de la moral public», oomo dice al combat ir la investjj

Participants’ understandings of men’s interests may help to explain their support for men’s involvement in feminism. Participants did not seem to see men’s and women’s interests as inherently contradictory, as may be found in some feminist

182

accounts (for example, Redstockings, 1970, The Trouble & Strife Collective, 1983/2010), and none of them mentioned men’s interests in maintaining the current gender order, which Connell has conceptualised as a ‘patriarchal

dividend’ (2002, 2005). Furthermore, some participants explicitly mentioned that patriarchy harms men as well as women, which implies that men also stand to benefit from feminism. For example, Rose (20, women’s committee) said:

I think guys do face, even though we face sort of like gender inequality in the sense, like social sense and also like, um, politically, economically and stuff, I think guys have it really hard in terms of social like, this like idea that boys need to be macho all the time, you know what I mean, and like the arty like weedy boys get picked on at school and stuff, so I do think it’s, like a, a flip.

James (30, feminist discussion group) explained that one of the ways in which men can contribute to feminism is in ‘challenging masculine values’, which can help men as well as women:

[T]he idea we had with the men’s group is trying to do a zine that would be about feminism is good for men in a way that, yeah you know like

challenging all the competition values and the fact that, you know [...], it’s not OK to, um, to share your feelings or your emotion[s] or [...] why you always have to be responsible or to be strong or to be the breadwinner, you know these sort of [...] stereotypes that, that actually, yeah, don’t necessarily make you really happy, they give you [...] a lot of power and a good position but um, [...] challenging that isn’t just useful to sort of [...]

help [women’s] liberation, but it is [...] I see it as really good for men as well.

These participants reflect ideas developed in the profeminist men’s movement and in critical studies of men and masculinities about the ways in which the current gender order impacts on men. Thus, Rose echoes the view in the masculinities literature that some men are marginalised or subordinated in relation to others (see Connell, 2005), and both participants support the idea that living up to hegemonic masculine norms is harmful for men (see, for example, Pleck and Sawyer, 1974, Seidler, 1997). James points out that traditional masculine roles give men power as well as being potentially restrictive. Thus, he seems to agree with Kimmel’s view that ‘[m]en’s pain is caused by men’s power’ (1998, p.64; see also Kaufman, 1994). Overall, both participants support the view that men stand to benefit from feminism. As Kimmel argues:

183

men should want to support feminist reforms: not only because of an ethical imperative […] but also because men will live happier and healthier lives, with better relations with the women, men, and children in their lives if they do (1998, p.59).

Lambert and Parker also noted the influence of the discourses of profeminism and critical studies of men and masculinities in their research with members of a mixed-gender student feminist group, the Warwick Anti-Sexism Society

(WASS):

What distinguishes the approach adopted by WASS is that it is theoretically embedded in the combined insights of feminism and the

critical men’s studies tradition […]. What emerged as particularly significant for us was the ways in which many of the students’ concerns to engage the active inclusion of men [in the group] came about as a result of their

academic work around gender, sexualities and, in particular, masculinities (2006, pp.476-77).

They go on to say that the ‘take-home message’ for many students from the study of masculinities ‘appears to be that men as well as women have much to

“benefit” from a rejection of patriarchy’ (p.479). Although the participants in my study had not necessarily engaged with this literature, they seemed to share these ideas, which suggests that the study of men and masculinities has influenced feminist thinking and practice. This is particularly interesting given that some theorists have argued that feminists generally neglect to take into account the insights of masculinity studies regarding differences and power relations amongst men and instead continue to view men as monolithic and oppressive (Ashe, 2004, Hebert, 2007).

As well as recognising that men are harmed by patriarchy, some participants saw this harm as a starting point for engaging men in gender politics. In

discussing men’s role in feminism, Martin (25, feminist discussion group) said:

[T]here’s loads of things that could be focused on in terms of educational stuff, you know, um, profeminist men in schools, outreach type stuff I suppose, um and [...] other stuff to do with, um, supporting men and looking after men who are kind of, uh, damaged by and don’t like their roles within patriarchy, and I think it’s you know, often overlooked that patriarchy is really shit for men as well (laughs) and that um it’s clearly not as shit as it is for women but I think [...] there’s a certain amount of political work that could be done in the area of like reaching all the men who are dissatisfied with their lot.

184

Indeed, in the feminist activist group, Chris (22) had partly been drawn to feminism by (his) own discomfort with gender norms and (his) experience of gender-based oppression:

I’ve not like faced any discrimination for being a woman or whatever but, um, I have like faced discrimination for like not meeting like, not measuring up to male standards… so um, and you know, so that’s like one of the things why like gender stuff’s always interested me.

The literature suggests that other (pro)feminists have had similar experiences (see, for example, WASS Collective, 2007). Again, the participants quoted above show the influence of profeminism, which, according to Ashe, ‘emerged as a form of politics that viewed men’s identities as sites for political

engagement in gender politics’ (2007, p.13). Participants’ comments show the combined influence of the ‘anti-sexist’ and ‘men’s liberation’ tendencies within the profeminist men’s movement, whereby dismantling patriarchy is linked to challenging traditional male identities and thus potentially liberating men from restrictive gender norms (for discussion, see, for example, Goldrick-Jones, 2002, Ashe, 2007).

The idea that men are harmed by patriarchy may help to explain my

participants’ willingness to include men in feminism. Whilst only a few of them explicitly discussed men’s interests in relation to feminism, as I have indicated above, none of them appeared to see men’s and women’s interests as

inherently conflicting. Like Tarrant (2009), the activists in my study appeared to reject a zero-sum model of power, in which any gains for women must be losses for men. As Bryson (1999) points out, the idea that feminism can benefit everyone is likely to lead feminists to see men as potential allies, which may partly account for the widely held view amongst my interviewees that men should be part of the feminist movement.