Why feminism needs to talk about masculinity

If you ever read or watch anything about women or feminism (and, let’s be honest, if you’re on this site, that means you do) then the chances are that you’ve watched, read about and/or commented on a number of stories that have graced our news pages in the last few months. The very existence of these stories and the debates surrounding them is undeniably a good thing – for although it means that issues have not been solved, it illustrates the extent to which they are increasingly being talked about in the mainstream media.

It might seem a little bit old news now, but the first thing I want to bring up here is Emma Watson’s UN He For She speech, and secondly the various recent scandals involving campus sexual violence and fraternity culture at universities and colleges in both the US and UK. One of the main themes that has stemmed from the He For She campaign, in general and from the backlash from it, in specific, is the issue of men; masculinity and feminism. For me, the most striking detail to come from these recent campus issues, notwithstanding the sexual violence itself and the inadequate response to it, has been the general lack of any assessment and evaluation of the role that the construct of masculinity plays here. The launching of the He for She campaign, in retrospect of these developments, thus hits on a crucial issue that recent developments have served to increasingly highlight.

It’s not for me to recall the specifics of the He For Campaign, or of Emma Watson’s speech here — the likelihood is that you are already aware of the specifics. However, I will stress this point: the He For She campaign, and Watson’s launching of it, is essentially an effort to get men involved in the fight for gender equality — it’s the extension of an invitation for men to join the debate. This is where most of the trouble lies — feminists on multiple stages have come out criticizing Watson for talking about the need for men in feminism. At best, these have taken the form of ‘all talk no walk’ critiques; at worst, a betrayal of the sisterhood: a Stockholm Syndrome for the feminist oppressed. Yes, arguably, the campaign perpetuates the gender binary by excluding a multitude of non-binary identities; but we must not let this distract from the fact that the campaign is aimed at addressing a very important issue.

To fundamentally alter the way that we think about and treat women, we need to fundamentally alter the way we think about and treat men — this in itself is equality. The fact is that femininity and masculinity are opposite sides of the same binary. To talk of femininity is by default to talk of masculinity; to talk of masculinity is by default to talk of femininity.

By working to change the perceptions of just females in society we seek not to redefine (or eliminate) the gender binary, but merely to only treat one part of the problem. Keeping masculinity in the dark whilst only focusing on the feminine pertains to the idea that femininity rather than the patriarchy/masculinity is the problem, a problem that those who belong to that group must resolve themselves. Asking women alone to solve the problem of gender inequality is like asking the hypothetical slave to gnaw through their own shackles. I cannot express enough the importance of talking about not one side of the binary, but the binary itself: the process by which both masculinity and femininity, and the ensuing gender roles were created. Without treating this central aspect, we run the risk of taking any traits or characteristics shown by women that are not traditionally feminine and simply attributing them to masculine values. We need not to see principles, values, ideas, roles and identifications simply as male/female, right or wrong (not forgetting all ‘non-traditional’ sexual or gender identities); we need not to label them as belonging to a specific group for fear of self-fulfilling prophecies, inaction and vicious circles. We need to see them as human principles, values, ideas, roles and identities; something you develop as an individual, not what you are expected to show because of a category you were or weren’t arbitrarily assigned at birth. It is only by doing this that we allow ourselves to fully open up the floor for equality.

Of course, we must not hypocritically impose the Bechdel test on ourselves — talking about men needn’t be discarded altogether — that just plays in to the hands of all the critics out there who believe that feminism is man-hating; it’s not. Yes, we need to advance our own cause, but by doing so through not talking about ‘the other’ for fear that it harms our credentials to identify as a feminist, we are only doing ourselves a disfavor. Don’t be mistaken into thinking that I’m renegading on the ideas that produced the Bechdel test, I’m not advocating a retreat to the female conversations of Jane Austen, nor am I supporting an essentialist view of sex and gender. We need not necessarily talk about men (in the traditional gender role sense) but about masculinity. Men need to talk to women about masculinity, women need to talk to women about masculinity, women need to talk to men about femininity, and men need to talk to men about femininity because talking about masculinity will lead to questioning masculinity, and questioning masculinity will likely lead to a lessening of its hegemonic status.

Furthermore, is it not true that talking about masculinity also broadens the spectrum of issues that feminism ultimately deals with? Is it not true that masculinity, and more specifically perceived emasculation, particularly linked to sexuality is directly responsible for violence world wide — from spree shootings in the US to sexual violence in conflict situations? It is true, as Meghan Murphy says that we ‘tiptoe around the common denominator’, we talk not of violent responses to emasculation, but of mental health and gun control; we talk of rape as a weapon of war rather than masculinity as a weapon of war. When the statistics stare us in the face, we still don’t talk about masculinity. When we call male sufferers of sexual violence ‘survivors’ but females ‘victims’, we still don’t talk about masculinity. We need to talk about masculinity because lad culture exists. We need to talk about masculinity because our society makes men feel like they have to turn to violence — against themselves or others–  as the ultimate display of masculinity or as a response to not being able to fulfill their traditional gender role, a problem only exacerbated by current economic uncertainty.

Emma Watson is right when she says that it’s not only women who are negatively affected by the gender binary; men are hurt too and in turn this hurts wider society. We’re all in this together. We need to talk about masculinity because, whilst we cannot deny that women have benefitted from significant advances, we are now expected to inhabit both the public and the private spheres — being a mother and a worker — whilst men are still only expected to inhabit the public sphere; the poor excuse for paternity leave only serves to support this. We need to bring men into the debate, because we need them to understand that ‘being a man’ is socially constructed, much as many understand femininity is, and that they don’t have to be bound by imaginary chains and cages. Granted, the pressures put on men from the construction of gender are different and lesser to the extent of those pressures put on women, but just because the crime committed against you is less violent, doesn’t make you any less worthy of fair trial.

The evidence is clear. I do concede to one issue here however: we do not need to ‘extend an invitation’ to men to join feminism — the reason feminism is a (relatively) man-free zone is because our patriarchal societies have packaged feminism into a constrained space. Men need not divert from the space to which they are already privy in society in order to join feminism — rather they need to bring feminism to the privileged space they enjoy. Emma Watson and the He For She Campaign are right: we need to talk about men, and we need to talk about masculinity.