This post is a reproduction of a section from our white paper, Countering Male Supremacist Ideology and Violence: Challenges and Recommendations (PDF).
Barrier: Misinformation and Centering of Cisgender Men’s Interests
Violence prevention work, including countering violent extremism, deradicalization, and work to end domestic and sexual violence, often recommends engaging cisgender boys and men in preventing violence by emphasizing how this work benefits them. While championed as an effective way to advance anti-violence work, this approach reinforces the implicit male supremacist assumption that men’s interests must be fulfilled before attending to anyone else’s needs. Emphasizing how men are harmed by gender expectations or norms can fuel false equivalency that impedes work to recognize and dismantle oppressive structures that disproportionately harm and subordinate cisgender and transgender women, transgender men, and nonbinary/genderfluid people.
Himpathy, a prevalent aspect of global culture described by scholar Kate Manne as “the flow of sympathy away from female victims toward their male victimizers,” acts as an exonerating tactic which protects cisgender men from scrutiny, even those who engage in repeated violence. Misogyny is often pathologized as mental illness or the result of unmet needs rather than addressed as a supremacist ideology. As we are all socialized in patriarchal societies, unconscious himpathetic bias is a widespread threat to effective, ethical research and practice.
Himpathy can predispose researchers, journalists, and practitioners to be overly credulous of victimhood claims deployed by male supremacist men. This can lead to inadvertently legitimizing male supremacist beliefs; for instance, violence prevention work that accepts the premise that women’s failure to provide sexual and emotional service is the cause of men’s violence or putative mental distress, and makes the suggestion that helping these men to form sexual relationships with women would be a solution. This is not only ineffective at addressing misogynist ideology and behavior, it also makes women responsible for men’s actions while ignoring the risk of harm or abuse to the women who would enter these relationships with men steeped in dehumanizing and entitled anti-consent beliefs.
Concerningly, misleading and decontextualized data is often found exaggerating the victimization and harm faced by cisgender boys and men. This can be accompanied by the explicit or implicit suggestion that this problem has been ignored because of feminists or women, who are inaccurately perceived as having obtained controlling power over society. Education has for decades been a popular area for the argument that boys and men are being left behind. Statistics showing that men now obtain fewer higher education degrees than women are cited as evidence, yet closer investigation shows the context that cisgender men earn more money with lesser credentials–indicating that leaving education earlier is a marker of privilege.
Many misrepresentations of data stem from respected organizations, and are therefore likely to be taken at face value by journalists, other researchers, policymakers, and grantors. For instance, the “male loneliness epidemic” talking point, which has been used to explain men’s radicalization and violence; this phrase obscures that other groups, including women, experience similar or greater rates of loneliness in modern society (and are far less likely to be violent). Tunnel-vision, in which organizations and practitioners only look at cisgender men’s experiences, can lead even good faith actors to advance decontexualized and misleading data.
Recommendation: Advance Critical, Justice-Based Approaches to Work with Boys and Men
Effective, ethical, humanizing programming emphasizes collective justice over individual selfinterest. A future feminist, antiracist society would entail a safer and more fulfilling world for everyone, and envisioning a better future for everyone is a valuable part of progressive structural and systemic change. Nonetheless, individual members of dominant groups may face the loss of economic, reputational, and other privileges stemming from the system of oppression. Catering to men’s self-interest is not an effective pathway for transformational long-term change. Investment should prioritize intersectional gender justice programming that discusses systemic oppression, and inspires people around a commitment to universal human rights and justice for current and future generations with respect to all identities.
Catering to cisgender men’s self-interest via misrepresentation of science, as with claims that men experience a unique “loneliness epidemic,” undermines the potential to recognize and address the actual root causes of shared social problems. More ethical humanity-centered programming goes hand-in-hand with strengthening research, such as asking how culture, institutions, and systems shape violence and well-being for humanity.
Drawing on critical disciplines, such as feminist studies, queer studies, and antiracist studies, which center the interests and experiences of oppressed communities can help ensure longstanding understandings are not missed and avoid collusion with male supremacists’ victimization narratives. “Critical empathy” encourages researchers to recognize the humanity of the people they study, including their experiences or perceptions of loss or suffering, while maintaining the ability to critically consider the harms they may cause and avoid collusion or apologism. Research and practice can be based in accountability and challenging a sense of entitlement, sexist beliefs, and self-perception as victims. Critical empathy asks that researchers and practitioners extend empathy to everyone, not just cisgender white men, which includes avoiding tunnel-vision and misrepresentation of demographic differences in social problems.
Reflexivity, another approach promoted in feminist scholarship, asks researchers to consider how their identities, experiences, and worldviews influence their work. This type of critical reflection also applies to academic fields, nonprofits, and industry, given that many fields remain dominated by cisgender straight white men and vulnerable populations such as women, LGBTQ people, and people of color face greater risks as researchers and journalists. Beyond awareness, critical reflection calls for those working to end supremacism and violence to recognize, acknowledge, and address the factors that shape patterns in the perpetration and distribution of violence and extremism. This is relevant beyond work to end male supremacism to any form of dominance that can bias research and practice, such as racial, religious, and national identity.
For the full list of references and sources informing this article, please consult the original white paper, ‘Countering Male Supremacist Ideology and Violence: Challenges and Recommendations’.
