![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
snorkel_maiden ) and it suggests that the differences between men and women are not as great as we have been led to believe and nurture may have a lot more to answer for. Which I find hopeful - because it means we have more agency to change things.The reason I've become so interested in the dearth of discussion around the damage sexism can do to men is pretty selfish actually. I'm a feminist, it's one of the reasons I went to work for Oxfam when I did, and there I learned so much about the gender equity movement and how it these things have to be challenged at the individual level to get anywhere. I hate seeing anyone being hurt by sexism, but I simply get enraged when I find it directing the dynamics of the relationships I have with those around me. The vein in my head gets REALLY big.
There was that stupid oven cleaner bag thing advert that claims is "so simple even a MAN can do it". Was it trying to be ironic? I can only hope so. That very obvious sexism is blatant and most will see the stupidity in embracing it. But the sexism I really worry about is the sort that uses misogyny to shore up acceptable 'red-blooded' male identity with a lovely dollop of gay-bashing on the side.
My nephew (5) loves pink. He has pink pyjamas and a pink toothbrush. This makes his father extremely uncomfortable. His parents are separated. From his mother and the rest of his family in Wales he is learning that he can be who he wants to be. From his father and his family in Wiltshire, he is learning that there are social norms that will be upheld. My nephew deals with his father's attitudes with a sensitivity and gentleness beyond his years at the moment. And at the moment the pink pyjamas stay in Wales. I expect there to be disagreements in the future. My mum related a conversation to me the other day which sums up the (partial) freedom in which he is growing up at the moment:
"I've been dancing and singing in the garden Grandma, and now I'm going to help Grandpa with nuts and bolts on his tractor"
He is home-schooled too so gets only dilute peer pressure from friends and meet-ups with other home-schoolers rather than experiencing the full-on stuff he would no doubt get every day at school. As a result (for the moment) he is perfectly confident at standing up for his own sense of self.
When I posted last I asked if anyone knew of resources about 'the stuff that hurts women, hurts men too', but now I am wondering if it that phrase should be the other way round: Sexism that hurts men, hurts women too.
Because if someone is a cissy for wearing pink because that's for girls, then you are shoring up an identity by stating that girls are inferior. And if a guy is a pansy for excelling at ice skating because that's for queers (youtube) who are being creative and girlie, you are choosing to crush their talents rather than accept that being gay is just another way of being male. 'Men don't cry' is a classic. Stifle your own feelings and at the same time invalidate the tears of women as insignificant because if it is only lower-status women that cry, then, hey, it can't be that important can it? I'm sure there are countless examples of this kind of two-pronged sexism (do comment with any that get your own goat).
These sort of things can come very close to home in the most intimate areas of our lives and our relationships and that is an area that I'm very concerned about. I've had a relationship break up in part due to the fact that at the time I earned more than my male partner who found it very threatening - and inside I raged at his upbringing that gave him that shit - but he wasn't just wasn't able to challenge it himself. He'd also internalsied some very unhelpful ideas about female sexuality and declared that women making the first move was a terrible turn-off and made him feel less of a man. His own sexual identity was formed in such a way that it relied on ensuring that his own partner didn't try to be equal to him. I don't hate him for this. But I hate that he was damaged in this way and that it in turn damaged all his relationships. Not good.
So currently, so-called 'acceptable' male sexual identity has a large chunk of its foundation invested in maintaining superiority over women. That's not a good thing is it? Also 'acceptable' male sexual identity is a terrible straight jacket that perverts and distorts growth - particularly for men who are blessed with large quantities of sensitivity, creativity, and other diverse talents. I really do hate the idea that so much potential and aspiration is crushed by this, well, tyranny.
I'm also wondering that if men were able to truly reclaim a much broader landscape for their sexual identity, not only would they be empowered to embrace a richer expression of self, at the same time, by stopping the definition of masculinity as something better than femininity, femininity in turn might become valued and prized.
So if you could all stop shoring up your identities with that nasty intersection between misogyny and homophobia by tomorrow that would be great thanks. And those of you that already have already managed this, please do mention it now and again. It would REALLY help a bundle. Ta.
2010-07-19 06:53 pm (UTC)
I've never seen anything the other way around. There's quite a bias against men entering para-creative and care industries, and I've not seen a poster, or a "Men in..." event, or anything encouraging men into careers in, say, journalism, translation, or librarianship. I wonder if there are such campaigns? Not to make a big thing of it, but it would be nice just to see an odd flyer from time to time.
I can understand why men don't want to go into work with children[1], but the proportions in lots of other industries is very small.
[1] My uncle, who's spent his working life in the special schools sector as a tutor and carer, has long-term fostered (>3y) three girls, with his wife of 30 years. Despite his pedigree, he's not allowed in the house alone with them, and his wife has to arrange complex logistics with their relations to make sure he's not alone in his own house with the kids if his wife wants to pop to the shops. Whether this is a good thing or not, I can see why lots of men wouldn't think this is worth the effort.
2010-07-19 07:10 pm (UTC)
2010-07-19 07:58 pm (UTC)
As a female programmer with a librarian husband I do try to do my bit to remind people that your career doesn't depend on the config of your wobbly bits! My husband actually had a short article published on the gender bias in librarianship - "Check out those buns, or, what do you say to a male librarian?" - in Revolting Librarians Redux - he's listed there under his bachelor name. ;-)
2010-07-19 08:17 pm (UTC)
2010-07-19 08:52 pm (UTC)
Male-dominated jobs are almost always higher status than female-dominated ones, and when women start dominating a previously male-dominated profession, its status drops (this has been observed in law and is also predicted to happen in medicine, at least in certain specialties.)
So running a campaign to get men interested in, say, teaching or nursing, kind of includes the implicit promise that they'll do better than women if they go into it - which is obviously not a way to make your female staff feel valued. Hoow do you resolve that?
2010-07-19 09:14 pm (UTC)
And, yeah, when professions are seen as female, then they start to be seen as trivial.
But I'm probably just being dim, though, about not getting the last paragraph of your comment.
If you're moving from being an, I dunno, merchant banker to be a community psychiatric nurse (as I've known someone do), the chances are that it's not because they're seeking high status or to become ruler of the nursing world.
I'm not sure why everyone assumes that people are into jobs to be "successful" in some kind of salary / world ruler kind of sense, and anything less than that you've failed. Like someone who earns L40k is twice as victorious as someone who earns L20k.
2010-07-20 09:17 am (UTC)
2010-07-20 09:27 pm (UTC)
2010-07-21 12:35 pm (UTC)
2010-07-19 06:57 pm (UTC)
I hate how 'girl' and its derivatives are insults. I hate how people who use them can't or won't see that by teasing men by comparing them to women, they're intrinsically stating that being a woman is something undesirable. A lot of homophobia, as you say, is linked to misogyny due to the linking of gay men to women as if femaleness is something to be ashamed of.
I do actually think that an awful lot of the sexism that affects men is down to cultural misogyny, because so much of it is related to 'wussy/girly' behaviour. Things like 'men can't listen/men are crap at housework', although insulting, can actually be beneficial to men because it gives them an excuse not to do their fair share, and a chance to criticise those who do (by comparing them to women, natch).
2010-07-19 06:59 pm (UTC)
Even the misandrist stuff shores up men's entitlement to less work and more recognition for work done.
From yesterday's twittering-- Emer (crying indignantly): Why does Daddy have NO LONG DRESSES?! Ailbhe: Ask him, not me.
But their pink and blue toothbrushes aren't just pink and blue; they also each reinforce other gender messages - trendy self-satisfied independence, and nurturing.
2010-07-19 07:07 pm (UTC)
It really gets my goat when friends/family comment so favourably on a man out alone with his children. That's what he should be doing! Why is he getting so much praise for something women have done the bulk of for years? I find it really sad when women in my acquaintance talk in such glowing terms of their partners who do, y'know, their fair share. Sad because it should be the baseline of ordinary relationship behaviour; it shouldn't be so rare that people are thrilled to see it when it happens.
It reminds me of former male flatmates who would proudly announce that they'd cleaned the bathroom, seeking some acknoweldgement/praise from me, yet without ever noticing or commenting when I did he same thing, even if they walked in on me doing it.
2010-07-19 07:55 pm (UTC)
Mind you, in our household we are making a culture of constant acknowledgment of work done. It was strange and novel at first but it's nice now.
2010-07-19 07:16 pm (UTC)
2010-07-19 07:47 pm (UTC)
(Not much else to add, sorry - all good stuff though!)
2010-07-19 09:49 pm (UTC)
2010-07-21 01:45 pm (UTC)
2010-07-19 07:48 pm (UTC)
2010-07-19 09:59 pm (UTC)
So for example, building a school for the Dalit community (used to be known as 'untouchables') in India, free education is available for all - however if you are a boy and you have sisters, you are not allowed to attend the school unless you bring your sisters with you. (If you ask a Dalit woman how many children she has and she answers, say, 'four', what she means is that she has four boys. Girls literally don't count!)
If a community do not agree to uphold the principals of gender equity, then they don't get any grants. Full Stop . (Emergency work excluded of course)
Masses and masses of research show that if you educate girls, you pull whole communities out of poverty. Education is just one example of how you run development programmes with gender mainstreaming.
2010-07-20 01:00 am (UTC)
I know that many charities involved in micro-credit lend to women only (the justification being that less of the money is spent on booze, etc, and more makes it to the next generation). On the surface that looks contrary to those principles, but I guess that you could argue that by lending to women you're benefiting everyone, and lending to men would dilute that effect, being against gender equity? I guess it leads to a kind of mitochondrial finance, everyone benefiting through inheritance, but propagating down the female line. Or is that to sophisticated (sophist-y) an argument, and that kind of thing is against gender equity principles?
2010-07-19 09:31 pm (UTC)
I find it difficult in surprising ways when men *don't* have these views, because I find myself filling in what they haven't said. It makes me realise how much I have internalised about how things "should" be and what particular things are "worth". In some ways, it's easier being around people who do believe such things, because then I can rail against it, and it's all easy and I'm in the right. What's difficult is being in the wrong, and not being able to explain - let alone defend - how you got there; and not wanting to be there, but not really knowing how to get out.
2010-07-20 09:46 am (UTC)
2010-07-20 03:40 pm (UTC)
And other men. And animals. And fire, inanimate objects, technical devices, social constraints, laws, natural forces, gods, and death itself.
2010-07-23 08:53 am (UTC)
2010-07-29 01:12 pm (UTC)
http://www.metafilter.com/94174/5-Stupi
http://www.metafilter.com/83959/Persuas