The new wave of feminism in the UK needs to pay attention to the increasing crisis in masculinity, argues Siobhan Bligh.
Siobhan Bligh is interested in social equality, and volunteers with LGBT rights groups in Sheffield. She is a feminist and civil-rights campaigner.
The new wave of feminism in the UK needs to pay attention to the increasing crisis in masculinity. It should not only pay attention to this crisis, but make efforts to combat problems men face with masculinity in society and culture. This is because feminism, and the egalitarian goals it seeks, will benefit from a healthier cultural attitude towards men and masculinity.
This is not to say that feminists focusing on the institutional and structural oppression of women should simply shift their gaze from female to male oppression. But, feminists should offer support for groups and organisations that aim to construct a psychologically and socially healthy masculinity for men to work within. A healthy masculinity is one which is not based upon the belittlement of femininity and women.
Whilst femininity is a construct that many women do not relate to, it bears an intimate relationship with attitudes towards women, and thus affects attitudes towards women. It is true to say that when femininity is respected by both men and women then feminism will be closer to its goal of gender equality.
Whilst “men’s rights” groups perpetuate misogyny and male power, feminists can help both genders, by shifting a small amount of focus to men. This crisis in masculinity manifests itself in several ways. Initially one can look at the cold hard statistics surrounding men’s lives in modern Britain. According to a 2012 report from the Office For National Statistics, men in Britain are more likely to be involved in substance abuse, be homeless, commit suicide, or have broken and shallow relationships.
Some men’s rights groups have linked this to an increase in women’s rights and the feminist movement, but this is an argument which is as poor as it is absurd. Men are not suffering because women are facing less oppression. Rather, men are suffering from a rigid, gendered world, in which an unachievable masculine identity is constantly reinforced to men from a young age. This ideal is one on which physical strength, emotional stoicism, wealth and power are idolised. Importantly for feminist, this masculine ideal also ridicules feminity, and thus contributes to women’s oppression. The MP Diane Abbott is right to say that in Britain there is a:
“culture of hyper-masculinity – a culture that exaggerates masculinity in the face of a perceived threat to it. At its worst, it’s a celebration of heartlessness; a lack of respect for women’s autonomy; and the normalisation of homophobia.”
To understand the importance of combating the crisis in masculinity, we must look at the role of cultural prescriptions of gender, and how it tailors men to act in our society. This affects the way that men act, the way they think about themselves, their identities, and it affects the way they relate to women. The more we look at societal expectations and demands of men, the more we realise that these ideals must be relaxed, and that cultural representations and expectations of men must change.
Men are constantly told from a young age to “man-up”. This means to remain strong, emotionless, cruel and often self-serving. As the American psychologist Judy Chu argues, young men will often be confused and alienated from both themselves and their loved ones, by an ideal that ridicules any form of feminity and emotions. What we must aim for is a healthy masculinity, in much the same way feminists would want women to have a healthy femininity. Whilst these ideals may be social constructions, they still guide people in the way they see themselves and others, and therefore it is imperative to promote a healthy gender culture for both men and women.
55 Responses to “Opinion: “Man-up” – The need for feminists to tackle the crisis in masculinity”
cmos222
During the Middle Ages in Western Europe, Christianity was 100% synonymous with the Catholic Church. Although a variety of doctrinal variations emerged over the centuries, the Catholic Church asserted an absolute monopoly over how Christians established a relationship with God. The Roman Pope even eventually claimed authority over the Orthodox churches of the East. Among the secular population, it was taken for granted that the only way to be a good, pious Christian was to be a good Catholic, and follow unquestioningly the dictates of the clergy. To even hint that a person could be a good Christian without following the Church was at some times a crime punishable by death.
Finally, somebody got fed up. A theologian named Martin Luther, basing his reasoning on good scholarship and careful reasoning, rejected the notion that a person could establish their relationship with God only through the Catholic Church. Luther and Protestant theologians advanced the novel idea that people could establish a closer relationship with God and the teachings of Jesus through direct examination of both the New Testament and their own conscience.
Although taken for granted by most contemporary people, it was appallingly heretical by the Catholic hierarchy when it first emerged. They had no way of fitting it into their worldview. It challenged the Church’s monopoly over Christian thought. The idea that a person could find their own relationship with the Almighty without the intervention of clergy was anathema. In response they branded Protestants as heretics, Satan-worshippers, etc. – as it was the only way they could fit Protestantism within their limited worldview. They were psychologically incapable of of seeing the good points of this argument or understanding that a person could be both a good Christian and a non-Catholic.
The result was centuries of war and misunderstanding, before the idea of freedom of religion, live-and-let-live, became accepted.
Something similar seems to be happening with the challenge to Feminism that the men’s rights movement presents. The MRM breaks the monopoly in the debate over how gender is ‘constructed’ and/or how equality is achieved between people of different genders. The MRM posits that men have their own concerns, their own worldviews, their goals and ways of breaking out of gender stereotypes and roles assigned to men, their own take on equality and human rights. The MRA posits that one can be both in favor of human rights for women as well as for men.
This seems to be extremely threatening on an intellectual level to some (not all) people who profess to be feminists. They assume that gender roles, constructs and relationships can only be examined within a framework of feminist thought. Some of them simply don’t know how to fit the MRM into their worldview, not realizing – or perhaps, simply not accepting – that it’s their worldview that is in need of adjustment. Their discomfort and confusion drives them to search relentlessly for the smallest nugget of evidence to brand MRAs as misogynist, homophobic and racist. In the same way the Protestant challenge drove the Catholic hierarchy to brand all Protestants as in league with the devil.
It’s easier that way. There is nothing you have to change in your worldview. Nothing you have to re-think. Nothing that has to change.
The confusion and discomfort is also evident when they claim, ‘If you want to achieve better rights and conditions for males, you must do it through feminism and by working with feminists.’ It’s like the Catholic Church saying to Luther, ‘If you want to have a closer relationship with God, you must only do it through the Church.’
Many people and most MRAs (obviously), see no reason for this. Why there should be only one avenue for addressing male issues and men’s concerns. And why, for goodness’ sake, should the only avenue open to thinking about men be one constructed by people who have been exclusively concerned with women’s issues for the past 50 years.
Some feel, as did some of the early Protestants felt about the Church, that Feminism is irrelevant to addressing men’s issues and men’s sense of identity; others, like some other early Protestants, feel Feminism itself IS the problem.
Ivan
Oh how ignorant! Men’s Rights Movement seek to destroy the perception of men’s utility. Apparent hyper-masculinity is a reaction to fem militarism. It’s ridiculous to claim feminism strides to achieve healthy femininity when you have the results of feminism right in front of you!
Idea that masculinity and femininity are social constructs is simply idiotic. Masculinity and femininity are refection of your biological self. It’s a fundamental base for ego and self identity. It is not a mask or shell. It is not a set of rules for you to jump like a trained dog. It can not be threatened or destroyed. It is the balance and attraction between men and women. There are no conflict or superiority. This isn’t ‘good’ and ‘evil’ show. For your simple mind can be put in term of differences between Yin and Yang. One compliments the other.
MRM is making huge waves and that makes established, so-called “equal rights activists” uncomfortable. You don’t get to hijack masculine ideals. It is for men to decide what is masculine and what is not. Go burn a bra.
fools2234
22,000 word list detailing the many ways men are discriminated against:
http://www.cultural-misandry.com/mens-rights/
Clearly us “privileged” men only need a “small” focus on our issues. Also this pathetic “feminism helps men too” argument failed the minute the LARGEST feminist organization in America (NOW) posted an “action alert” against the proposed shared parenting law in Michigan. Feminism is nothing more than a hate group dressed up as one that likes to claim (with no evidence) that they fight for equality.
On that same above website you will see a link for ‘feminism the hate group’, filled with example after example of those “equality” fighting feminists exposing their misandry and fighting against valid mens issues such as false rape, due process trampling rape policies on campus, the boy crisis, and even fathers rights.
Howard
““men’s rights” groups perpetuate misogyny and male power”
What a hate filled and outrageous article. Left Foot Forward is heading towards a big fall if it really adopts these kinds of man hating policies !!
bun yip
All of the things you described are not “against men” and those are wonderful goals that MRAs completely support.
The problem is the small portion of radical feminists, who happen to have a lot of influence, who seem to think almost all sex is rape and that men are evil creatures responsible for all of the harm in this world.
Because of them and their anti-male agenda, women are given child custody by default even when the mother has no income or is an alcoholic, while a capable father can’t do anything about it. It’s why men are asked to move seats on an airplane if a child is nearby, because all men are assumed to be potential pedophiles. It’s why male genital cutting is accepted without question in most of America, while female genital cutting is seen as barbaric.
They propagate lies such as “women are paid 77 cents on the dollar for the same work as men”. They accuse every single innocent man of allowing “rape culture” to exist, as if I had anything to do with some scumbag rapist’s inability to control himself. They demand that 10 times as much money is spent researching breast cancer than prostate cancer, and claim anything less is “misogyny”. They tell men to “man up” when we point out problems like homelessness and suicide rates, instead of offering help… while building yet another Women’s Shelter despite the fact women are a very small percentage of the homeless.
Men want equal treatment under the law, and equal support when we have problems, and feminists are saying NO. That’s what MRAs have a problem with.