EQUALITY MYTH

“The Last Frontier of Women’s Liberation May Well Be Men’s Liberation”?

We’ve written on the fact that women are still not equal in the modern workplace, and we’ve written on why women of our cohort may be better off rejecting marriage (because, in part, we’re doing so well at work). We even wanted to write on why men are the new women (until the Atlantic beat us to it). But explaining why these arguments don’t contradict each other is a toughie.

Well, thank you, New York Times, you just did it for us. In her op-ed, “Feminism of the Future Relies on Men,” Katrin Bennhold writes:

In the early 21st century, women in the developed world find themselves in a peculiar place. With boys failing in school and working-class men losing their jobs to the economic crisis, pundits predict not just The Death of Macho (Foreign Policy, September 2009) but The End of Men (The Atlantic, July/August 2010).

Reality is more nuanced. Women earn more doctorates, but less money. They are overtaking men in the work force, but still do most housework. They make the consumer decisions but run only 3 percent of Fortune 500 companies.

“In theory, we now have equal rights,” sighed one senior female executive at a French multinational, who tellingly requested anonymity for fear of riling the men at her company. “In practice, we still have babies.”

Bennhold, in what we think might be the most insightful, nuanced take on this moment in gender politics that we’ve ever read, argues that for these reasons, the homefront is the last battleground in achieving true equity, and that winning there means working just as hard for men’s “liberation” as we have for women’s.

She points to Europe, where male political leaders have made greater strides towards equality than anyone: the male prime minister of Iceland (not incidentally, the country that comes closest to reaching gender equality, according to the World Economic Forum) pushed through legislation giving men three months paternity leave; a male prime minister of Spain appointed a fifty-percent female cabinet; and a male Norwegian championed a quota making companies fill at least 40 percent of their boardroom seats with women.

As one woman explained:

“When you want to change a culture, it’s easier for a representative of that culture to sell the change.”

Based on our own experience, we’ve long argued that men need to be included in these conversations just as much as women. Most of the time, unfair behavior or treatment is entirely unintentional. But if they aren’t aware of it, why would they stop?

Beyond that, given today’s so-called “boy crisis,” coming together to redefine masculinity, equality, and responsibility—both at home and at work—is gonna be good for everyone.

-Jesse

Bad Time to Be a Dude: Dissecting Male Studies, College Admissions, and Being a Man in America in 2010

Ever since we went to Staten Island for the male studies symposium last month, we’ve been wondering about something. It seems that a growing number of men have signed onto the idea that because women earn more bachelor’s degrees than men today (and are close to surpassing men in the earning of advanced degrees), it’s proof, suddenly, that it’s men who are being discriminated against. Meanwhile, a number of college admissions deans recently admitted they hold women to higher standards, prompting a full-scale civil rights probe into whether female college applicants are facing formal discrimination.

Which brings us to this: When is imbalance actually discrimination? It’s fascinating that the same situation can be read by one group as discriminatory toward men and another as discriminatory toward women.

We were reminded of this when we came across an editorial in this week’s Washington Times, which reads, in part:

For decades, women’s studies programs have thrived based on a host of purported “victimization” and gender gap claims. Both government data and sound social science research now have exposed many of these claims as myths. Today it is clear that “gender gaps” predominantly favor females and disfavor males. Specific examples would include strikingly higher rates of male unemployment, strikingly lower rates of male educational attainment, blatant gender bias in family and divorce law and, even when women and men initiate domestic violence at equal rates, the government’s providing of services to women but not to men (as seen in the Violence Against Women Act).

Now this is the Washington Times, but it’s worth asking: What is actually happening here? Are male unemployment figures higher because our society now favors women? Have the tables really turned so radically? Of course, you all know where we stand, but we also understand, on some level, why others would look at this collection of data and think it’s profoundly unfair, and, in short, a really bad time to be a dude.

We turn to you, dear readers. Would you want to be a man in America in 2010?  Do you think colleges should favor men in order to achieve gender balance on campus?

Score One Point For Women’s Studies, Femi-Nazis, Russian Hookers

Roy Den Hollander, our friend from last week’s Male Studies expo, got some bad, but expected, news this week. The somewhat whack-a-doodle lawyer was suing Columbia University’s women’s studies department, alleging that its very existence discriminates against men. It’s one of what he calls a “trilogy” of lawsuits, which include a case against bars that offer Ladies’ Night specials, and one challenging the Violence Against Women Act, which he calls “The Female Fraud Act.” Well, the U.S. Court of Appeals overturned his lawsuit once and for all, ruling that the idea that women’s studies hurts men is speculative.

Roy had also accused the university of preaching feminism like it was a “religion.” The judge, Lewis Kaplan, called the case “absurd” and said, “Feminism is no more a religion than physics.” So, settled then, Roy?

Nope. Roy is on a crusade—one that a lot of critics have deemed personal. Roy’s case was prompted by his now ex-wife, who he met in Russia, where he was working as a private investigator. All told, they were together for less than a year, but in that time, Roy discovered that his wife was formerly the mistress of a Chechen war lord and, he alleges, a prostitute. (Whoa.) He also thinks she drugged him. His explanation for this? Apparently she’d written (in Russian, which he had translated) something in her journal about getting him medicine from a witch doctor type. But more importantly, he says, he always felt so good when he was around her; when she wasn’t around, he’d feel so bad! “But wait,” I told him. “Isn’t that just love?”

Roy wasn’t buying it. But for what it’s worth, I think that Roy’s failed marriage was his first, and only, experience with love. His crusade is against women, specifically feminists or (as he prefers, femi-Nazis)—but if you hear the back story, maybe what this is all about is a woman who broke his heart. It’s a tale as old as time, just one that went horribly awry.

On a lighter note, when you do a Google image search for Roy Den Hollander, you get the image above, and also this one:

Misandry, Male Studies, and Staten Island. Good God, Wow.

Today, we trekked to Staten Island. Dear readers, with no offense to the borough, it feels like a foreign land. For starters, you have to take a boat to get there. And when we went to the ferry’s taxi area, we were literally rushed by dozens of cabbies desperate to drive us. We chose, natch, the only woman in the bunch. Her cab turned out to be a minivan, and her mother and daughter were already in it.

It was, however, a perfectly fitting way to arrive at Wagner College, where we were attending a symposium on “Male Studies: A New Academic Discipline.” (When our driver learned why we were there, she threw her head back and cackled.) Man, was it a wild day.

For the record, men’s studies, or masculine studies, is a totally valid field of research and examination. Gender roles and expectations will never cease to fascinate us. But most of what we heard on Staten Island today, well, it blew our minds. Some highlights, below. (And many more, including an explanation of the above image, to come soon):

• The awesomely named Lionel Tiger, a professor at Rutgers, said that the “academic lives of men are systematically discriminated against.” Yes, boys lag behind girls in school, but is this really because of active discrimination? Later, Professor Tiger bemoaned the roles of both rape educators on campus (who teach boys that they’re “predators” as soon as they begin college) and violence against women organizations (who, get ready, don’t track statistics on violence against men).
• His co-moderator, Christina Hoff Sommers, from the American Enterprise Institute, said that feminists “constantly try to knock down doors that are already open and it’s young men who pay the price.” She also said that the majority of the voices in women’s studies programs and doing research on women are not “fair minded,” and that professors in those fields routinely present fabricated statistics.
• An online commenter said, during the discussion, that the reason women haven’t admitted that they’ve won the battle is, “were feminists to declare victory, they would lose their eternal status as victims.”
• We rode the ferry back with Roy Den Hollander, the semi-notorious lawyer who’s on a crusade against women’s rights. There is a LOT more to his story, and to say about him, but the short version is that when he wasn’t talking about how he prefers the term “feminazis” to “feminism,” he’s actually a really lovely guy. We sorta think he’s just heartbroken.

Should Universities Have Men’s Studies Programs?

This morning we discovered that in April, a college in Staten Island will be hosting a symposium on “Male Studies,” leading up to a larger conference next fall. The announcement includes this line:

“…the growing problem of misandry—the hatred of males, an unacknowledged but underlying socio-cultural, economic, political and legal phenomenon endangering the well-being of both genders.”

This was the first we’d heard of “misandry.” Are we alone? Do we think that there’s a growing hatred of males that’s endangering our well-being? We may be feminists, but we love men! Thoughts?