This leaves us at a somewhat hopeless position. Masculinity is a social construct, and the recognition of that fact means that we can define manhood as whatever we want it to be. If, however, people can’t be kept from defining themselves in opposition to others, then gender identity comes perilously close to being a zero sum game, in which every positive trait in one gender must be offset by its undesirable opposite in the other. I think most rational people will recognize that this is neither the way the world works, nor a way that anybody would want it to work. How, then, are we to account for this tendency in the construction of a more positive masculinity? What is the opposite of a man if it is not a woman?

Here’s my proposal: The opposite of manhood is not womanhood, but rather boyhood. Masculinity thus denotes maturity rather than mere opposition to femininity. This must come with a few disclaimers. First, as I mentioned above and have said before, nothing about this says anything whatsoever about women and femininity. Questions about femininity are for women to answer. Second, boyhood is not to be understood as a set of negative characteristics to be shunned, but rather as a perfectly healthy state of being that people should be expected to grow out of at a certain point in their lives. Lastly, this is all quite subjective. Manhood, boyhood, and other such identities vary between cultures, families and individuals. That being said, here are a few of my observations on the matter, drawn from five summers of working at a day camp. As I see it, men differ from boys in a number of important respects:

• Response to Adversity Howls of rage at not getting one’s way are generally characterized as immature, and indeed they are far more common among boys than among men. Masculinity can therefore be understood as including a certain stoicism in the face of difficult circumstances.
• Response to Constructive Criticism When criticized, boys frequently respond with insults and denial. It is, accordingly, thought of a mark of maturity when somebody uses constructive criticism as a catalyst for self-improvement.
• Responsibility Speaking purely from personal experience, I can say that adulthood has come along with a vastly improved ability to acknowledge the consequences of my actions, both as they pertain to me and as they affect other people.
• Temper Boys are quick to hit one another as a way of resolving conflict. Men can be expected to use their words, and little tolerance is extended to them if they are unable to do so.

The nice thing about this definition of masculinity is that it already lines up with a lot of what is prized in traditional masculinity. Traditionally masculine pop-culture heroes, for all their problematic sexism, tend to exhibit a high degree of maturity. That this transition is not terribly radical will make it easier to attain. It does, however, have an interesting and encouraging side-effect, which I have intentionally chosen the characteristics listed above in order to illustrate. Feminism, if taken as seriously as it deserves, should change the social landscape such that gendered privilege is stripped away from men while those same men are asked to reform their behaviour as they relate to women and each other. This will not be easy for many men, and it will require a great deal of maturity to deal with. Many men have, predictably, responded to feminism with a series of juvenile whines, but masculinity, according to my definition, requires the stoicism to accept the loss of certain privileges, and the willingness to listen and change when one’s sexist behaviour is criticized. This can only be good for the feminist project.

This is just one way to understand masculinity, of course, and no man is required to abide by it or any other masculine ideal. The reason I have shared this is because men need alternatives to Sean Connery masculinity, and these alternatives must not define themselves simply as ‘not femininity’. Anti-feminists have chosen to aggressively question the masculinity of men who support the feminist cause, so it behooves us to fight back by cutting the very idea of normative masculinity out from under them. An important job for male feminists is to make the transition away from patriarchy as comfortable as possible for men, while not compromising the advancement of women’s rights. We need new, feminist-compatible views of masculinity to make that possible.

I’ve always really liked this view, because I’ve always equated “womanhood” with a degree of maturity, actually. I realize that his argument and model are not perfect, but it’s a start. Also, I do not think of traits like silliness as immature— I’ve always felt that someone was an adult when they take full responsibility for themselves. A number of traits that people deem as indicators of immaturity are not necessarily linked to actual immaturity.

For instance, one of my cousins is a huge prankster who makes a joke out of everything and is the king of terrible puns. Some people would, as a result, roll their eyes at him saying to me when I was eight that I like fried rice because I’m loud— this is a pun on how the word “fried” sounds like “loud” in Chinese. Regardless, he’s one of the most responsible people in my entire family and he has the deep respect of almost everyone he meets.

Dear men’s rights activists,

I have to preface this by saying that I consider myself one of you. Unfortunately, I suspect that a number of you might not agree with my self-identification as a men’s rights activist, because of another important self-identification: I am also a feminist.  I know that this may seem incoherent and even offensive to some of you, and that is why I am writing this letter. The struggles for both men’s and women’s rights have a lot to gain if only the men’s rights movement realizes that feminism is not its enemy. Feminism and men’s rights can, in fact, be highly effective allies if they align themselves against their common foe: patriarchy.

Upon my mention of that last word, I can almost feel thousands of rolled men’s rights activist eyes on me. When I was a men’s rights activist of a more recognizable antifeminst variety, I immediately dismissed anybody who uttered the p-word. That was because I didn’t have the faintest idea of what feminists mean when they talk about patriarchy. Therefore, before I go any further, I will have to explain precisely what I mean by the word. Contrary to what I once believed, feminists talking about patriarchy are not referring to  some kind of conspiracy. While it has prominent supporters and apologists, patriarchy has no leaders. Its membership is not exclusive and its methods are not hidden. In fact, patriarchy is so universally visible and inclusive that it is difficult to detect if you do not put some effort into doing so, much as you would never know about the presence of the oxygen that sustains you if you had not had it explained to you.

Patriarchy is an emergent phenomenon that comes from the behaviour of virtually everybody on earth. It is the sum of all the beliefs, actions, words, choices, policies, practices, preferences, tastes, and documents that together constitute a broadly enforced but unwritten code that expects one clearly defined social role of women and another one of men. This is both descriptive and normative: gender roles are assumed to be natural, yet patriarchy demands the conformity of those who do not behave according to their supposed nature. I can say with near-complete certainty that you contribute to patriarchy. So do I. And so do even most feminists, as many of them admit themselves. It is fiendishly difficult to act against a lifetime of social conditioning, and yet it is precisely this task that feminism undertakes.

I think that if a sensible men’s rights activist looks at the consequences of patriarchy with an open mind, it will become obvious that they should be working with feminists rather than against them. A good example of this is the issue of family courts. Men’s rights activists have brought forward evidence that family courts are biased in favour of mothers during child custody cases. If this is indeed the case, then it would be difficult to see any plausible explanation for it that did not include the fact that women are generally considered to be more nurturing, and better suited to the care of children than men. That attitude, which is close to universal in our society, is a manifestation of patriarchy that hurts men. It has a flip-side, though. The common perception of women as sensitive and nurturing and more suited to child-raising leads to disadvantages in the work place, including the glass ceiling and lower average pay.

This kind of overlap exists for a number of feminist and men’s rights issues. The perception of women as fragile that leads to their being passed over for the draft or combat duty in the military is also a huge setback for women’s athletics, and the social expectation that men be the active party in the initiation of any relationship, while frustrating at times for men, is deadly serious for women as it contributes to stalking and date rape. A social order which has a set of expectations for men and a different set of expectations for women is beneficial for neither. Both men and women have entirely self-interested reasons to fight patriarchy. Adding a bit of solidarity for the other side of the struggle can only strengthen the cause.

It must be said, however, that there are many ways in which we men have it easy. One needn’t believe in patriarchy to concede that the vast majority of political, economic and cultural leaders for the history of the human species have been men. It therefore stands to reason that much of our society was and is set up by men and for men. This a priori argument is corroborated by a significant amount of hard evidence suggesting that women do, in fact, have it harder on average than men.  This is difficult for a men’s rights activist to accept, as it implies that certain privileges that men currently enjoy must be eliminated in order for equality to be attained. This is, I suspect, the reason why those interested in men’s rights are so reflexively sceptical of feminism. There is no way around this. If complaints about the status of men are to be taken seriously, then it must be accepted that men are privileged and that this privilege must be fought. I am confident that there are plenty of people within your movement that have the  maturity to accept this, and to live up to the term men’s rights activists, rather than the less attractive label of men’s privilege advocate.

The bottom line is that equal rights is not a zero-sum game. The elimination of patriarchy provides a blueprint for the realization of a world in which nobody’s gender will be used to oppress them in any particular way. This is an ambitious project whose realization demands nothing less than a complete rearrangement of the existing social order, and it will be made much easier if women and men can work together, both with their own goals in mind and out of genuine concern for the well-being of the other half of the human race. For that reason I ask you in the men’s rights movement to see feminism as an ally rather than an enemy, and to back that up with a commitment to fight for things that truly should be men’s rights, rather than for men’s privileges that should rightfully be abolished. I believe that there is enough honesty and maturity within the men’s rights movements that this can come to pass.

Yours sincerely,

Cameron Roberts

The comments are gems. Roberts answered everyone politely and thoughtfully, but the MRAs that answered his post really let him down.