Dr. Helen links a video which ought to be seen by anyone who doesn’t believe misandry exists…
Let me pause right there to note an unexpected irony which proves one of the points made by the video. As I typed the first sentence of this post, the word “misandry” was flagged in red, even though I spelled it correctly, and even though it is hardly a new word. It appears in my Webster’s New International Dictionary, Second Ed., 1958. And it merits an entry in Wikipedia. But according to my spell-check, there is NO SUCH WORD:
I have to say, it’s not often that I stumble onto evidence in support of the subject of a blog post simply by the act of writing the first sentence.
Anyway, the video is a real eye-opener.

Just as misandry does not exist, men do not exist, unless they commit crimes or do bad things. When they do good things, they are “people” or “personnel.” When they do bad things, they are men. Seriously, watch it and see if it rings true. It certainly did for me –and the sudden realization that I was unaware that these things had been slipped by me over the years started to piss me off, as I don’t take kindly to being manipulated.
To deny that the connection between misandry and feminism would be to deny reality. In fact, leading feminists such as Ms. Magazine editor Robin Morgan and New York Now leader Ti-Grace Atkinson were more than ordinary misandrists; they went to far as to embrace the notorious Valerie Solanas, the psychotic who shot and nearly killed Andy Warhol, and who wrote the SCUM Manifesto — which specifically called for “gendercide” (the killing of men — SCUM stands for “Society for the Cutting Up of Men”):

Feminist Robin Morgan (later editor of Ms. magazine) demonstrated for Solanas’ release from prison. Ti-Grace Atkinson, the New York chapter president of the National Organization for Women (NOW), described Solanas as “the first outstanding champion of women’s rights.”[9] Another member, Florynce Kennedy, represented Solanas at her trial, calling her “one of the most important spokeswomen of the feminist movement.”[9]

I read through the Manifesto, and the woman was a genuine lunatic. It does not say much for feminism (or the supposedly mainstream Ms. Magazine) that they would support someone like that. The book is still in print, and is considered trendy these days Claire Dederer, writing in The Nation on June 14, 2004, called the SCUM Manifesto “a chic little object.”
I realize that the above is extreme misandry, and not the more mainstream type that simply edits out men and only mentions them to put them down. However, the reason I cited it is to demonstrate that even the most rabid misandry (to the point of advocacy of elimination of men) has long been acceptable in leading feminist circles. Moreover, radical and extreme ideas have a way of making less radical but equally mistaken ideas look “moderate” or “mainstream” or even “reasonable.” And these days, what would once have been seen as clear misandry has become quite mainstream — a position which Dr. Helen notes that many men and even conservative men have e,braced:

Why is it that when the left and right finally agree on something, it’s to take away the civil rights of men and treat them like dogs? Apparently, misandry is a bipartisan endeavor.

I often suspect that activists hope to create backlash (activists need enemies after all), and while I don’t know what the statistics are, it would not surprise me if misandry is encouraging misogyny among men.
What do they want? A protracted war between the sexes?
Whose interest does that serve?
MORE: “Sexism” is one of those supposedly gender-neutral words which on its face might be applied to discriminatory conduct by women against men as well as men against women. But in practice, it is almost always used to denote misconduct by men.
However, in a book portion titled “Can Women Be Sexist?” the authors make the fascinating claim that women, too, can be “sexist” — not if they oppress men, but if they oppress other women:

there are dozens of guys who still view the trading floor as a frat house. Given the ethnography of their professional environment, it’s especially surprising (and disappointing) to hear such a typical locker room remark [‘The only reason Melissa got the job is because she is sleeping with Jim’] coming from a female colleague. Has Gordon Gecko submerged Girl Power among Gen-X/Y women? We wondered, just how hard are women making it for other women to get ahead at work? Are women guilty of sexism?

By way of contrast, would any man who made a remark like “The only reason Jim got the job is because he is sleeping with Melissa” be accused of sexism? Against a member of his own sex?
Sexism sounds neutral, but it’s a one way definition.
UPDATE: My thanks to Glenn Reynolds for linking this post, and a warm welcome to all.
Your comments are invited — agree or disagree.