‘Men’ in the Dock

This is a post about men. This is a post about women. No wait, this is a post about ‘men’.

This is a post about the relationships between women and men, ‘men’ and ‘women’: in a time of war. Of course, the work of feminism is far from finished, so writing about the role of men and their desire for understanding might seem a bit like the Germans trying to negotiate peace in, say, 1942. I acknowledge that my gender has committed both atrocities and oppression against women (not too-strong words), for many thousands of years. And, more, I acknowledge that I personally have both benefitted from and perpetuated that oppression in my own lifetime. I’ve lived more comfortably because I’m a man: and that makes me a collaborator, a perpetrator.

I am a man. I have been guilty of sexism, unconsciously and repeatedly. Men are in the dock: but what will be our sentence? Death and gender-oblivion? Or rehabilitation? Can ‘men’ (as a cultural construction) be re-made? This week, why talk about ‘men’, or ‘fathers’ at all? Why not discuss ‘people’ and ‘parents’, and work on emphasising our similarities?

Well, for one, because everyone born with XY chromosomes still inherits a privileged position in our culture and society: a cultural institution of ‘maleness’. It’s a familiar situation here on D&S: we find ourselves wondering whether damaging cultural institutions are best dismantled, or re-fitted, to function in new and more egalitarian ways. I believe that if more enlightened men simply abandon ship on conceptions like ‘masculinity’, then they leave the boat to those who would capitalise on its worst effects. No, rather, we should work to redefine the institution, to leave a better world for our children: where the cultural connections from ‘being a man’ will foster understanding about what was wrong with the old way, and a new, absolutely equal conception of gender difference.

How should we go about this? First, get the science. My wife Helen recently read an excellent book that debunked a lot of the cultural myths surrounding how much gender really affects the brain and body. As it turns out, it’s a lot less than even the more liberal-minded of us might think — we construct stories that turn the few differences into supposed ‘abilities’ and disabilities. When we better understand really how slight the gap is between men and women, we won’t overstate or make excuses based on these myths. We’ll see that we’re free to remake ‘male-ness’ and ‘female-ness’, because gender really is as open to self-definition as our humanity.

Second, redefine the family. It’s been big news in recent years that there’s a battle going on between those who consider the ‘traditional’ marriage to be only between one man and one woman, and those who would widen this definition. This shows an interesting cultural shift, however, from a time where the liberal left had simply abandoned marriage as an outdated and hegemonic institution. Now, groups across the spectrum understand the power of marriage, and want to remake it into something egalitarian and reflecting the progressive values of our age.  The self-definition of gays and lesbians do not erase gender differences: however, their rejection of the rigidity of the old gender roles within marriage is inspirational for heterosexual couples, moving to redefine their own marriage institution. (Perhaps the greater number of categories in ‘LGBT’ is a good model for moving away from the binary?) Yes, we should all learn from the ‘gay marriage’ debate: ‘traditional marriage’ is obsolete. The days of the patriarch and home-maker are gone. We need new, flexible roles, which don’t erase or prescribe based on gender.

Third, re-work the workplace. As we’ve worked for greater equality in our family, Helen and I have come up against a significant external barrier to redefinition of our roles: our society significantly favours specialisation in the labour market. A couple who both share in the parenting equally will be unlikely to be able to work 40 hours per week each. Many careers require even more time in the workplace than this — an exhausting prospect, without outside help. Modern families face a choice: either to not have children, to specialise to some extent (one person to have a career, the other to primarily take care of kids), to accept financial and professional disadvantage, or risk exhaustion/share much less time together. Our economic system is based around the principle of specialisation of labour, so I can see that there’s a lot of history that goes into promoting that approach. Can we move beyond this, to a world where we believe that diversity of work can foster a better quality (and sufficient quantity) of output?

These challenges, and doubtless many more, are the responsibility of men and women in our society. To not be aware of the issues raised by feminist theory and activism is to live with your head in the sand: but to be aware, and not act to redefine the culture, is betrayal of half of our species. In order to overcome these challenges, we need not men and women who ‘abandon ship’ on the  recognisable  terms: but men and women who accept and demand a reworking of their respective cultural-historical institutions. The title of the ‘feminist’ movement has suggested a power struggle: a movement of power in the direction of XX chromosomes. For sure, this movement still needs to take place — but so much more. ‘Mature Masculinity’ will be about a remaking on both sides and between: re-made institutions, reconstructed traditions, and renewed relationships.