Feminist men, aggression, doves and serpents: a longer post

There's been an ongoing discussion over at Feminist Allies about pro-feminist men, "alpha males", and the difference between aggression and assertiveness.  Jeff writes:

...feminism must also supply some ways of changing the world and the people in it such that more and more of them understand it. Comparatively, whether or not you think alpha males exist, whether you think men ought to be aggressive or you think men ought to be assertive (in their feminism, too!), being and doing these things isn't a simple thing, if you want to hold to feminist ideals.

So, even given that 'alpha male' is a problematic concept--to the point of being useless, some think--examining why it's problematic, especially in the context of men who are feminists, can teach us a lot, I think. Or at least, doing so has taught me quite a bit, without settling for simple statements that boil down to 'just be a feminist!'.

And I say this not to end discussion, but like bringing up alpha male feminism in the first place, to begin and continue discussion.

I ought to have weighed in on this sooner, and I ought to be linking to Feminist Allies more often.  Jeff, Malachi, and other contributors have some good things going over there.  Check them out!

I agree completely that those of us who describe ourselves as feminist or pro-feminist men do need to have this discussion.  What is our role as advocates? Is it primarily as auxiliaries to women in the movement, acting to assist when needed but never to lead?  We are rightly concerned about replicating society's male-dominated power structures within the feminist movement, but to what extent does that exclude capable, passionate, competent feminist men from taking leadership roles?  Should our primary goal be, as I have often asserted, to "witness" about feminism to other men, showing them through our words and our behavior that masculine identity and feminist politics can be blended seamlessly?

There's certainly a stereotype of feminist/pro-feminist men as non-assertive and apologetic.  To use the language of the dominant culture, feminist men tend to be perceived as wimps.  (Or wolves in sheep's clothing, or filled with self-loathing, or deeply closeted, or somehow all of these at once.)  Some of that perception of wimpiness derives from a conscious decision on the part of many pro-feminist men to avoid using male privilege.  Most men in this movement become aware, at some point or another, that the cultural imperative for males to prove themselves through leadership and domination is problematic. One of the oldest (and most effective strategies) for denying women access to power is by insisting (against all evidence) that women don't really want power the way that men do, and that it is "right" and "natural" for men to assert themselves and for women to follow.  Thus part of living a feminist life as a man is making conscious decisions not to live out the life prescribed by the culture; it also means being acutely aware of how male privilege can have a silencing effect on women.   It's not surprising, in light of this, that so many feminist men are ambivalent (at best) about their own assertiveness and/or aggressiveness!

And then there's the other obvious issue, one which Jeff and others have addressed, of personality differences.  Not all feminist men are the same!  To use Myers-Briggs language, those of us who are Es (extroverts, I'm ENFP) are going to meet challenges differently than I's (introverts).  I doubt anyone has done a typology of feminist men to discover if those of us active in the movement have personality characteristics different from the population at large!  I'm certain, and indeed, I know from experience that feminist men have widely varying degrees of comfort with issues like public speaking, leadership, and confrontation.

(Parenthetically, this reminds me of an argument I had with a pro-feminist male friend of mine who took strong issue with my newfound fascination with boxing.  "I think it's very dangerous for you to enjoy hitting things so much", he said.  I pointed out that there was a colossal difference between hitting things (like hanging bags) and hitting people.  I have lots of aggression for which I won't apologize; I enjoy whaling away on inanimate objects.   For me, boxing doesn't compromise either my feminist or my Christian pacifist commitments; my friend thinks I'm a hypocrite who needs to examine the issue more closely.)

Jeff is right that there's more to being a pro-feminist than simply believing that "women are people."  Somehow, feminist men have to be committed to putting that belief into action.  But the actions we take, particularly in our relationships with others, are going to be largely congruent not only with our politics but with our personalities.  Though I try to be irenic on this blog, every once in a while I enjoy a good public confrontation. I'm not shy, and sometimes, I delight in the adrenaline rush that comes from getting in the face of someone who has just made a truly asinine remark.  Mind you, I have to be careful;  justified anger is a drug as strong as any I've ever known. Properly channeled, it can be prophetic and powerful -- misused, it quickly turns into loathsome self-righteousness that alienates all within earshot.  It's akin to the line between aggression and assertiveness.  The former seeks to dominate in order to validate the ego; the latter seeks to challenge in order to transform.  In practice, it's a tricky line to walk!

Of course, y'all know I'm not going to finish this post without dragging in some Scripture!  Almost everyone knows the Lord's words in Matthew 10:16: Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.  I may not get much agreement on this from my secular male allies, but I think that this passage applies as much to how to live as a feminist man as it does to how to witness to the Good News.   (Um, just so we're all clear, lads: the "wolves" refers to the dominant masculine culture, not to our feminist sisters!)   The wisdom of the serpent, I imagine, is the wisdom of knowing when to lie low and knowing when to strike -- in practical terms, developing a discernment for when and how to challenge cultural and individual manifestations of sexism. 

Feminist men must avoid several temptations: the temptation to passivity as well as the temptation to play the role of the "white knight" chief among them!  Based on personality traits, some men will find it difficult to summon the courage to speak out; others will find it difficult not to fall into traditional masculine roles like that of the Hero or the Rescuer.    Most of us will make mistakes along the way, but learning to be as gentle and harmless as doves -- while retaining "serpent wisdom" -- is a good place to start.

Comments

[Ed]

Interesting to see that no one else has commented on this yet. What seems so amusing to me about the "preference" of aligning signs of "agression" to dominant views of "masculinity" in this (and many other Western) cultures is that this is almost turned on its head in many cultures of Southeast Asia. (I work on the language of one of these groups, btw.) In many SE Asian cultures, overt signs of agression are not to be admired.

In fact, in Balinese and Javanese culture, pinnacles of masculinity are male figures who are "manis" (sweet natured) and "halus" (refined), as exemplified by Arjuna (one of the virtuous princes of the Indian epic Mahabharata) and Panji (a semi-historical figure from an East Javanese kingdom). One trait of these figures is that they are cool-headed most of the time, but like the serpent, they can also dispatch their opponents with relative ease. Most of their opponents, on the other hand, are impulsive and agressive - this is rather "feminine" in this cultural context since it is regarded as "unmasculine" for someone to be governed primarily by personal emotions. Agression appears to be one of the basest manifestations of such an emotion-governed identity.

The funny thing is that when these male characters are acted out during a dance drama or other dramatic context involving human actors, these are often portrayed by female dancers. Is this due to the effects of Western cultures and colonialization by members of those cultures? Of course, most are aware that when people from these SE Asian cultures (or more generally Asian cultures) interact with cultures that align "agression" with "dominant masculinity", they (especially the males) are going to be "feminized" by the "agression-alignment" group primarily because of this cultural mismatch. I don't have any other clear answers to this, but I'm sure other people who have worked specifically in these areas do.

Just my two cents (or 180 rupiah - take your pick).

[Hugo]

Ed, that's fascinating -- and I appreciate your introduction of the cross-cultural perspective here, something that is sorely lacking in most of my posts, I'll be the first to admit. Thanks.

[Noumena]

To be honest, I've never been able to understand the supposed problem of the status of men in the feminist movement, or the similar problems of, say, white people in anti-racist movements, or straight people in anti-heterosexist movements. We all have the same goals: a society free of sexism, racism, heterosexism, etc. Let's stand side by side, modelling the gender, sexual, and racial equality we want to spread.

Yes, there's lots of disagreement on the details and methods, but those are philosophical differences (in the loose sense of `philosophical'), not differences tied into gender, sex, or race. Yes, we're each going to have a slightly different take on the social status quo, and our gender, sex, and race is going to inform that. But Amanda Marcotte's take looks a lot more like Hugo's than it does Dawn Eden's. My take on things is a lot like my friend Natalia's, and is almost the absolute opposite of Bishop John D'Arcy's. (Targetting Catholics is just because I've been arguing with socially conservative ones for the past week or so. Lefty Catholics rock.)

Yes, feminist men have the peculiar burden of recognizing and checking their privileged position as men -- that is, realizing when we're acting on internalized patriarchy. But feminist women have internalized patriarchy, too, and it's their peculiar burden of recognizing when, say, they're doing all the housework just because the inner patriarch says telling your husband or boyfriend to pick up after himself makes you a bad girlfriend or wife.

To me, feminism -- even before I knew the word -- has been about demolishing the ridiculous notion that the penis-equipped are on this side, and the vagina-equipped are on that side. Requiring some feminists to label themselves with the diminutive `allies' and refrain from doing certain important works just because they happen to be penis-equipped is, I think, as patently contrary to justice and equality as requiring some people to do the same work for less money just because they happen to be vagina-equipped. To quote your earlier quotation, `If you believe in, support, look fondly on, hope for, and/or work towards equality of the sexes, you are a feminist.' Full stop. There's nothing in there about qualifying the label with a `pro-' or `ally' just because of the physiological hand you were dealt.

And now, can we please stop arguing about the precise referent of the term, and get on with the actual movement? Last I checked, the lack of affordable, quality childcare and the wage gap seemed to be much more serious problems than advocates' genitalia.

[Ed]

Hugo, I should invite you to one of the Javanese gamelan and dance performances at CalArts and let you meet Bu Nanik, the primary female Javanese dance teacher there. She's been dancing the roles of Prince Rama, Panji, and Arjuna (and other refined male roles) for at least four decades (!).

[jeffliveshere]

"And now, can we please stop arguing about the precise referent of the term, and get on with the actual movement?"--Noumena

I think I might, at times, become frustrated with the amount of discussion of theory that goes on in relation to the amount of 'action' that goes on (of course discussion is also action)--which is at least part of what I read your frustration to be in this passage, Noumena. That said, I think part of any movement is a continuing defining and redefining of the movement. If people of color didn't start to critique what 2nd wave feminism was (and if they didn't continue to take on the burden of making people aware of the limits of 2nd wave feminism), for instance, then we'd still be stuck in purely white-upper-middle-class feminism. The 'actual movement' is a moving target, and as such gets continually redifined to the benefit of all of us.

And, while I'd agree that the movement ought to be more than just defining the movement, I think we equally ought not pretend that there is some one thing that is feminism and everybody should just be quiet and head toward that.

[jeffliveshere]

ed--
I, too, appreciate your comment. Perhaps the whole idea of tying together 'alpha male' with 'aggressive' is misguided, or at the very least, culture-specific.

[Noumena]

jeff -

I certainly agree that feminism is not some one, well-defined goal, and that the critique of the second wave was vital. But the ends and means of the movement are not what's at stake in the debate over whether men can be feminists or must be relegated to The Gentlemen's Auxilliary. That's either silly semantic quibbling or conflating patriarchy turned upside down with the destruction of patriarchy.

[Ed]

Just a follow-up:

Even more paradoxically (at least from Western eyes), refined male figures such as Arjuna, Panji, et al., are also known as ladies' men with lots of descendants.

Arjuna ends up marrying numerous times (including to a couple of heavenly nymphs), but he doesn't have to chase the ladies - the ladies flock to him. They even try to tempt him while he meditates on Mt. Indrakila, his main goal being to attain a boon from the gods. He ignores them (after all, he is meditating) and receives the boon. He also kills his rival cousin Buriswara, who lusts after Arjuna's first wife Sumbadra (one of the ideal models of a Javanese woman). Buriswara, whose life has been controlled by his lust for Sumbadra, ends up dying without a wife or child - not the most "masculine" outcome.

As for Panji, his wife mysteriously disappears the night of their wedding, which sends him on a long journey to find her. During a leg of a trip, Panji (assuming the name Inu Kertapati) and his crew rest in a big forest and set up camp. They depart the following day, but neglect to put out their campfire, which burns a major part of the forest. Meanwhile, the king in charge of the forest, Tarate Bang, has a dream regarding his lament of not having a single child. The dream informs him that in order for him to have a child, he must kill a prince named Inu Kertapati. He then notices that his forest is burning out of control, so he goes there to put out the fire and find its cause. He runs into Panji and his group. After some questions, Tarate Bang finds out that Panji is the one he needs to kill. They fight, and Tarate Bang is killed. So, the impulsive and aggressive (didn't forget the extra [g] this time, ha ha!) Tarate Bang also dies without an heir.

That's it for storytime, folks ;)...

[Ed]

Sorry - I feel like I'm hogging up a lot of commenting space for this particular post. And let's be clear about this: I'm not being apologetic or non-assertive - I'm just actively maintaining interpersonal harmony here ;)

Anyway, I don't want anyone to think that the "refined male" model is the only desired mode of "masculinity" in Java and Bali. There are competing modes of desired masculinities.

There is a tough (but not excessively aggressive) model exemplified by Arjuna's brother Bima: he's extremely strong and tough, but inarticulate at times. (He also has sharp thumbnails, which can eviscerate almost anyone.) He is extremely stubborn, as shown by his disdain for royal niceties. He uses rough low-level language (like what we would call "slang", but it's more entrenched in Balinese and Javanese grammar) with almost everyone, even the gods (with the exception of his personal spiritual guardian, Dewa Ruci). He is also forthright, brutally honest, and loyal. So, more athletic types can look to Bima as a desirable model. However, Bima does not take "normal" human spouses - he has relations with a giantess, a daughter of the serpentine god of earthquakes Antaboga, and others. In other words, a minor drawback.

At the other extreme is the ultra-refined, "passive" male model, as represented by Yudhistira, Arjuna's eldest brother. He is the leader of the Pandawas (i.e. Arjuna's family), and yet he does not fight at all - he is the god-king figure. He is so pure, even his blood runs white (severly anemic? Maybe that's why he's quite "passive"). He battles one of his magically powerful uncles, King Salya, who has a spell which kills anyone who provides any resistance. But Yudhistira does not fight, so the spell is useless. He then unleashes his heirloom weapon of unfathomable power, the Jamus Kalimasada, and kills Salya. His drawback - a predilection for gambling, which cost him, his brothers, their mother, and their wives their freedom. They were forced to live in exile for 12 years from their own kingdom and an extra year incognito. If anyone were to expose them during their 13th year of exile, the cycle would start over again. What a gambling debt!

[N2]

Arjuna is first and foremost a warrior, as destined from his birth. Pandu his father first asks for a son to follow the path of dharma (Yudhishtra), then for a son who has great physical strength (Bhima) and then for a son who will be a master in the use of all weapons (an ideal for an kshatriya- the warrior class). Even at the time of his meditation, he meditates in order to obtain a weapon from agni (the god of fire).

I agree though that he provides an interesting, nuanced model of masculinity since he possesses strength and skill in arms but is also a ladies man, has discipline, and even experiences life for a year as a eunuch teaching dance (during his year of exile). He's also very contemplative- and the Bhagwad Gita is essentially the dialogue between him and Lord Krishna.

[Ed]

N2:

- Yes, Arjuna is indeed a genuine warrior. What surprises most people here is that being an accomplished "warrior" does not automatically entail that one should have to take a generally "aggressive" persona. The popular images here, especially with the military, include boot camp instructors showing aggression to and "cultivating" aggression within their recruits in order to break the weakest of wills and "develop" discipline. Discipline is necessary, of course - being aggressive with reckless abandon in order to develop it (just because "you can" as head of the unit) is not. That's almost a paradox, no?

- Hmm, he gets the weapon from Agni? In the Indonesian tradition, it's Betara Guru (Shiva) who gives him the magic arrow Pasupati. Also, does the Indian version of Bhima have the killer thumbnails (called "kuku Pancanaka" in Java and Bali)?

[Hugo]

Ed and N2 -- this is now heading for thread drift. Acknowledging Eastern culture is one thing, but this is a post about American feminist men, and let's try and get back on topic. Thanks for your contributions, they have been interesting!

[viki]

Hello! http://academic.missouriwestern.edu/MGT418-01/jmcmullen/_disc1/000002a1.htm big butts
http://academic.missouriwestern.edu/MGT418-01/jmcmullen/_disc1/000002a2.htm bubble butt
http://academic.missouriwestern.edu/MGT418-01/jmcmullen/_disc1/000002a3.htm female orgasm
http://academic.missouriwestern.edu/MGT418-01/jmcmullen/_disc1/000002a4.htm squirting orgasm

[viki]

Hello! http://academic.missouriwestern.edu/MGT418-01/jmcmullen/_disc1/000002a1.htm big butts
http://academic.missouriwestern.edu/MGT418-01/jmcmullen/_disc1/000002a2.htm bubble butt
http://academic.missouriwestern.edu/MGT418-01/jmcmullen/_disc1/000002a3.htm female orgasm
http://academic.missouriwestern.edu/MGT418-01/jmcmullen/_disc1/000002a4.htm squirting orgasm

[Career Questionnaire]

I just want to say, Nice observation..awesome