“I did it all myself”: on myopia and anti-feminist young women

From October 2005.

Tuesday night, my wife and I were in the Apple store in Old Town Pasadena, picking up iPod accessories. When I handed my credit card over to the young woman behind the counter, she read my name and said “Hey, you teach at PCC.” I admitted that it was so, and we chatted as she rang up the purchase. Jokingly, I asked her why she hadn’t taken any of my courses. I mentioned my courses in Western Civ, as well as Women’s History. As soon as I mentioned the latter class, the gal remarked “Well, I’d never take a class like that. I’m not a feminist. I’m all about being a homemaker, and I don’t like sitting around listening to a bunch of women complain about how unfair the world is.” We had a movie to catch, and I almost never argue with folks in public, so when I heard this, I just smiled my most indulgent smile and said “Well, if you take my class, you might be surprised”, and I left it at that.

But I’ve been thinking about that encounter ever since. I’ve heard similar things from many young women. Curiously, I’ve found that some of the most virulently anti-feminist young women are also assertive and bright. They have plans to transfer to elite universities and colleges, and while some — like the woman in the Apple store — aspire to be homemakers sooner rather than later, others are quite clear that they wish to have careers and public lives. They either don’t connect their freedom to pursue education and career with feminist history at all, or they pay grudging respect to the struggles of previous generations of activists, but persist in saying that in the twenty-first century, feminism is no longer necessary.

I don’t keep good track of my own posts, but I know I’ve mentioned this at least once before: I think most of the anti-feminist rhetoric we hear from certain young women today is tied up with a profound sense that to be a feminist is to embrace victim language. Somehow, someway, some young women have been given the false impression that feminism over-emphasizes women’s powerlessness and suffering. The last thing many young women want is to think of themselves as victims, particularly when our popular culture promotes the ideal of the “hip, together woman” who can handle herself and “doesn’t let adversity slow her down.”

On the one hand, I’m not fond of “victim language” either. Actually, I don’t know many authentic feminist scholars and instructors who are intent on convincing young women that they are being victimized by the big bad patriarchy. Most of us are far more interested in giving young women the tools with which to change their lives — and the lives of other women around the globe — than we are in reinforcing resentments or inculcating bitterness. Yes, I want the young men and women with whom I work to get angry. Yes, I want them to look honestly at the ways in which our society still discriminates against and exploits women. But I don’t want to leave them stuck in anger or in fatalistic surrender to the inevitable. The way to approach the notion of women as victims is not to ignore or deny the reality of women’s suffering (which anti-feminists do), but instead to (oh, over-used verb alert) empower young women to take tangible but vital steps towards taking responsibility for changing their lives and the lives of their sisters.

As in AA, the first step is admitting that a problem — in this case, rampant and enduring sex-discrimination — still exists. But acknowledging the problem is the first step towards transformation. The tragedy is that contemporary rhetoric has created the idea for young women that to be a feminist is to be “stuck” in bitterness and resentment, to be constantly aware of one’s victimization. It’s not a pleasant picture the anti-feminists paint, and it is disturbingly effective at scaring off countless young women and men who really do need to confront the reality of local and global injustice against women.

The other aspect of this anti-feminism I encounter among my students is a disturbing refusal to see any sense of responsibility for and towards other women. Not all anti-feminist young women are selfish. But I have to admit that more than a few of the brighter ones, are alas, going through that depressing stage where they think the Fountainhead is the greatest book ever written, and Ayn Rand has become — at least temporarily — their hero. (Thankfully, they usually grow out of it. Lots of young men and women become captivated by the radical self-centeredness of objectivism in their teens and early twenties; most abandon it once they learn what it is to truly love another human being unconditionally.) Young women like this flatter themselves into believing that sexism is just an excuse used by unhappy and unsuccessful women to explain their failures; the Rand devotees insist, with an almost heartbreaking naivete, that in the modern world any young woman can succeed at anything she wants if she tries hard enough, and she can do so by herself. Women’s failure to achieve happiness, they defiantly declare, is due to individual shortcomings only, and not to broader social problems. Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Making the decision: more on men, women, and waiting to be struck by certainty (reprint)

From July 2008.

A former student of mine, “Ruth”, writes in:

When you are dating someone and want to “take it to the next
level” and be in a commited relationship and the other person claims to
not be “ready right now,” but yet still wants you in their life
romantically, is it wiser to assume that the person is simply “not that
into you” and move on? It’s a loaded question, I know. But my take on
it is that, when you feel strongly enough for someone the question of whether
or not you are “ready” goes out the window. Other people have told
me, it’s not so black and white, that you can have deep feelings for
someone and the timing can be off to where it’s just not the “right
time.” Others argue, that everyone is different and for some people it
takes a little more time to make the call as to whether or not they want to put
forth the energy into actually being in a relationship with someone. Is giving
another person time so bad? I mean, when there is nothing to lose? In the
initial stages of courtship, isn’t one person more engaged in it then the
other?

Ruth has been seeing this lad since October of last year, and describes the attraction between the two of them as deep, strong, and multi-faceted. But Ruth is readier for an enduring commitment than he is, and wants to know if “waiting it out” is wise.

A reluctance to commit to a monogamous relationship can, of course, stem from many factors. One plausible explanation is, indeed, that he (or, in some instances, she) is “just not that into you.” But that’s not, in my experience, the most common explanation for a refusal to pledge monogamy or to move towards whatever the “next level” of commitment may be.

As I’ve written before, we live in a culture where young men are encouraged to “wait to be struck by certainty.” In other words, we discourage men in particular from making any enduring commitments until they are “absolutely sure” that they are doing the right thing. Because even now, we push romantic myths much more strongly onto our daughters, young women are, generally speaking, more likely to believe that they are “sure” sooner than the men they’re dating. What we forget is a simple truism: certainty is rarely a predicate to action, but rather a consequence. Put simply, we frequently only become certain about a relationship as a result of making the commitment. If we wait for certainty as a condition for making a commitment, we may wait in vain. (I’ve got a book proposal out there that makes this point in considerably more detail.) Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Links from France

I’m on a tour through the south of France with the good folks at Words and Wine. (I’m very interested in talking about the former with others who write; my wife is more interested in the latter). We’re in the lovely southern tip of the Ardeche at the moment, in Bourg Saint Andeol. Heading back up to Paris Friday afternoon, and home to Los Angeles on Sunday.

Tracy asked me in the comments below my previous post to recommend other blogs. There are the big feminist ones, of course, like Feministe and Feministing, both of which remain vital centres of contemporary feminist thought. But here are three you’re probably not yet reading, but ought to be:

Figleaf’s Real Adult Sex Occasionally not safe for work, but excellent commentary on masculinity and sexuality from a feminist ally.

Lynn Gazis Sax’s Noli Irritare Leones, with a dazzling variety of posts on everything from Greek finance to reproductive rights. Lynn writes beautiful, lengthy, reflective posts, and has been one of my most consistent and welcome commenters over the years.

Violet Socks’ Reclusive Leftist is radical, funny, and when not spot on, wrong in the most interesting ways.

I’ll have more suggestions as the summer rolls along, and an original post or two soon.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Girlfriends, Boyfriends, Feminism: a Response to Gwynn (reprinted)

From April 2008.

A reader named Gwynn writes:

I’ve been thinking about you recently as my boyfriend and I have been talking about feminism.

He’s 25, I’m 34, but this is not about our age difference per se. A bit before we started dating, I told him I was a feminist, and he took the kind of not-uncommon position something like “well as long as you’re not mad at me personally…” But when we spoke further, I found him very receptive to feminist ideas. He was simply clueless, which isn’t uncommon in either sex, I suppose.

I gave him a bunch of links to read (from this blog and elsewhere).

So everything was great and I’ve been calling him a feminist. But lately he’s admitted he’s not comfortable calling himself a feminist because of his lack of actual education about it, and because he’s afraid someone like his sister or mom will argue with him if he uses that title. And also, feminist stuff is starting to seriously stress him out and sometimes when it comes up, it makes him really miserable, partly from a generic perspective (“the world is really fucked up!”) and partly selfishly.

The way I can approach sympathy for his position is as a white person. Racism is an issue where I’m in the oppressive majority, so I can understand the discomfort that comes with that position. Otherwise I’d probably get truly irritated when he says things like “I just don’t like having so much anger directed at me that I don’t deserve,” etc. I talk him through this stuff as best I’m able.

He’s also freaked out around ideas like “what can I personally do about misogyny?” and “seriously, I can never use the word ‘bitch’ again?” and “do men really have a vested interest in keeping women down?” and “but how does patriarchy benefit me personally?”

I’m not a gatekeeper of feminism. I’m a student of it, like most people. I don’t want to be his feminist authority.

I’m pretty good at answering the questions and challenging him. We had, for instance, a whole discussion in which I convinced him that the position that all heterosexual sex is rape is, while (IMO) wrong, not actually ridiculous. He’s open to everything that I say. He agrees that gender stuff is fucked up. (Of course, he’s especially receptive to arguments about how patriarchy hurts men, but I’m fine with that. I hate how patriarchy hurts men too, and as long as you’re not using that as a way of saying “so shut up, bitches, at least you don’t have to do dangerous jobs”, I’m totally cool with discussing it.)

I wish he had a male feminist mentor of some kind, but I don’t see that happening. I wish he was more well read about it, but he’s been reading “The Republic” for about the past year, which indicates how much time he spends with books and how slow he is at it.

I guess my sort of general question is, without doing all of his work for him, or letting him off the hook, how does a girlfriend help a boyfriend with feminism?

One of the problems in any age-disparate relationship — particularly when the older partner is committed to a spiritual or political ideal about which the younger knows little — is that a kind of complicated mentoring relationship can develop. The younger partner, so often infatuated with the older, can easily associate their new love’s beliefs with the new love himself or herself. In other words, the interest in feminism could (and in Gwynn’s boyfriend’s case, I don’t know for sure) become inextricably linked with Gwynn, and his receptivity to feminism thus rises and falls with the status of the relationhip. That’s always problematic.

But there are two basic issues here: how to get young men to understand — and embrace — feminism, and how can a romantic partner help in that process, if at all? Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Summer

For the first time in seventeen years, I’m not teaching summer school. From 1994-2009, each summer found me in the classroom, lecturing away; this year, I’m taking a break. We’re going to be doing some traveling, and I’m going to spend some good time with my wife, daughter, and extended family.

I’m also heavily involved with a writing project about which I can’t yet say much publicly, but which will keep me very busy this summer.

Posting will be quite light until the start of the fall semester on August 30. An occasional new post will appear, as will some reprints. I will do my best (when I have internet access) to moderate comment threads.

As always, I’m so grateful for my readers. For six and a half years, this blog has brought me a great deal of joy. I’m thankful for all the comments and emails I’ve received over the years; you’ve made me a better writer and a better man by relentlessly challenging me to reflect and reevaluate. I’ve adored blogging, and intend to continue. But the fresh updates will be infrequent until the end of August.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

The “frigid”/”slut” dichotomy, the myth of male weakness, and the drive to shape women’s desires

In response to yesterday’s reprint, I got an email from Joni.

…every time I run across this idea that (most) boys/men just want sex I’m reminded of just how destructive that myth has been to MY self esteem as a woman. When I was growing up (I’m 36) I was told over and over and over again about how “boys only want one thing”. I gave the boys I knew more credit, but not much more, if I’m honest about it. I knew that there was more to them and to their emotional lives, but on a certain level I still deeply believed that boys really just wanted sex, when it comes right down to it. I also believed that they pretty much wanted it all the time.

Imagine my surprise when I made it out of the supercharged teen years and the boys I was dating didn’t want sex as much as I did. To this day I’m not sure if my sex drive is unusually high, but it’s certainly higher than that of any man I’ve ever dated. Or at least, that’s what I tell myself now. But really, on some level, I take it personally. I believe, deep down, that the reason the men I date don’t want to have sex with me as often as I want to have sex with them is that I am unattractive in some way. I’m not a waif, so I already have society telling me I’m too fat, even though I know that’s not really true. (I could lose a few pounds, but really, not a lot.) I’m not exceptionally beautiful, but I think I’m pretty. But regardless, when my boyfriend doesn’t want sex when I do, it’s hard for me to give him the credit he deserves and give myself the credit I deserve, and recognize that he may just not be in the mood, or want to do something else, and it’s not a negative reflection on me.

Joni’s poignant message raised one of the sad corollaries to our myths about male hyper-sexuality. If a woman, like Joni, finds herself in a heterosexual relationship in which she is consistently the higher desire partner, the myth suggests that she must be fundamentally undesirable. A man whose female partner has a lower sexual drive can comfort himself with the reassurance that this is natural; his girlfriend’s lesser libido is not an affront to his masculinity. She wants sex less not because he’s not handsome or sufficiently masculine, but because she’s a woman. Women like Joni don’t have that source of reassurance; the myth of uncontrollable male desire suggests that a woman’s naked (or even partly disrobed) body ought to drive a boyfriend or a husband wild — every damn time. If it doesn’t, then the fault is with her. And if she lusts for her guy more than he lusts for her, then she’s an unfeminine slut.

We live in a culture, as feminists point out over and over again, that expects women to be sexy but not sexual. Women’s sexiness has a function; we are taught that in a world in which men have barely controllable libidos, desirability is female currency. “Men will do anything to have it”, we are all told, and a great many women believe it. In a world where women are systematically disempowered in countless respects, they are reassured that their status as objects of desire grants them leverage in their relations with men. Of course, that leverage is contingent on an assumption about the male inability to exercise self-control. In a world where men are expected to have sexual self-control, women’s desirability loses its allure as a bargaining chip. If sexiness had less potential value, then women would be encouraged to develop other skills — and might well begin to make more insistent demands for equal treatment.

Social conservatives — the sort who believe in traditional gender roles — need the myth of male weakness as the foundation of their worldview. Over and over again, they remind women that “feminine power” is the power to direct and manipulate fathers, husbands, and sons. The myth of male weakness suggests that men lack the verbal skills, the sexual self-control, or the wily intuition that women naturally possess. Women, the traditionalists insist, are fools to compete with men directly. Rather, a clever woman gets what she wants through her beauty, her charm, her nurturing instincts. Of course, the moment we start to believe that men are no more pliable than women, the whole house of cards collapses. Continue reading

Thursday Short Poem: Pastan’s “Traveling Light”

The Thursday Short Poem will be on hiatus for the summer months, returning in September. (Click the poetry archive to read hundreds of TSPs going back to 2004, including many of my most favorite pieces of verse.) This Linda Pastan poem appears in the Spring 2010 edition of Ploughshares. It is fitting for the beginning of another hiatus.

Traveling Light

I’m only leaving you
for a handful of days,
but it feels as though
I’ll be gone forever—
the way the door closes

behind me with such solidity,
the way my suitcase
carries everything
I’d need for an eternity
of traveling light.

I’ve left my hotel number
on your desk, instructions
about the dog
and heating dinner. But
like the weather front

they warn is on its
way with its switchblades
of wind and ice,
our lives have minds
of their own

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

“I’m not like the others”: nice guys, self-flattery, and the myth of uniqueness (reprinted)

From February 2008.

Following up on yesterday’s post on teenage boys and love, Amy comments below my post:

Guys who accepted the “emotional aspects of their identity” also often still accepted the myth that most guys only want sex and nothing else. As a result, they’d believe they were special and uniquely able to be the emotional guy that they were taught every girl wanted. They saw it as their advantage in the dating scene.

Is this where we ask for the show of hands? How many lads have ever said to a woman in whom they were interested, “You know, I’m really not like other guys”? How many women have had that line laid on them a time or ten?

Amy’s on to something important. The SUNY Oswego study makes clear that most adolescent males aren’t nearly as sex-crazed as we popularly imagine. The study provides welcome reinforcement to the notion that boys as well as girls are interested in love, romance, and relationship. But of course, the conclusion is counter to what our culture teaches us about masculinity. And among the many victims of the discourse about what a man is — and isn’t — are boys themselves.

It is axiomatic that in American adolescent culture, it is dangerous for boys to be too open about their feelings and emotions. The fear of being labelled a “faggot” or a “pussy” is as prevalent for today’s young men as it was in their fathers’ and grandfathers’ generation. (A point ably demonstrated by C.J. Pascoe in her magisterial “Dude, You’re a Fag”.) As a consequence, those boys who don’t feel as if they live up to (or down to) the masculine stereotype may well begin to imagine that they are unique. Continue reading

16 is not 16 is not 16: of adolescence, different rates of maturation, and Abby Sunderland

There’s been much talk this week about the adventures of Abby Sunderland, the Southern California 16 year-old whose attempt to sail solo around the world ended when her boat lost its mast in the Indian Ocean last Thursday. For several hours, there was fear — much of it hyped by the media — that Abby was “lost at sea”. The story is on its way to a happy ending, as Abby is now on a fishing boat headed for Madagascar, and, eventually, home to her family.

The debate, of course, is whether her parents ought to have allowed her to make this journey. (Her brother had undertaken a similar adventure a few years ago when he was just a little bit older than Abby.) That Abby had the technical skill to handle her boat is not in question; what befell her could easily have befallen an experienced sailor thrice her age. But lots of teenagers have the capacities of adults, but are still denied all the freedoms of adulthood. We all know 15 year-olds who know more about politics than their parents, but we don’t let 15 year-olds vote. We know, certainly, that plenty of 17 year-olds are capable of making responsible decisions about alcohol — and that plenty of 27 year-olds aren’t.

It’s not news that our lines of demarcation that separate children from adults are somewhat arbitrary. Whether we draw those lines at 16 (Austrians can vote at that age, which appalls many Americans; Americans can drive at that age, which appalls many Europeans) or 21 (a ridiculously late drinking age in the eyes of many around the world), any sensible person recognizes that some of those beneath the line are capable of handling the responsibilities that at least of some of those above that line are not.

Sensible people, however, recognize that society must draw lines somewhere. (This debate is as old as classical Athens, if not older.) We can’t test every young person to see if they are “ready” to vote, or to drink, or to have sex, in quite the same way that we issue driver’s licenses. And even with driver’s licenses, while turning 16 doesn’t automatically grant the right to have a license (the test must be passed), being under 16 automatically bars a young person from be licensed.

These lines are drawn based upon many things: history, tradition, collective assumptions about risk and maturity. These lines shift based on social trends and evolving beliefs about young people, rights, and responsibility. In the Vietnam era, a growing sense that it was unjust to send 18 year-olds off to die in wars while not permitting them to vote led to the passage of the 26th Amendment; a decade later, anxiety about other risks led to a Reagan-era mandate to raise the national drinking age from 18 to 21. These shifts don’t always make sense; they lead to the obvious silliness that a young soldier can operate a machine gun in combat but can’t buy a beer. That kind of arbitrariness grates. But the alternative to arbitrary line-drawing is far more grating: a kind of intellectual or maturational means testing that would be subject to abuse and overt politicization in a hearbeat.

We have no laws regarding the minimum age to operate sailboats on the high seas. (They are unlikely to come, as they would require an international convention that would end up banning teens from working in the fishing industry.) Abby’s parents broke no laws, but in the minds of many, they broke an unwritten rule about the diligence parents ought to show in protecting their children from harm. As a youth leader and a father, I’m emotionally conflicted about that charge. On the one hand, I can’t imagine being comfortable sending my own child off around the world on a sailboat by herself. But if I’m honest, I know full well that protectiveness won’t vanish when my Heloise turns 18; I’d worry just as much if she were 18 as if she were a few months younger. Lines of demarcation don’t have much effect on the heart. Continue reading

“I’d be more nurturing if I thought it would get me laid”: how the straitjacket of masculinity is reframed as women’s fault

In a comment below last Thursday’s post on the myth of male inflexibility, SamSeaborn wrote:

…mating, at least in the early stages, is dominated by female choice, and women do have a tendency to prefer doers, not feelers as partners. Sure masculinity and feminity are ever-adjusting, but the problem at this point is, it seems to me, that masculinity is squeezed between an expanding concept of feminity (the best man for the job may be the woman) and the reality on the ground that forces most men to compete more intensely for the fewer places in the sun because, put in overly simplified terms, it’s those men most women seem to be interested in. I’m not saying men have no power in sexual negotiations, but those who have tend to be the ones who are in scarce supply, and that’s those who managed to get through the fiercer competition.

Again, I’m all *for* changing that, but I don’t see female CEOs being interested in male kindergarten teachers. This is the crux of the problem, and feminism isn’t really offering any advice.

He got a number of replies, of which La Lubu’s was both typical and cogent:

Where I come from, teaching and nursing do not take a man out of the “wanted pool” it’s the polar opposite. Those are considered decent jobs. Are female CEOs (yeah, there sure are a lot of those) dating those men? No. But are women of the same social class dating and/or marrying them? Hell, yes. People — men and women both — date within their social class. Men of high socioeconomic status might recreationally fuck a woman of lower status, but they sure the hell don’ marry them (or even introduce them to their country-club friends).

Who do you know, in your life, that has rejected a man with a decent paying but below six-figure job because of his earning power? If you don’t have any anecdata, what statistical evidence can you show me that states this? I have never seen that ever. I see the opposite: heterosexual men who hold those jobs that you (as a male) regard as unmasculine, are almost always married. Evidently, women have a different measure of what constitutes masculinity. We don’t really give a hot damn who is King of the Mountain.

The argument that SamSeaborn advances is basically this one: “Men don’t like wearing the straitjacket of masculinity, true. But women want us to. In fact, the only way we get laid is when we engage in stereotypical male behavior. Therefore, it’s women’s fault that we’re suffering from the constraints of manhood, and women have only themselves to blame that they cannot find the male partners they claim to want. If women would only change their sexual decision-making, then men would behave better. But as long as women reward hyper-masculine asshole-dom with sex, then men have no incentive to change.”

I hear this argument frequently from anti-feminists of both sexes.

Stay with me for a second: I’m old enough to have gone to elementary school when they still showed movies in class: proper films, the sort that came on reels. Students fought for the privilege to “thread the projector”, a term that will be meaningless to anyone under thirty. And many of the films I remember best came from Disney’s “True Life Adventures” series. These had been filmed in the 1950s, but they didn’t seem dated in mid-1970s classrooms. I remember film after film exploring the wonder of mating. Everything was G-rated, of course, but the basic idea was obvious: males in the animal kingdom do all that they can to put on impressive displays in order to attract a female. The latter had all the power when it came to sex selection. Reading Sam’s comment, I can’t help but wonder if his sexual worldview owes more to Disney nature films than to 21st century human reality.

I hear from a great many young men the familiar complaint that “girls just want bad boys”. There are lots of reasons why we socialize young women to want disaffected, hostile, and brooding young men. Mostly it has to do with the “my love can change him” notion I wrote about in this post. It’s a phenomenon of the very young, however; relatively few adult women continue to buy into the delusion that they have the capacity to love a violent and unreliable man into compassionate responsibility. The point is, a great many young men oversell the “good girls only want bad boys” trope because they sense the obvious benefit: if they then themselves mistreat women, they are not doing it out of any defect in their natures, but out of a rational strategy for improving their mating odds. It is women themselves who have made these rules, these boys and young men say (often with sincerity); we fellas just have to adapt as best we can. It’s yet another corollary to the myth of male weakness: bad male behavior gets cunningly reframed as an evolutionary adaptation demanded by women, and the blame for everything falls nicely once again on the shoulders and hearts and libidos of the be-uterused.

Sam is talking about the grown-up version of this. In a world which is still in some sense a jungle, he argues, even the most well-educated and successful woman wants a man who can take care of her. This may be more likely to mean “make lots of money” than “beat up creepers who ogle me”, but it’s still the lament that women’s hearts and sex drives don’t really match up with feminist politics. Though all of the evidence suggests that more men don’t seek out nurturing professions because of a combination of socialization and fear of ridicule by other men, many anti-feminists suggest that women’s refusal to take male nurses or kindergarten teachers seriously as potential mates is the primary force driving men away. When real-life women like La Lubu and Mythago and the others in the comment thread suggest that this is just so much pap, their experiences and desires are dismissed as anecdotes that are entirely unrepresentative of the mass of “real women” about whom the likes of SamS apparently know so much.

It is axiomatic that heterosexual men and women regularly misunderstand what the other sex wants. These misunderstandings are reinforced by a media that hypes absurd caricatures of masculinity and femininity, leading young boys to imagine that without an eight-pack on their tummies, they are destined for lonely celibacy — and leading girls to believe that all young men insist on being partnered with those who have bodies like Khloe Kardashian’s. These misperceptions are excusable in adolescents, less so in adults a decade or two (or three, or four) removed from puberty. Too many men and women assume that their acquaintances of the other sex are lying when they say things that deviate from culturally-imposed expectations. So when a man hears a woman say, “No, I really do want a partner who will be an equal rather than a non-communicative workaholic”, he may tell himself, “Bullshit. She’s just saying that. I know what women really want.” This “knowledge” is often rooted in random anecdote, or his own imagination, or some slick purveyor of misogyny masquerading as common sense like Tom Leykis or Laura Schlessinger. (To be fair, many women have a hard time believing that male weakness really is a myth rather than a biological reality. When a man says to his partner, “Honey, I only want you”, she may have been so conditioned to believe in the impossibility of male fidelity that she too thinks her own quiet “bullshit.”)

To the extent that men really are being “left behind” in the new economic and educational paradigm, it is because of the inability of so many men to slip the surly bonds of traditional masculinity. The problem isn’t female teachers who “don’t understand boys”, the problem isn’t “feminism”, and the problem isn’t the imagined disconnect between heterosexual women’s politics and their libidos. The problem is a hopelessly constrained vision of what it means to be a man, a vision largely created and maintained and passed on by men. Fathers and brothers and peers; rappers and ballers and professional pugilists; these are the all-too-faithful perpetuators of the myth that women will only accept “sturdy oaks” who “give ‘em hell” and never, ever, display grief or vulnerability.

Individual men suffer from what is, in the end, a collective masculine crime; we are, to paraphrase an old AA saying, the architects of our own adversity. The relentless attempt to shift the blame to women’s irrationality or inconsistency cannot long obscure that hard and heartbreaking truth.