Selwyn Duke postulates the theory--misandry leads to authoritarianism--thusly:
[W]hat would you do if you wanted to grow government? I think you would try to remove any hope in women's minds that they could find security through a husband. You do this by destroying the man. You need to make him look weak, ineffectual, feckless, and buffoonish.In other words, misandry is functionally the same as hating freedom. If you love freedom, then you fight misandry wherever you find it. If you love liberty, then you labor tirelessly to restore and protect the position of men as fathers and as patriarchs of their families. If you crave independence, then you work to foster durable marriage and ensure interdependence between husbands and wives.
Here is how you would proceed: Portray men in sitcoms, movies, and commercials as inept, foolish, and pusillanimous. Make sure these overgrown Hollywood boys are always outshone by the female characters. Also ensure that there are at least as many female characters in action roles as men -- and don't neglect to make them as hard and as tough, if not more so, than the fellows. And definitely show them beating men up as much as possible. Then men certainly won't seem very strong.
This perception is far easier to instill if you can actually bring men and boys down. To this end, make sure you feminize the curricula and atmosphere in schools so that boys receive neither the stimulation nor the discipline they need to succeed. And when these little outside-the-box male creatures' (boys are more likely to be revolutionary-minded, for good or for ill) energies are misdirected due to this lack of discipline, you can pickle their wills in psychotropic drugs such as Ritalin. The idea here is to lower boys' grades and college-graduation rates so that they're less capable of being a family's breadwinner. And then they certainly won't seem very intelligent.
There must also be institutionalized discrimination against the lads. So be sure to have affirmative action, quotas, and set-asides for women. For instance, you can have government aid for female-owned businesses but not male-owned ones; if this is done right, a situation might even arise in which women start four times as many new businesses as men do [Ed: they already start twice as many]. The idea is to, as much as possible, work towards a point where men aren't very wealthy or powerful.
By sexualizing everything in society and presenting girls as objects of pleasure, we can instead make the boys more predatory. Then they will leave a trail of broken hearts in their wake, ensuring that girls' hopes of bonding with a man are crushed; this causes women to harden their hearts to avoid being similarly hurt again, which reduces the chances that they will ever truly bond with a man.
The result of all this will be men who seem weak, powerless, and unintelligent, and who are poor. Women must feel that the only reliable source of security and resources in their lives, the only strong man, is Uncle Sam.
On the other hand, if you welcome the yoke, if you want your sons and daughters to be serfs, if you enjoy the boot heel of authoritarian rule pressing against your neck, go ahead and suppress men, masculinity, and dispose of patriarchal marriage and family.
I've argued before that while women are the center of gravity of a civilization, it is individual men operating within a framework of other men who transmit the technology of civilization from one generation to the next. Reading Mr. Duke's line of reasoning, it seems I need to extend my argument a bit and claim that it is the male-led family structure that enables freedom and liberty and that the female-led family drives a society toward tyranny and serfdom. A society based upon the female-headed family fails to bring men into the fold of marriage and family, fails to secure their investment into their children, and fails to direct men's surplus energies toward socially productive ends sans the use of government force.
It is this failure to capture male investment that makes Mr. Duke's observation about sexually predatory boys and hard-hearted girls especially salient. For our society is increasingly failing to efficiently capture male investment while at the same time establishing a moral ecology wherein evo psych and game theory justify the despoiling of the womenfolk...making them progressively poorer candidates for marriage with each happy roguring.
Speaking of marriage, Mr. Duke also had this interesting observation about how the marriage calculus has been stood on its head by all this man-hatin' going on:
[W]omen have been sacrificing liberty for security for thousands of years -- in an appropriate context. This context was marriage, when a woman would accept a man's protection and his headship (with today's hen-pecked Western man, it's different; upon getting married, he sacrifices liberty for insecurity) [Emphasis mine].So on top of the postulate that misandry leads to tyranny, we see, through several degrees of separation, that all this bustin' on the guys has had the effect of negating the marriage contract for men. It still brings a (temporary) security for women while failing to secure for men what it used to. But it's worse than that, for it is not only a lack of security, men who marry face an insecurity, a negative security...they risk more by marrying than by not. And by not marrying, they feed into Kay Hymowitz' SYM stereotype, which in turn begets more misandry and so forth.
Thus does misandry circle back around in a self-sustaining spiral down into chains. The message is clear: a free society that makes a habit of disrespecting and suppressing and repressing its men won't remain free
for too much longer.