Raoul Wieland examines the history of feminism and men’s rights, and wonders how valid men’s backlash politics really are.
–
Backlash politics, as a response to the work and philosophy of feminism and many of its steadfast champions, can be understood as a ‘mobilization of men’s interests against change’. This, at least, is how author R.W. Connell perceives it in her book ‘Masculinities‘.
Early advocates of women’s liberation, Connell writes, ‘simply defined men as the ruling class in patriarchy, and expected men to oppose women’s advancement on all fronts’. Any revolution of cultural, economic or social quality, if led by and dominated by men was thus perceived as ‘another coup d’état among men’ and widely regarded with suspicion.
In the 70’s, nonetheless, a men’s liberation movement emerged running in parallel with women’s liberation, which initially recognized and was rooted in the belief that women’s liberation would benefit men also; a shared interest was articulated for joint emancipation from unjust, restricting and hurtful social roles. Tentative alliances around anti-sexist mobilization were formed.
By the early 80’s, the climate had changed and men’s rights groups stood in general opposition to feminism; men’s rights groups began to take on anti-feminist ideology and feminists distanced themselves, focusing more strongly on the origin and impact of male violence. A sense of ‘opposite sites’ and ‘incompatible interests’ took hold. Gender equality reform was slowed and experienced a backlash from men’s groups who felt attacked by the demands made upon them by feminists.
The believe that men were resisting change because they were an entrenched interest group and benefited from patriarchy was common amongst feminists. Connell defines this benefit as men drawing a patriarchal dividend collectively: a dividend arising from ‘higher incomes, higher labour force participation, unequal property ownership, greater access to institutional power, as well as cultural and sexual privilege’.
Men’s rights movements, on the other hand, challenged feminism and argued that men too were increasingly suffering as women gained prominence and influence in both the domestic and public arena. Men too, they argued, were now the victims of sexism. Affirmative action, for example, was seen as an affront to a culture where individual grit and merit were highly prized. The narrative that women were stealing men’s jobs was gaining ground. A hostile and uncertain economic environment, accompanied by the increasing presence of women in the workforce left many men feeling vulnerable, displaced and angry. At the same time, Connell writes, boys seemed to be falling behind in higher education and men were the main victims of many forms of injury, some disease, some forms of violence, and imprisonment. Depression also seems to be rampant amongst boys and men.
Finally, there was a sense that men were losing their cultural centrality and relevance as they were increasingly being uprooted from a conventional social gender order. Their role and identity as provider and protector and their embodiment of highly valorized masculine traits of courage, reason, leadership, strength, competitiveness, entrepreneurship, adventurism, etc came under ‘attack’ as feminists questioned, criticised and pointed out that none of these roles/qualities were inherently, naturally, male or masculine.
On a different and seemingly more objective level one saw the emergence of statistics and big data that traced, analyzed and described gender inequalities on a national and international level. An index of women’s social progress, as part of the United Nations Human Development Report, is one such example. These are, however, often quite misleading and can lead to logical fallacies. ‘There are a number of dimensions in gender relations, and the patterns of inequality in these different dimensions may be qualitatively different’ writes Connell. Also, statistical exercises often treat ‘men’ and ‘women’ as undifferentiated categories. Drawing up collective balance sheets showing both the gains and losses of women, as compared to men, is thus problematic. Connell nevertheless identifies four major dimensions in gender relations, which I believe are helpful when trying to understand the state of gender equality.
Power:
Advantages: Men hold predominant authority in business and the state, with a near-monopoly of top positions. Men and boys tend to control public spaces such as streets and playgrounds. Men hold authority in many families and institutions of civil society. Men have near total control of coercive institutions (military, police) and control of the means of violence (weapons, military training). Men are, when compared to women, less likely to be victims of rape and of serious domestic violence.
Disadvantages: Men are the overwhelming majority of people arrested and imprisoned, including those executed, and face considerable abuse, violence and rape during incarceration. Men are the main targets of military violence – including rape as a weapon of war in many conflicts – and criminal assault. Men are more likely to be the targets of economic competition and organizational rivalry.
Division of labour:
Advantages: Men, on average, receive a significantly higher income than women, and control most of the major concentrations of wealth. Men have higher levels of economic participation, and better access to future opportunities e.g. promotions. Men, especially husbands, receive benefits from the unpaid labour of women. Men control most of the machinery (e.g. transport, power generation, computers) that is the basis of a modern economy and specifically multiplies the economic value of labour.
Disadvantages: Men predominate in dangerous and highly toxic occupations. Men include a higher proportion of sole earners with social compulsion to remain employed. Because of the occupational division of labour, men’s skills are subject to rapid obsolescence. Men pay a higher average rate of taxation, with income disproportionately redistributed to women, through the welfare state.
Cathexis:
Advantages: Men receive much emotional support from women without social obligation to reciprocate. Heterosexuality is socially organized to prioritize men’s pleasure, in personal relationships as well as sexualized mass media. A double standard legitimates men’s sexual freedom and commercial sex industry serves it.
Disadvantages: Men’s sexuality is more alienated, and more sharply constrained by homophobia. A taboo on free expression of emotions, especially vulnerability, continues and cultural norms negatively influence and limit the relationships that men have with very young children.
Symbolism:
Advantages: Men control most cultural institutions (churches, universities, media). Religion generally, and sometimes specifically, defines men as superordinate to women. Men have higher levels of recognition i.e. they and their activities are regarded as more important, newsworthy, and appropriate to resource. (e.g. sport.) Boys and men predominate in higher-return and highly resourced areas of education (e.g. MBA, biotechnology, IT)
Disadvantages: Boys and men are losing ground in general education. They are under-represented in important learning experiences, e.g. humanistic studies. Mother’s legitimacy in childcare tends to over-ride fathers’ interest in marital separation disputes and stigma remains around stay at home dads. Men that have experienced violence and abuse often lack support and face stigma. Finally, when it comes to war, the media seems to be more concerned with the impact on women and children and often ignores male casualties; men are often considered the expandable gender and become invisible as collateral damage or as those that do war and thus die from it.
Connell, I believe, makes a great point when she adds that ‘the disadvantages listed above are, broadly speaking, the conditions of the advantages. Men cannot hold state power without having become, collectively, the agents of violence. Men cannot be the beneficiaries of domestic labour and emotion work without losing intimate connections… Men cannot predominate in the capitalist economy without being subject to economic stress and paying for most of the social services. And so on.’
To repeat: the disadvantages are the conditions of the advantages! and men facing violence and impacts of war do so as a result of patriarchy.
We cannot, however, ignore the diversity and complexity in the category “men”. Connell points out that those men who benefit the most and those that are disadvantaged the most, are not necessarily the same people. In fact, they probably are not. Class, race, ability, generational differences, ethnicity, etc have important impacts.
Each subgroup within the category of ‘men’ has a different experience with masculinity and the practices of gender. This is important to keep in mind. One of Connell’s anecdotes, however, clarifies why this often does not matter that much, when it comes to the pervasive impact of patriarchy. ‘Teenagers who engage in violence against girlfriends, writes Connell, are, predominantly, at the bottom of the economic order. Often they have suffered the toxicity of the gender order directly, by violence at the hands of fathers or stepfathers. Yet they too think of themselves as defending the legitimate rights of men and putting women in their proper place’.
What I find frustrating in reading this anecdote is that economic/class stratification i.e. high rates of poverty existing parallel to affluence, is a result of structure. With structure, I mean that wealth is not shared equally and it is not shared equally because society largely decides not to do so. It is based on attitudes of individualism and leads to social safety nets not being supported politically. This shows a lack of empathy, compassion and solidarity with one’s fellow people. Patriarchy, by directly or implicitly supporting masculinities that are competitive, aggressive and value strength in independence and a lack of emotion, undermines empathy. Consequently one hears opinions such as: the poor are poor because they don’t work hard enough and are to blame for their own conditions; why should the rich pay for their laziness. Again, disadvantages are the conditions of advantages. Unfortunately, the hand of patriarchy and particular approaches to ‘doing’ masculinity, in shaping such social conditions, largely remains invisible. Men therefore often do not realize that their biggest impediment to a better life is what they are indirectly or directly supporting day after day.
Backlash politics, as righteous as some men may believe it is, leaves much to ask for. Personally, after reading Connell’s book, I believe it has no foundation to stand on. In fact, heterosexual ‘white’ men in particular, when compared to other social groups, seem to have caught a break and have it rather easy. As a man that values feminist principles and supports their goals, I found reading her book very helpful to formulate a response when backlash politics does raise its angry head.
–
Photo: Flickr/Kevin Dooley
`’Connell, I believe, makes a great point when she adds that ‘the disadvantages listed above are, broadly speaking, the conditions of the advantages “. It is difficult to see how an argument that boys/men being victims of domestic violence, receiving a lower level of education, receiving poorer healthcare, being discriminated against in family courts etc, should be seen as a result of being advantageous to men. This misandric view is the reason why so many boys/men feel uncomfortable about speaking up for their rights in these areas, and is the reason why so many of them feel unable to express… Read more »
First the MRM wasn’t backlash politics. It actually started looking at the injustices done to men are were trying to remedy them. Let me point out where Connell is correct. “Connell, I believe, makes a great point when she adds that ‘the disadvantages listed above are, broadly speaking, the conditions of the advantages.” The difference between the MRM and feminism started when the MRM started demanding that the men lose the disadvantages when they gave up the advantages. Essentially if we turned things on their heads every disadvantage a man has is an advantage for women. Women don’t take the… Read more »
Interesting re-definition of the term backlash. In the terms of this article, it is marketed as a resistance to good change by specific groups that oppose said change. In the more classical definition of the term, it is understood as resistance to a matter that has gained great influence and societal popularity i.e. hegemony Given the theme of the article, the classical understanding of the term cannot be used as it would be akin to tripping over your own feet. But there must be a tipping point where the backlash becomes righteous, hence the temporary requirement to the re-imagining… Read more »
Re: your statement, “Early advocates of women’s liberation, Connell writes, ‘simply defined men as the ruling class in patriarchy, and expected men to oppose women’s advancement on all fronts’. Ti-Grace Atkinson (in AMAZON ODYSSEY) believed the “male breakdown” would be: 1/3 men will oppose feminism outright 1/3 will welcome it immediately’ 1/3 will be “up for grabs”–unsure of whether to support feminism or not. This will be the battleground, she thought, where it will be won or lost. Just saying, some influential early feminists believed only “privileged” men would oppose feminism. (i.e. Men who had reaped obvious benefits from the… Read more »
That’s great and all, Daisy. But this isn’t the 70’s anymore. Today’s feminism is about #killallmen and yelling at men who want to discuss male suicide. You want that to change? I suggest you talk to your “sisters” and get mad at them. Don’t get mad at me when I react to what they actually say and do.
Daisy, I don’t know what world you lived in but as a male in 1970’s my world was far different from yours. I lived in a world where I was an oppressive thug that only wanted women to be housewives and mothers. And speaking of housewives and mom’s, my wife was shunned and at time openly criticized because she chose to be a stay at home mom. Please show me where the feminist movement at any time, especially the 60’s and early 70’s made any attempt to overtly/intentionally help men? I’ve asked this question many times and have yet got… Read more »
If men simply choose to walk away from women, and a system we have been taught to buy into all our lives, is that considered misogynistic? Or is it just passive resistance to being seen as appliances or cannon fodder? MRAs are accused of being “traditionalists” who want to keep women in subservient roles when the truth is the real traditionalists are the politicians who want us to just shut up and be good little husbands and fathers. They want us to produce more taxpayers, or soldiers for future wars.
And are you as loud in your disapproval of their wars as you are of feminism? Exactly how much antiwar work have you done? Or is it just feminism that gets your ire?
For the record, I am a Libertarian who does not believe in war except in direct self-defense if attacked. I have seen 10 Presidents in my life and every one of them has gotten us unto undeclared, unconstitutional wars. My point about Feminism is that it bought into the same lies men have all their lives. Women “won” the right to be just as expendable in war. That system that we have both been brainwashed by is the problem.
[Quote]Advantages: Men receive much emotional support from women without social obligation to reciprocate. Heterosexuality is socially organized to prioritize men’s pleasure, in personal relationships as well as sexualized mass media. A double standard legitimates men’s sexual freedom and commercial sex industry serves it. [/QUOTE] I don’t undestand this point. Women get “much more” emotional/social support from men as well from society. As men, we often can’t admit even soul-crushing emotional problems. And when we do, we’re just supposed to tough it out. Regarding sexuality…I’ve been told from elementary school and upwards, that women’s sexuality is to be prioritized and almost… Read more »
Raoul, you started your article by quoting Cornell; but whether it’s your assertion or hers, I think it’s highly errant for anyone to characterize & pigeonhole responses to works and philosophies of feminism (‘and many of its steadfast champions’) as simply “backlash politics… that can be understood as a ‘mobilization of men’s interests against change.'” Agree or disagree with Cornell, when a person who is partial to an ideology seeks to minimize, delegitimize, or otherwise denigrate legitimate critiques of it as simply “backlash” then I don’t think they themselves are entitled to much credence based on any objective legitimacy; because… Read more »
Hear hear. I wanted to come back and say something about this, but you’ve said it very here indeed.
There’s a conflation going on here between the term “backlash” and the term (small c) “conservative”.
I’m not critical of feminism because I want conventional gender roles to remain or return. Far from it. Given what I’ve seen of it, I’m not convinced it’s the right tool at all for the job of disestablishing those roles.
One can be critical of feminism without being either anti-equality, or MRA (and no, the two aren’t necessarily synonymous either).
Should have read:
“You’ve said it very *well* here indeed”
Which is why I shouldn’t have tried saying it, obviously 😉
But feminism is simply a movement for women’s equality. Do you want a list of all the stuff I was not allowed (by law or policy) to do as a child? Play drums, learn to fix cars, woodworking, wear pants to school until I was 14 (including in zero degrees), etc etc … are you claiming this is fair? It was feminism that told me I was right to feel outraged about the things that limited me throughout my life, including financially. Either you think I should have been allowed to learn to fix cars or not. There is no… Read more »
Except most feminists I know will say that feminism is about equality for everyone, not just women. For the record, I consider myself a feminist (although many feminists would probably say I’m not – but, meh, label wars…) I agree that all those restrictions are things that were wrong, and I’m glad that the work of feminists go rid of them. Most anti-feminists that I know will agree with you, that they’re also glad about some of the things that feminism has accomplished, they have issues with other things about the movement (criticisms, some of which, are actually pretty valid.)… Read more »
A couple of points of clarification or contention there Daisy: It is (in my opinion) profoundly anti-democratic, unjust, immoral, regressive, non-productive, futile, and, above all, fundamentally illiberal to suggest that rights, roles, freedoms, equity, prosperity, and opportunities should be curtailed, constrained or biased by gender (just as it is or would be to do so by race, class, religion, nationality, sexuality, etc). But what you’re suggesting is that it’s paradoxical or impossible to be against injustice, inequality, repression and the like without embracing & endorsing strict feminist ideological interpretations of social causality: It’s not. Those ideals are not contingent… Read more »
Daisy, you mean like when boys were given barrettes if their hair was too long? Or when boys didn’t have a Home Ec class available? Or have a choice to live or die “Women and Children first?” Or how about even now where males have no choice but to sign up for selective service? I’m not saying this to make it look like men had it worse, I’m simply stating these issues to point out that inequities existed in both directions. The feminist movement rightly fought to level the playing field for women. There has never been a time where… Read more »
Some good stuff here, although most men’s rights issues are not directly related to feminism (and hence are not a backlash against it). They’re ignored by feminists, but nobody claims that feminists are forcing men to work in heavy industry or go to war. There are also ways (perhaps best explained by trans-inclusionary radical feminists) that feminism itself is working to preserve gender roles and even actively sacrifice women in order to perpetuate itself (without any individual feminists intending this – feminism and feminists are not the same thing). “Men, especially husbands, receive benefits from the unpaid labour of women.… Read more »
Hi SVI You write “Women’s labor is not unpaid. Women make 80% of purchasing decisions – that 23% that women aren’t getting at work is simply given to them for the asking by their partners and male family members. Even sexist men simply assume that women need money, and so they give it to them. The only reason men work as hard as they do is so they can give things to women, even women they have no sexual interest in.” I do not live in the US. Can women in America simply ask a man and make family members… Read more »
Sorry about my typos.
I am a little dyslectic.
The ferry name is
Estonia .
Silke, it’s funny how a mind works … you may have misspelled it but I read “Estonia.” That’s why I need others to proof read things I write.
“The objectification of women (by both sexes) extends to the objectification and glorifying of female pleasure not only as tabloid fodder but as a political movement. – ”
You obviously have not jet grasped the meaning of the word, the concept OBJECTIFICTION,
To objectify .
Sexologist Brandy Engler has written good articles about this here on GMP earlier.
Each subgroup within the category of ‘men’ has a different experience with masculinity and the practices of gender. This is important to keep in mind. One of Connell’s anecdotes, however, clarifies why this often does not matter that much, when it comes to the pervasive impact of patriarchy. ‘Teenagers who engage in violence against girlfriends, writes Connell, are, predominantly, at the bottom of the economic order. Often they have suffered the toxicity of the gender order directly, by violence at the hands of fathers or stepfathers. Yet they too think of themselves as defending the legitimate rights of men and… Read more »
Gee OirishM, you could have left some of us some bones to pick at here. Not much more to say.
My impression from what you wrote is that you believe men are victims of the system as much as woman are victims of the system… It seems you also feel as though you are not understood as a man whom is suffering from inequities as much as woman are. You go on to infer that woman are empowered in their struggle against systemic inequalities whereas men are not. Is this what you are trying to say? In your comments about relational violence in response to the authors comments you infer that woman are violent in their own way. Can you… Read more »
My impression from what you wrote is that you believe men are victims of the system as much as woman are victims of the system… “As well as”, not “as much as”. There is little point getting into irreconcileable who-has-it-worse debates. My preferred approach would be an inclusive one. You go on to infer that woman are empowered in their struggle against systemic inequalities whereas men are not. Is this what you are trying to say? When I have spoken out about inequalities affecting women, those supporting conventional gender roles attacked me. When I have spoken out about inequalities affecting… Read more »
My kingdom for an edit function -_-
“Perhaps it is not the men’s movements that are the backlash against *changing* the status quo here.”
“I just gained my knowledge of these issues *by listening* to men without ideological blinders on….”