Saturday, 10 May 2025

SAUCE FOR THE GOOSE 5 - Marxist Feminist

I've been wanting to write something about the very strange belief some of my progressive friends seem to have - that you can tell who has the power in a relationship simply by knowing their sexes (or race, or age). This seems to me such an obviously silly belief (and a pretty crass form of biological determinism) that I can't quite understand why intelligent, moral, thoughtful people would not question it. It's pretty common though. The idea seems to be that despite many of the woman I've known being better paid, having nicer homes, better jobs and just generally more status than I'll ever have, that nevertheless I'm supposed to treat them as if I'm the one with the power. 

It originates in Marxist political theory but that's about bosses and employees - where essentially, you can't be a boss unless you have power. A boss without power isn't a boss. Not so with male people (or white people, or old people) who are often in terrible trou-ble. Men are more likely than women to be addicts, homeless, criminals, and suicides. There are more men at the top for sure, but there are also more men at the bottom. (Women are more clustered in the middle.)

The rationalisation for this belief seems to be that since men have all this power, if we wanted to make things better we'd have done it by now - but most people have no power to speak of. Though on average men are better off and more violent, most men are neither rich nor violent. We can't treat people as examples of an average. We should treat them as individuals, and most people - men and woman - are poor, badly educated and under-privileged.

The consequence of this simplistic way of thinking is that men who have struggled all their lives get laughed at and ignored when they talk about their problems. For some-one like me that's just been very disappointing, but for many men it's literally adding insult to injury. 

I've been a feminist most of my life, but I no longer believe that women in general are especially badly treated compared to men, at least in the UK. Feminists think women are worse off because they either don't know about men's problems, or don't take them seriously. When I talk about men's problems no one ever asks me about them. Often they laugh. Generally, if they engage with me at all they give me a long list of women's grievances - grievances I've been hearing about all my life and know by heart. But the point is not that women don't have problems - of course they do - because we all do. No, the question is, are the woman's problems worse than the men's? To assess inequality you have to make a comparison. If you only know one side of the equation and just as-sume the other side is bigger it will always appear unequal. 

People don't want to hear about men's problems for various reasons - one is the belief that they're self-inflicted - that we could solve them if we wanted because we have so much power - but it's systemic - it's built into society. Men and women are heavily conditioned to take up certain roles in society and most people have neither the time nor the education to challenge them. I've been trying all my life, and I still have a load of masculine crap in my head - ways I'm supposed to be, things I'm supposed to do - guilt and shame for not measuring up. A man with a full-time minimum-wage job and kids doesn't stand a chance. He just needs to fit in to survive. 

The other common assumption is that men's roles are simply better, but I don't see many women digging up the road, emptying the bins, or joining the infantry. My lived expe-rience of being a man is that it can be pretty wretched - trying to measure up, not complain, keep your problems to yourself. 

There is of course a very visible minority of male high-achievers - politicians, business leaders, professionals, stars of various kinds - it's the last bastion of sex inequality, but the vast majority of us aren't among them. Most of us, men and women, are in trouble. The world is not set up for any of us.


No comments: