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.

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.

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’.

Gender, Race, and Isla Vista

There is little question that Elliot Rodger's murder of six people on May 23, 2014 was an act of gender-based violence. He set out to kill women, because they (broadly, as a gender, for he saw it in such essentialist terms) refused to provide him with the sexual gratification he believed they owed him, and the men he believed they unjustly favoured over him. It is crucial that we understand this aspect of the Isla Vista killings, rather than focusing simply on gun control or mental illness, because Rodger's actions were a hyperbolical form of a pervasive social identity: masculinity.

Yet, as important as it is to acknowledge the relation between masculinity and Rodger's actions, it is also vital to note that his troubled understanding of gender was not the only crisis of identity to influence his behaviour. Dexter Thomas argues that racial insecurity played a significant role in the massacre:

Like many men, Elliot was only able to understand women as status symbols. His obsessive quest to lose his virginity had less to do with a desire for pleasure and more to do with a need to show other men that he was a white man, or as good as one. To him, his failure to seduce a white woman was embarrassing proof of his inferiority to his white peers.

Elliot's main problem was that he was not white.

A lot of people seem to think that Elliot felt that he was entitled to sex and attention from women. I don't think this is quite accurate. Elliot's descriptions of himself as "beautiful" or "magnificent" read like desperate attempts at self-delusion. He is much more honest and vulnerable when he refers to his racial background.

Elliot clearly believed that his being half Asian stained him, and ruined the entitlement he would have had if he were pure white. His most clear anger was directed at those lower on the racial totem pole - "filthy" blacks, "low-class" Latinos, and "full-blooded Asians" - who were having sex with white women. He fully accepted that he did not deserve what his white peers had, but he could not stand to see those with even less pure blood than him get the rewards that should have trickled down to him first.

Thomas demonstrates that Rodger's sense of entitlement was heavily informed by the concept of racial hierarchy. According to this distorted logic, while all men might deserve women, racialized men do not deserve white women, who represent the highest prize for, and affirmation of, masculinity. This is an important lesson we should not lose sight of. Prejudice does not operate through discrete categories; rather, systems of oppression intersect with one another, multiplying the challenges confronting those who belong to marginalized groups. Likewise, power and privilege are not bestowed equally. Despite an incredible range of privileges in terms of class and gender, Rodger perceived himself to be impotent because of a supposed racial deficiency and he exercised his rage over this shortcoming through an act of gender-based violence, albeit one directed at men and women alike.

Ultimately, the point here is not analyze the precise motivations of Rodger. Instead, we need to zoom out from the unique particularities of the Isla Vista tragedy to the structural context it occurred in. We live in a deeply stratified world rife with privilege and oppression. If we want to stop future acts of gender-based and racial violence, we need to stop pretending we live in a post-feminist, post-racial world and instead face up to the persistent reality of these violent systems.

Elliot Rodger, Masculinity, and Violence

The killing of seven people, including himself, by Elliot Rodger in Isla Vista, California near the University of California, Santa Barbara on May 23, 2014 has provided a grim illustration of how powerful the rhetoric of masculinity can be. Based on his own testimony, the twenty-two year old Rodger understood himself to be entitled to sexual attention from women due to his gender and wealth. The rage that inspired his attack was fueled by a sense that he had been denied what was rightfully his. Rodger's attitude, while evidently extreme, is symptomatic of dominant patriarchal attitudes that frame men as subjects and women as objects. This misogynistic worldview is hardly something new. What is new is the growth of an increasingly coherent movement of men known as the Men's Rights Movement explicitly espousing the notion that this dominant form of masculinity is under threat. 

A recent post on the blog The Belle Jar explains how Rodger's violent pronouncements and ultimate murders were honed by the Men's Rights Movement:

This is what the Men’s Rights Movement teaches its members. Especially vulnerable, lonely young men who have a hard time relating to women. It teaches them that women, and especially feminist women, are to blame for their unhappiness. It teaches them that women lie, and that women are naturally predisposed to cheat, trick and manipulate. It teaches them that men as a social class are dominant over women and that they are entitled to women’s bodies. It teaches them that women who won’t give them what they want deserve some kind of punishment.

We need to talk about this. The media, especially, needs to address this. We live in a culture that constantly devalues women in a million little different ways, and that culture has evolved to include a vast online community of men who take that devaluation to its natural conclusion: brutal, violent hatred of women. And I don’t mean that all these men have been physically violent towards women, but rather that they use violent, degrading, dehumanizing language when discussing women. Whose bodies, just as a reminder, they feel completely entitled to.

Elliot Rodger's atrocity is an injunction to all of us about the dangers of masculinity. Too many men are socialized to believe that they must speak through the language of violence. The growth of the Men's Rights Movement is a testament to the fact that many men believe that their failure to find happiness is a function of not being masculine enough. They believe that if the can hone their masculinity to a fine enough point, they will finally get what they want (and deserve) from life. They have it backwards. It is masculinity itself, not women, that prevents adherents of the Men's Rights Movement from attaining the sort of lives they want for themselves. Vulnerability, not violence, is the ticket to greater fulfillment. Seven more people died on May 23 because masculinity demanded it. When will the toll be high enough?