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.

CUPE 3903, Hegemonic Masculinity, and the York University Strike of 2015

By Nathan Kalman-Lamb

Picketers and flag at Main Gate, York University, March 17, 2015. Credit: Paul Elias

You may have noticed that the Men's Team has been quiet for a while (I hope you have!). That's because the work I do for the Team causes me to be a member of the union CUPE 3903 and CUPE 3903 has been on strike. If you were unaware of that, I am pleased to inform you that the strike is over and we were successful in achieving all of our principal goals.

York University has a reputation as a site of social justice activism. It is a place where professors teach about politics, ethics, and equity in the classroom and where many students consider rallies, marches, and protests to be an essential part of their education. Yet, even on such a political campus, CUPE 3903 takes the cake as the most radical of the lot. This is a union that has struck three times in fifteen years -- indeed, that was willing to strike this year after a three month strike in 2008-2009 that culminated in back to work legislation. It is a union that begins every meeting with the reading of an equity statement and one that has mechanisms for interventions against bullying and sexism as part of its regular protocol. It is a union willing to challenge the logic of austerity in a historical moment that has normalized it as common sense.

For four weeks, I walked the picket lines with CUPE 3903 because I shared a belief that we could win better job security for increasingly exploited academic workers and more accessible education for graduate students. (Well, actually, I didn't walk the picket line as much as I directed traffic at Keele St. and Main Blvd. while serving as a human rage depository for the sentiments of aggrieved drivers -- but more on that later.)

Yet, even as I took satisfaction in struggling for a common goal with people who seemed to share a similar commitment to principles of equity and justice, I could not help noticing that even in this most progressive of spaces, hegemonic masculinity continually seemed to rear its ugly head. I am not writing this post because I am interested in besmirching the name of the union on the heels of one of its greatest victories -- to do so would be akin to an attempt to undercut myself, for membership in 3903 is an inextricable part of my own sense of identity. Nevertheless, no organization and no individual is completely immune to criticism and sometimes we must be willing to hold ourselves up to scrutiny in order to better fulfil the principles we aspire to. Indeed, by calling attention to the insidious forms toxic masculinity took during the strike in CUPE 3903, I hope to call intention to just how pervasive this form of identity is and how urgent is the need to combat it.

I should begin by saying that it is not at all surprising that white, hegemonic masculinity emerged to play a significant role over the course of the strike. In fact, given the history of the union movement, it would be far more surprising if the reverse were true. The reality is that since its inception, the union movement in North America has fashioned an identity predicated on a notion of rugged masculinity at the exclusion of women and non-white people. No doubt, this preoccupation is a direct consequence of a sense of emasculation at the hands of a capitalist system that seeks to degrade and exploit at every turn. The union as an institution historically provided men (and only later, for at first they were explicitly excluded in many cases, women) with an opportunity to stand up to this system and the capitalist class and fight for their dignity. Yet, it also provided a vehicle for members to position themselves as superior to other members of the working class (women, non-white people) who faced other structural barriers as well as those posed by capitalism (misogyny and racism, both institutional and otherwise). This is a legacy that continues today and is reproduced in various ways. [Author's note: I failed to mention that during the strike, members of CUPE 3903 formed a Black, Indigenous, and People of Colour Caucus and addressed many of these on-going issues and how they pertain to the local in a statement. That statement can be found here.]

The first example of this I want to touch on during the recent CUPE 3903 strike was the attitude of CUPE National (the parent union for 3903 to whom our local was beholden for strike pay after the first two weeks) to members attempting to participate in the strike. The conventional paradigm for receiving strike pay according to National was participation on the picket line every day. For many people, this was an acceptable arrangement and certainly one important to the strike (it became essential once the university attempted to re-start classes). For others, however, the picket line was not an option. This had to do with accessibility concerns of all types (disability, child care, etc.). The local referred to those members who participated in strike activities outside of the picket lines as the "8th Line" in order to acknowledge the equal significance of these strike-related endeavours to the overall cause, as well it should have.

CUPE National did not see it the same way. How do I know? Because they did not agree to sign off on payments to 8th Line members from the National strike fund even as all other picketers were granted their pay. The message was clear: only picketing constituted legitimate strike-related labour. Or, put differently, only a hyper-masculine willingness and ability to insert one's body between a vehicle and the site of employment could justify strike pay. I don't think I need to elaborate at length on the nature of the problems here. Only a unionist ideology rooted in ableism and hegemonic masculinity could produce such a policy. Only individuals who had fully internalized it could continue to apply it even when confronted with the plight of members who had worked for the strike and yet would literally not be able to pay rent without the cheques that they earned but did not receive.

The second example of hegemonic masculinity during the strike actually pre-dated  it (barely) and was simply brought to the attention of membership during the first ratification vote which occurred after the first week of the strike. I am referring to the revelation that a member of the local was (allegedly) raped by a member of the local's executive just a month before the strike began. The survivor released a letter about what happened to her which can be found here. There is not much for me to say beyond what she herself has articulated. But, what I do feel needs to be underlined is the fact that we can never, under any circumstances, assume that a space is safe from gender-based violence, regardless of its supposed credentials as a site of social justice and equity.

My third observation, and it is less painful, but, perhaps, more symptomatic of the pervasiveness of hegemonic masculinity than the previous two, is of the behaviour of certain members of the picket line. I heard frequent reports throughout the strike, and witnessed for myself, white male picketers acting in a confrontational, aggressive, and insolent manner seemingly designed to signify their authority over the picket lines (and other members walking the lines) and their dominance over members of the community crossing those lines. This behaviour was both counter-productive (given that one of the principal purposes of the picket lines was to provide information to those entering the campus and an antagonistic approach was certain to subvert that project) and fundamentally unethical. Although the picket lines produced a type of space and dynamic that has become increasingly unusual in our society due to the paucity of such labour disruptions, there is simply no reason why basic ethical imperatives should have been abandoned (by anyone, and I will get to those crossing the lines in a moment). The choice to use the threat of physical violence to intimidate is another hallmark characteristic of hegemonic masculinity.

The fourth point I wish to make about hegemonic masculinity and the strike pertains to the behaviour of those crossing the picket line rather that of those on strike. This, of course, is not a reflection of the membership of CUPE 3903, but rather of the broader York University community. To put it quite simply -- and I will speak only of experiences at the Main Gate line -- we were confronted with some shocking demonstrations of toxic masculinity expressed as violent temper tantrum. These tantrums came in many forms. The most overt was captured on the video below and circulated widely during the strike.

This was far from the only example, however. Despite our persistent attempts to inform any motorists entering the line of their projected wait times, and to engage them always with an attitude of equanimity and patience, we were treated to all manner of abuse. I can simply catalogue some of the examples I experienced personally.

Early in the strike, as I attempted to direct traffic entering York Blvd. off of Keele (in order to ensure that drivers did not have to endure the stressful experience of feeling like their vehicle was protruding into the heavy traffic on Keele St), one driver decided to ignore my instructions (delivered verbally and through hand signals) and instead drove directly over my foot. That's right, with no provocation whatsoever, a man deliberately drove his (sports) car over my foot. Fortunately, I was wearing steel-toed boots at the time and was unharmed (or perhaps you would have heard about this sooner on a news report).

This was not the last time my body was placed at risk by aggressive men in vehicles who seemed to feel the need to assert their dominance over me (to be fair, I was causing them a mild inconvenience). On a later occasion, as I stood in the right turn lane on Keele into York Blvd., I indicated to a driver that he needed to stop and allow another vehicle to turn around out of the lane he meant to enter (again, this was a service I was providing another individual -- we could just as easily have allowed them to sort themselves out anarchically and heaven help them if we had). Instead of slowing down to honour my request, he accelerated directly at me, forcing me to leap out of the way. When I asked him what he thought he was doing and told him that he had almost hit me, his response pretty much said everything you need to know about toxic masculinity: "I wish I had."

Masculine violence comes in many forms, not simply the threat of vehicular manslaughter that we came to so dearly know and love. It also comes in the form of verbal abuse, sometimes strangely coded through the threatening spectre of an exotic bogeyman. I will explain. First, I was told by a man that the fact that I was forcing him to wait in a line in order to enter the university was "highway robbery." Don't worry, I didn't follow this logic either. That wasn't all, though. For this atrocity, I apparently warranted the harshest of punishments: "If we were in Syria, you would be executed for this." Yes, a death threat. In a similar vein, I was informed by another man that "If we were in Russia, they would punch you in the fucking face for this every single day."

Despite all of this abusive masculine posturing, I am proud to say that I never once raised my voice at a person attempting to cross the picket line. Well, not until the very last day. At that point, the strike was effectively over and we were simply holding a symbolic picket while waiting to vote for ratification. We were holding all cars in the line for a total of less than one minute at a time maximum. A man in a Porsche drove up to the gate, approximately two metres away from it, revving ominously. I was disconcerted. A member of our picket line had her back to him, her body between the car and the gate. Suddenly, he revved again and accelerated forward.

That was it for me. A month of toxic masculinity culminated in that moment and I screamed at him, asking him to account for what he had done, the harm he had nearly inflicted. He told me that I sounded like his wife. No doubt, for a man invested in hegemonic masculinity, this was the worst insult he could conjure. It was a windy day, tears streamed down his face. He rushed to assure me (and others who had gathered) that he wasn't crying.

If only he had been. It would have been the most human thing about him (as one of my fellow picketers pointed out).

Solidarity on the Main Gate picket line (often in the face of hyper-masculine violence and abuse). Credit: Paul Elias

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.

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!