As you know, I have been reading "You Still Don't Understand" by Driscoll and Davis. Yesterday I worked through the two chapters regarding chivalry, which sparked some reflection on my part.
First, what the book says. The book takes the view that chivalry is a wired evolutionary adaptation. In other words, in our species, like some other primate species, males tend to protect females -- typically from other males. There are several reasons offered for this. The first is that it makes evolutionary sense for males to protect and support females, in general, because females are the limiting reproductive resource - a society can reproduce with a few males and lots of females, but never vice versa. The next reason is that it makes individual reproductive sense for males to support and protect the females they are mating with -- that ensures their offspring will survive. And, extending from that, it makes sense for men to support and protect women in general, whether they are mating with them or not, because women will tend to select as mates men who will support and protect them in a society where such support and protection are needed, over men who will not support and protect them (*I will deal about the application of this to the current situation below).
The book then discusses at length how this underlying tendency to support and protect women, while expecting men to fend for themselves, has exacerbated the the toxic messages about men that have come into the culture since the rise of feminism. Under the old system, chivalry was inequitably imbalanced in favor of women, but men had the "perks" of being respected, valued as fathers and husbands, and seen as playing a critical, leading role in society. Under the new system, men are not to be seen as worthy of respect, but of scorn and derision, as the architects of a hateful, patriarchal system designed to oppress women, as rapacious sexual predators, and as completely optional in family life. The system of chivalry serves to make these new memes incontrovertible facts.
Why? Because chivalry only allows support and protection of women -- not of men. Men are to fend for themselves. Men are not to criticize women -- for that would be both whiny and weak (chivalry) and sexist (feminism). Men are not to be honored or recognized or even spoken well of, for men are strong and do not need this (chivalry) and to do so would detract from recognizing women (chivalry and feminism) and would be offensive to many women (feminism). In short, chivalry disallows male critique of women (and, by extension, feminism), and even male complaint of the impact of these developments on men. Both men and women alike will reflexively shame men who critique women's behavior or feminism because chivalry impels them to do so -- to support and protect women, and not men. According to the book, chivalry, when combined with the impact of feminist ideas about men, is sending the whole culture into an extreme anti-male tilt in reality, while most people tend to see the society as being stacked against women, again because of chivalry -- which magnifies all concerns women have while simultaneously dismissing and, in fact, disallowing any male concerns at all. One gets the image of an unending feedback loop involving chivalry and feminism -- a kind of downward death spiral for men in the culture.
But all shouldn't be so bad, right? It's a relationship, book, right?
Well -- from what I have read, I did not see any good news. Again, the book takes the view that chivalry is a wired behavior and therefore is not something that is going to be very easy to change. People can of course overcome wired behaviors individually, but a collective wired behavior like chivalry would have to be collectively overcome for any impact to be had -- something which seems very unlikely. In fact, the book's advice for men is to realize that while chivalry is inequitable under the current circmstances, it's "our station", and we must learn to deal with it in a productive way -- to become better men, the book suggests. I know that the authors mean well here, but this srikes me as disastrous advice. It's akin to saying men should "know their place" (i.e., below women) and make the best of it. In the context of a system which is so highly tilted against men, this is akin to asking men to commit suicide. Self-sacrifice is fine in the context of a system which recognizes that sacrifice and honors it, and provides perks with respect to it. I know that the authors also recommend that society and the media do this, but even the authors are not sanguine about that actually happening -- again due to the persistence of chivalry combined with feminist ideas. But in the context of such a system, men should not simply "deal with it" -- that's a recipe for disaster. In the context of such a system, men should simply abstain.
I disagree with the authors ultimate conclusions in this area. Then again, I am not a relationship guru, but a men's issues guy. The authors are coming from the perspective of "what can make a relationship work" -- and they seem to land pretty close to Gottman in believing that while it is inequitable for men, marriages are more likely to work when men defer to their wives and allow themselves to be molded by their wives, rather than resisting that. Gottman has a lot of studies backing up that view in terms of the efficacy. The idea is based on the following line of thought. First there is the assumption that men and women are happier and healthier in long-term relationships, again based on well-known studies suggesting this. Next, there is the idea that it is more likely that a marriage will last long-term if men defer to their wives rather than resist them -- because this reduces conflict, and pleases the wives, and it is the wives, when displeased, who are leaving marriages and driving the high divorce rate. So, it follows that while men may "think" they are unhappy because their wife is bossy or pushy, they would actually be less happy and healthy if they were single, and deferring to a bossy or pushy wife helps the marriage stay together, which will make the men more happy in theory, even though they may not feel happy, in fact. Part of the latter issue is to be alleviated by helping men learn to accept "their station", and learn to find fulfillment and happiness in supporting and deferring to their wives, and accept the reality that in human relationships, women are, and have always been, in firm emotional control, and the ones who prevail (and have prevailed) in relationship disputes. In other words, according to this view, men need to understand that in any relationship and especially marriage, women are going to be in control, and are generally going to own us in conflicts -- men are supposed to accept that, find a way to manage the negativity that comes from that and get over conflicts better, and, importantly, defer to their wives more. The ultimate idea is that it is more important to be happy than to be equal, and that equality in marriage is not attainable for men, and therefore men should accept the inequalities, go with them, and learn to manage with them, because it will make them happier than resisting the inequalities and getting divorced, or avoiding marriage. A lot of advice is given to men and women alike in the book suggesting how to take the edge off some of the inequalities inherent in marriage that work in favor of women, but what is not addressed at all is why women would be incented to do that. In other words, it's quite correct to say that women control relationships, but no real reason is given as to why women would have any interest in ceding any of that power and control to men. In fact, I doubt that they will do so.
I have to say this all seems rather dubious to me. It seems to be saying that men should think themselves into being happy in situations that subordinate their interests to women, and should simply accept this because that's just the way it is. Isn't this really a dressed up version of "man up"? It's particularly jarring in light of the fact that the authors clearly note the anti-male tilt in society, and spend an entire chapter on it, yet can't come up with anything other than that people should be sensitive to these issues, but realize that some inequalities are okay -- in other words, that chivalry, because it tends to bind men to women in terms of obligation, is inequitable but is an okay inequality since it serves the social interest of binding men to women and children, and we simply need to take the edge off some of the more negative anti-male attitudes, such as those around family law, which the authors acknolwedge needs to be addressed. In the current context, that advice sounds like terrible advice to me.
In all this is a depressing book so far. If, in fact, chivalry is so deeply rooted in our nature that it will never be overcome on any kind of scale, then men are, in effect, finished. Chivalry only makes sense when there is a counterbalance to its obligations, and today that has been destroyed. But if chivalry will be impossible to root out, there isn't much hope for change at all, really. It seems that the only options would be either: (1) to follow this book and Gottman, accept your "station" and defer to your wife (and hope she doesn't get bored with you) and strive to convince yourself that this makes you happy; or (2) use Game to "game" your wife; or (3) simply become a pick-up artist; or (4) avoid the system altogether. If chivalry is too ingrained to be overcome on any kind of scale, there is no hope at all for men's rights, or even for modest changes to the family law. I am going to review Hauser (whom I have not read in a few years now) and Wright (which is fresher in my memory) on this, because these are the works cited in support of the views I describe above, but if I come to the same conclusion as this book does, I will have to consider my further involvement in men's rights issues quite carefully.
|
10th-June-2009
Better than what? I haven't been in a 'serious' relationship for over a decade, and aside from the inevitable feelings of loneliness from time to time, I don't see my life as being 'empty' or without purpose. I get shit from both men and women about my choice to remain single. Women inevitably claim I'm a 'Peter Pan' who can't relate to a strong, modern woman. Men claim 'I don't know what I'm missing.' Being a husband and a father are the most important roles that any 'real' man can achieve.
