The male liberation movement

White dudes as you know them are an oppressed people.

Just kidding. Let me begin by saying two things that might sound contradictory: 1. White hetero Christian men are not an oppressed group and 2. White hetero etc. dudes should liberate themselves from the culture of masculinity and all the things that go with it. You see some of the White hetero etc. dudes are perfectly ok with how things have always been that is why they are beginning to believe they are in fact an oppressed group because their privilege is changing and being threatened (aside: I would never presume to tell someone how they feel or should feel, situational oppression and discrimination do happen, but I’m talking big institutional/structural picture). For the White hetero etc. dudes not ok with these traditional privileges, and want to hold themselves to a standard based in equality and equity should lead a movement breaking down the patriarchy…some would call that feminism, and you’re welcome to join our party or start your own and we’ll all do a little more solidarity building.

Let’s begin with the idea that White guys are oppressed (presumably by another group other than themselves). Lindy West wrote a piece for Jezebel on the concept that the next social movement would be for White guys. Now I’m not agreeing with her or disagreeing. I feel she is by in large correct, but I don’t like how she says a lot of this. West begins with this:

“If there’s one thing I’m always going to remember about the 2012 election, it’s that it was the moment I first saw the white male monopoly lose its vise-grip on American culture. Not that white men aren’t in charge anymore—they are, and they will probably always be a dominant political bloc—but there’s a sense that they’re no longer entitled to win just for playing. They’re going to have to enter and roll, just like the rest of us (the dice are still weighted, duh, but baby steps). Mitt Romney was a white dude’s white dude, and 62% of white dudes had no doubt that their dude would win. Because, hey, he “looked like a President.” That fantasy imploded on election day—and, with it, a whole lot of never-before-questioned white confidence.”

Glorious. Of course, it is after this is when West brings up the issue she is really addressing: “what started as a fringe dude subculture has flourished into a thriving online community—the self-described “Manosphere,” a safe haven/echo chamber for men who feel discriminated against, ignored, and blames. Potentially false rape charges and “unfair’ child support payments deserve equal or greater outrage, they say, alongside actual rapes and centuries of systemic, enforced poverty.” West notes she doesn’t think these are not problems, and she prioritizes discrimination. This is not ok. Do I think a bunch of dudes talking of false rape allegations are all victims of them? Hell no, but those who are deserve to be heard, and they are no more or less worthy of our time than anyone else. That being said, the false narrative of oppression because of a few false rape allegations when 3% of rapists spend a day in jail, stemming from a philosophy that men are victims and women oppressors is a little cray-cray. Back to West:

“When your philosophy—reinforced over and over by other men who are just as scared as you—dictates that men are the real victims and women are the oppressors, the only surefire escape is retreat into traditionalist behavior models where everyone “knows their place.” Then everything will be okay again. Then we’ll have a president who “looks like a president.””

West goes on to talk about how we’re seeing these traditional behavior models coming out including the presumption that older men should be found attractive indiscriminately (Richard Cohen), The Rules as dating advice which is making a comeback, the Tea Party, Nice Guys (see this morning’s post), and the insecure men who spend all their time working out and making anti-gay slurs.

She also points to a number of editorials about how white men are getting blamed for everything and it isn’t fair. I don’t think these deserve space. West is pretty awesome here:

“Yeah, yeah, yeah—as though certain men deserve some sort of credit for not being completely entitled sociopathic assholes. Congrats, bro.”

West notes the excerpt she used was from a mainstream newspaper. She points out that these guys have their feelings hurt; people are judging them without knowing them. They don’t run the world as an individual. He’s Joe Everyman. You don’t say? People judging you because of a perception of you based on your privilege? Must be rough. Now, that isn’t to say these guys have it easy, just that some difficulties haven’t existed for White men. West points out that White men aren’t being blamed, but instead as ked to recognize their privilege and help take apart the system rigged in their favor.

So this is a good transition into another article about this request: White guys in privilege help us dismantle the broken system. The website Role/Reboot is awesome, and you should be reading it. Nicole Rodgers wrote a piece about how men need a liberation movement to cast off traditional gender roles that hold them back and oppress them. These roles are set by the patriarchy so you know, it is like when your older brother would grab your arms and make you hit yourself while saying “Quit hitting yourself.”

Rodger’s article is framed by the “war on men” concept that has been poisoning circulating the Internet. The argument in these “war on men” articles are all about how women have emasculated men, and as a result all the problems men face are because or can be linked to women’s success. However, at the same time women are victims too because we believe in this gender-bending nonsense. The Venker article is garbage; she cherry picks stats and missing the larger point. Also, this is the same old feminist backlash as always. Venker and her elk long for a time before when everything was great (provided you weren’t female, of color, or any other marginalized group). Venker’s article is preoccupied with the concept of marriage.

Rodger’s correctly points out that while Venker aims to shame women for changing gender roles, she indicts men for not changing. Men haven’t changed because no revolution has demanded change from them. Rodger argues that men need a liberation movement because without it they will remain squarely in the past while the rest of us pass them. I think it is important to note that Rodgers is using men as a blanket term and references second wave feminism in her article. I mention this because the assumption is raced; she’s talking about white men. Rodger argues that men do not simply want to be the protectors and financial supporters any longer, but instead want to be active participants in parenting, etc. As they should, but without the deconstructing of patriarchal norms they’ll never get there. Men should want to redefine masculinity.

Ok, to summarize: men are in crisis, but only because of their refusal to embrace the changing gender roles, and even more so when we add race to this discussion. Now, I openly admit this post is largely referring to white, straight dudes because we’ve come so far we’re still using the white hetero standard as a metric (sarcasm). So with that in mind, how we define masculinity needs to reflect the changing society. For example: being a woman no longer means married, kids, stay at home, but it also doesn’t mean there is anything wrong with any of those characteristics. Or we could do away with the gender binary completely, but I think that might be a large shock to the system.