The men's movement started as a response to feminism. Women were developing, and as they fought to change their roles, some men felt pressure to change too. Well-meaning pro-feminist men wanted a genuine change, a response to what was happening to women. There was liberation in the air and men wanted a part of that.
Those men who took feminist ideas on board did so in two ways. Firstly they looked for ways to be allies to women in the anti-sexist struggle, attempting to change both their behaviour and the social structures around them. Secondly, they set out to explore parts of themselves that had been repressed by the old order.
They did a huge amount of fantastic work, but parts of the men's movement were always in danger of losing their way.
For some men, genuine efforts to become anti-sexist declined into rigid moralism. Pro-feminism became an intellectual game which never touched day-to-day reality. 'Right-on' point scoring took precedence over the political and personal goals anti-sexist men had set out to achieve. Pro-feminist attitudes hardened up into roles as authoritarian and egocentric as those of the old patriarchal order.
Yet many of those men who rejected self-flagellation as a productive anti-sexist activity developed a role that was no less problematic. The 'Liberated Man', full of joie de vivre and lentils may have overcome the guilt-ridden paralysis of the Anti-sexist man, but his self-congratulatory activities had little to do with the struggle against the oppression of women..
Both groups seemed to believe there was only so much liberation to go around. The Liberated Men wanted it all to themselves, whilst the Anti-sexist Men wanted to give it all away to other people. Neither group realised that liberation is only liberation if it is liberation for everybody.
The media picked up on the worst excesses of these two groups, and created the 'New Man', a monstrous cross between the ever-appeasing Anti-sexist Wimp and the ultra-sensitive Liberated Man.
The New Man played out his role with verve and gusto, yet no-one seemed to be fooled. Feminists didn't trust his contrived honesty, the general public despised his goody-goody character. Everyone knew the New Man was not what he seemed. Something, somewhere had gone wrong. The Frankenstein's monster that the men's movement had created was now threatening to completely destroy the movement's credibility.
The fact that so few people fell for the New Man is no surprise, for only he himself failed to see through his facade and realise the truth: that whether being self-effacing or self-indulgent he was still essentially being selfish.
The New Man has drifted away from the original goals of the anti-sexist men's movement - to work towards a society free of gender oppression. Whilst self criticism and self-celebration have a major role to play in a men's anti-sexist politic they need to be part of a wider liberation struggle. Where these activities exist only to massage the egos and to gratify individual men, they have nothing to do with a political and personal challenge to sexism.
The need now is for a post-New Man. A man who is prepared to return to the fundamentals of an anti-sexist politic and develop ways of working for a better world for all human beings, not just himself.
This will involve being self-aware, understanding the true source of his needs and taking responsibility for his own growth. That, in itself will reduce men's demands on women's caring. But it also means being aware of others' needs, seeing to it that men's actions do not oppress others, and responding to the demands of women.
Everybody, whether male or female, needs to be assertive, and to learn to be pleased with the things that make us different from each other. Assertiveness means discovering how to be positive and empowered in a non-oppressive way.
The only way for men to challenge patriarchy is to find a masculinity which is truly beyond patriarchal guilt or selfishness. The failure of the New Man has shown how difficult it is for men to move away from masculine self-centredness, but the many successes of the past also show us that the way is not impossible.
The New Man is dead... long live the new man.
Are rumours of the death of 'the family' premature? Does it need protecting from 'subversive' forces that seek to undermine it, as some would have us believe, or is it basically alive and well?
Twenty years ago, a minority of people proclaimed the family was dead, yet since then it has taken an increasing variety of forms. The relationship between families, the state. and the economy has constantly shifted, but something we would call 'the family' is still with us.
The political left has shown confusion or indifference. Neil Kinnock is quoted as seeing himself as a reactionary under the skin on 'family matters', A Labour government would create a Ministry for Women, but how many staunch socialists have any confidence in the policies it might adopt?
At home, the Conservatives under Thatcher understand the key role of the family, both in reality and symbolically. Conservative ideology has always placed great emphasis on the value of 'traditional family life' including child-care by mothers at home. However, their unlikely combination of apparent traditionalism with radical free-marketism leads to contradictions which perhaps reach their height on family matters.
In the 1990 budget, the government announced tax allowances for companies offering workplace nurseries. The measure goes against the grain for some 'traditional values' Tories: David Green of the Institute of Economic Affairs claims that 'it discriminates against parents who wish to stay at home to devote time to their children'.
Other Conservatives are aware of the demographic changes that could cause labour shortages unless more women are enabled to seek paid employment, and would justify this allowance as a response to 'market failure'. The risk is that women will be co-opted into the labour force temporarily, and forced out when the labour shortage disappears. The tax allowance in no way challenges the notion that under 'normal' circumstances, it is women who should care for children, an assumption which the left has also failed to challenge.
Of course, whatever governments do, family structures are changing fundamentally. In over half of married couples with children, both partners work. In 1988, 16% of families had single parents, compared with 6% in 1961. The government response to this statistic is to freeze child benefit, and consider cutting single parent benefits, and lighten up the law on alimony.
How should anti-sexist men respond to this proposal? We should be campaigning for genuinely adequate state provision for single and other parents, and for a whole range of policies that challenge women's economic dependence on men. We need to create the conditions for men to be responsible and enthusiastic parents, for instance a statutory right to parental leave. But just as important, we need to examine our own lives to see how far we challenge the traditional male stereotypes of 'bringing home the bacon'.
Copyright © Achilles Heel Collective
