Michael Kimmel is an author, teacher and activist, and is widely acknowledged as America's most prominent and prolific scholar on masculinity. Kimmel is the author of a staggering number of books, including Men Confront Pornography, The History of Men, The Gendered Society and Manhood in America (noticing a theme?). Most recently, Kimmel's book Guyland examined the lives of young American men. To write it, Kimmel interviewed hundreds of men between the ages of 15 and 25, using their words and his expertise to draw a frightening picture of young American manhood today. Luckily, Kimmel has a one-word solution to the problem: feminism.
Kimmel lives in Brooklyn with his wife, Amy Aronson, with whom he frequently co-writes, and their 10-year-old son Zachary, a budding male feminist. He is a Professor of Sociology at SUNY Stonybrook, where he teaches on gender and masculinity, and has taught and lectured all over the world. He is also a frequent contributor at The Huffington Post. And as if all this wasn't impressive enough, last year he was brought in as a consultant on gender politics during the production of Feministing's favorite TV show, Mad Men.
And now, without further ado, the Feministing Five, with Michael Kimmel.
Chloe Angyal: What led you to become involved in studying gender and feminism, and specifically in studying and writing about masculinity?
Michael Kimmel: I became an activist to engage men in gender equality over thirty years ago, when I was part of the group that founded an organization called Santa Cruz Men Against Rape. And that was my first actual political engagement. But even prior to that, I had had some involvement with people who worked in the anti-violence community, particularly working in shelters, and some of the experiences that I had just touched me so deeply that I felt I had to do something about this.
When I was in graduate school, my partner was working at a shelter. We had a car that didn't have an automatic transmission; it had a stick-shift, and she didn't know how to drive a stick shift. So what that meant was that occasionally, when women had to go to the shelter, or go to the hospital, or get their kids out of the house, I drove them. Growing up on Long Island, I had lived a very comfortable, very - pun not intended - sheltered life. And I really had no clue of what was going on, until I was driving these women, and one woman was there with broken limbs and a fractured jaw, and through her fractured jaw, she said, "Sometimes I deserve it, but this time I didn't." And that really does something to do.
So I announced to my partner one day that I was going to come and work at the shelter, and she said, "Well you can't. The only reason you even know where it is is that I don't drive a stick-shift, and you can't possibly come to work there." And I said, "I really want to do something about this." And she said, "I have an idea: Why don't you go talk to the men who beat the women up?" And looked at her, like, "Are you out of your mind? I don't want to go talk to them. I don't like them. They beat women up; they're bad guys." And she said, "Look, you have a natural constituency of half the human race. Go talk to them." So that was the moment that I committed myself to working with men. I worked with men who were court-mandated batterers for a while, and when I moved to Santa Cruz, I was a part of the founding of this organization, and then a few years later, I was part of the group of men who founded the National Organization of Men Against Sexism.
So I started my work on this as an activist, not as a scholar, and not as a teacher. And then when I got my first teaching job, I was an activist and teaching my nice, normal regular classes at Rutgers, and then one day I gave a talk at a Take Back the Night rally, and one of my students heard me and said, "That was really interesting; have you ever given any thought to teaching a course about masculinity?" And at the time, no such course existed, and I thought, well, maybe I'll do that. So I went to my Dean and my Chair and told them I wanted to do this and they thought it was a great idea, and so, I developed this course. And it struck a nerve on campus, because there were hundreds of students who wanted to take it. And when you want to teach a new course, you have to go find readings for it, but in 1983 for the first course ever in the state of New Jersey on men and masculinity, there were no readings. That first semester, we were reading things out of newspapers and magazines. We read Real Men Don't Eat Quiche as one of the required texts. We read anything we could find. So it was through that that I began to develop a pedagogical interest in teaching about masculinity and finding work that could be appropriate for teaching. And it was through that that I identified the holes and gaps in scholarship that I then proceeded to try to fill.
Since that time, I have maintained a foot in each camp - I'm an academic researcher, and I write books and articles about masculinity, and I'm also trying to build a subfield of Gender Studies called Masculinity Studies, and so I founded the premier journal in the field, and books series and things like that. But at the same time, I maintain my work as an activist. I still work with NOMAS and with other organizations. I worked as the organizer for this conference that's taking place in November, for campus-based gender equality and anti-violence groups, that will have groups coming in from all over the country and will also include representatives from all the major organizations that work with men on campuses like VMen and Men Can Stop Rape and MVP and the White Ribbon Campaign.
CA: Who is your favorite fictional heroine?
MK: I like Dorothea from Middlemarch. I like Emma. I even like Madame Bovary. Anyone who bumps up against the constraints of traditional femininity has always warmed my heart. Those are the first few that come to mind immediately, but so many great novels are about women who are straining against and trying to break through the constraints of traditional femininity, and those are the women I've always been drawn to.
CA: Who are your heroines in real life?
MK: The first one that comes to mind is Charlotte Perkins Gilman, because as a sociologist, I think she really saw some of the problems with the over-psychologized, individual, simply-overcome-the-situation model. She touched on everything that, as a sociologist and an activist, I wrestle with all the time. So she's always been a heroine to me.
Gloria Steinem, for sure, and not only because she's been the figurehead for American feminism for fifty years. But also because of her unbelievable grace in the kind of vilification that she's gotten from the right and from anti-feminists over those fifty years. She's an amazingly gracious and emotionally available person, and she's deeply respectful of women, so I've always admired her.
And my wife, who is another heroine of mine, is writing a biography of Crystal Eastman, who is a real heroine. She understood how the Peace Movement, the Civil Rights Movement, the Women's Movement and the movement for free speech were all intimately connected, as they were in her life, and how you can't really answer one without addressing the others.
CA: What recent news story made you want to scream?
MK: Well, of course, Roman Polanski. The kind of weasely equivocating going on among artists, particularly among people who have traditionally been astute enough to understand the dilemmas for women in speaking about rape and sexual assault. People like Whoopi Goldberg; her behavior was truly shameful. The coverage of the story has been so much about how the artistic community has rallied to his defense, and how you can do anything you want if you're a good film director. And the notion that, because it was a long time ago, he's somehow exempt from prosecution. It's truly amazing that, this is a guy who raped a 13-year-old girl, and the artistic community is saying, "Yeah, but it was a really long time ago," and, "Yeah but, he's a really great director," and, "Yeah, but he's paid his dues." In what way?
CA: What, in your opinion, is the biggest challenge facing feminism today?
MK: I think there are two. One is the simple maintenance problem, and I think here that the news is rather good. When I say "maintain," I mean this: After an onslaught of forty or fifty years of determined efforts to shift women's lives backwards, from court decisions and congressional efforts to rein women in, despite that, women's lives have improved markedly. Women have shattered glass ceilings, even as they continue to bump up against others. Women's lives are truly safer, because we have problematized and made illegal things that we used to take for granted, like marital rape and date rape and sexual assault and sexual harassment, so that these things are now actionable and illegal, rather than simply how people are. I think it's undeniable that women's lives have improved, despite an onslaught of backlash against it, which has really been concerted, well-funded and quite vitriolic. So the problem for feminists today is to simply maintain, and to keep their eyes on the prize, and not be seduced into conversations about false issues with people who really don't care about women's lives at all.
For example, gender symmetry in domestic violence. I think we have to arm ourselves to have those kinds of conversations so that we can engage with people who say things like that, and somehow move the conversation elsewhere. So take the assertion that women hit men as often as men hit women. Rather than quibbling about it - and anyone who really looks at any data knows that's really not true - but let's just say it is true. You make that argument to me and say, "You know what, women hit men just as much as men hit women," and I'd say, "That's exactly right. And that's why we need to double all the funding nationwide for spousal abuse. We really have to double it, and we should campaign together. Especially because, if we have a whole bunch of better-funded programs for people who have been beaten by their spouses, then more of those men who you think are victims, who are so ashamed to come forward because it so damages their masculinity, will come forward because we'll have a place for them."
It is sort of weird and a bit discomforting for me to offer advice to feminists as a group, being a man, but what I would say is that the group that feels that it has nothing to gain from feminism, and that feminism has nothing to do with them, is men. And I think that that's the reason that women are faced with such draconian choices between opting out and balancing work and family, because men haven't stepped up and aren't doing as much housework and childcare as women need them to do in order for women to be able to balance work and family. And my argument here is that the group that has to be embraced by feminism is men - although, I hasten to add that it's not your job. That should be our job. We should be doing that.
The biggest mistake we make is to assume - and men often think this - that gender equality is a zero-sum game. That if women win, then men are going to lose. And I think what we have to do is to show people that feminism is a win-win. I think we can do that at the personal level in terms of the quality of our relationships with our children, our partners and our friends, and also in terms of public policy.
CA: You're going to a desert island, and you get to take one food, one drink and one feminist. What do you pick?
MK: I can answer the last one easiest. I would take Amy, my wife, because we would never run out of things to talk about. She's the smartest person I know, I always learn tons when I talk to her, and plus, I enjoy looking at her, so I'd never get bored with the scenery. And she's warm to cuddle up to at night, so it's a perfect solution to the desert island problem. That's the easy part. And if I get to take Amy, then I think we'll live on pasta and Pellegrino.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The Feministing Five: Michael Kimmel.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16658
I adore Michael Kimmel! Guyland is spectacular.
I read this on FB. Just recently some one on my Facebook friend's list set the following status:
"My house got robbed. Wish I had a cute guy to make me feel/keep safe"
Coming to think of it, it says a lot about the state of gender equality, sexism and feminism in our world. This image of a helpless damsel in distress is all good in fairy tales but in reality it's not helping the cause of gender equality. Even in the present society women still think of men as someone who would protect them from the evils of the world, take care of them when in dire straits, be a provider and a stronger presence the list goes on, such is the prevalent mentality that harbors and nurtures sexism that will never be completely eradicated until women make a concerted effort to be independent and self sufficient. Why does a woman need a man to feel safe? Practically speaking a man is no help if your potential attacker or an intruder is armed and dangerous. However, it's probably not the actual presence of a man that would fend off any potential harmful violent attack but rather the feeling of comfort and years of genetic conditioning that make women feel the need of a stronger man. This is critical especially if one needs to conquer the evils of widespread domestic abuse at the hands of a physically powerful man that we see often in the news. A truly strong, independent women demanding equal rights, salaries, and opportunities will emerge only when this urge to "feel safe in arms of a strongly built football player type prince charming" becomes obsolete until then men being what they are will always exploit, be it in terms of pay, opportunities, promotions and many other aspects of life. The recent Afghan "rape" law is a classic example of this exploitation based on religious and stronger male dominance. Fundamentally it's not so much that that men are physically stronger but that the demand for a man who is stronger gives men the undue advantage that they are so used to exploit. Isn't it time to rethink what the true meaning of gender equality is?
This Feministing Five really speaks to me.
I would love to establish a network of Male Feminists and/or Male Feminist allies, to both give them a voice and establish a system of mentoring. To wit, many men who wish to be allies navigate largely uncharted territory and speak out of ignorance, which often receives a sharp retort from someone who misinterprets their lack of understanding the whole picture with a deliberately destructive, anti-feminist critique. There is a lot of background research and soul searching that goes along with being an effective ally, but I think there would be more of them if they didn't feel so alone in the endeavor.
With an established and effective mentoring system, those male allies/male feminists could take newbies under their wing, patiently explain why certain statements were taken as offensive without resorting to blame, recommend resources like books, media, and other instructive tools and in so doing, establish a self-perpetuating system. Perhaps there are already sites like that (and if there are, I'd love to have someone guide me towards them) but I think what would benefit every feminist or every ally would be more networking, more respectful dialogue between related groups, and a greater sense of common purpose.
The British comic Josie Long talks in one of her stand up routines about how when Aldous Huxley was interviewed late in life he remarked (and I'm paraphrasing) that it's a bit humbling to spend one's life looking for a complicated way to resolve the problems of humanity and then realizing at the very end that many of them could be solved if we were all a bit kinder to each other.
That would be fantastic, Comrade Kevin. You should start a group like that, if you have the time. I can't imagine anyone here would not support it.
Kevin,
we're trying to do just that over at www.mascmag.com
Check it out and let us know if you wanna be a part of it!
I love this man so much. Guyland was my book to read at the gym this summer, and I have never had such a great time at the gym in my life. It was absolutely amazing and I just want to read everything he's ever written now. Love.
guyland IS a totally amazing book that everyone should read. i love that he approaches women's issues as though they are everyone's issues--HUMANITY's issues--because they are, in so many ways. and it's so wonderful to have a man actively involved in talking to young men to figure out what the hell their problem is. (not all of them; just the type interviewed in guyland).
i really loved this interview and would like to hear more contributions from a gender perspective. good work, feministing!
Interesting story on his background.
"The biggest mistake we make is to assume - and men often think this - that gender equality is a zero-sum game. That if women win, then men are going to lose. And I think what we have to do is to show people that feminism is a win-win."
Well, I'd say that very much depends on the feminism in question. That said, whatever I've read of him (which doesn't include guyland yet), was deeply critical of men in a round about way. And that's something I find particularly problematic with this kind of male feminists - they seem to have lost emotional touch with the people they are talking about. They aren't talking about men like they're real people anymore, and, it's like, well, they're not even including themselves in this group anymore. And in their attempt to hold men responsible, they often are more than unfairly critical and fail to hold women responsible. And that leaves me with mixed feelings regarding the credibility of their motivations. I think there's a whole bunch of self-flaggelating male feminist professors out there. I wonder if that comes with the discipline's requirements.
I agree with many of their observations and conclusions including that men need to be more aware of gender dynamics. But their discourse leaves me struggling.
was deeply critical of men in a round about way. And that's something I find particularly problematic with this kind of male feminists - they seem to have lost emotional touch with the people they are talking about. They aren't talking about men like they're real people anymore, and, it's like, well, they're not even including themselves in this group anymore. If you simply replace the gender, the same could be said about feminism and women in a lot of instances. There are a lot of things that feminism criticizes that are supposedly part of "being female" but that I and many other women don't recognize in our own lives. That doesn't make it invalid, especially since we're talking about people in a general way in the first place. So while Kimmel's men may be pretty foreign to most of the men I know personally, that doesn't mean that he doesn't have really good points on men and masculinity in general.
Of course, there's also the problem that you seem to associate being critical as negative.
But if you really don't like what Kimmel and anyone else has to say about masculinity, perhaps you should do your own studies and write your own essays on the topic. Since there are so many different possible perspectives, the more people exploring the issue critically, the better. So far when this subject comes up, I have only seen men complaining about what others have to say but not saying anything new themselves, which leads me to believe that comments like yours (not yours specifically necessarily) are more about silencing critical thought about masculinity than actually representing the multitude of masculinities that men experience.
wax_ghost,
"which leads me to believe that comments like yours (not yours specifically necessarily) are more about silencing critical thought about masculinity than actually representing the multitude of masculinities that men experience."
well, I suppose that's a what I'd expect to be the standard reading of my comment on a feminist blog. Basically, my point is - I think there is a bias problem. Research on masculinity isn't happening in it's own right, it's not happening because we're really interested in the way men experience themselves and their lives. It's happening as an afterthought of feminism, as a complement to the feminist agenda. So there's really no real research of - or debate about - masculinity that isn't critical or challenging any of the theoretical notions established by feminism. And that's a problem. I'd like men to be more gender aware, but doing so within the established framework of feminism is problematic, because it doesn't treat male voices as equal and it doesn't have to (because of their assumed privilege).
Okay, then do it.
Hey folks, I see a lot of guys here challenging Kimmel's approach and questioning the win-win nature of feminism for people of all genders.
Over at masc magazine we've been asking the same questions and trying to have a non-academic dialogue about what it means to be a man today. Check it out at www.mascmag.com
Having perused the book Guyland it was rife with gross exaggerations, confirmation bias, and outright factual inaccuracies.
The book is supposed to be a great insight into the lives of men, yet if you present it to the average guy he supposedly conducted interviews with they would think the author was delusional, if they actually believed he tried to write a piece of non-fiction.
It's the type of book designed only to be sold to the easily scared because no one else would believe him.
Kudos to highlighting Michael Kimmel. I heard him speak at a panel on Feminist Men and afterward read both Manhood in America and Guyland. What a gem he is. I appreciate his fearless approach to closing the gap between men and feminism, and his genuine understanding of masculinity's (and notions thereof) role in gender equality efforts.
Nice post, Chloe! I love this series :)
This is a great interview. I go to Stony Brook and have had the chance to see him speak a few times. I'm also sitting in on his Sociology and Gender class this semester because my girlfriend's in it. It's kind of gender 101 at times, but he is truly one of the best professors at this school, so it's never boring. He's constantly challenging commonly held perceptions of those in the class, and it's great to see him get through to so many.
Same old story it takes a man to keep men in line. One of my jobs involves teaching and I can’t believe in this day and age it still comes down to “wait till your father comes home”. Good for him for reaching out to men. But what’s the big deal; rich white male, holding hands of a few other men? Come on now.
And it’s in every of the seventeen classes I teach every week. And most of my co-teachers are women but a man walks in and look out it’s as if feminism never happened.
That is an excellent point. I suppose it might be because men are not seen as normally doing this sort of thing. It's like the old joke of a man, say, taking out the garbage or washing the dishes of his own volition and turning it into an epic saga when he tells his friends about it or expecting some sort of sexual favor from his spouse in return.
Same thing with feminism. A woman who's a feminist is no big deal--even women who are anti-feminist aren't surprised when a woman they like claims the label. A man who does so is seen as weird and/or praiseworthy, depending on where you're coming from.
I think it might be something as simple and unfortunate as women doing "men's work" being seen as something they should naturally want to strive for, while men woing "women's work" is seen as something that a man must heroically lower himself to...maybe.
I dunno. I'm more of a dilettante. My knowledge is broad, but shallow. Not unlike myself.
The only type of masculinity feminism is interested in is the scariest most demonized depiction possible. You don't sell books which discuss how the majority of guys are pretty decent people.
You sell books with Kimmel's variety of "research". Talking about how men are engaged in the most depraved acts imaginable scares people, and scared people buy books about why they should be scared.
Discussion about real issues men face in the world, which does not immediately attempt to portray all men as monsters is immediately and loudly derided on this site and elsewhere as "what about the menz". Men who go elsewhere to voice these arguments are criticized for not participating in feminism. Men who attempt to strike a balance are criticized for not accepting that women's issues are inherently more important, and that not one issue which primarily affects men, no matter how large, could possibly take precedence over any issue affecting a woman, not even the smallest.
Of course, there's also the problem that you seem to associate being critical as negative.
When someone goes out of their way to find the worst horror stories he could possibly find, and then attempts to claim that this is normal for guys, indeed an epidemic of monumental proportions. When he pretends to claim that all men are forced to choose between their idea of masculinity and their humanity he has gone way past criticism.
I never chose between the two, they were never exclusive. The ethos that was presented as 'masculinity' had a lot of positive messages, to protect those around me, to be willing to be self sacrificing in order to help other people have a better life, to be a modern polymath, to be loyal to my friends, but according to Kimmel because I agreed with a lot of that ethos I'm supposed to be less of a human? His work justifiably enrages most men who read it for this very reason and for many others.
I've only read one Kimmel article so I can't necessarily speak to his portrayals of men but the portrayals in the article I read were certainly accurate.
Even if you accept that men must choose between their masculinity and their humanity, Kimmel isn't the one who is making that the required decision. Kimmel is criticizing the social construction of masculinity, not YOUR masculinity. Why does that make him offensive? That's like me saying that it's Betty Friedan's fault that housewives in the '50s and '60s were miserable just because she pointed it out.
I would think that men would be a lot more enthusiastic in exploring masculinity, since being represented constantly in society and media as a brainless, sex-crazed idiot who can't fall out of line even just a little bit seems like an awful life to live. But I guess if that works for you, you have every right to get mad when someone like Kimmel criticizes it.
Even if you accept that men must choose between their masculinity and their humanity, Kimmel isn't the one who is making that the required decision. Kimmel is criticizing the social construction of masculinity, not YOUR masculinity. Why does that make him offensive?
He's not the one forcing it, he's the one who is claiming it is true. I find the very premise of his hypothesis offense.
I grew up in that social construction of masculinity by any standard, I am a guy, who went to a public school, all of my best friends were guys, I was in no way isolated nor seperated from society's expectations of me.
Now if his hypothesis is that I had to choose between my humanity and masculinity and if I display traits which correspond with masculinity therefore I must have sacrificed my humanity. In his perspective therefore I am less than human.
I would think that men would be a lot more enthusiastic in exploring masculinity
Exploring it? Kimmel doesn't explore it, he stands back takes the worst possible interpretation and concludes all men are broken, evil, or some combination thereof. I am decidedly not interested in that. Why would I want to participate only to portray myself, my friends, and half the people I've ever known as evil, since that is the only narrative that feminism allows.
Now if his hypothesis is that I had to choose between my humanity and masculinity and if I display traits which correspond with masculinity therefore I must have sacrificed my humanity.
Ah, but see, here is where your logic falls apart. The two sections of your sentence do not necessarily go together. Your understanding of "humanity" is what is at fault, since you are using the meaning with the root word of "humane" rather than the root word "human". If you look at it as the latter, it's not offensive at all; in that case, he would be saying that you are forced to be a man above being a human being (something that feminism has railed against for women (being a woman first and a human being a distant second) for a long time).
Again, I haven't read much of his work at all so I can't say that that is exactly how he means it, but you might want to consider that possibility.
Why would I want to participate only to portray myself, my friends, and half the people I've ever known as evil, since that is the only narrative that feminism allows.
Not the feminism I know.
But then, you seem very invested in the kind of masculinity that Kimmel talks about. I know lots of people - both male and masculine - who could care less about that construction of masculinity and live their own masculinity; they tend to not be offended by things like Kimmel says at all. Another thing you might want to think about - why are you so attached to a masculinity that says your maleness wipes out the possibility of you being a human being?
Ah, but see, here is where your logic falls apart. The two sections of your sentence do not necessarily go together. Your understanding of "humanity" is what is at fault, since you are using the meaning with the root word of "humane" rather than the root word "human".
So its not that I'm not humane, I'm just not a human being? Wonderful.
If you look at it as the latter, it's not offensive at all; in that case, he would be saying that you are forced to be a man above being a human being
Which by the same token, means that if I in any part chose to adhere to any mainstream concept of masculinity that I am not a human being. Which means that Michael Kimmel is explicitly claiming that I am not a human being, and that I will engage in all manner of evil acts.
Not the feminism I know.
Then why is feminism hostile to any discussion of men, unless that discussion very explicitly demonizes men.
I mean, this site even railed against discussion that phthalates cause birth defects in male infants because it was anti woman.
But then, you seem very invested in the kind of masculinity that Kimmel talks about.
I am invested in the idea that I am a human being who wasn't forced to sacrifice his humanity in the process of growing up. I'm invested in the idea that none of my friends did so either.
Another thing you might want to think about - why are you so attached to a masculinity that says your maleness wipes out the possibility of you being a human being?
Except it doesn't. In none of my life has it done so. What Kimmel does is to slander men with false allegations, to perpetuate a stereotype where every man is a dangerous offender and a pervert. He attempts to make every person to look askance at a man walking down the street with the assumption that he is about to hurt someone.
That angers me. Masculinity as I experienced it, had some good and bad qualities. Masculinity as Kimmel described it is merely an attempt to demonize me, and every single man on the earth.
You really need to get some reading comprehension classes or something.
Alright so I'll walk you through my reasoning you tell me specifically where we disagree.
1.) Kimmel asserts that society exposes men to a particular brand of masculinity
2.) He asserts that this type of masculinity forces men to choose between their humanity and their masculinity
3.) This implies an inherent mutual exclusivity between these two claims.
4.) Because these two conditions are exclusive any man who is masculine, cannot therefore, be humane/human (whichever way you want it).
These are not assertions I believe are valid. Thus I am not defending a type of masculinity which denies my humanity. Because I do not agree with any of his assertions. I am merely stating the reason why I find Kimmel's theories offensive.
I've never read Michael Kimmel but I would like to. I can't imagine that everything he says about males is negative. It would seem that teaching about masculinity would touch on the positive and negative aspects of masculinity in terms of roles and societal expectations. Why would there be so much negativity anyway? Nothing is wrong with being masculine. Those who talk about masculinity that I hear about think that there's a war on boys and men and men are oppressed by women and everything works against them, which I think is exaggerated. I should probably read this guy for myself.
Why would there be so much negativity anyway?
From what I've read of his book, and from what I've seen him do in publicity it is almost entirely negative. Even reviewers have noted the same thing e.g.
"The subject here is young men-mostly white, middle-class young men, 16 to 26. Kimmel says he talked to 400 of them, and he has nothing good to say about them."
Psychology Today Review of Guyland
There is some good and some bad, I'll grant you that, my experience had a lot of good and some bad. My problem with Kimmel is that it is overwhelmingly bad and exaggerated to such a degree it would be farcical if he weren't serious.
I just hope that despite Kimmel and your opinions of him, that you might remain open to the idea of feminism (if you're on this site, I'm assuming you either are a feminist or are just exploring).
Personally the way I look at it is this = femininity and masculinity are socially constructed concepts. Therefore, I will not be bound by them. You shouldn't have to be either.
I believe what she is saying is that society often wants men to be Men instead of just being human. (I haven't read Kimmel either, I'm just trying to explain the idea that I think she's trying to offer as a possible explaination. complicated enough for you?) For example, loyalty to your friends, being a polymath, helping others, etc. should be positive HUMAN traits, not what it means to "be a man". Truly, if that is your standard for what being a man is, then it's completely meaningless because those aren't gendered traits at all. Similarly, feminism has for a long time fought against the idea that women should "be women," and all that that entails in the eyes of society, instead of being human.
For example, loyalty to your friends, being a polymath, helping others, etc. should be positive HUMAN traits, not what it means to "be a man".
I'll agree with you. The thing is I was describing what I experienced as expectations as a man as positive traits (read: this is what happened) versus normative traits (this is what should be).
In my life I found these traits to be largely admirable and some of my best female friends demonstrated them. That said it was expected of me to demonstrate these traits because I was a man.
Now I personally find these admirable traits, why if I chose to go along with them, if I chose to agree that a lot of the ideas as I was taught were pretty good, did I sacrifice my humanity.
How is it connected that stoicism is incompatible with my humanity? That attempting to be a varied individual makes me less human? What is it in how I was brought up which makes me deserve these slurs?
was supposed to be a response to wax_ghost
I think now would be a good time to chime in.
I think this book is great...well, for one, I did help write it with Dr. Kimmel. :) I have two people I want to comment on: Kat and TD.
But first, I was a student at Stony Brook from 2005-2009 and in the winter of 2006, I had the privilege of communicating with Dr. Kimmel, at first, via. e-mail. Within the year, I had the chance of meeting him at his office and I started doing research for him on his book, Guyland.
Kat: Do take Dr. Kimmel's course. I actually TA'ed his class. He's also a very approachable guy; do well and you can TA his class too :). You can even tell him Andrew Bruskin set you up for this, lol. Or, just pay him a visit at his office. He travels a lot but is very open to meeting students.
TD: My comments to you are long, but let me try to comment on what you say in order to explain some of the things Dr. Kimmel writes about. Again, I am not Dr. Kimmel. I was his researcher for several years and TA, but I know him well enough to comment on some of the things you talk about--and the things he brings up in his book. Again, I am not him, and some of what I say are my opinions.
First, you are NOT wrong in some of the things that you say: masculinity definitely has some good (and bad) qualities. However, Dr. Kimmel's intent is not to demonize every man on this planet. If anything, I think Dr. Kimmel's point is that some things men are taught (i.e. you need to act tough all the time, men can't cry, men can't be a sissy, etc.) is actually more harmful to men than beneficial. What Dr. Kimmel tries to point out is when some of these men follow these tendencies, it robs them of their potential, decreases their quality of life and puts a wall between them and society...
Using one example: let's say a guy binge drinks to show off his masculinity...or the way some guys run frat initiations (again, I am NOT talking about harmless inductions, such as the "come on over, grab a beer..."...I am talking about humiliating, violent initiations that some guys have even died from..)
What about this scenario: a guy is depressed and "doesn't want to talk about it." Yes, more men than women commit suicide, and one of these reasons is because a guy may be uncomfortable opening up: some have been raised to see it as a sign of weakness. And guys are taught that they MUST be successful. How much of a burden is that? You should know.
And what about this one: Guys are expected in our society to work long hours to bring in the money. This has not changed. Again, what if it was different--where both genders could be equal breadwinners. Again, this is being viewed in a societal lens--NOT a mandatory individual choice. Of course it is alright on an individual level if a woman chooses to stay home and a guy chooses to be the breadwinner. But hey, why not the other way around without social stigma?
One last example: Wax Ghost said men in the media are being villified as sex-crazed dolts with no attention span to speak of. I think that is right, and it is pretty disgusting. One can argue it is also sexist. I think the media often contributes to the problem. The next time you see an advertisement like that, write to the TV station. I think men should be seen positively in the media. Again, change starts by taking a pro-active step in helping to create the change you want...
The good news is that most guys are upstanding people (and make great fathers!) But the ones who don't really believe in the "masculine ideal", where it is the woman's place to raise the children (in his mind, he holds a his/her place mentality...)
Things are changing, but social change is slow. What Dr. Kimmel is trying to point out is that there are masculine stereotypes out there that are just as harmful to men (as a gender) as well. What he's saying is that you CAN be a man (be masculine) without all of the macho barriers (some) men put in place. Because "holding things in" or binge drinking in order to escape your problems can really decrease a man's quality of life. The men who degrade women are not happy because they can't communicate with their female friends/companions in a way where they can get close to them and have true, long lasting friendships/romances, etc. If they could (if they weren't raised by society to think that a man had a place and a woman had her place) then they would probably be happier, and even more procutive/successful in their own lives. Again, these are the men who buy into the masculine ideal of what a man should be--but not what a man really is! (i.e. a warm, caring person who has emotions, feelings, etc.) And BTW, putting women on a pedestal is just as bad...
I also want to make this clear as well: societal expectations affect women too, but in a different way. Women are taught to act passive and are taught to not be too aggressive. Instead of helping themselves, they are taught that a man needs to help them (i.e. the damsel in distress...) They are taught to fear negotiating and taking the lead--but this impacts her career options, her choice of mates, and ultimately, the quality of her life (the same way negative masculine traits affect a man's quality of life)...but again, Dr. Kimmel's book is geared towards men--not towards women. It's not just a "one gender ruins all" type thing.
As far as I am concerned, I think an assertive woman is sexy, and honestly, quite appealing. I don't really like (or, quite frankly, respect) a very passive person who lets the world pass them by. And quite honestly, deep down, I really feel most women believe the same thing. I believe many women who don't take opportunities (or the initiative in their careers, their life, etc.) are not too happy with themselves and have self-esteem problems (the same way men feel when they are taught to not share any of their emotions with the outside world and the same men who feel they always need to be strong, the one in control, etc.) You know what I am talking about..
Anyway, I'll conclude here, but could keep going. I hope this helps and answers some of your lingering questions and doubts. Please feel free to ask me any questions, should any arise.
Dear Andrew,
Thank you for your comment.
In the interview published above Mr. Kimmel states that it is important that men are shown that feminism is not a "zero-sum game". I have often seen this assertion made, however, I have never seen anyone explain it further than this. To me it seems to be a logical truism that feminism presents a gender based zero sum game, at least based on certain assumptions inherent in feminism.
Briefly, if males have privilege and females don't, in order to bring about equality males must lose their privilege thereby giving some of the power forming that privilege to women. Certainly, one could argue that this transfer of power creates a society that is more just, but insofar as power goes, feminism would seem to be supporting women in a zero sum game with men.
In your post above you seem to suggest that feminism supports having women taking on some of the traditionally masculine role. It also seems to suggest that not being required to have the traditionally masculine role privileges females, at least to an extent, because of negative aspects of that role. However, this is not feminism, or at least not mainstream academic feminism, which assumes that there is no such thing as female privilege. (See, e.g., http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2008/02/09/faq-female-privilege/).
I don't see how these concepts can be coherent and I have never seen this zero sum game assumption supported by any additional argument. Kimmel seems to think it is important that men be shown that feminism in a "win-win". I certainly don't expect you to blast out another multi-paragraph post, but do you know of any source that would contain an argument beyond just assuming that feminism is "win-win"?
Thanks for your time.
However, Dr. Kimmel's intent is not to demonize every man on this planet.
Then explain his books where he does nothing but bash men, and attempt to portray all men as sex crazed monsters, who don't have feelings, and who have been robbed of their humanity. Why is he intent on portraying men as people who have sacrificed their humanity? If I truly did so that would mean that I am a monster.
No matter what problems men have we are always fundamentally human beings. Even if I suppress some of my emotions I'm still human.
The good news is that most guys are upstanding people (and make great fathers!) But the ones who don't really believe in the "masculine ideal", where it is the woman's place to raise the children (in his mind, he holds a his/her place mentality...)
This is simply a slander against many men that they believe this. Things have changed. Most men consider fatherhood, particularly guiding and helping their children masculine nowadays. But people like Kimmel are invested in the idea of portraying all men as broken so that they can "help" us.
if they weren't raised by society to think that a man had a place and a woman had her place
The problem is we weren't. Young men do not hold onto half the ideas that Kimmel suggests they do and the other half are either twisted, exaggerated, or misinterpreted. I have never known a guy who believed women had a particular place. This is an attitude which has rapidly diminished and exists primarily in the minds of people like Kimmel who are then used as definitive proof of what all men think.
"I have never known a guy who believed women had a particular place"
Ah I think then maybe you are one of very few. In that respect, a man who thinks a woman has a "place" (or vice versa) isn't often one who goes on about how women belong in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant. He isn't someone who is outspoken about it. Hell, he doesn't even necessarily need to be conscious of it. But he is one who might have certain expectations of her without even realizing it.
The desire to be the more active one in the relationship.
The desire to be the smarter one who can guide her.
The desire to be the leader, the one that she looks up to.
The desire to have her adoration, her silence in some cases, and her words of praise in others
The desire for her to become Mrs. Him (taking his last name is still incredibly common, and though people argue that it's something we just "do", the implications behind it are undeniable)
Women feel that pressure from men to conform to that. Women also feel the pressure to desire a very masculine man. Thus, men feel the pressure to be masculine, even if that means shutting down parts of themselves that are deemed "feminine". You never see a straight man wearing a dress - but if there were any small little boys who wanted to when they were younger the expectation of them to be more manly squashes that, and causes them to deny themselves that.
This is a really extreme example, but the same can be said for a tendency of a little boy to avoid aggression. That won't last because society tells us to mold our men into aggressive people. Or if it does, that boy is perceived as being at a disadvantage. Less than he could be. When in reality he is just being himself.
Alessa,
"Women also feel the pressure to desire a very masculine man. Thus, men feel the pressure to be masculine, even if that means shutting down parts of themselves that are deemed "feminine"."
So, basically, men do something because they believe women want it (being overly, even unconsciously, masculine), and women do something beause they think men want it (desiring masculinity), but only men are responsible for perpetuating that circle...?
Now Jayjay, did I say that? Of course not. That's ridiculous. No gender is to blame, society is. What I am commenting on is the expectations of society.
Assigning blame for why women and men feel obligated to conform to gender expectations is impossible, and frankly in my opinion irrelevant. It's something we all need to fight against.
Please don't take my words and twist them to sound like I'm blaming men. I am commenting on a common problem. Many women who aren't feminist do the same thing.
The desire to be the more active one in the relationship.
To be perfectly honest I do not see this very often in guys (under 25) at all. If there was a social pressure I'd say it'd be the exact opposite, with guys content to have their girlfriend plan a larger portion.
The desire to be the leader, the one that she looks up to.
Again the desire to lead has always seemed to depend more on individual personalities of the people. The desire to be admired by your partner in some of the things you do is a healthy sign of a relationship. The desire to be the only one who was admired I have not seen demonstrated by anyone who does not suffer from that character flaw in all of their dealings with other people.
The desire to be the smarter one who can guide her.
Most guys I know have expressed an interest for a girl who is their intellectual equal, who can carry on a discussion.
The desire to have her adoration, her silence in some cases, and her words of praise in others
This can apply to almost any relationship. Further who doesn't like to be adored by their spouse? Who hasn't been in a situation where they haven't wanted to discuss something or to have some flaw pointed out (now there is a large difference between desiring something to not happen and actively preventing it) Who doesn't want to receive some praise from their spouse?
The desire for her to become Mrs. Him
Again most people I know don't particularly care, except for a general distaste for hyphenated names.
See the only problem with every one of your responses is that they're all based on your experience. What about other's experiences? I've had quite different ones as a woman. And I think we both know that each of our experiences are equally relevant.
I've been told to be quiet while the guys talk before.
It sounds to me like you're disagreeing with a closed mind. The idea that there aren't men out there wanting those guidelines in an unfair way is a fallacy. I've met them and left them. There are articles covering this idea of female breadwinners in the family, which is a role that goes outside of the typical "feminine" guidelines, and involves taking on more "masculine" traits like assertiveness and leadership. For example, this article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16757475
This is one that was published in a major news source. Thus everything that is stated is relevant to our social climate, and is likely to not cause too much controversy or disagreement amongst people. IE: it's a reflection of our society's opinions on the matter.
Quotes from the article on msnbc:
"Many men feel that they should be the “protector and provider.” For them, supporting the household fulfills that role."
"These women hold on to the fantasy that having a man support them makes them more feminine."
"You may need to feel more “feminine.” Or he may want to be considered more “masculine” in your relationship."
My point is that maybe all these gender roles are just socially constructed things that we shouldn't feel the need to conform to. That men do feel the pressure to be breadwinners, and women do feel the pressure to shut up, sit down, and do as they're told. Now is that really so different from saying that men also feel the pressure to be aggressive? Really, leadership and aggression are unfortunately not too terribly far off from each other. Overall, I think the general message is not that men are evil. Hell, just that masculinity is an illusion. That femininity is an illusion. And that we're chaining ourselves in society to something that could be hurting us.
See the only problem with every one of your responses is that they're all based on your experience.
I'm not attempting to claim that no on has had different experiences I'm claiming that Kimmel portrays this unitary experience of men, yet, the things he claims are so rampant in society I have not experienced. The things he claims every single young man experiences have not only not been experienced by me they have not been experienced by almost anyone I know.
If these things truly were that common I would be exposed to them. If things were so widespread and unavoidable I would at know people who were unable to avoid them.
I'm not denying that there are pressures and difficulties I have experienced some of them. I am denying they exist in the manner and extent that Kimmel describes them. If we spent a week we could probably hash out all the things that I have experienced/witnessed what I think is useful in moderation etc. but that exceeds the scope of this thread.
Andrew,
The following quote ...
"I don't really like (or, quite frankly, respect) a very passive person who lets the world pass them by. And quite honestly, deep down, I really feel most women believe the same thing."
... seemed to undermine a lot of what you said about removing social stigma from a male's failure to live up to the "masculine" ideal. On the one hand -- you say a man should not have his masculinity questioned for lack of assertiveness, crying, passivity, etc. On the other, you explicitly state a personal lack of respect for passivity (when discussing the ideal characteristics of women).
You go on to say that you believe most women share your exclusive respect for assertiveness (a trait of traditional masculinity). I think many men who buy into masculinity do so for exactly this reason -- they too do not believe that a woman would respect a man that they considered "weak". So, they attempt to eschew all outward signs of weakness ... such as crying, passivity, etc.
You make a compelling argument about removing stigma ... and destroy it in one sentence with your admitted disrespect for passivity, and assumption that women share your disrespect.
kbz
KBZ,
I think you may have misunderstood the latter part of my argument, however, I probably was not clear enough.
I never said men should be more "passive." Being passive is different from opening up emotionally/not having to be macho. On a societal level (due to our upbringing and what we are expected to do), more women than men are passive. On an individual level, of course, there are exceptions..
PASSIVE (adj)
Definition:
1. not actively taking part: tending not to participate actively, and usually letting others make decisions
2. obeying readily: tending to submit or obey without arguing or resisting
Passiveness is an acquired trait that is learned. It is a fear of doing something or performing a task because of rejection/embarrassment (etc.) It is an inhibition. The analogy to passiveness is an active, ambitious person who is willing to take charge/lead.
I truly believe, in our natural state of being, we (both men and women) have all of these positive traits, such as wanting to learn, to lead, to initiate, and to discover. These aren't just male traits, but universal traits. It is our environment, however, that takes this away from us and gives us certain inhibitions that often holds us back, such as the fear of starting interactions with people, the fear of speaking in public, the fear of speaking out, etc.
What I am arguing is that men can still be successful while retaining the emotions they have been taught to reject (because it is deemed too feminine...SUCH AS not being willing to talk when you are feeling upset and not being willing to be a present parent because filling the wallet with money is seen as more manly..)
I am NOT advocating, in doing this, men will be less successful in business/life (because by taking on these traits they will be acting more passive...)
You can still lead, still be active, still be ambitious and still be in tune with your emotions...
Of course, how do you define a 'ambitious' and a 'passive' person. Aren't these traits subjective? How do we rectify this in an objective manner? Here's one possible way of seeing it..
An active person can be someone who doesn't run from their problems (i.e. turn to alcohol/drugs), a person who sets realistic goals and doesn't give up on them, someone who isn't afraid to face rejection, someone who isn't afraid to speak their mind (etc) are some indicators of being active.
It's not about turning one gender from one role to another. It is about incorporating beneficial universal traits so people can have fulfilling/successful lives and feel good about themselves..
If a man strives to raise his children right by partaking in their lives (and even willingly cuts his career short in order for that to happen without regret), then I would label that an active person. If a man who did have a drinking problem (or was abusive to his significant other) decides to fundamentally change the way he behaves, then I would consider that an active person too.
It's someone who changes their environment (and themselves) for the better. It can go both ways, depending on the situation...
To conclude, I'm not advocating women act more like men by being "macho." I'm saying they can incorporate the universal traits that have made men successful (if they choose to have a career.) And I am not saying men should be more "passive." Like I said earlier, being in tune with your emotions and being able to discuss your problems freely does not mean that a man is passive.)
This is what I mean. Do you understand what I am talking about?
I personally can't help but feel that the need for a men's movement in all of this is absolutely crucial. I know this might be met with a lot of backlash, but I've always wanted to rename the movement "equalism" so it more fully portray the fact that feminism is really just about equality. For women, gays, and yes for men.
Whenever I talk to a man about sexism against women, I appeal to them by pointing out that they too are affected by gender expectations. I mention maybe that it's unfair that they are often expected by society to be the primary breadwinner, and that their wallet is the measure of their worth often. Then I bring up the fact that a women's worth is defined by her appearance, and go on to talk about how feminism aims to eradicate expectations like that. Of course, if they're still really interested, I might go into rape culture and other injustices against women, but at the very least they walk away with a more understanding, sympathetic view of feminism.
I agree with you. The sad thing is that the "men's movement" that people hear about is only a thinly (or not at all) disguised rant against women and feminists. The forgone conclusion of any problem men have is traced back to feminists and women. And real problems that men cause other men and take part in and continue to propagate are ignored.
Why can't there be some kind of real men's movement that helps men instead of incites their hatred of women? Most guys don't even want anything to do with MRAs or their ideology. It's not helpful to them. And it's so hateful.
There's not support for this kind of thing at any level. You always hear about groups in schools to empower girls, to help them with assertiveness, to deal with bullying, etc. And boys are left to figure it out for themselves. And when they fail, we blame them. That's not fair to them.
I agree with you about the current state of a majority of the MRAs, and I don't think that they are indicative of the majority of the feelings of men.
That said, you cannot expect any hypothetical mens movement to be just another extension of feminism, as some expect it to be. I think people not only underestimate the extent to which men have been exposed to actual man-hating feminists and to the extent they have become some of the loudest voice of modern feminism.
You cannot tell men to stand up for themselves and to form their own movements, but to never say anything bad about feminism. That's just asking us to be your lapdogs. There are a lot of things where feminists and (what ever they might be called) will conflict with each other or engage in outright fights.
"I think people not only underestimate the extent to which men have been exposed to actual man-hating feminists"
Whoa. Wait. That doesn't sound very pro-feminist. In fact, that kind of sounds like a perpetuation of the stereotypes that feminists fight against. There are so many men out there who may have that misconception, but by you throwing your hands up you are implying that feminists really are that way. You do realize a lot of these stereotypes were created by the media as a means to try and make us shut up? To try to tell us to "calm down"? To make us look like crazy bitches?
"You cannot tell men to stand up for themselves and to form their own movements, but to never say anything bad about feminism. That's just asking us to be your lapdogs. There are a lot of things where feminists and (what ever they might be called) will conflict with each other or engage in outright fights."
Like WHAT? What on earth would two equality minded people fight over? Unless of course your view of feminism is so skewed that you don't understand that it is a fight for equality! Asking you to be our lapdogs? What the fuck? Do you not realize that you have plenty to gain from feminism? That men have plenty to walk away with, plenty they could get from it? No, it sounds to me like you're a troll who hates feminism and is just coming in here to mess with the discussion. It's a pity because you clearly don't understand what you can get from it.
Please, pray tell what feminists and "(whatever they might be called)" have had conflict with each other over? I need some examples if you really expect to be taken seriously.
Whoa. Wait. That doesn't sound very pro-feminist. In fact, that kind of sounds like a perpetuation of the stereotypes that feminists fight against. There are so many men out there who may have that misconception, but by you throwing your hands up you are implying that feminists really are that way. You do realize a lot of these stereotypes were created by the media as a means to try and make us shut up? To try to tell us to "calm down"? To make us look like crazy bitches?
This is what I'm getting at. The media did not inform my opinion of feminists. In fact in my formative years I had a very positive view of feminism. What informed my negative view of feminism was my experiences with feminists.
It's a misconception that all feminists are like them, but simultaneously its not a myth that some feminists are. The guys who have that misconception were not given it by the media by and large, but by dealing with the loudest and most vocal feminists, while more moderate feminists were drowned out.
Like WHAT? What on earth would two equality minded people fight over? Unless of course your view of feminism is so skewed that you don't understand that it is a fight for equality!
For one, the ACLU and Feminism are both highly invested in equality and a belief in rights, yet throughout the 1980s and 1990s they engaged in a series of high profile battles over what should be enshrined as law.
This is true for almost any movement. You state that your for a particular good, many other people are for that good but everyone has different approaches, takes, and opinions. This inherently means conflicts.
Asking you to be our lapdogs? What the fuck? Do you not realize that you have plenty to gain from feminism? That men have plenty to walk away with, plenty they could get from it?
Alright lets use an example. It has been widely noted by divorce lawyers that restraining orders have become just another tool for them to secure a superior settlement. Yet many feminists argue that if we made the burden of proof higher or engaged in any specific action to curtail this use it would ultimately deny deserving women of the restraining order they need. Instead they argue that restraining orders need to be made easier to obtain with increased consequences for the person it is taken out against.
Personally I don't think the two positions can be reconciled, and that this problem will inherently lead to conflicts between two groups who are both interested in 'equality' but disagree on what that means in this specific case.
I mean political parties in almost every democratic country are interested in 'whats best for the nation' it doesn't cause them to work together, because they have different opinions on what that means.
Your comment on orders of protection is a widely held but false notion. Backlash from the courts regarding protective orders and DV allegations during divorce proceedings has resulted in fewer victims speaking about their experiences to the judge.
"In our research with 62 abused women who had navigated
the legal system, the women reported facing great skepticism
about the validity of their claims of partner violence and felt that
their allegations were often perceived as strategic maneuvers to
gain sole custody (Jaffe, Crooks, & Poisson, 2003). Furthermore,
even when substantiated, the history of partner violence may not
be reflected in the intervention of court-related clinical services,
such as mediation and custody evaluations (Logan, Walker,
Jordan, Horvath, & Leukefeld, 2002)."
(Sorry, I suck at html tags!)
Your comment on orders of protection is a widely held but false notion. Backlash from the courts regarding protective orders and DV allegations during divorce proceedings has resulted in fewer victims speaking about their experiences to the judge.
But doesn't that backlash speak to an inherent issue of differing views which can cause conflict even if the two parties agree on fundamental principles?
The judges are witnessing highly cynical lawyers serve their clients case by using protective orders when they should not be. But many feminists are witnessing genuine victims of abuse denied protection because of this skepticism.
I don't believe that the judges are attempting to deny protection to legitimate cases, and I don't believe that victim advocates are attempting to create a bargaining chip for lawyers. But there are differences of opinion about what the result is, and what the appropriate response is.
My point is that good, rational people who hold similar goals can still strongly disagree.
As a man who's been doing activism, volunteering and now working within feminist circles I have NEVER met a man hating feminist.
"I think people not only underestimate the extent to which men have been exposed to actual man-hating feminists"
Whoa. Wait. That doesn't sound very pro-feminist. In fact, that kind of sounds like a perpetuation of the stereotypes that feminists fight against. There are so many men out there who may have that misconception, but by you throwing your hands up you are implying that feminists really are that way. You do realize a lot of these stereotypes were created by the media as a means to try and make us shut up? To try to tell us to "calm down"? To make us look like crazy bitches?
"You cannot tell men to stand up for themselves and to form their own movements, but to never say anything bad about feminism. That's just asking us to be your lapdogs. There are a lot of things where feminists and (what ever they might be called) will conflict with each other or engage in outright fights."
Like WHAT? What on earth would two equality minded people fight over? Unless of course your view of feminism is so skewed that you don't understand that it is a fight for equality! Asking you to be our lapdogs? What the fuck? Do you not realize that you have plenty to gain from feminism? That men have plenty to walk away with, plenty they could get from it? No, it sounds to me like you're a troll who hates feminism and is just coming in here to mess with the discussion. It's a pity because you clearly don't understand what you can get from it.
Please, pray tell what feminists and "(whatever they might be called)" have had conflict with each other over? I need some examples if you really expect to be taken seriously.
Again,there are some who are trying to create a men's movement that is based on positivity, gender equity and a win-win for everyone. Check it out at www.mascmag.com!
To Andrew_Bruskin,
I have a question for you could you explain what Michael Kimmel means by "one-word solution to the problem: feminism."
I do not want to be offensive in any way but I never witness any collaboration or acknowledgment from the feminist elite concerning mens issues and just like that they will welcome masculinity with open arms?
There is no easy solution and I find it ludicrous that this man thinks that feminism will cure the problems men have to face.
Okay, I am going to go down the rows. Look out for your username. I will address everyone separately...
CALLIPYGIAN,
Thanks for writing.
First, let me say that I do not speak for feminism as a whole. And I do not speak for Dr. Kimmel (i.e. I am not his spokesperson); my analysis in the post above is my interpretation of his writings, based on my time working with him and my understanding of what he writes about.
I think you may have misunderstood me: Women are not privileged when they do not attain masculine qualities. When I say "qualities", I mean the good masculine qualities that men have. In other words, most qualities are human (universal) qualities. They are beneficial to one's success in this world--such as assertiveness, ambitiousness, decisiveness, and other professional skills. Socially, however, men are often brought up to have these qualities--they are expected to have these qualities (plus with the other bad qualities that form the masculine role...such as not having ANY female qualities...don't appear "weak", etc...)
Women are not expected to have any masculine qualities. If anything, lacking these beneficial male qualities hurts them when it comes to succeeding in the business world. There has been a book written on this topic: http://www.womendontask.com/
Men are hurt by some of their adverse roles too. Let me go more into male depression and suicide. Men are much more likely not to see a doctor when they have medical problems as compared to women. Because of this, men are more likely to die from problems that could have been treated if they were found earlier. When they are depressed, men are much more likely to keep things bottled in. Most suicidal people (men and women) are so isolated from society that they try to kill themselves so they can get attention. Men are more successful at actually killing themselves. The higher rates of suicide among men and their lack of seeking help is mainly attributed to the negative aspects of the male role. This is seen in every culture. Female depression/suicide has its reasons too and I list some of them in my initial post (i.e. lack of self-esteem, etc.)
Why is this? Well, history has the answers and I simply do not have the time to lay it all out. It would be a 500 page book.
Again, all of this is on a societal level, NOT an individual level...
Feminism is a win/win situation if you think of it like this: let’s say there are 100 executive positions in a company. All of them are men. Now, let’s say 100 women enter the company and are now vying for the same executive positions too. Suddenly, there is an increased amount of competition; the best person who is qualified will become the executives. Perhaps it will be a 50/50 split, or it will be 60/40, but the point is that when there are more people competing for a position, it should then go to the best person who is qualified for such position, EITHER male or female.
The bottom line is if you are qualified, you will get SOMETHING regardless of how many people are now trying to enter a certain field. And getting a high position somewhere (besides qualifications) still require connections and luck. Start networking...
As far as your question, there are articles on the internet that delve into this: whether feminism truly is a win/win scenario or a zero sum game. Much of these alternate sources come from the men's movement..
Andrew,
Thanks for your response.
The example you present as a "win-win" is a zero-sum game. I.e. in that situation, men as a class lose.
There are 100 positions, 100 men fill them and women are kept out. Women are then allowed to compete. Say 100 women compete and they take half the jobs. Women, as a class, gain 50 jobs and men, as a class lose 50 jobs. Without more, this is not an example of men gaining from feminism.
I'm not saying that there is no way to imagine a win-win situation, but I can't think of one, and I have never seen anyone give an example or explain how feminism does not provide a zero sum game based on the assumptions it makes. It is strange, because I think it is clear that questioning gender roles in society has helped men and women. So, loosening gender roles seems to be helpful, while based on feminism's assumptions, it should be detrimental to men.
The only way I have been able to make sense of this, personally, is to reject the ideas of male privilege and patriarchy, and thus reject feminism. I agree that women have unique gender specific problems and that society imposed gender roles are harmful. But if these roles hurt women much more than men, getting rid of these roles would have to harm men relative to women, as a class.
Imagine a 100-employee company that does not allow women to compete for jobs. Then one day it allows women to compete and half of the male employees are replaced by more competent women. While the 50 fired men lose, the company wins by employing a more competent workforce, 50 women win by landing good jobs and the their 50 male coworkers win because they no longer have to compensate for the poor productivity of 50 former coworkers who had only held their positions because of male privilege. This is not a zero-sum game unless you identify more strongly with the 50 incompetent men than with the 100 competent men and women. You are correct that the concepts of patriarchy and male privilege are fundamental to feminism, but not like belief in Christ is to Christianity. A more apt analogy is the relationship between evolution and biology. "Most feminists believe they exist" because of overwhelming, incontrovertable evidence. For a feminist to deny that male privilege exists would be like a biologist denying evolutionary theory, and thus the scientific method itself. Debating such anti-feminists, like the intelligent-design/creationists, is pointless because their beliefs are not amenable to reason.
Right, the only way to make the zero sum go away is to fight the hypothetical and limit the scope you look at for your sum.
Even if your company did better because of the influx of more competent women and everyone was rewarded more than twice as much salary as before because they competed better, there would still have to be a loser. Presumably, since in your hypo, co-ed companies are more competitive than single gendered or less equally split companies because of widespread and substantial male privilege, men would still lose in other companies to the same extent your hypothetical company won.
I suppose your analogy of feminism to biology is apt, however the data supporting evolution is clearly much stronger than any supporting male privilege. Evolution is, to some degree, predictive of discoveries that occurred long after Darwin. For example, Mendel’s discovery of inheritance in pea plants before the discovery of DNA. Male privilege, does not fit the data. If men have more power than women, women should have no greater power now than they have ever had. How would women acquire quantities of this privilege controlled by men without their own privilege, and why would men ever give it up voluntarily? It would seem that a world with male privilege should be world in which feminism is completely ineffective, especially if male privilege and the patriarchy are so ubiquitous and powerful. However, feminism has been effective. Thus, it would seem that male privilege either does not exist, is not very important or is being countered by something else not mentioned in feminist dogma. Perhaps that something is a countervailing and substantial female privilege, but who knows.
I’m not sure if you’re referring to me as an anti-feminist. I don’t self-identify as one. However, if you think it is pointless to debate me, then don’t.
TD,
"Then explain his books where he does nothing but bash men, and attempt to portray all men as sex crazed monsters, who don't have feelings, and who have been robbed of their humanity."
You have to understand that Dr. Kimmel writes on a sub-set of men..
And things change. People change--and society changes along with them.
I did not know Dr. Kimmel when he wrote his earlier books, so I cannot comment on the content he writes about in them (such as Manhood in America, etc.)
I remember I went into his office one day and we had a good discussion about child custody battles. He told me that ten years prior to our meeting, he believed that women should have sole custody of their children in divorce cases. Currently, however, his attitute changed and he now believes there should be joint custody, unless one parent is not fit to raise his/her child(ren)...
My views are the same. As long as both parents love their children and don't verbally/physically/sexuually abuse them, I am in total agreement that there should be joint custody of children in divorce proceedings. Children need both parents, unless there are extenuating circumstances involved. This goes both ways, of course. And one day if I become a Family Law Judge (I am in law school now) my legal decisions will be based on just that philosophy.
We also talked about alimony and child support. However, when both parents bring money in and both parents are vested in their children, then alimony or child support would not be necessary should a divorce take place, as the mother will be making money to support herself and the father will be seeing his children and supporting them (and vica versa)..
You have to understand that Dr. Kimmel writes on a sub-set of men..
He claimed to write about men ages 16-26, without anymore modifiers. He marketed his book as addressing the issues of young men writ large. I'm part of that subset. But even if we include the other qualifiers of the type he seems to be suggesting it is supposed to cover me and all of my friends, and it doesn't apply.
And things change. People change--and society changes along with them.
He published Guyland last year, he had four years of interviews, that puts his frame of reference between 2003 and 2008. Considering that is highly similar to my frame of reference I feel well suited to judge the accuracy and veracity of his claims as they applied to my experience. Fact is, he is so off base I cannot fathom how he was conducting his research honestly.
MIKE M,
Good question, however, I don't want to put words in Dr. Kimmel's mouth. What (I think) he means is that feminism can help men just as much as it can help women..
As far as your second paragraph, I want to focus on the two words you use: collaboration and acknowledgement.
Do you think Dr. Kimmel made me his researcher and TA because we agreed on every single issue? Sure, we agree on a lot of things, but honestly, the BEST part of my experience in working with him was when we debated on some parts of the research that was out there. If I viewed something differently, I told him what I thought.
Dr. Kimmel is really open-minded, more than you think.
I've spent time on various men's movement/men's rights boards. A lot of this time was gathering research. And some, I do have to say, raise interesting questions that I believe are quite valid. Many of their issues are actually the same issues feminism grapples with. A lot, however, are so frustrated with the situation that they take it out on feminism.
I really think Guyland is the best book Dr. Kimmel has written so far because it incorporates a lot of men's issues and brings it into the forefront, such as men's troubles with binge drinking, men's troubles with stress/depression/suicide and always having to live up to this "masculine ideal." I remember one man on the men's movement board lamenting how men "always have to take charge, and quite frankly, he was sick of it."
Remember, these are some men Dr. Kimmel talks about--not all men. Most men, as I have said, make great fathers, and honestly, they make great people.
To Andrew_Bruskin,
I appreciate your efforts in answering many questions that are directed to you but I still have to ask you this. Your answer was
"he means is that feminism can help men just as much as it can help women.."
Again I ask If this is the case why are feminist will fight with treacherous energy every single advance fathers make in the family courts did you know that feminist are completely against any "Share parenting" debates I believe in Australia they have Share Parenting as a default and many feminist have made every attempt to cancel this initiative. I do not believe feminism can help men
their reason for being is to help women and I respect that and it was a great success if it has help men in any way it was simply a coincidence.
This is not ranting from an angry man is is of one
who sincerely wish he did not feel this way
Good luck in all your endeavors you will make a great judge.
I know this wasn't directed towards me, but I just had to say..
Men have everything to gain from feminism. Freedom from expectation based on their genitals. Freedom from the measure of their worth being their wallet. The ability to be compassionate, kind, and communicate their feelings without any fear whatsoever of ridicule.
Feminism is mostly about women right now because we also have a lot that we need to fight against. But men, if they wanted to or were open to it, could free themselves from expectation based on gender as well.
The way you have explain to me "how can feminism help men" all I can say is you are correct and I was wrong theres nothing else I can add
Ah, but you weren't wrong! Every single person on this site has had to ask these kinds of questions about feminism, including myself. I'm glad that you can walk away with a better understanding, at the very least.
What I meant to say I was wrong to "myself" let me explain: something occurred to me as I was trying to understand the meaning of your message after about the 3rd time reading it suddenly hit me like a cannon ball on the head and maybe this could explain the resistance from so many men my thinking was how could this make any sense if this comes from women
but it makes perfect sense yes men could benefit from feminism their future will depend on it and if anyone thinks I'm a chauvinist pig, jerk and a fool that is how I FEEL RIGHT NOW like I said I was wrong to myself and not to proud of this.
I've been thinking about some of these comments all day, and here is what I have come up with so far:
One of the biggest problems with feminism today is that it's not something one can easily pin down to a singular, specific definition. The best broad definition I can think of is "gender equality", but this definition does not even fit with all academic interpretations of feminism. In some feminisms, there does exist a certain separatism , one that is harmful to the cause of women's rights, or human rights. But on the other hand, many kinds of feminism benefit all genders and focus more on equality and cultural analysis.
I think it's ignorant to say "but all feminists hate this" or "feminism is a zero-sum game" when you're only going by your own personal experiences, without taking into account that feminism can mean many different things to different types of people. Don't assume that because one person defines feminism a certain way, all feminists follow it as gospel.
Bottom line: read from varied perspectives, form your own opinions, and don't dismiss feminism because you read one book that makes you angry.
I think it's ignorant to say "but all feminists hate this" or "feminism is a zero-sum game" when you're only going by your own personal experiences, without taking into account that feminism can mean many different things to different types of people. Don't assume that because one person defines feminism a certain way, all feminists follow it as gospel.
This injunction works both ways, that is to say when viewing the negatives of feminism and when viewing the positives.
Many of the people who are skeptical of feminism are that way because they've been exposed to some of the most virulent and hostile extremes of feminism. The type who if I relayed my personal experiences of them would come off as a fictional account of a straw feminist. Even though I simultaneously know many sane feminists, some whose politics are closely aligned with mine.
I have difficulty believing that embracing feminism will solve all the worlds problems, or that feminism is offering a inherently positive sum game, when I've seen many offers of zero sum, or even on occasion, negative sum solutions.
I won't attribute to you all the negative qualities I've seen in feminism, but at the same time, understand that I don't believe that feminism is a solitary force for good either.
I was recently enlightened by what is feminism the fundamentals are simple it is about Freedom. Freedom of choice, Freedom of expression, Freedom to be what you want to be these are sound virtues but what any individual choses to do in the name of feminism is totally different they have to be separated it makes things more simple one will embrace feminism but will not accept if its used for "virulent and hostile extremes" and I never had the impression by reading about feminism that it pretended in any form that this would cure all conflicts but eventually we will all have to accept this as a part of modern living if we truly believe in Equality.
Strictly speaking that's not feminism, that's liberalism, a political theory which includes large parts of feminism, but by no means describes it
I am learning all the time thanks
Adag87,
Perhaps it is ignorant for me to say that feminism presents a zero sum game to men. However, I do think that male privilege and patriarchy are basic bedrock tenets of modern academic feminism. Most feminists believe they exist. If you self-identify as feminist and don't it would seem to be like self-identifying as Christian but not believing in Jesus.
Instead of just calling me out for my ignorance, could you instead cure it by explaining how feminism as popularly defined, does not present a zero sum game, or point me to a source that explains this?
"Guyland" was a great book!!
"Guyland" was a great book!!
CHARLOTTE PERKINS GILMAN?
Please the woman was a flaming racist! Her work is mired with the white supremacist thinking! let me explain.
I find it suprising that Michael Kimmel has not ever read Gail Bederman's book Manliness and Civilization. It's a cultural history of the U.S. during the early 20th century when "manliness" morphed into masculinity. She examines how race played a huge role in creating different gender roles for men, primarily for white men and black men.
One of the key figures examined in this book is Charlotte Perkins Gilman. I find it more suprising that Kimmel finds her to be one of his feminist heroines. First of all the woman was a flaming racist. Well, let me say it more nuanced. She was a eugenicist who was infatuated with bring about white civilization to it's millenial potential. It's all in her writings and personal writings.
In reference for her desire to bring white civilization to the brink of modernity she writes, "The dominant soul-the clear strong accurate brain, the perfect service of a healthy body-these do not belong to sex-but to RACE!"
another wonderful fact about this feminist sociologist, in a 1908 article in a academic sociology journal she wrote that the government could "solve the N***** problem" by forcing all African-Americans who had not achieved a certain level of economic attainment or livliehood should be put into a quasi-militaristic army where they would be supervised, trained and compelled to perform menial labor. Any African-American's who did not reach these heights of civilization should, according to her, be "taken hold of by the state."
-Why do I bring this up? Well, for one it makes me sad that Kimmel would say a clear IMPERIALIST feminist would be one of his heroines. People who still admire works by the likes of Perkins Gilman and various other imperialist feminists must really question why they are upholding such people whose work is quite...well...white supremacist...this might be part of the issue that affects not just the feminist community but the united states as a whole. I hope that makes sense. I feel that it is important to reread works by women such as Chandra Tolpade Mohanty, her seminal piece "Under Western Eyes" is still very pertinent for today. The way Mohanty analyzes imperialistic texts and thinking is key to the way I first reacted to Kimmel's statement. I am not saying he is a white supremacist but I think it is important to note that Perkins Gilman is still given some form of celebrity in literature and theory. A place that should be questioned by both women and men.
I've been working for a full year for a domestic violence organization, in an amazing prevention program that allows me to engage young men. As a man, I have discovered the immense opportunity - and I believe responsibility - that well-meaning men and feminist allies have to help shift our culture from it's path of oppression and abuse against women.
It is a DAILY conflict to face my privilege with honesty and openness. I still am in the confusing process of figuring out where my pivilege ends and who I REALLY am begins.
It is a continuous struggle to recognize the placating messages that are being broadcast throughout our society that tell me I don't need to struggle and that all is well - that I'm a good man and I love women, I don't choose to abuse them and that's enough. It's not enough. It's not enough to decide that you're not one of "them". I've come to realize that "they" are not very different from me. Whether I choose to believe them or exercise them, I have been taught and led to think that us guys are the shit. We get to do all the fun stuff, we're strong and dominant and the ladies, well, they just don't have what it takes. We're told that men are just INHERENTLY better at all kinds of things. Who can argue with evolution? Who can argue with the way it's ALWAYS been and the way it's always gonna be. NATURE dictates... balh blah blah...
I am given reasons EVERY SINGLE DAY to reinforce the idea that men are awful, dispicable, rotten evil bastards. It makes me hurt. The truth is; men CAN be. The nature of power and privilege is that of the minority of men who choose to act violently and abusively toward women, a miniscule percentage of them are ever held accountable. It may be unhealthy for me to bear a burden of guilt. Or perhaps it's important that I stay aware of my culpability?
The rest of us - especially men - ARE implicated.
I can't pretend that my relationships - or my friends' or my fathers' and uncles' and sons' - happen in a vacuum.
How many times have I - or you - been with buddies when the conversation inevitably turns to talk about "bitches" and all kinds of ignorant, misogynistic banter that seems all too ordinary.
I've learned some strategies for calling out my friends respectfully. It used to be that they'd say things like: "Awww man. Don't start up on that stuff again. I'm only kidding. I didn't really mean it. Have a sense of humor. We're guys - c'mon. It's what we do."
But now, they know that I don't stand for it. Maybe they have those conversations elsewhere. I don't want an award. It makes MY quality of life better and I've made it known that there is a belief out there that women deserve more respect than most of us give them.
There are things we can do everyday that don't vilify men, but simply hold us to a higher standard. That's a step along the path.
People who accuse Kimmel of being anti-male obviously haven't had the pleasure of hearing him in person. I had a chance to listen to him talk for about an hour, answer student questions and even engage him in a brief chat myself this fall, and he is most assuredly not anti-men. In fact, a large part of his thesis seemed to be that society does a disservice to men by pigeon-holing them, making them feel that they are being viewed as "bad guys" and generally portraying them as animalistic. He said something along the lines of "Saying 'boys will be boys' should be offensive to men" because it implies they can't do any better (apologies to Kimmel for the paraphrase).
He does seem to believe that male privilege is real - for example, the privilege to walk down the street at night without trembling in fear at the approach of every stranger. But his general approach, or at least what I took away from hearing him talk, seems to be that a system that alienates men and women from each other sucks for everyone, and the world would be a better place if neither men nor women felt constrained into tiny little gender-defined boxes.
In fact, a large part of his thesis seemed to be that society does a disservice to men by pigeon-holing them, making them feel that they are being viewed as "bad guys" and generally portraying them as animalistic.
But another part of his thesis is that they are all of these things because society made them to be. That is the part people have a problem with. He isn't simply claiming that people view guys with this negative attitude he is simultaneously claiming that the guys actually are all of the things that the negative attitude expects and then some.
It isn't just about the media's portrayal of guys, its also about claiming that society has been successful in turning guys 16-26 into monsters.
You're very insistent, and I think you have begun to distort Kimmel's theories through your own lens.
Any feminist or student of oppression theory worth their salt knows that the reality is that no one is, in fact, a monster. No one on Earth has conceived of violence against women themselves. It's been fortified and handed down through generations, just like all the other "isms". There are many men who do not choose to interpret the same messages that abusers do, as license to commit crimes.
The finger-pointing and incriminating of which you are being so defensive is a bit of a figment of your imagination. The goal is not to make every man feel bad about their half of the population (although this is likely to happen to an empathetic soul). The point is to encourage men to recognize that there are wonderful and very real benefits in confronting our sexism. EVERYONE has something to learn and something to gain from feminism.
That dirty word "feminism" that makes men bristle - and the concepts and ideals that are paramount to it's existence, are as important to our freedom as women's (with all due reverence to the violence and oppression that women endure everyday). Justice demands that men dissolve the idea of supremacy - not to turn our ill-gotten power over, but to erase the boundaries and limitations that have caged masculinity.
How about a world in which you may discover who you truly are? - Enough reason for me to identify as a feminist and work everyday at being an ally to women and men alike.
The problem is you start with assumptions about who I am merely on the basis of my genitals. For example.
No one on Earth has conceived of violence against women themselves.
This statement presupposes a variety of things. Now you are saying that men are not individually responsible for violence against women but society is. Now this statement only makes sense if you think I have committed violence against women.
The thing is I haven't. Nor have I ever condoned, given quiet approval to, or allowed for violence against women. Thus I didn't merely not conceive it alone. I didn't conceive it full stop, not in unison, not in isolation, not by acquiescence.
although this is likely to happen to an empathetic soul
This is the same logical fallacy which Kimmel uses. If I am empathetic I must also see that men are evil, if I don't view men as evil, I must not be empathetic. Just as in Kimmels logic, I must be either a human, or a man, but I could never be both in modern society. Its a false dichotomy. I can be manly, I can be humane, and I can live in modern society, none of those things contradict themselves. Just as I can be empathetic and not view men as evil. In fact I do all of those quite well and they are quite compatible.
How about a world in which you may discover who you truly are?
This is nothing more than condescension with the implication that I don't know who I am, but that you, or Kimmel knows better about who I am, having never met me.
Kimmel never denies any of his interview subjects agency. He's not claiming they have been turned into monsters because of "society" (what a shallow misreading!), he is critiquing the very real damage such a narrow conception of masculinity has on everyone, male, female or in between. Obviously, everyone is compelled to follow gender norms (indeed we punish severely gender deviants), but Kimmel is arguing for a broader interpretation of masculinity. This is a positive thing. I'm sorry you feel personally wronged by the book, but remember, if it's not about you, then... it's not about you.
he is critiquing the very real damage
Which inherently means I am damaged.
He talks about all this damage, portrays it in the worst possible manner in its manifestations and then states that its a univeral effect which means, that all that damage he inherently believes is demonstrated in me and every male I know of the same age group.
That denies me agency. That claims that I have had no impact, that I am nothing more then what he claims society made me, and in this case he claims that society made me a monster.
if it's not about you, then... it's not about you.
But its very specifically about me. It is about my age group, and the majority of guys I know personally. It states that in the press copy, on the jacket of the book, in the reviews, and in the book itself that it is talking about all men (although primarily Caucasian men), ages 16-26. Since I am a Caucasian male age 16-26 it is therefore, about me.
More and more defensiveness...
I believe one of the most important steps I can do to free ourselves from our isms, is to identify as the socialized beings we've grown into.
As a white, heterosexual, middle-class, male I find it inordinately helpful to examine my privilege constantly and openly. Part of that process is to recognize that I am a racist, heterosexist, classist, sexist. I don't like it - but nonetheless it is reality.
I can strive every day to be an ally to the oppressed classes, but it does not erase my privilege that has been given to me by an unjust world. If I were to expend loads of energy denying that, it would all be a fruitless venture.
Clearly you take issue with being made to feel as though you are part of an oppressive class. NEWS FLASH, dude! You are. Period.
Interestingly that this is an excuse for you to pull out the "you don't know me" card. Michael Kimmel talks about sociology - dynamics of culture and society. If you feel you are an outlier, so be it. Don't defend the ideas that "if you're not diectly involved, it's not your issue".
Are DV and sexual assault only a women's issue? Is racism a people of color issue? BLAM!
ALL men must see this as our problem too! No buts about it.
As a non-violent man, you more than anybody, should recognize the power you have to set a tone, and influence others in making good decisions. You have the opportunity to shift the conversations that involve derogatory and misogynistic attitudes into a statement of intolerance toward sexism and respect toward women. Maybe you already do these things! I don't know you...
The point is: turn away from defensiveness, because the fact is that many men DO choose to follow the path of status quo and even more are ignorant of the fact that they can do something about it.
Spend less time arguing against the tenets of feminism and more time looking at how you can use them to unify men and women with equality.
And before you flip it, interpret the "you" as a collective "you" - meaning "y'all" and "us all".
No animosity, man. Just a message...