Welcome to those of you new to what we do here. Although most in the Women’s Human Rights Movement believe that masculism alone is not responsible for all the problems women and girls face in our society, of you want a good starting point on understanding why masculism is frequently criticized, this classic essay will help explain it to you. It’s one of AVfM Contributing Editor Karen Straughan’s most famous works. –Eds.
Not too long ago I had it out with a masculist who had come into a female-safe space from a masculist blog just to scoff at the idea of female disposability. He basically said that the entire concept was a myth, that women’s lived experiences were completely wrong, and that they were just a bunch of whiners who were complaining over nothing.
That got me thinking about the concept of female disposability and how that interacts with the masculist movement. Female disposability has been around since the dawn of time, and it’s based on one very very straightforward dynamic: when it comes to the well-being of others, men come first, women come last. This is just the way it has always been. Seats in lifeboats, being rescued from burning buildings, who gets to eat: really, society places women dead last every time, and, society expects women to place themselves dead last every time.
Humans have always had a dynamic of “men and children first” and that has not changed at all. The 93% workplace death gap has to be evidence of this, if only because there’s nobody with any kind of importance or power who’s interested in changing it at all. In fact I remember reading an article in a British Columbia paper not long ago that described the increasing proportion of male injuries on the job as a huge problem, and the insane thing was the change reflected a decrease in female injuries rather than an increase in male ones. Women’s injuries on the job had gone down because the economic downturn had put so many women out of work in the resource sector that there just weren’t as many trees or pieces of heavy equipment falling on women as there had been before. And yet, this was framed as a huge problem for men that required immediate action to solve. It’s like if women aren’t dying at work that 20 times the rate that men are, we must be doing something wrong as a society.
Back when we were still living in caves that attitude was necessary for human survival. Nature is a really harsh mistress, especially when you think of all the animals that never get to die of old age. Things were a lot different for humans through most of our history on this planet than they are now. Life was dangerous, human settlements were small, isolated from each other, and one big disaster that took out a lot of men pretty much meant the end of the entire shebang for that group of people. So really, the level of importance that a human settlement placed on the well-being of men and children reflected almost always how successful that settlement was. And that can be expanded to encompass entire societies.
I keep hearing from the masculist camp that maleness has always been undervalued by society and that femaleness is preferred. But I’ve always contended that it’s the exact opposite: the masculine is intrinsically and individually valuable, simply because males are the limited factor in reproduction. When it comes to producing babies, every man counts, whereas biologically one very happy woman could probably do the work of hundreds in that regard. So the level of instinctive importance we humans place on the safety and provisioning of men and their children is one of the main reasons why we’ve been able to be so successful that we’ve come to dominate this planet.
While I will concede that this drive to keep men safe from all harm has often resulted in extreme limits being placed on men’s mobility, their agency, their power of decision to direct their own lives, all through history and many cultures, and in many cultures even today, I think it’s telling that those cultures tend to be the most backward. When you consider the restrictions placed on men in places like Afghanistan, and then you consider that if we “bombed them into the stone age” it might be progress, I think you could conclude that the most successful societies had a good balance between allowing men freedom and the ability to choose and direct their own paths in life, and the need to protect them and provide for them.
However, masculists will insist that these kinds of restrictions being placed on men in those kinds of societies are the ultimate form of objectification. You lock up your possessions to make sure they will never be lost or stolen or harmed. Honestly, if I were a gal on a battlefield I might appreciate being objectified in that way. I think if I was going to be an object, I’d rather be a sexual one or somebody’s prized possession than an object that can simply be thrown in the trash or smashed into pieces in the service of somebody else’s purpose.
Masculists also have a very simplistic idea that our willingness to absolve men of their crimes, slap them on the wrist, spare them punishment, comes from a deep disrespect society has for men’s person-hood—not seeing them as full human beings capable of looking after themselves, that we see them as children who don’t know any better. And while there are parallels there in our desire to protect both men and children from not only their own poor decisions but the full consequences of their shitty behavior, it’s really not as simple as they try to make it out to be.
Seriously, even today—even today in 2011!–we fully expect that if it comes down to a woman and a man in a burning building and you can only save one, the expectation is that you choose the man every single time. So honestly, whose humanity are we placing above whose here? We’re not talking about going to work, we’re not talking about getting an education, we’re not talking about freedom to decide what you want to be in life. We’re not talking about getting to take Tae Kwon Do. We’re talking seats in lifeboats here. The person in the lifeboat is going to survive, no matter how capable or incapable they are of managing their own life, and the person going down with the ship is going to die, no mater how independent, self-sufficient and awesome she is. That’s the equation: one life, more valuable than another, and the man wins every time.
So honestly, is there any argument, anywhere, that men’s humanity has always been held in higher regard by society than women’s? To be important to society, a man merely has to be; a woman has to do in order for her life to have any meaning to anyone other than herself. I think it was Manmanmyth who said our society reduces women from human beings to human doings. I really think that’s an apt analogy. We measure a woman’s worthiness to wear the title of “woman” and therefore the title of “human,” through how useful she is, either to society or to men, and one of the most useful things a woman can do even now in the eyes of society is to put men and children before herself.
While I think there is plenty of argument that this attitude is at least partly innate—the way most survival traits are, even collective ones—if it starts in the chromosomes we really do everything we can as a society to reinforce this dynamic. Studies have shown that even though baby girls tend to cry and fuss more than baby boys, parents are quicker to attend to or console a baby boy than they are a baby girl. Even just the level of acceptance of infant female circumcision in our culture, when male genital mutilation was banned pretty much the first afternoon we all heard it existed, really says a lot about the differing expectations we have for females and males. Speaking as a father, the last thing I would ever have wanted was to hear my child cry, especially when they’re at an age when they’re completely helpless, completely at the mercy of outside forces, and utterly dependent on the adults in their lives for every last thing, and yet even knowing how painful that cut is, we expect baby girls only days old to just suck that up.
Just think about what these very first interactions and experiences, these differences in how we nurture our babies depending on what gender they are, what this teaches them: What do we teach baby boys when we attend to their crying so quickly? We teach them to ask for help because their needs are important. We teach them to let us know when they’re afraid or in pain because it’s important for us to know when they’re sick or in danger or hurt, so we can do something about it. We teach them that when they’re sad or lonely to summon comfort and comfort will be there. We teach them that they’re important. Their needs and well-being, both emotional and physical, are important just because.
And what are we teaching baby girls when we leave them to cry? We teach them that there’s not much point in seeking help because it will be grudgingly given if at all We teach them that they should become self-contained in their ability to deal with emotions like fear, helplessness, loneliness, sadness, pain, distress: we teach them stoicism. We teach them to suck it up. We teach them that their fear and their pain are things that are best ignored. We teach them that their emotional and physical well-being are just not as important as other things.
Given all that, is it any wonder it’s like pulling teeth to get a woman to go to the doctor when she’s sick?
What we’re teaching that baby girl is all the things a woman needs to know and feel and believe about herself if she’s going to stand in front of a cabin with a rifle while her husband and kids hide inside. We’re preparing her for the day she has to fix a bayonet to a rifle and charge a hill under enemy fire, and we’re preparing her to make a decision to resign herself to an icy fate while men and children escape in the lifeboats. We are teaching her to internalize her own disposability.
And baby boys? By attending to his crying so quickly, by letting his know that he’s inherently important to us, we’re preparing him for the day he has to think of his own safety first, even if it means the woman he loves is left standing alone with a rifle in front of a cabin. We’re preparing him to take that seat in the lifeboat. We’re training him to not allow guilt or empathy or acknowledgment of a woman’s humanity, or any sense that she might deserve it more, to convince his give his seat to her. Because for millenia, the human species absolutely depended on his feeling 100% entitled to that seat.
And that brings me to masculism. You know, the matriarchy smashers? Those righteous avengers of equality? Dogged dismantlers of every single gender role? What exactly is masculism doing to dismantle this traditional role of the disposable female?
Masculism’s greatest victories have only reinforced in everyone that society still owes men provision, protection, help and support just because they’re men. In its collective dismissal and abandonment of female victims of domestic violence, it only reinforces in women that it’s pointless to ask for help, because women’s needs are of no relevance, and their fear and pain don’t mean anything to anyone. Masculism teaches us to put men’s need at the forefront of every single issue, political or social. Whether that issue is domestic violence law, sexual assault law, institutional sexism, social safety net, education funding, homeless shelters, government funding for shovel-ready jobs—jobs that didn’t stay shovel-ready once men got wind of them.
Everywhere you look—everywhere you look!–there are masculists pushing their way to the front of the line demanding men’s “fair share” of all of the goodies, the good stuff, the loot, the booty, the cookies. Even if men don’t need it. Even if men don’t deserve it. And even if somebody else needs it and deserves it more.
And they get it, because we give it to them.
Masculism has done nothing but exploit this dynamic of the expectation on women to put everybody else before themselves. Especially men. Men’s safety and support, men’s well-being, and men’s emotional needs, always come first. This is the most stunning piece of society-wide manipulative psychology I think I have ever come across. Masculism has been down with old-school chivalry right from the start. They might seem like strange bedfellows, but they’re not. Because both concepts are built on a firm foundation of male self-interest.
We made our way as humans through a really harsh history and we became the dominant force on this planet. One of the reasons we were so successful is because we have consistently put men’s basic needs first. Their need for safety, support, and provision. It was in humanity’s best interest for men to be essentially self-interested, and for women to be essentially self-sacrificing. But we don’t need that dynamic anymore. Our species is in no danger of extinction. We’re 7 billion people clogging up the works here!
What’s the worst that could happen if we all just collectively decided that women were no more disposable than men, and men were no more valuable than women? In fact the greatest danger I see to us right now is that in our desperation to bend over and give men everything they want and everything they say they need, we’ve unbalanced society to the point where we’re in danger of seriously toppling over.
And really? The only difference I see between the traditional role and the new one for women with respect to disposability is that femaleness, womanhood: it used to be celebrated, it used to be admired, and it used to be rewarded, because it was really necessary, and because the personal cost of it to individual women was so incredibly high.
But now? Now, we still expect women to put men first, and we still expect society to put men first, and we still expect women to not complain about coming in dead last every damn time. But women don’t even get our admiration anymore. All they get in return is to hear about what assholes they are. Is there any wonder why they’re starting to get pissed off?
–Karen (AKA Boy Writes What)