It’s true that there are two factions within the masculist movement. One that is backwards-striving and often homophobic, with the end goal of returning to a traditional society. The other one is progressive, wants true equal rights and responsibilities, and welcomes and accepts GLBT persons. I belong to the latter faction, and over time, I’m sure that the progressive ideas will prevail - they always do.

If articulate, anti-sexist, masculists want allies, then get loud and tolerant, don’t let the back-to-the-patriarchy types derail what should be one of the leading social movements of the 21st century, and get yourself allied with privacy rights, gay rights, trans rights. Be good allies, because feminists don’t speak for the majority of people, they don’t even speak for the majority of women.

That’s how I see the current situation and especially that of the past. Men are judged on their willingless to efface themselves, to become selfless in regards to their health and very life (cannot talk about weakness, as that is seen as something bad, male victims are deemed unworthy of concern as they are ‘failed males’ by society’s standard). They have to ‘tough it out’ no matter how hard it is, and not complain. Then they are handed power.

Some have a shortcut to this, like inheriting a company, but if they don’t live up to the ideal, they quickly are replaced by more “appropriate” leaders. That might be why Bush was so popular despite being so stupid policy-wise. He’s a “manly-man”, a cowboy. He doesn’t risk his own life (now anyway), but he gives that image.

I’m not that much of a fan of that image. While I want a boyfriend who’s more dominant than me (or nothing would happen, as it is), I don’t see men’s role as sacrificing for my sake. I see nothing wrong with a man pursuing selfish interests, as many women also do.

Look at women today in the US. Women know that they can work outside the home but many choose to be mothers anyway. Those who can afford to even stay home. This is one of Farren’s fundamental arguments against the wage gap. Even when women can work outside the home, women choose family.

Men also don’t need to be told they are superior to women in order to go to war. Many men will fight to protect their mate and offspring, their families and communities, because they LOVE them. Not because they think they are superior.

I think I am superior to cock roaches. I’m not going to risk my life to defend one.

Keep thinking. Think about power. Foucault. Machiavelli. Even Marilyn French. You’re still developing your theories right? Still open to synthesizing new ideas?

So the myths around the sexes were created to enable the needed gender roles.

- Approaching gender on a systemic level, men as a group do not oppress women as a group. Instead, both genders are constricted or even oppressed by their gender role, and the gender roles have developed as a functional fit to circumstances at hand.”

When I read this statement, what comes to mind for me is this:

I agree with you that individual men cannot be responsible for philosophies and institutions which were not created by them personally. In this sense it is inaccurate to say that all men oppress all women (which is essentially what one is saying when one says, men as a class oppress women as a class). So, we agree completely that individual men are not to blame for patriarchy as a system (though I still would like to see individual men admit when this system has benefited them and disadvantaged their sisters — and vice versa).

It is also accurate to say that men have/do suffered/suffer as a result of the male gender role, as have women as a result of the female gender role. This is also true.

There are some things being ignored here, however. For example, you make the point that traditional gender roles may have contributed to the development of complex societies, but this ignores the fact that one gender role was accorded more prestige, the male gender role, that that this prestige differential does not seem to be necessary to build a society. What possible benefit could come from valuing the male gender role more than the female gender role?

Allow me to elucidate: (Note: The very fact that history does not record most of the work of women is, in itself, proof that the female gender role is not as valued as the male gender role.)

In almost every major religion males have been deemed superior to females. In Judaism women are impure for twice as long after giving birth to a female than to a male. Part of God’s punishment for Eve’s sin was to be dominated by Adam. Islam speaks for itself. Hinduism is more complex but contemporary manifestations also place less value on females than on males. In most Buddhist sects enlightenment can only be attained (or is most easily attained) from a male body. Women are not allowed to serve as priests and religious leaders … etc. The underlying values created by religion shapes what, and whom, believers (and even non-believers) see as having worth.

The male gender role of soldier is elevated to hero status, while the female gender role of mother (also life threatening and extremely arduous) is denigrated with terms like “breeder” and statements like “just a stay at home mom.” My even comparing the two will engender cries from male-gender-role-supremacists.

I could go on… My point is simply that there is something more to the story here that I’d like you to ponder.

There is an element in all this which values one gender role more than another. That differential in value serves a purpose and that purpose is to divide and conquer. What your analysis is missing is power, namely, the power elite.

I spoke specifically about religion and the military because they are two institutions in which power is seated. Throughout written history human civilizations have been organized more or less hierarchically, like a pyramid, with a small elite exercising control over a much larger mass of people. There is stregnth in numbers, especially if those lowly masses realize that they have a common problem. Ever read The Prince by Machiavelli? It’s a prescription for how the Medici family, the much hated rulers of a large portion of Medieval Europe, could maintain power. It’s base formula was this: It does not matter how much the slaves hate the master — so long as they do not love each other.

Think about that statement and how it might impact your analysis of gender. “It does not matter how much the slaves hate the master — so long as they do not love each other.”

‘So its important to understand exactly what those terms mean, and be clear and consistand of how YOU define it in the discussion. And why it should be defined this way.’

YES!

hampus