Are Men the New Women? Only if Hyperbole is the New Logic

by Sima Matthes (New York City)

An article entitled “Depressed, repressed, objectified: are men the new women?” in last Sunday’s UK Observer arrived my inbox and I thought, “What, are you kidding me?”

Where to start? The whole idea that the three best ways to describe women would be “depressed, repressed and objectified” is infuriating, as is the idea that these are the best ways to describe men. The truth of these claims is yet another issue.

It’s offensive that in order for women to be “equal” (emphasis mine), men have to be made smaller, weaker, and more “feminine” (again, mine).

The truth of the war between the sexes has been, and remains, that the war is a fiction, perpetuated needlessly by men and women, in our endless desire to reduce everything to the lowest common denominator. If men=”good” then women, logically, must be “bad” and, of course, the opposite tautology is also true. So we get misguided attempts to make things “better” by reversing the equation, rather than balancing it and putting both genders on even footing.

But once I got over my outrage at the ridiculous title, and its equally ridiculous implications, and read the article, there were a few points that made me think, even if I don’t agree with them.

Let me start by saying that I wholeheartedly agree with the article’s point that advertising makes men look like idiots who can’t possibly figure out how many paper towels to use to mop up the mess they’ve made when their attempts to feed their children go horribly, horribly awry. Men are portrayed as dolts, the lesser-abled gender. You can almost hear Harry Belafonte in the background singing “That’s right, the women are smarter…” This helps no one, as we all become victims of low expectations. Men who might otherwise try are discouraged; men who do try fear ridicule, and women suffer in either case.

Then I thought about the quote by Warren Farrell, author of numerous books on men’s [in]equality, discussing what he calls a ‘glass cellar’ for men, parallel to our oft-mentioned glass ceiling:

“…men are both at the top of the economy scale and at the bottom. Of the 25 professions ranked the lowest [in the US], 24 of them are 85-100 per cent male. That’s things like roofer, welder, garbage collector, sewer maintenance – jobs with very little security, little pay and few people want them.’

Fair enough, although I must say I know more than a few women in construction (and have even met a female roofer, who works alongside her father and brothers).

Farrell goes on to say that men do not have the same power as men do to control their work-life balance. ‘I define power as “control over one’s life”. A balanced life is far superior to the male definition of power: earning money someone else spends while he dies sooner.’

I’ll give Farrell the first part—men and women all struggle for control over their lives—and will even agree that men in general probably work more hours than women do, and are less likely to be rewarded for seeking that balance. I don’t know many men who view power in the same bleak way he defines, although that may be the reality of men’s lives.

The article also offers the following: “While women still earn on average 12 per cent less than men and are severely under-represented in top-level corporate roles, men in full-time employment work an average of 41.9 hours a week, compared to women’s 37.6 hours.”

Ah, there it is, I thought. There’s the sticking point, the part that has men feeling underappreciated. It’s the 4.1 hours a week they work in those top jobs, earning 12 percent more than women. That’s what has them whining and complaining about unfair treatment and being emasculated. Now I get it.

Oh, please. How many of those men actually come home after their 41.9 hours and have primary responsibility for their homes and families? Perhaps, as Kathleen Parker, author of Save the Males: Why Men Matter, Why Women Should Care suggests, it’s that women have pushed them out of those roles. Again, our fault. Sorry ‘bout that, fellas—please, pick up where you were when we made you stop. We’ll be sitting in the den with our feet up.

Somehow, according to the article, that when women succeed, it’s by stepping on the still twitching bodies of men but when we fail, it’s because we weren’t meant to succeed. And when men fail at being nuturers, or parents, it’s not because of a fundamental lack of acceptance for men in those roles in our society; it’s because women don’t let them do well. How can it be that women are in such total control of everything, yet we still are outnumbered in government and the c-suite as well as financially outpaced in nearly every industry?

It’s certainly easier to rail against inequity—to blame men for holding women back, or women for receiving positions based solely on gender and diversity—than to work together toward the best solutions for everyone.

So, where’s the solution? Not in bashing either gender, but in our common humanity. The world I want my son to inhabit is one where the right person for the job is the one who gets the job, where strong women are appreciated by equally strong men, and where each gender gets its due without the other getting short shrift.

We share this time here, this place, this moment; it’s not a competition for space, or air (yet, anyway). Everyone does better ONLY when everyone does better. Let’s stop manufacturing weaknesses to exploit, and address the actual inequities that hold everyone back from their best.