Performing masculinity encourages violence against women

25 posts / 0 new

Last post

Sun, 2010-12-26 10:57

Maysie

Performing masculinity encourages violence against women

One of my favourite bloggers, Restructure!, has posted this video and the transcript.

Tony Porter: A call to men: TED lecture

Transcript on Restructure!

Quote:
I grew up in New York City, between Harlem and the Bronx. Growing up as a boy, we were taught that men had to be tough, had to be strong, had to be courageous, dominating - no pain, no emotions, with the exception of anger - and definitely no fear - that men are in charge, which means women are not; that men lead, and you should just follow and do what we say; that men are superior, women are inferior; that men are strong, women are weak; that women are of less value - property of men - and objects, particularly sexual objects. I've later come to know that to be the collective socialization of men, better known as the "man box." See this man box has in it all the ingredients of how we define what it means to be a man.

[Man box: 'Don't cry or openly express emotions with the exception of anger. Do not show weakness or fear. Demonstrate power/control especially over women. Aggression-Dominance. Protector. Do not be "like a woman". Heterosexual. Do not be "like a gay man". Tough-Athletic-Strength-Courage. Makes decisions-Does not need help. Views women as property/objects.]

Quote:
This is my two at home, Kendall and Jay. They're 11 and 12. Kendall's 15 months older than Jay. There was a period of time when my wife, her name is Tammie, and I, we just got real busy and whip, bam, boom: Kendall and Jay. (Laughter) And when they were about five and six, four and five, Jay could come to me, come to me crying. It didn't matter what she was crying about, she could get on my knee, she could snot my sleeve up, just cry, cry it out. Daddy's got you. That's all that's important.

Now Kendall on the other hand - and like I said, he's only 15 months older than her - he came to me crying, it's like as soon as I would hear him cry, a clock would go off. I would give the boy probably about 30 seconds, which means, by the time he got to me, I was already saying things like, "Why are you crying? Hold your head up. Look at me. Explain to me what's wrong. Tell me what's wrong. I can't understand you. Why are you crying?" And out of my own frustration of my role and responsibility of building him up as a man to fit into these guidelines and these structures that are defining this man box, I would find myself saying things like, "Just go in your room. Just go on, go on in your room. Sit down, get yourself together and come back and talk to me when you can talk to me like a -" What? (Audience: Man.) "like a man." And he's five years old. And as I grow in life, I would say to myself, "My God, what's wrong with me? What am I doing? Why would I this?" And I think back. I think back to my father.

There was a time in my life where we had a very troubled experience in our family. My brother, Henry, he died tragically when we were teenagers. We lived in New York City, as I said. We lived in the Bronx at the time. And the burial was in a place called Long Island, it was about two hours outside of the city. And as we were preparing to come back from the burial, the cars stopped at the bathroom to let folks take care of themselves before the long ride back to the city. And the limousine empties out. My mother, my sister, my auntie, they all get out, but my father and I stayed in the limousine. And no sooner than the women got out, he burst out crying. He didn't want cry in front of me. But he knew he wasn't going to make it back to the city, and it was better me than to allow himself to express these feelings and emotions in front of the women. And this is a man who, 10 minutes ago, had just put his teenage son in the ground - something I just can't even imagine. The thing that sticks with me the most is that he was apologizing to me for crying in front of me. And at the same time, he was also giving me props, lifting me up, for not crying.

Quote:
See collectively, we as men are taught to have less value in women, to view them as property and the objects of men. We see that as an equation that equals violence against women. We as men, good men, the large majority of men, we operate on the foundation of this whole collective socialization. We kind of see ourselves separate, but we're very much a part of it. You see, we have to come to understand that less value, property and objectification is the foundation and the violence can't happen without it.

So we're very much a part of the solution as well as the problem. The center for disease control says that men's violence against women is at epidemic proportions, is the number one health concern for women in this country and abroad.

Bold added. Thank you Tony. Tony goes on to share a very disturbing and upsetting story of violence against a particular young woman that happened when he was 12. He did nothing to help her.

I'm impressed by his analysis and understanding, and how he wants the world to change, both for his daughter and for all women.

Tony's organization: A Call to Men, a project of the Tides Center.

Issues Pages:

Feminism

Sun, 2010-12-26 17:16

Merowe

I think he does a fine job of characterizing the dominant paradigm of cultural masculinity, its certainly familiar from growing up in the sixties and seventies. But it's familiar (and hardly news) as an alien culture might be familiar because as a male I wasn't brought up that way at all. I think I was lucky to have chosen the mother that I did.

I'd like to suggest that the dominant paradigm was not the only one and contending and alternative constructions/models of masculinity have always been present. Too many men of my generation have been mutilated by the 'man-box', cauterized emotionally and psychologically. Part of my gut revulsion to Harper and his ideology is its centering of this thuggee cult of male violence, the diminuition of vast scapes of human experience which are determined to be out of bounds for a proper male, who must not feel certain feelings nor think certain thoughts, etc.

But there have always been 'gentlemen'; violence is not innate.

Mon, 2010-12-27 04:49

Merowe

The intersection of patriarchy and capitalism; I've long been curious about the distorting effects of capitalism on social relations and this thread directs me to the military industrial complex and its determining role in the post-war North American economy - and the constitution of the ideal male type under capitalism.

I think of the competition paradigm, the 'law of the jungle', 'only the strong survive' or 'survival of the fittest' - central to the foundational myths of modern (state-supported) capitalism. And certain visions of the authentic male.

Modern industrial society has already demolished the relatively complex social structures of the extended family and the 'village' and replaced it with the nuclear family. Much as priests accompany the colonial armies to wage war upon the belief systems that support the indigenous cultures to be replaced/assimilated, so the industrialized consumer economy of capitalism has stripped away social relations that might compete with the newly constituted identity as autonomous 'consumer' - cog in the loop of consumption.

Within this newly diminished social complexity capitalism proceeds to encroach upon and distort historical gender definitions, bending and conforming them to the remorseless rationalization of the profit-generating machine.

Under this system a 'man' is reduced to an emotionless Hollywood caricature, bullied into an ersatz 'Highway of Heroes' machismo - that valorizes those martial virtues - including obedience and submission to authority! - that legitimize an economic system based on constant expansion and a wanton disregard for indigenous and alternative cultures and social relations.

I'm sorry, that's pretty wordy but I think what I'm trying to say is Mr.Porter - perhaps typically for a product of American culture - places too much emphasis on the individual actor and not enough attention to the social forces which produce him. It strikes me as futile to try shaming or stigmatizing certain aspects of male behavior - the propensity to violence for example - without addressing the social factors that reproduce violence across - and beyond - our western cultures.

Mon, 2010-12-27 08:15

Maysie

Merowe wrote:
It strikes me as futile to try shaming or stigmatizing certain aspects of male behavior - the propensity to violence for example - without addressing the social factors that reproduce violence across - and beyond - our western cultures.

Tony does exactly that. As have feminists for the past 5 or 6 decades.

Tony Parker wrote:
See collectively, we as men are taught to have less value in women, to view them as property and the objects of men. We see that as an equation that equals violence against women. We as men, good men, the large majority of men, we operate on the foundation of this whole collective socialization. We kind of see ourselves separate, but we're very much a part of it. You see, we have to come to understand that less value, property and objectification is the foundation and the violence can't happen without it.

So we're very much a part of the solution as well as the problem. The center for disease control says that men's violence against women is at epidemic proportions, is the number one health concern for women in this country and abroad.

What's significant to me, as a feminist who works in the anti-violence against women sector, is that here is a man, raised in this system of patriarchy and hatred/violence towards women, who can see it, more, he can see through it, and see where he fits into the patriarchal paradigm without expressing guilt. He GETS his individual role in it all, even if not an active role as an actual abuser/violent man. And he gets his systemic role. This is very rare indeed.

I heart Tony.

P.S. Patriarchy massively outdates capitalism, historically and across the planet. And while I completely agree that those two systems of oppression are linked, I've developed an allergy to white guys who want to collapse sexism (and racism, and other oppressions) to class only. It's intellectually dishonest, and it reveals more about the subject location of the speaker, and his lack of analysis and insight, than it contributes to the discussion.

All that tells me is that those who talk about class being The One™, don't, on an individual basis, see, feel or experience what those other oppressions are. Which isn't a problem in and of itself. But it shows that they can't expand their intellect to encompass and accept that in those other cases, they are on the side of the privileged, the oppressor, the one with power. This is a tough one, by the way, one that I struggle with myself with my own privileges, and the most difficult piece I have with folks when I do workshops and trainings.

Tue, 2010-12-28 03:22

KenS

There is something else that makes this tough for a lot of us.

It isnt just a matter of facing your role in patriarchy without feeling guilty about it.

The majority of us are in relationships- or a series of relationships- where contention and power are alive and personal. And this even has a tendency to overflow into other relationships where there is not so much 'deep stuff' at stake. Its more difficult to take the high road about things said or eyes rolled when there is an obvious familiarity in the words and gestures.

Guilt I can deal with. When it comes to race, I'm not generally dealing with issues so completely entwined with the personal. [And never that are deeply embedded in day after day interatcion.] But gender is another story.

Tue, 2010-12-28 03:36

KenS

Mind you, maybe there is a big difference between questions of 'being a man', and gender and power dynamics.

They are clearly related. Integraly so. And both play a big part in violence against women.

But maybe the 'being a man' stuff is more straightforward. And there is nohting to be gained, with a lot of confusion/distratction to easily added, by talking about it along with the concrete dynamics of gender and power.

IE, just because you do need to talk about gender and privlege and power, does not mean that it is necessary or desirable to bring it into a discussion of what 'being a man' does.

Tue, 2010-12-28 05:38

Merowe

Thank you for developing this Maysie and of course I take the point that patriarchy predates capitalism. I'm tempted to speculate whether capitalism itself isn't uniquely patriarchal and agree with you there is a profound organic connection between the two. I think that might be my point. I'm hardpressed to imagine a society that has transcended patriarchy while leaving a system of capitalist economic relations in place, I sense the ghost of Luxemburg as I write that.

That is not to demean or detract from the necessary work being done around gender rights, not a bit of it, nor to suggest that it isn't front and center in the greater struggle, indeed that the critical advance might not come from it.

But whatever incremental progress women might make within the capitalist structure - go Hilary! yay, Maggie Thatcher! Step up, Bev Oda! - must eventually expire against the structural limits of the system itself. Indeed, in this period of reaction and retrenchment we see those gains being rolled back.

In another discussion we might speculate as to whether the political and economic systems might evolve away from capitalism of themselves were women to be fairly represented in the corridors of power.

Anyway, I'm not pulling this out of my arse just to be contrary, this was comprehensively thrashed out back in the eighties, when 'identity politics' first gained currency and where I spent years arguing from your corner actually. I'm not sufficiently schooled up on my dialectical materialism these days to reproduce those debates but my current position was the fruit of a long evolution - rather than some intellectually dishonest spasm related to my race or my gender, if you don't mind.

editted to add: I didn't notice this was in the feminism forum, I'll respectfully pursue this elsewhere.

Tue, 2010-12-28 09:43

Stargazer

KenS wrote:

Mind you, maybe there is a big difference between questions of 'being a man', and gender and power dynamics.

They are clearly related. Integraly so. And both play a big part in violence against women.

But maybe the 'being a man' stuff is more straightforward. And there is nohting to be gained, with a lot of confusion/distratction to easily added, by talking about it along with the concrete dynamics of gender and power.

?

IE, just because you do need to talk about gender and privilege and power, does not mean that it is necessary or desirable to bring it into a discussion of what 'being a man' does.

?

Aw, but we do need to talk about gender, privilege and power. How are people to finally, finally understand that they benefit from the very same system they all, pretty much without exception, think they are not a part of (the Man Box Maysie spoke of above).

You've just done the exact same thing. You know, I have been wrestling with men (not physical, but intellectually) regarding their, yes their personal privilege, over women, and it is not amusing to continually explain to them "but YOU are a part of that system. YOU gain directly from it. Regardless of how "you get it" or are "cool about it". Truth is, men still have an extremely hard time admitting that they have, and do actively benefit from every single derogatory statement, film, action etc. directed at women. You all benefit from our lowly social position - as keepers and housekeepers (our unpaid labour). The more we are put down as nothing but flesh, or eye candy, or servile women to some husband or "partner" the more you are elevated. The more our realities are shut out (and this is our experience every day) the more yours is dominant.

I'm tired of screaming from inside my box, to all these lefty males friends, who simply refuse to admit that regardless of how nice a guy you are, or how much you "get it" you are very very much a part of the system that keeps us down.

The saddest part is looking at your male partner after telling him how much privilege he has, and realizing that not only does he think he truly isn't more privileged, but that he, personally doesn't say derogatory things about women. Of course, he won't say a thing to his guy buddies when they put down women. He doesn't bat an eye lash when women are shown as tarts and sluts for his pleasure. He doesn't see how his pornography habit is an extension of power relations.

Sadly, neither do the vast majority of my white male "allies".

Tue, 2010-12-28 10:01

KenS

Did I say, or indicate, we dont need to talk about it? Or its too hard, or something like that?

My comment was a response to Maysie- that there is a much bigger obstacle than guilt.

Tue, 2010-12-28 10:04

#10

KenS

Tue, 2010-12-28 10:16

#11

Stargazer

Isn't that what you said in the third bold part? If not then I must have read it wrong. Regardless, if you can kindly explain what you

mean by this line

And there is nohting to be gained, with a lot of confusion/distratction to easily added, by talking about it along with the concrete

dynamics of gender and power.

In reality, there is no way to separate men's position, the way men are taught to be men, from a discussion on the importance of race and gender. In fact, I would

say that it is impossible.

Tue, 2010-12-28 12:06

#12

KenS

Yes. I was thinking out loud there. And changing my take, at least tentatively. Went something like this:

I started from the same place as you: assuming that talking about 'acting like a man' necessarily entails explicitly addressing power and gender.

But then I'm noticing, thats not what Tony Porter is doing, and I can see the merit in that.

Call it a 'tactics of communication' if you like.

There is value and benefit in getting men to first see that they do engage in 'acting like a man'. If you insist on doing that seamlessly with how this is part of power over women activated by men.... you will create more resistance than if you are focusing right now on seeing 'acting like a man'.... the extensiveness of which is some degree of mystery to most men.

Turning up that active resistance- which you can bet you will get in virtually all the men who the whole question of the effects of 'acting like a man' is the newest for- means you will have ended the opportunity to discuss something that in itself has value in its own right. And can be a good takeoff point for explicitly talking about gender and power- if you managed to plant some seeds around the more focused point of broadening the oulook on 'acting like a man'.

That said, Tony does actually bring in power over women, and specifically violence against women. I would say he is careful about how he does it, and he does it well. But I'll leave the point I was making as it is. For one thing, its open ended about where you go with it.

Tue, 2010-12-28 15:52

#13

Stargazer

Between this post, and siamdave's post, I can see that white male privilege is a very very testy subject for white males, and it just really should not be discussed with any seriousness, among most men. (I think I'm getting that right).

Or, as siamdave so nicely pointed out, it is dangerous to question white male superiority, and also, please never ever let a little woman raise her voice in anger at this denial by males. Beacuse in our oppression we must remain civil at all times. I'm just waiting for some mod to tell me to be nice to a man who just negated my very existence as an autonomous person.

(that last part was not addressed to you kenS, but to that doosy of a horrible, sexist extreme sense of male entitlement posted in another similar thread by siamdave. Which I am now going to flag as abusive)

Tue, 2010-12-28 17:26

#14

Papal Bull

Well, fuck siamdave. He is symptomatic of a bigger problem, which is the externalization of the 'nice guy' ego that can't handle criticism of certain implicit and unchangeable aspects of whiteness and masculinity. He doesn't seem the sort of gentleman that will be willing to change, but who knows? All I know is that he doesn't fit into the inherent anti-oppression culture of babble.

But I do think that it is a very difficult topic for a lot of men to confront. Regardless of race men who are raised in a Western geography will be confronted with as idealized (and alien to reality) a construct as can be. It is one that doesn't worship much more than physical strength and impossible stoicism. It ignores the culturalization that men undergo and assume biological destiny in the way men will act.

It ignores needs and wants and emotions - and men become the biggest defenders of this system because, like all people, men fear change. It becomes existentially problematic - if I am not this...then what am I? For even the most progressive of men, the one who has internalized all of the lessons that anti-oppression can teach, will have problems. Questioning one's very being is exceedingly difficult.

I'm not going to share my own journey through this. It is very painful, it is very personal and even at babble I do not feel that this is the proper place to say any of it. If this weren't in the feminism forum I'd feel a bit differently, but how can you talk about the challenges of overcoming constructed masculinity without delving into the rights (indeed there are things that are positive with masculinity) and wrongs of what is? It would tear scabs off many old wounds and tear open scars that many people thought healed.

I don't feel that babble is supportive enough - to men or women - to allow for such an open, non-ideological and personal conversation. People will place their own paradigms on experience and make judgements - I just don't see much positive coming from this.

Tue, 2010-12-28 18:03

#15

Stargazer

Great post PB, and I know it would be a long hard journey - with a lot of denial. It was the same journey I took when I realized I had all this white privilege, and racist ideas. Despite being FN (a large part anyways) I pass easily in white society. I'll never forget the time I took my first anti-racism course in University, and how hard it was to come to grips with everything that was being said.

Everyone fears change at some level.

One day I hope we can have the conversations you describe, because it is interesting, and there is always pain in these types of journey's. I think it can be safe to do so here too, as long as we don't have people like siamdave setting the rules (and contributing)

Mon, 2011-01-31 20:30

#16

Sean in Ottawa

I do have a question that some of you here might be able to answer for me.

Being a man is enough to be responsible, and since you cannot reject benefits that are unquantifiable, invisible and beyond calculation, then the only answer is to be active in your rejection. I can accept this -- if you do not stand up and say something you are the oppressor (and then still be aware of the benefits you have that you should not have) -- if you are not, then prove it by fighting against that oppressive system.

I am articulate. I am mouthy. I am aware. At certain levels I don't care that people think I am trouble-maker. I am at my core an activist. It is relatively easy for to make a point clearly on any topic and to speak out for equality and to express myself about this system we have built and its hostility and violence towards women, both physical and metaphorical.

I do speak out, much of the time. I am sure I can do more and I am sure I am sometimes too lazy, comfortable, selfish or whatever it is in the moment that I don't do as much as I should but that does not change the reality that it is easier for me than some others I know. And it is much easier for me now than it was 20 years ago when I would hear the most awful things that would make me cringe but feel that I could not tell someone -- "no, that joke is not funny." That I can do so now, does that make me a stronger person? I think so but I don't think it makes me better in some ethical accounting, even if it might make it easier for me to prove my conviction. I believed the same things then as I do now but I have more strength to do something and a lot less patience for BS, and I am more choosy about who I'll spend time with. It is rare that I have to tell someone they are being sexist, because I don't spend much time with people like that anymore.

For those who have less means for whatever reason to stand up how do you measure their efforts? How do you judge them? Men are peer-pressured themselves and some are more prone to the pressure less able to resist it.

Tue, 2011-02-01 11:42

#17

Maysie

Hi Sean,

Thanks for your post. Some random thoughts from me.

White men of a certain level of class privilege have an expectation that they will be listened to. This is only a negative thing when this ingrained entitlement stops you from noticing that you should once in a while stop talking, step back, and listen to voices which are not heard as much.

On an individual basis this can be hard, to actively reject privilege, as you've put it, Sean, but on an organizational basis it's even harder.

My advice on an individual basis is to look how much space you take up, and where. It's easier to be the lone dissenting voice, let's say, with one's family, a relatively more low-stakes place than let's say, one's workplace. But being loud and mouthy and challenging when it's harder to do, is where you need to be. Where all of us need to be. In those cases I would say use that white male privilege to challenge others. It may and will put you in the target range. This means some risks to you. That's what being an ally is. Imagine the position of a more marginalized person, who lives with the bullseye on them every day. Moving, even temporarily, into the spotlight to take some hits, and then choosing to return to the safety that privilege gives you, is more than marginalized folks can do. So do it!

If you imagine any of this makes you "stronger" or "a better person" I can't judge those things. And is it about more "strength" or is it about less "giving a flying fuck"?

I do know that standing up gets easier over time, and that standing with is a very amazing thing to do, as an ally.

Tue, 2011-02-01 16:40

#18

Sean in Ottawa

Thank you for your thoughts Maysie. They are helpful.

Thu, 2011-09-29 07:32

#19

Maysie

Wonder what men can do in the fight against violence against women?

The White Ribbon Campaign has organized Walk a Mile in Her Shoes: Toronto, today, noon, at Dundas Square.

Quote:

There is an old saying: "You can't really understand another person's experience until you've walked a mile in their shoes."

That's why we're asking you to put on a pair of high heels and join the White Ribbon Campaign to Walk A Mile in Her Shoes. On Thursday September 29th, 2011 we're all going to help end violence against women and girls, one man-sized step at a time.

Now, I could be all grumpy about this (not all women wear high heels, for one), or I could embrace it as male allies raising money and awareness for an issue that affects one in three women. I'm choosing to embrace it.

Thu, 2011-09-29 10:53

#20

MegB

The annual Sisters In Spirit Vigil is coming up on October 4th. SIS honours murdered and missing Aboriginal women and their families.

Quote:

Sisters in Spirit (SIS) is an initiative launched by the Native Women’s Association of Canada (NWAC) to address the issue of the hundreds of Aboriginal women and girls who have either disappeared or have been found murdered in Canada over the past few decades. The SIS Initiative has worked to identify root causes, trends and circumstances of violence that have led to these disappearances and deaths.

The list of 2011 SIS Vigil locations posted by NWAC continues to be updated. Check with local FN orgs if you don't see something local on the NWAC list.

Thu, 2011-09-29 13:09

#21

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Maysie wrote:

Now, I could be all grumpy about this (not all women wear high heels, for one), or I could embrace it as male allies raising money and awareness for an issue that affects one in three women. I'm choosing to embrace it.

Given the women I know if I was to walk a mile in their shoes it would most likely be in hiking boots or sandals. My wife and many of the women I am closest too don't even own a pair of high heels.

Of the women on babble how many wear high heels ever and how many never? I suspect Maysie you would be like my spouse and probably don't even own a pair. However supporting women in the fight against violence is a great idea even where as here the execution of the idea leaves a lot to be desired.

Thu, 2011-09-29 15:40

#22

Maysie

NS, you're correct. This year (I'm 45) I bought my first pair of "professional lady" shoes. They give me about an inch more in height, which is a lot for me. I don't know if they can technically be called heels though. They hurt like fucking hell, so I guess that counts for something. Good thing I don't have to do professional drag too often.

Back to your comments, I agree. I've never been a fan of the White Ribbon Campaign, but in the spirit of trying not to be so grumpy when allies try to do good stuff, I wanted to try to stay on the positive side.

Thu, 2011-09-29 16:28

#23

milo204

I think the general idea should be to whittle away at the stereotypes we put in place for ourselves with both masculinity and femininity. The idea that you should think/act/relate to others in a certain way because of your gender is totally unrealistic. If we refuse to play along, and share our observations with others as to how stupid it is as well as lead by example i think we can eventually get rid of this nonsense.

I think it has a lot to do with how you're raised as well. If you're raised in a place where these stereotypes aren't taken for granted and questioned openly chances are you will be more likely to do the same in adulthood. Or, if you're raised in a community of people that openly question and reject sexism you will turn out better (or at least better able to detect and question sexism) than someone who is raised in a place where sexism is rigidly enforced and "normal".

That's why it's so important to question and reject privilege when you see it on any level, it's that progression that keeps us moving in the right direction, hence the importance of listening to what marginalized people have to say. To me that's the single biggest thing men can do in the fight against sexism. listen, learn and act!

Tue, 2012-01-03 17:14

#24

Maysie

Bumping this thread to let everyone know about this incredible poster and postcard initiative by the My Strength is Not For Hurting Campaign.

Like them on Facebook

Tue, 2012-01-03 22:44

#25

jas

I like the positive framing of these messages, especially the last one.

I'm not sure about the wording on some of the others. It kind of sets women up as the weaker party which the stronger party must heed lest he break all her delicate bones, rather than it being a mutual decision between reasonable people. For example, the second one, I would just change to: "So when she wanted to stop, we stopped."

But much better than the Province of Manitoba's current anti domestic violence posters which have messages like: "You promised to stop. Right after you HIT ME..." and "You said you were SORRY, right after you KILLED ME."

Seriously. Those are actual posters gracing the city streets here.