Jack O'Sullivan: The past week has again highlighted the inexplicable absence of
an intelligent discussion conducted by men about ourselves. It's
followed a familiar pattern: a leading female commentator – Diane Abbott
on this occasion – diagnoses male ailments and prescribes her cures.
What comes back from the patient? Silence. Can there be any group that
is subject to so much debate and accusation, and is so apparently
powerful – yet remains so utterly speechless?It reminds me of a
stereotypical scene: a woman challenging a man on some personal or
domestic issue; him sitting before her silently, absorbing, stonewalling
and eventually walking away. It's a dissatisfying experience for both.
She complains to her friends. He has no one to talk to. Somewhere here
are clues to this bewildering male silence on the public stage about our
own condition.
Men's absence from the debate has dramatic
consequences, making it overwhelmingly negative. In recent weeks the
focus has been on abuse of teenage girls, porn, male unemployment and misogyny. But next month it could be "deadbeat dads", domestic violence and harassment in the workplace.
A debate about men defined by women inevitably dwells on what's wrong with men – on a continuing "crisis". That's understandable. There are many worrying issues that a male discussion of masculinity would and should confront. We are, after all, fathers, husbands, brothers, sons, lovers, colleagues and friends of women. But which man wants to join a debate loaded with negativity, littered with slogans like "all men are rapists"?
A debate with genuine male participation and leadership would include the above issues, but within a broader, aspirational and authentically male agenda. The centrepiece would be today's extraordinary transformation of masculinity. A huge transition is taking place in all our lives, as we redefine our relationships with women, with our children, with work, with our sexuality. History may judge it to be a faster and more profound change even than the developments in women's lives.
Men, like women, are belatedly escaping what we now recognise to be the confines of our gender. Many of us are enjoying a massively increased engagement with children. There is a stunning growth in male capacity to hold down successful jobs and play an integral role in our homes and personal lives. We are changing our relationships with women and with each other. Male homosexuality is widely expressed and affirmed. And men play a vital role in supporting, personally and politically, the advancement of women's rights.
But all this fails to generate male leadership or collective discussion. Each of us is operating in our personal world of change, with little sense of what it's like for the other guys. The women's movement produced articulate women to narrate their agenda. Where are the men?
An important factor is that otherwise powerful, educated men – the ones you might expect to speak up – tend to have been raised in, and live in, households where they defer to female decision-making and narrative. The reasons are complicated. Women's centrality in the private arena is a complex expression of both male power and male impotence, of patriarchy and infantilisation. But a consequence of boys and men living in private matriarchies is that even the most senior male chief executive often lacks confidence in areas that might be defined as personal, private or family.
This may always have been the case. But feminism has reinforced rather than challenged – or even acknowledged – matriarchy. It is an environment in which male spokesmen for change are unlikely to be nurtured. When they do articulate their views or concerns, they are often ridiculed or ignored by women. Misandry can be as nasty as misogyny and is as widespread (just check the internet). Smart men play safe and stay out of it. We're so conditioned, we don't even talk to each other.
However, as long as these men – who typically support the women's movement – remain passive, the only male voices we hear are those of reactionary patriarchs, who reinforce the idea that men are dinosaurs.
Why are we ridiculed when we talk about ourselves? Perhaps because men are assumed to be inherently powerful, with nothing to complain about. It's a mistake. We urgently require an updated theory of gender that acknowledges there are, and always have been, discrete areas of female power and male powerlessness, not simply female powerlessness. Patriarchy did not rule alone. There was also matriarchy – and there still is.
A revolution is taking place in masculinity, but much of it is below the radar and denied, even when well-documented. This transformation is about much more than "helping" women and addressing their complaints. If we want to hear about it, then we need democratic personal, private and domestic spaces where men feel comfortable to speak. That might generate a more open, less condemning public space. Until then, women will continue to find themselves shouting into the silence about issues that we need to confront together.
Source
Feminazi, Ashkenazi, Zionazi ...some sort of Nazi.
Angelo: I guess you have to be black or Palestinian or a man to get it. BJ Epstein doesn't.
BJ Epstein: In a recent article in the Guardian, Jack O'Sullivan laments
the "absence of an intelligent discussion conducted by men about
ourselves" and seems to blame women for what he deems men's lack of
confidence. He appears to especially think that this takes place in
homes, where there is what he calls an unacknowledged matriarchy that
keeps men silent and passive.
Excuse me while I get out the world's smallest violin and play a sorrowful tune. Poor, poor men.
How we women pity you.
Er, wait, sorry, I didn't mean "pity". I meant "shake our heads at your presumption and obliviousness". Sorry about that. My hand slipped while I was typing because I was laughing so much at O'Sullivan's ridiculous article.
While I certainly agree that both men and women must recognise and escape the "confines of our gender", as O'Sullivan puts it, and that we need to acknowledge that we have all been ill-served by our culture's emphasis on certain gender stereotypes (i.e. men must be strong, men can't talk about their feelings, men shouldn't be involved in childcare or housework, men should use fighting and warfare as a way of dealing with conflict, etc.), I can't quite believe that it is truly down to women that men feel, well, emasculated.
Let's point out - as if this actually needs to be pointed out! - that men are still overwhelmingly in charge. Look at corporations, university departments, governments, and other institutions - it tends to be men who have the more powerful positions and who are paid more. Check out who the decision-makers are. Consider who runs religions, or makes laws. And to use a few of O'Sullivan's own examples: who walks out on families? Who commits domestic violence and other crimes? Who consumes porn? Who harasses others in the workplace?
Right. For the most part: men.
Sure, you can find exceptions. And, okay, we can boast about the few women who fill what used to be male-only roles, such as being professors or government ministers. But it certainly isn't fifty-fifty in regard to gender, and it sure as hell isn't anything close to being female-dominated. So why, according to O'Sullivan, do men apparently feel oppressed?
O'Sullivan writes, "It is an environment in which male spokesmen for change are unlikely to be nurtured. When they do articulate their views or concerns, they are often ridiculed or ignored by women. Misandry can be as nasty as misogyny and is as widespread (just check the internet). Smart men play safe and stay out of it. We're so conditioned, we don't even talk to each other." In other words, O'Sullivan bemoans the fact that men don't talk to one another, and blames this on women.
Men, with all their power and with all the ways they continue to oppress women, feel unable to speak up? That's a hard one to figure out. And, let's remind O'Sullivan that he certainly feels able to talk, and to do so in a major national - even international - context. Something doesn't quite make sense, does it?
Whether individual men feel able to contribute to conversations and chores in their own homes is something I can't comment on - and unless O'Sullivan has carried out a research project, he can't either - but it seems highly unlikely that men generally feel oppressed by women, or that "misandry can be as nasty as misogyny and is as widespread". The facts of our society simply don't bear any of this out. Do men have trouble getting their views heard on TV or in newspapers? Are they rejected from jobs just for being men? Are they treated like sex objects? Are they talked down to? Are they told not to worry their pretty little heads about sexism?
So what is O'Sullivan actually doing with his article? It seems as though he is trying to shift blame and to excuse men for any inaction on their part in fighting sexism.
There is still a lot of progress to be made as we work towards truly equal rights and opportunities, and imagining an oppressive matriarchy that keeps men cowed when the reality is anything but simply doesn't help men or women.
Time to throw out that violin.
Source
Angelo: I offer an open invitation to BJ Epstein. To debate the issues of feminazis and men. I'll bring the smallest violin in the world to play for her, while she struggles to find real examples of the outdated regurgitated guff she spouts in the mass of us who have long left the lame stream in our wake. Like Wake up BJE! Her rant is so last millennium.
Edited by WD
Men's absence from the debate has dramatic
consequences, making it overwhelmingly negative. In recent weeks the
focus has been on abuse of teenage girls, porn, male unemployment and misogyny. But next month it could be "deadbeat dads", domestic violence and harassment in the workplace.A debate about men defined by women inevitably dwells on what's wrong with men – on a continuing "crisis". That's understandable. There are many worrying issues that a male discussion of masculinity would and should confront. We are, after all, fathers, husbands, brothers, sons, lovers, colleagues and friends of women. But which man wants to join a debate loaded with negativity, littered with slogans like "all men are rapists"?
A debate with genuine male participation and leadership would include the above issues, but within a broader, aspirational and authentically male agenda. The centrepiece would be today's extraordinary transformation of masculinity. A huge transition is taking place in all our lives, as we redefine our relationships with women, with our children, with work, with our sexuality. History may judge it to be a faster and more profound change even than the developments in women's lives.
Men, like women, are belatedly escaping what we now recognise to be the confines of our gender. Many of us are enjoying a massively increased engagement with children. There is a stunning growth in male capacity to hold down successful jobs and play an integral role in our homes and personal lives. We are changing our relationships with women and with each other. Male homosexuality is widely expressed and affirmed. And men play a vital role in supporting, personally and politically, the advancement of women's rights.
But all this fails to generate male leadership or collective discussion. Each of us is operating in our personal world of change, with little sense of what it's like for the other guys. The women's movement produced articulate women to narrate their agenda. Where are the men?
An important factor is that otherwise powerful, educated men – the ones you might expect to speak up – tend to have been raised in, and live in, households where they defer to female decision-making and narrative. The reasons are complicated. Women's centrality in the private arena is a complex expression of both male power and male impotence, of patriarchy and infantilisation. But a consequence of boys and men living in private matriarchies is that even the most senior male chief executive often lacks confidence in areas that might be defined as personal, private or family.
This may always have been the case. But feminism has reinforced rather than challenged – or even acknowledged – matriarchy. It is an environment in which male spokesmen for change are unlikely to be nurtured. When they do articulate their views or concerns, they are often ridiculed or ignored by women. Misandry can be as nasty as misogyny and is as widespread (just check the internet). Smart men play safe and stay out of it. We're so conditioned, we don't even talk to each other.
However, as long as these men – who typically support the women's movement – remain passive, the only male voices we hear are those of reactionary patriarchs, who reinforce the idea that men are dinosaurs.
Why are we ridiculed when we talk about ourselves? Perhaps because men are assumed to be inherently powerful, with nothing to complain about. It's a mistake. We urgently require an updated theory of gender that acknowledges there are, and always have been, discrete areas of female power and male powerlessness, not simply female powerlessness. Patriarchy did not rule alone. There was also matriarchy – and there still is.
A revolution is taking place in masculinity, but much of it is below the radar and denied, even when well-documented. This transformation is about much more than "helping" women and addressing their complaints. If we want to hear about it, then we need democratic personal, private and domestic spaces where men feel comfortable to speak. That might generate a more open, less condemning public space. Until then, women will continue to find themselves shouting into the silence about issues that we need to confront together.
Source
______________________
Feminazi, Ashkenazi, Zionazi ...some sort of Nazi.
Angelo: I guess you have to be black or Palestinian or a man to get it. BJ Epstein doesn't.
Excuse me while I get out the world's smallest violin and play a sorrowful tune. Poor, poor men.
How we women pity you.
Er, wait, sorry, I didn't mean "pity". I meant "shake our heads at your presumption and obliviousness". Sorry about that. My hand slipped while I was typing because I was laughing so much at O'Sullivan's ridiculous article.
While I certainly agree that both men and women must recognise and escape the "confines of our gender", as O'Sullivan puts it, and that we need to acknowledge that we have all been ill-served by our culture's emphasis on certain gender stereotypes (i.e. men must be strong, men can't talk about their feelings, men shouldn't be involved in childcare or housework, men should use fighting and warfare as a way of dealing with conflict, etc.), I can't quite believe that it is truly down to women that men feel, well, emasculated.
Let's point out - as if this actually needs to be pointed out! - that men are still overwhelmingly in charge. Look at corporations, university departments, governments, and other institutions - it tends to be men who have the more powerful positions and who are paid more. Check out who the decision-makers are. Consider who runs religions, or makes laws. And to use a few of O'Sullivan's own examples: who walks out on families? Who commits domestic violence and other crimes? Who consumes porn? Who harasses others in the workplace?
Right. For the most part: men.
Sure, you can find exceptions. And, okay, we can boast about the few women who fill what used to be male-only roles, such as being professors or government ministers. But it certainly isn't fifty-fifty in regard to gender, and it sure as hell isn't anything close to being female-dominated. So why, according to O'Sullivan, do men apparently feel oppressed?
O'Sullivan writes, "It is an environment in which male spokesmen for change are unlikely to be nurtured. When they do articulate their views or concerns, they are often ridiculed or ignored by women. Misandry can be as nasty as misogyny and is as widespread (just check the internet). Smart men play safe and stay out of it. We're so conditioned, we don't even talk to each other." In other words, O'Sullivan bemoans the fact that men don't talk to one another, and blames this on women.
Men, with all their power and with all the ways they continue to oppress women, feel unable to speak up? That's a hard one to figure out. And, let's remind O'Sullivan that he certainly feels able to talk, and to do so in a major national - even international - context. Something doesn't quite make sense, does it?
Whether individual men feel able to contribute to conversations and chores in their own homes is something I can't comment on - and unless O'Sullivan has carried out a research project, he can't either - but it seems highly unlikely that men generally feel oppressed by women, or that "misandry can be as nasty as misogyny and is as widespread". The facts of our society simply don't bear any of this out. Do men have trouble getting their views heard on TV or in newspapers? Are they rejected from jobs just for being men? Are they treated like sex objects? Are they talked down to? Are they told not to worry their pretty little heads about sexism?
So what is O'Sullivan actually doing with his article? It seems as though he is trying to shift blame and to excuse men for any inaction on their part in fighting sexism.
There is still a lot of progress to be made as we work towards truly equal rights and opportunities, and imagining an oppressive matriarchy that keeps men cowed when the reality is anything but simply doesn't help men or women.
Time to throw out that violin.
Source
Angelo: I offer an open invitation to BJ Epstein. To debate the issues of feminazis and men. I'll bring the smallest violin in the world to play for her, while she struggles to find real examples of the outdated regurgitated guff she spouts in the mass of us who have long left the lame stream in our wake. Like Wake up BJE! Her rant is so last millennium.
Edited by WD
No comments:
Post a Comment