insideMAN

The Confused Male: Do women really want what they say they want?

by 49 Comments

For many men the rapidly shifting landscape of gender roles and expectations can feel like a minefield. Here couple’s counsellor and insideMAN reader, Jennie Cummings-Knight, reflects both on the conflicted feelings she has about the new gender order and the mixed messages some women seem to be sending men.

In January of this year, I both witnessed and played a part in what was perhaps a typical incident of male confusion with regard to how to behave towards women in 21st century Britain.

I was on the station platform at Norwich after a football match, when the train came in after a long wait and a points’ failure. All the football supporters got on in a body, and I was left on the platform with one foot in the doorway. I asked the tightly-packed fans to let me on and they replied “there is no room”, so I called out to my husband who, already on the train, had not realised that I was still on the platform, and he pulled me on to the train through the crowd.

I was very annoyed at having nearly been stranded on the platform for the evening and I said in a loud voice, “I see the days of ladies first have long gone past!”  Suddenly there was a sheepish shift in attitude from the (mostly male) crowd of supporters. They looked around and found me a small jump seat to sit on.

It seemed that I had effectively reminded them of the manners of a bygone age and they had responded by instinct to a phrase that 30 years ago, everyone knew off by heart. It was an interesting moment!

Simpler times, clearer rules?

There was a time when men in the UK knew how society expected them to behave around women that they had personal relationships with — the rules were much clearer: They were supposed to be providers – to protect, to be good earners.

Men did not need to be good looking but they needed to be fit, active and in gainful employment. There was a tacit understanding that they probably knew more about sexual matters than most women and this was welcomed as long as the sexual experimentation stayed in the past once a commitment to a woman was made.

Women were considered to be the “weaker vessel”, and as objectionable as this is to contemporary sensibilities, they were nonetheless treated with a particular kind of care and respect, (in the majority of cases).

Women liked to be admired and noticed, but not usually for their successful careers, but more for their companionship, and their ability to provide a nurturing home environment and it did not hurt if their good looks were a factor too.

Things have changed… or have they?

Women apparently liked the fantasy of being “swept off their feet” by the confident and successful male — as long as he brought home a good wage and did not “play the field” that was pretty much all that was required. Children were welcomed as built-in likely by-products of the relationship, and a woman would be expected to look after the home and take the major share of responsibility in child care.

Now things have changed – or have they?

Women say they want to be equal with men – we say we want to be treated as strong and independent people – we no longer “need” the old fashioned “knight in shining armour” image – but is this true in your experience?

I personally remember the days of being “looked after” by men – (when they were viewed as emotionally tougher, physically stronger, and responsible for shouldering the main financial burden of the homestead) – with nostalgia.

Women say that they want to be admired for what they can achieve – not for how they look. But that’s not true for me, and therefore I suspect not for all women either. Yes, I want to be admired for what I can achieve, but that does not mean that how I look no longer matters. Far from it!

We women have also often complained that men take advantage of positions of power – but do we make the same mistakes?

Double standards

We want equal status in the workplace, but we like to run things the way we want in the home.

We complain that women are under-represented in high prestige jobs, but we stay quiet about the fact that it’s mostly men who do the most dangerous (e.g. tasks in the forces) dirty, (refuse collecting, for example) and low status (farm labourers, brick layers, etc.) jobs.

With regard to sexual advances, I have seen a certain hypocrisy at work, where men are increasingly accused of inappropriate behaviour, but where women think it’s OK to behave in exactly the same way themselves, and yet there tends to be a very different reaction than if a man were to accuse a woman of doing the same — the result for him would far more likely to be ridicule.

I saw a young lady one evening (it all happens at the train station, it seems!) offer her train ticket to the guard by sticking it in her cleavage and asking him to take it from there. He did so, but he was at risk (in my view) in this response because she could have accused him of being inappropriate later.

How is a man supposed to navigate his way through the complex maze of what women say they want, and what they appear to really want?

Let me know your thoughts!

By Jennie Cummings-Knight

Counsellor/Lecturer/Writer www.goldenleafcounselling.com

Photo: Colin Kinner/Flickr

  • Kyle

    Yeah traditionalism is over. Women these days expect all of the benefits of traditionalism and all of the benefits of a modern world but the two are mutually exclusive. You cannot expect to have a man provide for you whilst you are capable of earning, its not fair on him.
    I think you are right about the sexual behavior, Its seen as empowering for women to express themselves sexually but shameful for men. It comes form a time where female sexuality had great regard bestowed to it. Modern women do not have such regard. Also relationships had a certain respect about them back when having kids young was expected, men do not gain much from relationships these days and almost always stand to lose a lot of their vitality and wealth so they are going to avoid it, and women are praised for being promiscuous and so avoid relationships until later in life (usually to find out that their looks have faded and what she considers ‘decent’ men are going for the younger good looking women.)
    Even talking to women is strange, Most will not even talk to a man unless he is of benefit to her in some way. Many a men are willing to sacrifice everything for a woman, makes me wonder how many women would be willing to do the same for him.

    I wouldn’t want a return to traditionalism anyway, It’s a system that turns men into worker drones and defines them primarily by how they can serve a woman, and many women and men are still stuck in that mind set. So what you get is a lot of women getting angry at men because they are not serving them whilst at the same time believing that they are independent and don’t need no man. Men need to wake up and start defining themselves in relation to themselves otherwise they are always going to sacrificing their vitality and resources chasing a fairy tale.

  • Darren Ball

    Jennie,

    I wonder if women worry about how men like to be treated, including men who are perfect strangers in public places? I suspect not. Women treat men in ways that they think are fair and appropriate – they do not seek men’s opinion or permission.

    The difference with respect to how men treat women is obviously that many women feel threatened by the mere presence of men in certain public realms, and for that reason men do need to take the time to listen to women about what they say is appropriate behaviour: perhaps crossing the street at night so they don’t think you’re following them, don’t engage them in chitter-chatter on the bus thinking you’re just being sociable – you’re not, you’re flirting and women have the right to go about their daily routines without endlessly having to make small-talk with strange men. These are basic courtesies that all women deserve and all men should practice without exception. However, your article goes way beyond ensuring these.

    Beyond the basic courtesy of making sure that our behaviour is not making a woman feel uncomfortable, there’s no maze to navigate.

    The idea is absurd that we men are obliged to worry about which women might be partial to some old-fashioned gallantry and which ones would be offended by the same, and then react accordingly with no agency of our own. Raising the question at all is a double-standard in and of itself.

    If you’re a man who’s replaced male chivalry towards women with a general politeness and courtesy to all, regardless of gender, then good for you. If some women don’t like that, that’s really their problem, not yours. Similarly for this:

    ‘I personally remember the days of being “looked after” by men – (when they were viewed as emotionally tougher, physically stronger, and responsible for shouldering the main financial burden of the homestead) – with nostalgia.’

    I can see why this might appeal to you, but don’t men get a vote too? Isn’t a husband entitled to say that he doesn’t much fancy being the “emotionally tougher” one with primary responsibility for bringing home the bacon. In fact, these patriarchal attitudes do men a great deal of harm.

    The narrative seems to be very much about women’s right to choose what they want, and men having to somehow fit in around it.

    • Groan

      Further to my comment I did, a while ago, do a light hearted exercise with nearly 20 of my female colleagues. Of the flipchart and post it variety, they selected words/phrases to describe their “perfect man” and worked to group and prioritise . Top three were “reliable” “makes you feel safe” and “generous”. Despite the group’s concern not to be traditional “good earner” came 5th. As I said the thing that intrigued me, and continues to do so, is the similarity between these self defined feminists(social workers mainly) and the popular “Ten things women want from men” type surveys. I doubt they would have come up with this with a lecturer on their degree courses. I suppose as so often in human existence there can be quite a difference between what we believe we should want and what we do want. Of course something similar may be true for men or male feminists. I wonder if anyone has asked.

      • Austin Dunmore

        One of the things I hear over and over from women is “protection”. And it’s understandable with all the publicity around sexual violence and domestic violence, and men’s greater physical capability and tendencies to enact violence. What troubles me is that whenever the causality of male violence comes up in public dialogue it is quickly derailed and recentered on the experiences of women. These discussions never go anywhere, what a surprise.

        • Groan

          Though in the exercise I refer to protection was an issue the feeling safe encompassed a wider range of things from physical safety to dealing with complaining about poor service or talking noisy neighbours. In a sense their expectation was to have “back up” in a wide set of situations that might be embarrassing or anxiety provoking. It actually reminded me of research I was involved years previously looking at older people’s heightened sense of anxiety with their self perception of frailty. You know the miss match between the actual vulnerability to crime and the perception of the risk. Its only my speculation but the professional women in my orbit did appear to be anxious about a much wider range of things than male friends for instance. Did make me wonder if the much higher reported incidence of anxiety disorders in women does actually reflect a real difference in genders rather than under reporting of male anxiety disorders.
          Indeed the feeling safe thing may be a self-fulfilling prophecy, If men are continually pushed into a “sort it” inevitably many/most will think they can and should “sort it”. Of course the obverse will be so for women who thus “feel safe” only with their back up.
          On causations of male (and female) violence. Outside trained violence (formal in the services or sports or informal in gangs ) Anxiety is a key driver in all Psychological research, hence a lot of the “treatment” is akin to proper assertiveness training or increasing self worth. I suppose its counter intuitive, so difficult to explain to the public, but violent individuals in the prison and probation services are often anything but in control of their behaviour.

          • Austin Dunmore

            Indeed, for all the attention given to women as victims of violence, statistically they are the safer sex.

        • http://www.goldenleafcounselling.com Jennie C-K

          whenever the causality of male violence comes up in public dialogue it is quickly derailed and recentered on the experiences of women. Sadly so often true!

      • http://www.goldenleafcounselling.com Jennie C-K

        Hello Groan
        I think that this is what we need – men saying what they really feel and really need rather than being careful to fit in with politically correct ideas – so let’s hear it from more men about what they DO want and how they DO see themselves.

        • Groan

          Just as for women there will be variety! Somehow we appear to have developed the idea that getting peoples views is the same thing as agreeing with them, PC shuts down the expression. I happened on the programme about Norwich Prison last night. Having a little experience that looked far more realistic and did alow the prisoners to tell their stories. At the same time there was an advert for one of those “worst prison in USA” type programmes taking the usual “demon” approach.

    • Austin Dunmore

      Top insight, Darren.

    • http://www.goldenleafcounselling.com Jennie C-K

      Hi Darren
      You get my point exactly – “the narrative seems to be very much around women’s right to choose what they want, and men having to somehow fit in around it. Spot on. And wrong.

  • David DuBay

    Do women really want what they say they want? Sort of. I don’t think most women or men want to reject traditional gender roles entirely. Instead, women want to recalibrate traditional roles to allow for a wider range of choices – career, homemaker, a combo.

    And because women are driving this recalibration, men often feel like they have little say in it. But men do have the responsibility of getting the traditional/modern balance correct without having the terms explicitly laid out, and with little tolerance for error. We’re still in the middle of this recalibration of traditionalism and modernism, so there’s bound to be some confusion.

    • NickyB

      I think it’s a false notion that women are driving it. I would argue the needs of the economy are in fact the driving force behind this shift. Who funds feminism? Why are the main drivers of government funded ‘gender equality’ programmes based around economics (pay gap claims and boardroom dynamics)?

  • Groan

    Overall I the research suggest that “what women want” (as opposed to what in reality they may have to do) has remained pretty much the same for a majority. In particular their expectations from the men in their lives, as opposed to “men”. As always the truth is also that there will be some variety and inconsistencies. Probably the biggest actual change has been in contraception and many women working in careers rather than jobs and our much longer lives.
    I can’t help but observe that much of the “everyday sexism/consent” wave of feminism gains its support from young women wishing to inject some enforced “gentlemanly” behaviour and an PC seems not unlike the old push to get men to “moderate their language” in front of ladies. Very much a revival of a “weaker vessel” notion. So I suspect what we see is some women taking full advantage of changed mores but most aspiring to more traditional wants. though men are rarely asked I suspect the same pattern is true with a leavening diversity in a generally traditional set of wants.
    Of course there is also the shifting sands of time, in terms of shifting priorities over a lifespan, so I suspect that what people want moves as they move from the heady freedom of youth, to the practicalities of raising a family to the need for companionships in old age.
    What has always interested me, in working in a majority female industry, is the way women talk about “their” men. Whatever their expressed opinion about “gender” the actual expectations and views are very traditional over the 30 years in that industry. Even the most avowedly “feminist” still expect their partner ot be a primary earner, and spend that income on the household and others, be someone healthy and physically able, do “jobs” around the house garden and vehicles, help with the children, support the woman to reduce her hours but never reduce theirs(and in my industry many reduce their hours to care for family but many too it is because work is stressful. So rather than go on, the picture of what is wanted from a man from all these conversations has been consistent and disappointingly traditional. What has perhaps changed is a dissonance between what women say to each other over a coffee and what they say in their diversity training sessions. So I think any confusion is quite understandable from men as if they do what women say they want through their “representatives” its unlikely to be what those women want from them as a man.

  • Malcolm Newall

    Frankly – I find the entire question somewhat offensive for 2 critical reasons:

    1-Men are not allowed to even posit this question themselves (what men want), and while women’s magazines will go on about it, nobody ever actually consults men, and when a man speaks his mind, it is automatically seen to be offensive

    2-There should not be any double standard, and the behavior of men, must perforce be determined by the rules that are enforced on them. If you want to be treated as an equal, or create a requirement for equal treatment in all manners and insist that women get preferential or more lenient treatment under the law, you cannot ask that men give a rats ass otherwise what you want. Women already get preference in sentencing, can complain about sexist treatment, harassment etc, in a way man cannot, even though women are as likely to be perpetrators as men. Your insistence on special treatment is inappropriate to say the least.

    Your “women first” line was a shameful, hateful, horrible, unforgivable tactic deployed in a world where the men get no reciprocation for helping women due to their gender. Whether you specifically have asked for changes or not you enjoy them, and are in effect treating men in much the same way as those women who take license that they know men cannot.

    Women are either delicate creatures that need extra help or they are not. The law has already decided that they are not, so your use of shame was outrageous, and you in effect demanded a privilege, you know would not have been extended you as a man. You ask how a man is supposed to navigate his way, yet you have no issue, laying additional mines. I have been yelled at for holding doors open for women, by feminists, and frankly have realized that many of the women who ask for chivalry are at least as bad. You cannot expect to get the advantages of being treated as a wholly capable independent person, and then expect to get the extra care, that is chivalry at every turn.

    The answer, that men must deploy in today’s world is to drop the chivalry, and demand the same treatment that they are expected to give women. The lady with the ticket in her cleavage should simply have been required to leave, and denied boarding. What she did was offensive in the extreme, and should have resulted in a permanent ban from the service, just as it would have for a man, placing the ticket in a front pocket dangerously close to his crotch. It is straight up offensive, and beyond the pale. Women who openly approach men sexually at work, must suffer the same consequence a man would, as should they for any crime. Fairness demands equal treatment, not special privilege for women. Anything short of this, and men, of the next generation will simply sit, as they are already starting to do. So frankly at this juncture if that is not what women “want” I say as we have always to men, get over it
    .

    • http://www.goldenleafcounselling.com Jennie C-K

      Some good points here Malcolm, so thank you…”You cannot expect to get the advantages of being treated as a wholly capable independent person, and then expect to get the extra care, that is chivalry at every turn.” J

  • CitymanMichael

    For many tens of thousands of years humans have developed “strategies” to ensure the survival of the species as every other species alive today has done.
    In the human model, because the female was the bottleneck in reproduction, women were cared for and catered to by men. Added to that was the imperative for men to advance their own genes and that also involved young women being treated especially well, since women are and always have been the gatekeepers of sex (except in war which is another story).
    These biological underlying raison d’etres are bloody stubborn as you could imagine and both women and men are naturally constantly being pulled back towards the way things had been for millennia. Hence chivalry and the age old “women & children first” attitude sticks.
    So yes, the rules were simple for k’s of years and there has been a huge change this past several decades.
    In the past some women felt that they should have extra perks and agitated for “equal rights” and blamed a non-existent patriarchy [sic] – that movement is called feminism. One example of “equal rights” was an equal wage and despite laws existing for decades feminists still say that women don’t have equal pay. I am reminded of Warren Farrell who said that it does not matter who earns the money – or even who spends the money – but who the money is spent on. Hence we have one of the false tenants of feminism – men work to attract & provide for women and their children, enduring all sorts whilst feminists complain that women are short changed, while those women make comfortable work/life decisions. So yes, things have changed and not all for the good of men as the western world has become gynocentric.
    Most women have been suckered by the tale of repression by men which feminists have told them they have been suffering and are reacting to that tale. And that , of course, is a real problem for men.
    Men and boys are being lambasted & ridiculed & persecuted & generally disparaged due to the lies peddled by feminism and they simply do not know what to do. Many young men are turning their backs on the slanted playing field, other men take their own lives while society cares little – same as the number of men in prisons – poor health – no reproductive rights – educational disadvantage etc. etc. Feminism has become entrenched in all the corridors of power in the western world, attracting taxpayer grants and using same to alter the way the state and its agents act against men.
    The state has become the backup provider and protector and so women act accordingly. Many care little about having lots of sexual partners early in life as they will still be looked after by the state. Many put off starting a family in favour of a career.
    The current model is unsustainable. Men will check out of this unequal regime and if that happens in big enough numbers the State will fail.
    What is the alternative ? Men adapt to the demands of these “new” women? Unlikely in the long term because the odds are stacked against men. I simply cannot see any positive outcome to the onslaught which men are experiencing.
    Margaret Thatcher used to say ” You cannot buck the market” Well, you cannot buck biology.

    • http://www.goldenleafcounselling.com Jennie C-K

      I agree entirely, Cityman Michael…I would argue that many men are literally checking out of this unequal regime in the UK, by committing suicide…you can see the stats at
      http://www.samaritans.org/sites/default/files/kcfinder/branches/branch-96/files/Suicide_statistics_report_2015.pdf

      • CitymanMichael

        I know the stats – unfortunately causes/reasons for taking their own lives are not at all guesstimated, which I can understand to a point. However, there are at least some suicides where the reason is known to a reasonable degree – I would posit that a proportion of these are due to the treatment meted out to men at the family & divorce courts.
        I noticed in an earlier reply of yours you suggest that men should make their own needs/wants known – men are taught from the cradle not to make any demands otherwise they are ostracized in subtle ways.
        Back to biology and every tribe which existed and thrived, did so by treating its men and boys as disposable in both work and war. The need of men to suck up whatever life throws at them, without complaint, is very deeply imbedded in their subconscious.

        • Austin Dunmore

          Yes, men are conditioned, yes they are ostracised and policed, but that isn’t a death sentence all by itself, just as sucking up “whatever life throws at them, without complaint” is not a need but a learned behaviour. These problems are far from insurmountable. I feel there’s a little bit of a victim stance in some of the language being used here.

          • CitymanMichael

            My point is that the “sucking up” is both a learned behaviour and a genetic memory.

          • Groan

            I do agree. It is learned. And it is largely leaned from women in fact simply because women have and still do take the lead/burden/joy of caring for and teaching our children. Of course its not simple and its not like all this is some conscious plot and clearly socialisation influences moves away from family and school in the teenage years. But the truth is that the deepest formation for all children is early and so largely a female affair. Just as changes for women have actually relied on men (even from the perspective of who has been in political power) and women; so too it seems remarkably unlikely that change can occur for men without women being in the forefront of that. I take it as very hopeful indeed that it appears to me that “being a man” for my sons appears a much more varied thing than for my generation.
            It is why its so disappointing that political feminism appears so rooted in the idea of men’s “nature” needs to be controlled and punished. Whereas the theory should take the view that social constructions can be changed for both sexes. As my three children are going through young adulthood they are immensely and urgently curious about what the other sex wants and expects of them. Of course this huge drive is independent of the quality of feedback they actually get!

          • http://www.goldenleafcounselling.com Jennie C-K

            I agree especially with this bit: disappointing that political feminism appears so rooted in the idea of men’s “nature” which needs to be controlled and punished”

          • NickyB

            Feminists often seem to have a sadistic trend in their conceptions. I wonder what it is they are projecting onto the male psyche?

          • http://www.goldenleafcounselling.com Jennie C-K

            It is something that we do as humans – transfer stuff to each other and make someone else the scapegoat for human sufferings or difficulties…I agree that there are elements of modern feminism that smack of “revenge”…these elements were not present 100 years ago when the business of “being male” was not attacked in the way that it is today.

        • Darren Ball

          This is where I kick the hornets nest. These attitudes are patriarchal. Feminism is opposed to the patriarchy and therefore these attitudes should form part of the feminist radius of concern. However, the first step is for men to acknowledge that this is the root cause of their problems. Unfortunately, too many of those who campaign on behalf of men deny that the patriarchy even exists and prefer to blame feminism instead – it’s not helping to get feminism behind men’s issues.

          • http://www.goldenleafcounselling.com Jennie C-K

            It needs to be said that not all women are opposed to patriarchy and that feminism is a broad church which encompasses many different views

          • Darren Ball

            “not all women are opposed to patriarchy”
            True, but not all women are feminists, either.
            I agree though that the definition of feminism is so woolly that virtually everybody raised in the West, who is not encumbered with certain extreme religious doctrines, could justifiably self-identify as being a feminist. Whether or not other feminists would tend to agree with them is another matter.
            The definition of feminism that seems to be most active is one that is a movement against patriarchy and misogyny. Not a movement for gender equality per se.

          • Groan

            Yes I was interested when a partner of a prominent “feminist” described it (the most active meaning) as “being told off for things I haven’t done”. I suspect this constant barrage of “all men are ……” followed by some description of what everone agrees is bad (and which if true would mean we live in the most Hobbesian hell) is what produces the reaction.

          • http://www.goldenleafcounselling.com Jennie C-K

            Interesting point Darren – feminism was definitely not a “movement against patriarchy…” at the start. In fact its unrecognisable in its present format, if you compare it with 100 years ago. Then we knew that we need men and we valued their difference. Now some/many (?) women seem to project the message that men are often surplus to requirements, and should feel honoured if we need them.

          • CitymanMichael

            Have you ever considered that the definition of patriarchy which you hold may be untrue – never happened – that indeed that definition was moulded by feminism to fit their ends. Also that second & third wave feminism has never, to my knowledge, ever shown itself to be anything other than a movement for women only. I don’t refer here to some great women like Christina Hoff Sommers.

          • Darren Ball

            My definition of patriarchy is that we inherited a patriarchal society from our Judeo/Christian tradition. That patriarchy defined and prescribed fixed gender roles for both men and women. Those gender roles bestowed upon men more rights than it did for women, but it also gave men some more responsibilities. Over the last 100 years feminism has gradually fought for, and won, equal rights for women.
            Although we have equalised rights for men and women, we have not relieved men of some of their greater responsibilities. Men are still expected to “man-up”, “grow a pair”, and of course “big boys don’t cry”. Our society cares less about men’s mental health issues, homelessness and so on, and men are treated more harshly by the CJS. There is also many who would argue that men are treated more harshly by family courts.
            The idea that the above theory has been invented by feminists is too absurd to contemplate. The first paragraph is so evidently true that I haven’t the patience to debate it any further. The second paragraph takes a bit more explaining, but if feminists are making this point then what the heck are you complaining about? If there’s a problem with feminism it’s that it’s not making this point.

          • CitymanMichael

            We did not inherit any system from any particular “tradition”. Homo Sapiens developed its way of life over many millennia and that way of life placed separate gender roles on men and women. Thus men and women have differently developed both physical characteristics and genetic memory to best fulfil those roles to the ultimate benefit of the species. This is simple Darwinian theory.
            The pup that you have been sold is the fallacy that men have been oppressing women.
            The human race, both men and women, have historically had tough lives and the advent of recent technology coupled with the use of fossil fuels for energy have transformed the way we live today. Feminism strived to change the rigid gender roles which women were subject to and have largely succeeded in this task and are continuing in their drive to make society a female supremacist one. This drive was only possible due to the changes in technology. Feminists care not a jot about men and boys. To mention just one more fallacy of feminism is that it is all about equality – I suppose you also believe that.
            However, I do not wish to make this only about anti-feminist because even without feminism, men and boys would still have issues which need addressing – again due to the shift in society brought about mostly by technology/cheap energy.
            The simple fact is that men have found themselves stuck in similar rigid roles and now men are floundering. Unfortunately feminism has caused some of their problems and has exacerbated others notwithstanding that others exist as stand alone problems unaffected by feminism.
            To find the way forward, the reality of how we got here has to be understood and believing that men/patriarchy [sic] defined and prescribed fixed gender roles is a denial of Darwin – the survival of the species defined the gender roles.

          • Darren Ball

            There isn’t one Homo Sapien way of life. The Abrahamic religions have influenced a great swath of the world’s populations, including the most powerful and our own, which might give the impression that any common threads of these religions/cultures must be human universals – the natural order of things, but that isn’t necessarily the case. The Cherokee, for instance, had very different ways of raising children which was really very matriarchal.

            For certain there will be some innate differences between men and women, but the jury is out on what they are and the extent of them. This notwithstanding, cultures either amplify or attenuate those natural tendencies. You would not want to live in a society in which all human natural inclinations are encouraged just because they’re natural – civilisation requires that some are suppressed and others are carefully channelled.

            As environments change, species need to adapt or die. Humans now live in every environment on Earth – this is possible because of our advanced intelligence. Although our biology will not evolve significantly over our lifetimes, we use our intellect to adapt to our changed environments. I don’t know if some form of patriarchy served primitive human species; perhaps it did, but it’s not required now. It’s very Darwinian to use our brains to adapt to our current environments.

            “The pup that you have been sold is the fallacy that men have been oppressing women.”

            What I said was that men had more rights but also some more responsibilities, but let’s see if the notion that men have been oppressing women is in fact a “fallacy”. Many of these examples are from our own very recent history, and others are to be found (still) in other cultures:

            Marriage vowels “brides promise to obey”.
            Brides given away by their father.
            Husband is a farming term. One may also have husbandry over cattle.
            Husbands were the traditional head of the family.
            Wives taking their husbands surnames.
            Husbands allowed to use corporal punishment on their wives, provided it was “just chastisement”.
            Women needing a man to act as guarantor for any loans.
            “A women’s place is in the home”.
            Arranged marriages. Often teenage girls being forced to marry grown men. Often in harems.
            Women not being allowed to leave the home without a chaperone.
            Wives walking three steps behind their husbands.
            Women being seen as unclean when menstruating.
            Women denied access to high office (Christian, Muslim and Judaism)

            I really could go on all week writing this list. This list looks to me an awful lot like men oppressing women, in a systematic manner, across the most influential parts of human civilisations, for thousands of years.

            You could write a list of where men’s unequal responsibilities has done them harm, but please don’t waste your time because I’m not disputing this. In fact the core of my argument is that, whilst feminism is doing a very good job at challenging the systematic oppression of women, which exists do varying degrees across different cultures, society also needs to address burdens placed upon men by patriarchal attitudes, and also address unequal gender outcomes that may have nothing whatsoever to do with patriarchy.

            “To mention just one more fallacy of feminism is that it is all about equality – I suppose you also believe that.”

            As I wrote earlier in this thread that feminism is not about gender equality per se, it’s about challenging the patriarchy, which causes systematic gender inequalities.

            “The simple fact is that men have found themselves stuck in similar rigid roles and now men are floundering.”

            YES, rigid roles passed down from the patriarchy which form our inherited social norms. We are not using our highly evolved brains to adapt to the modern world. Until us chaps realise this, we will continue to flounder.

          • CitymanMichael

            I did not say that there was a single way of life – I stated that humans like every other species alive developed the best possible way to ensure the survival of the species.
            The Cherokees and others developed in their own way given the climate, food sources etc. but the overarching system was that the tribe must survive and thrive. The simple common denominator is that women are the bottleneck in reproduction and every society had to care for them.
            A tribe with only one male could have survived – a tribe with only one female was doomed.
            You say the jury is still out on innate differences between the sexes – this is straight out of the feminist handbook as they strive to make men and women equal. The sexes are very different – you probably weight 150% the weight of your wife/sister/mother. Men are less risk averse than women. I don’t understand how you could doubt sex differences – this idea that men and women are the same is the brainchild of feminism which must make this case in order that women are granted everything which men have. Men & women are different – nature made sure of that and gave the greatest advantage by making men and women complementary.
            The women oppression you use is another straight out of the feminist handbook. Of the examples you give some are related to marriage – strange that ordinary women in the west today seek marriage when it is so “oppressing”. I have read many articles were a female journalist opines ‘where have all the good men gone’
            Arranged marriages – they were arranged for both boy & girl.
            To give an example of what you call patriarchy, today in India & China men are given the responsibility of paying for their parents when they get old – China has a law where the parents can take their son to court if he does not care for them. When a man takes a bride in India, her family pay a dowry to the new husband, such is the responsibility he is taking on.
            The plain fact is that men and women had a deal – the women bore the man’s children (exclusively in principle) and the man worked to provide for the woman and their children. Both rigid roles but the key point is that both got what they wanted and the relationship was equal. The man had a woman to bear his children, and someone to care for him – in return he worked extra to provide. The woman got to have children and food and shelter and a protector. It really worked very well for the day.
            Your premise that feminism is challenging the “oppression” is false because that oppression as you state it did not exist – it was an equal but very different relationship. Your other premise of the patriarchy did not exist either.
            However, all that is in the past now as technology (most especially the Pill) has changed life.
            We must move forward and with most men agreeing with you that women have always been oppressed there is little hope. To be honest, I believe that men’s salvation lies in the hands of women & I’m glad that the author of this article expresses interest in gender relations.

          • Darren Ball

            I think I finally understand what you’re getting at. Forgive me that it’s taken so long for the coin to drop: the problem I’ve been having is that you’ve been arguing against points that I haven’t made.

            You have focused your entire argument on the division of labour between the sexes: this may or may not be linked to patriarchy. Obviously, if one has to push a plough and one has to nurture the children, especially pre-birth control, then most couples and communities would choose for men to do the heavy lifting. That would be common-sense and nothing whatsoever to do with patriarchy. It becomes patriarchy when men are made head of the household, and are allowed to beat their wives, etc. (refer to my earlier list).

            The reason my abridged list has lots of examples relating to marriage is that this is where the purest form of patriarchy is to be found. I think it’s significant that we’re talking about a patriarchy (literally: rule by fathers) as opposed to an androcracy (rule by men).

            From our culture heritance, the masses where controlled by the Church where women were not allowed to be ordained. There’s God the father, Abraham was a father, so was Noah and Moses. Priests are fathers, the Pope is the Holy Father. The particular type of male dominance was arranged around a paternal model. Are you going to explain to me that men’s superior plough-pushing abilities made them most suitable to head their families and their communities via the Church?

            Your example of Chinese sons having to support their parents only reinforces my point that patriarchies place additional responsibilities on men, as does your point about dowries. The flip side of having authority is having responsibility. This is why patriarchies are good for neither gender.

            Very specifically I have not denied that there are innate gender differences, I said that the jury is out on what and to what extent.

            I gave the example of marriages arranged between girls and fully-grown men. Where did I say arranged marriages between girls and boys? I’m talking here about patriarchal religions (where no women hold any power whatsoever) deciding that teenage girls need to marry men in their mid 30s, sometimes in harems.

            Our cultural heritage is that authority and power are held by men in a paternal model. This is the literal definition of a patriarchy. Being denied power, even over oneself, is to be oppressed. It would have been perfectly possible for men to plough fields without dominating their wives.

          • CitymanMichael

            I’m sure you would agree that men are more suited to the physical world than women – and conversely that women are more suited to the emotional world than men. I could give examples. In the past women were pregnant/lactating for a good proportion of their life (14 to 35 years). It is simple common sense that men do the physical work, as nature intended.
            The work women do & have done is no less important than what men do/have done. All this has nothing to do with a patriarchy[sic].
            You quoted earlier about men oppressing women. Did men beat their wives in the past? Yes. Are men still beating their wives? Yes. Is that wrong? Yes. Are they beating their wives less now than in the past? Probably. Do they also try to control their wives? Yes.
            Do women beat their husbands? Yes. Did they do that in the past? Yes.
            Do women try to control their husbands? Yes. Did they do that in the past? Yes Is it wrong? Yes.
            So are you making the point that the degree is different or that no women beat their husbands?
            When/where were men allowed to beat their wives by any law?
            Most arranged marriages are of young girls and young boys – having said that, it is an obvious injustice for a young girl to be married to a much older man, but I would like to see some stats on the prevalence of that.
            I finally make the point that the patriarchy as you state it did not exist – all people were oppressed, not least by religions. You should note that much more violence is dished out to males by Sharia Law, but as you know we really only hear about the violence on women, giving further oxygen to the lie that women are oppressed by men. The patriarchy [sic] as you portrait it is a feminist construct to demonise men, which has worked really well, and the lie needs to be denounced.

          • Darren Ball

            Why do you keep going on about the historical division of labour between men and women? Only you raised this point. It has nothing whatsoever to do with who holds power. On this point, you’re having an argument with yourself.

            There have always been violent women who beat their husbands. The difference however is that there has never been a cultural expectation/requirement for women to maintain authority over their husbands using corporal punishment, whereas the Bible is replete with them. Religious conviction, taken straight from the Bible, would have certainly influenced behaviour, Common Law, judgements, juries and sentencing. If nothing else, the Bible is, in and of itself, a huge part of what informed our present-day culture.

            I don’t know that most arranged marriages are between people of the same age; I suspect that’s untrue. But I was talking about those cultures where it is between teenage girls and grown men; so those are the examples you need to respond to. I used to live near Stamford Hill in North London famed for its ultra-orthodox Jewish community. Here you would see very young women wearing wigs (heads are shaved upon marriage), with several young children in tow and with a much older man. I don’t know if there are some sects of orthodox Jews who do not practice this, but very clearly, very many did.

            “I finally make the point that the patriarchy as you state it did not exist.”

            I have no idea how you can possibly draw this conclusion from our conversation; it’s as if you’ve paid no attention to anything whatsoever. I gave you a long list of areas where women were oppressed; you have half-heartedly engaged with a few but ignored most. You have not commented on the fact that the marriage service (based on biblical scripture) required wives to obey their husbands who are head of the household, or the fact that women could hold no authority in the Church. Placing authority in the hands only of men, especially in the context of the home, is the very definition of patriarchy and you’ve just not engaged with that at all. Instead you have preferred to go on and on about historical gender-based divisions of labour that have absolutely no relevance to anything, and then gone full circle to restate your original unsubstantiated nonsense.

            It’s obvious that nothing I’m ever going to say will disabuse you of your ridiculous “opinion”. It is a simple historical fact that our culture is inherited from the Abrahamic religions which are patriarchal from start to finish.

            I shall sign-off with some scripture:
            “Your [women] desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” Genesis 3:16
            “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Saviour.” Ephesians 5:22-23

          • CitymanMichael

            Yes, we have been at cross purposes.
            I now understand – you have taken the feminist version of oppression as 100% fact – I had not realised that.
            I have been saying that that oppression did not exist.
            The thing is that feminists have been blaming men for this oppression whereas that ‘oppression’ was by religions/other.
            There is an argument that the ‘oppression’ was in women’s best interests and for every ‘oppressive’ law there was another ‘privelage’ law, but I am not arguing that point and anyway, it is all now in the past (at least in the west, where the pendulum has swung the other way)
            To highlight the difference, feminists say that one of the ways that women have been oppressed was by a denial of suffrage by men.
            Suffrage has historically been a class issue as a simple look at the facts will reveal. Women’s suffrage had nothing to do with men, albeit that the people in power were all men.
            I simply do not accept that most men through history oppressed women & I don’t think there is evidence to prove it. I hope you can now see the point I am making.

          • Darren Ball

            My point is that patriarchies oppress women. Whether or not men in general oppress women is a much more nuanced debate that I have not been having with you. A patriarchy is a system of governance and an ideology, it is not about individuals or even a group of individuals.
            I very deliberately avoided mention of suffrage, so why have you brought that into the debate?
            I am deeply bothered by the ambivalence our society shows to disadvantaged and vulnerable men and boys. The root cause of this I believe to be patriarchy. You might argue that some problems have been caused by feminism, and I might at least accept that feminism has exacerbated a few, but even here the hidden hand of patriarchy lurks.
            I think that it’s very important to understand the root cause of men’s problems, but whenever I say “patriarchy”, somebody says it’s a myth. As a result of our debate it seems that this opinion is based on three misconceptions: 1) that we’re talking about division of labour when the workplace was generally much more physical than it is today. 2) It claims that women were being oppressed by men rather than by a patriarchal system of governance. 3) It’s all about suffrage.
            I hope that we can now move beyond this and understand that patriarchy heaps upon men physical, emotional and other expectations that are not good for their wellbeing.

          • CitymanMichael

            “This is where I kick the hornets nest. These attitudes are patriarchal” – I just checked and this was the first mention of patriarchy in this thread. We have gone a long way down this road and are not going to come close to any sort of meeting of minds.
            To me, feminists blaming patriarchy for their alleged oppression is similar to Jews blaming Germans for the holocaust – except that women were not murdered. It is disingenuous at best – actually it is a concocted lie to further the aims of feminism.
            We need to move away from this narrative. And I believe that the continual use of this narrative is causing the further demonization of men and boys which is the seed of lots of real problems in the real world for men and boys.

          • Darren Ball

            Michael, in this thread, you’re the only one conflating men/boys and patriarchy – as if the two are synonymous. Perhaps you’ve had some debates with feminists who also conflate these too, but you don’t have to follow their lead.
            In your analogy, to blame patriarchy for women’s oppression would be analogous to the Jews blaming racism for the holocaust, not like blaming the Germans.
            Other people are currently blaming men’s problems on masculinity. That is something I do find questionable as that is much more difficult to separate from the innate nature of men, where as patriarchy is completely separate.
            Whatever you want to call it, men and boys are suffering because they’re holding on to a version of the “ideal male” that is not healthy. These are the conversations that we need to be having about men and boys.

          • CitymanMichael

            In this thread, what actually happened was that Jennie had questioned modern relationships between the sexes. I made the point that biology was the driving factor in intersex relationships & you joined in saying that my views were patriarchal.
            I absolutely dispute that anything to do with the patriarchy [sic] has an impact on current day relationships between the sexes (time has truly moved on) and you counter that argument – in fact in another comment you suggest that a definition of feminism is anti patriarchy & misogyny.
            You state that women have been oppressed by religions – today under Sharia Law more men than women are punished, so this oppression is nothing to do with oppression of women – I had made a similar point regarding suffrage, again both sexes were disadvantaged.
            Time to reconsider your views and throw away the feminist handbook – it is toxic to its core.

          • Malcolm Newall

            I will say one thing here – one of the reasons this is an issue, is because the most visible and loudest portions of feminism, in essence tells men to STFU and goes on about how men have no issues. It has been clear for a long time, that there is a matriarchy, that is at least as powerful as the patriarchy, and we have attacked only one. It is as much the matriarchy that goes on about men not crying.

  • Austin Dunmore

    Men can navigate their way through what women say they want, and what they appear to really want, by assuming nothing; by identifying what they themselves want, and by negotiating. I argue that gender roles are diversifying, and there isn’t a single “contract” that serves the majority of men and women anymore, beyond the common courtesy that everyone should extend to one another; and not only this but our roles *have* to shift, because many of the rules that we have inherited about being “men” and “women” don’t necessarily serve us, or make us deeply unhappy (and are even a source of trauma), or get in the way of our relating to each other.

    I posted some thoughts about navigating relationships from this viewpoint a few weeks ago.
    http://themasculineconspiracy.com/2016/02/17/thoughts-on-relationships-and-privilege/

    • Darren Ball

      Austin,

      I followed your link. Very interesting.

    • http://www.goldenleafcounselling.com Jennie C-K

      Thanks Austin, for this. Some good thoughts in this article that you link to… J

  • paul parmenter

    Apologies for coming late to this debate, but i have just discovered this site and I am playing catch up.

    Jennie asks if women really want what they say they want. The answer, from her own storyline about the train, is clearly no.

    It certainly looks like Jennie is one of those women who actually have a great deal of empathy with men, and goes out of her way to try to understand their problems. That in itself may suggest that she places a higher value on men’s lives and feelings than the average female does. And yet even she could not resist playing the sexist victimhood card. Her first instinct, on finding herself treated in exactly the same way as men are routinely treated (i.e. first come, first served, and if you are at the back, you just have to put up with it) was to invoke the old shaming tactics – I am a lady, hence more important than you mere males, and it is your duty to place me first and accommodate my wishes above your own. And all done without a moment’s doubt or hesitation about the correctness and justification of her demands.

    Well, at least she had the decency to recognise the double standard she had applied to her own situation, and has invited men to comment about it. As I suggest above, this probably places her far removed from what most other women would ever contemplate.

    But the female sense of entitlement and privilege clearly runs very deep. I have no doubt that if you asked women generally whether they believe in equality between the sexes, you would get something between 99% and 100% “yes” answers. But if you put those same women on that platform and subjected them to the same experience as Jennie, I have no doubt that the numbers who would accept being left behind while the train chugged away full of men who got there first, would be miniscule, and most probably zero. And, like Jennie, they would not be slow in voicing their disgust and disapproval of the males who had actually given them the equal treatment that they say they believe in.

    So yes, women speak with forked tongue on this issue.

    This is hardly surprising, since self-interest so easily trumps true egalitarianism, and that is at least as true of women as it is of men. But what is most telling for me, is how the men on that train so readily fell in with Jennie’s demands. As soon as she played the role of the damsel in distress, the men fell into line and gave her the privilege she demanded: not only a place on the train that would not have been available to a man, but a seat to boot. And no doubt those men felt quite happy to stand all the way while the lady sat in comparative comfort.

    I can’t see this changing in a million years. All this talk of equality is superficial; under the surface, the old instincts and habits remain deeply ingrained. Women don’t really want to change them, and neither do men.

    But what I would like to see changing, is a simple acknowledgement that this is the way it is. I am fed up with listening to the endless lies about how everyone believes in equality, when it is abundantly clear from their repeated actions that they fundamentally do not. Jennie does not, neither do the men on that train. Nor do our politicians, who stubbornly refuse to engage with the inequalities damaging the lives of men and boys. Nor do the millions of people who repeatedly vote those politicians into power, and stand by while they happily give far more attention to the fate of badgers than they do to the fate of thousands of boys failing in our education system, or of men killing themselves.

  • http://www.goldenleafcounselling.com Jennie C-K