Framing the debate as a “Battle of the Sexes” is a mistake.
Some feminist writing seems to exude a stunning hatred of men. Germaine Greer (for example) calls for women to be granted freedom:
Freedom from the duty of sexual stimulation of jaded male appetite, for which no breast ever bulges hard enough and no leg is ever long enough […] Freedom from rape, whether it is by being undressed verbally by the men on the building site, spied on as we go about our daily business, stopped, propositioned or followed on the street, greasily teased by our male workmates, pawed by the boss, used sadistically or against our will by the men we love, or violently terrorized and beaten by a stranger, or a gang of strangers. 
Greer’s desire to fight rape is unassailable in itself. But framing this as a battle against all men in such savage terms—while completely ignoring the existence of supportive men, and the fact that some men suffer sexual assault too—is an unhelpful approach to say the least.
Men can express equal venom. Ken Wilber’s fictional dad in the novel Boomeritis launches into a vicious outburst about men’s subordination to women, focusing on reproductive freedom, the draft and marriage rights. His fury and violent anguish shock and silence his wife and son:
This is what I remember at the beginning, when the war broke out, and they started the draft, started calling up us guys. Started calling the men, just the men, to go and fight in the trenches of Vietnam. I would wake up at night, sweating, scared out of my wits, truly frightened to death. And, as I walked around the campus, and I looked at the women, all I could think is how much I hated them, really and deeply hated all of them, because they didn’t have to fight […]
I hated them more and more, as they sat around in their so-called consciousness-raising groups and bitched and moaned that, oh gosh, they were only making 85 cents to the dollar—didn’t those total ignorant idiots know that I was about to be killed! 
Such levels of vitriol may be unfamiliar to many of us. But even when people are being less emotive, and trying to be objective, they can still slip into using unhelpful idioms such as the battle of the sexes; and reductive, binary thinking about whether men or women have it “better” (or worse).
There is a generational split: a majority of people over age 45 think men still have it better vs. 42% of younger people. On the question of whether men have lost the battle of the sexes, a majority of both men and women disagree (62% of men, 58% of women) 
There is most certainly a place for anger in the face of injustice, backed up by appropriate action which may include fighting. But do we really need the toxic levels of blame and resentment shown in the first two quotes? Or the simplistic men versus women; who’s winning? mentality underpinning the Time article?
We certainly have critical issues and legitimate grievances on both “sides”. But we don’t necessarily have to approach these by turning on each other and fighting or competing.
Ueshiba Sensei, the founder of the Japanese martial art Aikido, argued that contrary to popular belief, true budo (martial arts) is not about aggressively destroying other people in order to “win”. He wrote,
In Aikido there are no enemies. It is a mistake to consider anyone to be an opponent or enemy, to want to be stronger than anyone else, or to try to defeat anyone else. 
A real warrior puts an end to all conflict […] That is the mission of a warrior.
Furthermore, as my own sensei says, You cannot make the weak strong by making the strong weak.
Applying these principles starts to bring a more complex and nuanced slant to questions of gender equality. Our work as men and women to heal and improve society starts to look less like a battle, and perhaps more like the harmonious model of conflict resolution that Ueshiba advocated:
The human race must come together in peace […] True valor is to promote world peace, to create heaven on earth.
Because gender relations aren’t a zero sum battle, where one side must “beat” the other; and one group “wins” while the other “loses”. It’s far more complex than that.
The sociologist R.W. Connell explains this complexity beautifully.  She acknowledges that: The world gender order mostly privileges men over women.
However, she also notes:
certain areas of life, in the rich countries, where statistical comparisons show a disadvantage to men and boys. These are, most notably, the outcomes of secondary education, death rates, many forms of injury, some diseases, some forms of violence and imprisonment.
Connell says that should we really want to, we could draw up a collective balance sheet for men showing both the gains and the losses, or benefits and costs, from contemporary gender arrangements.
She even gives an example of such a balance sheet, showing for example that while men have approximately twice the average income of women, they also predominate in dangerous and highly toxic occupations.
But this is where ambiguity starts to creep in. Connell explains that this is not like a corporate balance sheet, where you can calculate and compare some kind of final bottom line for men versus women. Indeed, she warns of the danger of men and women slipping into a rhetoric of ‘competing victims’, which leads nowhere.
To make things even more complex, Connell points out that discussing “male privilege” becomes confusing, when we consider how men also have a stake in the interests of women they care for, such as family members.
Added to that, the men getting the most benefits and the men paying the highest price are not necessarily the same people. In other words, the men earning those high salaries and the men working in the dangerous, toxic jobs are probably worlds apart.
As Connell says, Class, race and generational differences […] cross-cut the category ‘men’, spreading the gains and costs of gender relations very unevenly among men.
The same is of course true of the diverse category “women”.
So “women” and “men” fighting each other as two homogeneous groups starts to make no sense. And as the lines of battle start to break down, the situation becomes potentially confusing and harmful.
Kate Adie describes an early eighteenth-century battle, where the French army wore its standard white uniform. They fought the Austrians who wore pearl-grey uniforms – but who had the habit of whitening their coats with pipe-clay. This led to absolute chaos, as both sides were unable to distinguish the enemy from the people fighting on their own side. 
We should fight injustice, but we don’t have to fight each other by default. Men and women can be friends, colleagues, lovers and many other things to each other—and strive to battle side by side against the things we want to change, rather than against each other.
 Germaine Greer. (2006). Foreword to the Paladin 21st Anniversary Edition of The Female Eunuch. Harper Perennial. Page 10.
 Ken Wilber. (2002). Boomeritis: A Novel That Will Set You Free. Shambala Publications. Page 227
 Morihei Ueshiba. (2012). Translated by John Stevens. The Secret Teachings of Aikido. Kodansha. Pages 90; 34.
 R.W. Connell. (2009.) Masculinities. Polity. Pages 244-9
 Kate Adie. (2004). Corsets to Camouflage; Women and War. Coronet Books. Page19.
The role of men is changing in the 21st century. Want to keep up? Get the best stories from The Good Men Project delivered straight to your inbox, here.
Photo credit: Getty Images