Tad Hargrave explains how patriarchy and masculinity are not the same thing, and privilege is not good for anyone.
I want you to imagine an acorn.
We will come back to it soon.
Because we are talking about patriarchy. Or, perhaps, we are talking about power and privilege. Or, maybe we’re talking about happiness.
Regardless . . . This is a conversation that’s important to have.
Important because I think so much of the discourse on patriarchy is rooted in a myth so pervasive that it’s invisible. A myth so potent that it colours the conversation in a way that does not liberate men to their fullest.
I just read an article that basically stated that men are increasingly finding themselves in a lower social position as women ‘climb the ladder’. And so that men are disempowered and need to get there act together to avoid this catastrophe.
And it lifts up the thorny topic of patriarchy and male privilege, which isn’t so simple as it might seem.
I mean, clearly, the majority of major political posts are still held by white men. Every president of the United States (except one!) has been a wealthy white male. Men still, somehow, make more money per hour than women for the same work. The work of staying home to raise a child is still not economically counted. While men experience abuse (sexual and physical) it’s far less than women. Even in an activist scene that is full of women–many of the positions of power are held by men.
This balance of power is shifting as more women come into “positions of economic and political influence”. But there are so many ways, big and little, that men still hold onto the reins of power.
I think it’s good to step back and remember the bigger picture. The past thousands of years have seen women being oppressed–witch burnings, no right to vote– women seen as chattel. It’s easy to forget that, in the USA–women only won the right to vote in 1929.
But despite all this–I rarely hear feminists (even the most hardcore) saying men should now be oppressed. Just that we should stop oppressing and devaluing women. That everyone deserves to be heard. And that seeing those who’ve been ignored in positions of power–those who’ve been most impacted by oppression–is a good thing. If you want to help the people who are most affected by environmental and social injustice–why not put them in charge? Why not let them set the direction. They probably know what they need better than we ever will.
And men ARE becoming less ‘dominant’. Which is a wonderful thing. As a feminist I know said recently, I’m working for the liberation of men AND women.”
We’re coming out of a time of tremendous power imbalances. Men and women being stuck into traditional gender roles that don’t always work for them. People not feeling free to express themselves for who they are.
The coming out of these roles is not simple, easy or straightforward. There’s a lot of learning and healing for everyone involved. There’s a lot of, ‘who am I now? what’s my role? what does it mean to be a man–if not this?’
As a man, I can attest to there being a tremendous amount of confusion about “how to be a man.” The mixed messages we receive about “be more sensitive” but “don’t be so sensitive.” or “don’t be so passive” and then in the next moment, “don’t be so aggressive,” an encouragement to “make good things happen” and yet, “why are men always in charge.” None of these are mutually exclusive–but the balance isn’t easy.
♦◊♦
At a summer music festival, I find myself talking to a young woman of colour for whom feminism matters deeply. She tells me she noticed this hard edge she had where she would look at men who were clearly interested in her and think, ‘if he doesn’t have the balls to approach me then he’s too weak for me.
That struck me. Not because I think she shouldn’t think that. It’s likely an accurate assessment of the situation.
What struck me is the seemingly conflicting message progressive men receive of, “Don’t hit on women. I’m tired of being hit on. Don’t objectify us.” with, “If you don’t approach me and you want to, you’re too weak for me.”
There’s no actual contradiction here. You can approach people in a way that uplifts or in a way that has them feel terrible. There are ways that are fun and authentic and ways that feel creepy and slimy. But for some men today, it’s hard to know the difference.
♦◊♦
Another friend of mine (a man) dates a woman (a feminist) and when he goes to share his feelings with her she accuses him of being “a woman” for being so sensitive. On one hand he’s getting academic and political messages about not essentializing gender or participating in a heteronormanitive discourse, he’s getting messages from the queer community about letting people be who they are and identify how they identify–and here’s this woman accusing him of “being a woman” (in a shaming and condescending tone).
This isn’t simple.
♦◊♦
I’m in Vancouver talking to an old friend. She’s young but been an environmental activist since high school. She tells me she doesn’t want to date activist guys anymore. “They’re too passive. If we go to rent a movie, they’re all, “no, you choose”. Have a fucking opinion. And when we get back to my place–they’ll sit on the other end of the couch and if I want to make out I will have to initiate every single step of it. Ugh.”
Imagine a progressive male having learned the importance of respect and consent and not objectifying–but not having also learned the power of honesty and forthrightness.
♦◊♦
Case in point: I have a friend who’s a model. Let’s call her Jane. I’ve been shameless in expressing my attraction to her ever since I met her and she appreciates it. I know she’s seeing someone but I know she feels more relaxed around me knowing I’m not smuggling an agenda. And I feel more relaxed too. Recently, she confided in about a huge project she’d been working on that had come to an end. Why had it ended? Her business partner had been in love with her. She’d been expecting to make the project go and he’d, secretly, been hoping she’d been his girlfriend despite her seven year history with her partner. She didn’t appreciate his lack of forthrightness about what he was really wanting from the relationship with her. He used (consciously or not) the project as a way to get close to her.
We all do this with each other. We smuggle in agendas. We don’t really see people–we see them through the haze of our hopes. A friend of mine called it “hopium.” And it’s addictive. He might actually have been giving her clear signs of his interest that she couldn’t see because she wanted so badly to make this project happen. And he might not have been able to see her lack of signals because of his hopes.
As I typed those words, I was aware of the ever present part of me that wanted so badly to position myself as better than this fellow. To use that example to say, “I get it and he doesn’t.” And I want that so that I will be more attractive to women. And I want to be more attractive to women because . . . well that’s a whole rabbit hole to go into. Because I genuinely enjoy the company of women and feminine energy in my life. Because I’m scared. Because I’ve been attacked by feminists before and I’m scared of that happening again–so if I show that I “get it” enough–maybe they won’t attack me. And if I demonize another man–then I get to show that I’m an ally. I win and he loses. Self-protection.
♦◊♦
Another story: I’m at a fundraiser for the Otesha Project in Toronto. A youth run bicycle tour of parts of Canada. Amazing. One of the lead members went up to share his words. I was sitting at a table full of women. All of whom I would characterize as politically progressive or radical. And I listened to them objectify this man and talk about him like a piece of meat. It was kind of funny and I totally noticed myself start comparing myself to him, “Was I that hot? If I were up there would they be talking about me in the same way?” (I hoped so, but doubted it).
What struck me most was if it had been a table full of men and there was only one politically radical woman where I sat–she might have been enraged at the kind of objectification.
♦◊♦
The other day I was hanging out with two women I would consider incredibly empowered. They were talking about their new favourite TV show and how it kept finding a way to get the main character (a male) topless every single show. “I think they’ve finally figured out that women’s libido is just as high as men’s and if you show a topless hottie like that–we WILL watch it.”
♦◊♦
A shocking story: I ask a feminist activist what advice she would give a young progressive man who’s scared to approach girls. She ends up giving a great gem, “he should create an interesting life that he loves so he’s not devastated if she isn’t into him” (brilliant). And, on the way to this, she says, “maybe he should go to a sex worker to build up his confidence first.”
I was struck, not so much at the suggestion, though it caught me off guard, but at how I know so many feminists who consider prostitution the worst thing in the world–and yet here is one suggesting a practical use for it. It reminded me of an article I read where two feminists were debating the practice of creating feminist porn. One was for it and the other hated anything to do with the porn industry.
Some women I know are deeply anti-pornography. They find it objectifying, dehumanizing and just a terrible thing. Other women I know are huge fans of it and declare themselves to be proudly “pro porn”.
Some women love the kinds of sex they see in porn–others don’t (as is beautifully illustrated on the website Make Love Not Porn).
Who’s analysis is a man supposed to follow?
♦◊♦
Story: I’m in Cape Cod, Massacheusetts hanging out with one of the most beautiful women I know. She’s deeply steeped in tantra and the spirituality of masculine and feminine energies.
“I’ll tell you something,” she says. “Many of us women talk about in these circles for conscious change. We’re surrounded by sensitive new age men and what we really want sometimes is a man who could just bend us over the couch. Yes, we want men to be more sensitive. But sensitive to US as women. Sensitive to our needs and desires and body language. Not overly sensitive and taking everything personally. I need a man who’s solid in himself enough to notice what’s happening over here–not someone who’s obsessed with himself and what other people think of him.”
It’s clear, of course that women want to be respected and honoured. What’s also clear is that they are wanting something else. Something that progressive men, for the most part, are not able to bring them.
The point is that, for many men–these messages feel confusing. It’s not always clear how to be a man. How to relate with women. How to be a brother to other men.
We’re all unlearning the old and relearning something new together–creating it together even.
On one hand progressive men are told that, “There is no binary gender. It’s all cultural construction. Every single person is unique. You can’t fit everyone into some heteronorminative idea of who they should be based on their sex.” And so we nod and say, “Yes, that sounds wise.” But the next moment we hear these same women identifying as a gender. They preface their statements with, “as a woman I’d like to say” or “I stand by her as a sister”. What happened to no heteronorminative sense of gender?
♦◊♦
Another friend of mine who teaches women’s studies is a hardcore feminist–but not a hippie. She dresses like a 50′s movie star with an apartment to match. She’s a wonder. But because she dresses as she does the “activist” crowd was less than accepting. When she tried to join a campus activist group she was called “princess” by the male activists. Here she was expressing herself in the way that felt best for herself as a woman–but still not being accepted by men who professed to be feminist themselves.
♦◊♦
A painful story: A friend of mine starts to study the art of “pick up”. As in “how to pick up women”. He gets visciously attacked by a feminist friend of his, who says that she knows many men who are attractive to women because of their deep integrity and respect of women. And he feels devastated. He’d spent years being respectful and careful–and was never considered sexually attractive by women. He was always ‘the friend’. So, he tried to learn how to shift that the only way he knew how –and got slammed for not being as amazing as the other men she knew. Not only were her words not helpful or useful in any way–they were shaming, comparing and devastating to him. It took him years to recover.
Many women criticize the “pick up” movement (as if it were a uniform, homogenous movement any more than feminism is). But what if they had a younger male cousin who was a great guy but felt too terrified to every approach a girl? What would they say? What advice would they give?
In fact, to make things more confusing–while one half of the feminist scene is his town attacked him visciously (often privately and behind his back) others secretly admitted to him, “tell me if you’re doing another one. I know of some guys who could use this.”
♦◊♦
I remember myself going through a time of almost deifying feminists. And people of colour. And queer, woman of colour led to a distinct feeling of needing to impress them. There was nothing more I wanted than for her to pull me aside and say, ‘Tad, all of these other white men are crazy . . . but you? . . . You’re different.’
Whatever they said was infallible. Same went for their ‘allies’. If a white male positioned himself as an ‘ally’ to them then his word was gospel as well.
It took me years to notice the ways that certain activists and feminists would position their perspective on reality, gender and politics and the only one. The true one. And if you disagreed? You were a stupid, oppressive douche. You were dismissed. You were attacked and villified. You were made an example of. And i really believed it. I believed that they knew the truth and I didn’t. I believed that my own experiences, feelings and needs weren’t valid. And sometimes this was encouraged.
Now, a lot of the time, the politics were on point. Really solid and important points were being made. Good learning was happening for all involved.
And it took me years to notice the ways that I had my own self worth wrapped up in having their approval of me. It took me years to begin to see that they weren’t always in integrity. That some of them (like all of us) had deep anger issues, or lived in a worldview of punitive justice where they believed themselves to be the judge, jury and executioner of the value of other people. “He’s a good guy.” or “He’s a douche.” It took me years to see that some of them (like all of us) could be deeply manipulative.
It took me years to see that not all women agreed with each other. Or with the feminists. And that not all feminists agreed with each other. It took me years to see that not everyone in the anti-oppression scene viewed training the same way. Some trainings would have participants leave feeling uplifted, inspired and more connected to the world and their place in it–and some of them would leave having people feel shut down, ashamed and small.
It took me years to see how very, very complicated all of these conversations about gender can be.
It took me years to see that I could honour myself and honour others at the same time. That I didn’t need to leave myself– or anyone else–behind.
♦◊♦
Another story: A dear friend of mine became a part of a network of high level change makers who would meet once a year to discuss how to create more change more quickly in the world. It was a diverse group of people with a commitment to growing in diversity.
But the leader was a white man. A white, upper class, privileged male.
The group began to explore the dynamics of race, class and power in the group and the leader announced to the group he was going to step back from leadership so that more women and people of colour could step in.
But something felt off.
So my friend spoke up. She said, “I hear what you’re saying. And I’m concerned about where it’s coming from. I get that it’s the politically correct thing to say but I don’t want you to be left behind in all this.”
Within minutes the leaders’ repressed anger at the situation showed up. “Why can’t white people have a role in leadership? Where am I supposed to contribute?” He was so deeply hurting. But he’d shut that part of him down to do the right thing.
The conversation continued and a transition did indeed happen. But one that didn’t leave him feeling like he was a worthless, privileged roadblock to be removed.
♦◊♦
But to step back a bit . . .
Perhaps the most damaging myth of patriarchy is that it, ultimately, works for men.
I recall a friend of mine saying, “Well, every day is men’s day.” In the big picture (economically and politically) this is true.
But emotionally it is not.
Imagine an acorn.
It lives in a castle, on a hill.
Each day it is put onto a pillow where it is washed, cleaned and dried.
And the people who walk by admire it.
On one level this acorn is privileged. But in a far more profound way–its growth is being held back by that privilege. In its separation from nature–it is not allowed to root itself and to grow into a oak tree and give back thousands of acorns to the world. As this acorn on the pillow all it can do is demand and consume resources and care. This is not good for the world. It’s not good for them. It’s not natural.
Being in a privileged class does not just hurt those being exploited–it hurts those in the privileged class.
Being pampered and told you are special and better than others is not medicine for the soul–it’s poison. It leads to the acorn, eventually, being spoiled and rotting to death on its pillow, dying alone–having given nothing to the world. And this is its last thought. “I have died of old age, and given it back no youth. I have taken, without returning. I had the seeds of a thousand forests in me–and they are dying with me today.” It’s tiny acorn body dies. And is tossed into a plastic trash bag and put in a landfill.
Not that the oak tree doesn’t die.
It does. Eventually, the sap no longer runs up its body and it dies. Its trunk begins to rot until one day a strong wind cracks it–or a fire consumes it. But its last thoughts are different. As it dies it knows it is going back into the Earth. It is returning to its source of life. That, in its life it has given and given and given. And now, even in death, it gives its body back to the creatures of the woods as food.
It dies as a part of the world, not apart from it.
♦◊♦
We are made wise by the number and depth and diversity of our relationships. And to live in a system that has us living in monocultures we becoming myopic. Less wise. And I’m not just talking about the monoculture of only hanging out with other rich, white privileged males in positions of power. Not just the loss of meaningful relationships with people of colour, indigenous people and women. I’m talking about the loss of intimacy with nature, with animals, with the stars, with the elements.
The world becomes reduced to resources to consume rather than relatives to learn from.
To quote Thomas Berry, ‘the universe is not a collection of objects–it is a communion of subjects.’
Men are less mature, less deep and less real for these privileges. We don’t fight for justice and equality for women alone–we do it for ourselves, our own hearts. Unconscious hierarchy hurts us all. Believing that we are better than others hurts us.
So, this is the myth: That patriarchy ultimately benefits men.
That because men are economically and politically privileged that this system is a good thing for them. Of course, when we step back and look at the big picture–this comes into question.
We see before us a generation of men who are disconnected from their hearts and bodies. Men who were never initiated into their manhood –but feel trapped in a permanent adolescence. Men who have never learned of what a woman’s world is. Men who feel ashamed for all the things that make them a man. Men who have no real sense of brotherhood with other men. Men without direction. Men who are afraid of women. Men who are afraid of other men. Men without purpose. Men not initiated into their greater purpose of making a difference in the world. Men so obsessed with the penetration of sex that they never learn the ways they can penetrate each moment with love.
We see one of the first generation of men raised without fathers or positive male role models. As their old role of dominators and heads of the house hold fall away–they are left with no clear sense of what to replace it with.
So many mixed messages from the world saying, “this is what it means to be a man.”
If you were to sit down the average progressive male and ask them, “What are the gifts that women and the feminine bring to the world? What are the gifts that sexism, patriarchy and oppression have blocked the world from receiving?” The list would be long. Of course, there are dangers of conflating women and the feminine together directly–these lines are often not so clear. One can be in a woman’s body and deeply masculine and vice versa. But still, the list would be long. The gift of birth. The gift of their cycle. The gift of nurturing. Deep intuition and sensitivity. An amazing capacity for depth of feeling. The way that women are often the ones to carry a community–often the invisible giants on whose shoulders a community rides.
But if you were to ask the same man, “What are the gifts that the men and the masculine energy brings?” You would often see silence. And shame. Answers come but . . . not as readily. There’s a deep sense, in this culture, that men are a bad animal. A sense that “we don’t need men’s protection–we need protection from the men.”
“Look at all the wars in the world.” we are told. “The pollution. The devastation. And look who’s in charge! This would never happen if women were in charge.”
And many men have drunk this down. Swallowed it. And it comes out in small jokes about how stupid men are or how women are better. But sometimes those jokes have an edge.
Another friend of mine is attacked for his “masculine, direct style of communication” (by another male activist). And it makes me wonder-when did the term “masculine” become a bad thing?
We have come to believe that patriarchy and masculinity are the same things.
I was reading a blog post by Christine Agro, The Metaphysical Feminist. She wrote:
When I look back at the Women’s Revolution, I see a necessary fight; one in which the internal fire sparked revolution, sparked change, sparked an awakening. But I also see a continuation of fighting within the Masculine Principle, an energy in which I believe no one will ever have true equality because it is an energy that forces us to constantly choose “fight or flight”. So I propose a new equality, one that is based in the Feminine Principles. The Masculine Principle is the energy that has influenced our way of being since at least the Caveman era. It is an energy dynamic that is linear, outward focused, power-over, controlling and fight or flight based. It has influenced everything from religious doctrine to the laws of the land and in its influence has arisen a world in which we have and have-not, in which divide and conquer is the status quo. There is no room for the truths of many, there is only room for the truth of the most mighty, the most powerful . . . we should not accept law or doctrine that has been created within an energy structure that supports the few and views us as somehow less than.
And so masculinity has become synonymous with hierarchy, oppression and patriarchy.
Imagine how that might feel to the men in your life to read that.
To grow up scared of yourself. To think that the only answer is to become more feminine. That our masculinity is something to be scrubbed clean from us.
This is the point that must be challenged.
♦◊♦
Patriarchy is not authentic masculinity. It is the shadow side of it. It is the toxic mimic we have come to accept. That there are ways to be a man that don’t require being dominant over women–but in partnership with. We are re-learning how to be powerful as men–but a power with–not power over.
But when the two get conflated–and men are challenged on their privilege–bad things can happen. This is a core challenge in the anti-oppression scene. How to address men’s privilege?
I asked a friend of mine in Vancouver who did a lot of men’s work about this. He said, “You know what? I totally get you on the male privilege piece and that’s been a lot of my journey. And my experience is that the best way to address that is not to hit it directly on the head but to build community, build up men’s worth and inner strength. To build community and safety.”
When they have that they tend to be so much more open to hearing these things and absorbing them. They can actually integrate it all. They’re less defensive. I find that the best way to open them to issues of justice is to honour their lived struggles and experiences.
If we jump right into anti-oppression work that can be experienced by many men as saying that their struggles are totally invalid in the face of what women experience daily. It can seem dismissive and shaming to them like they shouldn’t ever complain. and to ask men to give up power with nothing to replace it usually puts them in a place of fear. They’re scared.
I want an activist community where there can be really deep listening and deep honesty on both sides. Sometimes men act in hurtful ways and sometimes women do too. I see my role as helping to grow into a place where the way they engage with work for change is uplifting and inspiring for everyone involved. Where they can be powerful and creative allies to women AND to other men.
A movement where no one is left behind–regardless of level of privilege. a movement where everyone has a place and belongs–a movement where everyone’s struggles are honoured instead of compared. I think that’s the foundation for a movement where genuine power imbalances can be questioned–where hard conversations can happen.
We absolutely live in a world of imbalances of privilege–and that’s often along lines of race, class and gender. And I think a strong men’s movement is a part of healing that.
This culture’s media denigrates the authentic feminine and trivializes the authentic masculine.
The old ways are unraveling and something new is being born. In all of us. Every day. I predict it will be clumsy and awkward–but beautiful.
As men’s roles are shifting–more men are getting involved in men’s work, joining men’s circles and learning how to relate with more honesty to other men and women in ways that uplift everyone.
Here’s to a future of genuine partnership between genders–and space for those who think the whole binary gender thing is bullshit. A future where people are free to be who they are. A future where everyone’s voice is valued.
About Tad Hargrave
A very thoughtful article that often surprised me. I was won over by Tad’s winsome style, excellent examples, and moving stories. But why did I need winning over? I don’t self-identify as a “progressive,” and would probably feel socially and politically excluded from every segment of Tad’s target audience. At every turn I was “brought in,” but then reminded that I was an outsider. I am probably on the wrong side of radical environmentalism (but actually create more energy than I use), the role of government (I want less of it), and poverty (I’m against subsidizing it). Yet every part of this article resonated with me.
hey solarbuddy.
thanks for your words. those felt really good to read. i’m curious what resonated for you most.
i think left and right in politics is a distraction (it seems to me). that at the end of the day it ends up being more a class issue. and even deeper still it’s an issue of healing and wholeness. i suppose we all have our own ideas of how to get there – but conversations about that are good. as the african proverb goes, ‘if you want to go fast, go alone. if you want to go far, go together.’
slightly (entirely?) off topic my colleague judy wicks once said these words . . .
“The Local Living Economies Movement is about: Maximizing relationships, not maximizing profits, Broad-based ownership and democracy, not concentrated wealth and power, Sharing, not hoarding, Life serving, not self-serving, Partnership, not domination, Cooperation based, not competition based, Win-win exchange, not win-loose exploitation, Creativity, not conformity, A living return, not the highest return, A living wage, not the minimum wage, A fair price, not the lowest price, “Being more, not having more”, Interconnectedness, not separation, Inclusion, not exclusiveness, Community and collective joy, not isolation and unhapppiness, Cultural diversity, not monoculture, Bio-diversity, not mono-crops, Family farms, not factory farms, Slow food, not fast food, Our bucks, not Starbucks, Our mart, not Wal-Mart, a Love of life, not love of money.”
my point is that political divides don’t seem as deep to me as they used to. i mean heavens! anarchists want no government at all! natural allies
thanks again for your comment.
What do you regard as subsidising poverty? I’ve been on all sides; comfortable, earning more money than I knew what to do with, and having an empty bank account a week after being paid, as well as being on the dole.
In terms of division and inclusion, twice as many women are in poverty as men, so poverty could be regarded as a feminist issue.
Tad, you’re one heck of a nice guy. I gotta say. Your willingness to respond to every comment (almost every comment??? not sure) is somewhat refreshing.
I’m still not quite sure I get what you’re saying, but I think it’s worth listening to if only to get a different perspective or information on something. On the other hand, it also seems a bit diffuse and insubstantial. I suppose that’s because I don’t completely understand what it is you’re saying. Sucks to be dumb I suppose…
thanks for your words. i wish i could claim it’s because i’m a nice guy – but it’s just that i find this whole topic so interesting.
to me the heart of what i’m getting at is that:
1) the belief in superiority is toxic. and so is being treated like one is better. to be treated as better than others (that our needs, feelings and thoughts matter more) is to be separate from life and that hurts us.
2) that for men it’s confusing to want to be progressive and conscious. we get mixed messages and it’s, understandably, difficult to sort out where we stand.
Tad, this was a great article. I would not really be considered a progressive or feminist man, I don’t think, but I try to honor and respect every decent person while living out (as best I can, however inadequate) my own manhood and masculinity…which are very important to me. I would like to participate in many of these communities but so many of them seem to send these mixed messages, which can be infuriating for someone who wants to contribute.
I particularly appreciate what I understand to be your emphasis that each part of that mixed message has validity, but must be balanced against the other. And it seems that some in these communities are simply pitiless about the bafflement good men experience about how they’re supposed to behave…or the individual struggles of straight/cis/white men. I feel sometimes that for those of us who are part of that group, we are viewed as the only group which has no legitimate struggles as a corporate entity. We may have indidivudal struggles (which are often derided), but we are regarded as having no legitimate corporate concerns the way a woman/POC/trans person/etc. is considered to have, simply by virtue of their group membership. “Oh poor baby the tables slightly turned and you don’t like it; tough peanuts” seems to be a common response.
Thanks for this.
rick. i’d never thought of it in quite that way ‘we are regarded as having no legitimate corporate concerns the way a woman/POC/trans person/etc. is considered to have’.
i think we all need to stop comparing and ranking our pain and suffering and acknowledge that it’s all interconnected and interwoven – my suffering and yours. pain is pain. and i notice that when men are honoured for their pain and struggles – their heart naturally opens to ‘how can i serve?’. when they aren’t – they go into a panicked survival and defensiveness. of course. that’s what attacking others creates – defense.
we’re all better when we’re loved.
Agreed, Tad. I think the story of our society is much more complicated (and interesting) than a mere reduction to a narrative of privilege or lack of same. These questions are important, of course, but I think you are exactly right regarding the importance of acknowledging the struggles of men as well.
I loved Tad’s comment that patriarchy hurts both genders. it does.
So does matriarchy.
80% of men in prison for violence come from fatherless homes.
98% of men on death row come from fatherless homes.
At this point, I would say U.S. culture is much more matriarchal than patriarchal when we stop pecker-checking elites and actually look at who the culture props up in work and family.
We have spent 40 years spending billions of dollars and lots of legislation propping up female entry into white-collar jobs especially STEM fields.
And yet family courts remain the same after 4 years:
Mothers get sole custody 80% of the time to fathers 6%. In ecuation, suicide/mental health, health care, employment, family law it can be seen that we have laws, foundations, charities, and bureaucracies that prop women many hundreds of times compared to the help we give men.
To say that all of this is patriarchy is misleading. Mothers wouldn’t win custody 13 times as often in a patriarchal society. When you compare us to true patriarchies like Japan, they have far far less violent crime.
You can pass through the Japanese equivalent of poor inner city slums and not fear for your safety.
I think we need an interjection of honesty here. Matriarchy can be both detrimental and beneficial, just as patriarchy can. Right now the USA is in the throws of a very detrimental matriarchal influence–especially the black community.
The national average for fatherless homes is about 28%. For black communities it is 65%. According to the Urban Institute, the #1 leading indicator of poverty in a family is father absence. What young girls and boys need are fathers, not a welfare check.
Not everything to do with men & patriarchy is bad. Not everything to do with women & matriarchy is good.
typo:
Family courts remain the same after 40 years (not 4 years).
In other words, feminists want in-roads to careers for women, but don’t want equal parental rights for men. They want the best of both world for women only.
hi john: i’d just like to point out here that childrearing is one of the areas ascribed to femininity, that it is a particular field of work considered “women’s work” and has traditionally been done by women. In fact feminists talk a great deal about the equalizing of child care, that men should be considered equal caregivers to women of their shared children, and that women should no longer be considered the default guardian, or seen as better equipped to raise children. So the statistics you’ve cited about family law and child custody are, in fact, further examples of the constraints of gender roles, not proof of a burgeoning matriarchy.
Also, the reason women are “propped up”, as you so charmingly put it, is to correct the imbalance of male-only participation in those fields which has historically been the case. The fact that women require assistance should highlight to you the lack of equality that assistance aims to address.
I thought this website was about critical examinations of power relationships between the genders, not an anti-feminism site.
Definitely agree with j.a. Also, John D., you shouldn’t compare the US to Japan unless you know what you’re talking about. Japan is safer because 1) only law enforcement may legally have guns, and 2) in Japan there is a huge bias against the accused in any criminal case. Being accused of a crime is seen as shameful, and most of the accused are convicted. I’d imagine this creates a bit more pressure not to commit crimes (or at least not to get caught). So no, it’s not patriarchy=safety. Please quit it with the assmillinery and do some research and thinking, preferably without your confirmation bias blinders on.
Japan is also safer because the United States supplements their military. Score one for patriarchy.
i think we all need to stop comparing and ranking our pain and suffering and acknowledge that it’s all interconnected and interwoven – my suffering and yours. pain is pain.
In addition ot that I’d also say we all need to stop trying to define away other people’s pain (I’m speaking namely of folks who make claims like “you don’t know how harmful sexism is because you a male and there is no such thing as sexism against men”).
What Rick says here happens on a regular basis.: I feel sometimes that for those of us who are part of that group, we are viewed as the only group which has no legitimate struggles as a corporate entity. We may have indidivudal struggles (which are often derided), but we are regarded as having no legitimate corporate concerns the way a woman/POC/trans person/etc. is considered to have, simply by virtue of their group membership. “Oh poor baby the tables slightly turned and you don’t like it; tough peanuts” seems to be a common response.
This burns me up to no end when someone tries to pick a person’s characteristics apart and try to tell them what privileges and pains they have rather than asking them what privileges and pains they have. “oh you’re white? then you know nothing about racism.” “male? oh you can commit sexist acts but never have sexist acts commited against you” “straight are you? well yeah what those gays did/said to you might hurt a little but compared to what straights do to gays its not that bad.”
This checklist is really interesting; despite being a feminist, it raised issues I had not been aware of. http://melancholicfeminista.blogspot.com/2006/06/male-privilege-checklist.html
The thing is though, that by it’s very nature, privilege blinds you to freedoms / rights you take for granted. Everybody deserves to be treated with respect and women often aren’t due to their gender. By saying this, I am not saying that men do not deserve respect; I am saying that EVERYBODY deserves respect. But surely it’s not exactly taxing to recognise that you do have it easier than other groups?
As a white woman with an education and a job I have it easier than many. That doesn’t mean I have it easy. And a white man with an education and a job still has it easier than his female equivalent. That doesn’t mean he has no struggles whatsoever; it means he has an initial advantage. Recognising that, and using it for good is surely more positive than anything else.
The power dynamic is what underlies talk like “straight are you? well yeah what those gays did/said to you might hurt a little but compared to what straights do to gays its not that bad.”
Because while a gay person may have done something bad to you, as a straight person, you have more power than any gay person, due to living in a heteronormative society. Being regarded as ‘normal’ engenders incredible power.
Taking issue with something that someone has done to you is perfectly within your rights; but had that been a straight person, would you have said “that straight person did something dreadful to me”? Even not being defined by your sexuality is an amazing privilege.
Your article is stupendously interesting. As a progressive law student in a country like India, some of the differences and issues you’ve highlighted are very starkly seen here – we have a small set of educated and progressive urban youth living alongside a much larger section of society that just does not seem to understand that a lot of the ‘differences’ between men and women are not yardsticks by which to measure worth. I’m ashamed to say that we have a terrible sex ratio, skewed massively towards men, due to female infanticide (a practice of either aborting the female foetus upon detection or killing the female infant upon birth), something which led to the ban on sex determination tests.
I’ve felt some of the things that you’ve spoken of very directly – as a male feminist, I often have to deal with questions that get raised about the correct way to behave with women. There’s a general sense of merely paying lip service to the idea of equality, but much deeper stratifications exist in the minds of most – pop culture keeps idolising the notion of a man as an entity that ‘takes charge’ and all the associated masculine stereotype qualities, while our liberal education keeps telling us otherwise.
It feels good (however strange that might sound) that this dilemma isn’t my own, and is something that affects other people – and reading your piece just made me feel that there were people out there, talking about this, expressing the issue in such a poignant way. Thank you very much.
we’re not alone. i’m so glad you found the comfort in reading this that i found in writing it.
Great read.
I have a question for exploration – does ‘femininity’ and ‘masculinity’ exist, or is it just a human construct, and if so, is it useful?
I know people refer to the terms outside of being attached to a particular agenda, but i still wonder why we need this dichotomy to describe people — you are being ‘feminine’ if you are gentle, caring, thoughtful… masculine if you are assertive, strong, proud… why can’t you be proud and caring, assertive and gentle simultaneously, without being seen as opposite sides of a binary?
i love your words. yes. I’ve been thinking the same thing. there are no traits that are entirely masculine or feminine. there’s no monopoly on those. a mother bear protecting her cub is fierce. and feminine. a man can be gentle.
“. there are no traits that are entirely masculine or feminine. ”
Yes.. but… biology… let us at least acknowledge the truth of what is.
This blank-slate-ism is not helpful. Define your terms so that we can have a real conversation, rather than wallowing around in the emotional minefield of gender ambiguity.
When people speak about the wage gap they are forgetting that women are the ones that labor to bring the next generation of people into the world. A person is very privileged if they can forget that “little” nugget of information so easily.
But back to topic, nice article. Yes, life is very confusing but you just have to keep on keeping on. I find that people that don’t find something that they are passionate about have a harder time in life. When you find something to do that you love, whether it be an instrument, geometry or whatever, you’ll be much happier.
Valerie,
I agree that raising the kids is important. You’re raising the next generation for crying out loud. I think it’s troublesome the way being a full-time stay at home parent is derided these days.
Despite the importance of it, I am not so foolish to act like it’s toiling away in a mine.
The bald-faced truth is that staying home to raise and bond with your own children is 1) more fulfilling and 2) easier than just about 98% of all paid work.
Also, in comparison to the overwhelming majority of women who have the rare opportunity in this economy (ahem, I mean are forced) to stay home and take care of the children. Men are doing the gritty, nasty, dangerous work.
Men are 95% of on-the-job deaths. They are also the overwhelming majority of those exposed to dangerous substances: carcinogens (like asbestos), pesticides, chemicals, soot that causes blacklung, etc.. They are also the overhwelming majority of those who face injuries resulting in life-time loss of quality of life due to work: back injuries, ligament tears, etc..
The simple reality I have observed is that the feminist mantra that feminism cares about ALL victims of bias and oppression and that feminism would help men too is a bald-faced lie. Feminists can’t even admit that men even have real legitimate problems that women don’t.
“Feminists can’t even admit that men even have real legitimate problems that women don’t.”
There have been plenty doing just that in this very thread. Telling easily disprovable lies like that doesn’t lend much credence to your other arguments.
I do not believe ‘patriarchy’ exists. So I guess we may not have much to talk about.
But I saw this:
‘Some women I know are deeply anti-pornography. They find it objectifying, dehumanizing and just a terrible thing. Other women I know are huge fans of it and declare themselves to be proudly “pro porn”.
Some women love the kinds of sex they see in porn–others don’t (as is beautifully illustrated on the website Make Love Not Porn).
Who’s analysis is a man supposed to follow?’
and my response would be neither. Men do not have to follow women’s lead on matters of gender, sex, women, feminism. Men can make their own minds up. Can’t they?
@Quiet Riot Girl- Obviously men do make up their own minds about it otherwise it wouldn’t be a multi-billion dollar a year industry. The porn industry is doing just fine with YOUR money.
Tad,
I appreciate your exploration of these dichotomies. What I wanted you to address about Patriarchy was also the ways it pushes men to “do what they’re supposed to” i.e. register with the selective service, fight and die in wars, enter marriages not in their interest. This idea of “what we’re supposed to do” which echoed in your article, seems to be a reflection of what women want. We are trying to figure out how to be good little soldiers so we can take care of the women in our lives. . . and hopefully they will love us.
The best advice we can give any young man is to live the best life he can — which you said — and _decide_ who he will allow into his life. However, the other side of the coin is that if he lives a great life and doesn’t choose to share it with a woman, he is then branded as a player, playboy, immature, etc. We’ve all read the articles about men not living up to women’s expectations.
If feminism is about equality, and having the freedom to define your own life, we should find a way to meet each other on our own terms and take it or leave it. Women can also play video games all day if they want, men can wear make-up. The problem is when you choose to define yourself through the lense of someone else’s confused desires, i.e. the feminist who says her sensitive boys don’t have the balls to approach her. What does she want? *She doesn’t know.* Men are too often followers; we too often live to serve, and many of us are happiest serving a woman. When the woman doesn’t know what she, wants everything goes to hell.
Once you realize that, and do what you want to do, letting people either accept or reject you, and being fine with it. . . the truth sets you free. On to the next one. Does this build families or buy houses or make any kind of long-term planning easy. . . not really, unless I do it alone, which has become my default plan. Having another person around is great, but you can’t depend on them. Selfishness is the new paradigm; the only safe bet.
It’s not a question of whether the acorn should grow. . . it’s a question of what the acorn wants. “Potential” is always possible, but it’s also loaded with the expectations of others.
fucking beautiful.
I was all set to rip you a new one because for a bit, skimming through the first 20 paragraphs or so, I was thinking you were just about to complain that PHMT and that the only problems that men had in the world were emotional, and hey if we gave up all those alleged privileges we supposedly have, we could be enlightened like our feminist sisters. Standard stuff, I was seeing on the internet ten years ago. But I see your analysis is more naunced and humanizing of men, and watching how you’ve handled the comments, I have more respect for you.
Here’s a good article that could help you and many men as well:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/the-one-good-man/
Privilege is: About how society accommodates you. It’s about advantages you have that you think are normal. It’s about you being normal, and others being the deviation from normal. It’s about fate dealing from the bottom of the deck on your behalf.
[Betty, A primer on privilege.]
That was a remarkable link Clarence.
Good stuff.
Seriously?
I started to read the article but stopped early on, why, when you made 2 claims that are patently false
1) Men don’t earn more per hour for the same work
2) Women don’t suffer more abuse than men
There is still a massive gender pay gap Janet. I left my last job after discovering that a man on the same pay grade was earning £2000 more than me.
Women do suffer more abuse than men – have a look at this article – http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/dec/10/ukcrime.prisonsandprobation there are hundreds of others out there to back this up.
Helen:
As far as DV is concerned (in the USA, I don’t know about the number in the UK) women only dominate abuse numbers at the high end of abusive tactics as your article points out, when spouses or lovers are killed.
But for the rest of the tactics used by abusive partners men are almost 50% of the victims. Overall women perpetrate domestic violence in nearly equal numbers to men. In fact the CDC shows that 10% of teen girls reported being violent to their boyfriends in the last year compared to only 9% of men.
There is a mountain of research to show that women are just as abusive as men.
In addition, when we look outside the home men are 80% of the targets of general criminal violence. There is real justification for a violence against men act in terms of violent crime, yet all gender-specific special programs on violence (unless you’re talking about programs for offenders) are directed at reducing crime against women.
We really owe it to men who come to this sight to learn about improving future generations of men to tell the truth when it comes to violence–not add more distortions.
This web-page should be something greater than the standard feminist theme of “man bad/woman good”.
9% of teen boys (not men).
I really enjoyed this article. The anecdote about your friend who dresses like a 50′s film star – my style is also very femme and I have been taken less seriously as a result, by male and female activists, as though being femme was automatically not feminist.
I also liked your comment “That our masculinity is something to be scrubbed clean from us.”
I have also experienced that. Despite femme style, my personality and ambitions are often described as ‘masculine’ and throughout my life i’ve been put down because of it; made to feel lesser, by colleagues and schoolmates for not being feminine enough.
I really enjoyed the care in your words and your articulation of this many-sided beast. Thanks.
I have, at different times in my life, been a participant in radical communities and discussions (feminist, anarchist, queer, etc.). I found these very interesting and relevant to my life then, but often very problematic.
Specifically, it troubled me how attached everyone was to being ‘victims’ and the status that came with that self-identifier. I know that that identity, for many of us, is the only thing that gives us a voice when first we break away from one toxic perspective or another. I respect its place in a person’s life and am in awe of the strength required to wear that title. But as I often found in these communities, we fall easily back into our oppressive hierarchies even as the underprivileged.
The rest of the world won’t have us because we deviate (be it in our sexual orientation, skin colour, spiritual practices, gender, etc.). So, we create and join communities of like people for support and end up largely excluding or undermining those who wish to contribute but whose deviation from us, ironically, is found to be threatening.
I think this is why I have entered and then exited so many of these communities. As unhealthy and unproductive as it is to live a life of constant unchallenged privilege, so too is it detrimental to never evolve out of being a victim, which is in many ways the unspoken prerequisite to be a part of these communities. It is the title we truly wear more so even than feminist, anarchist, person of colour. Prove your pain, show your scars.
Self-victimizing is something I have found at the root of my own struggles to grow and seen it in many others. Like most staunch identities, it can save you one moment and imprison you the next, privilege you and oppress you both.
I think that is why, after identifying with so many different communities/ideologies, I am now more in favour of dropping these divisions all together. We have all been wronged by our societies, our upbringings, our schooling, our communities. We could all claim victimhood and be justified. But so too are we all privileged, though some more than others, and some less evident than others. It is a privilege, for example, that we may even openly discuss this now.
In my opinion, we are all different and special in millions of tiny ways that can never fit neatly into any identity except that of a unique individual. We are all human, animals just trying to live with dignity and curiosity and kindness (hopefully). Life is too ever-changing and flexible to pretend that an ideology or dogma, be it radical or conservative, will set us free. I think that is really up to the individual, to cultivate love and respect and compassion for themselves and those around them. In the end, that is our true power and one that cannot be taken away no matter our level of privilege.
I say, make communities out of those commonalities, those actions and few will be turned away wanting, few will stunt their own growth from behind gated communities.
But, hey, that’s just one humans opinion, on one day in a billion, and like everything in this wild world, I, like everyone else have to be ready to change.
Major typo nine lines in! It’s okay though, I’m going to keep reading.
“…And so that men are disempowered and need to get there act together to avoid this catastrophe.”
White women should be mentioned in the same breath as white men when it comes to “privilege.” White women are certainly far more privileged than men of color. They are more privileged than even white men in many ways, and equally privileged in other ways.
Eric, while I can appreciate what you’re trying to say about white women’s privilege, I think that you might be tripping into dangerous territory. Most white women do get advantages in society, this is undeniable, especially attractive white women, but that in of itself should show you the ways in which we are objectified and marginalized. The scrutiny heaped upon and the value placed upon our bodies and looks is absolutely insane, to the point where many of us internalize that our only worth or our “best” worth is our looks. White men simply do not have to deal with that same scrutiny.
As a white woman, I had to discover my privilege, and that was a process for me- proof and case in point that it existed, and I’d never try to pretend like my place in society is more difficult than another, I’m not here for the marginalized olympics, and I don’t wish to create a pornography of suffering, but it is disturbing to see somebody write that a white woman is equally or more privileged than a white man. We are differently privileged and differently marginalized and depending on our attractiveness (because like it or not, this is generally how we as white women are valued in society) or sexual preference we have all felt different kinds of societal pressure and rejection.
What is our privilege? That we see ourselves represented as incredibly valuable commodities? We are not objects, but more often than not, we are seen as such, and that, at least to me, is principally how our experience is different. I don’t wish to say better, I don’t wish to say worse, I wish to say that you should not, perhaps “mention us in the same breath” or paint us with the same brush. Even within like-groups, no experience is homogenous.
Olivia, you just stated the very thing that most of my male friends HATE ABOUT MODERN Feminism.
That is that no matter how much a women has, how much she is given, how much privilege she has , it just isn’t enough. Modern feminists are always looking to play the victim.
I heard someone say a long time ago that a feminist who was given a 1000 gold bars , would claim she was a victim because she had to carry them to the bank by herself.
When we take about the patriarchy and privilege, we unfort talk about men in power, or say things like men have all the power etc. The problem is those statements are half true. To be more accurate “Some men have a lot of power” but “Most men have very little power”. People when looking at modern equality only look upwards , men are also the majority at the bottom of society, i.e. Prison , homeless, alcoholics , drug abuse etc. They die 7 years earlier but have far less men spent by private and gov than women. And btw, white women are not only valued for their beauty, yes it is a factor but it isn’t the only factor.
Tad,
Your article is well-crafted, and the stories are interesting. As in life, the stories are often contradictory. There are, as others have pointed out, some factual errors in the piece. Leaving those aside, exploring the key tenets of the piece:
If patriarchy is the shadow of authentic masculinity, can you define what the light side of it is? I’m sure it’s worthy of its own volumes, but a short synopsis would do. You’ve made claims about an issue, but what of the
For my part, as a biology & evolutionary nerd, two truths seem self-evident: one, patriarchy is a natural result of sexual dimorphism and the evolutionary nature of the division of labor. We are fighting human nature here, which is Quixotic tilting at windmills.
Secondly, as corollary, both light and shadow are needed. The shadow side of human nature–the raw sexuality, the darker emotions, the fight-or-flight response–these are all evolutionary adaptations that ensured our survival as a species for millions of years. We literally would not be here without them. While these powerful biological drives need to be harnessed appropriately, demonizing them only creates repression and resentment, as evinced by your white male friend who leads a group.
Ultimately, it makes sense, as J’aiToday alluded to above, to abolish ideas about groups. Forget what white men are doing, or jewish women, or whatever. Relate to people as INDIVIDUALS.
Best article I’ve read on GMP so far, it’s all about striking the right balance among all of these factors (which is obviously tremendously difficult!).
Here is an article that I thought took a good look at ‘patriarchy’:
http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm
I don’t think I could add a thing to this beautiful article. I just wanted to comment to say thank you. This is the spirit that moves us all forward.
Typo: “And so that men are disempowered and need to get there act together ”
“there” should be “their”
Just telling you so that the editors can sweep in here and make that little adjustment.
It’s a beautiful article but it was wrong on almost every fact it mentioned. Didn’t even get the date women got the vote in the USA correct. He shows an understanding that people he trusted essentially manipulated and lied to him but he doesn’t seem able to question if that is still going on right now. He’s not skeptical. His understanding is informed by any propagandist he happened to run across. He doesn’t have the ability to stop and say, “Is that so?”
I guess that’s pretty normal human behaviour but it’s something I’ve never really been able to do myself so I’ve never been in that situation where I’m basically swallowing any rubbish because I want some girls to like me. I never wanted to fit in like that so I never had the attraction to that tribalist sort of ideology, and I don’t really understand the forces that lock people into that way of thinking. Not as a personal experience anyway.
How do people ever extracate themselves from these situations? Is it possible for a feminist to ever question their ideology and ask themselves, “Is that so?” What would it take for a feminist to ever really look at the facts on even a single one of the many myths that they are taught to beleive? To do so they would have to reject the tribe and be prepaired to be attacked and ridiculed by former comrades. Agreement and loyalty is just too important to people to be able to do this.
I’ve been waiting for the second myth of patriarchy to come out. There is more than one isn’t there?