If you haven't done so already, buy a copy of Laura Kipnis's newest book, The Female Thing, subtitled Dirt, Sex, Envy, Vulnerability.
I went to a reading and Q&A earlier this week with the author. I really only have good things to say about her talk and the way she handled the questions. As a relatively square-looking guy sitting by myself at this event, I'm sure I was out of place, as were possibly my questions.
But there's a lingering thought in my mind, which is this: what about the men? I mean, the feminist cause is surely worthy. It was in its time, and if you read some of the causes they took up, shockingly needed. Sure, there's some kookiness and vaguely frightening militant tendencies, but at the core there's something profoundly right about it.
And it's also produced and given voice to some of the most articulate writers, thinkers, and activists in our time. It's given us new profiles in courage to admire, and an entirely new language to think about sex, feelings, society, and so much more.
But the men's point of view is sadly unexplored. Try pronouncing "masculinism" or "masculinist" and you'll see how unfamiliar it is. Most expressions about men in popular culture are self-deprecating, if funny.
The premises for feminism are pretty much empirical. Through the years - and even in some societies today - women are disenfranchised from political and economic power, they are often left unprotected against various forms of violence, etc. But it's not as if men convene a periodic conspiracy to decide how to keep women under their thumb; and it's by no means clear that men are such voluntary participants and contributors to gender inequality.
I'm not sure where I end up on the nurture vs. nature side of this. On Monday, Laura made reference to the Freudian idea that civilization requires (some) repression of human nature, and I think that's part of the story. But it is also true that our attitudes toward our own and other gender are deeply ingrained in us from various experiences growing up. I suppose one could do lots of research to sort all this out, but it may not make much difference for the individual who has to work it out within himself/herself.
Laura also said that writing the book made her feel a little depressed - it is all such an intractable problem. It seems to me, though, that there are benefits to broadening the context for the debate. It's not just about women's rights, women's sense of self, etc. To me, at least, it's the issue that we've created societies that utterly confuse that part of our identity that's rooted in gender. And that's a problem we share, as men, women, straight, or gay.
What may be depressing Laura, if I were going to speculate, is that the things that we can't change so often collide with the things that we should change. If it's in the male nature to objectify women's bodies, there will always be a conflict as long as objectification is a bad thing. If it's in the female nature to try to control men's behavior, there will always be a conflict as long as men resent such control.
I would like to see a book written from the male point of view that converges with Laura's book. Perhaps it should be called: The Male Thing: Humiliation, Sex, Money, Control. Perhaps Laura should write it. Wouldn't that be fun?
Comments