Wow. What a response. Who knew this would be my most-read post?
First, an explanation and apology. I wrote this post as a reaction to an article in the Age that got me steamed; in my mind it was another anti-male opinion piece, masquerading as science. You can find the article here. Whether you believe the article is fair or not, it is important to acknowledge that I wrote 'Masculinity' in anger. This is, I believe, one of the main reasons it has received such a negative reaction. Anger distorts your view, makes you say things you wouldn't normally say, colours your judgement and gets you riled up; when you take fire, you often miss your target due to this.
It was never my intention to de-legitimise the objectives of Feminism. Feminism (apart from its gendered name), represents to me a ideology worth pursuing; that we are all truly equal, and that perceptions of gender shouldn't hold us back. It is in the feminist spirit that I wrote this article; the target in my reticule was current-day societal constructions of masculinity, and their effect of limiting men everywhere. Specifically, men who spend all their time living up to what is deemed 'proper' male behaviour, while failing to ask what it is that they really want out of life.
Obviously, I did a terrible job of this. I have hurt and angered a lot of people, and for that I am truly sorry. My use of the 'girly-man' joke was tasteless and reinforced typical constructions of masculinity, as was my depiction of a man getting a facial. What I was attempting to show with these images was a shift in male roles that placed a new importance on physical appearance; one that I believe is dysfunctional for a number of reasons. By all means, if you look good to look good for yourself (as I and most of my friends do), by all means, more power to you. This is what it is about; being able to live your life on your own terms. Unfortunately, my anger blinded me to the way that most normal people would react to these images.
I also realise that my tactlessness could be regarded as homophobic. I realise this is a possibility, as a part of me is attracted to masculinity, and defensive homophobia is rife in our society. However, I am very aware of this, and some of my best friends are gay and queer. The truth is, it is my gay friends that have taught me the most about masculinity. The resolve to reclaim and appropriate a gender identity in a society that is hostile to your existence is awe-inspiring. These people still provide me with inspiration today (lookin at you, Addy, Liam, Rick and Alex), and for that I thank them. I can only ask forgiveness for my insensitivity.
Now, on to the content of the post. While I have removed the post, it is my intention to repost after a heavy edit. I believe that there are fundamental differences between masculine and feminine, and that these differences are more universal than mere social construction. This does NOT mean that I believe that women should conform to feminine and men should conform to masculine. Not at all. I believe that individuals should be whomsoever they want to be. I believe it is normally about balance; I myself strive to achieve a balance of my masculine and feminine traits. These are my beliefs, however, not fact. As was the majority of the blog post.
My blog serves to chart my thoughts and ideas; it is an online personal journal. I invite others to read and give their opinions, which I find develop and refine my own. I love it. I am lucky enough to be surrounded with enough intelligent people that debate is usually fruitful and enjoyable. Constructive criticism is the way that we develop and grow; something I love doing. What happened last night blindsided me a little. I am used to considered and impersonal (but impassioned) debate. What I got instead was a lot of very personal attacks, mixed in with the criticism. I don't really want to dwell on this as just thinking about it makes me very anxious. Last night marked a big regression in my mental health: I had 2 panic attacks, and the anxiety that I thought I was done with returned. I am now seeking help for this. I do not want to point fingers, just communicate with the readers here my emotional state, and to please be mindful of this when responding.
So here's the deal: I'm happy for you to air criticisms here. Keep them respectful and on topic. I will do my best to address them (keep in mind I'm meant to be studying for my law exams now), and hopefully we can gain some mutual understanding. I DO want your contributions for this, as it is important to me not to offend or insult. Hopefully, we can move forward together...cos we are all in this together, right?
xx
Rhys
UPDATE: have just realised the link to the Age article is wrong. Will try to find actual article.
it is interesting that a heartfelt retraction has not elicited any comments, whereas commentry on the previous blog was verging on the rabid.If those who posted in true indignation felt soi strongly that the concepts offered were flawed, where are they now when the author has obviously reflected, if reflection and more complete discourse was their objective.
ReplyDeleteLast friday was white ribbon day , where men swear against violence against women, a noble sentiment surely. It sits in the national framework to end violence against women and children., again , a fine thing.. so in our national discourse, the official line appears to be that violence is the preserve of males. So cruelty, manipulation, slander, financial control as well as physical abuse is only a male phenomenon?.Violence has no relation to social / cultural context, family of origin, drug use , mental health? anyone who works in the social services knows this is a lie. The national discourse has not evolved significantly in thirty years and the Delouth model of men as socially constructed predators with a gendered predisposition to violence, reigns supreme in family policy, the family court and national approaches to the reduction of violence.
This dualistic , us and them, framework would explain the vitriol eudiomatic experienced when he tilted at the holy cow of conventional thought. Something akin to blood-maddened feeding frenzy ensued quickly degenerating to personal attack. As the Nazis felt justified burning jews and gypsies, and the Americans torturing "terrorists', and Australians indefinitely incarcerating "boat people" it doesnt really matterif the behaviour is subhuman because these people are "other", and defined as such by an overt or covert and embedded ideology.
So "males" who are involved un family violence, or relatioship breakdown involving children soon find themselves in a. system where a dominant discourse and embedded ideology prevail, and are subject to the predjudice and institutional bias experienced by any other marginalised group. Police, the court, ex-partners are emboldened to apply generalisations and assumpions that disempower. It is sadly common for seperated fathers to be accussed of sexually assaulting their children, a stated fear of the male without anyproof is enough to ensure a father will have no contact with his children. The burden of proof is reversed. This culturally enabled vitriol damages all involved, especially children.
Ideologies suck. Too easy to turn away from the uncomfortable grey and side with the mass who choose black or white. Realitty is a moving feast no less social/economic reality. Marxism, capatalism, feminism, supply - side economics, any intellectual construct describes yesterdays reality. Constructs must be challenged and not deconstucted as blasphemy and sedition as was demonstrated, shamefully here.
Quoting myself:
ReplyDelete"As soon as an institution asserts a monopoly over truth, it ceases to be an institution (created to serve humanity) and then becomes a structure of domination. The main concern is to indoctrinate all in its 'truth' so that it may grow and embed itself in society. The 'truth' is spread by the 'true believers'; fanatics who will not admit the possibility that their truth may not be absolute."
I try not to monopolise truth, only promote our approximation of it through discussion.
Rhys, I can clearly see that you're an intelligent and forward thinking kind of person, and I understand what you were trying to say with your original post. I don't think what you wrote warranted the outrage that it sparked, because I firmly believe we're all entitled to our own opinions. I don't agree with what you wrote, but from what I can ascertain you and I have fundamental differences in matters like this, and I've always maintained that it's okay for us all to be different and for what we think and feel to vary between us.
ReplyDeleteI hope you're doing better after the setback in your mental health. Good luck with your exams, and keep writing whatever you want to write. There'll always be people who disagree, just hopefully not so full on and viciously.