Contemporary gender debates have examined the role of men and masculinity in creating equality and/or reinforcing inequality. Popular narratives often situate masculinity as inherently ‘toxic’, powerful and damaging to both women and men. In contrast, masculinity is frequently claimed to be fragile, under siege, and in urgent need of reclamation. These polarised, oppositional perspectives replicate the idea of ‘masculinity in crisis’, of masculinity as at a critical juncture where ‘old’ masculinity must either be dismantled, or, alternatively, defended in the face of a hostile, man-hating culture. The ‘crisis of masculinity’ is often represented as new, the result of unprecedented social change. However, such representations are as old as masculinity itself, suggesting that ‘crisis’, instability and fragmentation, is built into the very concept of masculinity. Debates around the role of feminism in modern society also continue. A resurgence of interest in feminist activism, and the increased visibility of online feminist resistance, has been accompanied by a seemingly inevitable conservative anti-feminist ‘backlash’. At the same time, dominant postfeminist discourses position feminism as obsolete, denying persistent gender inequalities and depoliticising gender.
In this context, there is increased awareness and scrutiny of men’s ‘political choices’, as Raewyn Connell puts it, both within academia and beyond:
The vast changes in gender relations around the globe produce ferociously complex changes in the conditions of practice with which men as well as women have to grapple. No one is an innocent bystander in this arena of change. We are all engaged in constructing a world of gender relations. How it is made, what strategies different groups pursue, and with what effects, are political questions. Men no more than women are chained to the gender patterns they have inherited. Men too can make political choices for a new world of gender relations. Yet those choices are always made in concrete social circumstances, which limit what can be attempted; and the outcomes are not easily controlled. (Connell, 2005: 86)
Feminists have raised concerns about the apparently ubiquitous ‘MRA’ (Men’s Rights Activist) who seems constantly poised to pour vitriolic scorn on any (social) media intervention deemed ‘too feminist’. On the other hand, the idea of men as feminist ‘allies’ is being valorised, with high-profile celebrity-led campaigns emphasising the importance of men to feminism, and of feminism to men. Men’s roles as allies are, however, contested. Some worry that male feminists re-inscribe the invisibility of women’s voices or, worse, that in extreme cases, their apparent feminist politics is used as a screen for problematic behaviour towards women. Finally, the purported innocence of the ‘bystander’ subject, of the majority of men who eschew gender politics altogether, has come into the spotlight. ‘Ordinary’ men’s complicity through subtle (and not-so-subtle) everyday sexism is consistently challenged in mainstream public arenas.
This heightened visibility of men’s politics and gender identities is not, however, evidence that men are the ‘new gender victims’ as some conservative commentators would claim. Although there are costs of masculinity for men (and, importantly, for some men more than for others), the benefits outweigh these harms. Gendered structures continue to disadvantage women as a group more than men as a group. One of the key concerns of this book is to map and critically interrogate contemporary constructions of masculinity and of the changing gender world.
Specifically, this book examines the contemporary politics of gender through an analysis of men’s movements, their politics and the identities they (re)construct. Investigating men’s explicit mobilisations around masculine identities and ‘men’s issues’ is an important aspect of interrogating men’s political choices, and the varying ways in which a politics of masculinity has been invoked. Whilst my primary focus is on the under-researched UK context, the book draws on and extends broader international research on men’s movements. Examining movements from diverse positions (categorised as broadly ‘feminist’, ‘postfeminist’ and ‘backlash’ perspectives), I explore the following research questions: How do different men’s movements represent masculinity and gender ? What is their perception of current gender relations? How do they construct feminism ? What forms of gender politics do they employ? How far are postfeminist ideas (alongside feminist and backlash perspectives) present in their discourses? Do they invoke ‘crisis of masculinity’ narratives? How does ‘crisis’ thinking constrain or enable critical scrutiny of masculinity? What are the likely effects of these representations of gender, gender relations, and gender politics? Crucially, overall, does each movement reinforce or destabilise dominant gender identities and the hierarchical relations they foster? I also tentatively consider the cumulative politics of men’s movements, as well as contemporary constructions of crisis of masculinity in other arenas.
There is a substantial body of research on men’s movements in some contexts. Landmark studies which examine men’s movements from different perspectives include the work of Kenneth Clatterbaugh (1997), Michael Messner (2000), and Judith Newton (2005) in the USA (see Chapter 4). As yet, there is no similar in-depth study mapping diverse men’s movements in the UK. In addition, there is only a small literature examining feminist men’s movements. Prominent examples including a recent in-depth history of US feminist men’s movements by Michael Messner et al. (2015; see also Messner 2016) and Fidelma Ashe ’s (2007) book on academic male feminist perspectives on masculinity, which touches on UK men’s movements. In contrast, there is a burgeoning literature on men’s and fathers’ rights groups covering a number of national (and international) contexts (see, amongst others: Basu 2016; Behre 2015; Bertoia and Drakich 1993; Blais and Dupuis-Déri 2012; Boyd 2008; Busch et al. 2014; Burman 2016; Crowley 2008; Dragiewicz 2011; Flood 2012; Gavanas 2004; Ging 2017; Gotell and Dutton 2016; Hacker 2016; Halperin-Kaddari and Freeman 2016; Hoddap 2017; Kaye and Tolmie 1998; Menzies 2007; Messner 2016; Nicholas and Agius 2018; Salter 2016; Seymour 2018; Trӓbert 2017; Wojnicka 2016). There is, however, still very little written on men’s and father’s rights groups in the UK. Notable exceptions include research by Richard Collier (2006, 2010, 2013, 2014; Collier and Sheldon 2006), who has written about UK fathers’ rights groups from a socio-legal perspective. However, this work did not draw on empirical research with fathers’ rights groups and did not address UK men’s movements beyond fathers’ rights. This book draws on and extends my previous work on men’s movements and fathers’ rights groups which examined: constructions of masculinity and fatherhood by fathers’ rights groups (Jordan 2009, 2014, 2018); diverse responses to feminism in men’s rights groups (Jordan 2016); and the political uses of crisis-of-masculinity narratives by men’s groups and others (Jordan and Chandler 2018).
The main empirical contribution of the book is in the analysis of interviews with members of well-known fathers’ rights group, (Real) Fathers 4 Justice [(R)F4J]. Fathers’ rights groups have been understood as part of an anti-feminist ‘backlash’ (see Chapter 6). The identity of ‘father’ has always been political as power-laden gendered identities are implicit within the constructions of fatherhood . However, what is sometimes referred to as a ‘new’ politics of fatherhood has seen the identity of ‘father’ become more explicitly and publicly a site of contestation over rights, resources and subjectivities. Globally and in the UK, debates surrounding fatherhood including over paternity leave, absent fathers and fathers’ rights, have all commanded attention from the media, politicians and policymakers. This book extends understandings of the complex nature of these issues, offering a nuanced, empirically grounded, account of fathers’ rights perspectives to explore the (gendered) implications of the politics of fatherhood and fathers’ rights. It will be of interest to those who study: the contemporary politics of gender and feminism ; men and masculinity; identity and cultural aspects of social movements ; and, more specifically, to readers who want to know more about men’s movements, fathers’ rights groups and fatherhood politics.
The interview analysis reveals multiple, complex narratives around masculinity, fatherhood and gender politics. Aspects of these narratives express caring masculinity and ideas of ‘new’, nurturing fatherhood which partially destabilise dominant constructions of gender and gendered binaries. Others, however, replicate problematic, conservative notions which seek to reinstate ‘traditional’ forms of masculinity and to demonise women/mothers. Overall, the cumulative effect of the d...