Another article about how men need feminism as much as women do:

The images of masculinity my generation have grown up with aren’t fit for purpose. There’s nothing new about the “celebration of heartlessness”, “lack of respect for women’s autonomy” and homophobia Abbott discerns in modern manhood. This is the same old vision of male identity previous generations bought into, albeit photoshopped and hyper-pixelated for the modern age – and it was always a sadly limited notion of what men could be.

But in a more complex, economically uncertain world, where gender roles are less clearly defined and women – in theory, if not in practice – are our equals, many men are floundering. Men who buy Nuts magazine, fix on hardcore porn and then go to work with female colleagues and bosses, or navigate relationships with flesh-and-blood women, are using a 2.0 version of masculinity in a 3.0 world.

So what’s the answer to the malaise of the modern man? One word: feminism. This may sound odd; after all, we’re often told it’s the rise of women that has left us insecure and bewildered. But female empowerment isn’t a zero-sum game. The fact is, men have much more to gain from feminism than they have to lose – and it’s time we started talking about it.

I’m not peddling a form of feminism that seeks to reassure men that women’s liberation will leave all our privileges intact. The style of feminism that’s more concerned about being sexy and acceptable to men than fighting injustice isn’t real feminism. Inevitably, more women in top jobs will mean slightly fewer positions of power and prestige for us.

But the loss of a few male perks is a small price to pay for the benefits of what Diane Abbott called a more “multi-faceted notion of what makes a man”. One of the main reasons I am among just 16 per cent of British men who define themselves as feminist is that, growing up, I struggled against the masculine role expected of me. Although I loved football and rugby, I found the aggressive, homophobic banter of the changing-room alienating. It felt as though I was expected to be domineering, selfish and desensitised, and to treat women as nothing more than sexual prey. Instead I preferred hanging out with my best friend, Emma, talking about the weird gendered straitjackets we were each expected to wear.

This comment from Bernard Thompson was one of many that caught my eye:

The “masculinity crisis” is most ably demonstrated by Matt Hill, even if not deliberately. It is the feminist-induced demand that men seek approval from women, place women’s rights higher than their own, pretend that there is no misrepresentation of the real issues of injustice, be it in terms of domestic violence, healthcare, family law or workplace rights. It demands that men feel guilty for being men and loathe traditional masculinity as inherently disordered. The feminist narrative constantly tells men that protective instincts are actually disrespectful of women and, in fact, a product of men’s desire to control them. If a man feels a need or desire to be strong, he is told he is doing so because he wants to physically dominate – even brutalise – women. If he is attracted to a woman, he is predatory and objectifying her, rather than honouring her essence and moral and intellectual powers. The answer to this malaise? Let feminists define masculinity. They, after all, are best placed to see everything that is wrong with men and can therefore order a sublimation of anything that appears naturally and instinctively masculine, deeming it a product of millennia of patriarchal abuse of power. What we are to become is Matt Hill: self-loathing, meek, apologetic, never-good-enough; subordinating our instincts, rights, needs and desires to those of feminists. In other words: emasculated. QED



Comments are closed.