Support This Site!
If you find this site useful, would you make a donation?
Donate with Paypal

BitcoinDonate Bitcoins!
New Bitcoin address - 30 Nov 2020
1Ee7g7zAUReViPRWtLPBEgnPDRP62qxq3J



Bitcoin Cash (BCH)
New Bitcoin Cash address - 30 Nov 2020
qpwgdhkgfvmgfeun6m36gq0uk4zdvu5vtyzcmn8pfz



Bitcoin SV (BSV)
Now accepting BSV - 30 Nov 2020
1GWYTG1ny65gt3CcRKdsuvtoGnXz5XduBg


Ayn Rand: The Woman


News and commentary round-up on Ayn Rand
04 Jan 2013
Wendy McElroy
News and commentary round-up on Ayn Rand
01 Dec 2012
Wendy McElroy
Alert! Atlas Shrugged Part 2 is opening Friday
10 Oct 2012
Wendy McElroy
Atlas Shrugged Part 2 is opening in 900+ theaters across the nation this Friday.
News and commentary round-up on Ayn Rand
06 Jul 2012
Wendy McElroy
Recent news and commentary about Rand
29 May 2012
Wendy McElroy
Recent news and commentary about Rand
01 May 2012
Wendy McElroy
News and commentary round-up on Ayn Rand
31 Mar 2012
Wendy McElroy
Heads Up! Premier of the Prophecy of Atlas Shrugged
11 Jan 2012
Wendy McElroy
Recent news and commentary about Rand
15 Dec 2011
Wendy McElroy
Recent news and commentary about Rand
16 Nov 2011
Wendy McElroy

Shop the Ifeminists Store!
Proclaim your ifeminism! Shop the ifeminists store at CafePress. T-shirts, tote bags, and more!

Main Menu
» News
· Home
» FAQ
» Forum
· Search

Welcome
Username:

Password:


Remember me

[ ]

 
Uniting masculism and feminism: Fostering compromise and facilitating conflict resolution
on Thursday 19 June 2008
by Darrin Albert (NCFM)

I am not Henry Clay. And with a title like "the great compromiser," It is rather unfortunate that such a person could not be consulted in a volatile matter such as fostering kinship between masculists and feminists. For better or worse, it seems that I will have to do. Fortunately, however, I do feel that I have some worthwhile tips on how feminists and masculists can get along. This is rather important. After all, masculists and feminists are perhaps rather rare individuals the way it is. If "the system" has any hope of changing for the better when it comes to gender-equality, it might behoove masculists and feminists alike to unite and fight "the machine" together. Most people, male and female, are often conformists with a herd mentality who could really care less about analyzing the world through a gender lens. I sometimes wonder how many of our feelings and behaviors are essentially shaped by mindlessness and societal expectations of how we "ought" to behave and feel. What sometimes separates masculists and feminists alike is a deep sense of non-conformity and idealism.

Having some science training, I have come to know that it is often a good idea to start with clear and concise operationalizations of definitions to avoid any potential confusion and also to ensure a level playing field when it comes to laying the groundwork. Feminism, according to the Webster Universal English Dictionary, is defined as follows: "the movement to win political, economic, and social equality for women". Although not defined in the Webster Universal English Dictionary, it stands to reason that the definition for masculism would be similar to that for feminism, where the term "women" would be replaced with "men." Equality, of course, involves equal rights and responsibilities vis-a-vis a human being's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

As can be seen, the definitions represent two points of view with a similar goal in mind. I believe that the use of both definitions are important to ensure proper checks and balances in gender-politics. Masculism or feminism, strictly on their own, may give a potentially biased perspective of what equality means. Notice that implicit in each definition is the notion of phenomenology (subjective perception). Feminism represents a feminine perspective of what equality means while masculism represents a masculine perspective on what equality means. Since equality is largely "in the eye of the beholder," it is predictable that masculism and feminism will not always act in agreement. Hence the need for checks, balances, and compromise!

What follows are three tips or pointers that may be useful to foster compromise and facilitate conflict resolution between masculists and feminists. Implicit in them is the motivation on both parties to VALUE COMPROMISE. Without this motivation, the "mediation" will probably fall flat. Like any "therapy session," the "willingness" to change, listen, or learn can indeed work wonders.

Ideal context:
Having some therapy training, I do believe that what the famous psychologist Carl Rogers suggested in an ideal therapy context may also apply nicely as an optimum milieu to foster conflict resolution between the sometimes competitive strivings of feminists and masculists. While I don't necessarily consider masculism and feminism to be polar opposites, they certainly represent disparate phenomenological percepts between two paradigms that seek to ensure proper checks and balances within gender politics. Carl Rogers suggested that personal growth and therapeutic success is a function of the client/counselor context. He generally believed that successful therapy largely consists of a client's perception of empathy, honesty, and "unconditional positive regard" during the therapy session. In other words, Carl Rogers generally found that people do not respond very well to shame, judgment, and lack of understanding. In fact, these very entities may in fact foster defensiveness and facade-building in the client. I believe that it is small leap to apply this logic to successful masculist and feminist interaction. It is my belief that one of the reasons that feminists and masculists have a difficult time seeing eye to eye is because each side feels generally misunderstood and/or judged in a negative way. The more that masculists or feminists attempt to understand each other, the more likely that the other party will reciprocate the "favor." In layman's terms, this essentially implies that "if you scratch my back I will scratch yours."

Identifying common ground. Double standards effect both genders. As such, identifying double standards is a common ground issue that can foster cooperation between masculists and feminists. And if feminists and masculists claim to seek equal rights and equal responsibilities, these double standards can be framed in such a way as to appear "equally sexist" to both genders. Nobody wants to be the "bad guy," and by framing double standards as "sexist to men and women in different ways," we can allow masculists and feminists alike to feel validated and understood without feeling unduly blamed. When masculists or feminists claim that they are the "sole victim" of a double standard, it can come across as self-righteous and morally superior and alienate the opposite side. Suppose a masculist and a feminist sat at the table and drew up a list of double standards that affect men and women in different ways. Next, they identified how each double standard is sexist to women and men alike. This might foster a kinship and understanding. For example, let's suppose that one of the items on their list is the male-only draft. The masculist might at first resent the fact that men are "objectified" as heroes, status objects, protectors, and disposable cannon-fodder. The feminist might resent the fact that women are being treated as helpless children, weaklings, or sex objects incapable of protecting others. Here we find that both parties were able to find common ground. They were able to frame the situation in a way that not only allowed them to see eye to eye without shaming tactics, but also to feel "equally victimized" by the "common enemy" of gender unfairness. Often times a double standard may unduly objectify men as "status objects" while simultaneously objectifying women as "sex objects." At other times, a double standard may insult a woman's intellectual intelligence while simultaneously insulting a man's emotional IQ. Stereotypes indeed hurt us all.

Identifying acceptable and common outlets for anger.
A wise man once said: "If you drop a hammer on your foot, does it do any good to yell at the hammer?" In the same manner, it does little good for masculists or feminists to blame men, women, masculism, feminism, patriarchy, or matriarchy for less-than-desirable and often complicated circumstances that involve a myriad of variables and constructs that go well beyond any individual person or class of individuals. Scapegoats are appealing, because they allow us to act on emotion and lazily misdirect our anger to those we wish to hurt or blame, and they can certainly lead to learned helplessness and lethargy in masculist or feminist ranks thus reducing empowerment. This is not to say that men individuals or classes of individuals are always beyond reproach. But it is to say that if compromise is the goal, it certainly behooves masculists and feminists to find acceptable outlets for anger that doesn't lead to hurt feelings, misunderstanding, pain, and defensiveness. Acceptable outlets for anger might include constructs that are vague enough as to not allow masculists, feminists, men, or women to feel unduly blamed. What sometimes works for me is to peacefully "blame" and direct my anger towards entities like "conformity," "tradition," "the nature/nurture interaction," "society as a whole," "the system," "gender roles," "the powers that be," or "the machine." These entities are a "common enemy" and allow feminists and masculists to view themselves as allies in the face of such common forces.

Masculism and feminism represent two lenses in which to view the world. As such, checks and balances between the paradigms are paramount. However, there may be more common ground than either camp realizes. It may benefit masculists and feminists to join forces in the face of a "common enemy," since either camp may represent a small minority of the populace to begin with. Fostering compromise and facilitating conflict resolution can aid in this unification. Effective compromise and conflict resolution may involve establishing an ideal context, identifying common ground, and identifying acceptable and common outlets for anger. I for one think Henry Clay would be proud.

 
    ifeminists.com is edited by Wendy McElroy; it is made possible by support from members like you. For information or to report problems contact admin(at)ifeminists.net.