SPLC: men’s rights groups are hate groups

The Southern Poverty Law Center’s three pronged social justice strategy is to fight hate, teach tolerance, and seek justice. They raise awareness of right-wing hate by naming and shaming white supremacist, anti-gay, and anti-Muslim groups.

E3FDF674-D4FF-4AA0-96D2-CB2B916BBF91
Flagler University, St. Augustine, FL. © Dave DuBay

Their focus now includes “male supremacy” groups. Like all things SPLC, this is not without controversy. Conservative critics decry the SPCL’s focus on the right. Will antifa be listed as a hate group? Unlikely.

But it’s not clear that the men’s rights movement can be generalized as right-wing. Warren Farrell, the “father” of the men’s rights movement, donated the maximum allowed to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign.

The SPLC says a hate group “has beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics,” with a particular focus on “race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender identity.”

But this can get tricky. The SPLC labeled anti-FGM (female genital mutilation) activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali as an extremist because she has said that there is no moderate Islam, and that violence is inherent to Islam. Now an American citizen, Hirsi Ali is a former Muslim from Somalia and survivor of FMG. She is certainly outspoken. But is she a hater?

I’ve been critical of both the manosphere and feminism for the derogatory attitudes of some members of both groups. But I’m also skeptical of the SPLC.

The SPLC opens their statement about male supremacy stating,

Male supremacy misrepresents all women as genetically inferior, manipulative and stupid and reduces them to their reproductive or sexual function — with sex being something that they owe men and that can or even should be coerced out of them.

The SPLC goes on to include websites such as A Voice for Men and the Return of Kings as male supremacist. Yet, these are two very different websites.

Return of Kings is a website for pick up artists. They claim that men are superior to women, and they focus on women as sex objects to be used and discarded. But Return of Kings rejects the men’s rights movement because men’s rights activists reject traditional gender roles.

Paul Elam, publisher of leading men’s rights blog A Voice for Men, comes across as resentful of women. He appears to blame feminists for almost every issue men face. His blog complains about women’s sexual power over men. But AVfM also opposes the attitude of pick up artists.

However, the SPLC is disingenuous with its selected quotations. They quote Elam as saying that October should be “bash a bitch month” but fail to note that this is satire. Elam was protesting a Jezebel piece celebrating women’s domestic violence against men.

Further, the SPLC disingenuously associates Christina Hoff Sommers, the “factual feminist,” with MRAs. And they claim filmmaker Cassie Jaye has become a men’s rights activist, which is a blatant lie.

This does not mean there aren’t serious problems with the manosphere. But it does mean that the SPLC needs a more nuanced and intellectually honest approach.

 

Advertisements

What’s up with male feminists?

Authenticity is a challenge.

Carefree, Arizona. © Dave DuBay

There’s no shortage of news items about male feminists who have fallen from grace. It’s infuriating and puzzling for people on the left. It’s schadenfreude for the right. Some commentators have noted how similar this is — with left and right reversed — when an evangelical preacher falls from grace.

But other people aren’t surprised. Even ordinary male feminists can come across as pandering and sycophantic. Feminists often distrust male feminists’ motives. Some feminists seem to think men should be seen but not heard (unless they’re checking their privilege or confronting other men about their behavior). And male feminists must accept that women in the movement may mock them.

What’s happening here? The observations that follow are not excuses for bad male behavior. We should all know what appropriate behavior is and is not. No excuses.

Nor are these observations comprehensive. The reality of sexism and misogyny are well articulated elsewhere, so I’m going to focus on other factors.

Seeking women’s approval

We all crave attention, and negative attention is better than invisibility. I doubt I’m the only man who has felt a deep desire for female approval. For most of us this starts in childhood with the need for our mother’s approval, which some mothers manipulate. Though men often talk about father wound, mother wound is discussed far less often. Emotionally it’s a much more difficult discussion to have.

Further, women have immense sexual power over men. And this can lead to feelings of inadequacy and resentment.

It can also lead to a sense of entitlement. A man who fancies himself as one of the good guys may start to think he deserves women’s approval . If that’s not forthcoming then he may feel entitled to punish women.

Pandering

The desire for women’s approval may lead some men to call themselves male feminists or allies (though that’s far from the only reason for choosing these labels).

But feminism is a movement of women for women. It presents a one-sided rather than a comprehensive view of gender. So a man who calls himself a feminist or an ally must take his talking points from women, restricting his ability to speak authentically about gender issues.

Particularly, he must overemphasize the negative aspects of masculinity and focus on women as victims of masculinity while ignoring female privilege and entitlement, including situations where women take advantage of men. This can lead to feelings of frustration and resentment, which often manifest passive-aggressively.

Getting past pandering

I support gender equality, but I’m not a feminist. This phrase is really annoying to many people. But I think it’s important to make it clear that my labels are my choice. I don’t believe feminism is the only perspective on gender equality. I also distance myself from reactive identitarian groups like the men’s rights movement.

I try to understand what feminism gets right and what it gets wrong . My goal is to develop a proactive perspective on gender equality that’s more comprehensive and non-identitarian.

Today’s gender myth implies that the dark side of human nature is masculine, which oppresses the feminine. It claims that gender is purely a social construct.

But I acknowledge that biology also plays a partial role. And I think it’s more accurate to say that masculinity can be both benevolent and tyrannical while femininity can be both nurturing and smothering.

Self-reflection

Then there’s introspection. It’s important for men to examine the mother wound, acknowledge feelings about women’s power over us, and how this may contribute to a dysfunctional seeking of female approval.

But putting women on a pedestal is a particular problem. Of course, today’s version of the pedestal differs from yesterday’s. It’s understood that it’s sexist to say women shouldn’t be firefighters because they’re so delicate.

But women who wish to remain on a pedestal must maintain their innocence, which means having someone to blame. Men can become scapegoats.

I try not to enable this. This means accepting responsibility for my failings but refusing to accept responsibility for other people’s failings. And failing to realize that we’re not entitled to anything is one of the biggest failings at all.

The Red Pill: A controversial documentary about the men’s rights movement

redpillThe latest documentary by sometime feminist Cassie Jaye has caused no small amount of controversy. More so than previous documentaries such as Daddy I Do, where she criticizes purity balls and father’s attempts to protect their daughter’s virginity. Or The Right to Love, which supports the fight for marriage equality.

The Red Pill looks at the men’s right movement, challenging what we think we know about gender issues. 

Tough questions

The film is controversial because of its positive portrayal of the men’s rights movement. Jaye gives A Voice for Men founder Paul Elam a sympathetic hearing without challenging him on his ranting online persona. Also unquestioned is men’s rights activists (MRAs) failure to take women’s issues seriously while demonizing feminists and blaming them for problems men face. And left unexamined is the claim that society is gynocentric.

But Jaye does ask feminists tough questions. They avoid the issue of paternity fraud and stand firm in their opposition to a legal presumption of shared parenting. On the issue of father’s rights Katherine Spillar from the Feminist Majority Foundation says a man’s choice happens before he has sex. Another feminist in the film says men have a responsibility not to put themselves in these situations. Which would be misogyny if someone said that about women. 

Later in the film feminist Michael Kimmel denies that domestic violence against men is a serious issue despite a Centers for Disease Control report (tables 4.7 and 4.8) showing that 5.066 million men have been pushed or slapped by an intimate partner in the past 12 months compared to 4.322 million women. Even with severe domestic violence the CDC found more male victims than most people would expect – 2.266 million men and 3.163 million women in the past 12 months.

Men and gender: It’s complicated

Since the advent of second wave feminism a half century ago men have struggled to proactively discuss gender issues. Today the Internet is the primary medium for MRAs to vent their concerns and anger, often anonymously. And anti-feminism is their focus.

Meanwhile, male feminists advocate men checking their privilege and acknowledging their collective guilt as oppressors. But feminism is a female perspective on gender where men’s issues are usually discussed in terms of how masculinity affects women. It’s difficult for men to speak genuinely about men’s lived experiences when taking their cues from women.

It’s a complex situation without a clear solution.

A movement is born

The central text of the men’s rights movement is The Myth of Male Power, written in 1993 by former male feminist Warren Farrell. His key point that the male role requires men to devalue their lives in the service of others sparked a movement even if it didn’t become mainstream.

Male disposability garners such little concern that few people have even heard of it. But MRAs present several statistics backed by United States government reports, including men being 93% of workplace deaths, almost four in five suicides, and 98% of combat deaths. They note that Boko Haram kidnapping girls generated an outpouring of international concern while the boys they burned alive were ignored.

Male disposability isn’t just about death. High divorce rates have decreased father involvement in children’s lives, reducing men’s value to a child support check. Yet research shows the essential role of fathers in children’s lives – boys especially. And boys are falling far behind girls in school, but little is being done about it.

Anger

MRAs are angry because they feel dehumanized. But feminists feel dehumanized by MRAs. Jaye shows footage of a feminist protest against Farrell without giving the context for why feminists labeled him a rape apologist. In The Myth of Male Power Farrell writes, “before we began calling this date rape and date fraud, we called it exciting.” MRAs respond that this quote must be understood in its larger context. Though Farrell was not advocating rape, flippant comments about rape are always cringeworthy.

Where do we go from here?

Both feminists and MRAs seem passionate about equality and sensitive to gender bias while at other times being anti-equality and promoting gender bias. But this isn’t as inconsistent as it seems. Both feminism and the MRM are primarily about self-interest.

In the end Jaye concludes that she supports gender equality but is neither a feminist nor a men’s rights activist. But she’s not sure what direction that might go in. Despite my criticisms of the documentary, I agree with Jaye’s conclusion.

2016’s most important men’s book

Philip Zimbardo & Nikita Coulombe step outside the box and offer real solutions.

Philip Zimbardo’s 2011 TED Talk “The demise of guys” became a short IMG_0481
ebook
by the same title. And with coauthor Nikita Coulombe it’s now a full length book called Man Interrupted.

Zimbardo is best known for the Stanford prison experiment where he found that social situations have a far greater effect on behavior than most of us think.

In Man Interrupted, Zimbardo & Coulombe look at challenges facing young men today, and how societal changes contribute to this.


Notice that these are symptoms, not causes. 


The book has three parts: symptoms, causes, and solutions. Symptoms include excessive porn and video game use, drug and alcohol abuse, obesity, and opting out of the workforce. Notice that these are symptoms, not causes.

The causes are absent dads, failing schools, environmental changes, technology enabling arousal addiction, and entitlement versus reality.

Let’s dig a little deeper before I get to their solutions. First, they note that human behavior is complex, and simple explanations won’t do – especially pejorative explanations.

How does a young man contend with female dominated schools that are biased against boys, environmental factors that reduce testosterone levels, a culture that recognizes women’s needs while ignoring men’s needs, and a poor job market? And what if he has no father or male mentor to guide him?

We can judge the easy escape of violent video games and readily available pornography (which fails to depict real sexuality). Or we can try to empathize and support him.


Boys need men – especially fathers – as mentors.


“Knowing that they’re needed motivates [men], and they want respect from…other men.” But Zimbardo & Coulombe emphasize that “respect needs to come from doing pro-social things that make life better…not…from out-drinking their buddies or doing some stupid shit.” But to accomplish this boys need men – especially fathers – as mentors.

Instead, society is alienating young men by devaluing fathers, with a political atmosphere that puts women on a pedestal while ignoring or even mocking men’s concerns, and mass media portraying men as buffoons while also encouraging male entitlement.

Referencing Erik Erikson‘s psycho-social development theory, they note that Western society’s distorted ideals often short-circuit the adolescent task of balancing the ideal self with reality. Anger and entitlement rise when we fail “to come to terms with the fact that we are no more special than anyone else.”

For grown men this discrepancy can be heartbreaking. Often a father’s value is more about finances than love. But compared to mothers, twice as many fathers wish they could spend more time with their children.


“Men’s friendships are based on what abilities they bring to the group – remembering that their life is devalued but their skillsets are not.”


How do we address this? Zimbardo & Coulombe advocate going beyond society’s female-centric conversations, which alienate men. We need to treat father’s rights as equal to mother’s rights. We also need to dispel the myth that mothers or other men can serve as replacements for fathers. We need to make fatherhood a priority.

We also need to acknowledge that men as a group have more power than women, but this power comes with tradeoffs. They quote a soldier’s description of the male gender role: “Men’s friendships among peers in competitive atmospheres are based on what abilities they bring to the group; remembering that their life is devalued but their skillsets are not. Showing concern means that you question their ability.”

That almost four out of five suicides are men and boys – an issue which first appears when puberty begins – should be a wakeup call that something’s wrong. But instead there’s societal indifference.


To “harness the power of young men, society is going to have to care about its young men.”


With a nod to men’s writer Warren Farrell, Zimbardo & Coulombe conclude that true power is about control over your life “and having access to fulfilling personal experiences.” But the traditional male role – earning money for others and dying sooner – doesn’t meet that definition. They warn that “if society wants to harness the constructive power of its young men, society is going to have to care about its young men.”

Now to the solutions. They promote political support for a White House Council on Boys and Men, noting that there’s already one for girls and women. Male mentorship programs are important. There’s also a government Office of Women’s Health, but not for men.

They detail extensive school reforms to help boys succeed. They encourage physical activity rather than medication for ADHD (and learning to dance is a great way to do this).

Boys need better sex education, including discussions about peer pressure, consent, boundaries, and the difference between porn and reality.

Men need to teach boys respect for women through actions as well as words. Boys need to know that it’s not okay to call women sluts or hos, but boys also need to learn to avoid the princess (the entitled woman).

Finally, we need to pressure the media to portray men in a more positive and multifaceted light. Zimbardo & Coulombe advocate a “reverse Bechdel Test” with mature and responsible fathers, honest hard-working men, women valuing men before they becomes heroes, and men who resolve conflicts in creative non-violent ways.

Can you believe in gender equality but not be a feminist?

If you believe in gender equality then you’re a feminist. If you doubt that then look feminism up in the dictionary. It’s a popular argument that’s difficult to disagree with without being labeled anti-equality.

But does it follow that if you’re not a feminist then you’re anti-equality? It reminds me of the question, “How can you be moral if you don’t believe in God?” The black or white dichotomy such questions create is problematic.

Another problem is the attempt to define other people’s labels for them. A better questions is, “What do you call yourself?” And, “What’s your perspective on equality?” These questions are open ended and don’t push an agenda.

Feminism advocates for gender equality from a female point of view. This matters because the Seneca Falls Convention was held 168 years ago, but recorded human history stretches back 10,000 years. But men seem inconsistent in finding their voice about gender equality.

Feminism has changed men’s roles because women’s roles can’t change without shifting men’s place in society. But that change happens to men – we don’t have a choice. And that feeling of having no choice is one reason why men’s rights activists are angry with feminism. Feminists sometimes respond by saying that men need to understand that men benefit from feminism too. And while that’s generally true, the patronizing tone doesn’t help.

The men’s rights movement isn’t the answer, though. Their rightwing talking points fail to support women’s issues. Men’s rights activists even claim that feminism isn’t really about equality.

IMG_0497

Beehive Mountain, Acadia National Park

So is being a male feminist the answer? I agree with blogger Ally Fogg that feminism is a movement of women, by women, and for women. Men can’t define the issues or offer solutions. Men can’t even takes sides in disagreements within feminism without it being mansplaining. As a result, a male feminist must take his cues from women. This means avoiding certain issues and having his statements scrutinized for ideological purity, all of which constrain his ability to speak authentically about the male experience.

Fogg also points out that feminism is mainly concerned with issues men cause, not issues men face. And of course, issues that men face are for men to describe.

A return to the pre-feminist past is neither desirable nor realistic. Instead, I write in an attempt to develop a male perspective on gender equality and gender issues without the constraints of male feminism, but also without the anti-feminist and rightwing perspective of the men’s rights movement. This is a male viewpoint that runs parallel to much of feminist thought but which is also free to disagree with feminism at certain points.

Final thought: while I don’t expect people to agree with me (I’m simply defining my personal viewpoint), I also reject the moralistic judgments people sometimes make because I’m not choosing the labels they think I should choose. It is each person’s prerogative to choose their own labels and to define their own perspectives, and the attitude that someone must call themselves this or that disrespects that individual’s choice.

How Does War Shape Gender Roles?

Feminist sociologist Kathleen Barry writes that, “Male expendability is a corollary to the sexual objectification of girls and women.”

It’s a striking statement, though the concept isn’t new. Warren Farrell originated the idea of male disposability almost a quarter century ago in The Myth of Male Power. In my opinion expendability is a better word because it implies a willingness to throw something away, but that doesn’t mean it actually will be disposed of. Disposability, however, implies that something will be thrown away sooner or later. But maybe I’m splitting semantic hairs.

In Unmaking War, Remaking Men Barry notes that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights assures the right to live, but the Geneva Conventions provides an exception: it’s not murder to kill a soldier in combat. And throughout history men have been cannon fodder just as women have been chattel.

Barry points to war as the reason. Socialization into the male role, which values physical power, dominance, bravery, and stoicism, prepares men for war should one arise. And women have always been the spoils of war.

Recent events put this into focus. The world reacted with moral revulsion in 2014 when Boko Haram kidnapped 276 girls. But the world was silent when Boko Haram killed boys by burning them alive.

In traditional societies, the tradeoff for making himself expendable is the almost exclusive male potential to become one of the elite and thus superior to women. But the risk is being cast onto the dung heap of society. A man who cannot protect himself cannot protect women and children, so he’s on his own. Failure is merciless.

Likewise, women’s lives being more valued than men’s comes with the tradeoff that in traditional societies every woman must have a male with authority over her to protect her.

Both warfare and male expendability are found in almost every human culture. Why?

Cathance River Preserve, Topsham, Maine 3/2016
Cathance River Preserve, Topsham, Maine 3/2016

Here’s my pet theory: Even hunter gatherers, once thought to be peaceful noble savages, were quite violent. After all, human beings have a strong ingroup preference. The outgroup is seen as a threat to survival when resources are limited. As the hunter gatherer population increased they infringed on each other’s territories. Violence resulted because there was no established law governing inter-tribal disputes. And men did the fighting because the average man has greater upper body strength compared to the average woman (who was frequently pregnant or nursing small children).

As settled agricultural villages developed and the population increased even more, groups that were successful in battle acquired more territory, eventually resulting in the first empires. The leaders of these warriors – all men – became the first kings and emperors. Patriarchy is the result of physical, not psychological, differences between men and women. That is, misogyny is not the cause of patriarchy, though it can be a result.

It’s also notable that women are more important than men for population growth. A man can impregnate several women in one year, but a woman can only become pregnant once a year. So killing half the men won’t affect the size of the next generation, but killing half the women could result in a population collapse. That’s why Boko Haram kills boys and kidnaps girls.

It’s fascinating that scientists studying the human genome found that male, but not female, genetic diversity decreased enormously about 4,000 to 8,000 years ago when the agricultural revolution happened. In other words, the agricultural revolution left many men without wives while a smaller number of men had many wives.

A popular interpretation is that the male elite dominated the entire female population, but this reflects the view that men are actors and women are acted upon. Another possible interpretation is that women actively selected for or against certain men based on which men were winning or losing the expendability gamble (which doesn’t necessarily mean dying and can include the failure to achieve a social status worthy of any woman). Likely it was a bit of both.

How do males come to terms psychologically with their expendability? Barry notes that the primary way of accepting your expendability is to suppress your humanity. But that makes it difficult to recognize the humanity of others.

The carrot at the end of the stick is becoming a hero, and this proven ability to protect women and children gives a man control over them. But that control has a dark side – men’s violence against women. And this is Barry’s ultimate concern. Addressing male expendability will benefit women.

Though Barry’s focus is almost entirely on war, Warren Farrell gives a much broader description of male disposability. Farrell notes that men are 92% of workplace deaths, more than three-quarters of all suicides are male, and most homeless people are male.

In the 1970s Farrell was on the board of the National Organization for Women in New York. But his falling out with NOW, and subsequent association with the men’s rights movement, stemmed in part from Farrell’s view that NOW devalues the important role of fathers, including NOW’s opposition to shared parenting after divorce (even though it provides for exceptions when there’s abuse). Male disposability doesn’t have to literally mean loss of life.

Feminists have mostly dismissed the notion of male disposability, so it’s refreshing to see Barry putting male expendability forward in a feminist context. Barry’s articulation of how male expendability negatively impacts women shows clearly why dismissing Farrell’s notion of male disposability is a mistake. But while sparking women’s concern by showing how male expendability affects women and girls is a positive step, the issue cannot be fully addressed unless our primary focus is why it matters to men and boys.

There is a different way, and that’s a key focus of Barry’s book. We don’t need war, and we don’t need authoritarian rulers. We can replace expendability with empathy. We are capable of settling our differences through negotiation and compromise rather than violence.

How would the male gender role, and therefore the female gender role, be different if war were unknown?

Identity Crisis: Are You Wanted When You’re Not Necessary?

Everyone needs a positive identity to thrive as a person. And identity isn’t just individual: we all belong to groups based on gender, race, religion, and so on. You might view your identity a certain way, but you’ll find yourself in the position of feeling misunderstood if society views the identity of your group differently. Or affirmed if social attitudes shift. Society’s shift from seeing gays and lesbians as deviants to average citizens is one example.

The problem with men, according to Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young, is that today’s world leaves

men unable to make even one contribution to society, as men, which is distinctive, necessary and can therefore be publicly valued—that is, unable to establish a healthy collective identity specifically as men. The result of this emptiness is a growing tendency to give up either by dropping out of school and or by committing suicide. Ideological feminists have thrown down the gauntlet, on the other hand, by ascribing to men a highly negative collective identity. The result of this misandry is an increasing number of men who believe that even a negative collective identity is better than no collective identity at all.

Misandry is hatred of men. That society promotes hatred toward men is a dramatic claim that contradicts the current cultural narrative. I agree that misandry can exist on an individual level. Regarding society in general, however, I would rather make the more cautious claim that contempt for men (which is milder than hatred) is socially acceptable in a way that contempt for women is not.

For example, in a recent Huffington Post article about photos exploring “a version of masculinity that is more expansive, and more vulnerable, than the kind often represented in mainstream culture,” a reader commented, “As pointed out in the splendid documentary THE MASK YOU LIVE IN, ‘masculinity’ is nothing more than rejection and repudiation of that which is considered feminine.”

I’ve seen The Mask You Live In. I’m not sure the filmmakers would make the absolutist claim that masculinity is “nothing more” than a rejection of the feminine, which implies that masculinity has no positive aspects of its own. But this is a common notion in progressive circles. And this line of thinking can easily lead to the belief that to be a man (i.e. being masculine) is to be a hollow shell.

In the past, both women and men had essential roles that for the most part were biologically driven. Before modern machines most men did physical labor. With their greater upper body strength, men were far more adept at this than most women, especially considering that women in the past were pregnant far more often than women today. Thus it was men who built the pyramids, cathedrals, and roads; who did the heaviest farm labor; and who provided physical protection from natural disasters and warring neighbors.

In the modern era we no longer need men to be beasts of burden. And most men are glad about that.

But what unique role do men play today?

Women’s unique role has always been the creation of life. And that’s still true today. But what about women who can’t have children, don’t want to have children, or who do have children but don’t want motherhood to define their identities as women?

Psychologist Abraham Maslow described our hierarchy of needs. The basic idea is that you must take care of essential physical needs such as food, shelter, and safety before you can worry about psychological needs such as love, esteem, and self-actualization.

Self-help books fly off the shelves because people in modern American society are so obsessed with finding their true selves, and this quest is a direct indication of how dramatically the average economic standing has risen compared to past generations.

Today, a positive identity is based on social roles rather than the physical roles associated with basic survival needs. Even if a woman defines her identity in terms of motherhood, being a mother is still something more than that. It’s about the kind of mother she is.

But a key point that Nathanson and Young make is that identity can’t just be individual. Identity exists in a social context, so in addition to being distinctive, this group identity must also be necessary and publicly valued. Even if an individual woman doesn’t want to have children, the fact remains that women collectively are essential to the continuation of the human species, and this is publicly recognized and valued. Just think about how big Mother’s Day is compared to Father’s Day.

Men’s negative collective identity is based on the fact that human violence (especially war) is overwhelmingly a male endeavor. The problem is the attitude that all men are to blame. In fact, the world’s violence is perpetrated by a minority of men, and men are also the majority of the world’s victims of violence. Most men go to war without choice. Sharing certain anatomical features with the one exploiting you doesn’t mean you’re to blame for being exploited.

Still, the claim that human beings would be better off if men were reduced to ten percent of the population doesn’t generate the outrage we’d find if this were said about other groups.

But now that scientists can create artificial sperm, I wonder if it could soon be possible for two women to have a biological child. Certainly this would be a great opportunity for lesbian couples. Of course, because there would be no Y chromosome in the mix, any offspring would be female. That, combined with the possibility of sex selective abortion (which in Western cultures would likely favor females), could theoretically tip the sex ratio in women’s favor over several generations. Though this scenario is quite unlikely.

But what if science could also make women unnecessary? The artificial womb (a machine that gestates a fetus) could be a reality sometime this century. That men might be able to have children without needing a woman, just as women today can become pregnant through a sperm bank, raises any number of questions about what societal shifts might occur.

One shift, though, would be that women might no longer have a distinctive, necessary, and publicly valued contribution to society. Perhaps this is why some have called artificial wombs misogynist (though they don’t carry this to its logical conclusion by calling sperm banks misandrist). Other critics try to distract from progressive’s anxiety with fevered speculations of how the right wing might react.

It would put women and men, however, in the equal position of having to forge an identity not from biology, but from something culturally constructed. As such, I doubt artificial wombs (if they even happen) will be as much of a threat to women’s identities as some might fear. Feminism has already made headway toward women’s identities not being narrowly defined by motherhood, and artificial wombs would help complete this process.

Men are the first to face the identity crisis of how to be socially valued even if they’re not biologically necessary because machines that replace brawn were easier to invent than gestation machines. And men, unlike women, have not benefited from seeing it coming.

I wish I had a straightforward answer for the male identity crisis, but I don’t. It’ll have to work itself out organically.