Rethinking feminism: What about the men?

Sexism! Instantly, women cock their pistols, men dive for cover and phrases like "70 cents to the dollar" and "female empowerment" come blazing forth like unchained Rottweilers. Before any productive debate can take place, this dramatic series of knee-jerk reactions has already snapped all involved into either a hostile Code Red or a defensive Code I-Didn't-Do-It. Maybe we ought to rethink feminism a little.

Feminists have long learned to tune out critics that call them man-bashers, but let's humor the concept for a moment. Historically, we've talked so much about how society treats women, how often have we considered how society treats men? Surely, someone has asked this question before. We didn't consider "society" just a politically correct word for "men," did we?

When it comes down to our dominant cultural hierarchy, the lion's share of physical, political, and social power has almost always belonged to men. The lioness certainly has much to resent. However, translating "girl power" into "down with half our population" is entirely counterproductive to the feminist cause. Reverse discrimination has become a hotbed of controversy on the racism front, but the double standards in sexism present an even grayer shade of hypocrisy.

The media, for example, pulls no punches when it comes to stereotyping men. Whether it's a sitcom, a commercial, or a movie, male characters invariably play into every stereotype on the table. In terms of beer, sex, power, and a litany of other subjects, the male reaction is predictable to the point of being formulaic.

The TV show Friends demonstrates a more subtle dimension of the argument. As the title suggests, the six main characters are all generally good people that consistently care about and support each other. The three men are flawed but in loveably ways, and the three women are unquestionably independent. However, consider the careers of the female characters — a cook, a fashion consultant, and a masseuse. Could any of the male characters legitimately pull off these roles? What exactly would happen if Ross lost his job as a paleontologist and worked for Ralph Lauren instead? Well, it would be funny for starters. Comedy often digs its deepest roots in mocking the absurd. But keep in mind: Aristophanes once wrote a wonderfully well received Greek comedy about women with power — what, after all, could be more ridiculous?

Bottom line: If feminism is serious about gender equality, we need to be equally outraged that a man cannot be a masseuse as we are about a woman who cannot be a scientist. Whether it's Robert de Niro's character poking fun at Ben Stiller's for being a male nurse ("Meet the Parents") or posters in our very own U-Store sporting slogans like "Boys are Stupid: Throw Rocks at Them," men are subject to a stream of never-ending criticism that is rarely ever noted out loud. Of course, if no one is offended, nobody cares, right? Well, considering that male insecurity is often the source of sexism, feminists have a serious stake in placating the male ego. Does that mean pandering to them by compromising the female image? Of course, not. But compromising the male image to bolster the feminist objective is equally ineffective.

Consistently painting the average straight male as insensitive, immature and patronizing — and finding it humorous and therefore acceptable — creates a cultural misconception that our standards for men are low. We imply that we expect nothing more from our boys than a bulging bicep and then are surprised and disappointed when that's all we get. A little silly, no? The creative, sensitive side we claim to find so desirable can hardly be fostered in a person we're throwing rocks at.

So how come men don't raise a ruckus about this underlying social animosity towards them? Well, they probably don't notice. After all, if I were making 30 more cents to the dollar, I might not care either.