David Franklin - "The 'Hidden' Patriarchy of the Men's Movement"

There's a Facebook group called Radical Men - I "liked" it, which makes me a member, in essence because some of the other people involved are people I respect. This is their group description:

Men living radically alive, from their authentic power, creating healthy relationships with their own sexuality, spirituality, and greater purpose.

That's cool. But I hadn't really noticed much going on there, until this post came up the other day.

In general, I am in agreement - with the caveat that there really has been a movement of men into the feminine, and too far so - men who have eschewed masculinity as aggressive and destructive, which is simply wrong, and pathetic to boot. These men are often deeply associated with radical feminism, not so much the healthy feminism where men are still valued as men.

Here's a very simple summary:

Thesis: Traditional masculinity is too limiting and too cut-off from our whole being.
Antithesis: We need to reclaim our femininity and repress our violent masculinity.
Synthesis: We are both masculine and feminine, to varying degrees, and must be able to embody both polarities in healthy, fluid ways.

This is a broad generalization, but it is essentially true in my experience.

Franklin's article makes this argument as well, and while parts of it do not feel "correct" to me, that may be more about me and my own sense/experience of masculinity. On the other hand, I totally agree with him about using being "woman-like" or "gay" as ways to subjugate men/boys into the traditional masculine roles. That shit needs to stop.

"The 'Hidden' Patriarchy of the Men's Movement" by David Franklin

by Radical Men on Friday, October 8, 2010

It’s time for an empowered men’s movement, one based on response rather than reaction.

Yes, there have been attempts. And yet, it seems like something has been missing. Like men have been flailing around in the dark, searching for meaning and identity with no real roadmap, grasping for some way to feel like “men” again. Looking at what and who not to be, as opposed to what and who to be.

In the initial part of the movement, there was an emphasis on reclaiming the “wild man,” leaving behind (and sometimes blaming) the ways of the feminine. Beating drums in the woods, hooting and hollering and dancing and crying, breaking the shackles of our mothers (and women in general) who supposedly were to blame for our emasculation. That somehow women (and the feminine) tamed us, and that we needed to escape.

There was also the response to feminism to fuel the movement; men thinking they were “bad,” and as such turning into pleasing “nice guys” in order to make up for their supposed defectiveness. Identity came in the form of standing up for women, with little sense of self to sustain the effort.

More recently, there has been critique on the current state of men being lost, wishy-washy, flowy, sensitive, and emotional, supposedly with “all heart and no spine.” Interestingly enough, these characteristics are attributed to being “too feminine.” Hence, we as men had better reclaim our masculine spine and balls. (And, I’m confused: since when does “all heart” have anything to do with being lost, wishy-washy, flowy, sensitive, or emotional?)

The interesting thing in all of these approaches is that they are sourced in reaction rather than response. In essence, they are “anti-feminine” and “pro-masculine” as the solution to become real men. They require shedding aspects of our femininity (or simply settling for the superficial aspects) and claiming more of the masculine aspects.

Much of men’s identities is focused around not being feminine, hence derogatory terms such as “pussy,” “crybaby,” and “acting like a girl (or woman).” We do what we can to avoid as coming across too feminine. Masculine identity is based on acting tough, having our shit together, being on purpose, working, and getting things done. Trace it even deeper, and we find the roots of homophobia: a mask for our insecurity and fear of being feminine (read: weak).

The shame in all this (in addition to being anti-feminine) is that none of these approaches truly honor the essence of the feminine. Yeah, some give it lip service, such as attempting to gain feminine trust (read: manipulate feminine trust), becoming more emotionally literate, or engaging in “goddess worship” (read: passive-aggressive mask to gloss over our anger at women and come off as sensitive guys who love and adore them, and who, of course, wouldn’t mind getting a little sex in return for their efforts. Interestingly enough, many of these men are not so glossed over and idealizing around their anger with their own mothers, sisters, grandmothers, etc.). Hmmmm . . . must not be the promise of getting laid in return.

For as much as we’ve tried, many men have attempted to claim some of the surface qualities (or even shadow qualities) of the feminine, rather than embodying more of the essential qualities. To me, wearing feminine clothes and having long hair, being able to cry, dancing, and going with the flow don’t represent the heart and depth of the feminine. Using these qualities as evidence seems even more patronizing and patriarchal: is that all we see the feminine as representing?

Read the whole post.

Tags: David Franklin, Hidden Patriarchy, Men's Movement, Radical Men, Facebook, men, masculinity, femininity, psychology, personal growth, stereotypes, traditional masculinity, gender roles