In the past year, a French author named Lila Johnson released a 95-page essay titled “I Dislike Men” (Moi les hommes, je les déteste). Initially, the book went largely unnoticed, but that changed when Mark Lefevre, an adviser to France’s gender equality ministry, read the title and summary (without actually engaging with the text) and threatened Johnson’s small publisher with legal repercussions.
Lefevre contacted the publisher stating, “This book is clearly an expression of misandry (hatred of men), based solely on the summary on your site and its title. I want to remind you that inciting hatred based on gender is a criminal offense! Therefore, I ask you to promptly remove this book from your catalog or face legal action.” It’s baffling that he formed such a strong opinion without even reading the book.
This reaction is indicative of the broader criticisms Johnson faces, which predominantly come from individuals who haven’t read her work. They focus only on the notion of misandry, neglecting the context and reasoning behind it. Initially, I felt uneasy about the word “hate” emblazoned on the cover. As a mother of a young boy, the idea of anyone hating him without truly knowing him is unsettling. However, after reading “I Dislike Men,” I found that Johnson presents a compelling argument.
She offers a unique definition of misandry: “I use the term to describe a negative sentiment towards the entire male gender,” she explains. “This sentiment ranges from simple skepticism to deep disdain and is often expressed through impatience with men and a desire to exclude them from women’s spaces.” Johnson specifies that she refers to “cis men who have been socialized as such and who benefit from male privilege.”
It’s worth noting that Johnson is married to a man, whom she is “still very fond of.” She clarifies that there are many exceptions. However, she argues that given the abhorrent behavior exhibited by numerous men and the indifference of many others towards this behavior, a general disdain is warranted until there is a collective improvement.
Ultimately, misandry serves as a precautionary principle. After experiencing disappointment and abuse from men—amplified by feminist perspectives on patriarchy and sexism—it’s understandable to build a protective barrier against men who claim to be “good guys.” To prove their worth, men simply need to show genuine thoughtfulness, but this evaluation period seems to last indefinitely. This is not personal; it’s just difficult to give up privilege, especially when so few men actively advocate for the dismantling of that privilege.
Johnson’s “hatred” reflects a distrust rooted in personal experiences and statistical realities. The statistics are alarming: in France, 90% of death threats against partners come from men, and 86% of murders by a partner or ex-partner are committed by men. Similar statistics exist in the U.S., where 99% of those arrested for rape are male. While this doesn’t imply that women are incapable of violence or that men cannot be victims, it highlights that these crimes disproportionately involve men.
The everyday incidents compound the issue. Johnson writes, “There’s nothing more frustrating than seeing a man celebrated for minimal effort while women are held to impossible standards.” She questions why society continues to praise men for trivial actions, like picking up children from school, while women bear the brunt of responsibilities.
In a Facebook group I’m part of, a woman shared her frustration that her husband repeatedly gifted her red roses, despite her clear preference for white or pink. Many commenters defended the husband’s actions, labeling the woman ungrateful because other women face worse situations. This normalization of men’s lack of attentiveness is disheartening.
For some, including Johnson, the point comes when they refuse to make excuses for men anymore. Personally, I have struggled to trust men since childhood. My default expectation when meeting a new man is that he might exhibit misogynistic traits or entitlement. This perspective stems from personal experiences rather than mere statistics. After countless negative encounters, my expectations have dropped to zero; it’s easier to be pleasantly surprised than to assume goodwill and face disappointment.
That said, I am genuinely pleased when I do meet a man who defies these expectations. My son appears to be growing into a person who could surprise skeptical women like me. I have encountered a few truly good men, yet even they sometimes astonish me with their obliviousness to the challenges women face.
What I won’t do is start with trust. Like Johnson, I will proceed with caution, keeping my expectations low while demanding high standards. I’ve built a protective wall around myself, letting in only those men who exceed my expectations.
In essence, Johnson argues that it is possible to recognize the existence of good men while acknowledging that, statistically, men as a group often fall short. Women are exhausted from waiting for men to improve. For Johnson and many others, this sentiment resembles hatred.
To learn more about home insemination, check out this article on this blog post, and for more information on artificial insemination, visit this authority on the topic. Additionally, the CDC offers excellent resources related to pregnancy and home insemination.