Last night, my wife and I were finally able to see North Country, the new Charlize Theron film about sexual harassment in the Minnesota iron mines. I’ve been eager to see it since I was first asked to be part of the Stand Up online community organized by the film’s producers, Participant Productions.
What struck me most about the film was the pivotal role that seemingly good men play in allowing sexual harassment to flourish. The iron mine in which Theron’s character works has a long-standing culture of hostility and resentment towards women, often expressed in brutal and degrading ways. But not all of the men in the mine are flagrant harassers. Others are simply witnesses, even with flashes of sympathy for their female co-workers. They do not participate in the abuse, but they are unwilling (at least until the end of the film) to confront the harassers. What allows the harassment to flourish in the film — and in so many settings in real life — is not only the complicity of management, but the silence of the "good guys".
I’ve worked with young - and not so young — men around issues of sexual violence, date rape, and harassment for quite a few years now. I often get the same line: "I don’t need a training program. I’m a good guy! I don’t harass women; I know that "no" means "no". In the workplace, in college fraternities, any one who does sexual harassment prevention work will run into many a "good guy" who will vehemently insist that only a small minority of men are real threats to women. In a very literal sense, they "good guys" may be right. But the goal of sexual harassment prevention is not only to target the harassers or potential rapists! The goal is to reach the "silent majority" of "good guys" who are too afraid to challenge the harassers and the culture that encourages them.
The pre-eminent scholar of masculinity, Michael Kimmel, points out that American men live their lives in a heavily homosocial culture. We are raised to seek the approval of other men on the athletic field, in the workplace, in the bar. Homosociality means that most men are more likely to risk disappointing women rather than their "brothers." And of all of the rules of male homosocial culture, one stands above all others: the importance of silence. Men are raised not to call each other on their treatment of women, no matter how offensive or abusive it may be. To speak out, to "stand up", is to risk being thrown out of the brotherhood. (Brotherhood is an important subtext in the film.) To stand up against sexual harassment is to risk ostracism from a community of men whose acceptance is vital to most men’s self-concept.
The key goal of sexual harassment prevention, at least as I’ve been involved with it, is never just about reaching potential harassers. It’s about creating a climate where men feel emboldened to challenge each other. It’s about identifying the "alpha males" (not always the bosses or the presidents, just the guys with the highest degree of homosocial credibility) in the office, the fraternity, the factory, and getting them to "buy in" to the idea that men can and should hold each other accountable for how they treat the women with whom they share public and private space. Effective sexual harassment prevention is about reaching young men, and empowering them to speak up when they see other boys or men engaging in abusive behavior. Above all, effective harassment prevention is about undermining a culture of silence that allows so many men to imagine that they are "good guys", even as they are complicit in the abuse and mistreatment of their coworkers, sisters, daughters, and female friends.
Let me be honest: in my work, I’ve found that nothing is more difficult than getting men to hold each other accountable for how they treat women. And yet, I’ve seen many guys start to do just that. The key, as always, is offering them role models whose masculinity is unimpeachable, but whose commitment to standing up against a culture that encourages harassment is unquestionable.
I’ve got no qualms about using the language and rhetoric of masculine culture to try and undermine the conspiracy of silence. Though some of my feminist allies cringe when I use the phrase "real men", I’ve found that the most successful way to reach guys is to make use of familiar concepts and ideals. My friends as Men Can Stop Rape have been doing this for years with their "men of strength" campaign which offers an alternative vision of what it means to be a powerful, authentically masculine man.
Above all else, the vital message of North Country is one of individual responsibility. Stopping harassment and abuse is about making every one of us, especially men, aware that remaining silent in the face of the mistreatment of women makes one a co-conspirator. Real men stand up.
Hugo, as stanton has pointed out on a number of occasions, your ideology is very limiting vis-a-vis the approach you take on gender issues, and because of this many of your posts are completely off-base due to the fallacies inherent in your ideology-based assumptions. This post is another excellent example of it.
First, you state that Micaheal Kimmel is “the pre-eminent scholar of masculinity”, which is by no means true. A more accurate statement would have been that Kimmel is/may be the “the pre-eminent male feminist scholar of masculinity.” The truth is that Kimmel is a highly controversial person who holds veiws on men and masculinity that are pretty far out of the mainstream. And yes, it is important to properly set the stage re. Kimmel and his theories because your entire missive in based on the theory (yes, theory) of “homosociality,” which is a theory that by no means has been tested vigorously, let alone proven to be true.
Your language betrays the bias inherent in your narrow ideology, as can be seen when you state your hypotheses: “We are raised to seek the approval of other men on the athletic field, in the workplace, in the bar. Homosociality means that most men are more likely to risk disappointing women rather than their “brothers.” And of all of the rules of male homosocial culture, one stands above all others: the importance of silence. Men are raised not to call each other on their treatment of women, no matter how offensive or abusive it may be. To speak out, to “stand up”, is to risk being thrown out of the brotherhood.” Is this hypothesis supported by observational or empirical fact? From my experience, it is not. Further, it goes against the everyday experiences of most all normal, well-adjusted boys and men.
Your citation of the White Ribbon Campaign folks are an excellent example of the excessively simplistic and ideological approach you’re taking here: They’re not engaging in their work to please other men, they’re doing it to please their leaders, who in turn are mostly the women on campus (i.e., the feminist professors and admnistrators) who support them. The main source of momentum and support for the White Ribbon campaign comes from women’s studies departments and groups, and feminist adminstrators. Indeed, more generally in American culture boys are raised to seek the approval of primarily women, not men. Mothers are the center of the family and have been for generations, and the mother-son dynamic has been well-known since the days of Freud (I know, you feminists absolutely hate Freud but most of his theories have stood the test of time in mainstream psychoanalytic circles for close to a century). Almost all daycare personnel are women. The vast majority of elementary school teachers and principles are women. Etc., etc. The reality is that, yes, they care about what their “brothers”(and the case of young boys, fathers and father-figures) think, but they care more about what their potential mates (and in young boys, mothers and authority figures, which as I said are mostly female) think.
Further, your statement that men don’t hold each other accountable doesn’t wash because it’s not based in reality; we most certainly do hold each other accountable, both formally (e.g., military, police, courts, prisons, etc.) and informally. In fact, in our culture it is women who are given a pass re. accountability, not men.
Let’s use the feminist and MRA movement to examine your statement that “Men are raised not to call each other on their treatment of women, no matter how offensive or abusive it may be. To speak out, to “stand up”, is to risk being thrown out of the brotherhood.” I believe that you are projecting your experiences in the feminist movement onto men. We see the expulsion of women from the feminist movement who stand up to the misandrist rhetoric, e.g., C. H. Sommers, Camille Paglia, Wendy McElroy, et al. They are literally thrown out of “the sisterhood.” At the same time, feminists don’t challenge the most radical, misandrist among their ranks and instead encourage a culture of silence. On the other hand, mainstream MRAs call their misogynist brothers when appropriate; you seen this with people like Glenn Sacks, Warren Farrell, et al. This also happens on a small scale every day among ordinary men in the workplace. Therefore, I have to say that I think you have the whole situation completely backwards, and again, this is due to the narrow “gender lens” with which you seem to view the world.
Once again Occam’s Razor applies: Men aren’t holding each other accountable re. women’s issues based on elaborate, convoluted theories relating to “homosociality” or other silliness, they’re doing it to please the women. It’s a dance as old as humankind, older than women’s studies, Christianity, etc. Apply the KISS principle - no other explanations are necessary. Besides, “North Country” is a movie for crying out loud, a Hollywood drama based loosely on a ‘true’ story. You don’t really expect us to take is as a factual historical account do you? However, I’ll give you credit for getting at least one thing right: The vast, vast majority of men are decent, stand-up people who currently and in the past have helped women time and time again.
You claim to be Christian. Yet you still divide the world into “good” and “not good.” Do you still not understand?
Mr. Bad, many of your comments puzzled me. I spent some time re-reading your post and I think I’ve narrowed it down to an indefinable but very strong sense that you think someone can either be a feminist or understand “real men” but not both.
I think it’s your mindset that’s simplistic, not Hugo’s. Nothing in his words elminates the possibility that other viewpoints than those he cites can exist and he’s certainly not obligated to pay lip service to every school of thought that exists.
Further than that, there are a lot of smaller points I’d quibble with in your post.
For instance, the existence of laws and prisons is, in a sense, proof of men holding each other “accountable” but that’s a gross oversimplification. Laws and prison are a society or a nation holding individuals accountable. Surely you can see that that’s an incredibly different concept than two men, or ten men, facing each other, holding each other accountable for their personal behavior at that moment? The law isn’t the be-all and end-all of existence. There are social norms that are not, should not be codified in law but should nevertheless be accepted as standards by which to guide our behavior.
Second, men do, in fact, risk being “thrown out of the brotherhood” for bucking the social norms of their peer group and it’s a bit naive of you to argue otherwise.
To cite one example, there’s a lot of literature on the “culture of silence” in police departments around the country, and it goes far beyond how women are treated. Until very recently, misogyny, racism, homophobia were practically institutionalized in many major cities in this country and we still hear frequent revelations of such behavior suddenly being “exposed.” If other men in these departments weren’t going along with “the brotherhood,” then how could this behavior continue?
I think many of your other points are either oversimplifications or irrelevant. My bottom line objection is that, until true legal and social equality are achieved, the behavior of those in the dominant group needs to be subjected to more scrutiny than behavior in the dominated group. That’s why, “but the girls act that way” doesn’t strike me as a very sensible point to make.
But mostly I think that Hugo and other men and women who are arguing that men are not rabid animals but human beings who can and should be responsible for their own behavior are telling the simple truth. Men need to acknowledge that yes, they are responsible for the behavior they exhibit, and the behavior they choose to support, even tacitly, in their friends and family.
What I don’t understand is what some men find so scary in that idea.
Anne: What I don’t understand is what some men find so scary in that idea.
Who said that this is a scary idea? What was said is that men already do this, if not perfectly. I don’t believe that you are arguing for the existence of some monolithic “brotherhood” which males resist only at their peril. There are multitudinous intersecting social circles, with different and often conflicting sets of values, and most of us are members of many such. Sorting out which imperatives to follow is a complex process. There is no single “dominant group” available for you (or anyone else) to use to conveniently label the pressures and expectations placed upon any individual, and thus to triumphantly define the victim/oppressor roles.
I believe in calling men to accountability for their actions and their lives. In fact, it is the main activity of my life at this time. When done without laying on them the required collective guilt-trip that is the standard feminist approach, genuine transformation is not only possible, it is routine. Evil_fizz and I tried to call on everyone to drop the blame game a while back. We got no responders. I think that for many, it is the only game they know, and any other approach to life is inconceivable.
Hugo wrote: “To speak out, to “stand up”, is to risk being thrown out of the brotherhood. ”
Come on Hugo, this is true of many groups, including women’s groups (not just feminist types).
Turing off the bold
Anne, I appreciate your perspective but of course I disagree with it. For example, the “culture of silence” you describe in police departments transcends gender - female cops are just as inculcated into and protected by that culture as male cops, so the example is apples and oranges.
What I think that you’re trying to get at but not coming outright and saying is that this alleged ‘culture of permission’ vis-a-vis men remaining silent in the presence of other men behaving badly is “partriarchy.” Is this correct? If so, I reject that out of hand. Feminists, and women in general, are just as likely to do this, so such behavior is not a gender issue but rather, a human issue.
Men do hold each other accountable, it’s just that we do so using reasonable, well-defined criteria, not subjective, fliud and slippery ones like the difference between “staring” and “looking.” If you and others fail to see it, that’s your problem not mine.
Mr. Bad, many of your comments puzzled me. I spent some time re-reading your post and I think I’ve narrowed it down to an indefinable but very strong sense that you think someone can either be a feminist or understand “real men” but not both.
I think it’s your mindset that’s simplistic, not Hugo’s. Nothing in his words elminates the possibility that other viewpoints than those he cites can exist and he’s certainly not obligated to pay lip service to every school of thought that exists.
Well, certainly, Anne, everyone in the world is as free as the morning air to totally ignore anything which might not fit into a worldview, especially if it might underlie a central thesis.
Further than that, there are a lot of smaller points I’d quibble with in your post.
Quibble is a good word.
For instance, the existence of laws and prisons is, in a sense, proof of men holding each other “accountable” but that’s a gross oversimplification. Laws and prison are a society or a nation holding individuals accountable.
I’m suprised. I would certainly say that, but it is my position that women are not disenfranchised from having a say in the day to day governing of our society, and in fact have the most substantial say of all.
Surely you can see that that’s an incredibly different concept than two men, or ten men, facing each other, holding each other accountable for their personal behavior at that moment?
As to vigilantes or lynch mobs, but that is besides the point.
The law isn’t the be-all and end-all of existence. There are social norms that are not, should not be codified in law but should nevertheless be accepted as standards by which to guide our behavior.
Can you provide a couple examples of these that would be accepted vis-a-vis circumscribing the behavior of men, which would be endorsed by even what one would call “radical” feminist groups? See - this is confusing, as I thought that feminism was all about striking down such gender-based social shackles on the sexes, and that feminism was composed of individuals, wasn’t monolithic, and so on.
I mean - heck - if that were true, your statement would be, well, nonsense.
Second, men do, in fact, risk being “thrown out of the brotherhood” for bucking the social norms of their peer group and it’s a bit naive of you to argue otherwise.
Such as? Ah….
To cite one example, there’s a lot of literature on the “culture of silence” in police departments around the country, and it goes far beyond how women are treated. Until very recently, misogyny, racism, homophobia were practically institutionalized in many major cities in this country and we still hear frequent revelations of such behavior suddenly being “exposed.” If other men in these departments weren’t going along with “the brotherhood,” then how could this behavior continue?
The “Blue Wall of Silence” refers to the police as a whole shielding other officers from accountability, and applies to shielding women, as well as making them part and parcel to this. Not a good example.
I think many of your other points are either oversimplifications or irrelevant. My bottom line objection is that, until true legal and social equality are achieved, the behavior of those in the dominant group needs to be subjected to more scrutiny than behavior in the dominated group. That’s why, “but the girls act that way” doesn’t strike me as a very sensible point to make.
But Anne, if men are the dominant group, his point about laws is relevant. You can’t have it both ways.
And the “girls do it” is relevant - its is hypocritical and disingenuous in the extreme to ask for the special privilege of a double standard
But mostly I think that Hugo and other men and women who are arguing that men are not rabid animals but human beings who can and should be responsible for their own behavior are telling the simple truth. Men need to acknowledge that yes, they are responsible for the behavior they exhibit, and the behavior they choose to support, even tacitly, in their friends and family.
What I don’t understand is what some men find so scary in that idea.
But mostly I think that Mr. Bad and other men and women who are arguing that women are not rabid animals but human beings who can and should be responsible for their own behavior are telling the simple truth. Women need to acknowledge that yes, they are responsible for the behavior they exhibit, and the behavior they choose to support, even tacitly, in their friends and family.
What I don’t understand is what some women find so scary in that idea.
After homeschooling for three years, I enrolled in a private school starting in ninth grade. I was sexually harassed for the first several months of school by a few boys. I was terrified of going to homeroom every day. The large majority of the boys in my grade did not participate, but not a one of them said anything against it. My teachers didn’t really care, and when I talked to the other girls, they just laughed at me and called me a feminist, because I didn’t want my ass grabbed 10 times a day. It would have meant a lot if just one person, male or female, had publicly shamed these guys; I would have even appreciated some sort of private sympathy. I don’t blame any of the guys for not speaking up; they would have been teased as well if they had. I think that this is the sort of thing Hugo is talking about; we all need to stand against bad behavior, not condone it with our silence.
Hugo, I appreciate the review, I’ve been looking forward to seeing the movie for some time and was awaiting your comments. I’ve worked at two companies where I had (or could have had) credible sexual harassment claims, and another that was borderline. Sometimes more troubling than the behavior of the harassers was the presence of those who seemed to be “good guys” and did nothing. At one location, there were no men who stood up, not as far as I know, and it took two young women to stand up to all of them to get the smallest of results. When things happened and I expressed shock and disgust to someone I thought of as a “good guy”, it was met with a sardonic smile, shrug, and comments like, “Sometimes things get crazy around here…” At the other place I struggled with the question of whether a supervisor could be trusted to take action, or if he would just brush it off. It’s an excruciating decision, more so I think, the more one respects the man. I wanted to believe he would stand up, but if he wouldn’t it was quite a risk to go to him. Thankfully, I was joined again by strong young women and a man who refused to stand idly by, whether we went forward or not. According to many, his refusal to remain silent put his career at risk.
Looking the other way when terrible things happen is indeed a problem for humanity. We need only look at Rwanda to see the evidence of men and women turning their backs on other men and women being victimized–slaughtered in this case. However, I think that when it comes to sexual harassment and gender issues, men are less likely than women to police their co-workers of the same gender. I’ve heard women call each other out when a word or look with a male co-worker or client crosses the line. It doesn’t happen as often as it should, I’m sure, but I’ve only ever seen men call each other out while laughing and shaking their head or joining in. I’ll readily admit that my beliefs are not based on empirical data, but on my experiences in the real world, and rather than invalidating my opinions, I think that strengthens them.
We see the expulsion of women from the feminist movement who stand up to the misandrist rhetoric, e.g., C. H. Sommers, Camille Paglia
Oh please. Paglia is a neanderthal when it comes to promoting absolutist notions of gender, while Sommers doesn’t seem to think rape’s that big a deal.
Neither one of them is a feminist.
Women need to acknowledge that yes, they are responsible for the behavior they exhibit, and the behavior they choose to support, even tacitly, in their friends and family.
I have no idea what this is meant to mean. Is “behavior they exhibit” what someone does? Are you saying “women need to acknowledge that they..are responsible for what they do” or are you saying something, uh, totally nuts like “women need to be responsible for what they inspire people to do”?
If it’s #2, that’s just bizarre.
We see the expulsion of women from the feminist movement who stand up to the misandrist rhetoric, e.g., C. H. Sommers, Camille Paglia
Karl_the_Idiot responds: “Oh please. Paglia is a neanderthal when it comes to promoting absolutist notions of gender, while Sommers doesn’t seem to think rape’s that big a deal.Neither one of them is a feminist.”
This point has always been the easiest one to demonstrate regarding feminism, because there is always a loyal feminist ready to pop up and prove it for you. Karl did the service this time. Thanks, buddy! We could try a few more: Cathy Young, Wendy MacElroy. Would you care to do the honors, Karl, or would you like to let someone else have a turn? :-)
Let’s go about this another way. Karl_the_Idiot, can you name ANY feminists in good standing who consistently stand up to misandrist rhetoric? Or don’t you believe in feminist misandrist rhetoric?
I would have even appreciated some sort of private sympathy. I don’t blame any of the guys for not speaking up; they would have been teased as well if they had. I think that this is the sort of thing Hugo is talking about; we all need to stand against bad behavior, not condone it with our silence.
the bolded part is extremely important. i went to an all-boy high school, and one of the unspoken rules was that if you saw someone being picked on and you tried to do something about it, you became the new pick. it’s not that no one wanted to do anything. in fact, when the bullies were gone, you would have been surprised at how the boys reacted to the victim. total sympathy. but none of them wanted to be picked on, bullied, or harrassed.
another reason at play was that most of us pretty much knew that if we were in that situation, no one would step in for us, so why put our necks out for someone who would not do the same. i think this comes into play on a much larger scale with genders because most females are not going to step in if males are harrassed. it certainly happens sometimes, but it is less common than males standing up for women. and considering how he would be ostracized, the question any guy is probably asking himself is “is this worth the crap i’m going to have to put with (because she’s certainly not going to back me up)?”
another element is that it might be considered as part of the hazing rituals. with guys, there is this other unspoken rule that if someone complains about the things you had to endure, and as a result gets out of it, they’re out of the group. in other words, “don’t rock the boat. i took it, and worse, so you can handle this little thing. if you can’t, you’re done. you’re not one of us.”
it isn’t always like that, but i think these are at leats some of the things at play.
with guys, there is this other unspoken rule that if someone complains about the things you had to endure, and as a result gets out of it, they’re out of the group. in other words, “don’t rock the boat. i took it, and worse, so you can handle this little thing. if you can’t, you’re done. you’re not one of us.”
I doubt very much that any of those miners had to deal with finding semen in their lockers, sex-toys in their lunchboxes, sexual assaults and stalking by their coworkers and supervisors, rumors and grafitti (in feces) smearing them about their (supposed) sexual proclivities, and having their port-a-potty turned over and feces dumped on them.
IOW, they didn’t have to take it, or worse. And while I understand the fear/reluctance for a bystander to stand up to snivelling bullies, I don’t buy that they got worse.
you are entitled to your opinion, but i think you are dismissing a ton of violence done against males in the name of “belonging to the group.” male hazing can be quite violent, and often times males will tolerate far more than women will because of social stigmas and the overall desire to belong to the group. it is unfortunate that you do not think males can be subject to such violence, or worse. i could give you examples it, but somehow i doubt that would make much of a difference.
I work for the Dept of Corrections in a chemical dependence/domestic violence program.This program is the only one in the country that deals with both issues.When identifying them selfs they have to state they are addicts and batterers, most of the men are very uncomfortable stating this in the beginning because they believe if they have not hit thier partners (this is what they must call the women they are involved with)they have not committed domestic violence.We educate the men,but they are told they can only change if they CHOOSE to.The only way to do this is to just STOP. If you have any kind of material we can use in educateing these men and stopping DV please let me know how to get new material of any kind Thank you in advance.Betty Lou Jacobs
Jaketk, What’s your point? That men are also victimised by men, so women shouldn’t complain? That because men accept hazing, so should women? Nothing you’ve said justifies standing around watching other people be victimised.
Please enlighten me.