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.

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.