Guys and Dolls: Reflections of an Old Geezer
ZNet Commentary

by Doug Dowd

The struggles against the many dimensions of inequality and injustice have always been at the heart of left movements; they are, finally, one struggle: to win against one requires battling the socioeconomic structure of power that depends upon both. That is one vital reason that no left movement has ever been able to succeed and endure, principally because those in power are able to exploit not only an economically powerless citizenry but one that renders itself politically powerless by its prejudices. Our fundamental goal must be equality, with no ifs, ands, or buts; no double standards. In the USA, that has never been so.

What has done the most harm to both victims and victimizers centers on color and gender; I focus here only upon the prejudices men hold against/toward women, that “come with the territory” of being a male — generated by a lifelong socialization process that cultivates, combines, and nourishes ignorance, misinformation, fears and aggressiveness, and that rewards the worst side of masculinity and distorts the virtues of femininity.

Our system depends upon inequality, so the very idea of equality is caricatured and derided. Here it means that all would have equal rights to the best education, the best health care, to well-being, to safety, to opportunities, to respect, to… finally, dignity: womb to tomb. That will not be achieved in the foreseeable future; but fighting for it and moving toward it is part of the good life.

Sure, sure, Big Daddy, but what’s all the fuss about; you’re writing to lefties! Not quite; I’m writing to male lefties, and the focus is on the long history and socialized deep prejudices we guys hold against our mothers, wives, lovers, daughters, sisters, fellow workers, even female passers-by. Of course the Left males reading this know about (at least some of) the harm done to women by sexism; we’d have to be not just irrational but noodniks if we didn’t. But how conscious are we of the harm done by our prejudices and behavior to ourselves?  and to the good society we are working for?

I wish not to hector, nor do I by any means wish to convey that this guy has been or is yet free of these (or other) important prejudices. Instead, I wish only to suggest how deep it all goes, in so many ways. I begin with an incident that led me, oh so belatedly, to begin to think about my own sexism.

It wasn’t until the mid-’60s (when I was in my mid-forties!) that I became aware that just to BE a man meant to live comfortably with a set of deep prejudices about women; this despite my having been a leftie since the mid-30s (awakened to capitalism’s charms by the 1934 longshore/general strike in San Francisco, my home). Now, as I edge toward my mid-eighties (lotsa “mids” here), it occurs to me that a friendly offering from one of their fellow horse’s asses might serve a solidaristic function of some sort for one and all. So, to my initial awakening. (I know, I know, it took me too long, but that’s a main point I’m trying to make.)

I was then working with the SDS, civil rights, and antiwar movements. Along with about 25 similarly-occupied (mostly young profs) I was invited to a two-day conference in Ann Arbor. Its aim it was to create “The New University Movement” — in effect, a faculty SDS. On the first day we took a lunch break and, without being asked, I joined two women who were looking for a place to eat. The two, who will be nameless, were becoming well-known in the emerging women’s movement, of whose existence I was virtually ignorant. As we were walking, they were conversing about their movement, a conversation in which I was not meant to be involved (I later recognized). Ishkabibble; I interrupted at one point, and, putting my arm on the speaker’s shoulder, said something like “That doesn’t make any sense at all to me, baby!” Her angry response, while shoving me away, was “I don’t give a shit what you think, and I’m not your baby.” I stammered, said “Hey, I say that to guys too…”

Left to eat alone, and inwardly squirming, I confronted the fact of my stupid lie about calling men “Baby,” and went on from there. Thus began the continuing journey of self-appraisal that took me to this point, assisted and energized by the women’s movement. All men seeking understanding can and must learn from that movement. What I seek to do here is to approach the whole matter “man to man,” to get inside our skins on a few items selected from the broad range of the biases that grip us. Then, I’ll ask you to imagine living in a society where men and women are equal, free from those claws. (As you read that part of this essay, hum along with the music of Lennon’s “Imagine.”)

To live on terms of equality is, in part, “to do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” That men rarely do that in their relationships with women appears in numerous daily occurrences. Take these:

Item: Monday through Friday. You arise in the morning, shave and shower, kiss your child(ren) and your mate, and sit down to the breakfast she has made. Then you and she go off to your paid jobs (as more than half of all wives do nowadays), and the child off to school. You return from your job in the early evening, have a beer and watch TV until dinner is served. You may or may not clean up the kitchen after dinner. You may or may not have helped in the shopping, the laundry, taking care of the child(ren), and the like. And if you, along with your job, had prepared the breakfast, dinner, taken care of the kids, etc, how would you feel?

Item: Or, if your mate doesn’t have an outside job, and “only” takes care of the house, etc., how would you feel about changing places? It’s great to be with the children, for a while.  But all day, every day (and much of the night)? Ah! you say, your mate didn’t have the education/training to get a job that would support the family in the manner to which it has become accustomed. And, after all, aren’t the house and the kids women’s work? After all what?

Item: You are walking down the street, and an attractive woman is approaching from the opposite direction. You look her up and down and think, hmmm. She had looked away as you approached. (Have you noticed how frequently women do not look at you as you walk by?) After she passes, you turn around and give her another look.

Now, suppose that you were on the other side of the street, by chance, and it was your mate, or new love, or teen-aged daughter who was getting the ogle? What then?

Item: You are at work (your mate at home, or at work). You have found one of your co-workers attractive and interesting over time. You chat with her, occasionally eat lunch together; feelings begin to develop. It goes on like that for a while…and you begin to spend an hour or so together in a nearby hotel in the afternoon; and…it becomes an affair. You still love your mate; there is some discomfort with the associated dishonesty, but, tutto OK. As you see it.

Turn that around: it is your mate who is having an affair with someone at her work, or, if she doesn’t have an outside job, with someone in your circle of friends. Tutto OK as you see it?

Item: You and your mate both have jobs, but in different occupations. She is offered a promotion that requires moving to another state; and you too would have to relocate (or…?).  How would the decision be made, and on what basis? And, if the situation were reversed, you with the promising change; how would the decision be made? And on what basis?

Item: You come home from work, have a nice dinner and some wine, and when beddy-by time comes, you feel like making love. Your mate is tired and begs off. You persist; and, as usual, you win. How do you think she feels about that?

Turn it around. How would you feel about “having” to make love when all you want to do is to sleep? Challenged? Used?

Item: Your son is in his late teens, and after coming in very late one Sunday morning, he lets you know that, for the first time, he spent the night with a young woman. What would you say? Would you both chuckle about it?

Your daughter is in her late teens, and after coming in very late one Sunday morning, she lets you know that, for the first time, she spent the night with a young man. What would you say? Would you both chuckle about it?

Enough already. Not only do you get the idea, but you had most of it already, for much of the foregoing has ceased to be as bad as it used to be. But it’s still pretty bad with most men, even for those upon whom the women’s movement has made a dent, which, at best, probably applies to something well under 20% of men (if also much better than that for Z-readers). Still…a dent is but a dent; what Veblen called “force and fraud” continues to rule the world and the relationships between men and women.

Now, imagine a different world, one in which men and women had been living under conditions of equality for some time. So:

• Imagine that your father and mother had enjoyed equal access to education in a context in which they were both viewed in much the same way by their teachers, dressed as children rather than as little girls and little boys, played in ways not noticeably different from each other except by mutual choice, and had moved toward and through adolescence on the “track” suiting their inclinations and abilities, in a school system seeking to cultivate their possibilities, rather than mostly to “train” them.

• Imagine, too, what your early (and ongoing) sex life would have been like if (assuming that puritanism and its twin brother prurience had dwindled away) you had not been socialized to see girls/women as sex objects, ready, willing, and able to be dominated by and to “service” boys/men, up to the point of “date (or marriage) rape” — that point where so many men believe, “Even though she said no, she really wanted it…” (Or should have.)

• Then imagine what might have been — could be (if you’re very lucky, now is) — if you and some woman, finding each other appealing, set out as equals (without having to argue it) to explore the possibilities of sexual and/or love relationships, ultimately marry and together create a life of continuing equality: no ceilings, glass or otherwise. If your first reaction to that “scenario” is “Hey! that would make life harder for me,” think again.

• Now imagine your work life as taking place in a setting where:

a) it had been preceded by a much better education than either men or women now have — an education of equals, without the waste of time and energy required for repression, in a society of many more opportunities than can possibly exist in an irrational society, and

b) as regards your own family (among other changes), your work day as divided in one way or another (in hours, or days, or weeks, or months, or years) so as to provide you with the opporunity to work at home and your wife to work outside it, equally. And speaking of family,

• Imagine your family existence (if you have a mate and children), when you and your mate have moved through life as social equals, with education and work opportunities not differing as between you—the major difference being that she can be a mother and you cannot, physically. But you can become a much better, fuller father (and mate) than is now common, and wouldn’t have to be either a freak or a martyr to be so. It would be natural, normal, wonderful—for you and your mate, to say nothing of your children—and society.  Imagine!

• And then imagine this: You fall in love; you live with your love, with or without children, in a society in which men and women are equal. You see your love as a wonderful human being— not someone you own, not your servant, not your inferior in intelligence, judgment, general ability: as your equal, not in muscular strength or height or such trivia, but as your equal in all ways that are important, to her and to you. You have no socialized reason to resent each other, to deceive each other, to fear each other. Some of us, despite all, already have what we call good, even wonderful, marriages: Imagine how much fuller and sweeter your life would be if you and your love had from the beginning thought and felt about each others as equals Imagine!

“Equal in all ways that are important…” I must add this: It is and always has been a man’s world; and what a dreadful world it is and has been! Do you think if it had been a “woman’s world” it would have been much the same? I doubt that deeply. Just as we are not all equal in size or strength, neither are we equal in the values by which we make judgments — especially on matters of life and death. The “maternal instinct” — which in thought, feeling and practice comprises nurturing, cooperation, and compassion — neither begins nor ends at home; in our “man’s world” it too seldom has the opportunity to express itself even there.

The socialization processes in a society of equals would very much alter the structure of social values — for example, reducing aggressivity, by very much lessening the real or imagined need for it; but it would also, we may assume, allow those whose “natural” values are peaceful, nurturing, cooperative, to move into positions of leadership. (Note: “leadership,” not “rule.”) In such a society, it would be less difficult than it is now for men to shed their normal — basically adolescent — tendencies toward force and violence. Men have produced a history showing that we can’t be trusted, most of the time. (I know, neither can all women; Margaret Thatcher, after all, is a woman. Or is she?)

As the world was exploding in 1939, W. H. Auden wrote “We must love another or die…” The “love” he referred to went well beyond romantic love; it was close to what Erich Fromm meant in his Art of Loving (1956). Fromm saw love as a set of thoughts and feelings dependent upon and generating concern, understanding, and respect — for those near to us of course; but, just as importantly, for those whom we know barely or not at all. In that “boat” all humans share, and whose voyage is so precarious, we are equals.

If we can’t live equal lives with whose who are closest to us, our mothers, wives, lovers, daughters and sisters, can we expect to create a society of decency and safety and well-being with and for those we don’t even know? Is your response, ok, ok, already, but what is desirable and necessary is also impossible?

Let me remind you of what some wise man or woman once said: “The worst crime is to do nothing, for fear that we cannot do enough.”

June 17, 2003