Catch-phrase or catch-22?

"The only thing to fear is fear itself." This, of course, is a famous quote that many of us probably heard ad nauseam. But I think this quote does more than reveal a cute catch phrase from the presidential pulpit of American history. I think it also sums up a major part of the male experience. Men are conditioned, via the male gender role, to be fearless. And in this struggle to meet such a lofty expectation, I can't help but wonder how many men don't measure up and feel the impending pressure to be "above" such so called silly notions as "anxiety disorders," "clinical phobias," "personal-therapy," or "battered husbands."

What society must understand is that a "fear of being afraid" is still fear. It is a very ironic fear, mind you, but indeed still a fear nonetheless. I think some of the basis for this "fear of being afraid" is that many men know full well that they may be valued and judged on the basis of their ability to serve and protect, where fortitude is a good predictor of one's ability to fulfill these obligations. In fact, researcher David Buss essentially showed that while women are "objectified" by their looks men are indeed "objectified" by their status and earning potential.

I believe men and women alike have a human need to experience emotion (including fear) without repercussion and ridicule. Men are humans, like women are. If it is okay for a woman to be "strong," then it is okay for a man to be "weak." Of course, these terms (strength/weakness) are value judgements, and perhaps shouldn't be used in the first place.

This myth that men do not have feelings reminds me of the documentary "Let There Be Light" (1946) by John Huston which was actually banned by the government for a time. The film was about Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) with WW2 veterans. According to the maker of the film, the reason it may have been banned was apparently due to the idea that the government at the time did not want society to know that men were human beings with real feelings. It wanted to protect the silly notion that men could handle the hard realities of war unflinchingly.With the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, I can't help but think that this "men are disposable" mindset is indicative of the vested interest the government has with men and war (after all, to this day only men must file for the selective service draft registry).

As author Roy Schenk (Other Side of the Coin) noted, it may prove just as hard for men to prove to society that they have real feelings in much the same way that it was hard for women to prove to society that they have real intellectual abilities.

I believe it is okay for a man to be afraid (or cry for that matter), and I resent any woman's expectations that a man be psychologically stronger or more disposable than herself. If a woman hears a noise in the middle of the night and expects me to check it out alone, perhaps she should have bought a German Shephard instead.


Double Standards are Double Jeopardy!

Why do anti-male double standards exist in the first place? Here are the reasons that came to mind:

* Theories, such as Patriarchy Theory, give many feminists an EXCUSE to justify anti-male bigotry. This helps alleviate any guilt that would normally be associated with other types of prejudice, such as with racism. In psychology, we call this phenomena "cognitive dissonance," a concept pioneered by Leo Festinger. In other words, people are motivated to reduce or eliminate anxiety via mentally justifying something usually considered unpleasant to themselves. The concept of "sweet lemons" fits nicely here. Unfortunately for men, feminism is a "sour grape."

* Theories, such as Patriarchy Theory, create a cookie-cutter way of viewing the world through one simple lens. Not only does this reduce the need for critical thinking, but it allows a person to stay within his/her politically correct comfort zone. "All males are oppressors" is a concept akin to identical ginger-bread men being cut from the universal feminist cookie cutter (too bad patriarchy-feminism is half-baked).

* Theories, such as Patriarchy Theory, are even more believable if they are taught as fact. By having Women's Studies departments all over the country preach from the politically correct pulpit, there is the illusion that patriarchy-feminism is indeed a real science as opposed to the pseudoscience that it really is. But just because patriarchy-feminism is taught in universities instead of at churches, this does not mean that it is exempt from being essentially a religion. All a women's studies professor really needs is some botox and a soap-box.

* Theories, such as Patriarchy Theory, are reinforced by chivalry. Many men like to believe or perhaps pretend that they are the privileged and powerful sex. This makes it easier to cope and deal with male disposability. Perhaps the real truth is too painful to accept. Who has the better lot: worker bees or the queen?

* Theories, such as Patriarchy Theory, are reinforced by "victim power." Many women like to believe or perhaps pretend that they are the weaker sex. But being the victim and "playing the victim" are two different things. In fact, there is a reason why "playing the victim" became an actual catch phrase and "playing the perpetrator" did not become a catch phrase...because being a victim has clear benefits that can be exploited and has a certain level of power associated with it. Victim power is what makes patriarchy-feminism an extremely feminine movement that plays on traditional (and negative) feminine masquerades, such as helplessness, complaining, materialism, and lack of responsibility.

And all this seems to suggest that Patriarchy Theory is perhaps the reason why society refuses to also include language that is esoteric to a real gender discussion, such as masculism, female power, female privilege, matriarchy, etc.


Darrin Albert is a member of the National Coalition of Free Men and a graduate student in Psychology.