What Is The Real Crisis In Masculinity?

There are those who talk of a crisis in masculinity. When those terms are used, it seems that it is usually to refer to an erosion of what some see as traditional masculinity – a feminisation of society, or particularly of men.

To some today, it might not be clear what some of those terms mean – particularly “traditional masculinity” or “feminisation”. Gender expectations are shifting, and weakening, in much of the global economic north (and in many other parts of the world, albeit in different ways). This is actually what some of the people who speak of a crisis in masculinity are talking about, though I'll explore what it means in some more detail later on.

On Titles

One of the little details of Quaker practice that is not completely unheard of outside of Quaker circles – though that does not mean it is well-known – is our rejection of titles. That is to say, we traditionally do not use such things as “Mr”, “Mrs”, “Miss” etc., preferring to simply use names.

There are several reasons behind this. One is our view of equality; especially in the society in which the Quaker movement developed, a huge range of titles existed and reinforced the expected structure of society, of social interactions, and of status. Nobility was still considered important by many, and the titles of right or of courtesy that went with them were often insisted on. Titles and styles related to offices under the crown, such as “judge” or “doctor” (usually for those who have achieved a certain degree of study – academic doctors or doctors of divinity – rather than physicians) were important, and people of standing who could claim neither noble nor official title often sought a knighthood. Those entitled to the style of “esquire”, not a general formal term as it is now in the UK, nor a term conventionally restricted to certain professions as it is now in the US, would often insist upon its use. As such, the rejection of titles stands for a rejection of the formal and conventional delineations of standing and status, as well as of the forms that derive from them (such as the giving of hat-honour, one of the most noted rejections of convention among early Friends).

For International Women's Day

It's International Women's Day, so let's talk about women.

Let's talk about the fact that mainstream history has a tendency to treat women's contributions in one of two ways. Generally speaking, it's either minimised, or mythologised.

Boudica led a revolt of several native tribes against the Romans in Britain. It was a big thing in its day, and Camulodunum (among others) certainly noticed, but in the grand scheme of things it was another provincial rebellion that was put down by the Roman Empire. The long-term strategy against such events was romanisation, which continued and succeeded across southern Britannia, and to variable extents as you went north.

What I Can Say About Sex and Gender

I've been disappointed in some discussion I've seen in British Quaker circles recently. I shan't go in to what prompted the discussion, because that's not relevant right now. What I can say is that it's about trans issues, and feminism.

I'm disappointed because I see attitudes expressed that, while not outwardly hostile to trans people, they are denying their experience. They hold up an attitude that the rights of one marginalised group are inherently in tension with the rights of another, at least at this time, and do not seek to find ways to resolve that tension to the benefit of all. That hesitate to be critical of those that advocate the idea that trans women, however well they pass, should use men's toilets. I might not reasonably hope that all Friends would support the reform of legal gender recognition, making it easier to access, but I would hope that they would not participate in scaremongering that it would somehow lead to insincere, casual changes of legal gender for frivolous or malicious purposes. That it would allow such things to be done with impunity.

I'm a cisgender, heterosexual, white man. I hope to be a good ally, just as I hope to find allies, especially among Friends, in support of my experiences and efforts as a disabled person. I know that being a good ally doesn't mean being entirely uncritical of the positions of those in another marginalised group – but also not to deny their lived experience. Their wisdom in such matters is not flawless, but will be deeper than my own. My own views are not without merit or relevance, but it is secondary to theirs.

And yet, I am heartened that we can share our opinions, even those I am disappointed by, in what is largely a loving way – certainly by comparison to discussions in many other communities. That those who know their views are not conventional for British Friends can, at least in this context, share them without feeling hemmed in by our social dogma. Even if I might hope that they change their minds, I know that it is by allowing dialogue – as well as the illumination of the Divine – that such a change will occur. It will not occur by verbal warfare or the discourse equivalent of a bludgeon.

Safe Spaces

You hear a lot these days about “safe spaces”, be it from those who are advocating them or those who decry them as an assault on free speech. We hear about “no platforming”, and just recently the UK's Universities minister has warned that Universities could face a fine over such policies, as they should be seen to have a duty to uphold freedom of speech.

This is a really complicated issue, with intertwining concerns and subtle variations of meaning in terms like “safe space”, “no platform”, and “free speech”. It's also a concern for Quakers, as there have been, from various quarters at various times, suggestions that some Quaker spaces should be safe. So, let's take a look at some of the meanings given to these terms, which will also give an overview of the overall politics of the situation, and see what they mean for Quakers, both in our own spaces and in terms of our approach to wider society. Buckle in, it's a long ride.

We Are Not Above Prejudice & Discrimination

Over the years of my time at Young Friends General Meeting (YFGM), I had the benefit of learning, by explanations and by example, from a lot of smart and experienced Quakers. One of those, in the first several years, was Maud Grainger, now Faith in Action tutor at Woodbrooke Quaker Study Centre. I am still in touch with Maud, at least in the way that most people seem to be in touch with half of the people they've ever met nowadays (yay for Facebook), and so I saw her excellent blog post, on the face of it about a particular t-shirt – but really about the reasons why someone, especially a “professional Quaker”, should wear it. Do take the time to read the post, it's excellent, and not long.

It is a point that I've touched upon in the past, such as my written ministry on disability, or my recent post on how Quakers should respond to the #MeToo phenomenon and the widespread sexual misconduct behind it. I gladly stand behind Maud when she says,

What #MeToo Should Mean to Quaker Communities

I am grateful for the feedback on an early draft of this post that I received from women friends.

Accusations of, to put it excessively mildly, inappropriate behaviour on the part of a Hollywood bigwig were made in public. People, quite rightly, rushed to support those making the accusations. Other people came forward with their own stories of attacks and harassment by the same man.

It's not the first time it's happened. It won't be the last. Similar things have happened and will continue to happen in many different contexts, especially where there are individuals seen as too talented, important or powerful to assail. This isn't just about films; it can happen in universities, in hospitals, in big business. In a sense, this time isn't particularly special, when considered with all of the others. However, this time there seems to have been a little more success in taking the opportunity to raise awareness of the ubiquitous nature of sexual harassment and assault in our culture. Women (and girls) everywhere are posting “Me Too” on social media. Statistics and psychology suggest that plenty of women who have had such experiences aren't sharing, on top of those who are. People are noticing – perhaps not as many as one might hope, but they are noticing. Social media posts and web pages are going viral with advice to men on how they can help deal with this endemic cultural problem; of course, they attract trolls to their comments, and perhaps some sincere but clueless guys as well. They respond to these suggestions of how men could help, and they seem to feel that we, men, are being victimised by such advice. That singling out men as needing to take certain steps is unfair, even discriminatory. I don't know how to make them learn. I'll admit that I was once a clueless guy, though maybe not that clueless, and I'm forever grateful to the women who persisted in helping me learn, perhaps sensing that there was a sincere desire to “get it”; I'm still working on getting there.

On Loss of Privilege

Some of the angriest and most aggressive prejudice we see today comes from those who believe that their own group – men, white people, non-disabled people, the economically well-off, straight people, cisgender people, and so on – are under threat, and are now being disadvantaged in the name of political correctness. They see civil rights as an attack on white people, feminism as an attack on men, pride as an attack on those who are cishet. Generally speaking, they are wrong.

It is helpful to understand where they are coming from, though. Not to excuse it or justify it, but simply to understand it. Understanding is the starting point for all constructive action in such cases.

It is easy for a person who is not oppressed in a certain way not to realise what it is like to be oppressed, to assume that their experience is the default, baseline, way everyone experiences things. When that experience then changes for the worse, when they lose advantages, or others are given them, it seems unfair, it seems that they are being attacked.

Do not focus your rejection of prejudice on these people, though do what you can to help them understand, or at least counteract their impact – and always reject their prejudice. The real villains in this scenario are those who fan the resentment of those experiencing a loss of privilege, usually for their own personal gain or political ends.

Written August 2017