From the “Patriarchy Hurts Men, Too” Files October 3, 2006 zuzu Older men, bound by rigid sex roles, less likely to seek or receive help for depression than women.
I was too slow to ask about this during the Open Question thread, so I’m glad it’s come up again: I’ve seen the phrase “Patriarchy Hurts Men, Too” used a lot (sometimes as “PHMT(tm)”) as a derisive characterization of arguments that take the focus off of how patriarchy hurts women. I think I understand why PHMT topics would be a counterproductive distraction in a lot of cases, but I’ve wondered if there might not be other times when it would be legitimate to take that idea seriously. It seems to me that one byproduct of the classic patriarch structure is that it produces excess men — most obviously under polygyny, but any hierarchical pyramid needs a broad base to bear the weight — and that men are required to struggle against each other to avoid that fate. Is it possible to draw useful connections between that idea and current situations without diminishing the fact that patriarchy pushes down on women most of all?
I’ve wondered if there might not be other times when it would be legitimate to take that idea seriously. This would be one of them. Or do you think that I’m not seriously arguing that adherence to rigid sex roles is harmful to men in this case? Thing is, feminists have never claimed that the patriarchy is not harmful to men. However, there are always yahoos in any discussion of how patriarchy hurts women who pop up and derail the entire thing by insisting that you’re ignoring the injustice to men. Talk about rape culture, and you’ll get a bunch of guys who want to turn it into a discussion about men who are raped. Talk about domestic abuse, and you’ll get a bunch of guys claiming that men are equal victims of abuse and that DV shelters discriminate against men. Talk about FGM, and you get someone who’s upset that his parents had him circumcised. The problem with that, and the reason it draws the dismissive PHMT, is that a) we’re not talking about men at the moment, and hijacking the conversation to talk about men is presumptuous, male-privileged, irrelevant and annoying; b) the impact of the various things being discussed is far different for men and women and trying to draw an equivalence where there is none is distracting, insulting and in bad faith; and c) focusing on these issues when there are other ways in which the PHMT is just plain stupid. Happily, here we are discussing how patriarchy-approved rigid sex roles negatively affect men, so it’s not a derailment to discuss men. See?
legitimate to take that idea seriously. Gee, you think? Yes, I do wish there were more forums in which restrictions imposed on females by gender roles were rightly scorned, but restrictions imposed on males by gender roles were not reflexively disregarded as a “distraction” – because it seems obvious to me that there is a nontrivial link between the stress imposed by those male gender roles and certain strains of resentful misogyny in some men. Although I do concede zuzu’s point above about guys who can’t seem to shut up about the 0.1% of rape that is female-on-male.
Yes, I do wish there were more forums in which restrictions imposed on females by gender roles were rightly scorned, but restrictions imposed on males by gender roles were not reflexively disregarded as a “distraction” – because it seems obvious to me that there is a nontrivial link between the stress imposed by those male gender roles and certain strains of resentful misogyny in some men. The reason it’s considered a distraction is the nature of the way it’s brought up. You can certainly have a discussion which looks at how male gender roles breed misogyny, but the problem usually comes in when some MRA type wants to turn it into a contest of who’s the bigger victim — which almost always involves his wallet being elevated to a higher status than a woman’s bodily integrity and autonomy.
I think it’s understandable that men get alienated by PHMT-type arguments, at least as they’re normally deployed. I think this is because of a difference in terms of the way the effect of patriarchy on men and women are framed and discussed on feminist blogs. I’m going to exagerate for effect here. When we’re talking about men we tend to get stories which say “men are harmed because they are too stupid to resolve their problems as a result of being insufficiently feminist”. That seems to be the plot of most approved-PHMT stories that you get posted on feminist blogs. When we are talking about the effect of patriarchy on women we generally get a more complex analysis. The suggestion that women are to blame for their problems as a result of not opting out of rigid sex roles would not be warmly received. Most PHMT stories seem to me to be ‘men hurt themselves’, there doesn’t seem to be much discussion of the idea that men are harmed as a result of other people’s ideas about their sex roles. But there’s a pretty big difference between hurt caused to yourself by your own actions and hurt caused to you by other people’s. I also think when you say “a) we’re not talking about men at the moment” and “c) focusing on these issues when there are other ways in which the PHMT is just plain stupid” it is going to be interpreted by men who read them as “we’re just not interested in your concerns”. That’s fair enough, it’s your blog and you’re can post what you want. But I wouldn’t be shocked if guys read that and decide that they’ve no reason to be interested in your concerns either.
You can certainly have a discussion which looks at how male gender roles breed misogyny, but the problem usually comes in when some MRA type wants to turn it into a contest of who’s the bigger victim Yes, the MRA types who chime in with “But men get abused too!” are invariably missing the point. Most of them aren’t even really discussing so much as they are just lashing out. Hell, they could well be an example of what I was talking about. I’m saying that it’s less common that a discussion on a subject like “How do male gender roles breed misogyny” would actually take place in feminist forums, though – perhaps on the grounds of “Why is it always about the men?!”, or perhaps because it simply wouldn’t occur to the participants. The focus is usually on female gender roles and how they affect women’s lives – which is neither surprising nor wrong, certainly, but it’s unfortunate that there’s less discussion of male gender roles. (The nutty MRAs who spend all day fuming about their divorce settlements definitely don’t count in my mind.) But then, of course, we guys aren’t supposed to talk about such matters. Cuz, y’know, that would make us gay and all, and we’d get a swirlie for it at lunch period … :-\
That’s fair enough, it’s your blog and you’re can post what you want. But I wouldn’t be shocked if guys read that and decide that they’ve no reason to be interested in your concerns either. You know, I did a post a couple of months ago about a report by the WHO which showed that women in Africa who’d undergone FGM had some astronomically higher risk of dying in childbirth than women who did not. You’d think this was a sufficiently clear example of something which is solely a women’s issue. But I still felt that I had to post a warning that we were not going to entertain any comments from men who wanted to complain that they’d been circumcised, unless they somehow had developed the ability to give birth through their urethras. And you know what else? I had at least one guy gripe about that in a separate thread (though he did avoid banning by not complaining about it in the FGM thread). So if a few people like that get offended and turn away from the discussion, it’s no skin off my nose.
BTW, I don’t necessarily think it’s the duty of feminists to give undue attention to male concerns. I just think it’s unfortunate that, in the absence of that attention, they seem to get ignored. Maybe I need to start my own damn blog someday …
zuzu wrote: Or do you think that I’m not seriously arguing that adherence to rigid sex roles is harmful to men in this case? Not at all. I wasn’t sure (sincerely wasn’t sure, not rhetorically “wasn’t sure”) whether you might also have been making some kind of tongue-in-cheek secondary remark about “the ‘Patriarchy Hurts Men, Too’ Files” — as in, “hey, an actual, not-made-up-to-derail-discussion-of-rape instance of PHMT, who’d’ve thought?” Which would be a defensible position in itself, but I wanted to ask instead of assuming. Happily, here we are discussing how patriarchy-approved rigid sex roles negatively affect men, so it’s not a derailment to discuss men. See? Clear! Or, almost: are you saying that derailment is more or less the main problem (besides being made-up hooey) that needs to be kept in check when talking about how patriarchy harms men? And, shoot, I know that looks like I’m trying to set you up for something. I’m not. I’m mostly trying to learn about ways to explore those issues (being, oh-surprise, male, and having a certain stake in them) in a way that is respectful of and integrates as well as possible with feminism in the main.
It’s important to remember and highlight the difference between “yes, this is a terrible thing that women have to face and that I, as a man, don’t have to face, and it has parallels to a specific form of suffering I face as a man and it sucks and fuck patriarchy” and “HURF A DURF, STOP TALKING ABOUT WOMEN CAUSE SOMETHING BAD ONCE HAPPENED TO ME AND BITCHES JUST WANT MY MONEY.”
I claim no responsibility. Blame Feminism for taking my masculine power and forcing me to act out through sarcasm and irony.
But actually on topic, suicide (often in the form of “accidents” involving heavy machinery) is really really common in the stoic farmer types in rural Canada. My cousin shot himself a few years ago, and now his Dad (who’s had his own struggle with despression) is doing talks on depression and suicide prevention through the oil company he works for. It’s a bit of a scandal in the family, apparently, cause good people just don’t talk about stuff like that. But he lost his son to it, he almost lost himself to it, and he’s fucking talking about it. I’ve never been close to him, but I’m proud.
I think part of the reason that women on feminist blogs tend to get dismissive about PHMT(tm) arguments is because the guys in question aren’t really talking about how patriarchy hurts men too, they’re talking about how stuff which hurts them is much more important than stuff which only hurts women. Moreover, your classic PHMT(tm) attempted-thread-derailer has absolutely no intention of doing anything productive to make patriarchy less damaging to men. All they want to do is turn the focus of discussion to themselves. Ex: the way these assholes show up on threads about domestic violence, accusing every commenter on the thread of being anti-male because “damnit, men can be abused too. Why aren’t you talking about the men? Why are you keeping them out of shelters? Why, why, you evil feminazis.” No acknowledgment that statistically speaking, male-on-female domestic violence is a much bigger problem than the other way round, nor any notion of actually FIXING anything. The MRAs don’t want to go to the trouble of fundraising and volunteering and working their asses off creating shelters for battered men. They just want to scream that feminists are sexist bitches. There are plenty of ways in which a guy can participate in a thread about patriarchy on a blog filled with feminist commenters WITHOUT being eaten alive by said commenters. Most of those ways involve not being a prick. The PHMT(tm) types are not a particularly large subset of male commenters (thank heavens), but they are extremely noisy and disruptive, and are disliked for those reasons. You’ll notice that Zuzu had absolutely no problem giving a civil reply to a civil question. Points of disagreement on certain issues do not necessarily lead to a pihrana-like pile-on in the comment thread. But people who barge into comment threads to scream insults at the commenters rather than have a reasonable debate are liable to get the pihrana treatment. Thus the anger and rolled eyes at the PHMT(tm) stuff, because anybody who’s spent much time in the feminist blogosphere has tangled with entitled idiots in the past and is fucking tired of them. Fortunately, it is quite easy NOT to act like an entitled idiot, survive unscathed, and have an interesting discussion.
I find the occasional bit of PHMT-info like this very useful, because I sometimes have to explain why ‘the Patriarchy’ does not mean ‘ALL MALES AND THEREFORE YOU!!!!!!!!’ Some {hmm…most} of my hobbies are very male-dominated, so I am the de facto Ambassador From Feminism, and I find being able to list things the Patriarchy does and dictates to both genders helps paint the picture in a way that makes it clear that I am not blaming the guy in front of me for all the ills of the world. Baby steps and all that.
I think you’re getting at something important, Raincitygirl, but I’d go a step further–the reason feminist blogs have a problem with what get called PHMT arguments is not because someone is pointing out that patriarchy does indeed hurt men but because the people making arguments labeled PHMT are in fact trying to refute the notion of patriarchy. PHMT is the reply given, generally inclusive of men’s concerns in the discourse, to such derailing arguments, and it gets misunderstood as dismissive because it’s become reflexive shorthand. It’s rarely the arguers saying “patriarchy hurts men too.” It’s usually them saying, in response to a conversation about ways patriarchy hurts, say, women, “Well, I got hurt this way. Clearly there’s no inequity here. We’re all just people getting hurt.” It derails not because it brings men into the picture, but because it brings up the problems of men in an effort to refute the concept of patriarchy in the first place–“Well, how can you call it patriarchy if it hurts men? How can you say there’s institutional discrimination against women if people-who-aren’t-women also sometimes face discrimination?” The classic is, say, discussions of rape. Feminist blogger A posts something about women experiencing rape as a consequence of patriarchy. Mr. Commenter B says, “Well, men get raped sometimes.” The basis of B’s argument isn’t one of bringing men’s concerns into the wider discussion of patriarchy, but to present this example as a refutation that the problem, specific to women, exists. The standard response has always been for A or A’s allies to then reply, ‘Well, yes, B, patriarchy hurts men, too.” It’s not a matter of dismissing men’s concerns; it’s one of saying, yes, we know, we’re working on that, too, just because men get hurt by patriarchy doesn’t mean there’s no such thing as patriarchy in the first place.
Actually, I think they go beyond the idea that “we’re all just people here getting hurt.” I think a lot of the men who derail threads are trying to say that there is inequity, but the inequity is against men, not women. That women have it better than men. Which, of course, gets dismissed quickly on a feminist site.
I’ve never had trouble discussing the ways patriarchy hurts men too on feminist blogs ala KnifeGhost above. When I first started reading this blog a couple years ago, I was occassionally a little put off by men’s concerns being dismissed. But I got used to it, and that in itself was a useful lesson in listening more men should get. These forums are for the ways patriarchy hurts women. If your biggest concern is the way it hurts men, STFUA (here) and go start your own blog. There are a few men already who do this already, but more would be welcome, IMO. Oh and I let myself go untreated for depression for about 20 years. Like those stoic farmers, seeing a therapist just wasn’t done in my social class. People were scorned or pitied for seeking help. What a moronic idea. You know who I blame.
little light said: I think you’re getting at something important, Raincitygirl, but I’d go a step further–the reason feminist blogs have a problem with what get called PHMT arguments is not because someone is pointing out that patriarchy does indeed hurt men but because the people making arguments labeled PHMT are in fact trying to refute the notion of patriarchy. PHMT is the reply given, generally inclusive of men’s concerns in the discourse, to such derailing arguments, and it gets misunderstood as dismissive because it’s become reflexive shorthand. This helps clear things up quite a lot. Thanks to both of you! It also resonates with something that came to mind about this thread last night: saying “patriarchy hurts men” and “adherence to rigid sex roles hurts men” aren’t quite the same thing. The latter can mean (or be spun to mean) something internal to the person being hurt, a matter of personal choice; the former describes an effect of a specific system of power (rule by patriarchs and the many variations thereof) on the people subject to that power. So people who want to undermine the idea that patriarchy is something to worry about may well try to cast the problems of women under patriarchy as simultaneously universal (“men get abused, too”) and individual (“we’re all just people getting hurt”) — and the “PHMT(tm)” sign is flashed to remind people that systemic causes can play into both?
“patriarchy hurts men” and “adherence to rigid sex roles hurts men” aren’t quite the same thing. The latter can mean (or be spun to mean) something internal to the person being hurt, a matter of personal choice; the former describes an effect of a specific system of power (rule by patriarchs and the many variations thereof) on the people subject to that power. So people who want to undermine the idea that patriarchy is something to worry about may well try to cast the problems of women under patriarchy as simultaneously universal (”men get abused, too”) and individual (”we’re all just people getting hurt”) — and the “PHMT(tm)” sign is flashed to remind people that systemic causes can play into both? Precisely! Give the boy a gold star.
I agree with much of what’s been said. I’d add that, whether PHMT was ever intended in any particular instance to convey the complex message outlined by Cranefly, it has generally come across as a sneering dismissal. It’s with a great deal of reluctance that I’ve tentatively allowed that this might not always be the case (mainly due to what seemed to be good faith protestations to the contrary by Happy Feminist). Given the general tenor of much of your commentary, zuzu, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for someone to have assumed that when you put Patriarchy Hurts Men, Too, in quotes in the hed above, you really meant them as ‘air quotes.’ I never would have guessed otherwise without reading your subsequent comments. Oh, and thanks for remembering.
>The classic is, say, discussions of rape. Feminist blogger A posts something about women experiencing rape as a consequence of patriarchy. Mr. Commenter B says, “Well, men get raped sometimes.” The basis of B’s argument isn’t one of bringing men’s concerns into the wider discussion of patriarchy, but to present this example as a refutation that the problem, specific to women, exists.> It’s true that this is often how it plays out. There have been times, though, when I’ve wondered what might happen if, instead of reflexively going into “troll alert!” mode, when the RAPE AND ABUSE happens to men too thing comes up, one asked, “why do you bring this up?” Most of the time it turns out that yup, more how-many-statistics-can-dance-on-a-pinhead; but once in a while i have had the impression that perhaps some dude -may- have wanted to talk about his own shit in that regard, but promptly retreated once the “troll/rape-n-batterer apologist” shit started flying. jadp; not saying this has been happening -here,- or nothin’; just, it happens sometimes. >It’s important to remember and highlight the difference between “yes, this is a terrible thing that women have to face and that I, as a man, don’t have to face, and it has parallels to a specific form of suffering I face as a man and it sucks and fuck patriarchy” and “HURF A DURF, STOP TALKING ABOUT WOMEN CAUSE SOMETHING BAD ONCE HAPPENED TO ME AND BITCHES JUST WANT MY MONEY.”> Word.