It must be common for men to look around and simply see angry women everywhere. The Me Too age of accountability is upon us and social change is in the air. There are horrifying statistics about the numbers of women sexually harassed, raped, beaten and killed. Women are organising and marching.
Women are asking all men to be involved in addressing issues of women’s safety and equity; but to some males, this feels like they’re saying “all men are bad”. Hence the pushback with Not All Men, demonstrating a failure to separate the societal from the personal, a failure to recognise privilege and agency, and a failure to see how patriarchal structures and cultures benefit all men — even if as individuals, men may be unsuccessful or suffering.
Although in an ideal world women would have the power to break their chains of oppression alone, in reality the strongest movements have support from all types of humans and in particular the traditional benefactors of oppression. To make change quickly and definitively, we would benefit from male allies. They don’t have to lead, or be the voice or public face of the women’s rights movements. But they need to understand the issues, take responsibility and be part of the solution.
Men as allies of equal standing
So, how to mobilise the men of Australia? Not as protectors of female “property” who want to beat rapists to a pulp, or who are happy to have a token female on the board, but as actual allies of equal standing?
Let’s have a look at intersectional feminism as a model. Feminism is present in all cultures, but unfortunately the most lauded historical examples are “white”. The US white suffragettes excluded Black women from marching with them, and when they turned up, they segregated them and put them out of the way of the media. This was a mistake (and a human rights abuse) because it failed to see that all types of oppression are intimately bound and layered.
Essentially, to force change, it is important to address all issues of deep structural and systemic discrimination even as you focus on one. Intersectionality suggests that discrimination and disadvantage is different in everyone and is the result of the combination of all social and political identities of a person.
If we consider that the top social group in Australia’s caste system is the straight, cis, rich, white, Christian male, we can also see that many men fall into less privileged groups. By supporting the women’s rights movement, the measures that help women overcome discrimination are also going to assist in overcoming the forms of discrimination that affect men.
If you’re an unemployed man, an Indigenous man, a gay man, or an immigrant man, improving workplace harassment, reforming the judicial and medical systems to recognise experiences beyond that of the “standard human”, increasing access to welfare, and propelling people with lived experience of discrimination to positions of power is all going to benefit you.
So, even if it is appealing to personal gain, it’s crucial that we keep explaining how rights for the majority (51%) of the population will actually benefit men too. Bring them into the fold of intersectionality.
Give them the opportunity
Next step is to involve them. Certainly there are women who’ve been harmed by men, who are not comfortable working with them, and this must be respected. There are also women who seek to completely exclude men from the feminist movement. Sadly, this extends sometimes to gender diverse people, and trans women have been particularly vilified.
But this means that we lose power and momentum because we are divided. It is human nature to become more invested in a project that we have personally worked on. Give men the opportunity to spread information, be ambassadors for other men, run the charity fundraising, sign the letters and petitions, and attend the marches.
Bring the men in your family and workplace and social clubs into the fold and put them to work. Investment brings interest and passion, and a stake in the outcome. It makes men part of the solution to this human rights issue (because women are human too!) and it conveys that more is required from them besides an occasional virtue-signalling tweet.
Don’t expect sudden epiphanies — engaging men (and women) takes time. Research from three countries shows that in nearly all cases, men became aware and active in feminism through a process rather than an acute event.
For all the derision of social media, it is a good forum to regularly share stories of misogyny, statistics on the epidemic of violence against women, and ways to get involved — because the brain remembers and prioritises what it is reminded of. We can make it easier for men to see what women are enduring by delivering the horrific crimes and commentaries directly to them.
The first time someone hears about a woman murdered by her male partner, it’s easy to attribute the tragedy to a lone wolf, a single evil man. The 10th time (and it pains me to say that in Australia this will happen in about March of each year) this story is told, there may be opportunity to think beyond Not All Men, and consider how all men may be able to work on reducing this shameful statistic and awful suffering.
Earning male allies isn’t something we should have to do. It’s not something many women want to do. It isn’t fair that women have to suppress their anger, fear and sadness at the prevalence of misogyny and the damage it has inflicted upon them. But ultimately we must force change, and where there are men prepared to step up and amplify our message, we should harness their energy to redress the inequity that has always favoured the male gender.
Dr Kate Ahmad is a neurologist and activist for women’s rights and climate action. She is a founding member of The 51 Percent.
I was removed from a feminist meeting in the 70s at Adelaide Uni. I was the only man there and the movement had temporarily taken on a man hating vibe. However I understood the situation and waited for the pendulem to swing back and proudly marched with my daughter earlier this year. I agree that men have to be visible supporters.
Brilliant article Kate. Great to see scientists offering alternative view points and solutions to problems such as this. What you are suggesting will encourage not only male allies, but main stream female allies who ARE turned off by the vitriol and calls for gender warfare by the ‘womens’ movement.
“Earning male allies isn’t something we should have to do. It’s not something many women want to do.”
I think there is a bit of chicken and egg happening there. The women who dont want to earn (or even seek) male allies are a big part of why effort is required to RE-EARN those allies. Looking at the articles and comments here in Crikey, I’m dumbfounded how indifferent so many are to the collateral damage to those male allies.
Then there are those that want to extend the blame to whites, Christians, the rich, LNP voters and given that not all women are supporters of the movement i cant see how on earth it will ever get traction and lead to change.
I can’t help thinking that SOME of the women acting this way are more interested in expressing their rage and revelling in the camaraderie and tribalism of the movement than actually solving the problem.
It will be telling what sort of other comments you receive.
The aggros and the kumbayas have to be on the same page to get anywhere. The majority of people are too busy to show up but would certainly vote for equality if there was a party to vote for. And that’s the test. Marching is only publicity.
The two major parties absolutely hate any other party starting up, it’s the only thing they unite on.
People are so used to it that the LNP being 2 parties is completely ignored. It’s a coalition, and Labour is blind to the possibilities of a deal with another party, at least so far. But how about with an Equality party? It could be done.
It saddened me that so often the final chapter of the Germ’s seminal (sic!) work – pointing out that it was necessary to liberate men – is so often misunderstood.
Or ignored.
A friend who worked to establish an early refuge in Glebe in the 70s said that their copy had that section torn out.
The patronising tone of this article will, in my opinion, do little to encourage men to smash the patriarchy… As the writer states, ‘in an ideal world, women would have the power the break the chains of oppression alone’. But hey, someone needs to ‘run the charity fundraising, sign the petitions and attend marches’.
When men are twice as likely than women to be the victims of homicide, suicide in far greater numbers than women, are more likely to die at work than women and will continue to die at an earlier age than women, perhaps the writer’s demand that their energy be harnessed ‘to redress the inequity that has always favoured the male gender’ rings a little hollow.
Yeah nah. Lots of the concerns you raise are actually parallel to the oppression of women. Its not as if that’s not apparent from the article. Get on with understanding and dismantling the power imbalances and watch e.g. suicide numbers reduce and men’s health improve.
Some should drop after a possible increase during transition (eg suicides) but some won’t (eg homicides).
Your last paragraph mentions violence perpetrated mainly by men, onto other men and themselves. That is in fact the problem. Males being the main perpetrators of violence.
No one is disputing that men are the vast majority of the perpetrators of violence towards both men, women and children. Ideally this should be about the whole of society standing up to those males, for the sake of all their victims.
I wince everytime i see a slogan demanding an end of violence towards women, knowing that many men are going to see this and think women are only interested in protecting women and to hell with ‘good’ men.
I hear where you are coming from. The statement is a bit patronizing. Taken in context of the rest of the article i was ok she was coming from the right place.
Ill also note im not interested in supporting a feminIST cause. (As in Islamic vs Islamist). Equality, yes. Its only a word, but simple tweaks can make a lot of difference to audiences.
Essentially the [equality] movement needs to do audience testing and ensure its messages are not riling those it wants as allies. Whats the saying about running with an angry crowd?
Given the constant push back on Not All Men, im suspicious why the movement wont go anywhere near occasionally highlighting its not all men. Just say it. Surely this is what a lot of men say they are concerned they are hearing and it costs nothing to occasionally preface comments with such acknowledgement. Its all the more amazing given the womens movement is so vocal about stereotyping of women that it isnt in the slightest bit conscious of its own stereotyping.
I was also not comfortable with the “Not as protectors of female ‘property’ who want to beat rapists to a pulp”.
That could be read as a cheap shot.
The vast majority of men are not unhappy to see rapists and child molesters beaten to a pulp, and its got nothing to do with seeing women and children as property. Im sure many women are in the same boat and we would never smear them as being only interested in protecting their property.
This article is a great example of what you are talking about in the last paragraph here.
Before she even gets rolling, out comes ‘patriarchal structures and cultures benefit all men’. Ah, ok Kate, you convinced me, it isn’t in my interest to read further!
Thankfully for the author, this reader already knows Patriarchy sucks, so I read on. But how many scrolls did that sentence launch?
Sadly, it gets worse, reading on I am told that as a white man it is in my interest to defend Patriarchy.
Finally we get to an actual argument for men also benefiting from smashing Patriarchy, but only if you have no job, you aren’t white or you are LGBTI. I’m 2 of those things, but how many potential readers aren’t?
Why not lead with your argument: that this particular movement, against domestic violence, coercive control and the murder of women by their partners, could use some male allies to actually reach the desired outcomes.
Outline the benefits to men that people, especially women, can employ when trying to convince men to join the fight.
Then, if you really have to, talk about the problems such arguments will run into with both men and women.
The whole article is backwards and doesn’t even cover the benefits.
Gender equality is coming, maybe a bit too slowly, and it will be interesting to look back in my old age and see whether it delivered what women hoped for. (Im not referring SV/DV here).
I look at my male peers and I see a lot of them unhappy with their careers and the responsibilitity and stress it brings. Getting more women back into the workforce into well paid jobs should be a GREAT thing (for the economy, society, their marriages, their children, and themselves) but when return to work became the norm after ~2005, household incomes rose, interest rates were low, migration was high, families took on crazy levels of debt, house prices skyrocketed, volunteering and community involvement dropped, expected retirement ages blew out, more time with the kids evaporated, looking after the elderly became harder, mortage stress increased and …. families are back to being hyper stressed again.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.