And Another Thing: Man Haters, Huh?

By Carole Taylor


Here's a book that hasn't been but should be written: Tedious Questions Straight People Ask. And on the top of the list in the lesbian section is this one: Why do lesbians hate men? This is such a perennial favorite that it's reached permanent FAQ status. I've always found this to be a mental leap across a rather vast chasm: to assume that because a woman loves one particular woman that she therefore hates all men. Or because she loves as many women as will fit into her schedule that she hates all men.

Both straight women and straight men assume this to be true, though, or they wouldn't ask the question so consistently. I'm not sure if they assume the corollary, that gay men hate all women, but I don't hear this voiced as much. My last cursory review of history and the local headlines argue that those straight males who hate women are doing an adequate job of it without requiring recruits from the ranks of the gay boys. Although, given some of the clothes gay fashion designers expect women to wear, you'd think the charge would be leveled against them more often, but it's not. I LUV spike heels, but some of those dress designs are just purely whacked up side the head with an UGly stick. But I digress.

Lesbians hate men, according to conventional wisdom, and it's a much more horrible situation than men of any stripe hating women. Maybe this wisdom has it that men hating women, and actually acting on it in much more tangible ways, is just the way the world is, and enduring it is expected.

But apparently, since this is such a commonly asked question, straight males and not a few straight women seem really concerned that our hating men, even in a relatively passive way with no war or rape to back it up, is somehow a significant issue. That our hating men, if in fact we do, will somehow chip away at the underpinnings of all of society. That loving one woman apiece (ok, then...twenty apiece) takes away such a significant amount of needed support that the structure will collapse. Either each lesbian out there is a lot more powerful than we've been led to believe, or the structure itself is in need of a new design and more substantial bricks and mortar. Perhaps, come to think of it, both conclusions are true.

But speaking just as one lone soul out here, I personally don't hate all men. I don't even hate one or two of them, really, if I look at the definition of the word strictly. No particular man has done enough (yet) for me truly and literally to hate him. Dislike, yes. Distrust, yes. But not hate. That takes up too much time and energy. I like quite a few of them, and love several more, just not in the sexual sense. Am I required by some sort of straight agenda (now there's a thought) to actually love them all, and in all ways, in order not to threaten any ego? Wouldn't that be sort of counter-productive for straight women to expect this of me, thereby increasing the competition pool? Why would straight women care if we all really did hate men? Looks like they'd be happy we've moved to another part of the state. But many (shall we venture to say most?) straight men, though, want all options left open. Just in case they happen to be attracted to a lesbian, they want to think it's an available option to convince her to reciprocate. Since there are apparently not enough straight women to go around.

Very few, if any, lesbians in my personal survey have ever said they hated men. Most of them have at least a brother or a father that they like. Or a coworker or even an old boyfriend and not a few best gay boyfriends. As far as I've been able to determine, most lesbians don't really hate men as a class. So what exactly is the main difference, other than sexual behavior, between how straight women relate to men and how lesbians relate to men? This has puzzled me for some years, and I finally came to a personal conclusion about it. It comes down to how we sort things.

Straight women are taught and really do seem to believe in their hearts that all men (ALL men) are decent folk and worthy of trust and possible love. Straight women discard the BAD ones, one at a time, as each man screws up. But the rest of mankind is still out there untested, and unmet, and each of those until tested is still a potentially nice guy. Straight women seem to reject men only on the basis of each *bad* one having actually proven to the individual woman that he specifically is not worth her time. And even these events evoke sadness and feelings of loss and the nagging thought that the love of a good woman could have saved the man somehow, had he just listened to reason. Maybe his mother was mean to him....

Lesbians, on the other hand, harbor a sneaking suspicion, a basic distrust, of all men on sight, and we let the GOOD ones in one at a time as each man individually proves himself to be worthy of our time. This doesn't translate that we hate them. It translates that we are withholding final judgement. We want proof. But apparently just the fact that we question the worth of any of them at any point has them reeling from the blow. And instead of men looking at their own behavior to see why it might be necessary for some women to doubt the intrinsic value of a particular man, or men in general, they go on the offensive and demand to know why WE act the way WE do. It's called in the military a diversionary tactic. The point of the question is to take the spotlight off the man and his motives and put it on any woman who might not find him "sponge worthy", as Elaine on Seinfeld would say.

But this is just a theory, folks. Your mileage may vary. And if you're a lesbian who likes all men on sight and thinks there is basic good in all mankind, go for it. It doesn't mean you might be a latent straight person. Although it might mean you qualify for sainthood, so get your applications in early--I understand that Pat Robertson still thinks the end is near and he will be closing out these positions soon. I also hear that most saints have to be straight, too, so you might want to be careful how you answer some of the questions on that form.

Booga booga . . .

~~Carole Taylor

P.S. If you agree with the points I've made here, by all means e-mail me. If you don't agree, please get your own column, or send your comments to the publisher. I get enough insulting stuff from strangers as it is. :)

Carole Taylor holds a masters degree and most of a doctorate, which she used as a university administrator for much too long by all accounts. She has been a commercial artist, a journalist, a grants writer, a house cleaner and a Renaissance woman. She also wrote a fantastic must-read novel, called
"A Third Story". You can email her here.