I’m a strong believer that men gain a huge amount from feminism. It’s been a theme of my writing and public speaking for thirty years (including in my new book, co-written with Michael Kimmel, The Guy’s Guide to Feminism.)

But, [...]]]> Reason One: Giving Up is Hard to Do

I’m a strong believer that men gain a huge amount from feminism. It’s been a theme of my writing and public speaking for thirty years (including in my new book, co-written with Michael Kimmel, The Guy’s Guide to Feminism.)

But, let’s face it, you don’t make omelets without cracking a few eggs. In this case, the eggs are the forms of power and privilege men have traditionally enjoyed:

• In the past, we men only had to compete with half of humanity for most jobs. Now, we have to compete with all of humanity.
• At night, men got to relax, go out with friends, or pursue our careers, sports or hobbies while our wives (even if they worked outside the home) did most childcare and domestic work. Now, we’re expected to do our fair share.
• Some workplaces were straight out of locker rooms. Now, with sexist behavior challenged, for some men, work just isn’t as much fun.
• No matter our personal abilities, society automatically valued us. Some religions said we were closer to God. We were automatically seen as stronger, more rational, and leaders.
• In relationships we got cooked for, shopped for, cleaned up after, and emotionally stroked.
• We could (if we so chose) have power in getting sex. Now, we can get put in jail for things that not long ago were seen as men’s rights.
• In some families and relationships, we were the ultimate decision-makers. Now, we have to share power and decision-making.

In other words, some men are afraid of feminism because it challenges forms of men’s power and privilege that one-half of our species foisted on the other about 8,000 years ago. Giving up is hard to do.

Reason Two: Being a Man is Hard to Do

Here’s the strange thing: many men also fear feminism because they fear they’re not “real men.” I’ve written a lot about this, what I call “men’s contradictory experiences of power.” What this means is that the ways we set up our male-dominated societies not only bring men power and privilege but, paradoxically, is the source of pain for men.

One source of this pain is that we set up impossible ideals of manhood: You know: always strong, fearless, in control, etc. etc. Of course no man can live up to these ideals. But so long as we had uncontested male-dominated societies, we could pretend to ourselves and each other that we did. Why? Because we could contrast ourselves to the other half that clearly did not.

Now that women are asserting their strength, power, smarts, and sexuality, now that women are saying that anything a man can do, they can do as well, it takes the air out of the sails of many men. If deep down they didn’t feel like real men before, now those feelings are unconsciously multiplied.

Reason Three: Changing Ideas is Hard to Do

In spite of amazing changes that are benefitting most women and most men, the ideas associated with male domination still cling hard:

• Religions and traditional beliefs have a life of their own and a deep staying power. Especially in a time of economic, political and social upheavals when the future seems tenuous, some men (and women) cling to old ideas.
• Old ideas continue to morph and adapt. You might think that right-wingers are against women’s equality. But actually, many of their current ideas would have been seen as crazy feminist ideas forty years ago: A woman can be president or prime minister?  Women are as smart and capable as men? Women have as much right as men to pursue careers and education? … In other words, feminism has actually had a big impact even when it seems there is still huge opposition by some men and women to it.
• Parts of the media have continued to do a remarkable hatchet job on feminism. Ask people in many countries about the specific issues associated with gender equality or violence against women. Many (and in some countries, most) will take a feminist stance. But ask if they agree with feminism and they’ll bring out their stereotype of who or what a feminist is and say “No!”
• Finally, feminist women and pro-feminist men haven’t done a good enough job of transforming the mainstream. If we truly believe our ideas are just and are right, then everyone should subscribe to them! We should not be afraid of working in the mainstream. We should not be afraid of differences among us, but rather we should find ways to work with those who we don’t see as natural allies, and agree to disagree on specific issues. We should not be afraid to make mistakes or to not be perfect.

The truth is far simpler.

To answer the question, “what is good about masculinity?”, we need to remind ourselves that:

The answer: more than you might imagine.

And although that answer will be different if you are a man or a woman, and depending on whether you’re attracted to women or men, it has had a riveting presence in [...]]]> What do Marilyn Monroe, love, a male high school teacher, and, well, you, have in common?

The answer: more than you might imagine.

And although that answer will be different if you are a man or a woman, and depending on whether you’re attracted to women or men, it has had a riveting presence in most of our lives.

My first novel, The Possibility of Dreaming on a Night Without Stars—which has just been reborn as an eBook—sets out to explore that very question and a slew of other tough and heartfelt questions about love.

Over this past year, I got to do something few writers ever have a chance to do: rewrite a published novel. And in doing so, I found myself re-immersed in the dazzling and troubled world of one of the last century’s icons of the perfect woman and the more quotidian but equally troubled world of a fictional man. (Of course, Marilyn Monroe herself said that MM was but a fiction, a role she forced herself to play over and over again.)

The Possibility of Dreaming… is about men and the search for love. Years ago, it struck me that D.H. Lawrence’s great book of the 1920s, Women in Love, had been terribly mistitled: it seemed much more about men in love or, at least trying to be in love, struggling with love, searching for love, and sustaining love.

The thing is, too many men have too long pretended that a preoccupation with love should be women’s business. Romantic comedies get labeled chick flicks. Too many men are raised to distance themselves from feelings and so don’t learn an authentic language of emotions; thus, they find it difficult to express and meet their deepest emotional needs; thus too many don’t have sufficient empathy to fully sense the emotional needs of others.

As a result, the hard work of nurturing relationships too often gets left exclusively to women and too often is disparaged with words like: “why do we have to talk so much about it!” I wanted nothing to do with this and set out to write an entertaining but also thoughtful novel that had a man in the central place trying to figure out love.

After all, far too many men (just like far too many women) stumble miserably when it comes to love. At least some times in our lives, we find ourselves in relationships based on false promises or superficial images of perfection; or that gnaw away at us because she or he is far different from the manufactured images that surround us in movies and advertising; or which lack trust or the deeper connection that we crave but perhaps can’t articulate; or that trip over old baggage that sits forever in the front hall; or simply that get mired in stale patterns, routine, and boredom. It’s all made worse because our culture encourages a mall version of love where you shop for the attributes you supposedly require in someone to love.

I don’t want to give away the plot, but let me just say The Possibility of Dreaming on a Night Without Stars starts in the early spring with a story from a crazy old hitchhiker who says that not so long ago he saw Marilyn Monroe in a farmhouse somewhere in Ohio. As bizarre as this might be, the tale plants itself in Eli Schuman’s mind and won’t let go. The more he thinks about Marilyn, the more obsessed he becomes. Off he goes in search of this icon of the perfect woman.

Eli is actually involved in two summer-long searches. You see, the divorced Eli has been long searching for a perfect woman for himself. Now, you and I know that any of us, male or female, looking for the perfect woman or the perfect man is in for a perfectly miserable time. Eli, though, has yet to figure this out.

It’s when he meets a woman who unexpectedly challenges his idea of perfection that Eli’s deepest journey really begins. As my editors at Viking/Penguin wrote when they first published The Possibility of Dreaming on a Night Without Stars: “It is a road of longing, elation, hopefulness, despair, reckless abandonment and ultimately, an almost delirious rush towards self-discovery.”

As Eli (and I expect all of us learn at some point), love isn’t just discovered, prepackaged in perfection, but is made. That a life together is where two people have already been and not what lays in store. That the future is but a commitment not to be consumed by fears that someone better might come along.

(The Possibility of Dreaming on a Night Without Stars is available for $4.99 as an eBook for Kindle, iPad/iBook, Kobo, Nook, and other eReaders from Shopkeeper Press. To read reviews, download a free excerpt, or order a copy, click here.)

Right now, though, it risks getting trapped in its single tactic. And, ironically, it risks getting trapped in fetishizing [...]]]> The Occupy movement has been an amazing success. It started a broad public discussion on social inequality. On who controls our economies and governments. On who controls our public spaces. It quickly spread around the world.

Right now, though, it risks getting trapped in its single tactic. And, ironically, it risks getting trapped in fetishizing one of the things that the very people it criticizes love so much: real estate!

Occupying public spaces was a brilliant idea. It was mediagenic. It was simple. And by choosing to occupy public spaces around business centers, it made clear (or at least raised) the point that it should be the majority, not a tiny minority, that makes the decisions that shape our lives.

But the positive impact is fizzling. I don’t doubt the determination, grit, and energy of the Occupy participants. I do know, however, that tent cities can’t and shouldn’t last forever. Nor will battles provoked by the police give many people a sense that this movement is something they can personally relate to. Nor does it give people a sense they have the power to change the world.

The time has come to declare victory on the first stage of the occupy movement. To say, “we got this conversation going. Now it’s time to pack up these particular tents and set up a much bigger tent!”

Where should that tent be and who should be in it? If we’re serious about the language of the 99% then, as I’ve blogged recently (“Occupy the Future! The 8 Keys for Being the 99%”), the goal must be to become the majority.

I argued there are 8 keys to doing so. I won’t repeat the details, but here are the main points:

• Whether you’ve been active in the Occupy movement or, like millions more, cheered from farther away, the goal must be to make the many Occupy issues totally mainstream issues.
• Mainstream, yes, but don’t get stuck on what is currently “realistic.” What’s so “realistic” about wars and tossing people out of their houses and workplaces? We need to redefine what is “realistic.”
• We must create bridges to the mainstream. It’s all of our responsibilities to reach out to the 99% . To raise these issues in our workplaces, schools, professional associations, places of worship, governments, seniors homes, shopping centers, clubs, etc. etc. To find language that connects with others.
• This in turn requires finding common cause with people and organizations we might disagree with on many issues.
• Celebrate the victory in creating this conversation. Don’t get stuck on holding real estate.
• Explore alternatives. Start a broad and well-thought out discussions about economic democracy, sustainability, equality, and so forth.
• Disagree with anyone who preaches violence or the destruction of property. If anyone starts breaking windows, Occupy is the loser.
• Trust our capacity to win over the great majority. Trust our capacity to model  respect and compassion. Trust our ability to build bridges. Trust we can truly be the 99%

But, I’ve been inspired by his ability to reduce complex [...]]]> You might be surprised, but I’ve been inspired by Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain. Surprised because, after all, his combination of right wing politics, stubborn anti-intellectualism, and an apparently superficial relationship with economic reality might lead you to think he’s not my cup of tea.

But, I’ve been inspired by his ability to reduce complex economic and social problems to his delightfully simple 9-9-9 Plan to cure all that ails the United States. Maybe he’s right; maybe we do need to keep it simple.

So, seeing that he and his Fox News cheerleaders seem to have a problem understanding sexual harassment is (let alone doing anything to end it), I am today officially announcing

The 0-0-0 Plan for Ending Sexual Harassment!

The First Zero: We deserve better than Zero trust and Zero safety!

Concern about sexual harassment isn’t whining. It isn’t playing politics. It’s not because women need to lighten up. And it’s not because those who experience it (because of their sex, or sexual orientation, or race, or anything else that might make them a target in someone’s mind) don’t have what it takes for the working world.

Sexual (and other forms of) harassment destroys trust and safety at the workplace. It poisons the work environment. It compromises teamwork and polarizes workplaces. It threatens people. It destroys personal reputations, both of those who are harassed and those who harass. It causes enormous hurt.

It has real economic costs: It lowers productivity. It can lead to expensive investigations, not to mention costly settlements. It hurts the reputations of companies and government bodies.

Women are the main recipients of sexual harassment but men experience it too: usually coming from other men in the form of homophobic harassment (which may or may not have anything to do with their actual sexual orientation.) Younger women (and men) are particularly vulnerable as are other groups with less power in society and the workplace.

The Second Zero: Zero invisibility! Zero excuses!

Most sexual harassment has remained invisible for too long.  Most harassment doesn’t come in the more egregious forms: that is, offers of promotion in exchange for sex or threats to a woman who doesn’t comply.  Nor is it most commonly about touching that borders on (or is) sexual assault. 

These things do happen, but the most common forms of harassment are things that are commonplace and everyday, and that insinuate into the fabric of the workplace: Hurtful or unwanted jokes or pictures. Inappropriate sexual references and innuendo. Casual but unwanted touching. Insistent asking out for dates. Looks and stares that make someone uncomfortable.

We’ve tended to see harassment as a black and white issue or, to use the traffic signal image I use in my workplace training, like it’s a red light or green light: Either something is clearly harassment – that is, it’s a red light, so you better stop.  Or it’s a green light – that is, it’s appropriate workplace behavior.

But most harassment is in between: the amber light. Whether it’s harassment or not is a matter of both the personal and reporting relationship of two people, when and where it happens, frequency, who’s around, tone of voice, and, simply whether what someone says to you or does to you is unwanted. It’s all about the impact, not the intention.

And just like when you’re driving, it’s those yellow lights that get people in the most trouble.

We need not only good policies but good workplace training to help workers and managers understand the often subtle and (for too long) invisible forms of sexual harassment that do enormous damage. We need training that helps people understand the underlying power dynamics that cause or perpetuate harassment. We need training to help people learn to sense the impact of their behavior.

And we need to stop making excuses.  Stop blaming the victims of harassment; stop demeaning and belittling them further. Stop telling someone at the receiving end of inappropriate and unwanted behavior to lighten up.

We need to stop the nasty stories that most claims are false. Sure, claims of harassment are only claims until proven. Sure, there are occasional vexatious complaints. But it’s pretty rare for someone to go through the grueling complaints process just out of spite. Most complainants just want the harassment to stop.

The Third Zero: Zero people should be silent!

We need to end our silence. Managers must lead by example, by education, and by appropriate responses to create harassment-free environments. Unions and staff associations must ensure their workers are protected from harassment, including harassment by fellow workers because an injury to one is an injury to all.

And for those of us who are men: we’ve got to say to our brothers: Enough! We don’t want you to poison our workplaces. We don’t want you to hurt our sisters or our brothers with language, gestures, and other actions that just do not belong.

So next November (and every day in between):  Vote for 0-0-0!

(For more on all this, you might wish to read my short article “Red Light, Green Light: A More Effective Approach to Preventing and Responding Productively to Workplace Harassment” that was published in the Praeger Handbook on Understanding and Preventing Workplace Discrimination, edited by Michele A. Paludi, and available by clicking on the article title . . . And check out the entry on “sexual harassment” in The Guy’s Guide to Feminism, the new book by Michael Kimmel and me.)

That stands as a far cry from the huge youth movement in the late 1960s/early 1970s. We made a fundamental mistake in those days: we were not only content but we were thrilled to be a [...]]]> The genius of the Occupy movement is the proclamation, from the outset, that it represents 99% of the population.

That stands as a far cry from the huge youth movement in the late 1960s/early 1970s. We made a fundamental mistake in those days: we were not only content but we were thrilled to be a minority. We loved being different and outsiders. True, this gave us energy and a collective identity against a culture we despised and mistrusted. But we effectively abandoned the mainstream to the right.

This was more than a shame. It paved the way for thirty years of increasing social disparities and cuts to social services. At that time, the majority of people were what we’d now think of as liberal; many identified with ideas that now seem on the left. Even most conservatives of the day would have shuddered to hear the rhetoric of the Tea Party and their slightly less-lunatic cousins in governments from the United States to Canada, England and beyond. It should have been a golden time for progressive forces to permanently shift the social and economic landscape. True, we helped stop the war in Vietnam and true, we launched powerful movements (feminism, gay rights, environmental) and supported others (civil rights) that live on and have indeed reshaped mainstream thought. But in many ways, we failed.

The Occupy movement, now just at its beginning, has the potential to go beyond the New Left. After all, not since the US right wing proclaimed itself the “Moral Majority” in the mid-1970s has anyone had the temerity to do two things: First, at a time when they were a minority, the right wing boldly declared itself the majority. Second, while the actual majority was questioning the morality of war, discrimination and inequality, the right wing claimed and captured moral momentum and the moral high ground.

The Occupy movement is boldly going beyond a statement that we are the majority by proclaiming we are the 99%.

And here, then, is the biggest challenge: It’s one thing to say we’re the 99%, it’s quite another to be the 99%.

Eight Keys to Being the 99%

1. To be the 99% means, by definition, we are claiming the mainstream. We should not fear to be mainstream. Rather, if we believe that our ideas are good and just, then we should want those ideas to be accepted by the mainstream. If we know that our ideal of a low-carbon, sustainable economy is both necessary and practical, then we should want this ideal to be part of the status quo. If we know that a much more egalitarian society is a more humane, less violent, and more productive one, then we know these are ideals for everyone.

2. Claiming the mainstream does not mean, however, we have to fit into what the mainstream currently defines as “realistic.” Social, economic and political realism is what we collectively create. The current mainstream does not see it as realistic to spend billions to prevent the worst effects of climate change or to provide safe drinking water to the people of the world, but thinks it is “realistic” to spend trillions on wars or to bail out private banks. Our job is to help redefine what is realistic.

3. Creating bridges to the mainstream. This is the biggest challenge to becoming the 99%. It literally requires reaching that 99% with our message. It requires facilitating a process for others to identify with our ideals – to truly be the 99%. In the months and years ahead, we need to find ways to create those bridges. We have to see ourselves as the bridge-builders: since we’re coming from the outside with a new social and economic vision, we can’t expect, in advance, that our sisters and brothers of the 99% will automatically see things our way. It is our job to reach out to them. This has many practical implications: It means going to where people are to engage in a respectful discussion to win them to our views: to places of worship and classrooms, shopping centers and workplaces, unions and service clubs, seniors homes and community groups, and the media. We will be confronted with many who disagree, even demonize us. Our job is to model respect, refuse to demonize others, and to present our ideas in language that each group can most easily identify with and see as their own. Why? So they will best discover ways to articulate our common vision to those around them.

4. Creating bridges also means forming common cause with people and organizations we may not agree with about many things but with whom we can find principled areas for a united voice. This can be uncomfortable and difficult for us to accept! But, for example, a trade union might support an environmentally disastrous industry, but we can find common cause to speak with one voice about social and economic inequalities. Similarly, a church group may oppose abortion rights, but we can find ways to speak together for measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or for public healthcare. A student association may support military spending, but we can work with them to insist that education should be available to all. Those things we disagree about are indeed critical issues and for those who’ve been active so far in the Occupy movement, we know these issues are all linked to our concerns. But if we truly want to be the 99%, we have to see that the 99% includes many people we disagree with about fundamental matters. The question is how to engage in a healthy discussion with them? How do we work together to advance our common objectives? Working together, we can agree to disagree on things dear to both our hearts, but also strive to have an ongoing and respectful conversation about those differences. Again, if we truly believe our ideas should and will be the ideas of the majority, we need to have some faith in our long-term capacity to have an impact on others. Nothing greater will threaten the 1% than forms of unity, in spite of many differences, among the 99%!

5. Don’t worry about the naysayers who criticize us for not having “clear demands.” The most powerful thing about the Occupy movement is that it is unleashing a society-wide conversation about social inequality and, to a lesser extent, a range of other human rights, social, political, and economic issues. That in itself is a huge victory in only a month. A big part of our work is to nurture that conversation.

6. At the same time, it is important that we continue to encourage streams of conversations about economic, social and political alternatives. There’s nothing wrong with having answers! What are some practical measures to greatly reduce social and economic disparities? What does a more democratic society look like? How can we deepen political democracy and extend democracy to control of the economy? What parts of the economy should be public services and not in private hands? How can we develop effective global income taxes and global responses to climate change and economic disparities? How can public policies encourage the growth of diverse economic models including more cooperatives, more public ownership, more small business, and more non-profits with the type of power and impact that large corporations now monopolize? What do we need to do to ensure sustainable economies? And much, much more.

7. Be suspicious of those who want to polarize and of those who preach violence or the destruction of property (no matter how venal are the owners of that property.) Such actions are the dead ends of social movements. They are the hallmarks of powerlessness. They will isolate us. They will stop us from becoming the 99%.

8. Trust our capacity to live the changes we believe in. Trust our capacity to win over the great majority to our beliefs. Trust that we can model respect and compassion. Trust that we have the capacity to build bridges and patiently change minds. Trust that we will be part of finding new answers. Trust that we can truly be the 99%.

Follow Michael at michaelkaufman.com, michaelkaufman.com/facebook and on Twitter at @GenderEQ. This blog is also being published at rabble.ca