It's not feminism that hurts men

[Catherina]

It's not feminism that hurts men

Jo T examines a recent article supporting claims that men are "the new second sex" and finds it to be a highly misleading piece that fails to consider the role of patriarchal structures in men's suffering and instead opts to blame feminism

Jo T, 21 May 2012

There's no denying that men are oppressed by certain cultural norms. These tell them that they shouldn't openly express their feelings, that there is only a very limited way to perform masculinity in an 'acceptable' way and that disagreeing with dominant tropes about what is and isn't 'manly' can lead to very unpleasant consequences. I read No, Seriously, What About Teh Menz and agree with a great deal of what is said there, about men, 'manliness' and the problems unique to men in a patriarchy. I also find Tony Porter's TEDWomen speech (I put the youtube below) on the pernicious and damaging "man box" to be moving, and accurate, and highly pertinent.
.
.

Tony Porter: A call to men

However, as the section of the men's rights movement which hates women gains ground in online spaces, the recent Observer article by Elizabeth Day on the subject not only seems disingenuous but also potentially dangerous. Indeed, it all but concedes the vast majority of the anti-feminist talking points pushed by men's rights activists (MRAs). Before I begin, I should point out that Melissa at Shakesville has done a superb job of explaining many of the article's problematic aspects, not least that "it ain't women who are the primary gatekeepers of that bullshit [i.e. patriarchy]. It's other men."

Society teaches boys that to be masculine is to be self-contained, to be in control of one's emotions

The headline and standfirst of the article are bad enough: if women and girls were merely "lagging at school" and "the butt of cruel jokes", rather than victims of systemic violence and inequality, we'd count ourselves damn lucky. The piece then begins by setting out the usual tedious MRA talking points about the "supar sekrit!" oppression of men, using arguments promulgated by Professor David Benatar and men's rights author Warren Farrell. This is followed by a paragraph giving half a dozen examples of the oppression men supposedly face. In my opinion, these mislead the readers by omitting various highly relevant pieces of information and context. To highlight a few:

"...men are more likely to be conscripted into military service..."

... (rebuttal)

"...men are more likely to lose custody of their children in the event of a divorce..."

... (rebuttal)

"...Boys lag a year behind girls at reading in every industrialised country."

... (rebuttal)

"Men work longer hours, too..."

... (rebuttal)

"...men develop heart disease 10 years earlier than women, on average.."

... (rebuttal)

"...young men are three times more likely to commit suicide."

... (rebuttal)

Benatar says this state of affairs for men is "a neglected form of sexism." But who is perpetrating this "sexism"? Who punishes men for transgressing the boundaries of the "man box"? In many cases, it is other men.

...

In the end, Day's article is fatally flawed because it does not put forward a remotely believable explanation for the difficulties faced by some men under patriarchy. The only people who mention the p-word in the article are Walter and Bindel. "Facts" about the "second sexism" are brought up with no explanation, no context and no discussion. Sadly, the article will doubtless be used by MRAs as "proof" that their thin arguments are actually valid, when all the problems facing men which the article lists are offshoots of patriarchy - unintended consequences of a system which causes disproportionate harm to women and girls. Talk about missing the point.

http://www.thefword.org.uk/features/2012/05/its_not_feminism_that_hurts_men

"I come to also look at this as this fear that we have as men, this fear that just has us paralyzed, holding us hostage to this man box. I can remember speaking to a 12-year-old boy, a football player, and I asked him, I said, "How would you feel if, in front of all the players, your coach told you you were playing like a girl?" Now I expected him to say something like, I'd be sad; I'd be mad; I'd be angry, or something like that. No, the boy said to me -- the boy said to me, "It would destroy me." And I said to myself, "God, if it would destroy him to be called a girl, what are we then teaching him about girls?""

...

I remember asking a nine-year-old boy, I asked a nine-year-old boy, "What would life be like for you, if you didn't have to adhere to this man box?" He said to me, "I would be free."

Thank you folks.- Tony Porter