“Lost” Masculinity and Privilege Distress

I recently came upon an article on Crosswalk titled Redefining Masculinity. I found it so ridiculous I thought I’d go through it point by point.

It’s just another thing I won’t miss as I switch off the TV in February: the seemingly endless parade of programs and commercials that mock men and boys. Other groups in our society would not tolerate such blatant discrimination, yet it seems that men, the all-time great oppressors, are fair game. This castigation of men in media is designed to court the predominately-female consumer that makes most of the purchase decisions for the typical American household. Apparently, the extreme Charlie Sheen stereotypes play well with women these days; if a man is not portrayed as boorish and sex-obsessed, he’ll likely be cast as effeminate, odd, or outrageous. Who is a young man to emulate?

While I will admit that there are commercials and shows that portray men as bumbling fathers who have no idea what they’re doing, this paragraph heads toward crazy town.

I’m thinking through the shows I watch and none of them actually “mock men and boys.” House of Cards has plenty of complex characters of both genders. Game of Thrones certainly doesn’t “mock men or boys.” Doctor Who, Orange Is the New Black, Bones—I’m not seeing it. The shows I like that are now off the air—Buffy, Gilmore Girls, Numbers—don’t “mock men and boys” either. Even the comedy Up All Night portrayed the stay-at-home father as competent. There are plenty of strong male characters worth emulating in these shows, men who aren’t boorish and sex obsessed or effeminate, odd, or outrageous. Maybe the author of this piece just needs to change the channel.

Politicians are sleazy, cops can’t be trusted, businessmen are only in it for themselves. Men need to, instead, embrace their “feminine side.” Where does a young man look for role models?

Is the author actually saying that politicians are sleazy, and so on, or just that that’s how they’re portrayed today? Either way, it’s clearly a gross overgeneralization—and it smacks of defeatism. We can do better than the present. As for men embracing their “feminine side,” the idea is more about not closing things off than it is about forcing them to be something they aren’t. Too often strength is portrayed as masculine and emotions are portrayed as feminine even as both sexes are capable of both. Boys are socialized to be tough and girls are socialized to be social. Is there a reason boys shouldn’t be allowed to be social, and girls tough? The author sure seems to think so, but I don’t see one.

More than that, when I look around I see plenty of male role models. Barack Obama. Jon Stewart. Neil deGrasse Tyson. Paul Krugman. Nate Silver. I think the author lacks imagination.

“Girls rule, and boys are stupid”—or so say the T-shirts sold at the pre-teen jewelry store at the mall. “Girls deserve more opportunity at school,” so we create Title IX. “Undisciplined boys need to sit still in class and express themselves verbally, like girls do.” Where does a young man go to learn, and enjoy simple respect?

First of all, I’m really not into “girls rule” shirts, especially if that is followed by something like “boys are stupid.” But while we’re at it, there are like a million shirts that are sexist against women, so pointing to a specific shirt that is sexist against men doesn’t prove what the author thinks ti does. Second, Title IX is about making sure women have equal opportunity, not more opportunity. Third, well, I’m not aware of anyone who says boys have to behave exactly like girls. Now, are our schools set up more for girls than for boys? Given that schools were originally set up only for boys back in the day, and involved more memorization and less recess, I’m going to have to go with no.

Where does a young man go to learn? Well, school. Believe it or not, learning in school is possible. There are also lots of resources for those interested in educating themselves outside of school. As for the last bit, if the author sees living in a world where there are sexist T-shirts and the other gender has equal opportunity in school as living a life devoid of “simple respect,” well, we might want to talk about how he’s defining “simple respect.” There seems to be quite a bit of privilege distress going on here—where simple loss of privilege is interpreted as being discriminated against.

Women, in the lust-laden culture, are encouraged to use their sexuality as just another weapon to win in the workplace. Men are wired to respond to such signals, but if they do, they will be reprimanded or fired. How is a young man to interpret the signs?

Um. Wow. Okay. Jeez.

First of all, women are not encouraged to use their sexuality as a weapon in the workplace. In fact, they are bound by the same harassment laws as everyone else. Women spend enough time trying to figure out how to dress so as not to be perceived of as either too slutty or too boorish. Believe it or not, while you men put on your suit and tie and call it a day we ladies have a much more agonizing time of it. Our appearance is scrutinized, and we know it.

It’s actually not that hard to “interpret the signs.” If a girl seems friendly and you have some sort of connection with her (a mutual friend, a club or sport), ask her out. If she says no, that means no. If she says yes, then you’ve got a date. If you’re dating a woman and you want to have sex with her, ask her. Believe it or not, men are just as capable of speaking as women. Now yes, I get that it can sometimes be agonizing to be single. But women are not out to ensnare you, and if you view women as sex-addled sluts out to get you, you shouldn’t be surprised if they avoid you.

Oh, and hitting on a woman in your office is a no-no for a very good reason. It puts her in a very awkward position and creates an extremely uncomfortable work environment. There is a reason we have harassment laws.

Women are just as qualified as men in every endeavor: in the classroom, the office, and the field of battle. We do not dispute that fact. But, as Secretary of Defense Panetta removes all restrictions on females in combat, men will soon need to suppress their natural urge to protect women, and instead learn how to watch them die on the front lines. How is a young man to act and feel?

You know, strange thing, women have a natural urge to protect people too, and not just children but men as well. In fact, people in general have a natural urge to protect people in general. It’s a survival thing. But if you don’t buy that and can only see women as having an urge to protect children, let me ask you this—what about all of those mothers how have had to suppress their natural urge to protect their sons, and instead learn how to watch them die on the front lines? What of them? I have news for you: war is hell. Do you think its easy for male soldiers to watch their male comrades die on the front lines, sometimes in their arms? No. It’s not.

As for how a young man is to act and feel, is it that hard to see women as equals and work together with them as colleagues and partners to carry out missions and complete objectives? Because I can tell you right now that this young woman is feeling objectified by your “masculine” urges and apparent inability to consider the female perspective.

Society sends confusing mixed messages to young men and boys. Those males are then ridiculed and ruled irrelevant when they don’t know the way forward. Some of these men withdraw into fantasy worlds; others lash out in rage. We wonder why many of our boys are underachievers, and lack direction. Where is a young man to find a pattern for life, when the culture has given up them, and Jesus is banned from the classroom?

Speaking of fantasy worlds . . .

Newsflash: Society sends confusing mixed messages to everyone. We women are told we need to look and act sexy to have worth, and when we do that we’re called sluts and told we aren’t respectable. I know, it’s confusing. I’m not saying we shouldn’t try to change these messages, or at least to push back against them. We should. But the author’s apparent assumption that this is a problem besetting men and boys alone is rubbing me wrong.

I don’t actually know what the author is talking about when he says males are “ridiculed and ruled irrelevant” when they don’t know the way forward. Is he talking about the fact that women are increasingly seen as valuable contributors alongside men? Perhaps he thinks no longer being chosen first is the same as being “ruled irrelevant.” As for men withdrawing into fantasy worlds or lashing out in rage, I would assume he is talking about video games and mass shootings. As for boys being underachievers and lacking direction, the same is true of all too many girls today. Again, I’m feeling a lot of privilege distress here.

Perhaps part of the problem stems from boys being told both that women are their equals and that they are supposed to protect women (but not other men). Perhaps it is confusing to be told both that it’s okay to have emotions and to toughen up. Perhaps things would be easier for boys if they were no longer told they had to have a higher income than their partner or be rendered a failure. Perhaps if we took some of the pressure off and just let them be people, like the rest of us, the messages would be less confusing. But somehow I don’t think this is a solution the author would embrace.

As for Jesus being banned from the classroom, well, first of all that’s not true, and second of all it’s not really relevant either. Children are allowed to pray in school on their own time, and their families and churches can teach them religion. But there are plenty of places to find a pattern of life, whether from any of a variety of religions or from a secular perspective. Each individual has to make meaning for him or herself, to dream dreams and decide what he or she wants to do and be. There are plenty of role models, and lots of places to look for inspiration.

And that’s it, folks. That’s the end of his piece. In closing, I want to come back again to the idea of privilege distress. The term is meant to describe what a privileged group experiences when its privilege is removed, whether in part or in whole. When a group is used to having extra privileges, being on the same level as everyone else can feel like a loss. But rather than taking the time to understand what has happened too many individuals interpret that perceived loss as discrimination when in fact it is nothing more than equality. This is unfortunate but also pernicious, because in a sense something has been lost. It’s just that it was something that was stolen all along.