Donald B. Jeffries, MPA, MSW

Executive Director

Mariposa Men’s Wellness Institute

(written: September 1989 – published in Connections,

a single’s magazine in Albuquerque, NM)

Introduction

The civil right movement of the 1950’s and ‘60’, and the women’s liberation movement of the past 20 years which it spawned, with its resultant emphasis on the equality of the sexes, has been in my opinion one of the most significant and inspiring cultural events of this century. Its significance lies not simply in the opening of women’s eyes to the roots of their social, sexual, and economic oppression, but also because it has inspired myself and other men to look at our role expectations and to question the validity of the social, sexual, and economic imperatives of that role.

My great concern, though, and the reason for my writing this series of articles, is that there has been, in the last several years, a retrenchment into more traditional, oppressive values as a backlash against the problems caused by the cultural dislocation of values. Personally, I find this quite uncomfortable. The changes were, to a great extent, to the advantage of both sexes, in that we were no longer bound by cultural expectations that made little objective sense.

Without a doubt, there were some frustrations spawned. The old cultural road maps to be followed in interpersonal relationships were increasingly no longer functional and this has lead to enormous confusion. The bad news is that traditional cultural values have been called into question and been found, in many cases, to be lacking. The good news is that each individual can now formulate a whole new set of values that are relevant to their personal situation.

The focus of my series of articles, of which this one (which will be published in two parts) is the first, will be to explore how the mythology of viewing men as the primary economic unit of the society is oppressive to both men and women. Although I will attempt to give numerous examples of how that oppression affects both sexes, my primary focus will be on how that mythology is in the disinterest of men themselves.

I feel that the literature of the past twenty years has been, of historical necessity, primarily focused on the ways in which the inequality negatively affects women. (I say “of historical necessity” only because the oppression of women is more overt and therefore more clearly obvious, than the oppression of men.) I will attempt to explain the ways in which inequality also is an issue of men’s liberation, and to give examples of the ways in which the social, sexual, and economic behavior of both sexes reinforces the oppression both of their own sex, as well as that of the opposite sex. Hopefully, in this manner, I will in my own small way be able to right some of the imbalance in the rhetoric and behavior of the sexual liberation movement.

One final note before I begin my discussion. Although I have read extensive amounts of books, articles and studies on feminism, sexuality, and sex role formation, most of my personal experience with relationships has been in New Mexico. It may be that we are somewhat behind the sociological changes of the rest of the nation and therefore the conservatism of our population would tend to negatively influence the conclusions to which I have come. However, the mainstream media, as well as many self-help books, tend to support the mythology that I am discussing, at least in terms of the male as the primary economic unit, and the resultant sociological, cultural, and behavioral impacts.

I am intentionally challenging many of the cherished role expectations of this society, precisely because I feel that the result of those expectations is [emotionally] unhealthy and clearly oppressive to both women and men. I have also intentionally attempted to provoke discussion of the issues I have raised, to encourage readers to think about accepted behaviors in new ways. I would encourage readers to respond by writing to this publication through the Letter to the Editor. I will take note of those letters, which may well influence my future articles.

Part I

Defining Oppression

Critical to any discussion of the inequality of the sexes is a definition of the oppression that causes that cultural imbalance. The primary influence on my viewpoint has been the Brazilian political educator, Paulo Freire, who a number of years ago wrote the seminal study The Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Pedagogy refers to the art or method of teaching and Mr. Freire’s book was a study of the methods in which to teach individuals about not only how oppression occurs, but how to extricate oneself from it.

Of critical importance both to his study and to my discussion are two definitions concerning the nature of oppression.

(1)    In any oppressive situation, there need be two parties: the
    one who does the oppressing, and the one who willingly
    allows it to occur.

These last five words are of pivotal importance. It is of no value to talk about the oppression of any individual or group without the concurrent realization that that oppression could not occur without the willing acceptance or acquiescence of those individuals. It must be realized, of course, that the willingness may occur as a result of socialization, cultural sex role definitions, and/or fear of being ignored or rejected by the dominant group or ones peers.

This does not, however, excuse the fact that the individual nonetheless willingly allow the oppression, and oftentimes actively encourages the oppression, by their social, sexual, economic, and/or psychological behavior. I will attempt to show how both men and women actively allow the other sex to oppress them and how they encourage that oppression. Very importantly, I will develop the theme that many times it is not necessary for the other partner to implement the oppression; individuals very often, by their actions (however they may be unaware of the results), ensure their own oppression.

(2)    In any oppressive interaction, the oppressed persons are
    dehumanized by the oppression, and the oppressors are
    dehumanized by that oppression also.

This is critical: oppression is a two-way street. One cannot oppress another individual without being dehumanized by that action. I will refer throughout my articles to the way in which certain cultural behaviors are obstacles to the realization of the authentic humanness of the individual. It is critical to my discussion to understand that the individual who places those obstacles is doing themselves no favors; in undermining the free will of their partner, they are dehumanizing themselves.

There is little doubt that there are some short-term benefits to either oppressing other persons (illusionary control) or actively participating in one’s own oppression (economic support a the expense of one’s free will), but oppression has its deleterious effects. In the long run, everyone is destroyed by inequality, because our basic authenticity and validity as creative, caring, nurturing, feeling, and loving individuals is brought into question.

This oppression is not in the interests of a society that is facing the threat of nuclear devastation, overpopulation, dwindling resources, and overt environmental pollution. Our world needs individuals who can work together, equally and in harmony, to create a society that fosters positive growth and change. It is crucial, though, that there be a sense by both sexes that real, actual, and mutual equality is occurring, and that one sex is not benefiting by the change while the other is simply paying a higher price, either economically, sexually, or emotionally.

Pages:   1  2  3  4  5  6

Mariposa Men’s Wellness Institute was founded in 2001

to help men become emotionally healthy.