Suppose someone said in casual conversation that "men are pigs."

What would society's reaction be? Can we imagine anyone objecting to

this statement, upbraiding the speaker for bigotry or inaccuracy or

sexism? Perhaps, on hearing this slur against half the human race, most

men would take it as an occasion to laugh at themselves. Perhaps most

women would nod in unthinking agreement.

But isn't there something dangerous in humoring such a statement of

bigotry?

Here is what I have recently observed: Statements with hostile

content directed at the male gender are increasing. More and more, a

generalized hostility to men breaks to the surface in the casual talk of

college-educated women (i.e., recently educated). It is suddenly a

proof of masculine unfairness -- and villainy, perhaps -- that most

senators and all past U.S. presidents have been men. It is suddenly

evidence of masculinity's oppressive nature that Europe's classical

composers were men, or that the "great books" were written by men, or

that the Bible refers to God as a masculine entity. Day by day, as we

are increasingly bombarded by such complaints, we are imperceptibly led

to understand that -- yes -- men are pigs. They have hogged all the

glory and power for themselves.

Of course, 99.99 percent of men were neither great composers, great

authors, presidents or senators. In historical terms, most men could

not be accused of hogging glory or power. The lives of most men

throughout history, in fact, have been spent in a constant and

unglamorous struggle to support their families in the face of war,

famine, tyranny and pestilence.

TRENDING: The indictment of Anthony Fauci for his Big Lie

Of course, one should be careful not to say anything that will

justify or excuse what militant feminists call "the patriarchy," because

it is now an article of faith with such people that men control

society's wealth to the disadvantage of women. Therefore, one must

forget about the realities of history and the struggle for survival in

ancient and Medieval times. It is sufficient to demonstrate that men

are dominant, and therefore men are pigs.

Momentarily setting aside the question of male dominance, let us

dissect the dehumanizing formula in question, which could be rendered

as: "x are pigs." What if we substituted x for some other group? What

if we said, for example, that "Homosexuals are pigs"? What if we said

that "Women are pigs"? Would most men laugh and nod in agreement?

(Somehow, I don't think they'd dare.) And imagine what would happen if

a university professor said to his class that blacks or Jews or Asians

are pigs?

But oddly, at the university today, one might form an entire

discipline around the notion that men are pigs. In fact, "women's

studies" might be this discipline, as it subtly extends and elaborates

on the theme of patriarchal tyranny. By using sociological arguments

and statistical fabrications, by looking at history with a view to

blaming men, some political feminists have intellectually organized

their resentments and hatreds into a coherent body of thought. They

have fashioned for themselves intellectual weapons. And they are using

these weapons, day by day, spreading a message of hate to other women

and to that pathetic creature -- the "self-hating man."

In the 1920s a French writer named Julien Benda wrote a book

entitled, "The Treason of the Intellectuals" (La Trahison des

Clercs). He wrote that "Our age is the age of the intellectual

organization of political hatreds." Benda said that the chief political

hatreds in modern society are those of race, class and nation. But

today Benda would have to add a new category to the list. He would have

to add the category of sexual hatred.

Think of the devastation wrought by nationalism in the First World

War. Think of the devastation wrought by racism in the Second World

War. Add to that, as well, the hundred million plus lives claimed by

Communist dictators in the name of class hatred. And now we have sexual

hatred in our midst.

As Benda said, the modern era is one of increasing

intellectualization and rationalization. We have built huge

bureaucracies, we have thoroughly rationalized authority, commerce and

war. In other words, we have used reason to make every human activity

more efficient and perfect. Government has become a gigantic machine,

commercial transactions continue to get easier and easier, and war has

become a matter of destroying an entire city with the push of a button.

In this context is it any wonder that human intelligence -- in this same

era -- has been used to organize and systematize personal hatreds into

more general hatreds, perfecting and refining the personal

disappointments and resentments of individuals until they become

academic disciplines and political battlecries?

According to Julien Benda, the problem began with the advent of

modern materialism. He said that 20th century writers and thinkers,

insofar as they embrace materialism, have been led away from genuine

humanity, love and charity. He also noted that democracy involves a

political struggle for power and money between contending and

impassioned groups. With the French monarchists Benda said that, in

terms of this struggle, "democracy is war."

And what is war except hatred?

Julien Benda blamed the writers and thinkers of his time, especially

those living in democratic countries, for perfecting man's political

passions. "The present age," wrote Benda, "is essentially an age of

politics." Politics first, always and everywhere. That is how modern

democratic plunder works. And hatreds are the raw stuff for organizing

and motivating the plunderers. In this context, said Benda, "political

passions have obtained the habit of discipline."

If you think that modern feminism is not an example of the

intellectual organization of political hatred, as described by Benda,

you should think again. Christina Hoff Sommers has written a striking

new book entitled, "The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism is

Harming Our Young Men."

According to Sommers a bias against boys has emerged within our

society. She documents how feminist agitation and intellectual

organization has created the myth of the shortchanged girl.

"Inevitably, writes Sommers, "boys are resented, being seen both as the

unfairly privileged gender and as obstacles on the path to gender

justice for girls."

Sommers has discovered that the case against masculinity (made by

misguided feminists) is full of holes, fabrications and errors. Worse

yet, this new propaganda of sexual hate threatens our society with a

grave crisis. Sommers notes that "some educators will tell you that it

is boys, not girls, who are on the fragile side of the gender gap."

Increasingly, boys are dropping out of school. They are involved in

drugs and crime. They are less active in student government, honorary

societies, academic clubs and music programs. Today's boys are less

likely to enter college. The only refuge for boys, it seems, is

sports. And Sommers tells us that the militant feminists have zeroed in

on this last remaining male fortress in a long-term effort to batter it

down.

Several years ago David Thomas wrote an excellent book entitled, "Not

Guilty: In Defence of the Modern Man." One of his chapters is called

"The Myth of the Bad Man." Thomas shows that today's intellectual elite

is creating a myth that men are violent and violence is male. A huge

cottage industry has grown up to demonstrate that within families, men

are a bad influence -- a necessary evil at best. "Meanwhile," asks

Thomas, "why won't anyone have the courage and the honesty to confront

and deal with abuse carried out by women?"

There is no balance, says Thomas, who writes of a "pattern of

prejudice" in social science itself. Thomas argues that today's

accepted orthodoxy holds "that all abusers are male. ..." This is

especially true in the area of sexual harassment.

The organization of hatred along sexual lines is, in my view, the

most troubling intellectual trend in modern thought today. The next

time you hear somebody say that men are pigs -- or some similar comment

-- you might want to object.

But be forewarned. Your objection might be met with an unexpected

expression of blind rage.