Are men oppressed as men?
Mary cites Marilyn Frye, who argues that simply being male does not andcannot be a ground for oppression being visited upon someone. If men areoppressed it's because of some other factor in their lives. They are workingclass, or ethnic, or gay, or indigenous, or have some other attribute whichsecures the oppression. But "his being male is no part of the explanation.Being male is something he has going for him". This statement is contrary tomy direct experience.
In her own words Mary comes much closer to what my experience is/has been."Until we tackle this, movements for nonviolent change will be constantlystruggling under the weight of the training men have received to make thempart of militarism and institutionalised violence against women and children"(against everyone and everything, in fact). "The weight" is oppressive.
The structures of society that shape men's and boys' behaviour towardsparticipation in militarism include family, school, prison/police, and sport.I hope things are changing as much as they seem to be, but my childhoodinvolved a lot of pain and suffering as I tried to "live up to what it takesto be a man". The first and always lesson is that boys don't cry, which isdisabling and dangerous to health.
Imagine depending for peer group acceptance on an ability to suffer painwithout flinching (cricket, basketball), and to inflict it on others withoutcompassion or remorse (football). From age eight to seventeen I was expectedto participate and succeed in these sports as a key indicator of my value asa human being, particularly at school. Which meant I was a failure because Ireally didn't like doing it, and wasn't very good at it. (Those cricket ballsreally hurt, man).
I got conditioned (by corporal punishment) to obey the parade of authorityfigures, starting with my mother and father. I got my direct militarytraining in the high school cadets. While I never got selected as officermaterial and don't know what happened in there, the patterns of brutalisationon intake were the same across class and ethnic boundaries - differentiationcame later. The one and only thing that selected me for this brutalisingtreatment was my sex. I am a man.
As working class man, I found it also very "useful" training for acceptingpain and stupidity as a daily inevitable part of my work experience. In thework place, competition is for dollars instead of points or bodies. But it'scompetition nonetheless, socially and personally corrosive. And it'shorrible.
Oppression is complex, and the way different oppressions interact is complex.I agree with Mary that we need as subtle an understanding of it as we canget. So let's not leave the oppression of men out of the picture. Let's notallow it to distort or excuse other oppressions either. Instead let's figureout how to transform all oppressions.
What about false consciousness?
What I understand people to mean when they say "all men are privileged underpatriarchy" is that viewed through any framework of institutionalised power(parliament, courts, corporations, 'offices' of all types) or economic value(ownership of assets, income) men have more than women. Statistically.Generally.
Now, from my point of view all these things are not "benefits", but "falsegoods" held out as a reward for participation in the system of oppression.That men (and increasingly women) still chase these things - and give upcompassion, love, community, and simple enjoyment of the miracle of lifewhile doing so - saddens and hurts me.
This is the false consciousness that Marx and others have written about. Whydo people support the institutions that oppress them? Because they arepromised something that looks good in return. An example in my working lifeis the ingrained and unthinking competition among taxi-drivers for ashort-term dollar gain. This undermines trust, and makes cooperative solvingof major problems very, very slow business - even when everyone will getbetter working conditions and more secure earnings as a result.
I don't dispute that men as a class have more of these competitive"benefits". I only dispute that they're worth having. I prefer to be poor,property-less, and outside the thrall of institutions (none of which willhave me anyway because of my poor performance in the past).
My feeling is that men will change their oppressive behaviours mosteffectively when they are led to see the personal and social benefits to themof such a transition. Less stress. An emotionally complete life. Morefriendships. More fun. More empowerment. That's an agenda I'm willing to workfor. If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution.
Bryan Law