Farewell to the Men's Team

By Nathan Kalman-Lamb

Well, I'm sorry to announce that my time leading the Men's Team has drawn to an end. This will be my final post for the Men's Team blog, just as this is my final day working on behalf of the Team.

It has, I believe, been a very productive year. When I began in May 2014, the on-line presence of the Men's Team was practically non-existent. There was a Twitter account with nine followers. There was a Facebook page. There was little else. Based on the premise that in this day-in-age, an on-line presence is at least as important as a physical one, we worked hard to change that. Today (as of the minute I type this), our Twitter account has precisely 1,567 followers.  Even more significantly, we founded this blog, which, as of this moment, has been viewed 4,488 times in less than a year.

Do these numbers matter? I think they do, for reasons beyond self-aggrandizement (although I am proud of them!).

As the year has advanced, it has become more and more clear to me that the Men's Team has a principal purpose above all others. Of course, our mandate has been and continues to be to struggle to redefine masculinity as part of a larger project to end gender-based violence. That is an immense ambition, however, and one that cannot realistically be imminently accomplished. This does not mean that the project of the Men's Team is misguided or even Sisyphean, however. For, the most important role of the Men's Team, I now believe, is symbolic. Not tokenistic, mind you, but symbolic. The symbol of an organization of men who stand alongside women in the feminist struggle against gender-based violence matters.

It matters because, from an ethical standpoint, it is important for men to stand up and model to other men that it is possible to do what is right, even if it is difficult and/or unpopular work.

It matters because it gives feminist women who must waste hours and hours of their time arguing with MRAs (Men's Rights Activists) on-line that their message is getting through to some men, and that there is hope things will get better.

It matters because it tells everyone who has suffered directly or indirectly as a consequence of the ideology of hegemonic masculinity that there is an alternative and that there are people who are committed to it.

The value of our increased on-line presence is that we have been able to disseminate that symbolic presence far more widely than in the past. We have let people know that we exist and that we are here for all of the above-stated reasons.

Of course, for precisely all of the same reasons, it is also important for the Men's Team to have a physical presence. To that end, members spent many a Friday in the past year tabling in Vari Hall at York University in an effort to initiate conversations on gender-based violence and masculinity. We also hosted a (wildly successful, in my humble opinion) workshop on masculinity and advertising.

This is all work that I hope will continue and be built upon in the future under new leadership. For now, I would like to warmly thank the members of the Men's Team who devoted a great deal of time and effort this year: Christopher Ford, E. A., Ernest Velasquez, Tony Barone, and Trevor York.

Thank you also to each of you who took the time to read and comment on what we had to say on the subject of masculinity and gender-based violence, whether that was here on the blog or on Twitter, and to those who stopped to chat in Vari Hall. I found it meaningfully encouraging to see just how many people care deeply about this subject and are unwilling to settle for the status quo.

Finally, please allow me to add this final statement of principle. We live in a patriarchal society -- a society that structurally privileges men at the expense of women. One way in which patriarchy manifests is through the identity category of hegemonic masculinity. Hegemonic masculinity, at its core, operates according to the logic of coercive entitlement. It teaches men that they deserve to have whatever it is they are able to take by force. This is why masculinity is directly connected to gender-based violence. Men are taught that they must aspire to dominate in every sphere of their lives, including their relations with women, and that if they succeed in doing so, they deserve to be rewarded. This is a fundamentally instrumental approach to the other and it is one (in combination with the patriarchal logic that men are inherently more valuable than women) that inevitably leads many men who internalize it to cause harm in myriad ways to the women they encounter in their lives.

As men, we need to acknowledge the privileges that we receive from hegemonic masculinity. We need to own up to our complicity in coercive entitlement. And, most importantly, we need to start working to ensure that future generations of men who follow us will see hegemonic masculinity for what it is: an archaic, bigoted, patently unethical way of being in the world.

I trust that the Men's Team will continue that project after I am gone. I can promise you that I will, regardless of where life takes me.

Hyper-masculinity and Feminism

By E. A.

We have all heard of the classic match-up, the proverbial battle that is waged between feminism and masculinity.

Those who have familiarized themselves with feminist philosophy understand this illusion for what it is: a narrative that figures feminism as the antagonist and doomsayer for men and masculine identity. So, why then do even educated men identify with a strong anti-feminist perspective? It stems from a variety of well integrated facets of masculine identity. The foundational traits of “manliness” emphasize dominance, competitiveness, strength, and tenacity. These qualities themselves create an atmosphere of hostility and aggression. The simple fact of being a man in contemporary society breeds an aggressive approach to any activity we may partake in, be it sports, academia, or the like. There is a certain type of personality imposed upon and ingrained in most men that they carry with them throughout their lives, and even when sublimated, becomes an almost defining characteristic of their actions.

When faced with criticism or resistance, there is also a natural inclination to defend ourselves. As people we are told that our culture and identity is what defines us, and quite sensitively, if this is questioned we must reassure not only the critic of our aptitude, but also ourselves.

There is an existential quality to our actions as well. Most are motivated by various concerns, but there is typically a commonly shared notion that sees progression as a means to an end. This sees our impact on culture as paramount to our existence; we wish to leave our mark upon society whether it is a lasting ideology, or some other contribution to the future. Herein lies the strength of tradition. To question it has been treated historically as blasphemy, heresy, even seen as a psychological abnormality. It is only recently that in western society has there been a larger consensus to accept criticism and learn from the revision and questioning of larger institutions.

Indeed, some see our “new” critical lens as something radical, left-wing, or anti-authoritative. Although sometimes true, it stems from a very necessary and iconoclastic approach to the failures of time past. We (especially here at York) admire Karl Marx; U.S history and identity is based on revolutionary fighters such as George Washington and Ulysses S. Grant; and Canadian culture is based on the cohesive diversity of cultures, something radically different than any other nation. The ability to challenge tradition has created prosperity and equality, the cornerstones of our strengths as a society. So, then, returning to our initial question, why is there such a real resistance to the ostensible threat that is feminism?

For many people who experience white privilege, the revelation of knowledge about structural racism and colonial violence can revolutionize the way they see the world. This is a profound challenge to notions of comfort and tradition they may have previously embraced, for it undermines their own sense of identity, history, and entitlement. The phenomenon is much the same when it comes to the question of masculinity. Men are terrified not only that women might achieve structural equity that will result in the loss of their privileges, but also that the very foundations of their identity might be called into question as illegitimate. Men who have typically risen to social prestige are now openly challenged. Within the ranks of feminism there are thinkers who reshape the role of women, who see them as existential players within our culture, rather than servants of outdated ideology. There are even some thinkers who challenge the very foundations of sexual relationships within the old-fashioned paradigms. If we take away dominance, undermine aggression, and challenge the norms known to men, then we can see why some are quick to see a mere criticism as a full blown attack to their existence.

Maybe this is why there is a very disturbing trend of men creating and joining “men’s rights activist” groups – organizations that aim to undermine the worth of women, while thinly veiling themselves behind the rhetoric of masculine victimhood. These groups are quick to defend insidious practices like cat-calling which they perceive to be all in good fun – willfully ignoring the fear and anxiety that they provoke in women, nor the connection such practices share to more extreme forms of sexual violence They fail to understand that feminism exists to curtail the exploitation of women and to create an atmosphere that celebrates the worth of women in a society that has historically sought to diminish them. Men who see feminism as antagonistic are frustrated and confused, scared and lost within a society moving towards equality and diversity. But, so too have women been scared in the face of patriarchal oppression. Thanks to their efforts, it is time to move beyond fear. Feminism is the ally of equality, while hegemonic masculinity is the antithesis of progress.

Rising above the oppression of colonial notions of gender

By Trevor York

Gender and sexuality are concepts we create; they are socially constructed. Why should I not be in control of how I define my own individual gender and sexual identity? Why let someone else tell you what it means to be a man or woman? For many people around the world, colonialism imported new and limited ideas about gender and sexuality.

Many world religions have different ideas about gender which challenge the western perspective of androgyny and gender fluidity. Hinduism has the idea that the god Sri Shiva has another form known as Ardhanarishvara. This form of Sri Shiva is a union between the male Sri Shiva and his consort Sri Parvati. Some argue that Ardhanarishvara symbolizes how the male and female principals are inseparable. In the wider context of Hinduism, however it really symbolizes the creation of the universe. This understanding of Hinduism suggests that having the qualities of both genders is empowering, rather than something to be derided as, for instance, "effeminate" or "gay."

 Arddhanarishvara, bazaar art, 1940's.
Image via Bazara Art and has been distributed under the terms of this license. It has not been modified.

Studying the legends of Hinduism, one finds that what we consider gender-fluidity and androgyny are valued as a strategic approach to success. In one legend, a demon chases after Sri Parvati, prompting her to reveal her Ardhanarishvara form to him. Seeing the half-male, half-female form, the demon loses interest in her and leaves. Such legends can be interpreted in many empowering ways. In this case, we have a woman transcending the polarity of her perceived dualism by exploring masculine traits in order to overcome a challenge.

The legends of ancient Greece also challenge modern western notions of gender identity. Celebrations and festivals held for Aphroditus amounted to parties in which everyone wore clothes of the opposite sex. One of the main reasons for the festival was for women to perform the roles of men, and men to perform the roles of women.

When one reviews this history, it begins to become apparent that gender and sexuality are actually far more fluid across time and space than we are wont to imagine.

In fact, fixed hegemonic masculine and feminine identities are unrealistic because the true nature of subjective experience allows for a wide array of gender and sexual identities that are influenced by factors of time, space, culture, ethnicity, religion, class, and more. This is impossible to ignore in a multicultural and free society such as Canada. We must allow for the freedom and liberty to freely express self-chosen gender and sexual identity consistent with a Canadian society that values human rights. We must not just recognize and legislate definitions of transsexualism, transgender people, we have to be actively defining the new realms of androgyny, the non-gendered, pangenderism, gender-fluidity, and everything else. At the same time we have to consider the social relativity where these things may mean something else to another culture. Considering the plurality of gender and sexual identities, it's very difficult to ignore the inherently subjective nature of gender and sexual identities.

So why even subscribe to the mainstream western hegemonic genders and sexualities? A lot of western ideas are still deeply inflected by patriarchal and heteronormative assumptions about gender and sexuality. We should always know that the individual has power to subjectively define different identities in terms of gender and sexuality consistent with human rights. Regardless of biology, our ideas, our thoughts, our identities are something that should always belong to us. That is something worth fighting for.

On Missing Men

 By Ernest Velasquez

Whose politics are men's politics? Who does "A Voice for Men" (AVFM) speak for?

A major failing of various men's rights groups is their anti-feminist focus. But this obsession with feminism doesn’t only undermine feminism and women. For all the ink spilled in MRA's defense of masculinity, fatherhood, and men, there are a remarkable number of men missing from this perspective.

Take, for example, AVFM's odd relationship to homophobia and LGBT issues. AVFM's community, at times, is (sort of) capable of speaking out against homophobic language but just as adept at employing it themselves.

Officially, AVFM is supportive of the struggles of gay men, stating that they "regard men as human beings, regardless of their sexuality." But it's a little difficult to take this seriously considering their unwavering support for Senator Cools who has been defiant in her opposition to same-sex marriage in Canada.

Considering AVFM’s focus on fatherlessness, it’s hard to know exactly what to make of this support. Are LGTB families not families? Are gay fathers not fathers?

The site's relationship to transgender issues is even more ambivalent. Some credit is due for the relatively recent inclusion of transgender voices (well, a transgender voice). But this does little to change the fact that the physical and systematic violence that transgender people suffer doesn't seem to attract MRA attention.

If anything, rather than discuss anti-LGBT violence in detail, AVFM writers are more liable to imply that gender dysphoria comes from the existence of positive female role models.

This links back to MRA ideas about the ‘disposable male’ and ‘gynocracy’ – in essence the idea of ‘female privilege’. But to support this idea of the ‘disposable male’ and ‘gynocracy’ - the systemic devaluation of men compared to women – AVFM must insist on a shallow and static idea of masculinity and femininity.

Again, this obsession with conspiratorial feminism blinds them to another branch of men’s experience – the intersection of men’s politics and anticolonial struggle in places like Hawai’i.

The gendered aspect of the colonial relationship between the American culture and native Hawaiians, far from being the result of a ‘gynocracy’ or ‘female privilege’, comes from the colonial feminization of Hawai’i. This was the imposition of patriarchal and racist ideas of femininity onto the native Hawai’ian population as a way of naturalizing American imperialism. Far from being a gynocratic power exercised over the powerless ‘disposable’ male, colonial power is gendered as masculine as it is exercised over the feminized/infantilized population it sought to control.

As a result, the kind of men’s politics that has developed in Hawai’i, at least as described by Ty Tengan in Native Men Remade is a struggle for decolonizing masculinity. A struggle against racist notions of masculinity, and against the very patriarchal image of femininity that AVFM defends as the foundation of gynocracy.

We men are too “machista”: Why Pope Francis is both right and wrong

By Trevor York

The Argentine pope recently commented on the male-dominated turn out during his visit at a Catholic university in the Philippines by saying that "we men are too machista." The leader of the Catholic church responded to the crowd by claiming the importance of women’s perspectives, especially in decision-making. To many, it’s refreshing to hear more liberal sentiments from Christian leaders. However the noted male-dominated turnout brought attention to the real issue: a systemic and institutional patriarchy resulting in discrimination against women. That’s not something that can be fixed with the surface appeal of a silver tongue.

Consider that the Catholic church bans women from becoming priests. While this may at first seem to be an issue with the Catholic church in particular, if we look at other religions we can see that the roles and identities that men and women are supposed to take on are typically highly gendered. This has been the case in many world religions over time, reflecting a historical patriarchal order that permeates western society, and many other parts of the world as well. For example, it was only in the 1970's that women started serving as rabbis for the Jewish community. Looking eastward towards Asia, we find influences of patriarchy through Confucianism and even assigned gender identities in the dualism of Taoism. The Islamic community has in many cases encouraged traditional family roles for women, conservative dress, and traditional sexual identities for men and women.

The permeation of patriarchy has historically been evident in religion, politics, economics, science, education, philosophy, the organization of society and family; for our age, these things have reflected the patriarchy, often the “machista”. Seeing the symptoms of patriarchy in the Philippines merely reminds us of it’s global reach. Although it's easy to blame a particular religion, or even religion in general, for discrimination against women, history tells us patriarchy, male domination, is the typical order of most societies across history. It's a mistake for us to only prod religion in the advancement of women's rights, gender equality, and all relevant social justice causes. The machista Pope Francis refers to - what we might alternatively call hegemonic or toxic masculinity - is often perceived as the natural form of masculine identity. Yet, I contend that embracing this version of masculinity, one that necessarily seeks to subordinate women and also men who fail to meet its standards, is actually a form of weakness, for all it requires is to accept the status quo and all of the privileges that it confers. True strength can be found in the courage to challenge an unjust system and reject its false rewards.

The 20th century saw some great progress for gender equality, identity, and rights, but this is merely the beginning of a new age. Our time, and the future, I hope, will mark a shift from a general order of patriarchy to the creation of an at least incrementally more equitable gender order, perhaps even the establishment of a matriarchy. The process of creating such a new order necessarily provokes us to ask new questions about the roles and identities imposed onto us by the conditioning of the media, religion, education, and all other socializing institutions. Does it even make sense to associate sex and gender? Who profits from the patriarchy? What will future students of York University say about how we acted when they look back at us? Will they ask, "why didn't anyone speak up, or do anything at that time?"

The easiest way to fight the machista is to be yourself. We are naturally resistors of patriarchal society, the imposed hegemonic masculine norms, because in real life people are individuals who in most cases don't have inherent qualities that align neatly with the established gender order. Are men really fundamentally rational, dominant, and strong? Are women irrational, submissive, and weak? Of course not. A man has emotions, just as a woman does. Only by willfully suppressing and neglecting those attributes perceived to be "feminine" (sensitivity, emotions, intuition, passivity, etc.) do men cultivate and perform hegemonic masculinity at the expense of women, the exploitation of the planet and its natural resources, and, even, themselves.

The men who can acknowledge these problems, who can acknowledge we're not inherently restrained by assigned gender identities and characteristics, are the ones able to glimpse the creative potential of the future. For once, it can be up to us as individuals to construct our identity, instead of some element in society. For once, we can be in control of who we are. The men who take action, those who try to move society forward, are the are the ones who can help create a new vision for humanity. They are the ones who ask how rational it is to exploit and hurt others and the world around us.

Patriarchy has produced a number of illogical conclusions we've mistakenly taken on as norms. The most important thing we must all do is face up to the fact that the dualistic sex/gender system we have been taught is nothing more than an illusion. The reality is that we all exist beyond duality and have the potential for infinitely diverse forms of identity. Free yourself from the matrix of patriarchy.

It was once said we can live in a world without rules and controls, without borders or boundaries. A world where anything is possible. It's where you go from here, a choice I leave to you.

Evangelical Masculinity: On the Christian call to "Act Like Men"

“Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong. Let all that you do be done in Love” (1 Cor 16:13-14, ESV)

 

Mark Driscoll preaching at Mars Hill Church, set against a large backdrop that reads "Ten Commandments: set free to live free," 24 Oct. 2013.  Image via Ruthanne Reid and has been distributed under the terms of this license. It has not been modified.

In 2013, over six thousand men – and only men – gather in Hamilton, Ontario for the ‘Act Like Men’ conference. They’ve come to learn how to be real Christian men. To reclaim a sense of biblical masculinity. To be told that, to be strong, they must not act like women.

After all, the conference speakers preach, when God wants something done, He calls a man to do it.

I say preach because these speakers are the leaders of some of the largest, most expansive Evangelical networks in the US. Pastors and church planters like James MacDonald of the Harvest Bible Chapel, Eric Mason of the Epiphany Fellowship, and, most infamously, Mark Driscoll the (former) pastor of Mars Hill Church – though now he’s probably better known for his comments about the “pussified nation” or women as “penis homes.”

But this is still 2013, a year before Driscoll’s fall from grace. A year before he is disowned by the organizations he founded, and before his church has dissolved. And this year, on this stage, he is energized.

He is alive like lightning, casting sharp, electric, verbal bolts. A wave of nuclear frisson that moves through the crowd as he yells into his mic about Abraham and Abraham’s father -- about the generations of the godless before Abraham who are “stacked like kindling for the eternal fire.” Shaking his chains – he’s brought real metal chains on stage with him – making them look weightless though you can hear their heavy clanking through his mic. To him they are light. They weigh nothing compared to God’s judgment.

A real revivalist preacher, a ‘bro,’ and easily the most charismatic speaker here. A prophet shouting out in the desert of secularism, the spiritual desert of “pussified men,” of soy milk, and organic honey. And what is his prophecy?

It’s emblazoned on the banners lining the entrance to the stadium. The name of the conference: “Act Like Men.” Each banner outlines one of its four pillars. I open the booklet they gave me at registration and read.

Act Like Men Means:

1. Don’t Act Like A Woman

2. Don’t Act Like A Boy

3. Don’t Act Like An Animal

4. Don’t Act like A Superhero

Let’s leave aside, for now, the awkward association of femininity, immaturity, animality, and fiction. Focus on 1. What does it mean to tell men that to be real Christians they must not act like women?

Technically, pastors like Driscoll and MacDonald are complementarians. They hold to the idea that the Bible lays out that gender roles are separate, equal, and different. Equal dignity between the sexes is supposed to be emphasized in this theological view, though it’s hard to imagine that considering what “Don’t Act Like Women” seems to mean.

The speakers break it down: men don’t follow, they lead; men are not to be the weaker vessel; emotional self-control is a sign of real masculinity (insert joke about our wives crying at movies, followed by laughter). Therefore, we “don’t need birth control – we need self-control.” A piece of rhetoric that treats the reality of pregnancy as merely a way of attacking or defending men’s pride.

They emphasize, Driscoll especially, that God is the Father. The ultimate Father. Therefore, to act like a Christian is to act like a man, to act like a father. And in this move, far from the idea of equal dignity of the sexes, women are pushed out of their collective imagination. Pushed out of the public sphere (they don’t lead), out of agency in sexuality (don’t need birth control but self-control), out of the highest sense of spiritual communion (God is the Father – the Father – and he calls on his sons to act).

Fatherhood is an obsession at the conference. Or, maybe it’s more accurate to say that fatherlessness is. One of the speakers, Greg Laurie, puts it directly: modern society is suffering from an “epidemic of fatherlessness.” Almost every social ill, from divorce, to domestic violence, to substance abuse, to homosexuality, to atheism, is traced back to a lack of real fathers, real men, and real Christians.

Like the message “Act Like Men,” this sense of masculinity-under-assault is one of the first thing that greets you in the conference. A banner with the message, “Godly men are absolutely an endangered species” hangs at the entrance. To fix men is to fix society. To save men is to save society. To attack men, masculinity, and fatherhood is to attack society. It’s hard to see this rhetoric as gender ‘complementary.’

Driscoll leans on this idea too, emphasizing that men are called to be fathers within their family, and fathers (leaders) to a nation. In fact, the two are linked together. He yells at the crowd, as if to baptize them in spittle and passion, shaking his chains for emphasis, about the importance of lineage and biological legacy, about Abraham and his father, about Abraham and his many, many sons. Christians must beget Christians, each one a link in a chain of patriarchs. Every man comes from another man – and again, women disappear even from the fact of reproduction.

But many here are fatherless, if not literally then spiritually. Some are the first links in the chain – new Christians from faithless families. Others are broken links seeking repair, or the sons of broken links, the children of absent or abusive fathers. And for many what makes this call-to-masculinity so persuasive, so necessary, is the reality of toxic masculinity that they are intimately familiar with.

Driscoll speaks to this too, and from personal experience. He describes himself as the son of a wife-beating alcoholic from generations of wife-beating alcoholics. A different kind of legacy, but redeemed through his conversion. His faith converted his father. He yells into the mic, again and again, with the same fervor as when he talks about eternal damnation, his message of hope: “It does not matter who your father is as long as God is your father.”

This is what these men have come to hear, especially those who are as familiar with domestic violence as Driscoll. That they are not damned to a lack of manliness, a lack of self-control, to inevitable violence and abuse, as long as God is their father. As long as they become real fathers.

This is the softer edge of their message but it still cuts to their spiritual cores. Driscoll, Laurie, and Lacrae all talk about their absent/abusive fathers. Their struggles to break this chain of abuse and negligence, and remake their lives into something holy. Their commitment to a new non-violent kind of masculinity. In a sense a similar project to this blog -- an attempt to ‘rethink’ masculinity.

And this is where James Macdonald leans in. Almost as charismatic as Driscoll but taking a different approach. No chains, or readings from Genesis, or reminders of eternal fire. Instead, ending his sentences at times with ‘bro’ or ‘yo’ (“Don’t go out without your sword, yo” when reminding people to bring their Bibles). He reads out 1 Corinthians 16:13-14: “Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong. Let all that you do be done in love.”

He leans on, repeats, reminds us that men are called to let all that we do “be done in love.” Reminds us that to act in godly love means to be communicative, patient, kind. Reminds us that godly men can hug too. Calls on us to eschew the violence, temper, and insensitivity that defined the upbringing of many men here. Calls on us to be better fathers than our fathers, to be something other than the wolf at the dinner table. Reminds us that to act in anger is not to act like men. And he cautions us against the false love of socialism, of pornography, of feminism, of permissive, secular culture. Reminds us that God has called men to act like men and not women. Cautions us against the spiritual weakness of letting women lead. Calls on us to act in love.

To genuinely rethink masculinity is a radical project, one that neither Driscoll or Macdonald – different as their styles are – are willing to undertake. It is not quite enough to be against violence – rarely are people actually pro-violence. Instead, it’s a call to the difficult work of questioning masculinity altogether, not simply trying to redeem it. Otherwise, we risk simply reproducing the same ideas that make gender-based violence both possible and invisible – all while attaching it to a rhetoric of anti-violence and biblical love.

Why we need to stop playing “the game”

By E. A.

Why are some men the aggressor when it comes to relationships? 

If we focus on the traditional male/female paradigm (this analysis is not meant to normalize or privilege heterosexual relations at the expense of homosexual relations, but merely to examine some of the dynamics in the former) we will see a common conception: the man must actively seek the woman. When it comes to dating, the illusion typically exists that there is a “game” that must be played. This illusion is one that both sexes play a part in, and no matter how “progressive” or “alternative” the individuals may be, both parties will almost always play along – even in the most minute ways – with this socially-entrenched model of behaviour. 

This can be seen in the example of a standard night at a popular nightclub. On such a night, men will approach the event intending to meet women and earn their favor. The game is what must be “played” to distinguish the characteristics of one individual from another; it is the stage set for competing individuals to successfully “win” the object of their desire, a prize, so to speak. 

It is in this realm that we see the man as active; he must seduce the women, pursue her, attempt to win her over, and further, do so in a way that renders the attempts of other men inferior. Now, this is done by engaging her senses; a man must perform a multitude of personalities to stand out from the competition. He must possess (or, as is most often the case, display that he possesses without any genuine substance) desirable traits that the woman looks for. He must be confident and charming, humourous and witty, physically and aesthetically pleasing, etc. Thus, in this realm, the man must play according to a predefined role. Not to say that there isn’t any room for creativity and innovation, but there is certainly a structure that must be adhered to if he aims for objective success. 

Women too play into this construct. When a woman goes for a “night out” she typically prepares herself by dressing in a way that is appealing (whether this be defined by terms like “sexy” or “flirty” is case specific, however, it is almost always in a way that renders preference to her male counterpart). This is done to improve her chances of being seen, to look more attractive than other women. This construct has permeated deep into popular culture, with women going to painful lengths just to achieve a specific look. The woman then presents herself through both her clothing and body language. Often, women will dance suggestively, embrace their friends provocatively, and exhibit coquettish body language. Although these are all active and completely conscious actions, the role of the woman within the structure of the game is still inherently passive. This is all done in an attempt to get a man to engage with her. Although it is acceptable for her to start the conversation, she must possess some degree of desirability, in the hopes of catching the attention of the man and stopping him from pursuing other women.    

Now, as you read this you may think that this model is based on tired stereotypes and a simplistic outlook on the dating scene. This is partly true. Nightclubs and “the game” represent a microcosm of human activity, but there is no doubt that it is a very real and very popular activity among young people. It is one that has become deeply entrenched in popular culture. We can look no further than popular music, most of which variously references “the club,” the activity of pursing and interacting with the opposite sex, and sexual activities. Further, television and other popular media regularly play into the conception of “the game;” advertisements that present male hygienic products as “rugged, “manly” or “smooth” (look no further than an old spice ad for deodorant) make shameless allusions to masculine characteristics that the stereotypical woman is supposed to like. Sitcoms often lampoon the dating scene and the popularity of Friends and How I Met You’re Mother, are a testament to the insidious acceptance of these codes. Both contain stock characters who embody the attributes of the dating scene; the former has Phoebe, absent-minded girl who lives for a good time, and the latter, Barney, a serial womanizer with little respect for women who inspires hope for legions of men. The point being made is that there is a real and well-understood social construct that dictates the relationships between men and women. It is widely accepted, albeit subconsciously, by the masses due to its insidious nature and ability to homogenize itself with almost every facet of modern culture. This is true so much so that non-hegemonic groups still pander to its structure; the LGBT community has the “butch” and “femme” and the “top” and “bottom”.  Some progressive cultures, such as polyamory, see sexuality as open, yet make no attempt to deconstruct the gender roles (although they do seem more open to varying viewpoints). Even feminists themselves have open debates regarding the role of masculinity in their own sexuality, with some fully embracing it and seeing it’s exploitation as a form of empowerment, and others fully rejecting it (yet this often plays into a masculine role, the “butch”).   

So let us return to the original question: why are some men the aggressors when it comes to relationships? Those who actively enjoy and embrace the structure of “the game” are quite susceptible to overt enthusiasm. It’s not a big leap to jump from confidence to power, and this can become quite domineering. As a man, I’ve heard numerous references to women as “kills,” “wins”, “scores,” and even “prey,” reducing them to the very object that “the game” holds them as. This creates contempt for women that some men find “easy,” as they do not correctly fulfill to their given role, or do so poorly, or haphazardly. It is not uncommon for men to diminish the personality of a promiscuous woman. Perhaps this can in part explain the actions of violence towards sex workers (something far more common than in domestic relationships, although that violence is a real issue in its own respect) and explains why there is a very real and socially-accepted culture of domination when it comes to the seduction of women. The Pick Up Artist, or PUA, culture is an extremely concerning community that seems to feed off this dynamic and they have, rightly, come under the criticism of feminists and intellectuals. Although not all men see women as inferior, there is a very real consciousness that sees them as playing a passive role, a role that is easily exploited and dominated by those who seek power through violence. 

But the issue of gender-based violence is obviously not that simplistic. Psychoanalytic and social scientific research shows us that the psyche of humans is extremely complex. Among the multitude of reasons that may drive a man to physically assault a woman, there are men who do so because they themselves have been dominated. Whether the culprits were other men, authority, or institutions, these individuals feel victimized and hurt. They may then seek violent power as a form of unconscious retribution. Further; they may see the passive role of women as something that can be easily subjugated.  These men, dealing with a variety of issues, may find the construction of dating and socializing as something they can easily comprehend. From here they may exploit this knowledge in an attempt to realize their own aggression. The man earns the trust of a woman but only to lower her defenses, thus attacking a vulnerable and easy target. 

These examples illustrate both the complex causes of gender-based violence and allow us to elucidate the effects it has on female survivors. The latter example emphasizes what a woman means when she says she feels victimized. For simply playing into an assigned role, she is degraded and violated. 

An awareness of these gender roles helps to understand not only the causes but also some of the responses to gender-based violence. Women who “dress like sluts” are not “asking for it,” they may simply be doing it to attract the attention of a particular person. Not all men are perverted, domineering predators, some may just be shy or introverted, or simply have been told to act in a certain way. The barriers of miscommunication and social constructs are what lead to a majority of the issues, and there must be much more open dialogue when it comes to addressing the void between genders (and their assigned social roles) in an attempt to secure empathy for one another. With consent becoming something of a buzz word in the media, let’s not forget what it really means: to give permission, to have the other see you as an equal, respect your wishes, and to share something with you. 

Consent, in short, creates the conditions for play between sexual partners; “the game is simply an exercise in violence and power. It’s time to start reimagining the games we play.

On Belief and Masculinity

By Tony Barone

As funny as it may sound, people believe what they believe because they are assuming that it is the truth.

To borrow from Socrates, ideas about gender differences, philosophy, religion, the nature of society, one’s own values, are all things worth revisiting and examining. Only by comparing her own ideas with those of others can a person be certain that at any given time she is making choices and decisions based on a true set of personal values.

A person can, of course, believe whatever he wants. It is, however, crucial to understand that there’s a difference between beliefs built on a foundation of truth, and beliefs based on the tenuous and fallible foundation of popular consensus or socialization. The idea that each of us could have been acting on faulty information for our entire lives is a difficult one to swallow.

In your life look around and notice how many of your friends and family still hold on to ideas about the world, about life, about themselves, which they learned or developed as children.  From there, recognize that you may have ideas that are similarly incorrect or incomplete, and that there’s no easy way to tell whether your ‘story’ is missing something.

It is incredibly difficult to picture a world in which these beliefs are incorrect. It would be like growing up implicitly trusting the morality of your oldest friend only to find out later in life that he had been engaging in gender-based violence for years. This would be an exceptionally difficult mental jump to make.

So, what does all this have to do with masculinity and gender-based violence? Why am I meditating on the nature of belief for the Men’s Team blog?

Well, belief has everything to do with masculinity. Christopher Ford has written that there is nothing natural about masculinity. Rather, it is a set of ideas – beliefs – about what it means to be a man. These beliefs must be taken very seriously because at times they have had and continue to have abhorrent consequences.

25 years ago, a gunman entered a school in Montreal and massacred 14 female students.  Why? He was enraged because he believed those women were involved in studies meant for men. 

Now, not all beliefs about the nature of masculinity have negative consequences. For example, some traditional ideas about courage and devotion to family are difficult to see as anything but honorable. Still, these more positive characteristics cannot be separated from a broader system of belief that men are taught to act and identify with. These beliefs have everything to do with placing value on strength and violence and emotional detachment at the expense of care, vulnerability, and affect, and the consequences are experienced by both women and men.

Men have adopted these traditional beliefs as truths, and those who diverge from them are ridiculed by their peers. From a young age, children, boys and girls, are socialized into an understanding of their gender by the adults who shape their lives. Let’s use the question of emotional vulnerability as an example. In most cases, boys learn that they shouldn’t discuss issues about emotional problems, as to do so is deemed to be “like a woman,” or “not manly.”

A boy who experiences this conditioning will then be discouraged from seeking emotional support and will become increasingly emotionally-distant in his dealings with other peers. In the long-term, the result is that men are more likely than women to have a greater difficulty in identifying and expressing their true emotions, their true beliefs.

This is just one example of the way in which a belief in the inherent value of masculinity learned in childhood informs the ways in which men live their lives.

Given the incredible harm men have caused to women (and other men) based on such collective beliefs in masculinity,  it is time we started to do the difficult work of looking within and reevaluating whether those beliefs serve the interests of others and ourselves.

We have the responsibility of socializing future generations of men. We need a new set of beliefs to teach them.

Between feminism and counter-feminism: Where does a Men's Centre sit?

By Ernest Velasquez

Last Monday saw the opening of Toronto's first Men's Centre - the Canadian Centre for Men and Families (CCMF). Run by the Canadian Association for Equality (CAFE), the CCMF is billed as a place for "research, outreach and public education dedicated to men’s issues." A place focusing on counselling for men and boys, but open to men and women both, with the goal of "mutual understanding and compassion" across the divide of gender.

But, while the CAFE's rhetoric is apparently noble, its history and associations are a little more troubled.

You may recognize CAFE from its increasing campus presence in places like U of T, York, and Guelph. Or, more likely, you may have heard of them earlier this year when the group was barred from marching in Pride.

The most problematic of these associations are with speakers like Warren Farrell and organizations like A Voice for Men (AVFM) - the latter being an explicitly anti-feminist organization. And while the recent relationship between these two organizations has been tense they can still both be placed broadly within the 'Men's Rights Movement.'

But why bring up these associations at all when discussing the centre? Especially since it looks like CAFE has made some effort to distance itself from what they vaguely described as radicals? Aren't CAFE's projects - things like coping with men's suicide in the wake of Robin William's death or addressing the sexual exploitation of young men - deserving of some grudging acknowledgement?

Even if we can take for granted the distance between moderate and radical MRAs, between CAFE and AVFM (and it may be that we shouldn't take it for granted), and accept many of the issues that the men's right movement and CAFE are trying to address are real, it's still necessary to look at CAFE and the opening of the men's centre with a critical eye. While moderate MRAs like CAFE set themselves apart from AVFM and redpillers through their focus on providing services like counselling and their non-feminist rather than explicitly anti-feminist language, the rhetorical 'silence' of this moderation still implicitly supports the same kind of assumptions that are explicitly - and vitriolically - expressed by groups like AVFM. Namely, that the advancement of feminism has come at the expense of men, and therefore an authentic men's politics must either be articulated either outside or against feminism.

This is not a political project of dismantling patriarchy or hegemonic masculinity - though it does involved shades of critiquing the latter. The discourse of even the moderate MRA's is , if not anti-feminist, then counter-feminist. It assumes that taking men's experiences seriously requires setting up an unconvincing equivalency between men and women's experiences; a misandry to mirror misogyny; a neutered language that talks about 'gender equity' by avoiding discussions of patriarchy; that treats critique of hegemonic or traditional masculinity as evidence for feminist misandry even while acknowledging how these traditional gender roles are damaging to men as well.

So while the new CCMF is ostensibly focused around some very real issues – issues that do need to be addressed – and while CAFE is, in some ways, rhetorically distinct and moderate compared to groups like AVFM, the framing of this ‘moderate’ and counselling focused work still reinforces a serious problem with the men’s rights movement: a tendency to dismiss feminism politics and theory as ‘misandry’.

Violence, survivor-blaming, and sex work in Newfoundland

By E. A.

Reports of gang rapes and sexual assaults have been reported by sex workers in St John's, Newfoundland since October. As early as October 2, there have been reports of sex workers being called into and then abducted in hotel rooms with as many as 20 men. Although there have been multiple reports, it is feared that there could be a much greater rate of violent incidents that have not been reported because sex trade workers face a high degree of stigma.  The alarmingly large number of these attacks has created controversy, not just from the repulsion of such vicious acts, but also from the lack of legal retribution. The reports of, and subsequent warnings against, the sexual assaults stem from an outreach group (S.H.O.P) that provides social assistance to the sex work community. As of now, there is nothing more than word of mouth and personal warnings that protect the community in St John’s from these incidents.  

Worth noting is the lack of response from law enforcement. They defend their inactivity by stating that no incidents have been reported to them by survivors. It has been reported that the rift of communication between the two parties is based on social stigma. In a small community like St John's, workers find themselves open to exposure and shame. The problem is compounded by the common misconception (stemming from both law enforcement and common discourse) that sees the issue as the fault of the survivors.  Workers complain that when they do go to police to report incidents of this nature (assaults or robberies) they are often seen as responsible for the assaults, creating understandable tension and mistrust. 

Although the survivors include both women and men, we can see that there is a strong objectification of femininity at the cause of these issues. Firstly, those who engage in the horrific acts against sex workers may see it as a thrill or an act of violence. Regardless, sex trade workers are targeted due to the perceived stigma that they are beneath attackers either socially, economically, or both. This reinforces the archaic dichotomy that sees women as objects, a conception furthered by the socio-economic conditions surrounding sex work. Women (and men) who are engaged in prostitution or other fields of sex work are stigmatized; there is a stereotype that sees them as destitute, wayward, poor, or unable to assimilate into society. These conceptions are dehumanizing and are furthered by patriarchal notions that define women as disposable tools for the gratification of male selfish desires (whether they be violent, sexual, or anything else). The women who engage in sex work, through no fault of their own, become a vehicle for the reinforcement of dominant, masculine ideology.

Secondly, the reaction from law enforcement reflects broader social attitudes: victim-blaming and a lack of response point to a belief that such crimes are to some degree justified. The insidious "she was asking for it" motif underlines these conceptions. There is still an institutional acceptance that the appearance and attire of an individual (specifically women) can create a legitimate justification for the sordid violence perpetrated by predatory individuals (typically men). 

The issues outlined in St John's are as complex as they are disconcerting and speak to broader social attitudes that simultaneously legitimize the objectification of women and blame survivors of sexual violence for its perpetration. In order to create a society that is safe for women of all occupations, we need to acknowledge just how deeply-rooted these patriarchal beliefs are. Sexual violence is not a problem instigated by women ever, regardless of appearance or occupation. It is a problem endemic to a society that tacitly legitimizes the objectification and dehumanization of women.