Stev: <"R0bert's comment is spot on - dominance is a human discourse not a masculine discourse. Pynchme also recognizes that most men are not privileged and can have non-dominant lives which are not valued by the powers that be.">

- but Stev think of the ways in which masculine attributes are most valued in society and the ways that feminine attributes are devalued. Examples include: logic versus emotion; paid work versus caring roles and so on. My post pointed out the reality that males also exhibit feminine-ascribed attributes but it's not acknowledged or not seen as valuable. Females, seen as embodying certain characteristics, experience the disadvantage more directly although society generally is quite desensitized to it. Conservative females still have vested sense of self in gaining male approval and institutions and patterns of social interaction perpetuate that.

The disadvantages for men as well as rewards generally are much more subtle (but perhaps becoming less so as many men take up different roles or have begun to think, "Wtf why am I running on this treadmill ?") with rewards like status; authority, sexual prowess and social power and so on encouraging them to continue identifying with and striving to maintain and succeed in a social system in which they will be most unlikely to gain heights of power and wealth.

I agree with R0bert that this is a human problem, but the weighing up of rewards and disadvantages still points to a power differential that places the social value of females lower than that of the average bloke, because of feminine traits ascribed to them that are deemed as having little worth - like language skills; the impulse to nurture; expression of any emotion seen as the opposite of more valued objectivity and so on.

An analytical framework identifying the "powers that be" and how conceptualizing the ways these operate to shape our lives is a really powerful step forward for us all.

Btw: There is research on sex roles and ascribed attributes. Readings on androgyny are very illuminating.

I must congratulate the author for a thought-provoking article. It is obviously not a fully-developed idea, but it is a good point of departure for a discussion. I am a little concerned at his responses to the comments so far; they are defensive and do not further the discussion. They also rely heavily on a social-constructionist view, which I reject as facile and incomplete. In calling for a reexamination of the place of masculinity in our strongly feminised world, however, he has the right idea, even if the particular expression of it (the "conspiracy") is hardly useful.

While there have been many, many cultural practises that have changed over the years in response to environmental or technological challenges, there has been little change in the roles of the sexes within society until the late 20th century, in response to a triple-whammy of factors.

The first was the massively industrial nature of the second world war and its enormously pervasive scale. That lead to a large number of women becoming involved in doing work that men had done hitherto. It also lead to work practises being developed to suit women's needs and talents as well as support structures, like creches. "Wanda the Welder" couldn't carry her child on her hip while working. Its greatest impact, however, was in creating the right conditions for the "Baby Boom". I'll get to why in a moment.

The second, obviously, was oral contraception. I'm sure I don't need to detail the impact of the Pill, except to say that it meant the generations following the Western baby boom were below replacement level.

The baby-boom and the below-replacement birth rate have been well known for decades and economists have done huge amounts of modelling on the combination, but it's not hard to see the aging population problem and that was so even in the 70s, when second-wave feminism got going.

It was a recognition of the aging population problem by those motivated by the third factor which really got the ball rolling for feminsm though.

[cont]

Capital recognised early that if growth was to be maintained into the future, then something had to be done to mobilise the recently demonstrated industrial productive capacity of women more broadly. Feminism was a perfect fit. It's ironic that an ideology which is essentially Marxist, albeit terribly skewed, was so easily accommodated within the needs of Capital and so easily subverted by Capital.

Men and the male response en masse have been largely regarded by those econometric and sociometric modellers as constants rather than variables. As anybody who's ever done any maths or science knows, the constants are just there to help you learn about the variables. Once a constant is established, it can be just plugged in without much further thought.

Within the Feminist framework that is the dominant paradigm informing sociological thinking there was little incentive to look at men except as obstacles to the success of women and hence, to be either removed or controlled. Both strategies have been adopted and are being practised today. Lower socio-economic status men are being controlled via organisations like CSA and Centrelink, as well as the constant barrage of shaming propaganda that portrays such men as violent or "deadbeat" or somehow "unmasculine". Higher socio-economic status men are being attacked directly via calls for more women in the highest positions. As the total number of positions is approximately static, this is the same as saying we want some of those men who currently occupy the roles to be removed. Of course, the most powerful men currently don't care whether their successors are female or male as long as they keep the profits flowing.

The problem for Feminism and pro-feminists like the author, is that men are not generally docile in the face of a perceived threat. That is not a social construct, it is a bilogical imperative. We derive from a long line of men who survived to breed because they were faster than the other man or simply stronger. Either way, they responded effectively when attacked.

[cont]

This has lead to what Feminists call "the backlash", which I suspect is what the author is most interested in, apart from establishing himself as firmly pro-feminist and hence, on the "good" side.

Through most of our long and turbulent history there was no scope for this sort of navel-gazing. Most people of both genders were too busy trying to survive to be worried about trivialities like who was in charge of taking the latrine bowl to the dungheap and who got to take care of gutting the mammoth; if either one didn't do it properly they all suffered.

Far too much is made today of "overcoming" differences, as though homogeneity is somehow the only state worth the aspiration. I reject that as the Ford model T of social construction - "any colour as long as it's [pink]" and you can add your own decorative touches such as a gay lifestyle or a desire to become a socialogist. What you can't do is paint the thing a more conservative colour, such as Ford's own preference of black.

Differences are what makes the world go around. Traditional masculinity is not a "backlash", it is a normal part of the human experience. Many women are not comfortable being moulded into the Feminist/Corporate ideal either. They quite like "Neanderthals" as foxy would have it.

I suggest less talk of "conspiracy" and more about the ways in which we can accommodate the genuinely imperative needs we have as humans, rather than the overlays we choose to apply to suit our own agendas.

The author takes exception to his youth beng pointed out. While youth does not preclude wisdom, it does preclude a large amount of experience on which to base any wisdom that might exist. I'd also point out that much of the chaos of the gender wars can be laid at the feet of Feminist or "pro-Feminist" scoiologists. I hope he can rise above the suck of the academic quicksand and continue to produce thought-provoking articles that question accepted wisdom. Perhaps a more well-considered metaphor next time though?

There is no conspiracy only mindless frivolity. The situation is plain & simply like this; too many females not enough women, too many males not enough men. Yeah, I think that's about the crux of it !

Masculinity is a fine idea to discuss, but there were a few problems with the article;

The conpiracy term implied that something evil was happening. This creates a defensive reaction and once people become defensive, they stop listening.

There wasn't enough effort to distinguish between which specific behaviours are the problem and men in general.

The language that was used will alienate most people. University academics may well talk that way, but the rest of us think "what a tosser".

OLO is one of the most sceptical audiences that this author will ever have to speak before. He will need to word his message quite differently, if he is to get the changes that he wants.