Noah Brand makes the case that gender theory applies to both genders.
This article is a response to “Why Being a Good Man is Not a Feminist Issue” by Tom Matlack.
The reason I agreed to come on board as editor-in-chief at the Good Men Project is that this site is doing something nobody else is doing, at least not on this scale. Its core mission is born of personal and transformative experience of how men’s lives and stories are too often ignored, devalued, or limited by painfully constricting gender roles. Most websites targeted at men blithely buy into the beer-football-tits model of masculinity, the implicit ideas that men can’t be complex, can’t be introspective, can only be knuckle-dragging cartoon characters in ties.
Whatever our other differences, I hope we can all agree: fuck that noise.
The Good Men Project is doing something else, something more profound and true, providing a space for the expression of all the things men are trained not to express. We provide a platform for men to tell their stories, talk about their struggles, their triumphs and their tragedies. We are, if I say so myself, pretty good at it. But, and this is the good part, we do more than that.
To say that our culture has an outdated and toxic notion of manhood is true, but it’s merely identifying a problem. That’s only the first step. Next one must understand the problem, and then take steps to address it. To assume that one can simultaneously challenge and subscribe to traditional notions of masculinity is ludicrous. It’s like raising a toast to quitting drinking. So one of the things we’ve gotten good at doing, in addition to telling our stories, is looking at why it’s hard to tell those stories in the first place. We talk about changing our destructive attitudes, and we also ask where those attitudes come from. We talk about the mistakes we’ve made, and we learn to put those mistakes in context, to figure out why they seemed like good ideas at the time.
In short, it is neither possible nor desirable to talk about men’s issues without talking about deeper issues of gender roles and masculinity. And that brings us to the question of how we’re going to talk about those.
♦◊♦
For well over a century, British mathematicians had to use an inferior form of calculus notation. Sir Isaac Newton had developed a form of notation he called fluxions, which performed the same function as the differential calculus developed by Gottfried Liebniz, but not as well. The difference, from the British perspective, was that Newton’s system was developed within the blessed borders of Albion itself, whereas Liebniz was just some bloody German so who cared about his system?
This is known as the Not Invented Here problem, and it’s serious enough that… well, it has its own name. It’s when, due to some imagined turf war or opposition or whatever, people attempting to solve a problem will actually reject and ignore solutions already developed by others, simply because they were developed by others.
Feminism has made extraordinary strides in breaking down the old, dysfunctional ideas about women’s roles, women’s potential, women’s inner lives. Through constant internal battles, schisms, false starts, and the general pain-in-the-assery that is the nature of any movement based around human beings, the overall thrust of feminism has succeeded brilliantly in liberating women from outdated gender roles, and continues to do so today.
What I’m getting at is that I want to help liberate men from the bullshit cultural ideas of what manhood is “supposed” to be, from the broken machismo and useless stoicism that just close us off from each other. And I don’t want to do it using goddamn fluxions.
Feminism has developed a toolkit for addressing gender issues, and it’s a set of verbal and conceptual tools that, I cannot overemphasize, we already know works. It’s been working like a mad bastard for decades now. Feminists have embraced the language and ideas necessary to recognize one’s own blind spots and privilege, to unpack the subtext in conventional wisdom, to truly question the received notions about what men and women are “supposed” to be. Now we can put those ideas to work on the flip side of the same problems, analyzing culture with the same incisive eye and freeing our minds with the same empowering concepts. To reject that toolkit, those words, those transformative ideas just because they’re somehow perceived as “other” is the height of folly.
♦◊♦
Now, I get that there are some reservations about this idea, and I want to address those. First, let’s just get rid of the stupid notion one hears that “all feminists hate men.” I’m standing right here, I’m a feminist, I’m a man, most of my friends are feminists, none of us hate men, let’s grow up and move on. Acting like there’s some kind of Valerie Solanas Fan Club that anyone listens to is not engaging with reality in any adult fashion.
More relevant is the notion that feminist theory can only ever focus on women. That’s a more legitimate point, because historically, that’s mostly what’s happened. However, just because something has been true does not mean it has to go on being true. Think of the founding of America and the radical notion that all men are created equal, the idea that the circumstances of one’s birth did not grant anyone an inherent superiority over anyone else. We all know that wasn’t applied very consistently… basically ever. But once that concept existed, once that principle was established, it began to be applied to more and more people, because the principle itself was so strong and so true that it could not be denied.
In the same way, feminism began as a movement to liberate women from their stupid, limiting gender roles, but as others have written and I’ve pointed out myself, there’s no separating women’s horrible gender roles from men’s horrible gender roles. Every dumb cliché about how women are overemotional carries with it the connotation that men can’t have or express emotions. Every joke about men being lazy slobs implies that women are destined to do all the cleaning. The idea that women are helpless objects to be protected from everything is tied right in with the idea that men are disposable cannon fodder, whether in combat or civilian life. Men’s issues and women’s issues simply are not two separate problems, and the illusion that they are is just another outdated notion we need to outgrow.
Thing is, that’s a logical argument, and the truth is, most people come to these matters on an emotional level. If something just feels wrong to us, in our guts, no amount of logic in the world can persuade us otherwise. So we need to talk about why feminist talk just feels wrong to some guys on a visceral level, or we’re not getting at the real issue.
It is hard to admit that you’re part of an unfair system. It’s really hard to face the fact that you’ve been, to some extent, participating in the system that’s been screwing you over. I look back on all the petty acts of humiliation and unthinking social enforcement that I’ve been party to, and quite frankly am still sometimes party to, and I feel ashamed. As a kid, I ostracized the boys who acted “too girly” along with the rest of the class. As a teenager, I bought into the idea that I had to be the toughest and strongest, and that the only emotion I was permitted was anger. As a grown man, I’ve sneered “man up” at guys who dared underperform their assigned gender role. One of the things that applying feminist theory to your own life does is it makes you realize “Oh shit… I’ve been being a jerk.”
Women are by no means excepted from this unpleasant process. Indeed, most of the feminist women I’ve talked to have rueful stories of how they used to call girls fat just to hurt them, how they ignored the signs of abusive relationships that are obvious in retrospect, even how they bought into the idea that men’s issues were some totally alien landscape that had nothing to do with them. All these things, they realize, were wrong, and they all came to this awkward realization by honest application of social justice theory. Their experiences, in short, were exactly like mine.
Men face a similar awkward realization, each one of us, and a lot of guys don’t want to face it. It’s way easier to justify your participation in an unfair system, or to flatly deny that the system is unfair, than it is to accept that you have not always been a good man. It is hard to admit one’s weaknesses, one’s mistakes, one’s petty cruelties and private shames, but it is necessary if we are to become good men. We’re lucky, though. There’s a set of tools designed to help us do just that, a roadmap to a more fair system where we, and everyone else, are free of the pointless strictures of an outmoded past. To my mind, the only truly good thing to do is pick up those tools and get to work, because there’s a lot to be done.
Photo—Puzzle Heads from Shutterstock
About Noah Brand
I figure that I’m probably being nit-picky, so I’ll go ahead and preface my comment with an acknowledgement that I’m doing so in pursuit of a larger critique.
Basically, I’m uncomfortable with the analogy being drawn between calculus and feminism. Calculus is only a model used to replicate stuff that happens around us, and it’s usefulness is completely dependent upon how accurately it replicates stuff. That being said, calculus is awesome. And it’s used in everything from physics to ecology to economics to what-have-you because it’s awesome. And, oh my god, did I mention that calculus is awesome?
And this is where my main disagreement with Noah arises. Feminism is fundamentally different from calculus, and I think it’s important to acknowledge feminism’s limitations. Namely, that a model like feminism cannot provide solutions to the problems it faces to nearly the same degree of accuracy that a model like calculus can. And I also think that feminism lacks the tools to answer certain questions that are crucially important to its foundations. For example, can feminist theory ever provide a coherent theory of nature vs. nurture, let alone one that answers the problem to the same degree of accuracy that calculus describes the elliptical orbit of planets?
I’m not saying that feminism is useless or wrong, even though I don’t consider myself a feminist. I’m just saying that the tool set we’ve been given by feminism can only provide answers within a certain margin of error. And I would also add that I don’t think the answers being given are always the ones needed to talk about the issues men face, even if they work just dandy for discussing women’s issues.
Hey Noah… I don’t keep up on everything over here but I do have you guys in my FB news feed and read articles here and there, occasionally feeling amused or enlightened. I read Tom’s piece today and had my finger on the judgement button, about to write GMP off as unfocused, clueless, and largely not worth my time. Then I read this piece. I guess I’ll stick around
Hey Noah… You were saying something about rejecting ideas because they came from the “other”?
Is this really the attitude you feel will help men become better men?
I don’t know Noah.
I think you captured part of feminism well. And clearly men stand to benefit from the now widely accepted principle that one’s gender should not define or limit oneself, particularly when those limits and definitions are used as a means of systemic control and direction by one’s culture. But I think it really ends there with men and feminism.
Unfortunately feminism advocates an adversarial relationship between the genders that is inseparable from the movement. The very language “feminism” and “patriarchy” will always frame the conversation in terms that remind me, that as a man, I am the object of your protest. My privilege and her subjugation will always be the movement’s central narrative. Regrettably, this divisive narrative remains infinitely indispensable in maintaining the moral authority and social engagement required to enact the change feminists seek. The public face of feminism, political feminism, simply cannot withdraw from this dichotomy and remain relevant.
So as men, we can certainly apply the principles advanced by feminism to generate public cognitive dissonance in the obvious inconsistencies of its applications, but we can never use feminism as a tool in its own right -its not meant for us.
I think you’ve nailed it, random stranger.
I don’t call myself a feminist for the same reason thanpt I don’t call myself a libertarian. Although many of the principles I hold are comparable with the literal, academic interpretation of those labels, the labels have taken on a popular meaning (or in some cases many popular meanings) that don’t align.
My rule of thumb is: if I have to explain what I mean my a label every time I use it, it’s a bad label. So if I say I’m a feminist (by which I mean I believe in gender moral egalitarianism and that we are all constrained by societal expectations based on our sex; not that I’m a man hating sociopath) or a libertarian (by which I mean that I’m suspicious of all concentrations of power, especially those that re-enforce each other such a crony corporatist relationship between government and big business; not that I’m a white supremacist gun nut) then those are just plain bad labels.
There’s another aspect too: that of ownership an identity. It seems condescending for women to tell men that they should call themselves feminists; just as it would be unacceptable for men to tell women to call themselves gender egalitarians. Groups (and individuals) should be to choose their own labels. And the word feminism, by its very nature, is not a label that a lot of men will feel ownership of.
Are you saying that politics is self serving enterprise that needs opposition to stay relevant, and that this characteristic is both the thing that keep it alive and eventually ages it to irrelevance?
And that any opposition to the above is termed backlash, and instead of introspection and adjustment, the politic views this as just another fundraising cross to bear, just more evidence of oppression?
Unfortunately feminism advocates an adversarial relationship between the genders that is inseparable from the movement. The very language “feminism” and “patriarchy” will always frame the conversation in terms that remind me, that as a man, I am the object of your protest.
Um, no. Google ‘individualist feminism’.
It feels like herding cats at times, keeping up with all these permutations.
I just Googled it and Wiki is right at the top – ifeminism, an emphasis on individualism. The Ayn Rand version: woman as a heroic being whose happiness is her moral purpose. Cooperation comes about because it’s less stressful, two heads are better than one, all making me happier. Christina Hoff Sommers is listed as one.
Agreed on the herding cats analogy. Thought iFeminism does appear to be one of the good ones. It’s FAQ speaks honestly about men’s issues, and openly critical about other aspects of feminism. That’s the kind of approach feminists need to clean up their movement and find a common ground with men.
Hi Kristen,
Yes, I know there are multiple, multiple, multiple variants of the feminist idea. And perhaps I’m characterizing a certain strain of feminism, but the existence of ‘individualist feminism’ does nothing to diminish the palpable presence of the feminism I am most familiar with (evidently its called marxist feminism, it appears right next to ifeminism when you Google it). Perhaps its unfortunate, but marxist feminism, for reasons endemic to its outwardly activist philosophy, is far more likely to be most men’s first experience with feminism, and it comes with a shaking fist.
Regardless, all forms of feminism at their center reflect a women’s voice, or call it the female gaze. Men may grapple with the same fundamental questions but when he enjoins the dialogue, he transforms it through his unique experience. The result will be something perhaps consistent with feminism principle, but distinctly different from it in form and application -and at any rate, not feminism.
You’re into Wendy McElroy?
Leibniz’s calculus and Newton’s calculus were, to all intents and purposes, identical. It was the scientists’ philosophies about calculus that were different. D -
“Feminism has made extraordinary strides in breaking down the old, dysfunctional ideas about women’s roles, women’s potential, women’s inner lives.”
It is the biggest lie I have ever read. It was not feminism, but the enlightened men of the society in the Western world who helped remove the obstacles in the way of women for achieving their full potential. In countries where powerful men have put their feet down, feminism can do nothing. For example, take the case of Saudi Arabia where women have recently got right to drive. There any deviation from the rules are dealt with heavy hand.
Actually not even – for the most part, it was technology.
Wait wait wait…so feminism is this ineffectual movement which has been unable to achieve even it’s stated goals (i.e. breaking down old ideas about women’s roles), but at the same time it’s this horribly powerful movement with huge backing and influence in the government and responsible for screwing over men? How has it managed to both have such a huge impact and yet do so little?
What a good question!
I think Rapses holds a substantially more radical view of Feminism than most of the other commenters here…
But it’s strange how the conversation has become all about Feminism. Again. Instead of about men. Oy vey.
Oi now…it’s only about feminism because these articles are about feminism. If Tom’s article didn’t mention feminism, then I’m willing to bet Noah’s wouldn’t, and then Rapses might not have made that comment…and then I wouldn’t have responded…etc.
The point is, by saying “let’s not talk about X,” inevitably you end up talking about X…that’s just how it goes, regardless of what X is.
I agree to an extent. Mostly I’m just disappointed to see the conversation devolving into the same old binary “Feminism sucks!” or “Feminism is awesome!”
Instead of, y’know, taking a nuanced approach and focusing more on men. But I digress.
I think men are groovy. MEN!!!!!
I wish the man that lives in my house would get home so I could nom on him!
“Wait wait wait…so feminism is this ineffectual movement which has been unable to achieve even it’s stated goals…but at the same time it’s this horribly powerful movement with huge backing and influence in the government and responsible for screwing over men? How has it managed to both have such a huge impact and yet do so little?”
lol…well if Republicans can do it, why not feminists?
While I don’t entirely agree with Rapses (though I do think feminism pushed and speed things along, they did so on things that were inevitable, and have taken credit for things that were available decades before feminism became popular), I do need to ask…
“so feminism is this ineffectual movement which has been unable to achieve even it’s stated goals”
What stated goals of feminism (since second wave) have feminists said “got it. Mission accomplished. on to the next one”? Every single feminist goal “still has work to be done”. Even when the education gap literally reversed, and then some, education remains a woman’s issue, with ever more programs, and even title IX considerations being made, to get yet more women into post secondary.
The education gap has only “literally reversed” at the youngest ages. The older the students get, the more likely women are surpassed by men. Now, the trend continues in favor of women and the young girls who are out-performing young boys will most likely to continue to do so (and this needs to be addressed! If one gender is out-performing the other and we can just mush it around with some programs, there’s something wrong.)
BUT we still need these programs because it’s not that women have more education than men and still need more or that they’re better students than men but need to widen the gap, it’s because you find women disproportionately in “women’s” fields and conspicuously absent from more “masculine” programs — such as science.
So far as the education gaps go, can we just agree it’s fucked up all around and we’ve arranged it so there’s still work to be done, for both men and women?
And as to feminism never brushing it’s hands and saying, “Whelp, all done here!” I have to say: a lot of these things feminism combats support each other, and each wave of feminism has addressed more issues that stopped the first ones from being complete. There’s probably always going to be some dark corner of sexism (whether it’s against men or women or both or sort of one but not the other) that needs to be purged. But shrinking it does not become a less noble goal for never being finished. It betters real lives as it goes along.
“BUT we still need these programs because it’s not that women have more education than men and still need more or that they’re better students than men but need to widen the gap, it’s because you find women disproportionately in “women’s” fields and conspicuously absent from more “masculine” programs — such as science.”
Except if this really were the case, the proposed solutions wouldn’t be so one sided:
http://www.openmarket.org/2012/07/10/quotas-limiting-male-science-enrollment-the-new-liberal-war-on-science/
Where are the quota’s that would restrict women’s participation in the liberal arts, etc, to that proportional to men? The simple answer is, women doing better than men is the standard of success. If men do better than women in an area, there is a problem, if women do better than men, that is how it should be and nothing need be adjusted. That’s not equality, it’s supremacy.
So because women are CHOOSING not to enrole in sciences, men need to suffer and be denied, but the fact men aren’t enroling in post secondary in the same numbers as women not only isn’t an issue, it’s something to be proud of:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-of-men/8135/
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2010/12/15/watch_hanna_rosins_end_of_men_ted_talk.html
And the fact is, if men and women are equal, then women don’t need these programs that grant them special rights and privileges over men in order to even things out. Ether they are equal to men and can perform equally well under the same conditions as men, or they are infrior, need those special considerations to keep up, and should stop blaming men for it. I personally believe the former. Given you acknowledge the education gap benefits women in the early grades, but still insist they need the help in the higher grades, I must wonder if perhaps you feel the later? This is especially true given the education gap has favoured girls since the early 90′s.
As to your response on feminism always having more to do… That’s the point. It isn’t a rights group if they can not define where success is. A right is not subjectively defined. It is a special interests group, seeking only what is of benefit to their chosen group, and always seeing something that “needs to be done” for the benefit of their group.
@ Rapses
“It was not feminism, but the enlightened men of the society in the Western world who helped remove the obstacles in the way of women for achieving their full potential. ”
Are you referring to the tales of the goddesses Artemis and Diana or the tale of the Amazons as the forerunners of modern day feminism?
The biggest problem I have with feminism is the theories of male privilege and patriarchy (with a big P as in a culture that spreads male privilege and female subjugation, not the anthropology definition of father-lead homes). These theories are a narrative that only have a basis in fact, when one goes through with a broad revisionist brush of history to white out male disposability. The idea that women face systemic gendered oppression, but only some men faced oppression due to their identity as being in a sub-group (like black or gay) is a broken concept. Women also have female privilege and men also face gender discrimination (not racial or hetero discrimination only) *as men*.
Did women have their agency obstructed and choices reduced? Absolutely. Is there overwhelming proof that the same thing happend for 90% and up for men? Absolutely. Both genders were treated as objects, but men were treated as disposable objects.
32,000 men died building the panama canal. When a soldier claimed to have shell shock Patton slapped the soldier and threatened to put him in front of a firing squad. Men may have been leaders inside the home, but this was purchased at the cost of a greatly reduced systemic protection outside the home.
The feminist narrative that washes away male disposability even bleeds through most history books. If one were to look up the exploitation of poor male workers in building the trans-continental railroad the tale would overwhelmingly be told in terms of racial oppression as a disproportionate amount of the men were minorities. Yet, nowhere would you see the fact that 100% of these workers who sweated and died (at alarming rates) were *men* and a sign of *gender* oppression.
Everywhere feminism washes out male disposability in history. When it came necessary for people to die (to grease the wheels of industry, build society, or protect freedom) it was the male role *to die*.
The argument may be that this was done by patriarchs, but that would only be half the truth. Women (regardless of their role in politics) helped create the culture.
In UK during WWI a new recruitment tool was thought up by a general due to the need for more men on the front. It was called the white feather campaign. It involved women giving a white feather to men in civilian clothes in an act of shame and essentially calling the man a coward. Thousands of men signed up for war because the opinion of a stranger women meant *so much* to them.
If having the ability to force another persob into 2 years of combat you personally (due to gender) would have no expectation of being forced into isn’t *female privilege* then what is it exactly?
It’s time for feminism to grow up and start acknowledging male disposablity (even today in on-the-job deaths, suicide, and homelessness). Until feminism as an ideology drops it’s refusal to see wholesale male disposability or gender oppression, it is not an ideology I will have anything to do with.
Not sure how male disposability has anything to do with the point at hand. Feminism focuses on a specific, gender-based discrimination. Classism focuses on a specific, resource-based discrimination. They are not mutually exclusive, and male disposability certainly doesn’t invalidate feminism’s arguments. It’s a related issue which merits its own nuanced discussion.
Culturally enforced male disposablity isn’t a type of gender based discrimination?How?
I’ve always seen privilege applied to the group(s) that are more suppressed, implying it’s a relative thing. Like I can have advantages from being female, but they add up to a tenth of the advantages you get on a daily basis, as a man. So I guess I’m saying, I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
And since feminism has proved itself a flexible thing, maybe throwing your weight behind campaigns to get women in to ALL parts of the military and workforce in equal numbers will even out the disposable problem in the now (well, at least in regards to gender) and maybe make people take a second look, once they see women dying. Because, yeah, I agree, for some reason that tends to move people a bit more (and that’s wrong). By stepping out of the movement altogether instead of applying pressure in the right places, you’ve deprived a legitimate movement of an ally and yourself of a tool to get your passion realized.
“By stepping out of the movement altogether instead of applying pressure in the right places, you’ve deprived a legitimate movement of an ally and yourself of a tool to get your passion realized.”
But you seem to have completely missed the point. You even say it yourself. You say what needs to be done is to “throw your weight behind campaigns to get WOMEN” what they want. Your focus remains solely on the workforce, failing to even acknowledge that inequity exists in the family, because there, women already have the power, so your feminism never seems to look there, except to occasionally cry victim to alleged abusers or unfair distribution of housework (not including yardwork and repairs), but certainly never to examine privilege or address inequalities. If you are unable to acknowledge men have their own issues that aren’t just the side effects of women’s issues, you have nothing to offer men. Now I realize not all feminists feel that way, but more than enough do, particularly those in positions of political influence, to invalidate the movement for many men. You see, for men, feminism isn’t applying pressure in the right places. Many feminist organizations are actually putting pressure on places men want the pressure released (such as opposing equal parenting or insisting abuse is gendered and women only XYZ is needed, but male XYZ is dangerous). Why would any man want to back that? To give strength to that? Because the more people who support feminism in general, the more those particular feminists can point to them and say “look at all the feminists out there, we feminists want _____”.
As to equaling out the numbers in the workforce, where male disposability is seen fairly easily (the other is in family court, where the man is disposed of from the family, and his income gets funneled to the mother, regardless of whether what remains for the man is sufficient to survive on), how do you propose to ensure more women take up those dangerous jobs? How do you propose to get more women into the mines, or onto oil derricks and fishing boats? Take a title IX approach of denying the jobs to men, even if the women don’t show any interest in filling the spots? Can’t do that. Those resources are needed, and those men need those jobs. And so long as the government keeps pampering women by enabling their choices through the denial of male reproductive rights and the security of the welfare state, women will never feel that need.
As to your definition of privilege, you are incorrect, there is no issue of supression involved. It is a right, immunity or benefit held by one group beyond the advantages of most. The problem with male privilege as feminist theory proposes it is that none of these benefits can be pinpointed or be shown to still actually exist. It creates an assumption that things are easier for a man simply because he is a man, and clasifies this as the privilege men benefit from, but this assumption suffers from a critical case of grass is greener syndrom. Furthermore, it fails to take into account responsability required of men and benefits (AKA privileges) held solely by women.
Really 10%…. So 4 more years of life means little? I wish I’d kept the link to the German study that compared monks and nuns life expectancy under the same daily regimen. The average mortality variance female/male was under 6 months.
People who are not social constructionists do not believe they should be monitored and supervised by social constructionists, conversely social constructionists will make every effort to monitor and supervise everyone. The marxist notion of “male gender” and “female gender” is extremely dissimilar to the natural (existential) reality of there being a “male sex” and “female sex.” In order to escape from the supervision of those who want to control us, we must com,e to the realization that even the use the term “gender” in our own speech and writing when we mean to refer to the sexes is undermining us. Freedom is costly. The orthodoxy, regardless of its nature in any given region or historical period, will not facilitate freedom. Here and now, political correctness (social control) is the orthodoxy, employed by government and financial powers (“corporations” and the finance above them) in perfect harmony.
Stoicism is hardly useless. It’s pretty handy when you’re in any earthly hellish place (see POW camp). It’s also nice when you have to work triple shifts for days at a time and pretend you’re as fresh as the first hour you started. If you’re an adult you better know how to handle pain and suffering for long periods of time. The world isn’t going to wait on you to “feel” better.