Musing on men, the "suffering Olympics", and accountability

I've been reading through the extraordinary number of comments below this post.  No other subject that I've blogged about in the past year has engendered (pardon the pun) as much intense discussion as the men's movement and the various issues related to it.  Really, it's quite remarkable.

Most of the discussion has been reasonably civil, which is why I haven't closed the comments yet.  I am so grateful that so many people are willing to wade into the murky waters of men's issues here on my blog, but I am saddened at how difficult it can be to really get one's point across.   I know that my own comments often seem short and flip and are easily misinterpreted.  I suspect that that is the case for most of us.

There are a great many threads to pick up on from the comments section.  One general reaction: we need to be very careful about assuming that pain is a zero-sum game.  Claiming that women have been oppressed is not the same as claiming that therefore, men don't suffer.  Pointing out men's individual and collective unhappiness and confusion is not a denial of the reality of the continued existence of sexism.  Misery is not a pie -- more for me, less for you, and vice versa.  It is helpful if, in gender discussions, we can get past what often seems like the "suffering Olympics". 

We live in a culture of comparatives and superlatives when it comes to pain.  All of the newspapers I've read this past week in Britain and America have provided tables that "rank" the human and economic toll of the recent tsunami compared to other catastrophic events.    It's a perfectly understandable reaction.  We modern humans seem to like numbers, even if our compassion is still stimulated more by individual images of suffering than by statistics.  But the fact that Indonesia, for example, has lost more people than Sri Lanka does not make the suffering in the latter country any less great!  No medals are being awarded here.

Similarly, the fact that women have, historically, suffered more violence at the hands of men than men have at the hands of women doesn't mean that men haven't also been physically hurt (by other men, mostly, but sometimes by women.)  The fact that in most developed and developing countries, men are paid more than women for similar work doesn't mean that working and middle-class men aren't ever victims of exploitation.   The fact that pregnancy and childbirth is a unique physical burden (and sometimes, a unique joy) for women doesn't mean that men cannot also experience euphoria, anxiety, and pain around reproductive issues.   

It is unfortunate that activists on all sides of gender issues have given in to the temptation to compete in these "suffering Olympics".  It is hard, of course, when one feels oneself to be a victim to hear one's perceived oppressor talking about his or her own pain!  "How dare you say you are in pain?", we ask of our romantic partners and of activists on the other side of gender issues, "I'm the real injured party here!"   Some contemporary pop psychology tends to reinforce this focus on one's own pain and hurt, with the concomitant avoidance of one's own responsibility.  That's not helpful.

The strongest and healthiest wings of both the feminist and pro-feminist men's movement tend to avoid angry and embittered attacks upon the other sex.  (And yes, I know, both sides like to quote the other's extremists.  But newsflash, people:  Andrea Dworkin is not a mainstream feminist, and Warren Farrell does not speak for the entire men's movement!  So please, spare us absurd quotations out of context from the likes of these.)  Rather, what authentic feminists do is ask us to do three positive things:

1.  Become aware of the institutions and structures in our own and other cultures that shape and distort our attitudes towards gender identity and sexuality.   (Examples can range from female genital mutilation to pornography to reproductive rights to, yes, father's issues.) 

2.  Take positive action to dismantle or weaken these structures.  This is basic activism. It doesn't involve name-calling with one's opponents.

3.  (This is my favorite). Become aware of our own complicity in "the great crime"!  Rigorously examine our own attitudes, behaviors, thoughts, and past actions -- where have we been at fault?  Where have we injured others.  How have we, consciously or not, bought into cultural lies about gender and sexuality, and how have we behaved as a result?  We need to focus not on our intentions, but on how others have perceived us.

Obviously, this third one is the toughie.  It's also charged.  As a man, telling a woman who has been sexually harassed to "examine her own role" in the incident is, to put it mildly, problematic!  This is why I'm such a strong advocate of same-gender accountability groups.  Men need other men with whom they can open up -- first to validate the reality of their own hurt, and then to call each other to account for their own role in what brought that hurt about.  If there's one thing that both the Maoists and the Promise Keepers got absolutely right, it's that regular and rigorous self-examination in small, same-sex accountability "cell groups" is a prerequisite for real transformation.

There are a whole host of specific issues I've got a mind to post on: the comparison of male circumcision to female genital mutilation is one that ought to appear in the next day or two.

Comments

[djw]

You've got to be the first person who has not only linked Maoists to Promise Keepers, but done so in an entirely positive light. Bravo.

[jic]

I wonder if some "Suffering Olympics" would go away if people would say - instead of "My pain is greater than your pain" - "I feel your pain. Well, actually, I feel my own pain, but it bears a remarkable resemblance to yours."

It's sad that we're so entrenched in competition that sometimes attempts to comiserate are seen as attempts to 'go one better.' It takes both tact and trust to overcome that.

[Amanda]

Point taken, Hugo. I guess a lot of us feminists feel that we are banging our heads against the wall because we do in fact know that feminism is a force of good in the lives of men AND women, and despite this, we get dragged into debates where we have to prove that women have a right to reduce their pain even though there are still men out there with problems.

[Hugo Schwyzer]

Oh, Amanda, I hear you. And sometimes, we just have to walk away from the debates.

JIC, I like your solution. It avoids presuming that one is actually empathetic.

[Xrlq]

Excellent post, with one small exception:

The fact that in most developed and developing countries, men are paid more than women for similar work ...

The fact that a widely-repeated allegation is called a fact does not make it a fact. If women were really paid substantially less for the same work, every major employer would jump at the chance to lay off all the men in its workforce, hire women in their place, and instantly slash its payroll expenses by 50%/40%/whatever figure the feminists are claiming nowadays. The reason they don't do it is because the underlying claim simply isn't true.

[Fred Vincy]

Hugo, excellent synthesis and suggestions for ways to have a productive dialogue. My only skepticism is about the supposedly special role of same-sex feed-back. I actually think encouraging folks to listen to the opposite sex is more in keeping with the theme of your post, as well as your admonition that perception is more important than intent. To share a recent personal experience, several women recently wrote pointed attacks on Kevin Drum for saying he could "live with" parental notification laws. My initial reaction was that the attacks were too harsh, since Drum's overall point was pro-choice, even if he was not strongly so on this issue. After reflecting on the comments, however, I came to a clearer understanding of how personal a statement "I can live with" is and how it sounds coming from someone who won't really have to "live with" it -- rather like my saying I could "live with" cuts in welfare, for example, when my living with them is purely theoretical. So, I don't think Drum's a bad guy, but he got some valuable feedback he might not have gotten from a male peer group, even a male feminist peer group.

[Fred Vincy]

"If women were really paid substantially less for the same work, every major employer would jump at the chance to lay off all the men in its workforce, hire women in their place, and instantly slash its payroll expenses by 50%/40%/whatever figure the feminists are claiming nowadays."

Actually, there is evidence that that is happening:

http://www.feminist.org/other/sweatshops/sweatfaq.html (reporting that 90% of sweatshop workers are women)

[Hugo Schwyzer]

XRLQ is so stinting with his praise that I am beaming!

Fred, you're absolutely right that we need to listen to the other sex. It's a "both-and", not an "either-or". In my own life and work, I value the feedback I get from women around me -- but some of that feedback needs to be processed in a male-only setting. (Oh, I feel very LA writing that last sentence!)

[thisgirl]

Great post Hugo. I know my own long, protracted and invariably futile attempts at discourse with some of the more extreme members of the "men's rights" movement turn into justifications of feminism; providing examples as to why patriarchy needs challenging can all too easily turn into listing "women's issues", or detailing our "pain".

[NancyP]

Managers do not seek to hire other management-level people at a lower rate and give them fewer perks. By and large, male-dominated management does not care about cost efficiency, but about populating its ranks with people like themselves and ensuring mutual prosperity by cultivating favors. If a male manager has only experienced male managers and believes that effective career-building support can only come from male managers higher up and from loyal male managers below (who may develop into effective allies), he is not going to hire a woman he thinks will be outside the informal magic circle of perks and information and support. Nor will his failure to go for the cheapest available management-level personnel be seen as a bad business move by his peers and immediate superiors, since management self-interest dictates a price support for management salaries. After all, the stockholders are the ones left holding the bag. Management salaries are remarkably insensitive to rational economic theories. For CEOs, the rewards are the same whether you run the company into the ground or whether you rejuvenate it and create whole new categories of business.

Note I am not necessarily "blaming" this behavior on the presence of a Y chromosome. This is the behavior of groups in power in maintaining themselves in power and ensuring that other groups do not gain power. Replace the descriptor "male" with "white" and "female" with "black" and all the statements above still ring true.

[Xrlq]

Nice theory, NancyP, but it has no basis in fact. Most major employers hire both men and women according to who they think will do best for the company. The few that don't are the ones we read about in the papers when they're going bankrupt.

[H]

Xrlq, not to be all econ major geek, but this is how I've been taught it...

The reason women are paid less is because employers expect fewer years of work from women (due to marriage, pregnancy, having to take care of kids, whatever). It is a big cost investment to interview and train new employees, and employers want to make sure this money isn't wasted on some who will up-and-leave soon. (Same rationale for drug testing. Sure a drug user may *seem* productive now, but who knows about in the future?)

To recoup their costs, employers pay women less. However, they can't do what xrlq suggested and populate their workforce with only women, because they will lose money on training a force with a (supposed) high turnover rate.

I'm not claiming this is a proven fact, but it's just a theoretical refutation of other theories provided. Make of it what you will.

[zuzu]

If the market operated rationally, there would be no discrimination whatsoever. Yet separate pay scales for blacks and whites, men and women, existed for many, many years, and the ranks weren't filled with the lower-paid.

[Amanda]

X, if your theory is true, then why were there bars to women's employment in the past? Or have managers only become profit-minded in the past 20 years? Or is it rude to bring up the past?

[NancyP]

Uh, meritocracy is the favorite theory of those in power. George W. Bush got where he is today despite his "disadvantages" because he is clearly more intelligent, harder-working, and has better business skills than the other 180 million or so U.S. citizens over 35 years of age.

Anyone paying any attention to U.S. business knows that meritocracy ceases to operate at the big business level. Executive pay is NOT tied to long-term performance of the company, as measured in real terms (product manufactured and sold, market share) instead of fancy-accounting terms.

The only place where meritocracy applies to management is in the small business sector. Restaurant owners, small consulting firms, doctors and lawyers, etc.

[zuzu]

The only place where meritocracy applies to management is in the small business sector. Restaurant owners, small consulting firms, doctors and lawyers, etc.

And really, only in individual practices, not in hospitals or firms, because there were still barriers by race or sex there.

Sandra Day O'Connor had been Editor-in-Chief of the Law Review at Stanford Law. When she got out, in the early 60s, the only job she could get was as a legal secretary at William Rehnquist's firm. The same thing happened to a prior boss of mine, who'd graduated Harvard Law in 1963 and could only find a job as a calendar clerk. She's now one of the top trademark/copyright attorneys in the country. Had the market worked as advertised, both of these women would have been hired to appropriate places right out of law school, instead of having to work their way up from clerical positions.

[Trish Wilson]

Great post, Hugo. I take it you've seen Barry's "Male Privilege Checklist" at Alas, A Blog? Here's the link to it:

The Male Privilege Checklist

[Trish Wilson]

Great post, Hugo. I take it you've seen Barry's "Male Privilege Checklist" at Alas, A Blog? Here's the link to it:

The Male Privilege Checklist

[mythago]

Hugo, I agree with you that the Suffering Olympics is stupid. The problem, though, is that it's convenient for anti-feminists to obscure how the benefits are distributed, and where anti-sexism is worse, by calling it a "competition" whenever that's pointed out.

I mean, nobody would argue that while racism harms white people, darker-skinned people are by far on the receiving end of racism. Nobody calls pointing that out"the Suffering Olympics."

[bella]

"I value the feedback I get from women around me -- but some of that feedback needs to be processed in a male-only setting. " Hugo

Interesting.