Created By: Paul Whyte on 09/21/99 at 12:56 PM
Category:Men
Do men need to be liberated?
In recent decades, women have organised to end their unjust exclusion from many activities, and resisted more strongly abuse and violence against women. Men are becoming more aware that the "dominant" position is not healthy or rewarding either.
There are whole areas of life where social values exclude or limit what is regarded as normal behaviour for men. Adequate physical rest and realistic limits on physical risk, free expression of one's feelings, and parenting are examples.
How do the positions of men and women compare?
Who can measure unhappiness or stress? But in general our society has certainly closed off more options to women than to men. In general, men have more of the material things of life than women. However, there are many non-material "negatives" which men experience as much or more than women.
But there are some areas where men do experience worse than women - usually of a more extreme kind. For example suicide rates among all males are 350% higher for men than for women (Australia, 1993). Among 15-24 year olds, suicide rates of young men are 500% higher than for young women. Many more men are seriously injured or killed at work (although overall women are worse paid). Men overall live shorter.
The important thing is: why do we need to ask this question? Happiness and fulfillment are not commodities with a fixed supply, over which men and women need to compete. We can organize society so that more and more people of both sexes lead a good life.
Are men oppressed by women?
No. Women suffer "oppression" as a systematic kind of mistreatment, reproduced by social values, expressed in (now limited) legal discrimination, and experienced in the extreme forms as direct physical repression and fear of that. Women have poorer access to power and resources, and a general message in society is that it's "best to be male". Women as a group don't organize society to mistreat men. Neither do men intentionally organize society with the purpose of oppressing women - it's more "in the fabric" of our society, acted out without thinking.
Some men feel (or actually are) criticized or ridiculed by individual women; some men and significant numbers of boys are actually abused by women (physically, emotionally). This individual mistreatment isn't the same as oppression.
What is true, is that the way society is organised has an oppressive effect on men, individually and collectively.
Don't the problems between men and women come from natural differences between the sexes - in communication style, interests, priorities, biological urges ?
Thousands of years ago, differences to do with strength, child bearing and breast-feeding and species procreation may have had strong influences over our whole personalities and behavior. In my opinion, apart from the physical differences which affect child raising, these biological differences are of now of limited importance, especially in societies with enough resources that sheer strength is of declining importance to physical survival.
There are very definite behaviors which are stereotypes of "masculinity" and "femininity". You can make your own list, but obvious negative stereotypes ones for men include: aggressive, heartless, sex-driven, emotionally uncommunicative, unresponsive to others' feelings. Stereotypes which are superficially positive include: strong, willing to put up with pain, rational, responsible, hard-working. (You may notice that parts of this two lists actually contradict each other).
The positive stereotype behaviours or attitudes (expressed in moderate ways) are useful some of the time, but not as a rigid habit. Even the positives, can turn to being negative and harmful.
Our conditioning as men pushes us alternately to one or other of the extremes of these behaviors and attitudes. We find it hard not to work, uncomfortable to "feel our feelings" or be vulnerable, natural to always have to provide for others even when this involves over-work or risk, humiliating not to be strong and competitive. There are differences, arising from our earlier experiences, which push us either to the "aggressive" or "passive" ends of the stereotype.
Briefly, most boys at a few points in their early lives get pushed into the choice - which is really not a "choice" at all - of either fighting to be dominant, or "accepting" a self-image which avoids dominance - the "mummy's boy" choice. This "choice" stays with us as adults in obvious or hidden ways, until we can liberate ourselves.
Ironically, a great deal of the problems between individual men and women also come from these conditioned sets of behaviors. Women feel unsatisfied with men for overdoing the negative stereotypes, or not doing enough of the positive stereotypes. In an effort to do it right, men turn back to the behaviours of a "real man". This usually makes women more dissatisfied.
What sort of conditioning affects men?
Being cut off early from the physical affection of parents and friends, being beaten up or feeling threatened with it from an early age at school, being told not to cry, being made to do physically hard things and not show that it was hard, being told that in situations of danger "it's women and children first, being told that you're not a real man if you haven't got a job, being made as a young teenager to feel left out if you didn't pretend to be very interested in sex...the list goes on. You can make your own.
A second very important conditioning which limits the lives of all men is social values against homosexuals. Gays are criticized and hated for certain stereotyped characteristics - such as emotional warmth, sensitivity, being close to other men. (These characteristics have nothing to do with actual sexual behaviour). Those behaviors therefore become risky for all men, for fear of being labeled as gay. The feelings of fear and loathing are backed by a very realistic apprehension of being beaten or killed, as happens frequently to "obviously" gay men.
The hatred for gay men is only partly related their sexual conduct, and a great deal to do with how they step outside the accepted definition of "men". Oppression of gay men is completely unacceptable both because of what it does to them, and to all men.
This position does not mean that all behaviours of gay men are rational or worth emulating.
Use of the term "Sensitive New Age Guys" ("SNAGs") to categorize men is a "polite" form of anti-gay labeling. Describing a man this way usually invites the same stereo-types applied to gay men.
Use of the term has tended to be directed at middle class men. Working class men, who carry an even more extreme label that they are "unfeeling brutes", tend not to get accused of being "snags". Men of every social class need liberation as men. People of each class background are affected by conditioning and acceptable definitions for their class.
A third important form of conditioning is the artificial idea that there are "good men" and "bad men". This simplistic picture encourages us to try to hide the feelings or irrational "thoughts" which would label us as bad. As adult men, the large majority of us spend energy carefully managing our public words and actions to make sure that we won't "look like we are bad". We fear women's and other men's criticism or other punishment if we "accidentally" show our "rough spots". This itself contributes to the apparent emotional coldness which women often find frustrating in us. The abuses of the mental "health" system and criminal punishment ("justice") system, make this fear very realistic.
However, it is not rational to conclude that the best response to this conditioning is to "show our rough spots" indiscriminately. The legacy of mixed-up feelings which most of us carry, need to be solved another way, with people who have agreed to listen. Addictions are socially agreed ways for men to dampen their bad feelings or provide "exceptions" when one can show one's "wild side", but they do not solve the problem.
Should boys and girls be treated the same?
Since every person is unique, no two people should be treated to same. Every option for play, learning, fun, sport etc. should be available to both girls and boys.
Thoughtful parents are often concerned about what they regard as "extreme" expressions of stereotype "masculine" behaviour by boys (such as rough play, games connected with war and violence). In my opinion, there is little to be gained from telling boys not to behave so, or modeling alternatives in a forced way (the "boys should play with dolls" approach). Young people see conflicts and distorted social values around them. They use games to "role play" their possible parts in, and resolve by a subtle emotional process, the things which they see. A constructive way to assist boys to resolve the situation is not to encourage them to move towards the stereotype behaviours of girls.
However, boys' behaviour which harms others should not be allowed to continue without interruption.
Should men try to be more like women?
Current social definitions of normal characteristics for women contain some equally irrational and limiting ideas (like not being physically vigorous, not being good at maths etc). In this sense, men wouldn't want to be more like women (nor would women want to agree to the limitations of such definitions). It does make sense for men to reclaim behavior which has until now been defined as mainly the "territory" of women - caring, making young people a priority, balancing work and social life.
Ideas that women have "inherent" intuitive powers or better ways to communicate, are rarely useful. Men and women are equally human, with equal capacities to communicate. Each man and woman is unique.
Is the "men's movement" a backlash against feminism?
Some men lobbying on men's issues may be motivated by fear of what the women's movement has won and still seeks for women. Some statements about rights or needs for men are correct, but mixed in their expression by painful emotions of men who feel (often correctly) that prevailing social values have left them with very inadequate choices or rights in relation to their children or families.
Some public policy choices seem to require a contest between men and women over limited resources in areas like health or education (and in the very short term, there may be limits). The most useful approach is to seek a broad-scale change in priorities of government and society's priorities for resources. Immense resources are used for the war industry, for harmful addictions such as alcohol, tobacco, drugs etc., and for services which only partly meet rational human needs (advertising, cosmetic surgery, cosmetics ..). Re-allocation of these resources would easily provide what is needed.
My point of view is that liberation for both women and men means more choice and less conditioned demands for everyone. Areas where there seems to be division of interests often hide similarities. For instance, men perpetrate most physical violence in families, and among adults, women are more often the victims. Among young people, boys and girls probably suffer violence equally. Violence between adult men, particularly among younger men, is a hidden problem. We all have an interest in ending violence, both because violence to anyone is unacceptable, and because of how each of the two sexes experiences the effects of living in a violent society.
Is the "men's movement" a luxury for rich societies?
The greatest number of men suffering exploitation, over-work, violence, and addictions are men in the "third world". Coerced military service affects millions of young men in the third world, and inappropriate demands to work on young boys affects tens of millions.
Third world men suffer the effects of an unjust global economic system which makes them poor and their countries insecure. Third world women suffer even more extreme oppression.
In the most extreme and "sudden" incidents of violence and abuse, such as systematic murder based on ethnicity, there has been a recent trend back to deliberate targeting of adult men (at the same time as equally wrongful abuse and mistreatment of women and children).
What can we do about it?
Organize opportunities for men to meet together and tell their stories uninterrupted, with equal time to each, with complete confidentiality.
Re-examine in close detail what is was like to grow up as a boy,and how we learned our ideas of being a man.
Get safe, close to each other, realize that we share many of the same struggles.
Use groups of other men to vent our frustrations and feelings about women and the important women in our lives. This is preferable to venting those feelings to women who have not agreed to listen, or who may not be able to adopt an attitude of relaxed, unworried listening.
Realize that one can choose new behaviours or life priorities, yet retain one's pride in being male and one's acceptance and support by other men.
Advocate that every man is good, despite those of his actions which are not good. Advocate that correct solutions to all harmful things which men do to others or themselves, will never be solved by punishment or criticism.
Change behaviours harmful to ourselves and others, by modeling positive behaviour rather than advising other men how they should act. Do not try to change society by criticizing or judging other men. To have a fulfilling life with closeness, warmth, and challenges, free of addictions or violence, is a stronger model than giving advice or coaching other men in how they should live.
Support radical changes to the driving motivations of our society. In a society where human needs are put ahead of economic profits, many of the situations in which men are most harmed, confused or harmful would be different. Many of the difficulties which men deal with in every society - feelings of lacking self-worth, physical risk and disease, separation from one's family, and addictive or violent behaviours to deal with one's worst feelings - come from the experience of work as it is currently organised.
Roewen Wishart
1999
My point of view about men draws from Re-evaluation Counselling. This theory assumes that everyone is born with tremendous intelligence, zest, and lovingness. These qualities become temporarily blocked in adults as a result of accumulated hurtful experiences from our earliest life (fear, pain, anger, embarrassment). Any person would naturally recover from this hurt by releasing the emotional tension (e.g. laughing, crying, shaking). However well meaning people usually interfere with this natural process. they mistakenly equate the hurt with the release which heals the hurt, so when they stop the laughing or crying, they actually prevent the healing.
Once a hurt occurs, it tends to set up a habit of reacting the same way in the future to similar stresses (ever noticed how irrational it seems to us when other people we are close to, "always react like that" when particular stresses or disagreements come up?). When adequate emotional release happens, a person is freed from the rigid patterns. The person's basic intelligent and loving nature is free to operate.
Everyone can gradually free themselves from the old hurts that limit our lives, energy, relationships and thinking power. People of every age and background can assist each other by taking turns to listen, then be listened to. The listener draws the other out and permits, encourages and assists release of emotional tension. The "talker" chooses the topic. The process of talking helps us to "re-evaluate" what has happened. Although called "counselling", this process does not involve any advice or joint "problem solving". It assumes that attentive listening is all we need.
There are networks of voluntary "re-evaluation counsellors" who assist one another throughout Sydney and the world.
Re-evaluation Counselling
E-mail ircc@rc.org
Web site at www.rc.org