Quick Hit: New report examines men's roles in gender diversity
A new report from Catalyst, Engaging Men in Gender Initiatives: What Change Agents Need to Know, looks at some of the hurdles keeping men from supporting gender initiatives in the work place and what factors made men more likely to support such initiatives.
Download the report here.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Quick Hit: New report examines men's roles in gender diversity.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/13690
I skimmed this report, and I have a problem with the idea that letting men know what gender disparities cost THEM will lead to them wanting to change things. I know it's probably a useful idea, but I think it just turns it around and places the emphasis on what they can do to improve THEIR lives rather than simply the lives of others. I guess humans are generally about self-interest...but it still irked me a bit.
Dealing with why many men aren't naturally fighting gender disparity has to do something a bit more than telling such men: "It's about being fair to all people, you un-fair asshole." [I know, it's a simple, unassailable argument. But it never works. At least for me it doesn't.]
Showcasing how gender disparity negatively affects all men's lives is more than a probably useful idea. It's the best idea to get them (us) involved in dealing with the problem of inequality, because it emphasizes that they, the hallowed ruling members of patriarchy, are being hurt by the institution they knee-jerkingly protect. Open their eyes to that and the safeguards of patriarchy come crashing down.
Meta-comment: it's fascinating how much dialogue there is right now regarding men's role in feminism.
As much as I agree that it's important to include men in this debate, I see two main problems:
a) a general unwillingness in the feminist discourse to take male experiences seriously and discuss them fairly without using alleged "privilege" as a framing device to disqualify whatever they don't want to hear.
b) The focus on homosociality - the feminist discourse on masculinity is one in which, strangely, women don't seem to play any role. Male approval and standing in male hierarchies is seen as the dominant reason for traditional behaviour without even attempting to look at the reasons behind such behaviour, like female mate choice and the male fear of not being wanted when he's not needed (economically), emotionally and sexually. Female mate choice is explained as a cultural consequence of male economic dominance but almost never seen as a reason for male reluctance to change.
While it is necessary for a number of men to change, the same is true for women, particularly with respect to their tendency to look for higher status males. Men are usually rewarded emotionally and sexually for their public status investment, which is not as true for women, and no one should expect men (or women) to behave individually irrational, and that's often what the feminist discourse is asking them to do.
It's important to explain the advantages of less rigid gender norms, but it's, in my opinion, far more important, to take away the male fear of becoming obsolete. And that is, I would say, mostly a matter of helping them to gain sexual and emotional confidence, to make them see that they can be loved and that they can "get some" even if they don't have a superior social status. But for that to happen, both sexes will have to jump a bit. It's not enough to ask men to do it.
I'm going to have to disagree with you. I believe that as men in a patriarchy we experience systemic privilege. Meaning, due to our status as men we are awarded privileges that women and trans people are not. In this sense, then, our experiences as men come from a space of male privilege. When a woman challenges my privilege, as a pro-feminist man I need to do my best to examine her viewpoint from her stance - as someone who experiences systemic oppression for her status as a woman.
In response to your second point, I would say there is a difference between systemic oppression and interpersonal bias/prejudice. What we - men - need to do is to begin rethinking and reexamining masculinity, and furthermore, role modeling a masculinity that is vulnerable, sensitive, and well, real. What everyone - male, female, intersexed, trans - in a patriarchy sees is men who are hard, powerful (economically or physically) and sexually controlling. Both women and men are socialized to value this masculinity, so it is logical that when the media is telling you "This is the man who is attractive" people tend to find that person more "attractive" or "worthwhile". As pro-feminist men it is our duty to seek to change masculinity and tell both boys and girls, women and men, that the male gender norm is bullshit.
I agree that gender stereotyping happens from all sexes. The difference in a feminist context, though, is that women are (and have been) challenging notions of femininity for years and if you and I want to see changes in manhood we need to start "speaking truth to power," and demonstrating a new definition of manhood that describe the experiences you mentioned in your first point. Women cannot describe the male experience, so we need to do that. More importantly, we need to free ourselves from the constraints of traditional masculinity and begin to represent ourselves as the kind, loving, egalitarian people we are.
Stephen
I don't think you're disagreeing with Johnny, but misunderstanding him. You say "Women cannot describe the male experience", and I read Johnny's main point as "feminist discourse often misrepresents the male experience, which makes reaching out to men difficult". When I'm told my life is like this, I do these things, I think these things; and little of it matches my experience, I'm likely to dismiss what I'm being told (rightly or wrongly).
Certainly in what I've read of feminist discourse (admittedly not that much), I rarely, if ever, really find myself questioning women who retell their experiences. I do, however, regularly question how they model men. I do this because I often identify much more closely with the experiences they claim are "womanly" than "manly", despite being fairly gender-identified, and seemingly fairly typical for a man (based large on anecdotal field observations, i. e. nothing much).
Stephen,
yeah, I think you didn't quite understand me, maybe I was unclear -
"Women cannot describe the male experience, so we need to do that."
Yeah, sure. But there's the big problem that only certain dimensions of "power" are allowed in this discourse and others are axiomatically excluded to protect certain concepts of reality. And again, my point was that male behaviour is not independent of (certainly ASSUMED and usually individually EXPERIENCED) female behaviour as is - in my impression - a common assumption in feminist discourse, the linked study being no exception.
Take this: Under advantages of gender equality the study lists, ie "being free from the pressure to be the sole breadwinner." OK, fair point, one, which, btw, I don't think is that contested by anyone anymore, so this is more about relative investment in public/professional status and the personal/private/family/household element of one's life. As much as men may believe that would be a good thing to do, they will say that but not DO it when they individually believe that that's what gets them female attention, respect, love (by the way of homosocial competitive status gathering). So as long as women are individually choosing men who are outperforming and have a higher social status than the women themselves while men don't really care about female achievements in the mating realm, this is likely not going to change.
Again, we can change all we want, and that may work for a couple of us who are able to find women who value this behaviour, but it's not a strategy that seems viable for all men (individually) as long as female preferences seem to be what they seem to be. This isn't mostly about men, and, I believe, the male privileges that are often quoted, are in fact a consequence of male fears once eloquently expressed by Cato - if we make women equal, they are superior. In my opinion, it would be a far better way to address these fears to gain allies than to demand of men to collectively behave individually irrational. That won't work.
The point about mate selection in shaping masculinity roles is intriguing to me.
I've read data (Apdapting Minds, Bueller) that suggests that when people partner for the long-term they do so with people closest to their level of education, values, income and social standing.
Short-term mates on the other hand I'd agree that the status-beauty trading plays much more importance. There are always outliers, but think about long-term couples that you know in your own life, not about extraordinary people like stars and athletes. Certainly income and status gaps within long-term partners are shrinking compared to the past; this suggests that a great number of women at least willing to choose long-term mates who are their equals.
This calls into doubt in my mind how strongly female preferences shape men's roles in gender diversity. Or perhaps I'm underestimating the role of short-term partners, you tell me?
Thus the push for stay at home dads ideally should be coming from the desire for men to take more of a role in parenting. But I'd say there is as much push from women who want some help so that they can pursue a career. I'd same women and men deter stay-at-home dads equally but for different motives. But you just need a critical mass; not everyone has to be on board.
You mentioned the fear of being obsolete. I don't want to derail but let's suppose women have a similar but different fear. The thing is that some of these fears are rooted in kernels of truth but are exaggerated and distorted because of antiquated value systems. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that men will ever be obsolete (it's absurd really), but I can understand the fear in the context of traditional roles; Do you think that that it's something that will likely be assuaged by women telling you something or by men actively challenging that fear and proving it to themselves, with the support of women?
In the context of traditional roles, a man without a job has zero value, as a mate, as a human, whatever. And if you pick up the domestic work - cooking, cleaning, child-rearing, whatever, I don't think people (generally) judge you to be picking up value; yes, you get overpraised for it, but the same way a three year old trying to help with the housework gets overpraised with respect to the value of their work; nobody thinks you're adding value, they think it's admirable that you want to help, even though you don't add value.
Truth be told, I don't see where you can pick up the difference to be an equal contributor of value to the relationship, and if you can't offer an avenue for that, of course men are going to be concerned about obsolescence. I don't think I've ever had a relationship where I felt like I brought as much to the relationship as the woman I was involved with did; I'm hard pressed to imagine how this could even be possible.
And all of the societal message will seep into our minds to some extent or another. Subconscious decisions will reflect the ingraining of these messages in ways we don't even anticipate. I'm not sure I could feel secure, or even really feel like it's plausible, that a woman would remain interested in me if I didn't have a paying job. In my current relationship, (for instance), I'd make a far better househusband than she would a housewife; I enjoy cooking, her notsomuch, I enjoy purposed shopping, her notsomuch, I'm more partial towards cleaning, probably more prefer yardwork/home repair, probably more partial towards children ... but it still seems like everyone would judge your value to be zero, or at least substantially less than a woman in the same role.
Let's not forget the degree to which the male experience is shaped by the established institutions' desire to maintain the power imbalance. Men's experiences are not only informed by female mate choice and the desire to be needed, but also by the simple, ingrained response that other men have to those who would "aid and abet the enemy," as it were. One significant reason why "macho" guys slander dudes who, you know, listen to women's feelings and actually treat them like people is because they represent a real and present threat to the system of privilege - they can LOOK just like other patriarch a**holes, but they actually think women ought to be our equals! Heavens!
This kind of thing does not fly well with the powers that be, as it were. Indeed, while some women may be allowed a degree of rebelliousness against the established order - after all, women are oppressed because the men who do so WANT something from them, find them (gag) "valuable" in some way - men who threaten the power imbalance are not useful at all. The responses to "sissies" and "wimps" who so transgress reflect this.