TOthe table of a feminist and a misogynist sit in a Vienna bar in 1903. Theirs is an impossible dialogue for a thousand reasons. Not the least of which is that she is a living person and he is a philosopher who has been dead for over a century. But that’s not what matters. “Dialogue between a feminist and a misogynist” (Bollati Boringhieri) is the new book by Lea Melandrijournalist, activist and essayist, committed to feminine issues since the 1970s. And it leads to a question: there is a lot of talk about feminism and there are still those who define themselves as “misogynist”… What would its characteristics be? In this case his name is Otto Weininger and she is the Viennese author of “Sex and Character”, the essay that inspired Melandri to write this dialogue between herself and a full-blown misogynist. Otto Weininger, at the age of 23, a few months after the publication of the book, shot himself in the same hotel room where Beethoven had died. If it were only him though. Misogynists, it seems, or we all are, that’s the truth. Women and men.
The freedom that arouses resentment
«I’ve wanted to write about Weininger for a long time, the philosopher who clearly wrote that “women do not have an intelligible ego” and are only matter. Hers were years in which intellectuals were grappling with the crisis of their inherited worldview because the first women’s movements were born. Years not very different from the current ones in which women are freer and arouse male resentment» says Melandri. So misogynists are not extinct. “Maybe,” the 84-year-old feminist thinker cuts short. «Talking about misogyny, and therefore derivatives such as gender violence and patriarchy, means talking about a man who has chosen to identify with his rational part, expelling the irrational one to assign it to the woman. She is the body that changes, he is the mind that remains eternal. This is the basis for feeling superior to the opposite sex but ultimately also to other races and other social classes. I think Weininger’s I was intrigued by the fact that he was aware of all this and was almost a victim of it” explains.
Marriage according to Sigmund Freud
We are faced with the splitting of an identity which, as such, is never painless. If anything, it is the first form of violence. Having taken away all power from women was the second. And this is how we get to gender violence: if that expelled part escapes his control, the warrior virility is reactivated.
«For twenty years I saw my parents loving each other and being violent, but I never understood the boundaries between love and hate. In other words, I never thought they should break up. This body-mind duality violently separated from man, then reunites in the couple and is dangerous. If the more vulnerable part of the couple distances themselves, the other part controls them and takes revenge. We can say that romantic love, that is, that which identifies happiness in the fusion of two people, contains violence” confesses Melandri, passionate and ready to assign blame to the opposite sex too.
«However, this rational representation of the world has also been adopted by many women. They did it to survive, sure, but they did it. Just as some mothers do when they take care of their children and establish a certain unbalanced relationship that then lasts a lifetime. For Freud, marriage is solid if the wife becomes a mother. Do you know what that means? That by ensuring “care” throughout his life, man carries out a form of domination. This is the root of misogyny. Bell hooks says that feminism belongs to everyone, even misogyny I would add” he concludes.
The dining room remained empty
The echo of Melandri’s words is strong. How many men have fallen in love with an ambitious and strong woman, only to then leave her just when that ambition has become a threat to them? Francesco Pacifico wrote “The master’s voice“ (add), a compelling monologue which, right from the title, alludes to a form of self-awareness of the “master”. That is, man. The author, married in real life to a feminist, speaks and admits a truth: the meeting with a feminist is similar to the fall of a meteorite and produces a split in man. Faced with women’s actions of freedom, he divides himself into reactionary and revolutionary. “The reason is simple” we read.
«The animal he keeps at home has begun to talk. He broke away from his immemorial roles, untied his apron, threw it in the sink…”. Well yes. The dining room remained empty and the revolutionarytired of the routine he grew up in, he is happy to see her joyfully go out and give up washing machines and baths for children. But then the reactionary shows up who instead is afraid of this woman who goes out and goes into her world, afraid that she won’t come back, he almost would have liked to keep her at home. “There tragedy of contemporary man is that he tries to convince himself that he is not divided in twonot to be radioactive. From the reactions to my book I understood many things” says Pacifico.
«Alongside the readers who confess “ah, finally someone says it” there are the readers who don’t have the courage to say it publicly, but only with a little message. Then there are those against my polarization who stand out. I believe that we are all irrational, but many men do not accept this. Misogyny for me today is the removal of misogyny. Saying you don’t feel like other men, and only moralizing, is like doing nothing. Good intentions aside, how many people actually reduce their salary compared to the lower salary of their colleague? he concludes.
Do self-criticism with humility
And who would admit to feeling betrayed by a woman who is passionate about her work and halves the attention she once reserved only for him? It just arrived in the bookstore “Rejection” (and/or) by Tony Tulathimuttethe book of the year for the New York Times, a collection of short stories that also includes the story of a man who strives to become a feminist, but slips into nihilism. The stakes are indeed high and perhaps we need to say it out loud. Be aware of it. «Misogyny is a man’s privilege and no one gives up privileges. It has always been there and always will be” he says Lidia Ravera, author of “I Wanted to Be a Man” (Einaudi).
«In reality, misandry also exists, but in that case you end up in prison or a mental hospital. Today there is invisible misogyny, so as not to appear politically incorrect, and creeping misogyny, that is, that which treats women as commodities. The first one scares me the most. I wrote “I wanted to be a man” because when I was young I wanted to be recognized not only for my body, but also for my mind. In ’68 I was sixteen years old and they didn’t let me talk» he adds. «The foundations for overcoming misogyny are not there. However, men can learn to reflect and stay in small groups, do self-criticism with humility and become more empathetic without feeling threatened by women. Having said that, raising a non-misogynistic male isn’t difficult. It is done by example at home. My son today looks after his daughter for 51 percent, cooks and respects the diversity in every woman” he concludes.
The gurus of masculinity
We have men like this, dear mothers. According to Jennifer Guerra about the young people she meets in schools, there is little room for optimism. «Boys resent their peers for everythingThey experience their unhappiness as legitimate, or as a consequence of a wrong suffered by the girls. For example, they think it’s unfair that they have to pay entry to a disco and their friends don’t. This is an injustice for them. He misses the point that the fault lies with the system and not with women» says Guerra, co-author of “Words are a swarm of bees. Violence against women: a cultural issue” (Sperling&Kupfer). «But the real problem is another. That is, a personal idea such as “women treat me badly” finds support online among the communities that foment these negative feelings. If it is true that the statistics say that young people are increasingly conservative and anti-feministthen there are the gurus of masculinity who cultivate these emotions and associate male disadvantages with female emancipation” adds Guerra. «They are all ideas driven by politics, like Trump’sbut also by people like Andrew Tate who makes money by exploiting the insecurities of his followers to whom he offers self-esteem courses without really explaining the causes of their discomfort”.
Moving from misogyny to the manosphere (a neologism referring to various online communities united by the belief that society is discriminatory towards men) is a moment. According to a twenty-year study published in the Economist, boys have become more and more conservative and girls have become more and more progressive. «Not only that. The former are also more polemical and oppositional. They feel discriminated against because they are male. They cannot distinguish a personal negative emotion from an injustice affecting a group of people. They vent and support each other” concludes Guerra. And women? More and more uncontrollable and in search of freedomsometimes they fall for it: they go back to the men to reassure them, to tell them that everything is fine. Even if everything goes badly, and for everyone.