Tag Archives: men

And Now Orlando: Manhood, Guns, and Violence

I first wrote this post a few weeks after the mass murder of children and teachers in Newtown, Connecticut. Then, as now, in the aftermath of Orlando, I watch news outlets as they rush to gather significant ‘facts’ about the shooter to help us understand what he did—his age, religion, affiliations, place of birth, marital and parental status, occupation. Anything but the one thing he shares with almost every other mass murderer—the fact of being male.

Four years ago, in the aftermath of the mass murder in Aurora, Colorado, I watched the PBS Newshour display photographs of the four most recent shooters as the moderator posed to a team of experts the question of what the perpetrators all had in common. They looked at the photos and shook their heads. “Nothing,” they said, going on to explain that there were no significant overlaps in the men’s psychological profiles. All men, with nothing in common.

I watched again after the massacre in Newtown as a PBS moderator expressed her exasperation at the steady stream of killings that seem to defy explanation, adding to her earnest question, Why is this happening? what seemed almost like an afterthought—that all of the shooters are young men and might this hold a clue. The expert replied as if he hadn’t heard, and she did not bring it up again.

I pick on PBS only because they are so enlightened and serious compared with all the rest, and if they can’t see what’s right in front of them, then I don’t know who among the media can.

But, of course, the thing is, they do. I used to think they actually didn’t on account of ignorance—fish not noticing the water because it’s everywhere. I don’t believe that anymore. They have eyes that see and they’re not stupid. We know this because if you point out to them that all the shooters are male, they don’t say, “They are?” They know what they’re looking at and, even more, some of them feel moved to ask about it. So why, then, do they—and just about everyone else of consequence, it seems—act as if they don’t, as if the question isn’t worth the asking, much less a serious reply?

Many are in a state of denial or the wilful ignorance that Martin Luther King saw as the greatest threat. But denial and wilful ignorance are used for self-protection, which raises the question of what these educated, sensitive shapers of public policy and opinion are so afraid of.

The most immediate reason not to ask about the connection between men and violence is, quite simply, that men won’t like it if you do. We are a nation tiptoeing around men’s anger, men’s ridicule, men’s potential to withhold resources (such as funding for battered women’s shelters and sexual assault programs), men’s potential for retaliation, violent and otherwise, men’s defensiveness, and the possibility that men might feel upset or attacked or called out or put upon or made to feel vulnerable or even just sad. In other words, anything that might make them feel uncomfortable as men.

I have seen this again and again over the years that I’ve worked on the issue of men’s violence. Whether testifying before a governor’s commission or serving on the board of a statewide coalition against domestic violence or consulting with a commissioner of public health, when I point out that since men are the perpetrators of most violence, they must be included in naming the problem—as in men’s violence against women—the response has been the same: We can’t do that. Men will get upset. They’ll think you’re talking about them.

Even when children are gunned down at school—shot multiple times at close range so as to be rendered unrecognizable to their own parents—people in positions of influence and power show themselves all too willing to look into the camera and act as though they cannot see and do not know.

As a result, when men engage in mass murder, the national focus is on the murder but not men, beginning with a nationwide outpouring of broken hearts and horror and disbelief that this is happening yet again. All of this is undoubtedly heartfelt and sincere, but it gives way all too quickly to this country’s endless debate about controlling guns. Yes, we must talk about guns because they do kill people in spite of what their defenders say. Killing someone (including yourself) with a gun is far easier and quicker (harder to change your mind) and more certain and therefore more likely than is killing someone with a baseball bat or a knife. The rest of the industrialized world shows clearly how limiting access to guns lowers rates of murder and suicide. So, yes, we must talk about guns. And we must also talk about violence in the culture, from movies to video games. Even the National Rifle Association wants to talk about that.

But those debates are endless precisely because they are such effective distractions from what just about everyone is working so hard to ignore, which is the obvious connection between men and guns and violence. It is much easier to argue about immigration or the best way to fight terrorism or the fine points of the First and Second Amendments than to take seriously the question of what is going on in all of this with men. Such distractions enable us to avoid talking about the underlying reality that is driving it all, which, strangely enough, isn’t strictly about guns or politics or even violence. Or even, in a way, just about men.

Guns and violence are not ends in themselves. People are not attached to guns because of guns. Nor is violence glorified for itself. Guns and violence are used for something, a means to an end, and it is from this that they acquire their meaning and value in the culture. It is that end that we must understand.

Guns and violence are instruments of control, whether used by states or individuals. They otherwise have no intrinsic value of their own. Their value comes from the simple fact that violence works as a means to intimidate, dominate, and control. It works for governments and hunters and police and terrorists and batterers and parents and schoolyard bullies and corporations and, by extension, anyone who wants to feel larger and more powerful and in control than they otherwise would. The gun has long been valued in this culture as the ultimate tool in the enforcement of control and domination, trumping all else in the assertion of personal control over others. Can anyone forget the scene in Indiana Jones when ‘our hero’ is confronted with the huge man wielding an equally enormous sword, and the white man unholsters his gun and the crowd roars its approval as he calmly shoots the other man down? The gun is the great equalizer with the potential to elevate even the most weak, shy, or timid above anyone who lacks equivalent firepower. What this makes clear is that violence in this country is not an aberration or a simple product of mental illness. It is an integral part of the American way of life.

The key to understanding gun violence and the fact that all these shooters are men is this: an obsession with control forms the core of our cultural definition of what it means to be a real man. A real man is one who can demonstrate convincingly an ability always to be in control. Because violence is the ultimate and most extreme instrument of control, then the capacity for violence—whether or not individual men may actually make use of it—is also central to the cultural definition of manhood.

Every man and boy faces the challenge of signaling either their own capacity for violence or their support if not admiration for that potential in other males, if for no other reason than to solidify their standing as real men (or boys), if not to deter acts of violence and ridicule directed at them. It is a dynamic that begins early—in locker rooms and schoolyards—and extends in one form or another throughout men’s entire lives. However men and boys choose to deal with it as individuals, deal with it they must.

No one, no matter how powerful, is immune to this imperative of manhood as defined in this culture. Every Presidential candidate must first and foremost demonstrate their qualifications to be the nation’s Commander-in-Chief, which is to say, their willingness and readiness to make use of and direct the U.S. military’s massive capacity for violence in the overriding interest of controlling what happens in other countries. The record is clear, for example, that Lyndon Johnson kept us in the Vietnam War long after he knew it was unwinnable, for the pathetically simple reason that he was afraid of being seen as a President who could not control the outcome of that war. The horrific cost of protecting his manhood and the nation’s identification with it was not enough to keep him from it. The choices he made have been repeated by every President since, with the electorate’s enthusiastic support, right down to the present day where drone strikes routinely take the lives of innocent women, children, and men who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, including weddings, family gatherings, and schools.

Men’s acceptance of the cultural association of manhood with control makes them complicit in its consequences, including the use of violence. Acceptance need not be conscious or intentional. Individual men need not be violent themselves. Mere silence—the voice of complicity—is enough to accomplish the effect, and to connect them to the violence that other men do. When a young man who is feeling wronged or is insecure in his manhood straps on body armor and takes up a gun, he is pursuing by extreme means a manhood ideal of control and domination that has wide and deep support in this society, including among men who would never dream of doing such a thing themselves. That our culture is saturated with images of violence—from television and video games to the football field—is not the work of a lunatic fringe of violent men. Nor is the epidemic of actual violence. All of it flows from an obsession with control that shapes every man’s standing as a real man in this society.

It would be a mistake to end the analysis here, as if the problem of violence was simply a matter of men and manhood. The Newtown murderer, after all, used weapons belonging to his mother, which she had taught him how to use. She would not be the first woman attracted to guns because they made her feel powerful and in control. It might seem that this would nullify the argument about manhood, control, and violence. But, in fact, the involvement of women merely extends the argument to a larger level. The argument, after all, is not that men’s violence is caused by something inherently wrong with men, but that such behavior is shaped and promoted by a social environment that includes women.

A patriarchal society—which is what we’ve got—is, among other things, male-identified, which means that men and manhood are culturally identified as the standard for human beings in general. Consider, for example, the routine use of ‘guys’ to refer to both men and women even though the word clearly and unambiguously points to men (if you doubt this, ask people to raise their hand if they’re a guy and see how many women you get). Or that for years, medical research on heart disease focused only on men, based on the (false) assumption that the male body could serve as the universal standard for the human being.

In a male-identified world, what works for men, what is valued by men, is generally assumed to work for and be valued by human beings in general. So if the obsession with control associated with true manhood includes defining power and safety in terms of domination and control and, therefore, the capacity for violence that comes with owning a gun, then this is seen as not merely manly, but as universally human. Cultural ideas that would preclude women being both feminine and interested in guns have been a device for excluding and marginalizing women and keeping them dependent on men for protection (from other men). As such limitations have been broken down by the women’s movement, it is inevitable that some women will adopt male-identified ideals about power and control as their own.

But the analysis of violence rooted in an obsession with control must go farther still, beyond issues of gender, because the obsession shapes every social institution, from economics and politics to education, religion, and healthcare. Our entire history has been inseparable from a continuing story of control and domination directed at the earth and nonhuman species, at Native Americans, at enslaved Africans and other people of color, at those who resist the building of the American empire and its exercise of global power, at workers, at immigrants. As Richard Slotkin argues in his brilliant history of the making of the American mythology, violence has played a central role in that history. Although the heroes of that mythology have always been men, the larger idea of America shaped by it—of American exceptionalism and superiority, and freedom as the right to dominate and act without restraint—is about more than manhood. It has become the heart of who we think we are as a society and a people.

Which may be why there is so much ambivalence about guns and violence, and such a narrow focus on the crazy individual and not what this is really about, which is ourselves and an entire worldview that informs our lives, with cultural ideals about manhood at the center. The national silence about manhood and violence is about much more than either. It is about protecting a way of life even if it means failing to protect our children.

Any society organized in this way is a frightening place to be—people afraid to go to the movies unless they’re packing heat, parents afraid to send their kids to school. And the solution offered by that same society is, of course, still more control. If someone has a gun, get your own. Arm the teachers. Arm yourself. Arm your kids.

But every crisis is also an opportunity. Here we are once again. The prohibition against talking about violence and manhood in the same breath puts us in a state of paralysis which is where we find ourselves today. And that’s where we’ll be when this happens again, as it’s all but certain to do if it hasn’t already.

Unless we do something to break the silence. History is full of examples of the power of ordinary citizens speaking out—on slavery and race; on the rights of working people, gays, immigrants, Native Americans, people with disabilities, and women; on the exploitation and abuse of children; on the degradation, exploitation, and destruction of the earth and its species; on capitalism and the power of wealth. We have done it before and we can do it again.

For an explanation of patriarchy and how it works, see Allan’s book,The Gender Knot: Unraveling Our Patriarchal Legacy.

Can a Man Be a Human Being?

Since publication of my novel, The First Thing and the Last, a story of domestic violence told from a woman’s point of view, I’ve heard women express amazement that such a book could be written by a man.

After giving this some thought, it occurred to me to try an experiment: to change ‘man’ to ‘human being,’ as in, Isn’t it amazing that a human being could write such a book. Could empathize so deeply with a woman in imagining her life.

Sounds a little funny, doesn’t it. Because empathy and imagination, after all, are part of what it is to be a human being. Nothing remarkable in that.

Which prompts the question, what is the difference between a human being and a man?

Well, that would depend on what we mean by ‘man.’

It isn’t simply a male who’s reached a certain age. Readers are not saying they find it remarkable that someone with a penis could write such a book. Because there is nothing about a penis that decides whether you can imagine the inner life of another human being, or about testosterone or testicles or the quantity of muscle and hair, or even the so-called ‘male brain.’* Writers who inhabit all kinds of bodies spend their lives telling stories about people they are not and will never be.

Except, apparently, when it’s a man writing from a woman’s point of view.

If ‘man’ cannot be reduced to ‘male,’ then what is left are the requirements of manhood, which is not known for encouraging sensitivity and insight into the lives of others. Comedians build careers on the emotional cluelessness of men, their inattention to feelings and relationships, their not being ‘good at’ intimacy, their inability to hear what women say or to divine what women ‘really’ want. Even Freud, for all his insight into the mystery of the subconscious, was stumped when it came to that.**

It is the man and his manhood that readers cannot fit to their idea of a writer who could know and feel what it would take to tell such a story, of a woman who kills her husband after he kills their son and nearly beats her to death, who must find inside herself what is possible in the wake of such trauma and loss.

They wonder how manhood could prepare a writer for that.

And they are right. To a point. Right up to where they assume that, being male, I must also be a man.

Unlike the maleness of a body, manhood is a standard that defines and measures the man, as a status to be deserved, achieved, and conferred. And because we cannot confer it on ourselves, we must look to other men to see if we qualify or not. And all it takes to be unmanned is for some men to decide that you’re a pussy or a girl or a queer or a fag or their bitch. And then, until you find some men willing to recognize your manhood, you are not a man.

But there is more, because manhood, unlike the body, is only an idea, which means that, outside our imagination, it does not exist.

Only an idea, and yet, a powerful one, the foundation on which patriarchy and male privilege are built, its purpose to distinguish the man not from the boy, but from the woman. To make real the fiction that ‘men’ are fundamentally different from and superior to ‘women,’ that men are smarter and stronger and braver and more of anything else that matters, elevating them above the woman and her womanhood.***

Manhood is the roadmap for what a man is supposed to be and how he is to live, inside and out, and what holds it all together is an obsession with control by which men must never appear weak or vulnerable or otherwise not in command.

A real man is one who knows, who decides, who makes things happen. He is expected to be tough and logical, dispassionate and detached, decisive and never wrong. He never quits or backs down or admits to doubt. And he does not display, or even feel, any emotion that might interfere with that impression.

And if violence is needed as an ultimate instrument of control—whether to keep ‘his woman’ from leaving him or get the football across the line or control another country—the capacity for violence becomes manhood’s ultimate test.

Every man knows what it’s like to have his manhood put at risk, how quickly it can happen, how impossible to see it coming, this occasion for shame and humiliation—all the ways to get it wrong, not have the answer, a show of doubt or fear or tenderness, a lack of toughness, a display of tears, being accountable to a woman.

Any situation, no matter how small, can become a test of manhood, with control or the lack of it always at the center, making a lens through which everything appears as an object of control.

But an object is a thing, and a thing has no feelings, no inner life to imagine. An object does not invite empathy, or compassion.

It is here that the man and his manhood separate from the human being.

Because the absence of empathy and compassion is the bedrock of an indifference that makes cruelty and violence possible, by contradicting the core of what it means, and what enables us to be, human beings.

It is why appeals to our ‘humanity,’ to be ‘humane,’ are never made in terms of manning up. To be human calls upon the very qualities that manhood would discourage, if not deny, in any man worthy of the name.

My readers’ amazement assumes this woman’s story was written by a man, as seen through the eyes of manhood, and not by a human being who happens to be male. It assumes I must have more in common with the man who batters than with the human being whose life he nearly destroys.

It is an understandable mistake in a culture that conditions us to see and measure one another and ourselves as women and men. A world in which the patriarchal fraud of gender has all but supplanted our humanity.

A world in which we might be amazed to discover a human being where before we could only see manhood and the man.


You can read the opening chapter of The First Thing and the Last here.

*Trans-men provide examples of people who would become men while leaving their female bodies just as they are. As for the idea that males and females have different brains, etc., see, for example, Anne Fausto-Sterling, Myths of Gender: Biological Theories about Women and Men, and Cordelia Fine, Delusions of Gender: How Our Minds, Society, and Neurosexism Create Difference. For a recent summary of research, click here.

**“The great question,” Freud wrote, “that has never been answered, and which I have not yet been able to answer, despite my thirty years of research into the feminine soul, is ‘What does a woman want?’”

***It isn’t possible in a blog post to explain what patriarchy is about and how it works, which I’ve written about at length in my book, The Gender Knot: Unraveling Our Patriarchal Legacy. The short answer is that patriarchy is a social system that is male-dominated, male-identified, male-centered, and organized around an obsession with control. More about social systems in general and systems of privilege in particular can be found in my online essays, “Aren’t Systems Just People?” and “What Is a System of Privilege?

Making Fun of Men Is No Joke

Three women are sitting around a small table in a bar, a night out together, talking, laughing, when a man walks over and rests his hand on the back of a chair as he leans in and says, “Are you ladies alone?”

I want to state for the record that men are not born with a predisposition to say such things. Or to write, “Man, being a mammal, breastfeeds his young.” Or to be emotionally tone-deaf, inattentive listeners, socially forgetful and inept, or unable to read nonverbal cues, including the difference between being friendly and wanting to have sex. These result from long and careful and sometimes painful training. In the interest of fairness I should also make clear that these are variable patterns among men, but they still show up enough to become sitcom plots and punch lines in comedy routines, not to mention stories that women tell around small tables in bars.

The patterns include men’s tendency to dominate conversations, which has been extensively researched and documented. I remember Nora and I having lunch one day many years ago when she brought up a topic for conversation. I don’t remember what it was exactly, which gives a clue to the problem right there. But I do remember her starting off in a general way, as in, “I wonder about such-and-such,” which is all I needed to jump right in. Apparently I went on for quite awhile before she managed to get my attention long enough to ask a few questions.

Did I actually know what I was saying, she wanted to know, and was I keeping track or just rattling on, and did I have reason to believe I was correct, since my tone seemed so confident and sure.

I didn’t have to think it over before saying no. I was having a good time saying whatever came to mind without much thought to anything else.

You need go no further than cable news to see there’s a lot of that going around.

These patterns are part of what keeps male privilege going, but they also make men vulnerable to looking foolish and being the butt of jokes like the one about there being a market for human brains and women’s brains selling at just a quarter the price of men’s because women’s brains are used.

The source for this particular joke was the actor, Sharon Stone, as she introduced Betty Friedan at the 75th anniversary celebration of Time magazine, attended by a crowd of some 1,300 luminaries, including a slew of powerful and prominent men, from Mikhail Gorbachev, Henry Kissinger, and John Glenn to Muhammad Ali, Joe DiMaggio, and Tom Cruise.

The important thing is that the crowd laughed.

I think it’s worth asking why. Why would Sharon Stone be able to predict a joke like that would play so well to an audience full of powerful and ego-driven men? Why make fun of men’s brains in a world where it’s hard to name a social institution or powerful organization—including science and universities where brains are what it’s all about—that is not controlled by men? Not to mention if men’s brains are distinguished from women’s in not being used at all, how come they’re running the world?

I think part of the answer is that Stone wasn’t talking about all of that when she said men don’t use their brains. She was speaking in a familiar code that allows women to make fun of men and get away with it. Men don’t use their brains for things that, in a patriarchal culture, are optional for men—all of the emotional, human, relationship-tending tasks that are left to women. If men are no good at those, it’s only because they’re off doing more important things. The message in the crowd’s indulgent laughter was clear: so long as you leave men’s manhood alone, and the control—both real and imagined—that goes with it, you can make fun of them all you want about things that don’t really matter.

Except they do matter, because being clueless about emotion and human relationships has disastrous consequences. In Gil Elliot’s careful and conservative study, Twentieth Century Book of the Dead, he estimates that in just the first 70 years of the last century, more than 120 million people lost their lives because of wars waged by men. And most of those wars were a series of blunders from beginning to end, with only the victor’s magic brush of masculine history to make it look like something else.

The list of powerful men who overreach, who misjudge the facts, who lie to themselves and everyone else, who misread their adversaries, who go to war because they’re afraid not to and, once started, keep it going for the same reason, and who are completely unprepared to deal with the chaos, destruction, and mass suffering that result, is staggering. Our own government knows no equal when it comes to charging off under the delusion that the men in power know what they’re doing, that with enough money, troops, and manly grit they can make it come out the way they want, and not only that, it won’t take very long or hurt very much.

And they are almost always wrong. No, actually, they’re always wrong.

It is a miracle that we don’t go to war more often, and that we do not is undoubtedly because a woman’s hand is in there somewhere, not that it will make the front page of the Times.

When Ronald Reagan was president, the Cold War was coming to a head with nuclear posturing on both sides, and, as the story goes, the president’s wife, Nancy Reagan, confronted him. She told him he had to cut it out, that he and Gorbachev, the Soviet premier, had to find a way to get along. And the reason?

“Because you’re scaring everyone.”

Amazingly enough, the president listened. But also amazing is that so many men can become so powerful and yet be so clueless about something as basic to human existence and well-being as how to get along without pulling out a gun or blowing one another up or scaring everyone half to death.

Buried in the laughter at Sharon Stone’s joke is the sobering truth that if it is only half true, you really have to wonder why men would be in charge.

Not to mention what’s so funny.


If you liked this post, you might also want to read, “What Happened to the Tender-hearted Boys?
Gil Elliot, Twentieth Century Book of the Dead. New York: Scribner, 1972.

This post was published in the Fall 2013 issue of Voice Male Magazine.

%d bloggers like this: