From Christopher Street magazine, Issue 209, January
1994.
THE END OF MANHOOD
by John Stoltenberg
Published 1993, Dutton, 311 pp.
1998, hardcover reprint edition, Replica Books
Review by Stephen H. Miller
Once, I'm told, as Vito Russo and a group of friends disembarked
from the Fire Island ferry, someone yelled out, "Here come the
'girls.'"
"We're not 'girls,'" Vito shot back. "We're men who fuck
men."
This story about Vito (whose death from AIDS, together with the
deaths of so many activists during the '80s, eliminated a
generation of gay-male leadership), puts front and center a
question gay men have danced around but never adequately
confronted: Just what does "manhood" mean in a gay context?
The ambiguity of gay men's relationship to manhood isn't hard to
understand, since so many of us grew up in a homophobic world that
told us, repeatedly, that we're less than men. Add to the mix
feminism's often strident assault on maleness as the root of all evil and it's inevitable gay men's assessment of their own
manhood would be conflicted -- ranging from the all-out rejection
of masculinity to its exaggerated, worshipful embrace.
John Stoltenberg, in "The End of Manhood: A Book for Men of
Conscience," takes the former position, and boy does he take it.
"The male sex is an abstract fiction. Penises exist. The male sex
does not," writes the author, who goes on to laud "the radical
feminist critique of gender" which has made possible "an epochal
insight into sexuality and personal identity."
And what does this insight consist of? "Manhood is a personal
and social hoax that exists only through interpersonal and social
injustice," for one. "You can only inhabit the manhood 'I' in the
act of addressing someone as 'You who are less than me.'" Still
with me?
At the root of his argument, Stoltenberg postulates a
fundamental dichotomy - that the social construct of "manhood"
cannot possibly co-exist with what he terms authentic "selfhood."
He rejects the notion that manhood can be in any way revised or
redeemed through "revisioning" or "remythologizing" - one of many
missives aimed at poet Robert Bly, author of the best-selling book
"Iron John" and a leader of the "mythopoetic" stream of the men's
movement. "That project is utterly futile, and we all have to give
it up," he decrees. Manhood as an identity, in short, is driven by
feelings of sexual possession and ownership. It presupposes endless
competition to prove one's manhood in relation to others - a
zero-sum game predicated on violence, intimidation and
humiliation.
If this sounds familiar, it will come as no surprise to learn
that Stoltenberg dedicates his book to Andrea Dworkin. In fact,
Stoltenberg, who describes himself as "a radical profeminist"
writer and lecturer (he is also the co-founder of Men Against
Pornography), has shared a Park Slope apartment with Dworkin for
years. Dworkin, of course, is a leading anti-porn theorist whose
books contend that heterosexual intercourse is essentially a
euphemism for rape.
It is widely reported that Dworkin is a lesbian and Stoltenberg
a gay man. Nowhere in this book, at any rate, does Stoltenberg
define himself. But since the essence of the work is that identity
should not be gender-specific, this really isn't unexpected. He
writes, "There is no circumscribed set of sexual feelings that are
definitionally 'male.' The presence of a penis does not correlate
with the definitional presumption [of maleness, as socially
defined] in any meaningful way."
When he does talk about sex, Stoltenberg argues for abandoning
the "manhood mode" since it's an inherently predatory identity.
"Many penised humans attempt sexual relations in manhood mode as if
meaningful consent can occur," he writes, arguing, of course, that
it can't. "By definition the transaction must include someone's
being treated as closer to nobody, otherwise no one gets closer to
manhood."
Elsewhere, he writes, "Some humans born with 'male' sexual
anatomy have realized that their preferred experience of coitus is
an embrace, not a stab. For them, the subjective feeling that one
is violating another person's body is simply emotionally
impossible." To paraphrase, male lust = violation.
While a good deal of the book is devoted to a critique of
sexuality in "manhood mode," just what sexuality consists of in
"selfhood mode" for "penised humans" is left rather fuzzy, although
at one point Stoltenberg contends, among other possibilities,
"There can be orgasm without penile erection and ejaculation."
Multiple orgasms, in fact. Elsewhere he recommends "choosing...not
to fixate on fucking." And, of course, as an anti-pornography
crusader, he warns against inappropriate visual stimulations that
objectify and dehumanize.
Finally, in a virtuoso denial of any natural, underlying
distinctions between the sexes (remember, "'the male sex' is a
political and ethical construction"), Stoltenberg minimizes the
physiological differences between a penis and a clitoris, blaming
sex researchers for using "arbitrary criteria [to] fudge human
experience in order to make 'scientific' distinctions between
'female and male categories' of human sexuality."
Such arguments give credence to much-maligned Camille Paglia's
otherwise arch contention, in her book "Sex, Art, and American
Culture," that "What feminists are asking is for men to be
castrated, to make eunuchs out of them." Paglia, in sharp contrast,
finds sex "a turbulent power that we are not in control of; it's a
dark force. ... It's the dark realm of the night." Stoltenberg's
rejection of sex's uncontrollable, Dionysian nature, his contempt
of raw, aggressive, combustible masculinity, leave the impression
his brave, new unisex world would be about as passion-filled as an
afternoon nap.
It would be comforting to dismiss Stoltenberg as an extremist
and an aberration, but (and it's a sad comment on contemporary
feminism), that isn't so. In an article entitled "Feminism's
Identity Crisis" in The Atlantic, Wendy Kaminer writes that only
five years ago Dworkin and fellow anti-porn/anti-manhood feminist
Catharine MacKinnon were leaders of a feminist fringe. "Today,"
reports Kaminer, "owing partly to the excess of multiculturalism
and the exaltation of victimization, they're leaders in the
feminist mainstream."
To understand how Stoltenberg fits into this current feminist
mission, his attacks on Robert Bly are revealing. For instance, he
creates a satire about the testimony of Coach "Irony" John (get
it?) before a National Commission on Manhood and has his parody
proclaim: "Where I come from, the Great State of Athletic Prowess,
you learn there's a right way to fuck and a wrong way to fuck. The
right way is when you have somebody beneath you. The wrong way is
when you don't [Laughter]."
In an adoring blurb for the book, Gloria Steinem writes, "I hope
Robert Bly reads `The End of Manhood' and discovers the real men's
movement away from masculinity and toward full humanity." But Bly's
"Iron John� is a work of brilliance, an exploration of the lost
sense of the masculine soul, which is both protective and
emotionally centered, and a call for men to overcome the habit of
not talking together about their lives, their grief, their
woundedness (much of which results from being inadequately
fathered, by fathers who were inadequately fathered).
But feminist Bly-bashing has a larger agenda - to discredit the
new wave of Bly-inspired male-bonding at the heart of the
mythopoetic men's movement (which is seen as a threat to the
so-called feminist men's movement - really a male-deprecating
adjunct to the women's movement). Many feminists feel there's just
got to be a sinister, anti-women slant to what goes on during those
men-only retreats in the woods.
I suspect, in fact, most of Stoltenberg's readers will be
feminist women looking for still another work validating their
contempt for men (a special prologue has thoughtfully been included
for women readers). But it's too easy to simply dismiss him. Like
other manifestations of political correctness born of academic
feminism, the absolutist denigration of masculinity as a concept is
gaining ground. What's perplexing about all this is not so much
radical feminism's war against male sexuality, in toto, but the
fervor with which so many guilt-ridden gay men buy into it.
Historically, though, there are reasons, and a big one is called
AIDS. The community of masculine-affirmative "clones," the sexual
outlaws who redefined and celebrated gay male sexuality in the
'70s, has been decimated. Lesbian feminists, having achieved a
dominant role in the women's movement, rushed in to fill the
cultural void - despite the fact that lesbianism and gay male
sexuality have vastly different behavioral patterns and
psychological dynamics.
The result: no real movement exists for gay men to focus on
gay-male issues, while the "lesbian and gay movement" has
assimilated some of the worst ideology of feminist male-bashing
(often camouflaged as gay-white-male-bashing, to ensure political
correctness).
Nowadays, there is a virtual absence of the kind of gay-male
space that could facilitate deeper explorations of gay manhood and
gay-male bonding (much as women-only space has done for lesbians).
The anti-manhood view has been so thoroughly assimilated that no
one questions lesbian-only political and social groups, while gay
male groups would be viewed as an anti-women conspiracy. One
example: In New York, lesbians seeking to commune with women while
escaping to the country can join Hikin' Dykes. Men have the option
of camping with Sundance, which is a male and female group, but
there's no gay-male specific organization to combine male-bonding
and rural recreation.)
Gay men contribute to the National Center for Lesbian Rights and
cheer the actions of the Lesbian Avengers; there is no National
Center for Gay Male Rights to focus exclusively on gay-male issues
such as defending the right to child visitation (or custody) when a
former spouse, backed by homophobic courts, says no. There is no
gay-male direct action group. It would be deemed sexist and
exclusionary.
The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, having abandoned its
former policy of alternating between male and female executive
directors, just appointed its third consecutive female head.
"Diversity training" throughout the movement attacks the "male
perspective" as a vestige of patriarchy and extols nonhierarchical,
consensus-based (and often completely unworkable and nonproductive)
organizational structures. (By the way, it's high time someone
pointed out that demanding "consensus" is seldom a sign of
democracy.)
Gay sexuality may have taken the worst hit of all from the new
Zeitgeist. The Advocate magazine has banished nearly all vestiges
of male sexuality from its pages. The celebration of gay eros, once
so central to gay liberation, is now deemed politically incorrect
by publications for "the lesbian and gay community." In fact, we've
returned to the point at which the erotic, instead of being savored
as a fully integrated aspect of gayness, is permissible only if
segregated from all other areas of gay life (as in sex clubs or
porn publications).
Even here, some lesbian feminists will not tolerate an
autonomous gay-male space, and many gay men are all too willing to
acquiesce without any sense of what's being lost. Witness the
requirement that Mr. Leather contests simultaneously anoint Ms.
Leather titleholders, or (on the admittedly extreme verge) attempts
in the '80s to turn J.O. clubs into "jack- and jill-off" clubs. No
wonder gay men have no sense of what gay masculinity could be.
All this is further evidence of the descent of the women's
movement into sexist chauvinism of the worst sort, comparable to
nationalism or white supremacism. If you think the analogy
overheated, look into the Michigan's Womyn's Music Festival
rounding up and expelling male-to-female transsexuals who attempted
to attend. The festival's organizers determined that, due to the
transsexuals' patriarchal socialization, their "male energy"
polluted the gathering. (Interestingly, this may reflect the schism
between feminists who see maleness as a pernicious essence and
those who, like Stoltenberg, view manhood as a social construct
that, while deeply rooted, can eventually be weeded out of
society.)
Of course, the issue is complicated by the fact that "manhood"
is often equated in straight society with anti-gay machismo. But
while male homosexuality is grounded in a complex interplay of
active and receptive, yin and yang, gay men are still men -
including male gender-benders. Leaving aside male transsexuals, who
feel they are essentially women (are you listening, Michigan
Womyn's Music Festival?), most drag queens delight in the complex
interplay of masculine and feminine. It's what makes them so
special. Without that vital, underlying masculine component, drag
queens would each be just "one of the girls," which assuredly they
are not.
Liberated gay manhood - free, multifaceted, but unquestionably
(and proudly) male - could contribute to revising and liberating
masculinity for all men (per Bly), just as lesbians played a
central role in women's liberation struggles. But this
transformation will never happen if (per Stoltenberg) men are
instructed that the path to nirvana lies in a rejection of all that
is uniquely valuable - and vital - within the masculine archetype.
What a pity if misguided feminist women and their male compatriots,
alienated from the potential within their own manhood, continue to
prevent such a renewal.
THE MYTH OF MALE POWER
by Warren Farrell, Ph.D
1993, Simon & Schuster, 446 pp.
Review by Stephen H. Miller
Don't expect Gloria Steinem to write an admiring jacket blurb
for The Myth of Male Power, although author Warren Farrell was the
only man elected three times to the board of the National
Organization for Women (NOW) in New York City and, as such, was
once Steinem's close comrade. The reason: Farrell is an apostate
who abandoned the cause, finding that feminism took a wrong turn
away from equality and toward an ideology of female victimization
driven by male-bashing.
Farrell's book is chock-a-block with documentation challenging
much of the accepted wisdom about alleged male privilege,
including, for example:
- Income disparity: "The U.S. Census Bureau finds that women who
are heads of households have a net worth that is 141 percent of the
net worth of men who are heads of households," income figures for
married women are lower because many choose not to work full
time;
- Health funding: "Why does breast cancer receive over 600
percent more funding than prostate cancer [even though men are]
almost as likely to die from prostate cancer as women from breast
cancer?";
- Life expectancy: "In 1920 women in the United States lived one
year longer than men. Today women live seven years longer");
- The work obligation gap: "When all child care, all housework,
all work outside the home, commuting and gardening were added
together, husbands did 53 percent of the total work, wives 47
percent."
Farrell, who doesn't ignore gay issues, traces the roots of
homophobia to the fact that gay men were viewed as refusing to
provide an economic security blanket for women. "Do we actually
care less about the lives of men who are unwilling to reproduce and
to protect? Our initial lack of attention to AIDS - until it became
apparent that heterosexuals were also at risk - makes our attitude
quite transparent."
Yes, I'm sure in some cases Farrell overstates his case, but all
told the book is an overdue tonic for knee-jerk nostrums about male
predation and female victimization.