Are Women the New Dominant Sex?
Investigating the Impact of Feminism on Masculine Roles and Identity
Dramatic Actors, Deep Acting, and Recipes
Social roles are created and legitimated through acting. George Herbert Mead’s conception of the self provides a useful understanding for the creation and destruction of masculine roles as they are played out in response to feminine roles. The self is essentially connected to the mind (Appelrouth & Edles, 2011). Behavioural processes involve an internal dialogue of actions and words involving symbols and meanings shared by social groups (Appelrouth & Edles, 2011). The masculine self, then, must be understood as being created in response to the views of others. Social control is internalized in the self where he determines his behaviours according to social norms.
Both sexes intentionally play roles as actors. Irving Goffman suggests that humans are impression managers who act to present specific images of ourselves to others (Appelrouth & Edles, 2011). As actors, we present and conceal information in order to display a socially desirable self, taking the attitude of the other (Appelrouth & Edles, 2011). It is essential to understand that, as feminism increases in strength, so too does its power to define social roles for both women and men. In patriarchal societies, women’s behaviour was controlled by preconceived male assumptions. Presently, the opposite is true. Feminism has replaced male-dominated ideology, so the self-identity and consequent behaviour of men is now constructed and controlled by socially approved forms dictated by women. Television’s idiot man, then, should be viewed as being created in response to the role of the intelligent woman, as masculine roles are being created in response to feminine roles.
Men are not simply impression managers, as Goffman’s theory suggests. Social norms infiltrate the psyche and impact how we experience emotion. In Arlie Russell Hochschild’s theory of emotion management, acting reaches beyond outward behaviour and extends inward. Individuals engage in “deep acting” according to societal expectations (Appelrouth & Edles, 2011). Emotion work involves shaping feelings, characterized by statements such as: “I psyched myself up... I squashed my anger down... I made myself have a good time” (Appelrouth & Edles, 2011). “Working on feeling” suggests a conscious effort to change what one feels (Appelrouth & Edles, 2011). The desire to alter feelings is determined by feeling rules, or social guidelines that are often latent (Appelrouth & Edles, 2011). In Working on Feeling (2003), Hochschild acknowledges that feeling rules have been altered by feminism:
The feminist movement brings with it a new set of rules for framing the work and family life of men and women: the same balance of priorities in women and family now ideally applies to men as to women. A woman can now as legitimately as a man become angry... over abuses at work... Or a man has the right to feel angry at the loss of custody if he has shown himself the fitter parent (Appelrouth & Edles, 2011).
Perhaps one of the benefits of feminism for men may be the greater freedom for expressing emotional sensitivity, as Hochschild suggests in this excerpt. She allows for male feeling rules to be altered as women’s have, but does not provide explanation, nor does she offer further information regarding the male response to feminism. Further exploration of masculine feeling rules and emotion management by men is needed because the lasting impact of feminism on men is not well documented or understood.
In The Managed Heart, Hochschild argues that women’s superior social skills were necessary as they held smaller “status shields” (Appelrouth & Edles, 2011). Social norms have often dictated that women maintain composure and demonstrate kindness in aggravating circumstances (Appelrouth & Edles, 2011). This was beneficial for women as they could “make a resource out of feeling” (Appelrouth & Edles, 2011). As this previously served to protect women in vulnerable positions, high social intelligence and deference are now marketable skills. This in turn presently places women in a privileged position. Women’s oppression has prepared them for success as the economy becomes geared toward service jobs. Many men now do not have these skills as they have not yet learned to adapt to societal changes.
New masculinity is based on a response to feminism. Men now live in fear of reproach of being labeled ‘sexist,’ which is not only socially unacceptable, but also has legal repercussions in many Western countries. Masculine identity becomes based on negatives. Feminist men may be found reciting their religious mantras: “Thou shalt not be a hero. Thou shalt not assert leadership over thine wife, daughter, child, or any woman. Thou shalt not take the job of a woman. Thou shalt not be a macho man.” Besides these negative laws, there exist relatively few positives: “Thou shalt be emotionally sensitive. Thou shalt be quiet and sit still. Thou shalt smile when thine wife brings home the bacon.” Is the stay-at-home father the essence of new masculinity?
While I am not wholly opposed to these ideas, they are problematic in that they do not provide positive socially approved alternatives for men. In addition to various levels of acting, individuals engage their worlds based on understandings of meaning. Alfred Schutz’s stocks of knowledge “provide actors with rules for interpreting interactions, social relationships, organizations, institutions, and the physical world” (Appelrouth & Edles, 2011). Understandings of meaning are thus based on previous knowledge. As men have not lived in a feminist, postmodern, Western society for long, they necessarily will find it difficult to determine meaning for their lives. The convenience of social norms is that they provide “recipes” for action, meaning, direction, and purpose for everyday living (Appelrouth & Edles, 2011). The majority of previous recipes for men have been delegitimized, if not wholly destroyed. I argue that this leads to Durkheimian anomie.
Consequences of New Masculinity: Normlessness and Anomie
The Dictionary of Social Sciences defines Durkheim’s concept of anomie as referring to “the absence of governing rules, norms, values, and identities in a society, leading to feelings of isolation and uncertainty... [it is] a social state of disrupted meanings and values” (Calhoun, 2012). The previous section referred to changing roles for Western women and men. Because anomie is characterized by the absence of rules, norms and identity, feminism is therefore largely responsible for the anomie contemporary Western men experience. I mourn the crisis the feminist movement has forced upon men. Returning to the sitcom idiot man stereotype, this trend is a symptomatic response to normlessness. Emotionally empty, one-dimensional men are the result of a maladaptive understanding of self in the normless male culture. Men ask “What does it mean to be a man?” Feminism is loath to answer.
I have demonstrated that this power shift exists and discussed the consequences of this change. What follows is an examination of where this domination originated.
As a Canadian citizen I have observed the social approval of feminism in my culture, but the pervasiveness of this ideology is difficult to quantify. Socially and politically correct speech and behaviour demands preferential treatment of women and other minorities. The importance of equitable treatment is clearly apparent in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982). Section 15 (1) of the Charter guarantees equality before the law without discrimination, particularly regarding “race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.” In addition, section 15 (2) clearly states that subsection (1) “does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups...” including all those mentioned previously. Canada has then, within its most important body of law, the approved preferential treatment of women. Women were indubitably minorities in recent Canadian history, however, as demonstrated in this essay, women are no longer victimized to the same extent they were previously. I have proposed that women are becoming the new dominant sex. Should affirmative action laws then, be used to expedite an ideologically privileged group?
The Employment Equity Act was passed on December 12th, 1995. Section 2 states:
The purpose of this Act is to achieve equality in the workplace so that no person shall be denied employment opportunities or benefits for reasons unrelated to ability and, in the fulfillment of that goal, to correct the conditions of disadvantage in employment experienced by women... [and other minority groups] giving effect to the principle that employment equity means more than treating persons in the same way but also requires special measures and accommodation of differences.
Again, I do not deny that this legislation is largely responsible for the current beneficial position of women, nor do I want benefits, such as maternity leave and anti-discrimination policies, to disappear. What I do wish to underscore is that women hold an ideological position of privilege.