America Is "Saturated With Misogyny"? Oh, Please

Anne Applebaum on whether Americans are misogynistic.

I don’t which infuriated me more: Bob Herbert’s sanctimonious Sunday column describing American society as “saturated with misogyny,” or the unusually thoughtless, “right-on” commentary that followed it. Herbert’s thesis echoes the drumbeat of self-pity that has been coming out of paleo-feminist groups and women’s studies departments for decades: America, in their view, is a country where “barbaric treatment of women has come to be more accepted,” where we are all so inured to the victimization of the female half of the population that we don’t even notice it anymore. Presumably because he is unable to prove this ludicrous proposition in any other way, Herbert uses the case of a single, certifiably insane mass-murderer to argue that all of American culture is anti-woman. The implication: All American men are, deep down, in sympathy with this crazed killer, thanks to our mass media that denigrates women, etc.

What on earth is he talking about? Having lived in several allegedly more progressive European countries, and having visited many far less female-friendly parts of the world, I can testify that American society is, at this point in history, one of the least misogynist on earth, one of the few in which real female achievement is possible, and perhaps the only one where women can and do succeed on a large scale. We are now on our third female Secretary of State; in Afghanistan, three women running for parliament have been chased out of their houses in the past few weeks. We consider it normal for women with children to work; at the school my children attended in Germany, this was considered borderline socially unacceptable. The majority of American university students are now women; in Saudi Arabia, women can’t even leave the house without a male relative.

Maybe it’s unfair to compare the U.S. to Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, or even Germany, but if we are talking about “barbaric treatment of women” then I think it’s important that we all understand what the word “barbaric” really means. As for all the respondents who wrote in to Herbert thanking him for his profound comments, I recommend that all of them pay a visit to Iran, where women are fighting—and dying—for the kinds of basic rights that American women achieved decades ago: the rights to testify in court, to be treated equally under the law, to inherit property, to make their own decisions about marriage and divorce. American society is far from perfect, in this respect as in many others, but if we can’t recognize how far we have come then it won’t be possible to assess, with any degree of realism, how far we have to go.

Photograph courtesy of Stockbyte/Getty Images.

Comments

Excellent Blog every one can

By: alex drake | Thu, 08/27/2009 - 01:37

Excellent Blog every one can get lots of information for any topics from this blog nice work keep it up.

dissertation writing | dissertation help | custom dissertation

Good article.

By: Factory | Wed, 08/12/2009 - 12:36

There's a decided lack of balance in those that espouse equalkity these days. Social compliance with certain types of violence is not only widespread, but so common as to be virtually "invisible".

Here's a good article on the subject:
http://tinyurl.com/r8twzb

Eventually she realised I wasn’t going to let her hit him again. I let her go, carefully keeping myself between her and Paul. In a calm sounding voice I advised her to leave and told her I was going to call the police.

“YOU TOUCHED ME” she screamed at me.

I could see the irony.

I pulled my mobile telephone out of my pocket to emphasise the point. “Tell the fuzz” I said. She screamed more abuse at Paul and told him she would have him killed. Then she strode off down the street and around the corner.

I handed the telephone to Paul. He took it and looked quizzically at me. “Call the police Paul.” I said. “Why?” He replied. “Because that was abuse, assault, and she has to be stopped from doing it. If you don’t stop her now she will think it’s OK to treat any man in that way. She may kill someone one day.”

Paul shook his head. “I cant. You don’t do that do you?”

I took the phone back and made the call myself. The police came eventually. They listened as I related what happened. They talked Paul out of pressing charges which, by now he was willing to do. They quizzed me about interfering. Then they left.

Complicit.

Please, don't compare Germany to Afghanistan...

By: Kreuznacher | Tue, 08/11/2009 - 03:04

I don't know what part of Germany the author lived in (perhaps Bavaria, they tend to be quite conservative there), but I would balk at comparing Germany to Afghanistan. I currently live in Germany and have witnessed the myriad of measures that have been enacted to allow women to stay in the workforce after having children. Daycare here is affordable, in many places full-day schools are being introduced to give both parents the opportunity to work and if a parents wants to take time off after the birth of a child, he/she recieves benefits from the government equal to 66% of pre-child wages. There are even items built into this plan to make it more attractive for fathers to stay home with the child so women can return to work.

Especially considering that it was the absolute norm for parents to return to work after the birth of a child in the former East German (and still is thanks to a remaining network of affordable childcare), I think the authors assertion is simply false. As concerns the role of women in society, I think we need only take a look at who occupies the highest political office in the country (Angela Merkel) and the many ministers and cabinet members who are women. I can't speak to the statistics on violence against women here, but I personally feel much safer in Germany. Because the government provides a safety net for women if they leave an abusive relationship, perhaps financial considerations play less of a role for women seeking to leave a violent partner. All in all, although there is certainly mysogyny in every country, I feel it much less in Germany than in the US.

Uh -- false dichotomy?

By: meglo91 | Mon, 08/10/2009 - 14:33

Anne, I loved Gulag. So it's as a fan of yours that I tell you: this post is full of crap.
Yeah, women have it better in the US than in Saudi Arabia. This is not a controversial statement. And yes, it's nice to be able to be a mother and still work, or not, as we and our families choose. It's true that many women in Germany and Japan and elsewhere don't have that choice.
But here in the US things are still not all that wonderful. Women still get paid less than men for the same work. Women still face a far greater threat of domestic violence. Women are still regularly reduced to their component body parts -- lips, eyes, hair, butts, thighs, breasts. Women are still seen by a giant chunk of the population as less than human, or less deserving of respect. You can include the aerobics class shooter in that chunk. He wasn't just a random crazy. He was targeting women because he thought they owed him love, sex, and attention. Yes, he was deeply, deeply misogynistic, and yes, it influenced his actions.
What Bob Herbert was saying is that it's not good enough. We're not done yet. And he's right, and you're wrong. Commentary like yours is simply not very useful.

Anne's Excellent Book, Gulag: a History

By: VikingPrince | Mon, 08/10/2009 - 14:28

In light of Ms Applebaum's comprehensive tome on what a really repressive system is capable of, her response to the idea that America is a "misogynist" culture. is certainly understandable.

Part of my period of study of this phenomenon, (had American people know the truth of what the USSR was doing to its own people behind the iron curtain would have brought us much closer to nuclear war)is suggested reading.

@murasaki

By: P Starling | Mon, 08/10/2009 - 13:43

Sorry, I was unclear. What I mean is that there are a lot of things that are small beer when examined alone. I don't stay up at night, pacing the floor, wringing my hands, worrying about how MLP's apron-and-ass photos are going to infect the body politic with reactionary ideas. But little slurs have an aggregate social impact that is significant, and that's why I think it's important to actually stand up against little offenses and say, "Hey, not cool," even at the risk of being one of these humorless whining feminist types.

American Hyperbole

By: Meredyth | Mon, 08/10/2009 - 13:07

I think this is nothing more than an example of American Hyperbole. Something isn't good; it's AWESOME. It's not bad; it's HORRIBLE. It's not great; it's FANTASTIC. It's not sad; it's TRAGIC. So America's treatment of women is not unfair or wanting or hypocritical . . . it's BARBARIC. Eddie Izzard did a funny bit one time about this: I paraphrase, "The universe is awesome . . . like a hot dog?" Anyway, America's treatment of women IS wanting, unfair and hypocritical. Women professionals like me have to make choices most of our male colleagues just don't have to make . . . all those men with their stay-at-home wives. And, while I've never experienced the pay imbalance, I know it exists. Right on, there, sister, we need to do some "fixin'" (as the former Alaska governor would say) in the professional arena. And the objectification of women in America is, and I am not attempting to be hyperbolic, appalling in a society that holds itself up to be so enlightened. But barbaric . . . no, killing your daughter because she kissed a boy is barbaric. That's not de riguer in the USA (though, yes, violence against women does occur and it is horrible -- but it's not generally sanctioned by our government and in our places of worship). America is unfair, it is wanting, it is hypocritical, it is even sometimes appalling in its treatment of women. It's important to keep in mind, yes, how far we've come, but also, indeed, how far we have yet to go. Oh, and to choose appropriate adjectives . . . .

@P Starling

By: Murasaki | Mon, 08/10/2009 - 12:41

I have no problem saying I'm a big bitch about these issues. :) I realize I'm nitpicking here, though, but opening a post by saying you can let go discussions of misogynist song lyrics and magazine images and then characterizing yourself as a "broken window" feminist that doesn't let anything go without speaking up seems contradictory. Either you're including everything as part of a systemic whole, or you're not.

Personally, from what I know of you, I don't think you're actually being hypocritical. What I take your post to mean is that things like the implications of objectification are perhaps of a LOWER priority than labor inequality, but are not irrelevant.

I know everyone loves trumpeting about the First Amendment so I'll insert the obligatory time and space-wasting disclaimer that I'm not advocating censorship, but yelling "free speech" in defense of everything negative is missing the point. Yes, people are allowed to express sexist views, but the fact that they're expressing them at all means the views are there, that they're strong, run deep, and are common, and there are plenty of other expressions of them that really diminish our lives.

nagatuki

By: rcwilliams83 | Mon, 08/10/2009 - 12:43

Where I'm at, one can get a temporary restraining order without a judicial hearing. You file a pleading requesting a temporary restraining order, allege facts that, if true, would justify a short term order without a hearing, and the judge will issue it as a matter of course. It's effective for a very short time, usually less than a week, and in order to be made permanent, someone will have to go to court and prove that the facts are as they have been alleged.

Even a restraining order is a liberty restriction (though on a much smaller scale than incarceration), and so due process is required. You just can't constitutionally restrict a man's movements (indefinitely) based on allegations that have never been substantiated before a court.

Even if it were constitutional, I'm not sure I would support such measures from a policy perspective. To my mind, lightening the burden of proof in the way you suggest just replaces violent misogyny with coddling paternalism, neither of which is a desirable outcome.

"potential for progress"

By: P Starling | Mon, 08/10/2009 - 12:26

Without people who have the guts to call out misogynistic behavior and traditions, we don't have progress. All we have is potential. It's not whining to keep pushing back against those parts of the culture that still think it's okay to objectify and degrade women. Rap lyrics? Not on my top 40 list of things to worry about, honestly. Nor are fashion magazines, Mary Louise Parker's bare butt, or Dana Milbank. None of them is as important as equal pay for equal work.

Yet reaching equal pay for equal work requires a culture in which old crusty senators such as John McCain acknowledge that women have the right to be treated fairly under the law, even if that may make life harder for corporations. (Anyone who recognizes which quote I'm getting worked up about here, gold star! I may never forgive the man for his response to Ledbetter.) Creating such a culture isn't just a matter of waving a magic wand, or even having female secretaries of state. We're not a post-gender America, any more than we're a post-racial one. But the battles we're fighting now are a little more subtle than the biggies about property rights and equitable divorce laws.

So I find it heartening when grouchy young things like me can inspire big media outlets like The Washington Post to look again at Dana Milbank's stupid Mad Bitch joke and say, "Eh, not so funny. Kind of offensive. Kill it." It's not that I'm an enemy of free speech, but I want that sort of knee-jerk sexism to get a good hard look before it becomes part of the mainstream dialogue. There will always be harbors for that sort of crap, but it's okay for us to want them to be marginalized rather than widely accepted.

Maybe I'm the Rudy Giuliani of the feminist set: I too believe that a culture of letting little things slide sends the signal that big offenses are okay, too. Call it the Broken Window theory of activism.