After reading the article ‘Male Trouble: Are Men Victims of Sexism? by Digby (2003), critically reflect on the author’s arguments and evidence presented i

Male Trouble; Are Men Victims of Sexism?

It would appear that men are in trouble. The alert has been sounded in movies during the past decade, from Falling Down (1993), about a white male whose dissatisfactions with his life precipitate a rampage, to Fight Club (1999), aboiit basically the same thing. It's been on television, too, v/ith two Donahue episodes in December 2002, one on "Angry White Men" and another called "Are Women Getting a Free Ride?" Those epi- sodes were so popular that the show had an "Angry White Men" week in January. There is an emerging pattem of male confusion and anxiety in the face of a rapidly changing gender landscape. In boys it can take the fomi of otherwise inexplicable behavior, such as watching with gleeful awe as Steve-O (star of Jackass., MTV" s highest rated show) emasculates himself by performing silly but dangerous stunts wearing women's linge- rie. In extreme cases, boys have exploded with a level of anger more ex- pected from men, even going so far as systematically shooting and kill- ing classmates at school.'

At the adult level, it is not uncommon for men to manifest their anxieties about the gender ferment of the past few decades in complaints that men are being unfairly disadvantaged, or that women are being un- fairly advantaged. Thus, antifeminism is a common theme in angry man discourse: fendnism has "gone far enough," women have already achieved equality, now it's men who are suffering from inequahty, so it's time to tilt the balance back toward men a little.

That appears to be the approximate vantage point of one author, who has determined that men are the victims of what he unabashedly calls "the second sexism."' His antifeminism is not overt, although he ap- provingly cites a particularly notorious antifeminist who has accused

'What's really inexplicable is how few commentators and journalists have even no- ticed the gender factor in these phenomena. For example, a recent USA Today article by Greg Toppo, "Schoo! Violence Hits Lower Grades," (htip://www.usatoday.corr!/news/ riatior>/2003-0i-12-schooi-violence-usat_x.htm), although 1525 words long, does not use the words "boy" or "boys" even once.

-David Benatar, "The Second Sexism," Social Theoiy and Practice 29 (2003): 177- 210. Page numbers in parentheses in the text refer to this paper,

© Copyright 2003 by Social Theory and Practice, Vol. 29, No. 2 (April 2003)

247

248 Tom Dighy

(purportedly) man-hating feminists of a "war against boys."^ He also de- votes most of his critical attention to feminist theorists, in one instance chiding Cynthia Enloe for addressing military sexism but ignoring "the much greater disadvantage suffered by vast numbers of men who are forced into combat against their wills" (199). While that's a curious ob- jection to Enloe's work, it points to what makes the "second sexism" claim intriguing. Instead of focusing on how men's lives have been changed in recent decades by feminism, the author emphasizes ways men are purportedly victimized by sexism that actually have been around for millennia, for example, being sent off to war. It's about time we paid attention to long-standing pattems of sexism faced by men, he seems to be saying, and stop giving women all the attention. He expects that this campaign to address sexism against men will be opposed by "those feminists who will regard attention to the second sexism as threatening" (188) (although the nature of the threat is not specified). More interesting is the other group from which he expects opposition, namely, "conserva- tives who endorse traditional gender roles" (188).''

'Christina Hoff Sommers, "The War Against Boys," The Atlantic Monthly, May 2000, p. 59; also see Who Stole Feminism?: How Women Have Betrayed Women (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994). For my response to her accusation that feminists hate men, see Tom Digby, "Do Feminists Hate Men?: Feminism, Antifeminism, and Gender Oppositionality," Journal of Social Philosophy 29, no. 2 (1998): 15-31; see also Tom Digby, "Political Correctness and the Fear of Feminism," The Humanist 52 (March 1992), pp. 7-9, 34. By the way, the epigraph to Sommers' article, "The War Against Boys," presumably not written by the author, proclaims "it is boys who are the second sex." So credit for that nasty inversion of Beauvoir's expression may actually go to an anonymous copyeditor at The Atlantic.

''Benatar focuses his critical attention primarily on the writings of feminist theorists, rather than conservative defenders of traditional sex roles, but his antagonistic sentiments tov,'ard the latter are clear, as can be seen in the following quotes: (1) "Why, for instance, should female recruits not be subject to the same de-individualizing crew-cuts as male recruits? There is nothing outside of traditional gender roles that suggests such allow- ances" (179); (2) "Tnese special privileges [allowing female army recruits longer hair] simply reinforce traditional gender roles" (179); (3) "Obvious sex-role stereotypes ex- plain at least some of the difference [in corporal punishment of boys and girls]" (180); (4) "Any natural differences in aggression that might exist, could give rise to, but would also be greatly exaggerated by, sex-role expectations and conventions. This is one reason why conservatism is not a fitting response to current inequalities even if one thinks that natural differences account for some of the inequality" (194); (5) "But there are obvious social and gender role explanations that can account for why men become soldiers" (194); (6) "Indeed, such reasons have been used regularly by the conservative defenders of tradifional gender roles, including those who have sought to exclude from combat those women who do want such roles" (196); (7) "This argument presupposes that the position of women is worse than that of men. I do not deny this, if it is a global claim that is being made. In most places, women are generally worse off than men. This is because the traditional gender roles for women are much more restrictive than those for men, and most of the world's human population continues to live in societies that are characterized by traditional gender roles. But what about contemporary liberal democracies, from

Male Troubles Are Men Victims of Sexism? 249

1, The Decline of Men?

The reader Vv'ho hasn't followed the decline of male status as portrayed in movies and television shows may be surprised to hear of it. It is easy to miss, given the continued ubiquity of signs of male power. Martha Burk, v/ho started the recent effort to integrate v/omen into the Augusta Na- tional Golf Club, home of the Masters Golf Toumament, said of her ef- fort, "It's such a big deal because it's got sex, it's got money, it's got sports, it's got all the guy things that guys care about. And whether we like it or not, guys are still nmning this world."^ More systematically, Katha Pollitt scouts the gender terrain and concludes:

It takes a real talent for overlooking the obvious to argue that women have achieved equality in contemporary America. After all, … virtually every important political, social. Cultural, and economic institution is still dominated by men: legislatures, courts, corpora- tions, labor unions, the news and entertainment media, education, science, medicine, religion. Study after study shows that women make less money than men even when they do the same or similar work, which they have a hard time getting; that they shoulder the bulk of child-rearing and housework, even in families where both husband and wife work fuU-time; that they are on the receiving end of a great deal of rape, domestic violence, abuse, and harassment.*

That quick survey of ongoing sexism (against women) is complemented by legal scholar Deborah Rhode's recent book, Speaking of Sex,' which exhaustively and compellingly surveys the depth and range of gender inequality that continues to disadvantage women.

Yet many men have difficulty seeing inequality, Rhode says:

"Pale males eat it again," announces a character in Michael Crichton's popular film Dis- closure. This perspective is widely shared. According to recent polls, close to half of all men think that they are subject to unfeir penalties for advantages others had in the past. Two-thirds of men and three-quarters of male business leaders do not believe that women encounter significant discriniination for top positions in business, professions, and gov- ernment.*

whose ranks most feminists are drawn and to which substantial (but not exclusive) femi- nist attention is devoted?" (196); (8) "Why are women not complicit in and partly culpa- bie for the perpetuation of gender role stereotypes that lead to male disadvantage?" (206); (9) "Affirmative action conscription policies that aimed at enlisting equal numbers of males and females and insisted on sending equal numbers of men and women into battle would not only enforce the desired proportionality, it would aiso have an immense impact on the prejudicial views about gender roles" (207).

'On the ABC television show, UpClose, 2 January 2003; Bui± is Chairwoman of the National Council of Women's Organizations.

"Katha Pollitt, "Feminism's Unfinished Business," The Atlantic Monthly, November 1997, p. 160; also at http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/97nov/polHtt.htm.

'Deborah Rhode, Speaking of Sex: The Denial of Cender Inequality (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1997).

^Rhode, Speaking of Sex, p. 3.

250 Tom Dighy

Why do men have such difficulty seeing gender inequality? First, for the same reason whites have so much difficulty seeing racism: because they don't have to, it's not something they need to notice in their everyday lives. Michael Kimmel recounts how he learned about this aspect of gen- der and race privilege. In a feminist theory seminar, a white woman told a black woman that they shared a bond as women. Disagreeing, the black woman responded:

"When you wake up in the morning and look in the mirror, what do you see?" she asked. "I see a woman," replied the white woman. "That's precisely the problem," responded the black woman. "I see a black woman. To me, race is visible every day, because race is how I am not privileged in our culture. Race is invisible to you, because it's how you are privileged. It's a luxury, a privilege, not to see race all the time …" As I [Kimmel] witnessed this exchange, I was startled, and groaned … Someone asked what my response meant. "Well," I said, "when I look in the mirror, I see a human being."'

It's only when race and gender are a source of victimization, of harm, that they get noticed. When they bring nothing to your life but privilege, when they don't disturb your life, you don't notice them—and you also don't notice how they affect the lives of others.'"

Another factor that may contribute to some men's inability to see women's inequality is knowing that they, too, can be victims of gender- related bias, abuse, and harassment. What's missing is a sense of how their victimization compares with what women face. As the proponent of the "second sexism" idea acknowledges (some would say understates), "In most [geographical] places, women are generally worse off than men" (196). Those are, however, not places to which he directs his con- cem." As for the other places, specified as "contemporary liberal de-

'Michael S. Kimmel, Manhood in America (New York; Free Press, 1996), pp, 3-4. '•''Men's vision is also obstructed when they see women's inequality as deriving from

women's own choices, which are presumed to be detached from any causal context, un- less it's a pseudo-biological one.

''Benatar draws a distinction between "liberal democracies" and the rest of the world that is quite problematic in my view. This is way too vast a topic to address here, and it is not essential to the topics I do want to address, but I'll give just three examples of why making this distinction, especially in the context of trj'ing to compare gender-specific disadvantaging of women and men. (1) Some pattems of sexism against women are transnational, involving both "liberal democracies" and other countries. For example, according to the World Health Organization, "Forced prostitution, trafficking for sex and sex tourism appear to be growing. Existing data and statistical sources on trafficking of women and children estimated 500,000 women entering the European Union in 1995" (http;,// www.who.int/inf-fs/en/fact239.html). Most of these women come from poorer, often nondemocratic, countries, (2) There is a growing number of women (primarily im- migrants) who are subjected to female genital mutilation in Europe, Australia, Canada, and the U.S. (World Health Organization at http;//www.who.int/inf-fs/en/fact241.html).

Male Trouble: Are Men Victims of Sexism? 251

mocracies" (196), he expresses uncertainty about whether "women [are] worse off than men" (197), speculating that "the extent of discrinrdnation against men is probably seriously underestimated" (197), making it diffi- cult to compare the victimization of women and men. So he's "not con- vinced" that "men in our society enjoy overall advantage" (205).'^ That doesn't matter, anyway, he says: "Fortunately, I think that the question of which sex suffers the greater discrimination is simply irrelevant to the question of whether attention should be given to the second sexism" (197).

He comes no closer than that to offering an overall appraisal of the seriousness or urgency of the plight of men and boys, but it's possible to gauge it, approximately, with the specific examples he gives of "second sexism": men and boys are more likely than women and girls to be sub- jected to the following: pressure to engage in military combat, demean- ing cre¥/-cuts (and other unspecified demeaning acts) in military training, victimization by aggression and violence, expendability in disasters ("w'omen and children first"), corporal punishment, sexual assault cases being taken less seriously, loss of custody of their children as a result of a divorce, less affection from divorced mothers, and discrimination if they are homosexual.'" There are still other possible cases of discrimina-

(3) Eritrea is in a transitional phase, supposedly on its way to becoming a democracy, and partly there already, even though the parliamentary elections scheduled for December 2001 were postponed indefinitely. (See The World Factbook 2002 at http://v/ww.cia. gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/eri-tml.) Regarding the status of women in Eritrea, while their (transitional) parliament is composed of 21% women (http://www. afdcaac- tion.org/actioa'ipu.htm), the prevalence of female genital mutilation in Eritrea is 95% (World Health Organization, http:/7www.who.int/frh-whd/FGM,'EGM%20prev%20up date.html). Attempts to compare (a) nations on the basis of how democratic they are (af- ter all, in recent years there have been plenty of compelling critiques raising doubts about how democratic the U.S. is, considering the overwhelming influence large corporations have through campaign contributions), and (b) women and men as to their relative gen- der-specific disadvantaging, are immensely problematic. In any case, what's the point? Surely it's not necessary or even helpfiil to make such comparisons in order make the case for improving democracy everywhere, so is it necessary to make such comparisons in order to diminish or eliminate gender-specific disadvantaging?

''On the other hand, Benatar says near the end of his paper: "I have not sought to claim that men are worse off than women" (209).

"Benatar misinterprets the silence regarding lesbians in legal discourse as tolerance; it is actually part of a. broader historical, cultural pattem that negates the existence, and often even the possibilitj', of lesbian relationships. So the "discrimination" at work here cuts both ways. In any case, the claim that this is an example of sexism or discrimination against men is quite problematic. It ss discrimination, if you like, against homosexuals (or homosexual behavicrs, prior to the nineteenth centurji) that is rooted in historic, possibly even evolationary, concems with maximizing procreation. That's why, as a general pat- tem, historically and across cultures, homophobia tends to rise and fall in correlation with pressures to procreate (e.g., the famous passages at Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 ofi:en cited by conteiaporary homophobics, like the widely overlooked anti-masturbation passage at

252 Tom Dighy

tion, he says, for which the evidence is "equivocal" (183). I'm not so sure that it is "simply irrelevant" to compare those exam-

ples, and any larger pattem discemible from them, with the vast, perva- sive, systematic, and often horrifically cmel disadvantaging of women throughout the world, for which an immense amount of evidence has been amassed over the past few decades. Nonetheless, his examples leave no doubt that there is some quite substantial disadvantaging of men going on, and that deserves attention.

But does the disadvantaging faced by men constitute, or derive from, sexism or discrimination? I don't think so. I think that's the wrong diag- nosis, one that diverts attention from a more adequate account that is necessary for the disadvantaging of men to be effectively addressed. I shall discuss three interwoven reservations that I have about the claim that men are victims of sexism: it fails to identify perpetrators who do the discriminating, it decontextualizes and dehistoricizes, and it relies on a politically anemic notion of discrimination.''^ I'll conclude with a discus- sion of strategies for ameliorating male disadvantage, as well as exam- ples of gender flux in popular culture that may serve as optimistic signs.

2. Who's Doing These Things to Men?

Who are the perpetrators of male disadvantaging?'^ Is it necessary to point out the obvious? It is primarily men who disadvantage men. It is almost entirely men, historically and in the present, who design and im- plement policies that are likely to lead to war, who decide that it will be men who will fight the war, who subject soldiers to demeaning hazing

Genesis 38:9-10, originated at a time when the Hebrews stood to benefit from efficient procreation; also, there was a general pattem among Native American tribes, prior to the twentieth century, of less homophobia among peaceful, agrarian tribes, and more homo- phobia among more militaristic, nomadic tribes [see Walter L. Williams, The Spirit and the Flesh: Sexual Diversity in American Indian Culture (Boston: Beacon Press, 1986)]). Basically, men are more pressured to have sex with women, instead of with men (in- cluding themselves), when sociefies need to maximize production of offspring. To call this discrimination or sexism is surely a real stretch, to say the least. Contemporary pat- tems of discrimination against gays and lesbians in North America, Europe, and many other countries, situated where such needs are absent, and persisting because of cultural inertia, need to be addressed, but the differential homophobia directed at gay men and lesbians, placed in evolutionary/historical context, is not sexism.

^"Benatar's definition of discrimination as "the unfair disadvantaging of somebody on the basis of some morally irrelevant feature such as a person's sex" (177) is indeed un- conventional. I shall discuss this later in this article.

'"Here is the best hint Benatar gives regarding a perpetrator: "There are powerful social forces that shape the expectations or preferences of men and women so that sig- nificantly disproportionate numbers of men and women aspire to particular positions. Here indirect or subtle discrimination is operative" (177).

Male Trotiblej Are Men Victims of Sexism? 253

(including those crewcuts), and who send men off to do battle. It is pri- marily men who get aggressive and violent with men, and when men get violent with men, it is more likely to result in serious injury or death than when women are violent with men. It is primarily men who insist on saving the women and children first. Most judges who give custody of children to women are men (although one study shows that when fathers actually trj' to get custody, they win three times as often as mothers).'^ It is overwhelmingly men who not only discrincinate against other men who are gay, but also intimidate, assault, and kill them. Corporal pun- ishment is a bit more complicated, primarily by the fact that women gen- erally spend way more time than men engaged in childcare, but in the U.S. there is a substantial pattern of men bearing a special responsibility for corporal punishment of their sons.

There are manifold other v/ays in which men behave badly toward ether men that could be added to those "second sexism" examples. Most men v/ho are raped are the victims of other men. In the overwhelming majority of anti-rriale sexuai harassment cases brought to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the perpetrators are male (and nominally heterosexual).'' Most victims of injuries and deaths resulting from hazing, inckiding coerced drinking, are men, and they are hazed by ovher men. It is the callousness of primarily male executives that results in workplace hazards that cause injury, disease, and death to workers, irictading many cases where tbe victims are all or mostly male.

So the perpetrators of male disadvantage are most likely to be male themselves. But the "perpetrator" notion must be used cautiously here; I do not mean for it to connote blameworthiness, for in this case blame would require the same decontextualization and dehistoricization that is required by the broader assertion of a "second sexism."'^ Thus, when male disadvantage and male intrasex conflict are placed into a broader context, doubts are raised not only about the clsam of a "second sexism," but also about the usefulness of the concept of blame in this case. Con- textualization may also point the way toward the amelioration of the rriost substantial forms of male disadvantage, to which I shall now turn.

'°A study by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reported in Stephanie Kraft, "Why Doss He Do That," The Valley Advocate, 6 Febmary 2003, p. 15.

''Reed Abelson, "Men Are Claiming Harassment by Men," A'ew York Times, 10 June 2CC*L For more on this subject, see Margaret Talbot, "Men Behaving Badly," New York Times, 13 October 2002, sect. 6, p. 52, col. 1.

'''My previous critique of guilt largely applies to blam.e: Tom Digby, "No One Is Guilty: Crime, Patriarchy, and Individualism." Journal of Social Philosophy 25, no. 1 (199^): 180-205.

254 Tom Dighy

3. What Is the Worst Thing Ahout Being a Man?

I am going to focus primarily on what I consider, after more than a quarter century of reflection on the subject, to be the greatest disadvan- tage men suffer as a gender, especially because it is the root of most other male disadvantages, namely, cultural ideals of manhood that are deeply informed by the role of warrior. For men who literally take on that role, this means risking not only bodily injury or death, but also emotional disability.'^ The disadvantage for those men is obvious, but for all men there is a range of not-so-apparent disadvantages suffered as a consequence of their gender role being imbued with the traits expected of a warrior. Foremost among these traits is the ability to selectively focus, and sometimes suspend altogether, the capacity to care about potential harm to oneself and others. The warrior must be able to kill another man without consideration of the excmciating emotional pain that will result for the persons who loved and depended upon that man. The warrior must be able to maim and mutilate other men without concem for the pain and continuing disability those men will endure. And the warrior must also be able to repress anxiety that he himself may come to feel such pain, endure such injury, or have his own life taken away, leaving behind his loved ones to moum.

Actual warriors are needed only in certain situations, typically when one group is threatened in some way by another group, or when one group has something another group really wants; in either case, one or both groups decide they will have to fight it out. It's only in such specific circumstances that the men are needed to get fierce, suspending the ca- pacity to care about the interests, pain, and suffering of the persons in the other group and about their own potential injury or death, so that they can triumph over the other group, in the interest of their own. The need, then, is not for people who are uncaring altogether, but rather people who can delimit and suspend their caring. Even though men's fierceness may be needed only occasionally, they must always be prepared for combat, and so most societies utilize various athletic activities, often specifically combat-themed, to keep the men fit and ready for battle.""" This battle- readiness includes not just physical fitness, but emotional readiness. Alas, like physical strength and agility, human emotions do not have on- off switches. In order for men to manage their emotions, particularly

" A S Benatar notes (178). See also Terrence Real, / Don't Want to Talk About It: Overcoming the Secret Legacy of Male Depression (New York; Fireside, 1997); William Pollack, Real Boys (New York; Random House, 1998).

^"See Michael B. Poliakoff, Combat Sports in the Ancient World (New Haven; Yale University Press, 1987), and David D. Gilmore, Manhood in the Making (New Haven; Yale University Press, 1991).

Male Trouble; Are Men Victims of Sexism? 255

their capacity to care about others or themselves, their training for com- bat-readiness must begin in childhood. So boys who let their fear show, or v/ho manifest feelings of concem for others, are commonly admon- ished with imperatives like "Boys don't cry," "Suck it up," "Tough it up," "Play through the pain," "No pain, no gain," "C'mon, be a man," and so on. These injunctions toward manliness direct boys precisely not to show any emotional 'ulnerability, fear, or empathy for the suffering of others. Neither physical nor emotional fitness for combat can be simply tumed on or off. Neither is obtainable at a moment's notice, but rather requires training from childhood on. You can't just tell boys they should act like men if they happen to be in combat. Hence, in societies that rely on militarism to achieve their ends, emotional preparedness for conflict h.as to be a defining element of manhood.

The capacity to suspend caring imposes a heavy emotional cost on boys and rnen, as it runs counter to primal human urges and needs. To love and fae loved, to care for others and have them care for you, and of course, to continue living in good health and fitness could hardly be more cracial to human happiness and flourishing. How have we managed to get so many persons to take on this role, which, in its very essence, requires such impoverishment of their emotional lives, such detriment to their psychological health? Given that the warrior role requires extraor- dinarj' sacrifice, regardless of whether one actually engages in combat, how is it possible to get men not only to take it on, but to do so with the deep intemalization and enthusiasm that the role also requires?"' There is surely a clue in the fact that it is precisely men who are almost univer- sally given this role. The belief is instilled in them that otherwise they simp'ly cannot be men, along with all the quite obvious privileges and pov.'er being men potentially entails.

4, Why Men?

But why men? We could, after all, select the biggest and most fit indi- vichials fcr combat. That would mean that we would have some mixture of men and women playing the role of warrior. That's not what's done, however. Almost universally, combat service is reserved not for persons who would be the most effective warriors, but for males only. WTiy sin- gle out the males for this role that is so detrimental to the individual's interest? Why haven't human societies—or more of them, anyway—im- posed this onerous role on women, bribing them with the same privileges

"Tor the soldier even to be concemed about his psychological health can be a prob- lem; see Andrew Goldstein, "Even Soldiers Hurt," Time.. 1 October 2001, available on the web at cime.com.

256 Tom Dighy

and power offered to men for taking it on? Perhaps it is not altogether irrelevant that males on average are bigger than females, but there are always exceptions—small men and large women—so why not just select the biggest babies at birth, on the assumption that they will be big and strong as adults, and socialize them to be warriors? There's nothing about being female that incapacitates one for fighting wars, and indeed, there are some historical cases where women have been quite successful at it.'^ Clearly, there is another factor at work here: individual female lives are more cmcial for procreative efficiency than are individual male lives. If we send the women off to war and some get killed, it has a far greater impact on our ability to produce more babies than if the same number of men had been killed. Thus, societies that