I did not pass comment on the manchester mens society itself and were I there I would perhaps support you. But a debate DID start up and become current regarding the whole institutional form. Given such a debate did become part of the political landscape I make no apology for addressing the issue in such terms.

Comradely,

Reuben

I should say I don’t describe myself as a feminist – but that’s a pedantic theoretical point too far for this thread so I’ll address the rest of the sentence instead.

I think there is a different between saying that we are socially constructed individuals and denying the idea that someone can just be ‘themselves’. I don’t mean that there is an innate ‘them’ that emanates from their soul or whatever but rather I was reacting against the way these men’s societies advocates were concerned about what they ’should’ be.

There is a world of difference between the way gender roles are ingrained into our day to day lives and the stereotypes of male identity that often fit very poorly with the reality of actual men.

Of course we’re all social creatures but the gender norms in society are far less fixed than the ideologically barren versions found in common-places such as the ‘man’s man’ ‘new man’ et al.

It seems to me that the attempt to live an authentic life is more important than the conscious attempt to conform to impossible ideals. These societies have expressly stated that men are confused about how to conform to dominant social norms. I would suggest they do not try to.

I would also suggest that because gender roles are culturally directed it means they are ours to change.

- Gender is a social construct, sex is not. If we strip away every last cultural variable, would you really expect to find androgenous clones? No, we are a product of nature as well as nurture. It’s well documented that increased testosterone levels leads to aggressive tendencies. Of course, women can find themselves with increased testosterone levels, but it is much more common amongst men, feeding into the male culture of aggression, being driven by it, but also driving it. Simon Baron-Cohen’s work on autism – overwhelmingly a male affliction – has produced some compelling research on what he calls the ‘male’ and the ‘female’ braintype. These are his own terms, many men have what he calls a female braintype and many women have a male one, but he finds that the male brain is predominantly predisposed towards logic and systematising, whilst the female braintype is predisposed towards creativity and empathy. Hence the overrepresentation of male students on maths and science courses. Hence, when I called a meeting as Varsity’s Literature Editor, twenty female English students turned up, and not a single male. The point is, there are differences between men and women, both physically and, yes, mentally, hormonally and emotionally. Quite simply there are differences between people. This isn’t something we should be afraid to admit. And it certainly doesn’t mean we can’t argue for complete gender equality whilst accepting these differences. This is a slightly different argument to the very valid one Reuben is making, but I wanted to make it clear that although we should fight for gender equality at every level, we should not be affraid of sexual difference.

This may be true, but you’re still engaging with the specific example of your own society and the kinds of people – As Reuben points out above, he’s discussing the hostility to men’s groups as a concept, which are seen as having no place in a society where men are not oppressed by women, but rather the other way round. This seems mistaken, and there’s a lot to be gained by engaging with the ways that men are constricted by the gender roles – these roles are largely organised in a patriarchy to benefit those who play along, sure, but are oppressive in ways that should be obvious to any opponent of patriarchy. Currently presiding notions of masculinity have demonstrable negative effects on men, and thus men’s societies can be defended as a concept that allows expression and exploration of male identity.

This is the difference that Reuben points out between men’s societies and hypothetical white societies – It is much harder to find ways in which ‘white’ identity has a negative and damaging effect on white people, while men’s gender roles impact negatively on a whole range of situations (speaking from personal experience, the number of young men involved in volunteer childcare, for example).

So while being against the sexist and reactionary attitudes of the individuals in your society, it is also perfectly possible to be thankful that they have brought the topic of male identity into the open, and welcome the opportunity to explain why the idea of men’s societies need not be a bad one in all respects. It may be wishful thinking to suggest that lefties take over these specific societies at Oxford and Manchester, but it is by no means naive to push for more attention to be paid to the issue of masculinity and bring the negative sides such notions to the attention of a wider audience – and maybe work to bring about a culture where men’s societies could be put to good use.

If you like apples why don’t you like oranges?

I would agree. But I would suggest that a crucial part of the struggle against patriarchy is creating a space – discursive and institutional – in which men and men, or men and women or women and women, can percieve such identities not as something that is innate but as things that can be discussed and perhaps affected. Since men, in the final analysis, do have an interest in questioning the dominant gendered expectations – and are affected in specific and specifically negative ways by the gender status quo, i see mens socs as a potentially useful development.