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.

Hegemonic masculinity, media, and advertising

In what follows, we offer a sampling of the advertisements discussed in the workshop we held on February 4, 2015 and some of the commentary that accompanied them. Unfortunately, what we cannot provide is a sampling of the lively and entertaining discussion that made the two hours we allotted for the session feel far, far too short. For a glimpse of that, you will have to join us the next time!

- Nathan Kalman-Lamb

Poster for The Men's Team's workshop on masculinity and advertising.

Advertising is simply everywhere; it has become part of our daily audio/visuals and our daily mindset. Nike’s slogan, “Just do it” represents the power and the global influence of advertising. It seems like we are exposed to 100 times the amount of advertising we were even fifteen years ago due to the extent to which media is now broadcasted and received through personal devices. One thing that hasn’t changed, though, is that men and women continue to be represented in radically different ways.

Representation for men and women is considerably different. Men are usually represented as serious, muscle-laden, and dominating. Women are typically portrayed as confused, uncertain, and, perhaps most ubiquitously (unless the portrayal is negative), thin.

What happens when we do not live up to the perceived standards and socially-accepted norms? We simply buy products and services, whether we really need them or not, that promise us satisfaction, happiness, status, even an improved sex life. If we do not buy these products, most of us fear is that we will feel a lack of worth, depression, lower self-esteem, and insecurity, regardless of if we are men or women.

So taken are we with living up to a certain standard or standards presented in media and advertising that we will go to extremes to challenge any obstacle to our personal gender identity and/or gender expression. Some feel so strongly about this that they come to see gender-based violence in one or more of its myriad forms as acceptable. Some feel that being considered beautiful, no matter what the cost, including cosmetic surgery, which has tripled world-wide over the past ten years, becomes justified. They are not.

- Tony Barone

The above ad depicts a hockey coach who is overtly emotional while trying to motivate his team. The interesting part of this commercial is the reaction he elicits from the players, who seem both confused and irritated. The ad condescendingly states "there's no place for sensitivity in hockey," underlining the absurdity of being openly emotional when in a typical masculine atmosphere. The correlation of sports and masculinity is a dominant cultural code in our society, with young boys being mentored in an atmosphere that encourages hostility, aggression,  and a lack of emotion. This ad represents the conditioned stereotype evident in organized sports; the worship of strength and the celebration that comes with the denial of emotion. 

- E. A.

At first glance the commercial comes across as funny and entertaining, but on closer inspection what we are really seeing is media playing with and mixing up our understanding/perception of gender and gender roles.  The commercial works because its ability to disorient and provoke is memorable. This ad challenges our default perceptions of male and female roles. A computer nerd is not supposed to embody masculinity; he is not supposed to be entitled to kiss the swimsuit model.  Not in our world with very clearly defined gender roles and gender identity. The absurdity of the image of them kissing -- according to the logic of hegemonic gender norms -- reinforces the image that we are supposed to (but don't) see: Bar Rafaeli kissing a muscular Hollywood actor or model. In this case, then, masculinity is that which is alluded to but never explicitly shown.

- Tony Barone

There are a number of things implied in these two commercials. Men (and only men) should care about how their beer tastes. Indeed, this is presented as a sort of prerequisite for manhood. However, it is not okay for a man to dress like a woman, for clothing functions as a performance of gender. Thus, manhood is something that must be displayed; it is by what he wears, what he buys - that is, by material things - that a man shows that he is a man. The disdain in both ads for performances of femininity reveals something else as well: 'femininity' is somehow inferior to 'masculinity.' The insults about his 'purse' are not just about the bag itself - they are about calling his manhood into question, indeed, about patronizing him as a lesser form of person: a woman. 

- Christopher Ford

Old Spice has a tradition of utilizing its traditional image of  'manliness' in its ad campaigns and in this commercial they've hired Terry Crews. Crews represents the alpha male, both an actor and past NFL linebacker, he embodies the physical characteristics of a strong and masculine man. What makes this commercial exceptional lies in its satire; both Crews and the directors understand the role of masculinity, and this commercial lampoons the idea with an over-the-top, exaggerated mascot who is so strong and powerful he transcends what is physically possible. The notion of his persona being so desired is also poked fun at with an absurd twist that puts him as the role of every character in the commercial. At the end, he even marries himself, causing him substantial frustration where he then destroys himself with the only thing stronger than him; the product advertised. When the spot concludes, Crews, playing his wife, simply states "men" in a sarcastic and jocular manner, emphasizing the complete absurdity of both the masculinity, and the entire commercial. 

It is also important to acknowledge the way in which race intersects with gender in this ad. The choice of an African-American actor is deliberate, for blackness is historically associated with hypermasculinity. This depiction of blackness carries with it, then, a variety of loaded connotations around physicality, violence, and sexuality. Each of these characteristics is a signifier of masculinity, and all are ostensibly epitomized most completely by black men. (There is nothing inherent or natural about the association of blackness with masculinity. It is the product of a history of racial violence and exploitation by white people.)

- E. A.

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.

The Myths of Manhood — A Series

By Christopher Ford

Beginning today and continuing into next year, I will be writing periodically as a part of a new series of blog posts here at The Men’s Team Blog that I would like to call The Myths of Manhood. It’s something a little bit different from our regular posts discussing violence against women, since the focus of this series is, as you can probably tell, men and masculinity.

But that does not mean it will be disconnected from the subject. Many folks often forget that violence and violence against women is by and large a men’s issue — according to Statistics Canada, approximately 8 out of 10 cases completed in adult criminal courts in Canada (2012) involved a male accused, and approximately 97% and 91% of persons accused of sexual offences and weapons offences respectively were men.

Furthermore, the largest age group of criminal offenders in Canada is men between the ages of 18 and 24, with the second largest being men between 25 and 34.

And so I affirm: we need to stop talking about violence against women as if it is a women’s issue. We need to recognize the massive role that socialization has on the behaviour of men (and the way others view men) if we ever want to put a stop to violence against women (and violence in general).

This is where the idea for this new series came from. I thought that I could investigate some of the ideas about manhood that derive from the patriarchal society in which we live, and to try and refute them. I will start with one for today, and then pick up next time with three more.

Myth: ’Masculinity’ is natural/innate in men

This will be a good myth to start off with, since many other myths about manhood are contained within (and we will be able to talk more about them later on!). But, basically, one of the fundamental myths of manhood is that every man is endowed naturally with ‘masculine’ characteristics and behaviours — you may have heard this myth phrased in different ways, such as “boys will be boys” or “it’s in our nature to be XYZ (sexually aggressive, tough, etc).”

Let’s try to unpack this a little bit. First of all, what do we mean when we say ‘masculine?’ The term masculinity for us — and indeed for our society — means the equation of manhood with violence, dominance, lack of emotion, physical strength and toughness, an insatiable drive for sex (with women), and other similar characteristics.

Now, some folks are of the belief that these characteristics of manhood are genetically inherited by all men, or, to put it another way, that to be a man (read ‘to have a penis’) somehow means that you are predetermined to have character traits like those listed above. And at some level, yes, genes may play a role in the way we behave. However, behaviours that our society ascribes to ‘masculinity’ are very often the products of the socialization of men through culture — and very often the sheer power of socializing forces is altogether ignored.

I know — some of you may be shaking your head in disagreement. But consider the following study performed by Margaret Mead, one of the most influential anthropologists of our time.

In her book, entitled Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies (1935), Mead studied three tribes in the region of modern-day Papua New Guinea. Although residing not too far away from one another, she found considerable differences in the ways men behaved, as well as the gender norms and roles for both men and women, between the tribes.

For the first tribe, the Arapesh people, she said that “both men and women were peaceful in temperament and neither men nor women made war” (although she does say that war did sometimes happen, but not very often). She also said that the Arapesh showed a considerable amount of egalitarianism, placing particular importance on egalitarian child-rearing.

Regarding the second, called the Mundugumor people, she said that “both men and women were warlike in temperament” — that is, violence was not something attributed to manhood or the nature of men, but it was a large part of the way their society functioned.

And, lastly, the third tribe, the Tchambuli, she said “were different from both. The men 'primped' and spent their time decorating themselves while the women worked and were the practical ones – the opposite of how it seemed in early 20th century America.” The Tchambuli men displayed many characteristics that we would associate with ‘femininity’ here in the West.

Yet, for all three of these tribes, men were not considered as any less masculine by the standards of any society but our own.

And so, in closing, I would like to say the following: we live in a culture that teaches men that they must be independent (i.e. like the protaganist in any American Western film, to not rely on anyone but themselves); that they have natural desires such as desires for sex and for violence that are insatiable (i.e. boys will be boys, or the myth that men think about sex every seven seconds); and that, in order to be a ‘real man,’ they have to be successful.

However, ‘to be successful’ as a man in our society often comes at the expense of others. According to our culture, the idea of success for a man living within it becomes conflated with the achievement of dominance over others, often either through physically overpowering another person or, as said by educator and entrepreneur Hamza Khan at White Ribbon’s What Makes a Man conference this November, through “having things.”

I will continue to unravel and overturn this myth and many others in later posts.

Stay tuned for the next Myth of Manhood — coming soon!

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 and Halloween: Costumes for men

By Christopher Ford and Nathan Kalman-Lamb 

 

As you’ve already read in part one – and if you haven’t read part one, you can find it here – mainstream Halloween costumes marketed towards young women and women can be very problematic in that they normalize the hyper-sexualization of women and perpetuate a gendered division of labour. However, what about the male experience when it comes to Halloween costumes?

Well, let’s begin by doing a brief background discussion on masculinity (and we would recommend checking out this video of a poet discussing masculinity through poetry).

According to more traditional (read ‘patriarchal’) conceptions of masculinity, being a man means being aggressive, dominant, strong (both physically and mentally), and self-sufficient. It also means being sexually-attracted to women (that is, not homosexual), seldom displaying emotion, and never being a victim of physical and/or sexual violence or abuse.

More broadly, to be a man under this ideology is simply to not be a woman.

This is why many of the more popular slurs that men (and women) use to insult other men are words and phrases that compare them to a woman or her anatomy – for example, ‘so-and-so is a [insert derogatory epithet for vagina],’ or ‘so-and-so does that like a girl.’ Indeed, for many men, there is no worse insult than to be compared to a woman.

Does this sound like a healthy culture to you?

So, now, let’s talk Halloween costumes. When it comes to costumes for men, there are almost no rules. Wear whatever you want, so long as it’s not offensive.

However, the only thing that is absolutely forbidden for a man unless he wants to have his ‘manhood’ seriously questioned is that he should not attempt to dress up in a ‘feminine’ costume.

Take the following example: a few years ago, a story emerged in the New York Times about a woman from Kansas whose five year old son had wanted to dress up as Daphne from Scooby Doo. He was a big fan of Scooby Doo, and, having already dressed up as the mystery-solving pooch the year before, Daphne had seemed like the next logical choice for him.

And so his mother, blogger and writer Sarah Manley, agreed and ordered the costume for him.

When he showed up at school for the annual Halloween party, all of the other children, the young boy’s friends and classmates, loved his costume!

But, the other moms did not. Many of them made their displeasure known to Manley, and this led to her taking to her blog to write an article that has since accumulated well over two million views and 47 000 comments.

The article begins with the title “My Son is Gay,” a clever bit of misdirection she follows with, “[o]r he’s not. I don’t care.”

The point here is that she was incredibly displeased with how some of the other mothers were criticizing her for allowing her son to wear the Daphne costume. Some suggested that she was simply asking for him to be bullied (even though the only people who were bullying her son and herself were the other parents). Others suggested that she might somehow affect her son’s sexuality (i.e. cause him to become gay) by allowing him to dress like that.

“If you think that me allowing my son to be a female character for Halloween is somehow going to ‘make’ him gay then you are an idiot,” said Manley in her post

“Firstly, what a ridiculous concept. Secondly, if my son is gay, OK. I will love him no less. Thirdly, I am not worried that your son will grow up to be an actual ninja so back off.”

The final point is perhaps the most important, for it gestures to the fluid and flexible nature of identity. Children experiment with different performances of identity precisely because human beings are not essentially bound to any particular identity category. Gender is one form of identity among many and it is something that children should be free to play with (just as they are free to play at being pirates and vampires and princesses).

It is also something that adults should be free to play with. Yet, conventional masculinity tells us that men (and boys, as we saw in the above example) are only allowed to dress and act in very particular ways that conform to the characteristics described earlier. This is something that actually hurts men because it crams them into an identity box that may (indeed, almost certainly does) feel uncomfortable and constraining.

The fact that men are not allowed* to portray femininity in their Halloween costume attire is simply symptomatic of the fact that they are not allowed to enact traits associated with femininity in their everyday lives.

Halloween is a socially-sanctioned opportunity to perform different identities from those we typically inhabit. Gender should be no exception. If we are interested in deconstructing masculinity and its norms, we need to start encouraging boys and men interested in exploring non-masculine costumes of all sorts rather than holding them back.

We need to act like Sarah Manley.

*There are exceptions to this rule. In fact, men are allowed to perform femininity on Halloween as long as it is in a manner that clearly ridicules the feminine. In certain hyper-masculine contexts, cross-dressing does occur, and is permissible on Halloween, as long as it is clearly designed to reveal that women and femininity are absurd, or simply that men acting in a feminine way are worthy of mockery and disdain. Such costumes do not attempt to recreate the feminine carefully and appreciatively, but instead signify it in sloppy, broad strokes. This is in stark contrast to cross-dressing in other contexts, which seeks to celebrate femininity by reproducing it in loving and meticulous detail.