The case in defense of masculism

Cover stories in two national magazines. Articles and book excerpts by the likes of Warren Farrell, Fred Hayward, and Jack Kammer in Playboy. Even an offhand reference to "men's rights" by Whoopi Goldberg when she hosted the last Academy Awards ceremony. Yes, it appears that the men's movement has finally caused at least a "blip" on the screen of the nation's psyche.

Not that it's time to break out the champagne just yet, though. Masculism is far from having gained any real legitimacy; the vast majority of Americans still don't even know what the word means. The men's movement remains very much an outlaw movement and men's rights activists are still treated like outlaws. In the politically correct America of the 1990's, we are the true avant garde.

But it would be hard to deny that at least those segments of society that are well-read and follow social trends are slowly gaining an awareness of men's issues and of the existence of a men's rights movement. And as this awareness grows, we in the movement will increasingly meet resistance, as those with rigid minds and limited vision, indoctrinated into the feminist orthodoxy of the past quarter century, are bound to feel threatened by the influx of radical new ideas. Already a standard anti-masculist argument is evolving.

In brief, the argument against masculism goes something like this:

Those so-called masculists have got to be kidding. Sure, men may have some problems, but to suggest that their suffering is comparable to that of women is just ridiculous. Men's disadvantages, such as they are, are insignificant compared to women's. These guys are just trying to out-whine feminists. Feminists bash men and masculists bash women and nobody wins. It's just more of the annoying "victim mentality" in this country. It's bad enough when some feminists whine, but when men whine, it's really pathetic!

Feminists bash men and masculists bash women and nobody wins.
In fact, the amount of "female bashing" in the masculist movement is like a drop in the proverbial bucket compared to the amount of "male bashing" in the feminist movement. This is not to say that there isn't plenty of criticism of feminists within the masculist movement, but criticizing those of either gender who espouse an anti-male ideology is hardly the equivalent of criticizing women. Nor is it to say that there aren't some masculists who do write unnecessarily cruel things about women; regrettably, there are. (See last month's column.) But they do not represent the mainstream of the movement.

To judge the entire masculist movement based on their writings would be like judging feminism based on some obscure articles in the back pages of Off Our Backs. It would make a lot more sense to judge feminism by the current writings of a well-known, "mainstream" feminist leader like, say, Gloria Steinem (which, not coincidentally, is precisely what I have done in previous columns).

Finding examples of misandry in the writings of Steinem (or Faludi or French or any other "mainstream" feminist) is easy. But one would be hard pressed to find even a hint of misogyny in the writings of masculism's mainstream writers -- Warren Farrell, Aaron Kipnis, David Thomas, Fred Hayward, Jack Kammer, Francis Baumli, Herb Goldberg, etc. -- all of whom are supportive of women and seek the ultimate goal of gender reconciliation. (More on that later.)

I'm not brushing aside the fact that masculism has its share of fanatics and zealots. But so does every political movement. To expect otherwise is to hold the movement to an impossibly high standard. And again, these individuals are hardly representative of the mainstream.

Men's disadvantages ... are insignificant compared to women's.
My immediate impulse upon hearing this argument is to quote chapter and verse from Warren Farrell's The Myth of Male Power. Is dying seven years younger than women insignificant? Is dying of prostate cancer while the lion's share of medical funding goes to breast cancer research insignificant? Is committing suicide at four times the rate of women insignificant?

Of course, those feminists who minimize men's problems don't want to hear about it. After all, they've gotten used to having the stage of public attention all to themselves for the past twenty-five years and they certainly aren't inclined to admit that perhaps they don't have the monopoly on suffering. The argument of these critics seems to be "My pain is bigger than yours." Never mind penis envy; these women suffer from victim envy.

So who really has it worse, men or women? Frankly, who the hell cares? Getting involved in this kind of debate is pointless and, to be perfectly blunt, just plain immature. There's plenty of pain and suffering to go around for everyone. I empathize with every woman who's ever been raped, and with every man who has ever been sent off to die in a war just because he happened to have a Y-chromosome.

I have empathy for every young girl who's been raised with the message that, as a female, she is supposed to be weak, passive, illogical, and dependent (though this attitude is increasingly rare these days). But I also have empathy for every young boy who was raised with the message that, as a male, he must always be strong, never cry or show his feelings, and he must never reach out to others for emotional support, his self-worth is based solely on what he accomplishes, and he is not lovable unless he achieves. Which set of messages is more crippling to the spirit of a young child? Again, who cares? Isn't it enough to acknowledge that they're both pretty awful?

I do not deny that, traditionally, women have suffered in our society. But so have men, in different ways. Over the past quarter century, our society has become sensitive (even hypersensitive) to women's suffering, while remaining utterly blind to the ways men suffer. That's why men speaking out about their disadvantages is the necessary next step in the evolution of gender.

These guys are just trying to out-whine feminists. It's just more of the annoying "victim mentality" in this country.
The way this argument works is simple: (1) acknowledge that feminism has turned into a nonstop, hate-mongering bitch-a-thon, and (2) try to paint masculism with the same brush, as if it is nothing more than the flip side of feminism. Logically, this argument is quite similar to the first argument above, and equally fallacious.

It's also the most pervasive argument about masculism. Even proto-masculist Asa Baber has voiced complaints about what he calls "victim masculism" -- although when Baber himself rails against the family court system for not granting child custody to fathers, presumably he doesn't see that as "victim masculism."

What's the difference between voicing a legitimate complaint and "whining"? It's a matter of perspective: "When I complain, I'm speaking up for my rights; when you complain, you're whining!" We are frequently unable to perceive bigotry or discrimination unless it's aimed at our own race, sex or class -- one of the reasons why so many women simply shrug off male-bashing.

Is it possible to objectively determine the difference between a legitimate concern and a "whine," based on some combination of the prevalence and seriousness of the offense in question? Perhaps. For example, I think that masculists who point out that men comprise 94 percent of deaths on the job are voicing a legitimate concern, whereas feminists who complain that there should be a greater number of potties in the women's room than in the men's room are whining. But hey, that's just me. So it appears that not just whining, but objectivity itself, may be in the eye of the beholder.

Be that as it may, the idea that masculists are trying to play the same "victim game" as feminists simply won't hold. As Warren Farrell told me in an interview last summer, one of the points he made in The Myth of Male Power is that neither sex was the "victim" of the other. "By understanding how both sexes are hurting and what both sexes have had to do to survive for thousands of years, we're understanding the burden that both sexes carry in moving us through to this point in human history," says Farrell. "And that was not one sex being the victim of the other, that was both sexes doing what they had to do to survive."

This points to the biggest difference between feminism and masculism and the reason why it isn't reasonable to paint them with the same brush: unlike feminism, masculsim is not about blaming the other gender. Find the passage in The Myth of Male Power where Warren Farrell writes "and this is all women's fault." Or a page in the collected works of Herb Goldberg where he writes "and women are to blame." In fact, find a single mainstream masculist thinker who holds this point of view. Unlike mainstream feminists who blame men and therefore are moving toward greater and greater gender divisiveness, mainstream masculists do not blame women but see the "big picture" -- the ways that both men and women suffer and how we have both been harmed by our restrictive gender roles -- and therefore are moving toward gender reconciliation. Gender reconciliation is the ultimate goal of masculism's mainstream leaders. This is the greatest philosophical difference between the two movements.

Of course, aside from the most radical of gender feminists, virtually everyone claims she's in favor of gender reconciliation. It's one of those lofty goals, like world peace, that is difficult to take a stand against. But the proof, as they say, is in the pudding. At this point, supporting gender reconciliation means supporting men's rights. There is no way for our society to get from its current state of gender warfare to an epoch of true gender peace without first passing through a necessary period of masculism.

There are some who seem to think we can avoid this masculist phase altogether, that we can somehow make the transition from the status quo to gender reconciliation directly. But how? How are we to change from a society in which all gender issues are perceived as being solely women's issues and where the culture has been sensitized to only women's concerns, to a society in which all gender issues are perceived as both women's and men's issues, where women and men have both been sensitized to each other's needs and suffering, and the issues that affect both sexes are finally on the table?

The only way to achieve this societal transformation is to allow men to find their voices, raise their collective consciousness and become aware of the ways they are now suffering, to allow men to speak without attempting to squash them down. This isn't a matter of "tit-for-tat/you've bashed us, now it's our turn to bash you." This isn't a matter of what may or may not be fair -- it's simply necessary in order for this cultural transition to occur. Responsible feminism must be balanced by mature masculism; only through such a dialectic will the synthesis of true gender peace be possible.

It's bad enough when some feminists whine, but when men whine, it's really pathetic!
Finally we come to the visceral response that underlies most of the intellectual arguments against masculism. To support women's complaints about legitimate cases of discrimination and not to support men when they do the same is blatant hypocrisy. Yet most people still hold the politically correct view that feminism is an expression of women's power and masculism is just men whining. As Kathryn Robinson, writer for Seattle Weekly, puts it, "What is it if not gender-role discrimination when a man can't air a complaint without being labeled a whiner?" (Of course, Robinson only makes this argument after she has essentially done the same thing herself.)

Why do masculism's critics resort to the word "whiner" so frequently? There are plenty of other inaccurate epithets they could hurl at us -- "sexist," "misogynist," etc. Yet "whiner" is the most prevalent. Why?

Whiner is a variation of the word "wimp." We all know what a wimp is, of course -- a man who doesn't abide by the rules of traditional masculinity. He's not a "good little soldier." He does not suffer stoically when he's in pain. He does not "bite the bullet" and "take it like a man." (Of course, a man who does is likely to be accused of "machismo." We men are damned no matter what.)

In contrast, our society teaches women that if they complain about something, everybody will come running to help them. They are not told to be strong and "tough it out"; they are not shamed for expressing such emotions as pain or fear. Accusing a woman of being a "whiner" simply doesn't carry the same emotional weight as does hurling the insult at a man.

Whiners and Sluts
But traditionally, women were shamed for other behaviors. Many, for example, were taught that they are not supposed to like sex and be sexually active. For this reason, the word "slut" carries tremendous emotional weight for many women, just as the word "whiner" does for men. The word "whiner" is the male equivalent of the word "slut"; both are used to shame an individual for violating the basic precepts of his or her traditional gender role.

Now, I know some women who are quite comfortable with their sexuality. If someone accuses one of them of being a slut, she is likely to say, "Yes, I am a slut. I'm sexually active and I love having sex. What of it?" By owning the label "slut" and refusing to accept the shame, she defuses the criticism and disarms the critic. This may be a useful strategy for men as well. So allow me to be the first to go on public record.

I'm a whiner. I refuse to remain silent about my own or the pain of other men. What of it? As a whiner, I'm in good company. Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. were whiners. And we masculists are whiners. Every single one of us.

We'll be whining when we shut down the Selective Service Administration with its sexist requirement that only men must be willing to sacrifice their lives for their country. We'll be whining when we shut down the hospitals that mutilate the genitals of male infants. And we'll be whining when we shut down the divorce courts that sever the sacred bond between father and child.

Yes, that's right, America. We're whining. Brace yourself.