter how dangerous we believe books to be we should never burn them. Instead we ought to educate people on why we believe that to be true. So advocating for this book to be banned was a bad idea regardless of my dislike for it.
There are some good points here though.
Misandry is often a reaction to misogyny and there are reasons to hate men and little reason to violently despise women because we haven’t really done anything. I also agree that neither passivity nor violence works to fight injustice.
If I’m being honest I like hanging out with women more than I like hanging out with men too. I feel safer with women. Women are awesome! I want to celebrate women without putting anyone else down because I believe us all to be better than the men who hurt us. We’ll be BETTER and raise better boys. I truly believe that.
There are indeed beautiful women with low self-confidence who settle for mediocre men who don’t treat them right though. I’ve seen that too often. And the phrase: "God give me the confidence of a mediocre white dude" did make me laugh.
Growing up a girl and not wanting to be like other girls is relateable. Despising ‘other girls’ is relateable and we’ve all been there. Or maybe just me... ‘nyways
We shouldn’t idealize men, I agree with that. we should be allies to women, I agree with that too.
So I’m not saying she has no points and I’m also not claiming the author isn’t articulate, because she is. I just disagree with the conclusions she’s drawn from those points (no matter how well she articulated them,) and I think her book leaves a lot to be desired. That’s all.
June 29, 2022
Lacks depth.
November 7, 2020
Bien malheureux ceux qui s’arrêtent au titre et pourtant, je les comprends un peu. En le découvrant, moi aussi il m’a gênée : oh, quand même, détester ? Comme elle y va ! Dans mon cheminement féministe, la misandrie m’apparaissait comme l’exact contraire de la misogynie. Elle me semblait nourrir les tensions et les incompréhensions entre les unes et les autres, je disais : on a besoin des hommes pour avancer - ce qui signifiait implicitement, on a besoin d’eux à nos côtés alors veillons à ne pas les froisser. Mais a-t-on vraiment besoin d’une catégorie de la population qui peine à écouter les concernées, qui coupe la parole et qui la remet en question sans jamais se remettre en question ?
Et c’est vrai, on les entend plus promptement défendre leurs intérêts que défendre le féminisme. Qui déconstruit le patriarcat ? Qui subit la charge mentale, émotionnelle et sexuelle, et doit en plus se coltiner le boulot d’éducation car une partie de la population est trop feignante pour lire les féministes et écouter les femmes raconter ce qu’elles vivent - autrement plus violent qu’un titre de livre ?
Le court essai de Pauline Harmange a eu le mérite de me faire réaliser que la posture misandre est une posture politique d’auto-défense, un principe de précaution comme elle l’écrit. Cela ne veut pas dire détester tous les hommes individuellement, cela veut dire détester la construction du genre masculin dans le système patriarcal qui est le nôtre.
Cette construction qui autorise les hommes à insulter, harceler, agresser, violer, tuer ; et sans aller jusque là, qui les autorise à prendre toute la place et à bénéficier de privilèges dont ils n’ont même pas conscience ! Cette construction met les femmes en situation d’infériorité et dans ce contexte, la misandrie est une parade contre la misogynie : « [...] ces deux concepts ne sont pas égaux, que ce soit en termes de dangerosité pour leurs cibles ou de moyens utilisés pour les exprimer. [...] On ne peut comparer misandrie et misogynie, tout simplement parce que la première existe en réaction à la seconde. »
C’est aussi s’autoriser la colère, nous qui nous l’autorisons peu et puis, surtout, c’est remettre au cœur de nos vies la sororité. Moi les hommes, je les déteste est une ode à nos relations entre femmes, un hymne à la vie sans le poids du regard et du jugement masculins.
On nous apprend bien trop tôt qu’il faut plaire aux hommes et que pour cela, on doit répondre aux standards qu’ils ont défini eux-mêmes jusqu’à rivaliser entre nous pour gagner leurs faveurs. Pourtant « on pourrait, je crois, libérer un pouvoir insoupçonné : celui, en planant très loin au-dessus du regard des hommes et des exigences masculines, de nous révéler à nous-mêmes. »
Je ne me qualifierais peut-être jamais de misandre, parce que je n’ai pas d’énergie à déployer pour expliquer et débattre - je me contenterai de conseiller le livre Pauline Harmange. Mais en comprendre le concept et sa réappropriation par les féministes m’a permis de réaliser une chose essentielle : une fois que l’on ne tient plus l’avis des hommes sur un piédestal, on se débarrasse d’un poids immense - et éventuellement d’un tocard qui nous considère à peine mais dont on se satisfait par peur de finir seule dévorée par son berger allemand. On oublie que l’on ne finira jamais seule puisque l’on a des sœurs.
Et c’est vrai, on les entend plus promptement défendre leurs intérêts que défendre le féminisme. Qui déconstruit le patriarcat ? Qui subit la charge mentale, émotionnelle et sexuelle, et doit en plus se coltiner le boulot d’éducation car une partie de la population est trop feignante pour lire les féministes et écouter les femmes raconter ce qu’elles vivent - autrement plus violent qu’un titre de livre ?
Le court essai de Pauline Harmange a eu le mérite de me faire réaliser que la posture misandre est une posture politique d’auto-défense, un principe de précaution comme elle l’écrit. Cela ne veut pas dire détester tous les hommes individuellement, cela veut dire détester la construction du genre masculin dans le système patriarcal qui est le nôtre.
Cette construction qui autorise les hommes à insulter, harceler, agresser, violer, tuer ; et sans aller jusque là, qui les autorise à prendre toute la place et à bénéficier de privilèges dont ils n’ont même pas conscience ! Cette construction met les femmes en situation d’infériorité et dans ce contexte, la misandrie est une parade contre la misogynie : « [...] ces deux concepts ne sont pas égaux, que ce soit en termes de dangerosité pour leurs cibles ou de moyens utilisés pour les exprimer. [...] On ne peut comparer misandrie et misogynie, tout simplement parce que la première existe en réaction à la seconde. »
C’est aussi s’autoriser la colère, nous qui nous l’autorisons peu et puis, surtout, c’est remettre au cœur de nos vies la sororité. Moi les hommes, je les déteste est une ode à nos relations entre femmes, un hymne à la vie sans le poids du regard et du jugement masculins.
On nous apprend bien trop tôt qu’il faut plaire aux hommes et que pour cela, on doit répondre aux standards qu’ils ont défini eux-mêmes jusqu’à rivaliser entre nous pour gagner leurs faveurs. Pourtant « on pourrait, je crois, libérer un pouvoir insoupçonné : celui, en planant très loin au-dessus du regard des hommes et des exigences masculines, de nous révéler à nous-mêmes. »
Je ne me qualifierais peut-être jamais de misandre, parce que je n’ai pas d’énergie à déployer pour expliquer et débattre - je me contenterai de conseiller le livre Pauline Harmange. Mais en comprendre le concept et sa réappropriation par les féministes m’a permis de réaliser une chose essentielle : une fois que l’on ne tient plus l’avis des hommes sur un piédestal, on se débarrasse d’un poids immense - et éventuellement d’un tocard qui nous considère à peine mais dont on se satisfait par peur de finir seule dévorée par son berger allemand. On oublie que l’on ne finira jamais seule puisque l’on a des sœurs.
January 17, 2021
I needed this short book (or long essay) right now and enjoyed every page of it. There's not a tongue-in-cheek here. She means it — not like Valerie Solanas — but you better believe she means it. It strikes a good balance between wit and serious philosophy. And I can't say I disagree with a single word. I also learned how to think about some things in a new way.
Two of the things that the author deepened my understanding of:
* How mothers, because of the general division of labor in most heterosexual couples that gives fathers more active roles in the enjoyable aspects of parenting, can't help but seem more angry overall than fathers to their children.
* And how women do not have good means of expressing anger in relationships with men. Either they tend to come across as too timid (so men tune them out), too emotional (so men dismiss them as hysterical), or too aggressive ("I can't hear you when you shout like that").
There's a short list of recommended books, TV shows, and movies at the end that display positive female relationships.
Here are two short excerpts to give a flavor for the book:
Only someone in a position of dominance can permit himself to be calm and reasonable in any circumstance, because he’s not the one who is suffering.
And:
Strangely, not many men actually stop to wonder why feminists dislike them so much – if they did they might notice the statistics are quite damning. But they’re too busy explaining to us that they’re not like that, that it’s really not nice to generalise like that. And if we alienate them with all that talk of men are trash, the risk is they won’t join in and help us in our struggle. As if we were incapable of organising our struggle without them, as if we haven’t been doing precisely that for years – and as if, when they invited themselves into our ranks to join the struggle, they didn’t always end up taking over, talking over us and even imposing their decisions on us while they were about it.
Two of the things that the author deepened my understanding of:
* How mothers, because of the general division of labor in most heterosexual couples that gives fathers more active roles in the enjoyable aspects of parenting, can't help but seem more angry overall than fathers to their children.
* And how women do not have good means of expressing anger in relationships with men. Either they tend to come across as too timid (so men tune them out), too emotional (so men dismiss them as hysterical), or too aggressive ("I can't hear you when you shout like that").
There's a short list of recommended books, TV shows, and movies at the end that display positive female relationships.
Here are two short excerpts to give a flavor for the book:
Only someone in a position of dominance can permit himself to be calm and reasonable in any circumstance, because he’s not the one who is suffering.
And:
Strangely, not many men actually stop to wonder why feminists dislike them so much – if they did they might notice the statistics are quite damning. But they’re too busy explaining to us that they’re not like that, that it’s really not nice to generalise like that. And if we alienate them with all that talk of men are trash, the risk is they won’t join in and help us in our struggle. As if we were incapable of organising our struggle without them, as if we haven’t been doing precisely that for years – and as if, when they invited themselves into our ranks to join the struggle, they didn’t always end up taking over, talking over us and even imposing their decisions on us while they were about it.
November 26, 2020
Well here's the thing: If someone is trying to tell you, you need to hate somebody in order to be loved, take your money and buy a different book.
Nevertheless, Pauline Harmange is not completely wrong, she just derives to conclusions, that are more or less nuts!
I am convinced that most women can relate to her reasons, as to why the author is actively promoting misandry, but I applaud every women who finds it in herself, to be the bigger person and not give in to such foolish ideas. By the way, fruit for thought, when has is it historically ever proven to be a good strategy, to let your actions be controlled by anger and hatred?
Nevertheless, Pauline Harmange is not completely wrong, she just derives to conclusions, that are more or less nuts!
I am convinced that most women can relate to her reasons, as to why the author is actively promoting misandry, but I applaud every women who finds it in herself, to be the bigger person and not give in to such foolish ideas. By the way, fruit for thought, when has is it historically ever proven to be a good strategy, to let your actions be controlled by anger and hatred?
November 9, 2020
Très court, sans prétentions. L’autrice remet les pendules à l’heure pour celles et ceux qui seraient encore dans un sommeil profond. Ce livre c’est un peu la base, le b.a.-ba, enfin vous avez compris.
Read
February 27, 2021Che un libro così posato scandalizzi così tanto è prova di quanto ci sia necessità della rabbia delle donne.
November 1, 2020
This very fast feminist read was in danger of being censored by the French state in autumn 2020, on the grounds that it incites to hatred. The culprit of this brilliant idea? A man (of course!) by the name of Ralph Zurmély (let’s record his actions for posterity), who on top of everything works at the French ministry of equality! In reality, for anyone who bothers to actually read the text and have a few neurons in their brain, this is an essay on a word that I was very surprised I did not know. Do you know what the antonym to “misogyny” is? Until now, I never even stopped to consider that the word even has an antonym. If misogyny implied men’s hate for women, it took me 34 years to learn its opposite: “misandry”. What a fascinating revelation it was to me when I realized this missing map in my brain! I believe this essay / very short book fully serves its purpose by simply pointing this fact out! Afterwards it’s a quick read, and if you are familiar with feminist themes it will bring little newness to the table. There is no incitement to hatred. There is the usual talk of female mental load, men who never listen or support the women in their life, men who inflate their being and suck all the air in an environment as if it is their birthright, mediocre men who claim way more than they should ever do etc etc. And guess what, the author is married...to a MAN! So it really isn’t that virulent against the males of our species. Overall, the text isn’t very original, but by simply putting forth the notion of “misandry”, it manages to reveal the grasp patriarchy has even on the way we store vocabulary in our feminine brains. And with one threat of censorship an entire multi-gendered country discovered “misandry” as well. I say, job well done.
February 28, 2021
Prima di tutto: mi dispiace ma uno scritto così breve io fatico a definirlo libro o saggio, diciamo che è un saggio breve, uno sfogo da blog un po' più lungo del solito. Secondo: non vedo perché definire "misandria" un qualcosa che misandria non è. Il titolo è marketing, ed è riuscito, quindi good job, ma no, le pagine che ho letto non mi hanno convinta dell'esistenza o del bisogno dell'odio sistematico verso gli uomini (che comunque lei definisce come "uomini cisgender socializzati come tali che godono dei loro privilegi maschili senza metterli in discussione", quindi in ogni caso, "not all men", dormite sogni tranquilli). Però è stato molto piacevole e divertente da leggere, l'autrice parla in modo schietto e senza peli sulla lingua di quella che è l'esperienza femminile, in particolare di una donna a cui piacciono gli uomini, esperienza in cui mi rivedo al 100% , dal bisogno continuo di approvazione maschile negli anni adolescenziali, al carico mentale che dobbiamo sostenere nelle relazioni romantiche. Il suo è un grido di rabbia, che condivido, però non penso che siano queste le parole corrette da usare. Anche se il fatto che un libricino del genere, piacevole ma banale, sia diventato un caso editoriale perché si chiama "odio gli uomini" mi fa riflettere molto.
April 14, 2021
Poteva essere mejo? Sì.
Poteva argomentare di più senza semplificare? Decisamente sì.
Mi ha detto delle cose che non sapevo? Mh. Nope.
È così scandaloso e spinge tutte le donne che lo leggono a iniziare a odiare immediatamente gli uomini? – guess what: nope.
Quindi tutte le recensioni di una stellina in cui laggente si strappa i capelli per la polarizzazione e ommioddio ma non va bene incoraggiare l’odio ecc ecc? – girati nattimo, t’ha preso foco la coda, amig.
Poteva argomentare di più senza semplificare? Decisamente sì.
Mi ha detto delle cose che non sapevo? Mh. Nope.
È così scandaloso e spinge tutte le donne che lo leggono a iniziare a odiare immediatamente gli uomini? – guess what: nope.
Quindi tutte le recensioni di una stellina in cui laggente si strappa i capelli per la polarizzazione e ommioddio ma non va bene incoraggiare l’odio ecc ecc? – girati nattimo, t’ha preso foco la coda, amig.
June 29, 2021
I hate the power men have in our society and I hate bad behavior. The world is built for (strong white) men and I want to deconstruct it as much as the next (wo)man.
Things in this book don't make sense to me. This isn't my reality. In my life there's men who speak of their feelings and do chores around the house. There's women in my life who talk politics and there simply isn't any groups of men and women but simply humans who interact. I have been harassed equally by women and men: women have hit me, men have hit me, both have kissed me out of nowhere, grabbed me improperly and pressured me to do sexual acts that I'm not comfortable with.
I have sorted these things out with the people who have violated me, because it's most important to understand, to listen, to be kind, to move on and to learn.
Structural chauvinism and misogyny are real though and we need to do everything we can to fight it, the power of men should be over already. I just feel this book doesn't help at all, quite the opposite.
This isn't analytical, it isn't academical, it doesn't provide new thoughts. It's just like my favourite feminist Liv Strömquist says: feminism has the same problem as the left, they only point out problems but don't provide solutions.
This also downplays women: they are so much more than Tupperware and pyjama parties. My god.
The premise is nice and provocative and punk, but falls flat. Hate is a poor motivator, it doesn't build up to anything. Try to listen, try love, see what happens. We are all humans and we are all different.
Also, think of hate in terms of intersectionality: if privileged heterosexual white women such as Harmange cut men from their lives, they become the new "men" in the eyes of POC, the poor, the sexual minorities... who then in turn, taking in the teachings in this book, should start hating women etc.
I understand that this sparked conversation, which is a good things, of course. And means it struck a chord somewhere, mainly in France I guess? It's a fucked up country in terms of feminism anyways. I think that in that context this is very bad ass and works. But I'm not sure.
In general books like this are useless, because they take up voice from other, better books. Such as Men Explain Things to Me, Mask Off: Masculinity Redefined, The Descent of Man, Totuus ja tunnustus, Sinut on nähty, almost any book by Liv Strömquist, just to name a few.
A random compliment: this sparked some thoughts as it was so bad. That's a good thing, I guess.
Kindness is the key to everything. I will always stand on the same side as women. I believe we all should be on the same side, be it women or a men or everything in between. But I will never stand on the side of hate.
Things in this book don't make sense to me. This isn't my reality. In my life there's men who speak of their feelings and do chores around the house. There's women in my life who talk politics and there simply isn't any groups of men and women but simply humans who interact. I have been harassed equally by women and men: women have hit me, men have hit me, both have kissed me out of nowhere, grabbed me improperly and pressured me to do sexual acts that I'm not comfortable with.
I have sorted these things out with the people who have violated me, because it's most important to understand, to listen, to be kind, to move on and to learn.
Structural chauvinism and misogyny are real though and we need to do everything we can to fight it, the power of men should be over already. I just feel this book doesn't help at all, quite the opposite.
This isn't analytical, it isn't academical, it doesn't provide new thoughts. It's just like my favourite feminist Liv Strömquist says: feminism has the same problem as the left, they only point out problems but don't provide solutions.
This also downplays women: they are so much more than Tupperware and pyjama parties. My god.
The premise is nice and provocative and punk, but falls flat. Hate is a poor motivator, it doesn't build up to anything. Try to listen, try love, see what happens. We are all humans and we are all different.
Also, think of hate in terms of intersectionality: if privileged heterosexual white women such as Harmange cut men from their lives, they become the new "men" in the eyes of POC, the poor, the sexual minorities... who then in turn, taking in the teachings in this book, should start hating women etc.
I understand that this sparked conversation, which is a good things, of course. And means it struck a chord somewhere, mainly in France I guess? It's a fucked up country in terms of feminism anyways. I think that in that context this is very bad ass and works. But I'm not sure.
In general books like this are useless, because they take up voice from other, better books. Such as Men Explain Things to Me, Mask Off: Masculinity Redefined, The Descent of Man, Totuus ja tunnustus, Sinut on nähty, almost any book by Liv Strömquist, just to name a few.
A random compliment: this sparked some thoughts as it was so bad. That's a good thing, I guess.
Kindness is the key to everything. I will always stand on the same side as women. I believe we all should be on the same side, be it women or a men or everything in between. But I will never stand on the side of hate.
January 30, 2021
Not as radical as it wants to be but there’s no denying its satisfying.
February 25, 2021
Hear, hear!
March 8, 2021
updated review after I slept on it – I actually like the book even less now:
Translated in more than 17 languages, "I Hate Men" is a very short book that touches on different topics, a series of explanations on why the author hates men. Despite the original title in French being "Moi Les Hommes, Je Les Deteste", translators for the Italian, English, and Spanish versions decided to rely on the stronger term "hate" instead, an excellent choice in terms of marketing and sales.
The book itself however doesn't bring much to the feminist discourse. Other than a revisited definition of misandry – here defined not as the opposite of misogyny, but rather as a concept in itself more aligned with "hostility" – the book is nothing more than a series of concepts that, for those that have even just a basic knowledge of feminist theory, are nothing new. If I didn't know that the book was published in 2020, I would've easily assumed that it was part of the feminist literature of the second wave. Even more surprising was finding out that its author, Pauline Harmange, was not even part of the 70s wave, but is actually born in 1994, which makes the lack of a more inclusive and modern view of feminism way more upsetting.
The book is nothing more than a sterile 80ish pages, in which Harmange doesn't really worry about expanding the feminist discourse to include homsexual men and women, trans men and women, nor even POC women. There's no trace of the intersectional feminism that is developing worldwide and that is more in line with the decade we live in. The book is just a series of complaints, some more relatable than others, but that at the end of the day is nothing more than a lament in a heteronormative, color-washed key.
"I Hate Men" for me was all talk and no actions: beside the very provocative title that surely got her a good dose of publicity – as we know there's no such thing as negative publicity – and the French ministry Ralph Zurmély that wanted to ban the book on the basis of inciting hatred and being an ode to misandry (it means nothing that he didn't even read it in the first place), the book itself doesn't leave the reader with anything. Some may perceive that the tones that Harmange used are verbally violent – although as she rightly points out, the count of the victims of misandry is about 0 – but then again, what's worse? A woman that openly declares to hate all men, or a series of men that don't necessarily define themselves as misogynists but surely act like it in their daily verbal and physical violence towards women?
I Hate Men (or I Detest Them, if you prefer) it's an exasperated shout that I sometimes feel as well, because I am exasperated as well. I'm exasperated every time I read the comments under the latest news of a woman that was the victim of violence, every time that the victim becomes the guilty party, every time I read "what did she expect, dressed like that", when I personally have to pick my clothes based on how long I have to walk by myself, and when perhaps at night, I consider grabbing my keys on my way home "just in case", and I'm also exasperated when I'm on the tube during peak hour and that man seems to be a bit too close and I'm not sure whether the bulge I feel on my back is voluntary or not. But most of all, I'm exasperated when after all of this, what we get is "yes but not all men" or "we can't help you if you keen on hating us". We do know that it's #notallmen, I'd be very worried if it was indeed all men, but not being violent or not being a rapist is not a merit: it's just being a decent human being. The bar is not supposed to be this low.
I feel personally very lucky to be surrounded by men that are not "those men", and I'm including both the ones that happened to be in my life by blood and the ones I picked to be part of my affections. But we do have to remember that even those men, and even all of us women, all have internalised sexism that will then produce "those men". Knowing that should be the starting point to change it all – to change the structure and to change the power.
Back to the book, I'm afraid to say Pauline Harmange did absolutely nothing of the sort and doesn't bring anything to the table that can improve the discussion between men and women but also among women themselves. This book would've made sense back in the 1970s, but surely not in 2020. She did not write for the feminists out there, but she wrote for herself and her own experience, which fails to include a huge chunk of people that are part of the same battle. And I'm absolutely sure that if the book had a different title, we wouldn't even be here talking about it.
Translated in more than 17 languages, "I Hate Men" is a very short book that touches on different topics, a series of explanations on why the author hates men. Despite the original title in French being "Moi Les Hommes, Je Les Deteste", translators for the Italian, English, and Spanish versions decided to rely on the stronger term "hate" instead, an excellent choice in terms of marketing and sales.
The book itself however doesn't bring much to the feminist discourse. Other than a revisited definition of misandry – here defined not as the opposite of misogyny, but rather as a concept in itself more aligned with "hostility" – the book is nothing more than a series of concepts that, for those that have even just a basic knowledge of feminist theory, are nothing new. If I didn't know that the book was published in 2020, I would've easily assumed that it was part of the feminist literature of the second wave. Even more surprising was finding out that its author, Pauline Harmange, was not even part of the 70s wave, but is actually born in 1994, which makes the lack of a more inclusive and modern view of feminism way more upsetting.
The book is nothing more than a sterile 80ish pages, in which Harmange doesn't really worry about expanding the feminist discourse to include homsexual men and women, trans men and women, nor even POC women. There's no trace of the intersectional feminism that is developing worldwide and that is more in line with the decade we live in. The book is just a series of complaints, some more relatable than others, but that at the end of the day is nothing more than a lament in a heteronormative, color-washed key.
"I Hate Men" for me was all talk and no actions: beside the very provocative title that surely got her a good dose of publicity – as we know there's no such thing as negative publicity – and the French ministry Ralph Zurmély that wanted to ban the book on the basis of inciting hatred and being an ode to misandry (it means nothing that he didn't even read it in the first place), the book itself doesn't leave the reader with anything. Some may perceive that the tones that Harmange used are verbally violent – although as she rightly points out, the count of the victims of misandry is about 0 – but then again, what's worse? A woman that openly declares to hate all men, or a series of men that don't necessarily define themselves as misogynists but surely act like it in their daily verbal and physical violence towards women?
I Hate Men (or I Detest Them, if you prefer) it's an exasperated shout that I sometimes feel as well, because I am exasperated as well. I'm exasperated every time I read the comments under the latest news of a woman that was the victim of violence, every time that the victim becomes the guilty party, every time I read "what did she expect, dressed like that", when I personally have to pick my clothes based on how long I have to walk by myself, and when perhaps at night, I consider grabbing my keys on my way home "just in case", and I'm also exasperated when I'm on the tube during peak hour and that man seems to be a bit too close and I'm not sure whether the bulge I feel on my back is voluntary or not. But most of all, I'm exasperated when after all of this, what we get is "yes but not all men" or "we can't help you if you keen on hating us". We do know that it's #notallmen, I'd be very worried if it was indeed all men, but not being violent or not being a rapist is not a merit: it's just being a decent human being. The bar is not supposed to be this low.
I feel personally very lucky to be surrounded by men that are not "those men", and I'm including both the ones that happened to be in my life by blood and the ones I picked to be part of my affections. But we do have to remember that even those men, and even all of us women, all have internalised sexism that will then produce "those men". Knowing that should be the starting point to change it all – to change the structure and to change the power.
Back to the book, I'm afraid to say Pauline Harmange did absolutely nothing of the sort and doesn't bring anything to the table that can improve the discussion between men and women but also among women themselves. This book would've made sense back in the 1970s, but surely not in 2020. She did not write for the feminists out there, but she wrote for herself and her own experience, which fails to include a huge chunk of people that are part of the same battle. And I'm absolutely sure that if the book had a different title, we wouldn't even be here talking about it.
December 10, 2020
Grundsätzlich ist gegen Pauschalisierungen als Stilmittel nichts einzuwenden. Eine Brandrede soll schließlich ihre Adressaten wachrütteln und aus der Komfortzone holen. Das gelingt der Autorin zweifellos, wie allein schon der provokante Titel beweist. Leider wirkt ihre Abrechnung mit dem Patriarchat allzu oft in sich widersprüchlich. Einmal sind Männer "gewalttätige, egoistische, faule und feige Wesen". Ein anderes Mal,soll der (Wage-) Mut bzw. die Unverfrorenheit mittelmäßiger Männer den Frauen als Vorbild dienen, sich selbstbewusster zu geben. Was nun, feige oder mutig? Männer sollen im feministischen Kampf keine Rolle spielen, aber gleichzeitig wird ihre Ignoranz dem Feminismus gegenüber beklagt. Dass die Autorin selbst mit einem Mann in einer Beziehung zusammenlebt, ist angesichts der zahlreichen Paradoxien in diesem Essay, lediglich eine amüsante Randnotiz. Immerhin erfährt man(n), das Paar habe sich gründlich gemeinsam (de-) konstruiert. Auch das heraufbeschworene Ideal einer allgemeinen Schwesternschaft, scheint mir wenig realistisch. Als ob allein das Geschlecht ein gemeinsames Interesse begründen würde. Was mir absolut missfällt, ist die auch hier anzutreffende Haltung, allein Betroffene hätten ein Recht sich an einer Debatte zu beteiligen. Argumente in Ruhe anzuhören und dem Gegenüber Platz einzuräumen, gehört zum guten Ton und sollte eine Selbstverständlichkeit sein. Leider ist das sehr oft nicht so. Aber gegensätzliche Positionen von vornherein auszuschließen, mit dem Hinweis, man habe in jedem Fall die Klappe zu halten, halte ich für unreif. Jedenfalls lautet der beste Ratschlag, den der kurze Text für Frauen parat hat: »Leg dir einfach das Selbstvertrauen eines mittelmäßigen Mannes zu.« Viel mehr gibt es zu dem dünnen Büchlein im Grunde nicht zu sagen.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 2,330 reviews