Woe Is I. Give Me a Break

It must said from the outset that I do not like broad, sweeping generalizations when one speaks on issues of inequality or privilege, no matter the group. These generalizations stifle conversations, label any kind of serious discussion as “identity politics,” relegate substantive argument to secondary status, and obfuscate the issues at hand. Steve Saltarelli, a student at the University of Chicago, his group Men In Power (MiP), and the justifications for such a group do just that. Although controversial, his argument forces us all to remember—or think about for the first time—the original impetus behind single sex, single race, or single (insert your demographic characteristic of choice here) groups and societies. But first, his argument and its many, many problems.

Salterilli and advocates of “save the male” organizations and clubs forget that status of minority does not equal minority status for all groups of society. What do I mean by this? Sheer numbers for certain groups do not represent the power that group yields. Power and privilege are not always positively correlated with size or percentage of a population. Even with that said, however, their position is still faulty and unfounded.

A supporter of the group, Mark Perry, an economist at the University of Michigan in Flint, provides present-day “empirical” data to support the creation of groups like MiP:

“The group’s birth comes at a time when the recessionary ax has fallen especially hard on men. In April, the national unemployment rate for men was 10 percent compared with 7.6 percent for women”

The data used as evidence by Saltarelli and his supporters to show the need for such a group are national level statistics—data that take the nation as a whole as its sample base—yet the premise of their group is to speak to about “the plight” of a select population: elite men for Saltarelli presents the group as one that attempts to keep men in positions of power. Is this use of national level data fair? No. I would go further and say that it is dishonest. Saltarelli and Perry should know better. How can one present an argument for the need to empower men by hosting law, business, and political empowerment seminars because of the “dwindling presence” of men in those professions when one has not effectively shown that the men one advocates for are, in fact, a dying breed. Yes, the recession has hit certain professions hard and men tend to dominate those professions but this does not amount to evidence for the creation of such a group. If anything, it shows the need for more groups to empower women to make more in-roads into certain professions for representation of women in these professions are still not yet equal.

Now, writing that last paragraph hurt a little because in responding to that one particular point I was forced to argue from a position I detest: presenting a group—in this case men—as homogenous. This again is dishonest. The burning question I have for Saltarelli is, which men are you advocating for? (Personally, I think the unstated mascot of this group is a middle class, white male.) All men do not experience life in the same way and surely are not similarly experiencing the repercussions of this financial crisis. As my co-blogger Jeremy spoke on previously, low-income and/or minority men are the most disadvantaged men in this country and the unemployment statistics that we see are more of an understatement of the number of people without work than anything else. These are the populations who are driving up the unemployment statistics due to the outsourcing of jobs, spatial mismatch (jobs and employers in different location) social isolation, and employment discrimination. They were hit hard before the current crisis and are suffering even more today. Again, taking these aggregate level statistics, without attention to the disparate life chances and experiences of certain men pads the argument in favor of such groups. When one takes a closer look, however, we see that the demographic characteristics of those in privileged positions are still dominated by one portion of the population: privileged, white men.

Anna N. over at Jezebel is on point to say that when arguments like this are presented, it usually means that “someone from an already-powerful group is complaining about less-powerful groups encroaching on [their] turf, and that certainly seems like what’s going on here.” To put it plainly, I agree. I would only take it further. Saltarelli ignores the reality of gender inequality in the United States. Michael Kimmel, one of the leading experts on men and masculinity and professor of Sociology at SUNY Stony Brook, has spoken on issues of masculinity and the tendency of privileged white men to present “competing victims” arguments when they feel, as Anna N. noted, their hegemonic base is being attacked. One example being Kimmel’s “Save the Males: The Sociological Implications of the Virginia Military Institute and the Citadel” where the administration and alumni of these two military institute were in an uproar of the admission of the schools’ first female cadets.

Saltarelli and MiP stand as an example of what is wrong with a component of American culture. Sadly, some conservative notions go as far to equate gender equality with encroachment on one’s “rightful” place in society. I think it is interesting that advocates for MiP argue that all dissenters are “very set in their ways” when the reason for MiP’s existence is to reinstate and also reify the status quo: specific group of men on top, women (and effectively everyone else) on the bottom. Talking about drinking one’s own cool-aid.