The landscape of men’s literature presents varied perspectives on masculinity and male identity. Among these voices, Robert Brannon, a scholar deeply familiar with the men’s movement since its inception in the 1970s, offers a critical viewpoint regarding exclusively male groups. In an article featured in Man! magazine, Brannon raises a pertinent question about discrimination, arguing that excluding women from men’s gatherings is akin to racial or religious segregation in public events. He challenges the very premise of gender-exclusive spaces, drawing a parallel to the unjust nature of “whites only” policies.
Brannon’s stance gains further nuance when considering his acknowledgment of the historical and systemic oppression faced by women. This is a crucial point of divergence from some factions within the men’s movement. Many men, expressing feelings of being victimized by what they perceive as shaming from women, rationalize the need for men-only spaces. These groups, they argue, are necessary for men to redefine their identities, explore their vulnerabilities, and collectively heal from societal pressures. The rituals often associated with these gatherings, such as drumming and chanting, are seen by proponents as mechanisms to reclaim a sense of lost male power. However, the fundamental question remains: are white men, the predominant demographic in these movements, genuinely an oppressed group? Critics argue that such sentiments echo the anxieties of dominant groups feeling threatened, drawing uncomfortable parallels to racist ideologies that perceive minority advancements as existential threats.
Robert Bly, a central figure in the mythopoetic men’s movement and author of Iron John: A Book About Men, embodies a complex evolution in thought regarding masculinity. Initially, Bly leaned towards matriarchal ideals, envisioning a return to so-called feminine values as a societal remedy. He conducted “Great Mother” seminars, seemingly advocating for a regression to ancient societal structures. Subsequently, his focus shifted towards reclaiming traditional masculinity, romanticizing a past where fathers and sons forged bonds in exclusively male work environments. To bridge these seemingly disparate concepts, Bly introduced the “male mother” archetype, integrating feminine principles into a revised model of masculinity. Influenced by figures like Joseph Campbell and Carl Jung, key thinkers in the mythopoetic movement, Bly championed the “Wild Man” archetype from Iron John. This figure, deeply connected to the feminine yet having successfully navigated patriarchal structures, becomes an idealized guide for initiating men into the world.
At the heart of Bly’s and, by extension, Jung’s perspectives lies a preoccupation with fixed archetypes of masculinity and femininity. They posit men and women as inherently different, defined by immutable natures – masculine Logos and feminine Eros – thereby reinforcing a binary system that mirrors existing power structures. This framework, presented as apolitical, overlooks a core tenet of feminism: that masculinity and femininity are not innate but are instead cultural constructs shaped by societal hierarchies where one gender traditionally serves the other. Bly’s interpretation of feminism appears to misinterpret its essence, perceiving it as an idealization of the “feminine” and a yearning for the “Great Mother,” rather than a critique of patriarchal structures. His assertion that “more and more women…maintain that everything bad is male, and everything good is female” reveals a misunderstanding of feminist theory and its nuanced analysis of gender dynamics.
