“It’s worth noting, that a man could never get away with writing about a comparable list of disgraced women.”
—
This is not a review of the new book Men: Notes from an Ongoing Investigation by Laura Kipnis. Let’s get that out of the way first. This is a review of a book’s promo blurb. I simply could get no further than the promotional copy. (And yes, Ms. Kipnis, you are welcome for my help in promoting your book. It’s not lost on me that I’m doing so.)
To quote the book’s promotional copy:
It’s no secret that men often behave in intemperate ways, but in recent years we’ve witnessed so many spectacular public displays of male excess—disgraced politicians, erotically desperate professors, fallen sports icons—that we’re left to wonder whether something has come unwired in the collective male psyche.
So, I suppose I’m free to say:
The unrelenting schizophrenia of the modern women, who is torn between a firebrand’s demand for independent equality and a pop culture fascination with nostalgic expressions of being provided for, condemns men to a lifetime of chasing the endless relational moving target that is the restless, unhappy modern wife.
If I generalized about women in this way, I would be strung up in the internet town square by a wide range of outraged individuals. And justifiably so. Why? Because all women aren’t the same. Accordingly, generalizing about women is ignorant and abusive. (Just thought I’d share that.)
Welcome to the intersection of man bashing and pop culture. Where Ms. Kipnis can get huge coverage for saying things like this:
Kipnis points to the “New Man” described by Martin Amis – the post-1970s guy with wounds, rights and “whimpers of neglect.” According to Kipnis, “The updated versions of male panic are no less irksome than the old” – that being the hypermasculine angst of Hemingway.
(The reviewer’s quotes, not mine.)
Kipnis is compulsive in her need to generalize about men. Would it kill her to insert the word “some”? As in, “some men are blah, blah, blah. Yet, because she is going after men, she gets a pass on generalizing, which is a highly oppressive form of discourse. She cloaks her generalizations about men and masculinity in an affection for “bad boys” while eviscerating men in general, by holding the failed men in her book up as representative of wider male tendencies.
Although this calculated whipping of the gender wars will drive sales, Kipnis is adding to the problems we are all trying to address.
|
Although this calculated whipping of the gender wars will drive sales, Kipnis is adding to the problems we are all trying to address. Driving more wedges between people isn’t helpful. Its irresponsible. And it fuels the anti-progressive backlash that is making change more difficult.
In a thoughtful review of Kipnis’ book, reviewer Andrea Palpant Dilley points out:
It’s worth noting, by the way, that a man could never get away with writing about a comparable list of disgraced women.
A man who takes issue with Kipnis’s hipster screed on “the collective male psyche” would likely be accused of not having a sense of humor. But turn it around, have a man make generalizations about women to this degree, and see how far do you think he would get telling women “you have no sense of humor.” I’ve seen it done. It doesn’t go over well. Not at all. And certainly don’t look for a book deal and international promotional tour.
So what are we to take away from all this? Women’s complaints are serious and valid. Men’s complaints are “whimpers of neglect.” Is that really where we want to end up? Is the really our path forward to change?
If you want to know where male reactivity lies, some of it lies here in what appears to be a widely accepted double standard.
|
It should be noted that Dilley’s review goes on to explain why Kipnis’s book has both depth and value. But Kipnis is promoting the book via gaudy and unrepentant generalizations about men. Her promotion relies on the seductive thrills of man bashing.
We already know that generalizing about men is culturally acceptable, even encouraged. Hollywood and TV commercials bank on the stereotypical dumb dad or housework averse husband. The open acceptance of these memes suggests that in many ideological circles, its not demeaning generalizations within our public discourse that are actually at issue. It is the context in which they take place. Generalizations, blanket critiques, negative statements gainst men? Funny. Hip. Worthy of a book deal. Generalizations against gays, children, women? Not okay.
Its a double standard, plain and simple.
—
Mark Greene’s new book REMAKING MANHOOD–Available now on Kindle Reader for Windows, Macs, Android, iPhones and iPads
Remaking Manhood is a collection of Mark Greene’s most powerful articles on American culture, relationships, family and parenting. It is a timely and balanced look at the issues at the heart of the modern masculinity movement. Mark’s articles on masculinity and manhood have received over 100,000 FB shares and 10 million page views. Get the free Kindle Reader app for any device here.
Read more by Mark Greene:
The Culture of Shame: Men, Love, and Emotional Self-Amputation
The Man Box: Why Men Police and Punish Others
The Man Box: The Link Between Emotional Suppression and Male Violence
The Lack of Gentle Platonic Touch in Men’s Lives is a Killer
Touch Isolation: How Homophobia Has Robbed All Men of Touch
Boys and Self-Loathing: The Conversations That Never Took Place
I agree completely Mark. There IS a double standard and there absolutely should not be. It’s very hard for me to imagine how boys and men are supposed to figure all of this out, how to walk the very confusing line between everything we’ve known to be admirable traits for men (being kind, charming, funny, breadwinners etc) and being models of some lesson they are supposed to have learned from a few uneducated brethren acting stupidly or inappropriately. What we ask of boys and men is so utterly confusing that its no wonder so many of them just tune out… Read more »
A lot of stuff sounds like men bashing because society is in a state of perpetual flux. And since many societies, and ours in particular, started off with white heterosexual Christian men deemed as superior, provided more liberties and opportunities and respect, the last few hundred years have been a constant struggle to replace that absurd way of thinking. In the process, the dominant group has at times been criticized too unfairly. It’s part of change, moving too far too quickly. I want to stress however that “too far too quickly” really just applies to language. We didn’t free the… Read more »
Thank you for saying this. It was perfect.
Erin, I would be careful. Vahagn’s statement has much to recommend it. But it also veers toward granting some advocates for women leniency to apply the same tools against men as are used by generations of those who oppress women.
When change is taking place the last thing you want to do is blunt its forward motion by extracting some “pound of flesh” owed by some men but not by all. If we don’t hold ourselves to a higher standard in these dialogues of change, our moral imperatives just sound hollow.
My issue here is very simple. If the author was male and the subjects female, the response would be unrelenting, intense and corrosive. Mansplaining, privilege and other harsh critiques would rain down, all couched in terms of a moral imperative for men to respect women. The fact that men accept a book like Kipnis’s with relative courtesy is a clear indication that men ARE making space for the reaction of women. But it doesn’t explain away the double standard. And it doesn’t forgive the nasty tone that men who seek to comment on women are often subjected to.
Would it kill her to insert the word “some”? As in, “some men are blah, blah, blah.” No, it wouldn’t have killed her but in reality it’s not what she believes and by her stating such would dilute her writings. “Some Men” in reality means a minority of men and thus, her views are irrelevant to main stream society.
Exposing her is far more productive and I appreciate Mark posting this.
Yes there is a lot of man bashing and unfortunately this website is responsible for a lot of it.
Thanks for your support of my article, James. Oh, wait. You just came to complain about other articles.
Women get away with it because people let them. Here is a petition urging Taylor Swift to pull Blank Space. I’m not sure it should be directed at her. Maybe her record label, but it’s something.
https://www.change.org/p/taylor-swift-domestic-violence-is-serious-don-t-shake-it-off
Sorry, one point Amy made that I don’t agree with, unless of course it is pure sarcasm, is that no, Mark, you have not just realized the double standard. I know that from your other articles.
So…um…#NotAllMen
You are just now realizing this double standard??? By the way, you are wrong about gay people. They get generalized ALL the time by the dominant heterosexual majority as flamboyant, promiscuous, deviant etc. I don’t know where you get the idea that homophobic bigots do not get away with their homophobia.
Not saying gay people don’t get bashed. Saying its generally frowned on by the internetz.