A Developmental View of "Men's Liberation"

Raul,

I popped over to read your piece when you recommended I do so from the other thread by Bren Hudson.

I really just have one question: what is healthy?

Let's say I'm cognitively past blue-conformity and entering green-inquiry and interested in redefining my identity.

So one day my wife says to me, "YOU ARE SUCH A WIMP!!!"

The question for me is –– I'm willing to redefine my identity, but when my wife calls me a wimp, is it that:

1. my wife is stuck in old blue conformity about gender and she believes I'm supposed to act macho, therefore I resist and declare that I won't be confined to gender stereotypes

2. my wife has intuitively seen something about my development that is lacking, is incomplete, is underdeveloped, and she is quite sure that it would be a healthy step forward for me to grow some backbone

Let me complicate things further by adding some context. The moment at which she called me a "wimp", I had been, or thought I had been, trying to be careful and sensitive to her needs; we were trying to decide what to do that afternoon, and I was being careful to not impose my preferences on her. I was trying to keep the conversation open. 

In the stages you set out, I would not be offended if you said I was at the "resistance" stage. What pisses me off is that for decades there has been all this talk about sexism and gender roles, but nobody but nobody as yet seems to have a good idea (that we can agree on), on what is a healthy replacement for those traditional roles.

The trouble is, even if I decide to take a carte blanche approach, I am still developmentally –– somewhere down in beige-instinctual –– biologically male. 

I think that's where the developmental map needs to begin, which is a number of stages lower down than "conformist".  It is a stage that's even before "culture" (as we commonly use the word today) so in a sense it is before gender roles even arise, as cognitively, there are no roles yet.

So I wonder, what is a healthy teal expression of a beige biology?

Assume for a moment that all males and females were already highly developed and nobody had any problems with gender issues; society is free. Imagine you have the ideal, or something close to an ideal. Now, given these men and women are all at a higher stage, which aspects of infrared–beige–physiology would you deliberately add back in to the these male and female types?

Normal 0 21 false false false FI X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

Thank you Raoul very much for your post!

I felt uncomfortable  in many places during the talk, as I perceived many erroneous comparisons and wrong generalizations.

Especially these points in your post nail down correctly the essential points for me:

“The Need for Men’s Liberation” points to the negative impact of sexism on men. Indeed, sexism—the systemic imposition of a presumed male superiority (at the intersubjective/cultural level) and the systematic oppression of women by men (at the objective/institutional level)—does have very negative effects on boys and men in our societies, especially at the personal level (physical, mental, spiritual and emotional aspects of being).

‘If these felt experiences and partial perspectives are combined with a lack of emotional and social intelligence to address that which triggered these feelings [after all, in male culture, we are not encouraged to examine and manage our feelings], it is not difficult for us to arrive at the “logical conclusion” that “Hey, I am the victim here.”’

‘Now, with time, as we become aware that it is the women that are, in fact, the primary and intended victims of this social power arrangement, we then become capable of realizing that “Well, I, too, have been hurt by sexism.”’

‘So, when we make statements such as “Women are the victims of sexist oppression of men,” what we are stating is that an overarching historical pattern—a general rule and operating principle within our society—is the women collectively have been excluded, exploited, underserved and misrepresented by the systems and institutions that were created and are controlled, to this day, by men as a group, collectively. What is being named in analyses such as this one is that sexist oppression is the dynamic of institutional power that overwhelmingly has benefited men at the expense of women. It is certainly NOT about women’s personal power as individuals to resist the psychological internalization of their presumed inferiority to men nor about their collective power as a movement to struggle to change institutional practices that perpetuate inequitable outcomes for women as a social identity group.’

This is more easier to see in the Muslim cultures, as this appears  in rather extreme forms there. I have regular encounters with immigrants from Iran and Iraq. The lives of these women are often in cruel ways confined inside the walls of the home. The women are often  looked down by men as stupid, in many ways incompetent beings, that the men have to control over. These women don’t easily learn our language. They come across as fearful, dumb and timid.

The Muslim men don’t want to let go of their power over women. Simultaneously they are blind to how they through their attachment to their sense of power keep also themselves down, and their whole society underdeveloped and in conflict. Muslim women with violent husbands fill our women’s shelters. The Muslim men commit around 30% of rapes in our city, although Muslim immigrants form only 2-3% of the population. In addition to this in a Muslim society a woman getting raped often means committing suicide or being killed by a male family member.

‘The clearer we are about just how we have been hurt—and in some measure, dehumanized—by cultural sexism and by our unconscious and unintentional participation in the sexist oppression of women, then we can effectively and positively and collectively move toward redefining what it is to be “a REAL man.”’

‘I believe that understanding social group identity development, social power and oppression at all levels, stages, perspectives, perceptual positions and dimensions is a centrally important, and sorely overlooked, aspect of integral theory. I believe understanding gender, race, culture, class and other social power dynamics can facilitate movement into integral consciousness. Actually, I suspect our development into second tier ultimately depends on it.

More importantly, however, the major issues of our times—all of them—from personal health issues to health care issues, from the US economic crisis to the global climate crisis, from local politics to foreign wars are either caused by oppression in its many forms or are compounded by it.’

I strongly to agree with these statements.

I’m all for the need of men becoming aware of the limiting effect their unquestioned gender identification has on them. However this identification is not forced upon them by women.

I agree with Wilber that the patriarchal structures were not created by men to purposefully oppress women, but those structures got selected because they were the best available, and served  well  the needs of a certain era. That is not anymore the case, but men have much more difficult to question and let go off those structures as they still erroneously perceive themselves being well served by those structures.

Also the talk was pretty partial as it is applicable only to a small sector of people mainly in US. I live in Finland in Scandinavia, and many of the practical examples Warren took from men’s life, are outdated here. Those examples describe men’s situation here a few  decades ago, maybe in the 50’s or early 60’s.

 I was dating with my husband in late 60’s and early 70’s. Already then it was not anymore a praxis for men paying for the checks. I paid for myself, as I believe many other women did already then.

Also the idea that men who don’t earn well get rejected by women as a possible father candidates for their children is not valid. Here the more conscious men, who don’t unquestioningly adopt the traditional macho male role, are very popular among women, even if they are not career oriented.  Our societal structures may play an important role in this. Single parents get extensive support by the State, and the quality of the education of your children is not dependent on the income of the family. The parents can thus more easily relax on their attachment on material wealth.

 Irmeli

Thank you all for your comments. Each, in their own way, attest to the challenges and difficulties that our liberation from oppression, as an important aspect of the development of consciousness, present. Also, each of you conveys an openness, vulnerability and non-defensive critical inquiry, qualities that are so necessary, and quite rare, in discussions about sexism, or racism, or any other form of oppression—particularly from dominant group members.

So, again, thank you for engaging the conversation. And, please, continue to engage others within—and beyond—the integral community about the importance of liberation as part of the journey toward transformation and integral consciousness. Maybe then more people who might, justifiably, feel dismissed and disrespected by statements like “Come on, let’s say it together: ‘Men are being oppressed,’” or write about “the myth of oppression” might actually want to join the conversation about how integral theory and practice might actually have some good information and useful tools, some wisdom even, toward personal and collective liberation and transformation.

Hi there:

I think an important perspective not yet addressed by Raul here is the need for genuine equality for men in the intersubjective sphere - i.e. home and family.  I do not see, at least in North America, that a man is respected by law for being at home w/ his children.  So women are gaining equal power in the LR, but men are not yet with equal power in the LL, thus giving the perception of males feeling oppressed.

Yours,

Durwin

--

Durwin Foster

durwinfoster@gmail.com

I've been troubled by this thread and feel at cross purposes, so I've tried to re-read and here's where I'm at with it.

Raul, once in a while somthing gets written and it feels so profound that changes, like newly planted seeds, start to grow and develop. For me this article has that powerful impact. Thank you so much for these meaningful words. And, everyone of you beautiful men who have responded I reach out to hug you all.....Yes, we must redefine what it means to be in this world, as a humanity, with all our differences. Oppression of anyone, regardless of race, gender, age, or whatever, should be an exception and not the rule.....

You are my hero Raul with the work you are doing. The light within you is so powerful and God, the Universe, whatever name one holds, is that light becoming brighter and brighter. Enough Raul's in the world will stamp out the ugly disease of oppression.

With much love.

Mary Linda

Raul was kind enough to drop by my blog last week in reference to the Integral Life Men's Liberation post which I also referred to here:

http://numenoldmen.wordpress.com/2010/02/25/the-need-for-mens-liberation-via-integral-life

Cross-posted below, for a further take on Raul's very useful framing of this issue:

Rarely a month goes by without the Wilberian Integral Machine pumping forth new evidence of its alignment with the men’s movement, as outlined in various blog posts here.

This week’s Integral Life Newsletter is entitled “The Need for Men’s Liberation” and directs readers to a conversation between Ken Wilber and Warren Farrell where they will be offered “Instant Insights” such as:

• “Power” is not defined by the amount of control someone has over others, but the amount of control one has over his or her own life
• In terms of recognizing and developing their power, men are in a similar position today as women were in the late 1950’s, at the dawn of the feminist movement

Here’s the problem: Wilber and Farrell sound quite reasonable when they speak to issues such as “the urgent need for men to begin redefining their roles for today’s world”. However, when you scratch the surface, they begin to assert some rather more problematic positions. If you read my book you will find evidence for the following “Instant Insights”:

• Wilber distorts the work of feminist scholars such as Carol Gilligan, and claims they support his view, when they do not.
• Wilber and Farrell deny the historical reality of patriarchy, suggesting instead it was there to suit everyone.
• Wilber and Farrell’s consistent reframing of “feminism” and what it “really” means is an overt act of depoliticization and masculine power.
• Far from “redefining their roles for today’s world”, Wilber imprisons men and women into “types” on the AQAL matrix, falling foul of his own elegantly-formulated pre-trans fallacy.
• Wilber relegates “feminine” spiritual values to the pre-rational, stating “more men make it into the universal, postconventional moral stages than do women”.
• Wilber states that even in noospheric realms there can be no ultimate gender parity “given the unavoidable aspects of childbearing”.

How’s that for gender equality?

#1     I don't understand why you say this, in paragraph 8:

"What is being named in analyses such as this one is that sexist oppression is the dynamic of institutional power that overwhelmingly has benefited men at the expense of women. It is certainly NOT about women’s personal power as individuals to resist the psychological internalization of their presumed inferiority to men nor about their collective power as a movement to struggle to change institutional practices that perpetuate inequitable outcomes for women as a social identity group."

Did I miss something? Did someone say that at some point? Is there some unwritten (or written) rule that I don't know about that makes this axiomatic? Why are those not being discussed?

#2    I thought this was great:

"Of course, we can attempt to redefine what “power” means and, perhaps, as men, we can dare to redefine what “feminism” is, or maybe even try to instruct women on the true quality, nature and meaning of their experience. After all, a key pattern of men’s cultural dominance and institutional power has been, precisely, to define reality and, then, redefine it as is convenient to our purposes of maintaining power and privilege."

Especially since KW did just that a few years back with Andrew Cohen in an episode of WIE? Even in this interview with Farrell, KW gets a little wound up in the "it's-not-fair" department. Just a little, tho. Less than other times in the past. I'm relieved to see someone acknowledge that, because, actually, if no one at Integral acknowledges that - esp. a male in one of the "Positions" - then it triggers an unsafe feeling in my gut. And I fully acknowledge that this fear is tremendously compelling and convincing. At least it is for me right now.

#3    This needs to be explored:

"Having resisted and rejected the definition imposed collectively onto us as gender-identified beings, and after collectively coming to deeply understand just how we as men figure into the complex dynamics of social and institutional power, we can begin to move into the redefinition stage of social identity development."

You said a mouthful. In fact there is too much there. While I see the usefulness of "Hardiman & Jackson’s social group identity development model", it seems grossly simplistic to me. There is a whole lot goin' on in there between resisting and redefining. Especially for Integralers.

I suspect that one of the reasons that the Women's Movement ended up making so many mistakes and alienating so many women is because they went from deconstruction to reconstruction too fast. The space of unknowing between those two is deeply fertile and important and methinks the proper grounded space to move relative attributes into and out of as needed. Reconstruction closes down too many fragile options that may need time and encouragement to emerge.

In such a We-space, I want to be encouraged to Witness my fears and hurts. In this way, can I objectify them and experience that I am not that. If the space is not provided either because males are getting defensive or females are insisting that I adopt newer, more aggressive or even hostile models of being, then I have no safe place to go while I shed my skin.

I've watched some seriously messed up pre-conscious dynamics happen around the issue of what should an Integral We-space look like within which to explore this. The deeply embodied, pre-conscious impulses - from both men and women - to protect patriarchy even tho we all consciously hate it and want to be rid of it are amazing to say the least! 

Can you relate?

So, I'll just give a start by saying that those impulses and feelings in me which I cannot yet objectify are still going to trip me up and I will become a victim to them. So, I consider Job #1 to be learning to see my impulses and emotions exactly the way they are arising in me in the moment.

Job #2 would be to have a multi-gender We-space within which to bring that and have it held compassionately for, perhaps, the first time.

Thoughts?

--

For just $14.95 a month, YOU TOO can offset your Karma Footprint by becoming a Member of Integral Life!

[has that already been done?]

Maybe you can help me, Raul.

The other night I was thinking about the issue of roles and power because of this thread, and I charted some of the main roles/archetypes that men and women have according to the SD model. I made a diagram in "Paint" and uploaded it. I know it is inadequate so I need help fixing it up to represent reality more accurately. I did this in a quickie fashion just to get the idea on paper.

Women began resisting earlier than men - while the US was beginning the Amber/Orange transition. It is in the nature of a power system for the underdog to complain first, and at that time, women were the underdogs. Once women stopped the cycle of role and archetype creation for themselves, they had to try and tread water until men woke up to their own situation.

Men woke up much later and only after creating one more truly authentic archetype for themselves in the Orange vMeme: that of The Winner. At this point, the Winner is the male archetype dominating the porn world. He is shown either being superior over women or over other men or both. Women didn't create any one single role in the Orange revolution because they had rejected them all by then. Their own specific role or archetype or essence was now a Cypher. They had become a question mark.

As we moved into Green, men created a reactionary role or archetype but it was not authentic: The Sensitive Man. This was their reaction to what they thought women wanted. Many women thought they wanted this too and they were sensitive along side of men in a world that had now become depolarized. But many women also shoved their way into male territory - mainly that of the Winner. Women competed to win along side of the men to win. The male frustration that emerged as a result of going-along-to-get-along and being in competition with women energized the porn industry and the Hip-Hop/Rap/Metal music cultures and various other things. I think men split themselves in half most profoundly at this point. 

The Men's Movement began here. Men began to complain, but coming out with their power proved difficult and confusing for all. At this point, laws had changed and they found themselves trapped in a tight net that prevented them from openly experimenting with expression. Meanwhile, women had begun to discover that they could put on any role or archetype they wanted and could then take them off as they saw fit. They now identified themselves as separate from these images - even if men didn't yet know how to respond to them unless they had a costume on.

Next comes Integral.

My suspicion is that men will move into a phase where they will become separated from their archetypes and they will not create any new roles for a while. Their upcoming image is now a Cypher. A question mark. I see some men moving in this direction anyway. This may be what Rebecca and I both loved about Adam Lambert way back there. Remember? LOL That was fun. I anticipate alot of discombobulation for a while, but eventually a relaxation of the struggle between the genders and a new struggle against 1st Tier. In fact, this may be the most popular motivation to move up.

Now, the reason I labeled these attributes or roles "essence" is to make a point that ties in with Rebecca Bailin's recent work. As we go up in the Spiral, the subject becomes the object of the next subject and we are no longer identified with the roles of the previous vMeme. We may be able to play the role for a time, if needed, but it no longer defines us.

Sometimes we can no longer even tolerate the role, in which case it becomes Shadow. Many factors contribute to that. But the point here is, when we are identified with it, it IS our essence. After we have objectified it, it no longer is. Typing will always be problematic because of this. Depending on where we are in development, or what we are Shadowing, we may or may not be able to own these things regardless of our gender/sex and it isn't good to be identified by others in this way.

Is this helpful at all?
 

--

For just $14.95 a month, YOU TOO can offset your Karma Footprint by becoming a Member of Integral Life!

[has that already been done?]

Maybe this thread is dead, but after all the talk, several days later I'm left with the little intuitive voice in me asking a simple question...

how do you distinguish genuine oppression from anything that merely gives an impression of oppression?

I will gladly buy the books of any author who can answer this question. But please don't be mistaken, any author might think they've already answered this question, but I say they haven't.

PS: Answering my own question,

but maybe I should try reading Foucault?

thanks Raul for your clarity :)  Loved your piece

I agree with Irmeli on highlighting this - also strongly agree:

‘I believe that understanding social group identity development, social power and oppression at all levels, stages, perspectives, perceptual positions and dimensions is a centrally important, and sorely overlooked, aspect of integral theory. I believe understanding gender, race, culture, class and other social power dynamics can facilitate movement into integral consciousness. Actually, I suspect our development into second tier ultimately depends on it.

More importantly, however, the major issues of our times—all of them—from personal health issues to health care issues, from the US economic crisis to the global climate crisis, from local politics to foreign wars are either caused by oppression in its many forms or are compounded by it.’

And with StillCrow for saying:

I think it begins to shine a light on the understandings we need to find the path that will lead us beyond collective dysfunction and ongoing gender war. It reveals the dignity inherent in the resistance stage without elevating its perspectives and reactions unduly. For the truths being represented in dialogues such as the Wilber - Farrell conversation are important but incomplete, and on their own won't provide enough evolutionary insight to light the way.

Apreciated Joseph's summary of the problem -

Here’s the problem: Wilber and Farrell sound quite reasonable when they speak to issues such as “the urgent need for men to begin redefining their roles for today’s world”. However, when you scratch the surface, they begin to assert some rather more problematic positions. If you read my book you will find evidence for the following “Instant Insights”:

• Wilber distorts the work of feminist scholars such as Carol Gilligan, and claims they support his view, when they do not.

• Wilber and Farrell deny the historical reality of patriarchy, suggesting instead it was there to suit everyone.

• Wilber and Farrell’s consistent reframing of “feminism” and what it “really” means is an overt act of depoliticization and masculine power.

• Far from “redefining their roles for today’s world”, Wilber imprisons men and women into “types” on the AQAL matrix, falling foul of his own elegantly-formulated pre-trans fallacy.

• Wilber relegates “feminine” spiritual values to the pre-rational, stating “more men make it into the universal, postconventional moral stages than do women”.

• Wilber states that even in noospheric realms there can be no ultimate gender parity “given the unavoidable aspects of childbearing”.

And really apreciate Jennifer's analysis:

In such a We-space, I want to be encouraged to Witness my fears and hurts. In this way, can I objectify them and experience that I am not that. If the space is not provided either because males are getting defensive or females are insisting that I adopt newer, more aggressive or even hostile models of being, then I have no safe place to go while I shed my skin.

I've watched some seriously messed up pre-conscious dynamics happen around the issue of what should an Integral We-space look like within which to explore this. The deeply embodied, pre-conscious impulses - from both men and women - to protect patriarchy even tho we all consciously hate it and want to be rid of it are amazing to say the least! 

Looking over the blurb of the interview that sparked this dialogue..   this jumped out at me:

"As Ken Wilber has pointed out, the only way a group can become oppressed is if it is fewer, dumber, or weaker than another, three qualities that could not possibly be meaningfully applied to women as a whole."  

Yet he generally applauds feminism for liberating women (at least up to the stage of allowing us to vote, getting the equal pay, etc.) ... and that supposes that at some point at least women were oppressed.  Which supposes that at some point we were "fewer, dumber or weaker" (then, but now now: I wonder if in the meantime we got more numerous, or smarter, or stronger ... or all 3?). 

Am I missing something?