Male Studies: A Good Idea That Needs To Be Saved From Itself

As somebody with a dilettante's interest in gender issues, I was pretty interested to hear about the announcement of a new academic discipline called "male studies" last week. The tidbit that particularly caught my attention was the focus on biological differences and their influence on masculinity, which the academics highlighted as a feature distinguishing their vision from that of contemporary academic gender studies. This topic in particular is something that I've been fascinated by ever since I read Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate, a book-length argument for the influence of biology on human behavior that I found extremely compelling and would recommend to anybody.

So the argument that biological differences are insufficiently considered in gender studies is one that I buy completely. In fact, I think a lot of the critical commentary directed toward "male studies" in the blogosphere from writers (presumably) steeped in gender studies goes a long way to proving this point. The main line of argument, typified here by Mother Jones' Titania Kumeh and the Washington City Paper's Amanda Hess, is that Men's Studies already exists and already incorporates biological perspectives. The first point is definitely true: the American Men's Studies Association has a website and a president, who is quoted in the NYT labeling the proposed "Male Studies" discipline "kind of a Glenn Beck approach," which doesn't make any sense taken literally, but can be safely assumed to be an expression of disapproval given the context.

The second point, about biological differences being covered in Men's Studies, seems pretty dubious to me. Here's how the Men's Studies association defines the spectrum of topics covered by the discipline:

"Men’s studies includes scholarly, clinical, and activist endeavors engaging men and masculinities as social-historical-cultural constructions reflexively embedded in the material and bodily realities of men’s and women’s lives."

If you didn't understand any of that, good for you! You probably spent your postsecondary education pursuing marketable skills. The gist of it is that Men's Studies looks at the ways society, history, and culture affect the way men understand masculinity. Which is good! All those things are important. Notice, however, that biology doesn't make the cut, which would seem to contradict the argument for the redundancy of Male Studies. Kumeh approvingly states that the Men's Studies curriculum " investigates society's standards for masculinity in men and boys. It covers the effects a hyper-masculine status quo has on the XY-chromosomed among us." Again, no mention of biology, until later in the article (after analogizing the idea of male studies to excluding slavery from history courses, which strikes me as something less than a logical and restrained analysis) when she claims that "(b)iology is covered in men's studies, but not in a vaccum that discredits nature/nurture arguments."

What I take this to mean, and I don't think I'm being unfair here because I've heard similar sentiments expressed in the past, is "biological differences may exist, but we're not interested in talking about them because they don't seem to be something that we can influence as easily as social standards." Later in her post, Kumeh fears that teaching about biological differences "lacks context and conscience" and "gives people an excuse not to change." This basic idea, which again I believe to be fairly widespread among gender studies scholars and students, is exactly why we need an disciplined and intellectually serious examination of biological differences. I've never read, in either the popular or scientific press, any argument that social and cultural factors are irrelevant to gender differences.

Instead, most of the discussion (again, I can't recommend Pinker's book strongly enough) centers on the idea that the timeless nature/nurture argument is essentially a false dichotomy and that biology deserves to be considered seriously as a key influence on how and why the social context develops, including gender norms. Again: no credible commentator that I'm aware of on the topic is agitating for the strict "anatomy is destiny" hypothesis, or endorsing the idea that biology excuses discrimination or injustice. There are plenty of populist idiots beating that drum, but I'd argue that makes the case for more education about what biological differences imply and do not imply, not less.

Having said all this, there's a fine line to be walked in making this point, and based on the published accounts, the people behind Male Studies aren't doing a very good job in walking it. In a nutshell: the least productive thing possible in this instance is rhetorical mudslinging directed at feminism, which is exactly what one of the architects behind the discipline, Rutgers anthropologist Lionel Tiger (apparently his real name) does in referring to it as “a well-meaning, highly successful, very colorful denigration of maleness as a force, as a phenomenon.” This is a terrible idea for a very simple reason: "feminism" isn't an easily defined thing. It's a multifaceted and complex tradition that covers a diverse array of political, intellectual, and philosophical questions and features a continually evolving internal debate. I find it extremely unlikely that the Male Studies set categorically opposes all things identified as feminist; for instance, I doubt that Dr. Tiger is agitating for the repeal of women's suffrage or the decriminalization of marital rape. Rather, they're pushing back against one very specific component of some feminist thought: the idea that biological differences should be marginalized in discussions of gender.

Framing this argument as a broadside against the abstract notion of feminism is essentially an invitation to be dismissed summarily by anyone who self-identifies as feminist (if it wasn't for my prior interest in the topic, I would have done so myself). It also opens Male Studies proponents to the ad hominem charge of misogyny, which many gender studies stalwarts are quick to deploy. If the discipline of Male Studies wants to define itself as an antidote to feminism writ large, we can expect the level of rational discourse on both sides to roughly resemble that of an Internet forum debate between fans Star Wars and The Lord of the Rings.

Much as I'd like to believe otherwise, I think this is probably the most likely scenario, which doesn't bode well for Male Studies as an intellectual undertaking. I don't think there's a future for ways of thinking about masculinity that gather steam from anti-feminist grievance (see also the Men's Rights "movement," a disastrous amalgamation of embittered men who claim that their child support payments are evidence of a vast conspiracy against the male gender). I do think that a broader conversation about biology and gender than the one currently taking place in the academic-activist spectrum is welcome and needed. In order to succeed, Male Studies has to figure out how to do the second while avoiding the first.

Why men do need to reconsider masculinity, and why feminism can't help

Since gender politics is something of a tertiary intellectual interest of mine, I was excited to come across "What's the Alternative to Tucker Max?," Courtney Martin's web article in The American Prospect about the trials and tribulations of pro-feminist college men's struggles with the concept of masculinity. The reason I was particularly jazzed about this piece is that it both raises a question that I've been pondering (how men should assimilate the cultural shifts since the inception of the feminist movement into masculinity as a social construct) and admirably but unintentionally illustrates the shortcomings in the intellectual zeitgeist that make this project more difficult than it need be.

Martin is covering the happenings at a national conference for pro-feminist men. In the grand tradition of semantically-obsessed campus politics, the meeting is dubbed the National Conference for Campus-Based Men's Gender Equality and Anti-Violence Groups. In summarizing the proceedings, she cannily notes:

In attendance were about 200 individuals, representing 40 colleges and two dozen organizations, many of them sporting titles like Center Against Sexual and Domestic Abuse, Men Can Stop Rape, and Men Stopping Violence. Notice a trend here? This contemporary movement of gender-conscious young men is largely identifying themselves in terms of what they are against. They're not rapists. They're not misogynists. They're also not particularly effective in imagining what they do want to be.

To give credit where it's due, Martin pretty much nails the summary of the problem here: it's exceedingly difficult to form a coherent identity based on NOT doing things. So why is it so hard for progressive men to identify positive male role behaviors? Martin essentially fails to answer this question in the remainder of her essay, which is fine; it's not her question to answer, after all. What I find fascinating, and revealing, is the manner in which she attempts to engage it. This paragraph dropped my jaw:

This became painfully clear over the course of the weekend as speakers and students grappled to find what one presenter referred to as a "feminist masculinity." Is there such a thing? Does it look like President Barack Obama -- or does his insistence on talking about sports and drinking beers reveal that he's just one of the guys? Does it look like KRS-1, the veteran rapper who recently said that hip-hop needs more women -- or is his statement too little, too late? Stephen Colbert, in some ways, is the closest thing we've got. He consistently lampoons misogynist punditry and policy, yet his "feminist masculinity" is only visible vis-à-vis its blowhard foil.

Consider how remarkable it is that by whatever standards of acceptability that Martin/this men's group (it's unclear whether these examples are her own thoughts or if they were discussed at the conference), the President of the United States, who signed into law a bill designed to help women gain legal remuneration for pay discrimination and by most accounts has a fruitful and egalitarian partnership with his own wife, is crossed off of the list of potential role models for enjoying sports and beer. The other potential role model who also fails to make the grade, is an aging rapper with extremely little contemporary relevance in his chosen art form. And while Stephen Colbert is a brilliant comedian, to hold him up as the sole existing exemplar of "feminist masculinity" is beyond ridiculous: his public persona is based entirely on sly irony and he's notoriously protective of his private life and beliefs. How does this represent a workable model of gender identity in any sense?

Although she reaches a different conclusion by the end of her piece, with these examples, Martin essentially answers her own rhetorical question about the feasibility of a "feminist masculinity" with a resounding no. Which leads us to the next question: why can't these college men and Courtney Martin come up with a single alternative to Tucker Max? I believe that the answer is that both parties are thinking of "feminist masculinity" as equivalent to "a code of behavior for men that practitioners of contemporary feminist thought will have absolutely no quarrel with any aspect of."

I don't think that this is even achievable, and the reason why is ably demonstrated by Jezebel blogger, Anna North, who comments on Martin's article:

But do men need, in addition, "a positive, masculine gender identity?" It's something of a strange concept — few feminists would ever say that women needed "a positive, feminine gender identity." While plenty of women take pride in being female, "femininity" is so loaded with patriarchal expectation that, for feminists, it's kind of a dirty word. This may not be a bad thing — in fact, I'd argue that "masculine" should go the same way.

I have to admit to some surprise at the statement about feminists not arguing for the positivity of female gender identity - I didn't realize Carol Gilligan had gone quite so out of vogue - but the latter half of her statement illustrates a prevalent explicit and implicit theme in feminist thought that renders the concept of "feminist masculinity" a contradiction in terms. To sum, the idea is that gender roles and gendered behavior are mostly or entirely socially constructed for the express purpose of creating or maintaining a societal power dynamic that is unfavorable to women, and the only way to rectify gender inequities is to remove the very idea of normative differences based in gender or sex. From this point of view, the ideas of "masculinity" or "femininity" imply pernicious social constructions regardless of the behaviors or values to which they refer.

I don't mean to imply that every feminist holds this exact belief, but it and its corollaries are a major cornerstone of both academic and activist feminism. Indeed, Martin's article on the erstwhile male gender warriors employs some familiar rhetorical tropes to this end, referring to the desire of progressive males to "separate themselves from all the gendered behaviors and beliefs that they now see as oppressive" and stating that "(i)t's not until privileged folks, men in this case, can own the ways in which they have a self-interest in resisting systems of oppression that their work becomes sustainable. " In my view, neither of these statements are inaccurate with regard to the challenges of contemporary masculinity, but they do hit upon the main reason why feminist thought is ill-equipped to help these young men with the task.

Simply put, the social constructionist view that is the warp and woof of the bulk of feminist gender critique is unable to lend any examples of gendered behavior that are not oppressive for these young men to latch on to. This isn't necessarily a problem: again, it shouldn't be the responsibility of feminists to tell men how to behave. What's problematic is that practitioners of the constructionist strains of feminist thought are increasingly unable to recognize within their own worldview that gendered behaviors might even vary by degree of oppressiveness. An example: one of the more widely deployed constructionist feminist concepts is 'rape culture,' a definition of which is offered here by a fairly prominent feminist blogger. I recommend that you click through to read it in full or part, but the post largely bypasses a traditional definition of the term in favor of offering multiple and extensive examples of 'rape culture' which range from "treating straight sexuality as the norm" and "encouraging men to use the language of rape to establish dominance over one another ("I'll make you my bitch")" to "1 in 6 women being sexually assaulted in their lifetimes" and "rape being used as a weapon, a tool of war and genocide and oppression."

I believe that this post very nicely encapsulates the weakness of the social constructivist worldview. It's has absolutely nothing to do with the author's identification of the horrors of rape and the numerous other instances of violence and exploitation perpetrated upon women. Indeed, I think that more people, men particularly, need to be made aware of these issues and to condemn them in no uncertain terms. The issue is the way in which the concept of 'rape culture' takes a variety of problems and identifies them as the same problem.

The feminist critique of masculinity operates along many of the same lines, as evidenced by the insinuition that Barack Obama's enjoyment of beer and sports disqualifies him as an alternative to the 'toxic' misogynistic buffoonery of Tucker Max. I can't help but think that there's something deeply misguided in the notion that fighting rape, sexual violence, and bigotry against women involves rejecting masculine-identified behavior in every form. If there is to be a project of reclaiming or redefining masculinity for today's world (and I think there desperately needs to be, if for no other reason than to offer a counterweight to the various idiots and bigots who have taken up the mantle in), it needs to start with taking a fresh accounting of the positive aspects of the old masculinity along with the negative. I think that, good intentions aside, the men puzzling over the issue at the conference described by Martin, have gotten too caught up in the social constructionist idea that masculinity is by definition oppressive, and would benefit from pushing back against it to take a more nuanced view at the risk of alarming their feminist allies.

What might this look like? I have some thoughts, which I'll (maybe) offer up at a later time.