Abstract
As the title suggests, there are new data in this article in response to the old question: “What’s in it for men?”. The data Øystein Holter provides on men’s experiences of happiness, depression, divorce, fertility, violence, and suicide raise interesting questions, and it also presents some important information to inform current theoretical and political debates on men and gender equality. As an educator and activist who is involved in projects outside of the academy to engage men in promoting gender equality and challenging men’s violence against women, I often encounter the question: “What’s in it for men?” In response, I will talk about improved physical and emotional well-being, greater intimacy, and more fulfillment with women in relations of equality and mutual respect and even better societal outcomes in terms of living in a sustainable world that is not facing catastrophic climate change and human-induced “natural” disasters. There is much of value in Øystein’s article that I will be able to use here to strengthen this line of argument. However, I always emphasize that what men gain should not be the primary motivation for men to be involved in these projects. I also talk about men’s relational interests with women and the moral and ethical reasons why men should change which are related to women’s human rights and social justice.
I know from Øystein’s other work (Holter 2005, 2011) that he is well aware of the importance of going beyond the utilitarian argument. Thus, I have some discomfort about the framing of this “old question” in a way that does not acknowledge the importance of the social justice argument. I am concerned that men’s interests, needs, and concerns in relation to gender equality (which are framed here in a neoliberal individualistic sense) will come too much into the foreground and that women’s interests, needs, and concerns for social justice will be marginalized in response to this focus. This is particularly evident in the article when there is a discussion of what is called “the negative effects view” of gender equality where men are seen as being negatively affected by gender equality through the loss of their former status and privileges. This notion of outlining what men will lose is referred to as seeing gender equality as “a zero sum game,” where “zero sum game” is often used in a pejorative way to dismiss the view that men have anything to lose at all.
What seems implicit in this article (and it may not be what was intended) is that if men have a negative effects view of gender equality, they will necessarily be opponents of gender equality, whereas if men have a positive effects view, they will supposedly support gender equality. Men are thus seen as only likely to be allies of gender equality if they perceive themselves as having direct benefits flowing from their involvement. Many surveys that measure gender-equitable attitudes interpret all responses by men who say that they will lose out when women gain rights or power as being necessarily against gender equality. It is assumed that they will only support gender equality if they believe that rights for women is not a zero sum game.
It seems to me that men will lose some material privileges and entitlements through gender equality. Some resources, wealth, time, opportunity, status, and privilege currently held by men will have to be relinquished in the transition to a more gender equal world. Any man who has taken more responsibility for domestic work, child care, and emotional labor in a heterosexual relationship knows that he does this at the expense of time and energy that he could have devoted to more traditionally “masculine” projects in the public world. Thus, sharing housework and child care may well be detrimental to men’s careers. Also, any man who has experienced the changes in gender relations in the public world in response to an increased involvement of women in senior positions will feel some sense of erosion of entitlements which were previously exclusively male. It seems to me that the question is not whether men have things to lose or not nor even whether these losses are outweighed by the benefits that men gain. Rather, if men do experiences losses, are they losses that men should bear as part of being more privilege cognizant and ethical in a more socially just world?
This article raises the question: “If gender equality is as beneficial for men as the new results imply, why do we not see greater male engagement on that front?” The tentative response given to this question is “Perhaps men often simply do not know the benefits of gender equality.” While men’s subjective experience at any point in time about the losses and benefits for them of gender equality should not be the final determinant of the cost–benefit analysis (if that is what one is engaged in), it does raise the question about how men perceive their interests and consequently the benefits that flow from their interests. Social justice–based reasons for men to change (what Kaufman [2001, 50] is cited as calling “an appeal to goodness in men”) are polarized against men’s interests. Here, men’s interests are framed as a static, unchangeable, and essentially patriarchal. If you take the view that men’s interests are socially constructed, then you open up the possibility that they can be reconstructed.
If we frame gender equality as a “win-win” situation for men, then men’s opposition to gender equality is seen as being based on their ignorance of what’s in it for them. Too often, gender equality is conceptualized in terms of attitudes, as if the real issue is in men’s minds. So if only we can construct a good enough argument, most men will change their minds. However, focusing only on what men will gain by gender equality has not worked very well for practical policies and programs targeted at men. Gendered power and privilege are ignored in this approach. If we are to engage men in gender equality, we have to understand men’s resistance to change and the backlash responses by many men to change. We should not underestimate the investment that many men have in maintaining their privileges. Hence, we need pedagogical strategies that challenge men’s complicity in the reproduction of patriarchy rather than trying to convince men that they have nothing to lose from gender equality.
Developing subjectivities among men that are relational, ethical, and privilege cognizant will open up different questions about the relationship between men and gender equality than the old question of “what is in it for men?” It will also potentially allow for different outcomes and different measures. Even the alternative question of “why should men support gender equality?” would enable us to locate these new data in the context of wider theoretical, epistemological, and political questions. Otherwise, developing new data for an old question becomes another example of putting “new wine in old bottles.”