A cornerstone of feminist theory is that men have power and women don't. But when we look at men's rights publications, we see a great emphasis on the powerlessness of men. How can both men and women be powerless, seeing the other gender as having the power? How can we put these two diametrically opposite viewpoints together?
Even given the status of women in our and other societies, some women undeniably have more power than some men. Rich women have more power than poor men. American women usually have more power at their disposal than Third World men. But feminists point out that almost every woman has a closely associated man who is more powerful than she, often her husband, boss, father or other authority figure. Also, she is vulnerable at almost anytime to men who may attack her sexually or physically. In this view, any power a woman might have is ultimately meaningless.
But men can say the same thing. There is almost always someone -- male or female -- with more power closely associated with any individual male. And men can also be assaulted, and are assaulted far more than women, often by members of their own family.
There is increasing evidence that although males may not consciously feel abused, they do react to abusive experiences. Men are more likely than women, for example, to end up in prisons and other institutions, or to commit suicide, be alcoholic and use drugs, or be violent and abusive themselves. These may be reactions to the abuse that many men experience as a part of being male. But we seldom acknowledge, validate or record men's experiences. Why?
Women tend to respond to their experiences by going to therapists who record and verify abuse. Men's responses, on the other hand, get them sent to institutions, like jail, that record their undesirable behavior where, rather than shift responsibility to potentially abusive others in their world, males are encouraged to take responsibility for their own behaviors.
The traditional male role requires an active response to the world, whereas the traditional female role values passivity and obedience. This translates out to responsibility being laid on men rather than women.
Feminists emphasize the victimization of women as explanation, ignoring the far greater male victimization that exists. Feminists emphasize male violence to underline the insidiousness when someone close is an abuser, while ignoring instances of female violence. Feminists point out that women are trained to accept a powerless role by society, implying that they have little choice, but males are also trained to their role by society, yet feminists demand that males change their behavior when such behavior hurts or inconveniences women.
Women are trained to deal with one another's viciousness, so feel they can handle other women who wish them ill, but are vulnerable to men, when men use the physical violence which men are trained to deal with. Women are also increasingly afraid of potential male violence, and feminist literature on battering and rape imply that all men are capable of such acts at any time and are, therefore, dangerous. When men claim higher rates of violent victimization, women feel that male-male violence does not count. This may come from pure bigotry, but it is a real attitude.
When one compares female-male violence to male-female violence, statistics as gathered show the latter is much greater than the former. Additionally, when a woman is undeniably abusive, feminists often search her surroundings or her past until they find a male to blame it on. For instance, an abusive mother was abused by her father, so it is his fault. Or when a woman kills her abusive spouse, his violence justifies hers.
So there are various mechanisms available to justify women's sense of powerlessness. Even when men parallel these arguments, claiming equal powerlessness, women continue to feel less powerful than men. And there is no doubt that men as a whole don't feel the same, even when their world might justify greater concern. Why is that?
If one is trained to fix or solve problems, a situation of powerlessness is simply another problem to be tackled: "I feel powerless and don't like it. How can I get power?" If one is not trained to look for solutions, or feels incapable of utilizing possible solutions or feels there are no solutions, then a problem situation cannot be easily resolved. For instance, math anxiety is a pervasive sense that one cannot do math no matter how much effort is expended. If a woman believes that she could never win in a physical fight with a man, and further that fighting is likely to just make things worse, then she is trapped by her own attitudes. One is then at the mercy of whatever happens.
Few men are as capable as they could be, but all men are encouraged to want to be Rambo, John Wayne, Schwartzenegger or some other capable man. That is why movies about heroes are so popular and why such stories have been popular ever since Ulysses. By the same token, women are encouraged to wish to be taken care of, supported and protected. A walk through the romance novel section of any bookstore shows the power of this myth, even today.
So, even when men don't do well with a problem, we know they overestimate their level of performance. And they try to do better. But even when women do well with a problem, they feel they could have done better and underestimate their own performance. And they give up any idea of being able to master the situation.
So we can say that the problem is not the powerlessness of women, but women's lack of task-orientation. Feminism has been directed toward giving women a sense of being able to control and be effective in their world. Women's self-defense programs teach women that they can be victorious in a fight. Women's sports teach women to use their bodies effectively. When the women's fitness movement started in the late 70's, women moved into a new way of viewing themselves. As women learn such skills, they tend to drop away from current feminism, which continues to preach feminine powerlessness long after the term has lost its meaning for most women. We need to then ask whether a mere attitude change can solve women's problems, or is something more needed?
One professor at the University of Washington School of Social Work developed the concept of the "possible self." If a person does not feel that a behavior is possible for them, then they are very unlikely to attempt to develop it. Early feminism implied to women that they could do anything they wished. Current feminism, however, seems bent on proving that women are somehow inherently handicapped and perpetual potential victims, with no possibility of changing that status. An emphasis on victimization of women -- what John Leo calls the "Politics of Victimization" -- that may help to protect women, but also defines women as somehow weak. No matter how much one sympathizes with Anita Hill, for example, anyone thinking of hiring her has to think that she has a lot of passivity because she stayed with what she considered to be an abusive situation for so long. If feminists succeed in defining women as unable to speak out or deal with certain situations, unable to defend themselves, inherently less capable than men of dealing with some tasks, then why should employers think women should be given the same considerations as men for positions of responsibility and authority? I think some women need help, but not all women.
Men and women can learn from the other. We both have solutions to problems that work. Men may be more task and group oriented, but women deal with people on a personal level from an early age. From Blake and Moulton's The Managerial Grid, we know that the most effective managers are those who are both person and task oriented. They have integrated traditional male and female strengths into their managerial style. We also know that fathers typically emphasize performance and challenge their children to come up to standards in order to gain their approval, whereas mothers typically love their children just for being themselves. And we know that a parent who can do only one of these will be lacking, particularly if a single parent.
Finally, we know that there is little to be gained from philosophies that say being a male or female is best, and much to be gained from celebrating and learning from our differences.
Paul Shaner is an MSW practicing in Washington state.