Reforming gender: We’re all in this together.
—
This past Monday, James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal’s Editorial Board wrote a bad column. If you’re at all like me, (and by like me, I mean liberal), you’re probably not shocked that the WSJ Editorial Board produced something wrongheaded. There are a whole lot of strong outlets and sources for good conservative thought across the internet, but the WSJ Editorial Page is, unfortunately, not one of them. Anyway, in the piece, Taranto wrote that modern efforts to prosecute and prevent sexual assault in the military amount to “a war on men,” constructed of “he said, she said” justice, and showing signs of “becoming an effort to criminalize male sexuality.”
Considering the fact that there are more male-on-male rapes in the military than male-on-female rapes, and the fact that the vast majority of men are not rapists, any effort to work against sexual assault in the military simply cannot be a “war on men.” Anyone who has worked to prevent sexual assault knows that the forces driving male-perpetrated heterosexual rape and the forces driving male homosexual rape are basically identical. It is the same belief in sexual domination, the same validation of male sexuality as uncontrollable, the same social dynamics of group silence, and the same lack of meaningful justice and prosecution that all drive male-perpetrated rape, whether it be against women or men. So, any effort to prevent rape in the military by working against those constructs will necessarily help men more than women, frankly because more men are raped in the military than women. Yeah, it’s not a war on men.
Furthermore, efforts to curb sexual assault only become “an effort to criminalize male sexuality,” if you think, as Taranto seems to, that male sexuality is predisposed toward sexual assault and aggression. That is just a lie, a bold-faced lie that is insulting to the vast majority of us men who would never even think of acting with sexual aggression. And, moreover, it is a lie that is further perpetrating rape. The idea that male sexuality is inherently aggressive only further helps to insulate actual rapists from social recrimination and justice by implying that their behavior is normal, or in Taranto’s words, merely “reckless.”
♦◊♦
So, what’s the relevance of Taranto’s column to guyhood, the topic of this section and piece? Of course, fighting against sexual assault is most certainly relevant to our lives. It is estimated that 83% of all sexual assault in America is perpetrated against those under the age of 25. Much more often than not, It is our friends, girlfriends, boyfriends, sisters, and brothers who are experiencing the real effects of our country’s willful inability to address sexual assault.
But, in addition to making ridiculous, hyperbolic claims that serve to retard just efforts against sexual assault, Taranto’s entire argument is prefaced on the worst trope of our modern conversations about gender. Regardless of how logically absurd it is, the concept of a ‘War on Men,’ the general idea that all feminist, gender-equal progress will necessarily come at the expense of men, seems to show up everywhere. We hear it from anti-feminists like Suzanne Venker; we hear it from men and guys across American who see advocacy against domestic violence, sexual assault, or pay equality as feminism ‘going too far;’ and we hear it from people like James Taranto in regards to male sexuality, who like to argue that feminism stands in opposition to some sort of natural, every-guy manhood that is either virtuous, evolutionary or just a fact of life undeserving of change.
That paradigm of conflict between the sexes, or between feminists and regular, everyday men, is most certainly relevant to us, because as a messaging tactic, it is extremely effective. A perception of conflict induces defensiveness and obstinacy. And, more than that, it stands in direct opposition to a central idea upon which all gender progress is dependent: that a moral reform of gender is in the interest of all genders. That notion is essential, but I don’t expect you to take my word for it. That claim deserves continuing justification, because the message of sexual conflict provides it with continuing opposition.
So, to demonstrate the point, and since we’re on the topic of sexual assault prevention, there’s more than a few ways that the eradication of widespread sexual assault will directly help us men who aren’t even victims or future victims of rape.
♦◊♦
First and foremost, there is a gendered construct of female submissiveness and gracefulness which perpetuates rape. Many women live beneath the burden of the expectation that they are supposed to always be kind, deferential, and cheerful, to never make a fuss or assert themselves against someone else’s wishes. And if they defy this pressure, they are called bitchy, crazy, hormonal, histrionic, high-maintenance, or asked if they are menstruating. And, this expectation rears its ugly head in the bedroom, as many women fear such negative reactions if they assert their own sexual needs and desires, or if they decline a certain advance from their partner. But, here’s the thing about gender roles and expectations: they come in pairs. Basically every female gender role out there has a male counterpart. Often, these expectations of us men are, by nature, less constricting, but they affect us nonetheless. In the case of female submissiveness, the tandem male expectation is that we are assertive, aggressive, always-confident, always-initiating, and dominating at times. If we fail this pressure, we are called cunts, pussies, wusses, faggots, homos, bitches, women, or girls.
Of course, there is nothing wrong with being assertive, confident, or initiating, just as there is nothing wrong with being deferential or meek. But, the problem with gender roles is that they don’t offer the full freedom to choose these behaviors. They merely offer partial freedom, with associated social sanctions if our choices don’t jive with that which is expected of our gender.
Understandably, just as many women live in fear of defying the expectations of submissiveness, so do many of us men chafe under our expectations. We don’t always want to make the first move. We don’t always enjoy the task of deciding the tone of our sexual exploits. Many of us have know what it feels like to live without the benefit of innate confidence, as well as the pressures from other men and women that we somehow be confident. (It’s not that simple!) These expectations don’t kill many of us, and they don’t make all of us downright miserable. But they kill a few of us, and they’ve made most of us unhappy at least one point of our lives. We men would gain a lot if we could abolish these expectations, just as women would gain from the abolition of their expectation of submissiveness. And, just as they were created together, so do they need to be destroyed together. We can’t have one without the other. We can’t live with freedom from one, without also living with freedom from the other.
Likewise, consider the fear of rape that women live with each and every day. With new evidence saying that approximately a third of all women worldwide are victims of sexual and physical violence, most often at the hands of men, that is a well-justified worry. Not only should we men be aware and concerned of this fear for the simple sake of its effect on all women and those that we hold dear, there is also a real and significant effect for each one of us when we engage with women in any capacity. When so many women are the victims of rape, each and every day, it makes complete sense to approach interactions with men, who are overwhelmingly the perpetrators of rape, with, at the very least, some back-of-the-mind skepticism of that man’s intentions. And when you’ve personally seen the horrid effects of rape, as I and so many of my friends have, or when you’re in an environment where sexual assault is horridly common, as all young people are, it also makes sense for women to approach heterosexual interactions with more than lingering skepticism. It makes sense to be downright wary of and incredibly attentive to the actions of those you meet.
All of these behaviors are just and reasonable reactions to a widespread crime that we, as a society, have failed to address in any meaningful way. And it is an equally reasonable reaction, from men, for us to dislike that skepticism. We should not judge or censure those reactions, because as I’ve hoped to show, they make every ounce of logical, safe sense, but we don’t have to enjoy them. In fact, I doubt that any of us enjoy them. It’s downright awful to live in fear of rape, but it’s no fun either to live life as if we are each “Schrodinger’s Rapist.” Furthermore, the distrust that this necessary reaction engenders can have a chilling effect on friendships, relationships, social organizations, and even political movements. And, of course this is becoming a theme here, the only real way to erase this reaction is to make it unreasonable, to remove the factors which contribute to it. In other words, if we men want to be trusted more, given the benefit of the doubt more often, and altogether experience our heterosexual relationships with more freedom and enjoyment, we need to sincerely help lower the incidence of sexual assault in this country and the world at large.
♦◊♦
These are but a few of the examples of the ways in which a moral reform of gender, one which freed us of gender roles and expectations, is in the interest of both men and women. These are just a few of the reasons why invocations of a “war on men,” are often ludicrous. These are only a few of the gendered constructs that should drive us men and women together, rather than apart, in a shared progress toward a better, freer future.
Image Via:USACE HQ/Flickr
The post The Lying Fiction of a War on Men appeared first on The Good Men Project.