My friend Joel Henry and I have been debating feminism and the emerging men's movement for a few weeks now. The debate started on the sidewalk in front of Drink! Wine Bar in Woodbrook, and then spilled over to our Facebook walls and inboxes. We exchange videos and magazine stories with various perspectives on the roles of men and women, how those changing roles have been influenced by feminism, and what have been the consequences for not only women, but for men. A dyed-in-the-wool feminist, I have defended the movement that for the last 50 years has redefined women's roles and what it means to be a woman in the Western world. Joel has taken the "mannist" side, arguing that biological determinism means feminism has interfered with the natural way things ought to be–with men as protectors and providers and women as homemakers and nurturers–and that feminism has rendered men useless by encouraging women to do everything themselves. Joel wrote about men's movement in the online magazine Outlish yesterday, and even he admits, "It's kind of hard to take seriously" the idea that men are the ones being oppressed, even while he points to "society's persistent demonisation of men and maleness."
In our debates, I've maintained what I consider to be a moderate position. Unlike some feminists, I believe there are bedrock psychological differences between boys and girls beyond socialisation–it goes past pink for girls and blue for boys, into what kinds of play most boys are drawn to, what kinds of responses most girls have to physical situations, and how each gender approaches problem solving and human connection. (My understanding isn't based on a scientific analysis, mind you, but on my experience as a parent and a human.) To some extent I agree that traditional women's roles have been biologically determined, and that feminism has shifted the axis. If biological determinism dictated that women make the babies and mind the cave, feminism gave women the option to also go out and hunt and fend off the predators prowling outside. Of course we don't live in caves anymore and there's little need for us to behave as though we do, so my question to Joel and other apologists for men's current floundering is this: since men are just as capable of adaptation as women, why haven't they adapted? If more women are driving ships of state, why can't more men rock the cradle? Joel argues that men who reject or bend the old rules of masculinity face passive or active disapprobation not only from other men, but also from women. And I say, so what? Suffragettes were widely scorned; and women who ask men out even in these allegedly liberated days are judged "unfeminine" and risk rejection. Women in the US armed forces face disproportionately high rates of sexual assault while in the services. If those women could and do face disapproval and penalties from both men and women for daring to break traditional roles, why can't men?
I also question some of the assertions of the men's movement that Joel didn't go into in his Outlish piece. There is, for example, the idea that the women's movement controls the world. (I'm not exaggerating; there are people who feel feminists have co-opted government and business worldwide, marginalising and oppressing men in the process.) If this were true, one in three women wouldn't be the victim of intimate partner violence; an alleged rapist wouldn't have come this close to being president of France; and it wouldn't be news when Hilary Clinton appears in public without makeup. Girl babies in India and China wouldn't be systematically aborted, malnourished or under-educated; women in many parts of the world wouldn't be infibulated to be thought of as "clean;" and we in T&T wouldn't just be working out how to get more women in Parliament, while we struggle with an HIV epidemic that overwhelmingly targets women 15-25 years old. A gender war between the women's and men's movements would have no winner. Instead of pointing fingers at feminism for destroying the world order that made sense to men's old roles, the men's movement should instead look at the world as it is now and find ways in which men and women can find a new balance. Because Joel and I agree on one thing: the current situation is untenable, unsustainable, and undesirable. We all live in the same world, and while we bicker over who wears the pants, that world is falling apart.