Underlying this belief in the importance of changing other people’s subculture is an argument. For Sarkeesian, it seems that all differences between men and women, or between masculine or feminine identities, are entirely a function of culture, and can only be understood within a paradigm of patriarchy. All I can say is that I disagree. Of course culture matters a lot – but it doesn’t go all the way down. To deny the power of testosterone, or the stark difference it makes in all species on planet earth, can therefore lead you to misread what can and cannot be changed. My view is that there are certain aspects of testosterone that will always make men and male culture different: it’s gonna be inherently more aggressive, more physical, and more sexual in an objectifying way, and more promiscuous. The task of a mature society is not to abolish this difference (which is impossible), but to harness it to more constructive ends.
And so , in advanced Western cultures, we divert male physical aggression and in-group loyalty away from militias and gang warfare toward the spectacle of the NFL or professional wrestling or recreational hunting; we create a culture of sports that can channel a lot of what men want to do in peaceful and socially integrative ways; we allow safe spaces for this kind of culture to exist – and that includes things like violent video games and objectifying porn. And we attempt to offer a model of masculinity that can coopt the pride and ego of a testosteroned will to power into something more gentle. We praise good fathers and diligent husbands.
What a mature society does not seek to do is expunge human nature itself. All such projects backfire, or result in new forms of oppression. And there is a tendency – certainly in Sarkeesian’s work – to problematize maleness itself, to seek to expunge it, to remove all differences between the sexes for the sake of justice and fairness. Her defense will be that she is not attacking men as such – just a “toxic culture of masculinity.” And yet her prose often slips into generalizations that would never be tolerated if used against another group; and it’s hard to see what characteristics of maleness she believes are innate or at least unchangeable.
What worries me in this new era of “checking your privilege” is that men may be punished merely for being men. When liberals actually defend the conviction of the innocent in a murky world of “affirmative consent” pour décourager les autres, you see exactly where this can lead. And my concern is not just that it will not work, but that it may well provoke a backlash that compounds the problem. And that backlash, in turn, will only encourage well-intentioned people to double down on the project.
My initial reaction to this was a little exasperation, but as a novelty, decided to maybe try and see where he's coming from. I think maybe the defensiveness here is tied up in how conservative christians used to talk about homosexuality? As a gay man who stayed in the closet for a loooong time, because of "your impulses should not lead you to sin." talk, I get that might not be a world he wants to go back to. One where self-righteous moralizers define what is "correct behavior" and dictate strict adherence to that code regardless of human nature and differences in that nature. So, for a gay man, not being able to ever express affection for another gay man is a loss of both identity and the chance to be fully human in the way that we naturally are. And it's wrong for someone else to dictate otherwise, especially given the shaky ground critics of gay affection and commitment are standing on (there's a reason anti-gay marriage laws have not held up to judicial scrutiny). The main sticking point being, we aren't actually hurting anyone else by being affectionate with one another. And inasmuch as no one in this society is compelled to live by a particular reading of biblical law, and no christian has ever been promised or should expect to never see people who have different preferences and standards operating in public spaces and certainly has not been given permission to be cruel to people who are, quite shockingly, not the same as them just walking around in public like they own the place, people are quite rightly coming to the conclusion that maybe it's okay if consenting adults love each other and show a tiny fraction of that affection in public and not get killed, ostracized or penalized for it.
With that in mind, I take his point that we don't want to do the same thing for men who are, to some degree, driven by testosterone. Having said that, I worry that he takes it too far back the other way, or at the very least that he and Anita are talking past each other a little bit. I agree it's wrong to demonize men for simply having the urges, the impulses, the dark thoughts. In as much as any feminist is saying that, I agree that's wrong. The unbidden impulse is intrinsically human and not under rational control. Of course, what IS under rational control is what one does with the impulse, how one channels the emotion, how one actually behaves in public.
I think we need to find some happy middle ground between the extremely true "Restricting the natural and harmless romantic expression of LGBT individuals causes needless suffering" and "If you don't give boys hand jobs when they ask they can get really, really sick." I'm not saying Andrew is making the later argument, but it leans too far to that side for my comfort. I mean, that latter argument is a caricature, but it IS a thing that young men actually say and it is one of the end products of a culture that worries endlessly if boys are unregulated boys enough. It's laughable because as grown-ass adults we understand the boy will not actually get "sick" if he doesn't get off right now, and even in the case of blue balls, is something he can give himself a hand with. So the question here is, where are we drawing the line between men being allowed to be fully testosteroned humans and reasonable self-control?
I agree that shaming the impulses is wrong, boys can't help that. They frequently can't even help getting an erection, especially when younger. This does not mean that men are helpless though. This does not mean that the spontaneous boner has to be endlessly celebrated or catered to. That each moment of testosterone rage must be fully expressed. Especially when other people tell them, "that behavior makes me really uncomfortable." I think this is what Andrew is getting at when he acknowledges men must be taught to deal with these impulses and emotions appropriately. I think the contradiction comes in when he seems to want to also retain the right to celebrate the unconstrained male. I'm not sure you can do both, is the thing. If you tell a boy he "You have to control yourself *wink*" are you not just telling him he doesn't have to control himself? Or that controlling one's self is really only for show around the womenfolk and lesser males? You can't simultaneously be teaching respect for the personhood and humanity of women and girls and then be cooing in adoration when he gets in a fight or harasses a girl his penis really wants to have sex with. I mean, this is the central contradiction in the "what we say vs what we do" in "male spaces" that feminists like Sarkeesian are actually protesting. "Baby I believe in your full humanity and dignity but it's really important I objectify a woman a little each day to honor my testosterone."
Is testosterone destiny though? As a testosterone having male I can confirm it is indeed a hell of a drug. Likewise I can confirm it a wholly tamable force given some practice, patience and, you know, social pressure to do so. Ideally this is what we should be teaching teenage boys is it not? "Yeah, that impulse resulting from erection/anger? That's not destiny."
I'm just not sure how Andrew thinks we need to celebrate maleness and male impulses MORE in this culture. As far as I can tell we're now, even at the peak of perceived feminist oppression, still soaked in a culture that encourages men to go with the impulse as much as possible. You want to look at some boobs? Look at some boobs. You want to compliment that lady on the street? Call out to her in joyful male song. You want to fight about it? Get on the internet and fight about it. You want gladiator sports? We have multiple channels and 24-hour a day coverage.
I just don't buy this fear that maleness is in any way in danger of not being celebrated or dominant. And even so, if all that's being asked is to share public spaces, comb hair and behave appropriate, EVEN WHEN HORNY, I kinda think guys are gonna live through that experience. Even further, I think that men being asked to consider the effects of their behavior, to consider not indulging in their impulses quite so much, to THINK OF OTHER GODDAMN PEOPLE rather than their own immediate needs is not so much tyranny as just asking guys to grow up. Just a bit. A man's inner child doesn't need to die, just maybe we could ask that he not drive.
