I Was Wrong

I absolutely hate admitting that I was wrong about something. But turns out I was wrong about men. I underestimated the extent to which patriarchy affects them and the ways in which women ought to respond to patriarchy as a whole. 

Remember, in the 2010s women became vocal about the many ways in which men were lacking; from low emotional intelligence to the fact that they benefit from the presumption of competence ab initio to questioning the very essence of masculinity. And I believe the consequences of the last of these that has been the most destructive. When we attempt to dismantle a system of expectations that have existed since time immemorial, without discussing a system to replace those expectations two things occur. 

First, men get the message that everything they do is worthless and, ultimately, should be taken from them. This is not, nor has it ever, been the message of feminism. Feminism is about the equality of the sexes. It operates by working to dismantle any system, framework or structure that denies equality and equitable treatment. This means, dismantling a system that tells men that their only value lies in their ability to protect, care and sacrifice for the ones that they love; replacing it with a system that reaffirms their right to life and happiness on the basis of their existence alone. Yet, while feminists worked at the former - clearly communicating the many ways in which the system had failed both men and women and working to guarantee the rights of women - the latter message of compassion and affirmation of self-worth was not communicated. This is especially dangerous given that as women have become increasingly self-sufficient, the traditional markers of masculinity (that men are to protect and financially provide) are no longer required. 

In this gap, men will not only feel emasculated (from a societal perspective) but also respond negatively to this feeling of emasculation. This might explain why reproductive rights are being rolled back (looking at you USA), so as to reinforce female dependence upon men. Before I continue, let me say that I do not blame feminism for the violent, reactionary responses to feminism; that would be like blaming an abuse victim for the abuse inflicted upon it. But I do blame feminists for forgetting that we are not dealing with a group of people who have been socialised to process and respond, rather than react to their emotions and we are operating within a society that has never honoured male pain or taken it seriously. As Bell Hooks writes in The Will to Change, Men Masculinity and Love:

"The reality is that men are hurting and that the whole culture responds to them by saying, 'Please do not tell us what you feel.' ... If we cannot heal what we cannot feel, by supporting patriarchal culture that socializes men to deny feelings, we doom them to live in states of emotional numbness. We construct a culture where male pain can have no voice, where male hurt cannot be named or healed."

So as men raise legitimate concerns about the ways in which the patriarchy affects them, or raise legitimate concerns about how they ought to respond to changing expectations of masculinity, the response should not be to dismiss these legitimate concerns - even though I understand the impulse. The response ought to have been empathy and compassion for men and, again, I understand the impulse to deny men this compassion and empathy. After all, the entire world has been set up for the benefit of men, without due consideration to what it means to live in this world as a woman (for example consider how many COVID lockdown protocols did not consider how women would access reproductive health services or how anyone would access GBV crisis centres or the presumption of guilt heaped upon women victimised by sexual assault or the lengths women go to shape their behaviour to be safe around men). Therefore any concerns they may raise just sound like complaining; this has been the argument. Yet we forget that in exposing the flaws of patriarchy and the unnecessary burdens it places upon masculinity (like the willingness to sacrifice one's body to the state and the marriage between masculinity and violence), we are also exposing men's vulnerabilities. And as Bell Hooks argues:

Being 'vulnerable' is an emotional state many men seek to avoid. Some men spend a lifetime in a state of avoidance and therefore never experience intimacy. Sadly, we have all colluded with the patriarchy by faking it with men, pretending levels of intimacy and closeness we do not feel. We tell men we love them when we feel we have absolutely no clue as to who they really are. We tell fathers we love them when we are terrified to share our perceptions of them, our fear that if we disagree, we will be cast out, excommunicated. In this way we all collude with patriarchal culture to make men feel they can have it all, that they can embrace patriarchal manhood and still hold their loved ones dear. In reality, the more patriarchal a man is, the more disconnected he must be from feeling. If he cannot feel, he cannot connect. If he cannot connect, he cannot be intimate."

This takes me to the second point. In the absence of a life-affirming alternative to patriarchy, men are reacting violently to the gains of feminism, specifically, and change, in general. I have written before about why I believe this is; the idea that the bundle of rights has always been packaged as a finite product and that apportioning rights to one minority group means taking away rights from the majority. Yet it is a perception that still continues; in fact, it is one of the bases upon which men are rejecting feminism. Some believe that as women gain rights, they are losing them. Whether or not this is a legitimate concern is immaterial to the reality that this is a fear that motivates the actions, and reactions, of millions of men. Some men who, now, turn to Andrew Tates of the world and the Manosphere in general, to seek comfort and assurance that they matter. Ironically, many men are turning to the same patriarchial arguments that limit their quality of life, to argue for a higher quality of life. As Hooks' argues in The Will to Change; men are harmed by the patriarchy. It robs them of their potential for self-actualization, mind and soul. Some men don't understand this and others do not wish to for reasons enumerated above; going as far as to abuse the women who fight against the patriarchy for everyone. And so they retreat to spaces defined by a toxic version of masculinity that affirms this theft as justified and good; when feminist spaces are demanding better for men. 

So yeah, I was wrong about the ways in which feminists need to interact with male-centric issues and problems. And I understand why addressing men with compassion and empathy is difficult. I have been socialised my life not to trust men and the roles they play in my life because, statistically, they will be my abusers, my jailers, and a literal ball and chain dampening my potential. I do not trust them to help with feminism because I do not trust them to understand how a system that benefits them could be wrong. I do not trust them to hold their friends accountable when they fuck up, nor do I trust them to hold themselves accountable. I do not trust men to separate their anxiety, manifesting itself as socially sanctioned rage, about the changing world from the women benefiting from these changes in the immediate term.

Fundamentally, I know better than to believe that empathy and compassion can change a man. Nobody changes unless they want to; no matter how much care and kindness you heap upon their soul. Therefore, I believe the next phase of feminism, specifically and social activism in general, needs to talk about how we can build the will to change in all active stakeholders.