Edward Keenan » Act Like A Man Holly, Joel, Sarah, Sivan » In Turn Jeremy Keehn » The Bironist Sean Rogers » Four-Colour Words Chris Ellis » How to Read

Jared Bland » The Shelf Andrew Braithwaite » The Sportstrotter Glenna Gordon » This is Not a Safari Chantelle Oliver » Web 2.0 Museum Joel McConvey » World Famous in Korea

21 Responses to “It’s Really Not About Women”

1. Mike Ellis Says:
   April 9th, 2008 at 1:21 pm

   I must respond to this article by Edward, not as a chauvinistic pig but as a father who loves his children. My experience like millions both here in the UK and Canada have had cause to encounter family law after separation or divorce only to find that there is no justice, openness or parity in family courts, the result being that we are forced to experience a living bereavement far beyond what is normal in terms of a fathers love denied in my case for some 9 yrs now. Only the other day a senior family court judge here had this to say and reflects no doubt your experience in Canada hence may it prove to be that your government and mine will see the folly of unjust family law., I will site following press release as made by my charity and is as follows; PRESS RELEASE by National Charity

   Subject: FW: Family life is in ‘meltdown’: Judge launches devastating attack on our fractured society

   http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=557377&in_page_id=1770

   Kind Regards

   Mike Ellis
   Chairman: “National Society for Children and Family Contact�.
   http://www.nscfc.com

2. Sarah Says:
   April 10th, 2008 at 1:40 am

   I’m not sure I understand the problem here. You say the role men are supposed to play in society is, as a result of feminism, unclear. I think the role men are supposed to play is to work hard for the common good, be honourable, strive to reach your potential, be kind to your loved ones, raise your kids right, don’t hurt anyone, defend your family and society, demonstrate good values, make your community better, and so forth. These are the values men had before feminism, and the only difference now, is women have them as well. What changed? Does the Civil Rights movement mean you no longer understand your place as a white person?

3. Edward Keenan Says:
   April 10th, 2008 at 1:09 pm

   Well, that’s the question, isn’t it Sarah? And with the very strong proviso that this is one small but significant factor among many small, significant factors, the difference is this: if my great grandfather died prematurely, his wife and nine children would have been dependent on charity for their very survival, since his role was to bring in every penny of the income for their household. He was an absolutely necessary part of the economics of his family. Beyond that, if he abandoned them to drink full time or othwerwise chase his fantasy life, he could expect to be shunned by his entire family and most of civilized society.

   And when, as actually happened, my great grandfather did actually die prematurely, my grandfather quit high school to go out and get work to help support his mother and siblings (helping to put some of the younger ones through university). The difference between having dependents and having a partner is huge, psychologically, I think.

   That was one of the core problems with the previous arrangement of society — not just a lack of freedom and choice for women about their career paths, but their total legal and practical dependence on the men around them. You don’t need me to explain that, you can read any feminist literature written between 1900 and 1970. It was a crappy arrangement for women, and actually not ideal for men either, so thanks to the struggles of many brave, clear-thinking women we rightly changed it. (Another of my great grandfathers married six times because he was dependent on having a woman in the house to take care of him and his kids, too, and the widows he kept marrying needed him. The dependency was not equal, but it did go both ways to some extent.)

   But the other side of that (a very small price to pay, but a price nonetheless) is that men and women alike no longer feel obliged by society to fall into a specific role (provider, nurturer). That’s a feature, not a bug (hooray for freedom!), but it has buggy little side effects in plenty of guys. Since no one is forcing them to stand up and contribute, and actually they are encouraged to chase their bliss (like everyone else in society), they find themselves unmotivated to get up from their video game controller (boo for freedom!). You may think that, pre-feminism, striving to reach your potential was some widely held virtue. I disagree. I suspect that then, as now, many, many people strived to reach the bare minimum they were expected to in order to avoid being stigmatized.

   But like I say, one small part of bigtime societal and cultural changes.
   And to repeat again: if there is a problem, it is a problem in how guys are reacting to changes, not the changes themselves. This. Is. Not. About. Blaming. Feminism. For anything. Period. I don’t know how much more clearly I can state that, or how many more times I’m inclined to state it.

   Incidentally, regarding civil rights (I suspect you mean for non-white citizens, rather than for women): since men and women were not physically segregated and in fact generally actually operated as teams (playing different roles with an unjustified power dynamic and blah, blah, blah) and this was never, ever the case with races in a segregated society, this is a completely unhelpful analogy. Unless he or she was a slave owner, a white person’s identity was never defined in a direct and personal way by his relationship with people of other races. A man was, however, judged to a tremendous extent by how he treated women, and how he provided for his wife and children (and, sometimes, his mother and sisters). Good riddance to that. But, you know…

4. Sarah Says:
   April 10th, 2008 at 10:46 pm

   You know, Ed, I wonder if we’re more alike on this than we realize. I know you’re not blaming feminism , and I didn’t mean to accuse you of that (at least not after the first time I commented), but I wonder how much of all this is a problem with language.

   Correct me if I’m wrong, but this seems to be about trying to find a definition for “man” and only coming across unsatisfying ones (like “guy”, or like someone with the responsibilities that haven’t existed for generations). Which makes sense. Women have the same problem. (If I wrote a blog about feminism, it would actually raise many of the same concerns). Maybe the problem I’m having, is, you’re saying the definition of “man” you’re looking for doesn’t have to be antagonistic to women. Which is correct, but does it have to involve women at all? Do men need to be defined by their roles in relation to women, or how the are the same as or different from women? When I hear “man” I think women, and vice versa, and I think everyone does that. How much of “man” is an artificially defined societal construct? And did I just use the phrase “artificially defined societal construct” without irony, even though I’m not in school?

   Maybe this is just people needing to redefine themselves in a post-whatever age. And if the common vision of Utopia is (and I think it is for most people, whether they admit it or not) no significant differences between people, why can’t we hurry up and get there?

   Because, as I’m sure you’ve noticed, it seems like nearly all discussions about gender in North America are way more bitter and victimy than they need to be (like Dmitri the Lover). From both sides. Yeah, reducing all this to “screw labels, let’s just all try to be good people, hold hands and sing” is silly, but I think on some level that’s still what I want to do anyway.

   Because it seems like something obvious shouldn’t be complicated.

5. Mercurial Georgia Says:
   April 11th, 2008 at 7:32 am

   The patriarchy is slavery, women are the chattel of it, but all are stripped of their free will, expected to conform to their role. Choice is not expected.

   No comfort can be find in slavery amongst all its ills, but rewards of freedom is not an immediate utopia, the rewards, like freedom itself, must be fought for constantly. We’ll have to /decide/ again and again.

   So neither men nor women know their ‘role in life’ anymore, for sure, and I for one think it’s a good thing, though it might not be apparent yet.

6. Edward Keenan Says:
   April 11th, 2008 at 11:01 am

   Thanks to both of you for your comments. I Think we’re a big circle of agreeance when it comes to the overwhelming goodness of the crashing down of the patriarchy and the rigidity of gender roles. The only thing I disagree with M.G. on is that I think the benefits are immediately apparent and in fact obvious. The undesirable side effects (women exhausted at trying to have it all, men opting out of participating) are less apparent, which is why I bring them up.

   And haggling over semantics is, of course, the great preoccupation of anyone who talks about almost anything. David Foster Wallace titles subtitled his essay on English usage “Politics and the English Language is redundant” and I think he was just about right on that count.

   Two things:

   1). I meant my description of role confusion in both posts I’ve raised it so far — the lack of social pressure to conform to a specific way of being good — to be more positive than normative. That is, I meant to describe the situation as it exists rather than to suggest a world that should exist. The men’s rights anti-feminist whiners are making a normative argument (”Things would be better without feminism”) and I’m arguing with them on those terms (”Things would be better if you stopped looking for someone else to blame”). However, the tiny sliver of a part I agree with them on is positive (or “descriptive” rather than “proscriptive,” if you prefer.)

   The proposition is not, or is not meant to be, that things were once better than they are, or that they would be better if something specific changed. It is that things were once different, and the changes have had noticable effects. I may think — do in fact think to a large extent — that it is illogical for most people to react the way they do to certain situations, but that does nothing to change my observation of those reactions.

   2). On some level, I share Sarah’s desire to see a world without distinctions at all, in which the distinctions between men and women kind of completely disappear and we all just define our own identity like at some great gender buffet. I spent a good number of year being accused of being an insensitive prick for trying to lecture my feminist friends that their determinism (why a woman-only space, I’d say? Isn’t thinking about us as different in some important way the problem? How can it be the solution?). I still think 90 per cent or more of gender identity is socially constructed. I think almost all of what I actually want to talk about is constructed — that’s why the title is “act like a man” rather than “be a man.” And I still think everyone of every biological variation should be free to choose how and in what ways they conform or do not conform to societal norms. But where I interpret our real difference of opinion to be is in the levels of utopia we think are achievable. The truth is, I think, that most people will not want to be — will not choose to be — barrier-busting pioneers carving out their own unique public gender identity. Most people will conform to the broad strokes of what is percevied to be normal to them and aim to stand out only in the ways they find most valuable (intelligence, strength, perception, sensitivity, whatever). This is true and has been at even the exceptional levels — titans of industry who consider themselves exceptional still wear a tie to work, many transsexuals express their unique identity by conforming rigidly to the expected gender roles of the opposite biological sex. So some discussion of what those roles are and what they mean is valuable and does not preclude everyone choosing the extent to which they will conform or not. As in the arts, you’re free to break the rules, but it’s far more effective if you know what they are before you start experimenting.

   And yes, some of the specific trends and roles and changes I’m discussing are common to women. Some are not generally but could hit home for some women. That’s fine. There’s a whole magazine industry in Canada (Chatelaine, Flair, etc.) dedicated to discussing acting like a woman and celebrating the many and varied ways to do that. The one magazine in Canada that played the same role for men (Toro) is dead. And it’s a discussion I’m interested in, so I’m having it here. I welcome anyone else to start an “Act Like a Grown-up” blog and to ignore the differences in behaviour between the sexes. But I’m interested in talking about men, and how they behave, how they’re taught to behave and, maybe eventually, how they should behave.

   Thanks again.

7. satori Says:
   April 11th, 2008 at 8:47 pm

   I like this. I hope this is a reflection of what other men are thinking. I’d like to meet more men who want to “act like a man.” I’m tired of “is a real man” packages with “wants to play ‘you’re a mean mommy’ games” inside.

8. The Scarlet Pervygirl Says:
   April 12th, 2008 at 11:44 pm

   I like this. Men thinking about themselves as men–as a specific social group rather than as a standard non-mode from which all other groups sadly deviate–is still a fairly unexplored frontier, and one that I think is essential to responsible citizenship in any kind of civilization. I wish you luck.

   I notice the examples you cite of men being needed are life-and-death instances: the damsel in distress, the platoon’s safety, and the fate of the young man on the street are have the threat of death in the equation, and I find this disturbing. If it is true that all people want to feel needed in the sense that they want someone else’s very life to depend on them, then perhaps that is an impulse best reined in. At the least it is one dangerously close to the desire for power and control.

   That said, if it helps at all, I think men are needed. Desperately needed, in fact. Both individual people–friends, wives, husbands, children–and society as a whole need individual men: they’re vital parts of social and financial (and, for heterosexual women, sexual) economies. It’s just that this need is a subtler, more finely graded one: generally, no one these days will die if there’s not a man around; but life will be financially difficult, sexually frustrated, and–worst of all–lonely. To extend your metaphor, the fact that women don’t wear corsets anymore doesn’t mean they’re not interested in a little boob support. Or, to make another analogy, this new way in which men are needed is similar to the way one hand needs another one in order to successfully and easily accomplish a task rather than the way a body is totally dependent on the brain for life.

   Perhaps, then, the problem at this point is not that men are no longer needed, but rather that they are no longer compelled. In an era of instant food, private apartments, and massive DVD collections, women are not necessary components of an adult male life, and therefore woman-attracting behavior–good grooming, empathy, job stability, chivalry–is no longer necessary, either. A man who chooses not to pursue a permanent female partner suffers few practical or social consequences. The new manliness, then, wouldn’t be stepping up to the plate, but stepping up to the plate even though one doesn’t have to do. Distantly akin to the “honesty is when you’re honest even though no one’s looking” thing, I suppose.

9. Abbey Says:
   April 13th, 2008 at 5:27 am

   Ed said: “But if we understand “feminismâ€? to be the belief that women and men (and those who fit neatly into neither category) should have equal rights before the law and should enjoy equal freedom to pursue their goals and ambitions, then I can’t see what there is to feel emasculated by. Reproductive freedom? Job competition? Pantsuits? Where’s the threat?”

   LOL This cracked me up! How true.

   The Scarlet Pervygirl said: “That said, if it helps at all, I think men are needed. Desperately needed, in fact. Both individual people–friends, wives, husbands, children–and society as a whole need individual men: they’re vital parts of social and financial (and, for heterosexual women, sexual) economies. It’s just that this need is a subtler, more finely graded one: generally, no one these days will die if there’s not a man around; but life will be financially difficult, sexually frustrated, and–worst of all–lonely. To extend your metaphor, the fact that women don’t wear corsets anymore doesn’t mean they’re not interested in a little boob support.”

   Here, here! I couldn’t agree more with this. Plenty of hetero females out here would love to share our lives with socially-responsible men, but the underlying values need to match up. If a man embraces a philosophy that undermines and trivializes my (and other people’s) ambitions and life experiences, it’s just not worth pursuing. But I’d prefer we not remain at odds and instead learn to work together and provide the much-needed support and admiration that all sides yearn for.

   It’s really not supposed to be about hate, but social change that reduces (with the goal to eradicate) exploitation of particular groups, allowing us all a better shot at happiness. Men are absolutely a part of this process, as they should be, and their well-being matters too. While plenty of us on all sides have become jaded by the blame games and bullshit, we still need each other.

   Ed said: “There’s some truth in the old cliché that people live up or down to your expectations. Moreover, most people—and I think certainly most men—want to be needed. Not desirable. Not optional. Needed.”

   It kinda breaks my heart to read that. Most of us do want to be needed and genuinely appreciated. And yes, it especially seems to matter to men. I do hope the sexes figure out a way to be more cooperative in the not-so-distant future so that we may increase our chances of finding others that share our values and vision.

   I mean, CAN “real men” make a difference and continue to be counted on as productive members of our changing society and as romantic partners with exploitation, domination, and control banished from the equation? I’d like to believe so. A better question is “will they?”

10. Selim Eugra Says:
    April 15th, 2008 at 3:31 am

    Maybe they can’t, Abbey… at least not in their current form.

    It is fairly straightforward to ask whether “to stand up and take responsibility for yourself, to make something of yourself in the world, to be accountable for your actions and for the course of your life, to be strong and honourable and courageous and all that other stuff…” are qualities of good men, or simply qualities of good people, debunking any male monopoly claimed over them?

    However, the messier proposal is to ask whether those qualities that are celebrated in men simply coincide with the ‘undesireable male qualities’, or if the two are inextricably liked.

    Worse yet, are the so-called ‘admirable traits of man’ the very *cause* of his folly?

    I worry that accountability, productivity, strength, courage, and honor form a web of logic that serve to normalize and romanticize pain, suffering, and self-sacrifice, while stigmatizing openness, understanding, or introspection as weaknesses. This can, and often does, lead to repressed anger and sadness, biterness, and depression. These problems, again left undiscussed, can manifest themselves in all sorts of unhealthy ways.

    For men to move forward in a changing society, we must take a hard look at the real value of the so-called ‘good qualities of manliness’, to see what can be diminished or discarded, and more importantly, teach our sons, brothers and fathers to forego their silent stoicism, to engage with their emotions, to nurture healthy relationships with themselves and others.

11. caliope Says:
    April 17th, 2008 at 2:27 pm

    “The undesirable side effects (women exhausted at trying to have it all, men opting out of participating) are less apparent, which is why I bring them up.�

    As was said before, Keenan’s good qualities for manliness are good qualities for anyone to possess. Because these are qualities of good adults. Why aren’t dudes driven to be good people – to society, to their wives and the children? That discussion is so sorely needed, I almost jumped up and screamed YES! at my computer screen.

    We can argue all we want about semantics and feminism and what not. We can talk about this in an uninvolved, intellectual speak. But there’s a reality to all of this. I can point to at least four, well-educated, smart women with children — including myself — in my immediate circle of friends (a very small one, I might add), for whom, right now, their “guysâ€? are causing them undue pain and anguish because they won’t act like freaking adults. They won’t work, they won’t help with the kids, and give that classic “well, I can’t do anything right so I don’t do anything at allâ€? excuse for their laziness.

    What is amazing is that women, as Keenan points out, have no problem acting like adults. In the examples cited above, the women are the primary breadwinners because this is what they HAVE to do. We are exhausted, we are angry and we are so desperately just wanting these “guys� to grow (and sober) up. Just to see someone out there adressing this is important because to me, it seems like a damned plague.

    A lack of a clearly defined role is not an excuse for being, functionally, a lazy teenager. I think what happened, particualrly with men in their mid thirties - mid forties is that society changed from their parents model to the current model. But they don’t want to adapt to those changes. Why? Because it’s hard! And by “hard� what I mean is that it seems to involve more effort on their part. And that effort might cut into their “me� time. I mean, what’s hard about understanding, hey, if I live with someone I should do half the work – housework, childcare, finanical. Having a problem with that concept to me just seems like excusing the fact that they don’t want to have to work more than their Dads did.

    Maybe I’m just feeling very angry at “guys� right now, and I appeciate the discussion, but acting like a man…it seems so God-damned simple rfom my perspective. Just don’t, you know, be a total asshole. Help your wife, support your child, christ maybe even skip a freaking sports event to do so.

12. Colt Says:
    April 17th, 2008 at 4:55 pm

    caliope Wrote:

    “We can argue all we want about semantics and feminism and what not. We can talk about this in an uninvolved, intellectual speak. But there’s a reality to all of this. I can point to at least four, well-educated, smart women with children — including myself — in my immediate circle of friends (a very small one, I might add), for whom, right now, their “guysâ€? are causing them undue pain and anguish because they won’t act like freaking adults. They won’t work, they won’t help with the kids, and give that classic “well, I can’t do anything right so I don’t do anything at allâ€? excuse for their laziness. ”

    Who choose to have children with these boy/men? Did they not have birth control in your area? Why would you choose to marry someone who you knew was uninspired? Why would you breed with these people? Now when you and your friends start to divorce your underemployed husbands, will you sue them for child support? Will you cop out of paying them alimony?

    I love how your agency in the procreation of the children and your choice in mate was not mentioned. You CHOOSE who you wanted to marry, you choose to have children. ooops it was an accident is no longer an acceptable reason to breed. Grow up.

13. Cara-he Says:
    April 21st, 2008 at 2:37 am

    Colt:

    You play semantics here by pretending there is a choice. One of the most salient points of this post is that men see themselves as the default for “human” and women as the deviation from that norm, yet even a man who admits that he is pursuing an active definition of what it means to be a “man” cites a list of issues that essentially prove that men are not behaving as “humans”.

    The default for “human” should be someone who does not rape, someone who maintains themselves (bodily and mentally), someone with a sense of responsibility to meet at least the bare minimum of subsistence needs (food, clothing, shelter)for both her or his self AND the persons in her or his basic family unit, and someone who respects the bodily and mental rights and needs of the other humans with whom she or he come into contact.

    Men simply are not meeting these standards - or if they are, are asking to be rewarded for acting like human beings. They want a cookie for being such nice guys. And sadly, Mr. Keenan seems to be one of those “nice guys”. He wants a cookie for recognizing that men are not performing the bare minimum of requirements to qualify as autonomous humans, and is calling this blog an opportunity to define a “better” version of “manhood” (and god forbid you call it what it is - a blog about reminding men how to be humans, as caliope correctly does).

    Therefore, women who a)are sexually and/or emotionally attracted to men, b)recognize that despite men’s inability to behave as functional humans, they are still monetarily rewarded for temporarily posing as humans in the workplace to a greater degree than women ACTUALLY behaving as humans ALL THE TIME are, and c)who desire to have children and thus want a co-parent who will either provide money, sex, or a societally sanctioned figurehead to retain the legal appearance of a functional “family” are forced to cope with the giant babies of the world. You suggest that caliope grow up - I maintain that in correctly identifying and coping with the giant baby behavior that men consider an acceptable standard (despite the fact that it does not meet the requirements for “human” status) she has chosen the best path available to her. She is, in fact, the functional adult, resigned to the fact that men have chosen the path of the giant baby and are determined to stay the course even when it means making themselves redundant in social, economic, and theoretical life.

14. The Man Says:
    April 21st, 2008 at 8:48 am

    @Cara-he

    Wow Ed

    You’ve succeeded in attracting the blanket-generalizing, ‘men are the cause of everything bad’ crazies that basically neutralize the debate. fun! commence the vitriolic blamery.

    and good luck moving the blog out from under the bloated carcass of the gender wars from here on in.

    ps - notice how no men are actually commenting on this post… because they’re afraid to

15. Cara-he Says:
    April 21st, 2008 at 11:44 am

    Actually, you’ll note that nowhere did I categorically state that men are the cause of anything, good or bad. I simply pointed out that “Colt” is an idiot, and that Keenan doesn’t seem to get that there is a fundamental flaw in his premise that manliness is somehow seperable from womanliness.

    You are correct however, that I’m hoping to neutralize the debate on this issue, because frankly, it’s a no-brainer. Manliness is stupid. Men as a class use “manliness” to justify perpetual laziness. Men as individuals may decide whether they want to fall into the trap of manliness or simply grow up and act like functional human beings.

    And actually I know a number of men who do eschew “manliness” as a category, because they don’t want to be giant babies. Men as individuals can be lovely. The monolith known as “men” has chosen to attempt to support and uphold “manliness”. It is to that which I object.

    Nice try though.

16. The Man Says:
    April 21st, 2008 at 1:36 pm

    Ah but what you call ‘manliness’ is what Ed calls ‘guyliness’, and condemns — and I think that’s where the source of your confusion about his blog lies

17. Edward Keenan Says:
    April 21st, 2008 at 2:28 pm

    Nah, Man, the major misunderstanding here is that Cara-he has somehow drawn the conclusion that I want someone to give me “a cookie.” I like blueberry pie, myself, and I’m capable of baking my own, thanks.

18. Cara-he Says:
    April 21st, 2008 at 10:43 pm

    Actually I’m in confusion about nothing relating to this blog (although thanks for the clarification regarding your dessert choices, Keenan. Nice to see dismissive responses from the blog author in response to genuine criticism. Impressive.)

    It is a false distinction to separate “guyliness” from “manliness”, because the premise of both is that there is, and should be, a special role for men to adhere to, separate from that of women. That binary opposition is precisely the problem with a self-defined “pro-feminist” male claiming to be looking for something on behalf of men that should in no way be construed as blaming feminism for men’s loss of role-models. When you draw that line, you are saying that there HAS to be something (anything, apparently) that is exclusive to men. Women seem to be shouldering along quite nicely in the wake of shrugging off oppressive gender roles and making strides in the business of being alive, but Keenan, poor thing, thinks that men just need something to cling to, some definition of “manliness” that will give their life purpose and meaning.

    Thus, guyliness is simply a more obviously offensive version of manliness, not a category unto itself. Both are the caves into which men retreat when they can’t work out a life’s purpose all on their own. How sad would it be if there were in fact such a thing as a clearly defined “manliness” to which all men should aspire? It’d be just another rigid, regulated system that served only to limit the potential of its adherents.

19. Edward Keenan Says:
    April 22nd, 2008 at 2:07 pm

    Sorry, Cara-he, to be dismissive of your statement that I am somehow looking for validation of my sub-par life choices, that I am engaged in “asshattery” (over there on your blog), and of your attempt to “neutralize the debate” because the entire project is “stupid” and an attempt to justify “perpetual laziness.” You sounded to me similar to a ‘roided up jock after too many drinks attempting to assert his will on someone trying to have a nuanced conversation about an uncomfortable subject. “HULK MAD. KEENAN GET NO COOKIES. ASSHAT.” My lifelong method of dealing with such rage-fuelled tantrums is to crack a joke and get the fuck out of the room. Why try to discuss something with someone who is spoiling for a fight?

    How could I have missed your earnest attempt to draw me into a conversation? You hurt my feelings by being a jerk. That’s how I missed it. Now, go ahead and call me a wimp or whatever. Won’t bother me.

    A few things:

    1). I don’t want or need anyone’s approval or rewards or cookies or whatever. That was the serious subtext to my above joke. My life is rewarding enough. I’m trying to explore some issues and confusion here that are common to many, many men in our society and people are free to agree or disagree or debate, but the idea that I want or expect to be rewarded is a pretty phenomenal misunderstanding of my point (and of the refreshingly non-capitalist pay structure here at The Walrus website). Ain’t no poor-me-ism here. More like “why has it taken me so long to grow up”-ism.

    2). I’ve already discussed the distiction you perceive to be false in some detail further up in this thread (@ comment 6). I’m hearing that you disagree that there is any value in deconstructing gender roles from a populist, male-centric perspective. I get that you have already thought this out and drawn a conclusion that you think renders my whole point moot. And I get that you think the very concept of manliness (a word that I understand to mean simply the qualities associated with being a man) are offensive and limiting and unredeemable. Good for you. We are free to disagree. And — lookit that! — you have your own blog on which to proclaim your off-the-shelf conclusions while I plod away over here trying to examine why so few men have gotten with your program. And hey, we have a very lightly moderated comments section where you can accuse me of being nothing but a kinder, gentler tool of the patriarchy. Hooray for the internet. But I expect this is the last time I’ll be addressing the charge, because if I haven’t already adequately explained my project, I’m probably not going to, and I’m interested in moving forward with it rather than constantly justifying my entire premise to people who will never agree with me.

    3). One thing I’ll repeat from further up the comments, since it does seem to be a possibly legitimate misunderstanding, is that I think a gender binary is a societal construction and that everyone should be free to define their own identity and behaviour in whatever non-other-people-harming way they choose. Those two basic and essential principles do nothing to change the simple fact that, artificial or not, there are gender norms that break down along male-female lines and the vast bulk of people are not interested in forging a bold new diverse unisex self. Interestingly, you define yourself on your blog as a radical feminist, not a radical humanist or radical adultist. What is it about the feminine/masculine binary that attracts you to that identity? Why do you think about women as a class within society who have interests different than those from men? Men haven’t been joining that discussion in huge numbers, and most of us are taking our cues from pop-culture and our parents and friends and conforming to some degree or another with an identity we call “man” or “woman.” I think there’s some value in discussing what those mainstream identities are, what social purpose they may serve and what harm they may do (to us individually or to society collectively), and then possibly redefining how we think about those norms. The feminist community — thank goddess for them — have provided a place where women do that all the time. Men don’t talk about those things much, at least not explicitly. In fact they sometimes deny there is anything worth talking about, assume women need to just grow up and then try to stifle the debate. Wait, why does that sound familiar?

    4). Finally, I’m not looking for a platonic ideal. I’m trying to figure out what the various concepts of manliness are or could be and figure out if there is any value in any of them. But I’m going to take my time. I just started thinking about this seriously a month ago, when I launched this blog, and I don’t see the value in skipping to conclusions without some discussion and investigation and deconstruction. If that’s interesting to people, then great. If it’s not your flavour of vitamins, then hey, you get what you pay for. There’s a big internet out there full of people who share your conclusions. You don’t need to waste your time shouting down those of us who are trying to arrive at our own.

    Thanks for your comments.

20. caliope Says:
    April 24th, 2008 at 8:57 am

    Cara-he makes some really interesting points and they are well-stated.

    In response to Colt: Therefore, women who a)are sexually and/or emotionally attracted to men, b)recognize that despite men’s inability to behave as functional humans, they are still monetarily rewarded for temporarily posing as humans in the workplace to a greater degree than women ACTUALLY behaving as humans ALL THE TIME are, and c)who desire to have children and thus want a co-parent who will either provide money, sex, or a societally sanctioned figurehead to retain the legal appearance of a functional “familyâ€? are forced to cope with the giant babies of the world. You suggest that caliope grow up - I maintain that in correctly identifying and coping with the giant baby behavior that men consider an acceptable standard (despite the fact that it does not meet the requirements for “humanâ€? status) she has chosen the best path available to her. She is, in fact, the functional adult, resigned to the fact that men have chosen the path of the giant baby and are determined to stay the course even when it means making themselves redundant in social, economic, and theoretical life.”

    Thank you Cara-he for pointing this out. Jesus, I wish I were attracted to women. But, I’m not. I’m hetero. And forgive me, Colt, for thinking a man might do the “human” thing and, uh, step up to the plate when he has a child. Which by the way, woman aren’t generally the only ones making that decision. I need to grow up because I expect a “guy” to ACT RIGHT? That reactionary, poorly thought out argument hardly deserves a response. You’re right! Women are to blame when dudes act like douchebags. If only I’d seen it all along my problems would be solved. And yes, I will make sure I PAY for my mistakes. Isn’t that really what your comment is about? Punishing us for having the nerve to call you out? You can suck my proverbial balls.

    But see, because some of us don’t have a choice and we need to work with the hand we’ve been dealt, I do think this blog is a very important exersize:

    4). Finally, I’m not looking for a platonic ideal. I’m trying to figure out what the various concepts of manliness are or could be and figure out if there is any value in any of them. But I’m going to take my time. I just started thinking about this seriously a month ago, when I launched this blog, and I don’t see the value in skipping to conclusions without some discussion and investigation and deconstruction. If that’s interesting to people, then great. If it’s not your flavour of vitamins, then hey, you get what you pay for. There’s a big internet out there full of people who share your conclusions. You don’t need to waste your time shouting down those of us who are trying to arrive at our own.

    There are two sides of the story. Mine is only one of them and I do have interest and respect for understanding where guys, men and dudes are coming from, even if it’s not something agreeable. We’re all looking to find that place where we are comfortable and that does take investigation. I think masculinity is going through a mid life crisis. I hope for everyone’s sake men come through it realizing that we need a new way to do things, a human way, not a “male” way (whatever that means). Keep on writing, Edward, I’ll keep reading.

21. Colt Says:
    April 30th, 2008 at 7:25 pm

    Caliope

    Listen your martyrdom is cloying. “We need to deal with the hand we’re dealt.” Geez you had no agency in all of this. Come on. Let me say this again, grow up. I didn’t ask you why you got married. Why you choose to have childern. I asked you why you choose to have children with someone you discribe as a “douchebag” (and by the way I always find that marriges where the wife refers to the father of her child as a douche on a public board are most sucessful). There are at least 3 billion men in the world. You couldn’t find someone, who I don’t know had a real job. Or passion. You know pretty early whether you are with a slacker or a go getter. You choose to be a slacker. There’s nothing wrong with that. Just don’t expect him to all of a sudden be a different type of person. Again grow up realize you made certain choices and live with them.

    Everyone who is not a 10 year old brat knows that you can’t change others. What you’re discribing is that your values changed and your husband’s did not. I don’t know what to tell you, beyond that. Except you’re airing your complains on a blog called Act Like a Man. Seriously! Is this the best forum. Should I tell you to Act Like a Woman? What would that even mean?

Leave a Reply

Neither the author nor The Walrus necessarily agree with the comments below. Editors will not correct spelling or grammar. The Walrus reserves the right to edit or delete comments entirely.

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

ADVERTISE WITH US

ALL WALRUS BLOGGERS

• Alexandra Redgrave
• Andrew Braithwaite
• Andrew D'Cruz
• Arno Kopecky
• Chantelle Oliver
• Chris Ellis
• Christopher Flavelle
• Crystal Luxmore
• Daniel Baird
• Devin DeCiantis
• Don Gillmor
• Dr. Noreen Golfman
• Edward Keenan
• Glenna Gordon
• Holly Jean Buck
• Jared Bland
• Jeremy Keehn
• Joel McConvey
• Joel Trenaman
• Ken Alexander
• Mara Hvistendahl
• Marni Jackson
• Mike Landry
• Mitch Moxley
• Paul Isaacs
• Sean Rogers
• Sivan Keren

• International Relations Politcs
• Arts & Culture
• Science, Technology, & Society
• Current Environmental Issues
• Environmental Issues
• Business, Economics, & Finance
• History, Society, & Culture
• Literature Fiction
• Online Poetry
• Political Humour
• Photo Essays
• Field Notes
• Political Commentary
• News In Africa
• Magazine Media News