Achilles Heel is about critically examining men and their diverse masculinities. This means that we do not, as most publications do, take men for granted as the exemplar of the normal human being. We look at men as everyone else looks at minority groups - what are their characteristics, what are their peculiarities, what makes them tick? And of course we are men too, the collective is made up of men. But we are not actually contemplating our navels. We are looking all around us at the scene which presents itself, and critiquing it, and also critiquing ourselves. The angle we are coming from is an appreciation of feminism and that this is a society characterised by patriarchy and sexism. As soon as this is pointed out - and seen to be undeniable - there seem to be several different reactions which are possible for men to take up. There are at least these six, which Kenneth Clatterbaugh has named:
1. The Conservative Perspective.
Here the reaction is to say that certain roles and attitudes are natural, hard-wired, inbuilt According to moral conservatives, masculinity is created by society in order to override man's natural antisocial tendencies: it is the civilized role men play when they are fathers, protectors and providers. According to biological conservatives, virtually all social behaviour is a manifestation of men's natural tendencies as selected through an evolutionary process.
2. The Pro-feminist Perspective.
Here the reaction is to agree completely and to read a great deal of feminist literature. Radical pro-feminists follow the lead of radical feminism in holding that masculinity is created and maintained by misogyny and violence against women, and that patriarchy is the social and political order in which this masculinity exists. Liberal pro-feminists follow the lead of liberal feminism in maintaining that masculinity is a set of limitations that are imposed on men, much as femininity is a set of limitations that are imposed on women.
3. The Men's Rights Perspective.
Here the reaction is to agree, but to emphasise that men are victims, just as much as women, and perhaps more so. Men's rights advocates draw particular attention to the oppression of men in divorce cases, the way in which men are success objects and disposable objects, and the way in which men's nurturance of women is denied and forgotten This, they argue, is a new and largely unrecognised form of sexism.
4. The Spiritual Perspective.
Here the reaction is to say that masculinity derives from deep unconscious patterns. These patterns are best revealed through a tradition of stones, myths and rituals. Female power cannot really be understood without reference to pre-patriarchal forms of thought and organization. Nor can the male depths be properly respected without reference to universal images, symbols and rituals In short, men need to reach down into their psyches and touch archetypal male and female patterns from which they have been separated.
5. The Socialist Perspective.
The reaction here is to say that masculinity is a social reality, grounded in class structures. The male roles constructed to suit the ruling groups, who are mainly concerned with power and profit not human involvement. Sex roles are constructed through and through, and to understand them we have to understand the social context, which is patriarchal capitalism, Men have to organize together to dismantle the social system which is oppressive both to women and to men.
6. The Group-Specific Perspective.
The reaction here is to say that we also have to question the assumption that it's only heterosexual white men who are being problematized The gay experience is different, because these men have experienced some of the same oppression that women have also had to contend with. Heterosexism is the oppression of gay people by heterosexual people, and feminists are no more immune from it than anyone else. The Black, Asian, Arab experience likewise has oppression to contend with. Some quite radical new questions emerge from this perspective (Clatterbaugh, 1986, Contemporary Perspectives on Masculinity; Westview Press, Boulder, pp.9-12).
We sometimes have articles from one of the group-specific orientations, but do not represent anyone of them completely We try to put articles in Achilles Heel which reflect various facets of these attitudes, and which have something illuminating to say about men, We do not represent the conservative or the 'men's rights' perspectives. This issue is about the family, though a number of other issues are covered too. It is in the family that we learn how to be male, it is some kind of a family that we return to after our work is done, and it is in the family that we have our children. It must be a question as to where we have got to with the family today.
We also look at some of the theory about the family which has been coming out recently, and ask some questions about that. In view of the success of the recent Menswork '94 conference, it looks as though another surge forward is taking place in men's thinking The article by Mick Cooper and Stephen Banks in this issue makes it clear that we are now in a much more postmodern era, where we shall perhaps have to learn how to 'move forward under a united banner of diversity.'
Whether the family is coming apart or simply changing it is becoming increasingly clear that the role of the father in the traditional sense is inadequate to the needs of the modern family. This traditional role has put the father in a position of power, giving him authority in the family with the responsibility of providing for their economic needs. The result in the modern industrial world has been men being physically absent for long periods from the home The consequent lack of regular involvement with child-care has been further compounded by the difficulty many men have in being emotionally present and nurturing in their relationships. From this perspective it could be reasonably argued that not only have the majority of us been brought up in what were effectively one-parent families, but that the prevalence of one-parent families today is simply the logical progression of the traditional family in the modern world. With women increasingly able to meet the economic requirements (or, with unemployment, men's inability to meet these) and with their reasonable demand for equal authority, a father who is unable or unwilling to nurture and meet the emotional needs of his family as well as share authority becomes superfluous and even a liability.
This somewhat gloomy picture has resulted in three clear but different responses from men, The first has been to simply drop out of direct involvement and responsibility for child-care and family life. The second has been to demand a return to a more rigid traditional family structure with the burden of child-care placed firmly on the mother but with the father retaining authority within the family. The third response has been to attempt to redefine fatherhood to include the roles nurturer and emotional support, sharing both authority and parenting with the mother. It is this third response, which receives far less media attention than the other two, which we believe is the way forward.
The difficulties encountered by men and women alike in redefining their parental roles is in part a reflection of the change in social and political values that it embraces. The acknowledgement that intimacy and nurturing are as important as power and economics challenges the political framework we live within, both of the left and the right The recognition that satisfaction and fulfilment can be achieved through an equal combination of child-care, work and intimate relationship changes not only the family but society itself. We do not believe there is a simple prescription for such a change but political support in terms of economic (e.g. equal pay for women, supporting part time work, maternity and paternity leave) and social (e.g. child development and parenting being taught in schools to all children) changes for those men and women involved in redefining the family would be a start.
Copyright © Achilles Heel Collective
