Misunderstanding is gaining momentum

This blog is a response to an article entitled "Masculinism is gaining momentum" by citizen journalist Dr Lalit Kishore from India. In his article, the author says that, in the process of empowering women, society has begun to discriminate against men.

The author makes a couple of good points. We do need to recognise, for example, that when men are victims of domestic violence they are often ridiculed. Domestic violence laws should ensure all victims are treated with dignity and all offenders are prosecuted to the same extent, regardless of gender. The author, however, draws very simplistic and divisive conclusions about the nature of the men's movement for gender equality.

The author perceives that projects of women's empowerment have been "focusing on the domination of women over men". This is a very simplistic understanding. Projects to empower women are usually based on principles of affirmative action to redress past wrongs and dismantle institutionalised discrimination, not to subordinate men. His fears that "men [are] being oppressed by new hierarchical structures" and that "the scales have turned in favour of women" are totally unfounded.

The opinions expressed in this article are very divisive. The discourse is all about us (the men) and them (the women), not about equality, which is the true goal of the men's movement. The author pitches the "masculinist" movement in opposition to the feminist movement. Feminism is a highly political project to free women from the discrimination and injustice they face as a result of patriarchal power structures. The aim of the movement the author describes here is to push women back into traditional sex-roles where they can be no threat to men's power and privilege.

It really does seem that misunderstanding is gaining momentum!

Putting Men's Health Magazine under the microscope

Men's Health is a monthly magazine that is dubbed "the magazine men live by". Unlike other magazines for men, such as Ralph, which targets a much younger audience and blatantly peddles porn, Men’s Health magazine is supposed to be for a more mature audience (about 20 – 40 years of age) and purports to give men good advice about fitness, health, grooming, sex and relationships. Is it, however, just a wolf in sheep’s clothing? Does it promote androcentrism and encourage misogyny? The magazine certainly deserves a broader critique about how it portrays men, women and relationships. I’ll address that in a future blog. Today, however, I refer to an article from the magazine’s Australian website entitled “Is she the one?” It’s an article that is supposed to help a man decide whether to “keep” his “girl” or not.

The first thing you will notice when you open the article is the image of a lingerie-clad woman laying on the stage of a microscope. This image conveys a very unhealthy message that women should submit themselves to be evaluated by men like a passive specimen in a science experiment and should have no right to reciprocate by putting men under the lens.

This message is reinforced by the subheading “put your girl under the MH relationship microscope to find out if she’s a keeper or not.”

In sport fishing parlance, “keeper” is a term used by people to exclaim that they have caught a good fish (see video left). The derogatory meaning this confers on women is obvious, but it also shows disregard for women’s agency by helping to reinforce the common notion that men should hold the power to make all the decisions in relationships.

The article begins by explaining why it is, supposedly, so important to study “your girl” to see if she is a “keeper”. It explains that the “cost of marrying the wrong partner is way more than just replacing half your CD collection.” That is why every MH reader must “figure out whether [he] should put a ring on her finger.” Is any comment required?

At the heart of this article is the issue of character. In this case, the article outlines four (negative) character traits that men should look out for in their “girl” – being self-centred, impatient, fatalistic and unloving. The focus on negative character traits, rather than their positive opposites (i.e. service, patience, openness to change and being loving), gives the article a misogynistic tone. What it fails to mention is that strength of character is an endangered quality in our society, but not only among women! Both men and women should critically assess themselves to see what aspects of their character and behaviour they can improve.

In the body of the article, it explains “While you don’t expect to be waited on hand and foot, studies conducted by the University of Texas found her generosity of spirit is directly responsible for your happiness.” (Emphasis theirs). This is in the context of a paragraph with a subheading “Is she self-centred?” – ironic isn’t it?

“Does she have patience?” if not, the article explains, “once the honeymoon period is over and she sees the ‘real you’… …she’ll be out the door”. Here, the article places all the blame on the wife for wanting to end the relationship due to her (supposed) poor character (i.e. lack of patience). On the other hand, it seems that men have tacit approval to ignore flaws in their own character and simply expect their wife to be patient with them.

In conclusion, there is no doubt that the positive opposites of the character traits outlined in this article (service, patience, openness to change and being loving) are excellent qualities that everyone should strive to develop. This article is, however, an epic fail. It objectifies women and emphasises negative character traits, while virtually ignoring the possibility of men having flaws in their own character. It sends the implicit message that men are masters with the power to make or break their relationships with women.

Perhaps it’s time that Men’s Health magazine put itself under the microscope and examine its own flaws before giving men any more relationship advice.

2D men in 3D space

‘Avatar’ is Screenwriter and Director James Cameron’s latest movie. Since its release, Avatar has become the fastest movie on record to achieve more than US$1 Billion in ticket sales at the box office.

There is no doubt that Avatar is technically brilliant. The cinematography and CGI is absolutely stunning. Cameron has constructed a world that is both surreal and utterly convincing (see the film’s preview below). The use of 3D projection technology gives the viewer a sense of being immersed in the movie. It imbues a life and depth to the fictional planet of Pandora that would be unimaginable on a 2D canvas. The purpose of this article is, however, to look beyond the special effects to see how Cameron addressed some key themes, particularly the nature of men, power and violence.



The movie’s subtext contains clear political statements about globalisation, corporate greed, international relations policy between powerful and dependent nations and human relationship to the environment. Cameron’s allegiance to left-wing ideology is clearly evident, as is his adherence to ecofeminist principles. We can see this in the way he contrasts the brutality of the humans on Pandora with the harmonious relationship between the Na’vi (the indigenous inhabitants of Pandora) and their environment. Given his ideological stance, one would have expected Cameron to present a progressive image of men, power and violence. It seems he tried but, in the end, Cameron trotted out the same tired image of the white male hero (Jake Sully) leading his troops to war against a backdrop of patriarchy and sex role stereotypes.

New species, same patriarchal social patterns
Central to Avatar’s plot are the Na’vi. The Na’vi are humanoid beings who maintain a symbiotic relationship with the plants and animals in their environment. Given their harmonious relationship with nature, we could expect hegemonic power structures to be absent from the Na’vi’s society as well. It seems, however, that Cameron has unconsciously constructed a highly patriarchal society.

The leader of the Na’vi, Eytukan, is a masculine and authoritative figure. His wife, Mo’at, is the spiritual leader of the tribe and is portrayed as being sensitive and caring. Their daughter, Neytiri, falls in love with Jake after she is given the role of teaching and caring for him. Tsu’tey, Neytiri’s betrothed and Jake’s chief rival among the Na’vi, is portrayed as a powerful figure who uses his physical strength and fighting prowess to maintain his warrior status in the tribe. Thus, in the Na’vi, we see an almost subliminal reflection of western patriarchal norms and sex roles, where men use force to maintain positions of power and the women take on caring and nurturing roles.

To be fair, it should be noted that Cameron did make some attempts to challenge sex role stereotypes in the film. Neytiri’s elevated status in the tribe, for example, seemed to be partly because of her skills as a hunter and warrior. This is in itself problematic, however, because it presents a normative construction of social organisation based on hierarchy in which those who demonstrate dominant masculine traits have power over others who don’t.

Colonialism and masculinity
As in many other Hollywood movies, Cameron presents an overt colonialist image of Jake Sully, the white man, leading the indigenous people to victory in a battle against their oppressors. This is unfortunate. Couldn’t the Na’vi have found a third way, through diplomacy or other means of peaceful resistance, to reason with their oppressors without outside interference? This was not explored – resistance through violent battle was the first and only solution offered by Jake. But, how did Jake come to be leading the Na’vi in the first place? This is interesting when we analyse it through a lens of gender and power.

In the beginning of the film, Jake is portrayed as a disempowered man. We learn that his twin brother was a top scientist, while Jake was, in his family’s view, a lowly marine. As a marine, Jake was injured in battle and confined to a wheelchair. It is clear that he desperately wants to be able to walk again, but he cannot afford the operation. When Jake first encountered the Na’vi, they considered him to be powerless in their society too, because he could not fight or hunt.

Throughout the movie, Jake is in constant conflict with Tsu’tey the hunter/warrior who is betrothed to Jake’s lover Neytiri and expected to be the next chief of the Na’vi tribe. At one point, their conflict results in physical combat. Jake is defeated. When the humans attack the Na’vi, Jake is further ostracised by the tribe. From this powerless position, however, he soon rose to become leader of the Na’vi.

Jake realised that, in order to be powerful among the Na’vi, he would have to make an extreme display of masculinity that would grant him mythical status and power. Jake knew that, according to the Na’vi, a powerful leader would arise in times of trouble, and that leader would be recognised because he could ride a Toruk, the most fearsome of flying beasts. “The way I had it figured, Toruk is the baddest cat in the sky. Nothing attacks him.” Jake explained. Jake took an extreme risk to capture the Toruk, which gave him immediate power over the tribe, including Tsu’tey, his rival. After that, it was easy for Jake, the white man, to convince the indigenous tribe to go into battle against the other humans.

Conclusion
While Cameron makes a lot of positive political statements about oppression and resistance in political, environmental and social spheres, he was probably less conscious about addressing issues of gender and power and thus, presented no challenge to the patriarchal norms evident in many societies.

I believe Cameron missed an opportunity to portray the Na’vi as a race that has an egalitarian relationship, not only with nature, but also with each other. Rather, he constructed a tribe with a strong social hierarchy based on patriarchy and power. Through various scenes, Cameron reinforced and affirmed the role of competition and overt displays of masculinity in gaining and maintaining power in society.

Cameron also played on our love of violence as entertainment. When we go to the movies, we have been conditioned to expect that problems will be solved with a violent solution. As movie goers, would we have been satisfied if Avatar was a story about the Na’vi and humans seeking a diplomatic solution to their problem? Would we have preferred Jake and Tsu’tey to sit down and discuss their conflict rather than resort to physical combat? Unfortunately, most people would answer “no” to these questions- what does this teach us about the nature of men and their love of violence?

In the end, Cameron created a wonderful, immersive fantasy world in 3D, but unfortunately, the image he constructed of men and masculinities was lacking in real depth and decidedly 2D.

References and Further Reading
Cameron, J. 2007, 'Avatar', available[online]:http://www.foxscreenings.com/media/pdf/JamesCameronAVATAR.pdf, accessed:16/01/2010.

Fox, 2009, 'Avatar Official Movie Website', available[online]:http://www.avatarmovie.com/index.html, accessed:16/01/2010.