As many of you know I have a real interest in what feminists think, feel and do. What you probably don't know is that I also have a real interest in what men think, feel and do. After all, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction and in order to get a sense of the middle (or moderate) we need to explore the opposites - men and women, right and left, conservative and liberal, religious and non. I find it all fascinating.

Recently I've been exploring sites by men's groups. Would it surprise anyone that Short Skirts and The Right-Wing Psychology of Men came from these sites? Following the links leads to some pretty interesting reading.

What does it mean that these pieces were posted on men's sites? Would it mean something different if they were posted on a feminist site? These men don't seem pleased with George Gilder, a best-selling right-wing writer (note - right-wing, not feminist), "whose basic premise seems to be that the role of women, besides childbearing and childrearing, is to tame and civilize men"; and who thinks that "in the absence of this influence men remain in destructive, roving, barbarian adolescent bands". This was the first piece I've read that exposed me to the idea that not all the religious right believe women are powerless and/or men are powerful.

One author I was not familiar with is Warren Farrell. I like his writing so far. In the following essay he states: "It was part of our genetic heritage to select men who were killer-protectors. Our genetic future, though, is dependent on selecting men who are nurturer-connectors."

I have to wonder though ... will a society ever be truly safe without the killer-protectors? Can we ever realize a global society where only nurturer-connectors dwell? What should we be teaching our sons?

Our Sons, Our Schools by Warren Farrell

In the last third of the 20th century, feminism freed women and girls from the straight-jacket of stereotyped sex roles. No one did the same for men or boys. This is not women's fault. Women cannot hear what men don't say. But it does have an impact.

Girls used to be minorities in college and graduate school. Now women are almost 60% of full-time graduate students. They are also 54% of full-time undergraduates and almost 70% of part-time undergraduates. In high school, girls are more likely to be in clubs, in student government, on school newspapers, to receive better grades, to be valedictorians and salutatorians, to win scholarships, and to have higher professional aspirations. In contrast, they have fewer discipline problems and drop out less.

This change is occurring for many reasons. Our sons are often being raised only by their mothers, then entering elementary schools with almost all female teachers. Girls have role models. Boys have gangs. Yet our daughters are still being treated like disadvantaged minorities with federal programs like Girl Power focusing millions of dollars on our daughters' special needs-while no program focuses on our sons' special needs.

Nothing tells the story more dramatically than our sons' and daughters' suicide rates. As feminism has helped our daughters get love and respect for being whoever they want to be, our daughters' suicide rate has declined. Meanwhile, our sons' suicide rate has soared. Why? Start with the power of our children's first love. Fortunately, our daughters now have the option to pursue boys and take sexual initiatives. But our sons still have the expectation. If they do it too slowly, they are still called a wimp; but now, if they do it too awkwardly, they are sued for sexual harassment; and if they do it too fast, they are a date rapist.

As feminism has helped our daughters to have more ways to gain love and respect, it has also encouraged sexual harassment and date rape legislation that has given our sons more ways to lose love and respect. And people who feel unloved and disrespected are most vulnerable to suicide. So when our sons and daughters are nine their suicide rate is identical, but by their early twenties, our sons' rate is six times as high.

Feminism helped us become aware of the price of our daughters becoming sex objects, but not the price of our sons becoming success objects. ... our sons did not become successful by expressing who they were, but by repressing who they were.

By focusing only on our daughters, we have identified only the ways our daughters experience low self-esteem and depression. So we catch their experience before it becomes suicide. Boys' experience of depression and low self-esteem is hidden in the cracks. By calling it aggression or delinquency or drinking or drugs, we miss the depression until we stand before his coffin.

The reason boys' experience got hidden in the cracks evolved slowly over the past third of a century. It started with the shadow side of feminism, the belief that since our sons would grow up earning more money, they must have more power, privilege, and attention to their needs. We lost sight of the fact that men had been historically obligated to raise money just as women had been obligated to raise children, and that obligations are not power, but, well, obligations.

We failed to see that women's attention to men's needs was conditional. Few women competed for the man reading I'm OK, You're OK in the unemployment line. It was conditional on his willingness to earn money that a woman would often spend while he died sooner. Therefore, homeless men and gay men did not have women providing for their needs. It was conditional upon men being willing to die in war. Few beautiful princesses married conscientious objectors. Women fell in love with The Officer And The Gentleman, not The Private And The Pacifist.

Feminism helped us become aware of the price of our daughters becoming sex objects, but not the price of our sons becoming success objects. We falsely assumed that our sons' greater preparation for success meant a greater concern for who he was. We missed the fact that our sons did not become successful by expressing who they were, but by repressing who they were. Successful men did not express feelings, they repressed feelings. This is still the norm in most North American high schools. The girls are most likely to fall in love with our son if he is a football player. A football player soon learns that being in touch with his feelings is dysfunctional, that acknowledging his pain leads to him leaving the game. And then the cheerleader would no longer cheer for him. She would cheer for his replaceable part.

Our sons need love and approval too much to look underneath the cheering, that her cheering is not for who he is, but for his willingness to deny his feelings. Our sons are still being taught to receive love by sacrificing their bodies. But instead of calling it child abuse or prostitution, they call it '`becoming a man. Or scholarship potential. Or identity. Few parents protest. Most applaud. Our daughters have entered the Era of the Multi-Option Woman, while our sons are still in the Era of the No-Option Man. Our daughters now have the option to perform, the option to pursue boys, and the option to pay; our sons still have the expectation to perform, pursue, and pay.

Our daughters are still giving their love to men who perform, and watching mothers do the same. Worldwide, two and a half billion of our daughters-as-women are still enough into the fantasy of being swept away that they were glued to Princess Diana's wedding. Few of our sons have castles to offer.

When these fantasies of security become the trauma of divorce, our daughters demonize the men who failed to save them. They join First Wives' Clubs. Their fantasy of being swept away has been swept away. It is difficult for a woman who is rejected to feel a man's feelings. It is easier to label him a jerk. (It hurts less to be rejected by an object than by a human being.) A success object who fails becomes an object of contempt and the focus of the male-bashing that is ubiquitous today.

On a deeper level, our sons' depression and heartaches get lost in the cracks because virtually every society has had an unconscious investment in men protecting us. People who protect us have to be willing to die, not encouraged to be in touch with their feelings. It was part of our genetic heritage to select men who were killer-protectors.

Our genetic future, though, is dependent on selecting men who are nurturer-connectors. This will evolve not from a women's movement blaming men or a men's movement blaming women, but from a gender transition movement helping both sexes to make a transition from following rigid roles to negotiating trade-offs in a multi-option world. For the past third of a century, we have introduced our daughters into a multi-option world. Now it is time to introduce our sons.

Warren Farrell, Ph.D. is the San Diego-based author of Why Men Are The Way They Are and The Myth of Male Power. He is on the boards of many men's and children's organizations. Reach him at 103 North Highway 101, #220, Encinitas, CA 92024

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), July 21, 2001

Answers

Sorry - from the 'Our Sons, Our Schools' link click on fathering to the left, scroll down to the link in blue.

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), July 21, 2001.

Boo fucking hoo.

-- Iron John (iron@john.drum), July 21, 2001.

For heterosexual male support and bonding--The Mankind Project

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), July 21, 2001.

Try again--

Mankind Project

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), July 21, 2001.

A TIME :to be born.a time to die.a time for hate-a time for love. a time for peace,a time for war. but where to get IDENTITY?? WHO DOES [GOD] SAY WE ARE MEN? get your=I.D. from your maker.

-- al-d. (dogs@zianet.com), July 21, 2001.

Al, who does God say we (men) are?

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), July 21, 2001.

We Are Devo {?}

-- flora (***@__._), July 21, 2001.

jocko homo

they tell us that

we lost our tails

evolving up

from little snails

i say it's all

just wind in sails

are we not men?

we are DEVO!

-- (Genesis@awol.com), July 22, 2001.

(clap clap clap @ DEVO)

We Must Repeat!

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), July 23, 2001.