Fortunately for American democracy, one-sidedness is not the case (at least in theory). We have what are called checks and balances. This is essential so as to restrict any of the three branches of government from monopolizing resources with their own self-interests and agendas. This is not to say that the judicial, executive, and legislative branches are necessarily reactionary or adversarial vis-à-vis each other. But it is to say that human self-interest, if left unchecked, can wreak havoc on society at large. Just read any world history book and see how human greed, whether intentional or not, can hurt the self as well as hurt others. Ergo, checks and balances allow different perspectives to be acknowledged in an existential/phenomenological paradigm where all points of view are treated with consideration in an egalitarian way.



Unfortunately for men, however, there is still little in terms of checks and balances within the politics of gender discourse (despite the men's movement being around since E. Belfort Bax published his 1913 tome The Fraud of Feminism). The explicit and salient reason for the unchecked power of women and/or feminism seems to be manifested in the full range of double standards that have been discussed at length by many courageous men’s rights activists. The question of import to be drawn from all this, however, is this: What psychological forces (implicit or explicit) sustain the anti-male double standard in society? I believe there are at least eleven cognitive biases (not including argument-biases such as "poisoning the well," "appeal to emotion," "straw-man" etc) that have been acknowledged over the years in the field of psychology and beyond that can be applied here as forces that help sustain this anti-male double standard. Two of these (misandry and patriarchy-theory) deal directly with men, and the rest are more general biases that can still be applied to men. I feel it is of import to add that I feel it is very rare that any of these 11 anti-male biases are adequately discussed in the mainstream politically-correct university milieu.



Misandry: Misandry (general hatred of men) can certainly cloud a person's cognitive logic, and make it easier to endorse, perpetuate, and justify anti-male double standards. Even in situations when people deny any hatred of men, some of this anger may be implicit.



Semantic bias: Semantic bias occurs whenever language is skewed and differentially presents some groups as superior over others. Some feminists have alerted us to the ways in which the English language can at times be one-sided and biased to women (terms like mankind). Less common, however, is discourse on what words/phrases can be anti-male (such as man-slaughter or men-at-work which both imply that it is only men who experience undesirable afflictions like death and work). This semantic bias is also manifested in how the rules of gender discourse leave men at the door. It is indeed interesting to note that the term "masculism" is seldom acknowledged as a real term in mainstream media (one exception is Wikipedia). Similarly, the term is flagged by some, if not all, computer spell checkers. This is not to say that the word is seldom used. However, the term is usually esoteric only to men's rights coteries who have the inclination to challenge feminist assumptions from “behind the scenes” or “behind closed doors.” Ipso-facto, the term is relegated to a men’s rights movement that seems to take place from afar or under the radar of the university and media "thought-police." The problem is that the very term “feminism” is sexist (at least on its own). Feminism is a female word, with a feminine prefix (fem-inism). This can implicitly create the taciturn illusion that feminism = equality. This is similar to how gender-feminists insist to define sexism in strictly female terms (despite men obviously being one of the two sexes)! Perhaps from the beginning a term like “gender-ism” could have been used instead of “feminism” to study the restrictive forces of both the male and female gender roles. This could have established academic checks and balances from the onset without perpetuating the male-perpetrator/female-victim dichotomy and the double-standards that burgeon therein.



In-group bias: This is one of the more obvious biases, but it bears mention. In-group bias can be defined as follows: “the tendency to favor one’s own group" (Meyers, 2005). Another way this concept can be expressed is when a group takes credit for success while avoiding responsibility for failure. In relation to anti-male bias, I believe that gender-feminists are the most prone to utilize this bias. When they ignore issues like battered husbands, male suicide, male homelessness, male job injury, and unequal prison times for equal crimes (or blame these issues on men), and at the same time endorse items like the “Battered Women’s Syndrome” or the “Violence Against Women Act,” we see a “shadowy” in-group-bias emerge which certainly reinforces anti-male double standards. There is more than a mere modicum of power to gain in the way that gender-feminists can monopolize on being the victim-class and allow themselves to be privy to its entitlements. This is indicative of why the saying “play the victim” became an actual catch-phrase and political strategy while the phrase “playing the perpetrator” did not. “Victim Power” is indeed a catch phrase of “Princess-Syndrome.”



Patriarchy theory: When vague constructs like “oppression” or “privilege” are measured with only one yardstick (and taught as fact) by gender-feminists (or other patriarchy theorists), bias will inevitably emerge. Patriarchy theory uses physical properties (pay-gap, male physical strength, etc.) as the only criteria, standard, or context upon which to measure gender-related depravity. But a masculist, evolutionary, or existential theory may suggest that the most accurate yardstick to measure “oppression” with is one that ascertains the actual level of true happiness between the genders. Sometimes “oppression” may indeed be best measured by asking who smiles more or who actually dies more prematurely. “Power” and “privilege” are not only vague constructs, but very abstract ones with different meanings for different people. In other words, we are powerful/privileged when we feel powerful and privileged, and other people are powerful/privileged when we perceive them as being powerful or privileged compared to us. Ergo, “power” seems to be indeed relative (i.e., in the eye of the beholder). In a nutshell, patriarchy-theory not only reinforces the anti-male double standard, but it attempts to justify it. When patriarchy-theory, in-group bias, and misandry interact anti-male bias may be even more likely.



Correspondence bias (also known as the fundamental attribution error): This can be defined as follows: "The tendency to focus on the role of personal causes and underestimating the impact of situations on other people's behavior" (Brehm, Kassin, & Fein, 2005). Correspondence bias, in the context of anti-male bias, means that some people (especially gender-feminists) may be more prone to blame negative societal conditions on men's dispositions while ignoring the situations that can make men act out in negative ways. For example, I believe that sometimes people tend to view female prisoners not in terms of them being bad people, but more in terms of how bad situations made them that way (a sympathetic view). With male prisoners, however, society may tend to view them not as products of a bad environment, but rather as bad products themselves (an unsympathetic view). It is as if the nature/nurture debate is applied differently to men and women for political gain.



Heuristics (availability and representative): The availability heuristic can be defined as follows: "a cognitive rule that judges the likelihood of things in terms of their availability in memory. If instances of something come readily to mind, we presume it to be commonplace" (Myers, 2005). Likewise, the representative heuristic can be defined as follows: "the tendency to presume, sometimes despite contrary odds, that someone or something belongs to a particular group if resembling (representing) a typical member" (Meyers, 2005). In the context of men’s rights, the availability heuristic can occur when universities and the media play up all the violence that males do via hyperbole and exaggeration. “Rape hysteria” is a common example of this. This not only creates unrealistic fear and anxiety in women but it also lends itself to the representative heuristic where men are stereotyped as domineering, power-oriented, and feeling-less antagonists. Insofar that the media portrays males in a negative way that shadows the actual base-rate statistics of male behavior this is an indicator that mental heuristics are being used in a biased manner that help perpetuate the male-perpetrator/female-victim dichotomy and the double-standards therein.



Biases resulting from cognitive dissonance: Cognitive dissonance theory can be defined as: "The theory that holding inconsistent cognitions arouses psychological tension that people become motivated to reduce" (Brehm, Kassin, & Fein, 2005). In other manner of speaking, we are sometimes motivated to justify our "negative" behaviors in a way that will alleviate guilt or anxiety resulting from our inconsistent value-system. For example, when we do something we regret but intellectually justify the decision to preserve our sense of psychological safety we may be guilty of cognitive dissonance (the concepts of "sweet-lemons" or "sour-grapes" are well-known examples of cognitive dissonance theory). In addition, the well-known Milgram Shock Experiment and Zimbardo Prison Study are classic examples of social psychology that reveal how “mean-spirited” feelings, thoughts, and behaviors are potentially justified by people via certain forms of self-serving cognitive appraisal processes. In the context of men's rights, gender-feminists' use of patriarchy-theory may indeed be indicative of a cognitive-dissonance bias. The notion of patriarchy itself can indeed be used as a way to alleviate any residual guilt (or cognitive dissonance) that would normally be associated with other forms of bigotry. To put it more simply, few of us want to acknowledge ourselves as being sexist or racist in any way as these are aversive terms. But gender-feminists can alleviate this discomfort by intellectually justifying their feelings and behaviors vis-à-vis men. This can essentially give them carte blanche to engage in male-bashing and utilize anti-male double standards without guilt or remorse!



Just world phenomenon: This "bias" can be defined as follows: "the tendency of people to believe the world is just and that people therefore get what they deserve and deserve what they get" (Meyers, 2005). Applied to men's rights, this bias occurs when people believe that men (as a class) deserve negative treatment under the law (or elsewhere) because of their own shortcomings. Common examples include when people have little sympathy for the male-only draft by saying that “men start wars” or when people have little sympathy for prison rape because “prisoners deserve to be punished anyway.” The Just world hypothesis may also lend itself to entitlement dependency in some women, because “good people” are seen to deserve more than “bad people” (which may also help explain the materialistic spending gap and the societal acceptance of male death and disposability in general). Insofar that people believe in the presumed moral-superiority of women compared to men, and use that belief to reinforce double standards, they are biased from a just world phenomenon mindset.



Behavioral confirmation: This can be defined as follows: "A type of self-fulfilling prophecy whereby people's social expectations lead them to behave in ways that cause others to confirm their expectations" (Myers, 2005). In relation to men's rights, this bias may in fact reinforce anti-male double standards. For example, when men are expected (and treated) by society to be masculine, unfeeling, chivalrous, and non-complaining this may indeed elicit the expected masculine behavior and prevent men from taking action to fight against the double standards against them.



Confirmation bias: This can be defined as follows: "The tendency to seek, interpret, and create information that verifies existing beliefs" (Brehm, Kassin, & Fein, 2005). In the context of men's rights, this bias may be especially relevant to gender-feminism. Insofar that gender-feminists utilize the evidence that supports patriarchy-theory but then disregard the facts that do not support it they are guilty of confirmation bias. An example of this is when they disregard all the literature about male victims of domestic violence because it does not support their belief system, i.e., patriarchy-theory, whose dictum declares males as an oppressor class. Also, some gender-feminists also use the correlation that most prisoners are men in attempts to justify the premise that men are naturally "more violent" than women. But alas, correlations do not imply causality, and there may be other forces (such as situational pressures) acting on men that lead to disparities such as the prison ratio.



Learned helplessness: This can be defined as follows: "A phenomenon in which experience with an uncontrollable event creates passive behavior toward a subsequent threat to well being" (Brehm, Kassin, & Fein, 2005). To put it another way, this biased way of thinking refers to when a person (or group) learns to feel helpless (lacking control or self-efficacy) even in situations where there really are resources indicative of control and mastery over negative situations. Ironically, people that suffer from learned helplessness can actually oppress themselves via keeping themselves down. Vis-à-vis men's rights, the victim-dictum of patriarchy-feminists indeed may be a manifestation of learned helplessness, especially when women are taught that they are powerless victims of men. Insofar that women actually believe patriarchy-theory (i.e., that they are powerless when they really do have resources of mastery), they are biased into a learned helplessness mindset. This reinforces anti-male double standards by putting an over-abundance of emphasis on the male-perpetrator/female-victim dichotomy.



This concludes what I believe are eleven of the most relevant cognitive biases that help sustain the anti-male double standard, which in turn creates a lack of checks and balances in academic gender politics. As discussed, I believe that many of these are used diligently by gender-feminists who practice patriarchy-theory. However, to say that it is only gender-feminists who fall prey to these biased cognitive appraisal processes is presumptuous. I believe that many of these are also practiced by people who do not actively identify with gender-feminism or patriarchy-theory (and perhaps never heard of these things). In other manner of speaking, I believe that society in general and as a whole is very susceptible to many of these biases against men. Insofar that we are a society that does not endorse sexism, it may prove to be a pragmatic idea to look at the extent to which we perpetuate anti-male double standards via these forms of bias.



References:



Myers, D. 2005. Social psychology (8th edition). McGraw Hill: Boston.

Brehm, S., Kassin, S., & Fein, S. 2005. Social psychology (6th edition). Houghton Mifflin Company: Boston.

