Features

Brutal, oppressive, domineering, selfish and gleefully misogynist. The stereotypical (heterosexual) modern man is staunch in manner and cold at heart. His animalistic sex drive is only matched by his pulsating lust for sport and violence. His pastimes include gazing, groping and the general objectification of woman. This testosterone-blinded god is autonomous. He is powerful. He is destructive. So how could it be that the modern man might also be oppressed himself? Is the modern man not impervious to sexism? Does his grand sway not enable his every whim?

Let’s take Tim Shadbolt’s remarks on episode of TV3’s 7 Days television show (which has now aired twice) as an example of such sexism. Mayor Shadbolt commented that Michael Laws “took on the Hell’s Angels, he took on the Mongrel Mob, he took on black power and then he got beaten up by his missus”. Get it? It’s funny because he’s a man! Rapturous laughter from the guests and audience followed, as did chuckles from the self-professed feminists in the room with me at the time. Now I am not condemning those feminists in the room, nor feminists for not watching 7 Days (if some watched neither screening), but it left me more than a little sour. Does no one see this as slightly sexist, least of all the feminists?
 
Imagine now if Tim Shadbolt had said of Helen Clark that “she took on climate change, she took on the Americans, she took on the terrorists and then she got beaten up by her hubby”? LOL. Shadbolt would have been ousted from his mayoralty under public pressure, TV3 would be hiring new producers and we would have embarrassed ourselves internationally, right before the Great New Zealand Marketing Exhibition that is the Rugby World Cup. However, it wasn’t a female that was the butt of his domestic violence joke, but a man. Nobody who is concerned about gender equality objected. Nobody submitted a complaint. Nobody cared, least of all the feminists. Everything in the world appears to be completely fine.
 
Now let’s take the feminist uproar of Tim Gunn’s (of Project Runway) critique of Hillary Clinton’s fashion sense as a counter-example. When directly asked about Hillary Clinton’s fashion decisions on the Lopez show, Gunn replied that “I think she's confused about her gender [with] all these big, baggy menswear tailored pantsuits.” The second part of that quote, “menswear tailored pants” is omitted in almost all media reports. I agree, as many would, that for

Clinton’s female body, dressing in suits that appear to be tailored for a man’s body is unflattering. Gunn’s remarks on how she could hide her kankles (which the interviewer Lopez brought up) was merely a practical suggestion, again concerned with tailoring. For context, he also made more extensive remarks on how Snooki clothes her particular body shape and on the state of American men’s and women’s fashion in general during the interview.
 
If Gunn was a political journalist or columnist, or if the discussion was in a political context, then I too would object to the relevance and inequality of such comments. This was pointed out by Charlotte Greenfield in her ‘Battle of the Babes’ example in Critic’s Women’s Issue. But Gunn is a fashion commentator. He made an aesthetic judgement from a fashion perspective. It’s a shame he was not questioned on another politician’s style, say Obama’s sloppy casual look, but he was not. Had he done so, that would be fair game too, but I doubt any feminists would have taken any offence to such a discussion.
 
This shroud over male sexism is in my mind one of the largest barriers to gender equality. Men commit suicide at a rate four times that of woman. Male sexual desire is stereotyped as vainer and more animalistic. A man risks being branded a ‘creep’ if he chooses to hit on a woman he finds sexually attractive. And if this woman does not conform to our seemingly universal laws of female beauty, he is somehow weird, perverted or a fetishist. Then there is also the complete cluster-fuck that are divorce custody disputes. In each situation, it can be fairly argued that there is also oppression of women, but the reality is that injustices affecting men go forever unspoken. If only there were a group that fought for gender equality and who could challenge such oppression and liberate the victims!
 
Unsurprisingly, feminists have marred themselves in they eye of many men, with feminism sometimes being as much of an exclusive, gender-based club as the high-ranking male dominated workplaces it seeks to feminise. Whether they act under the purest academic definition of feminism or not, feminist writers and groups commonly take female-specific gender issues and use them as a vehicle for the empowerment and rallying of women. Women gather to discover and express their true femininity and strike out against the shackles of patriarchal society. As worthy a motive as this is, I find it rather unsympathetic to the male population which also needs to be involved. It creates unnecessary barriers to those who most need to engage with issues of gender equality. Men are often labelled as misogynists or sexists if they do not engage with feminism, but it is often not an environment they feel welcomed into.
 
As is true in the radio world, organisations of a self-serving nature will struggle to engage with anyone outside of their social sphere. In my view, feminism has two options. 1) Admit to being a female issues lobby and not claim to be gender equality activists (thus paving the way for an equivalent male body) or alternatively, 2) expand their consciousness to include gender issues facing the other half of the world. It’s not that feminists should be doing the work that men are uninterested in doing themselves, or that equal amounts of energy is required for both genders, but feminists should be compelled to take action on gender issues, irrespective of the gender affected. Not to do so is either hypocritical or ignorant.

Take your pick.