Whither the Emerging Men’s Movement?

Randy Lewis’ article on “Prime Time’s Real Men” (Calendar, Nov. 18) concerning TV’s most recent recognition of the men’s movement raises an important question: Will this movement aim at the humanization of men or the denigration of women? Will it unite the sexes or drive them apart?

There has been an unfortunate tendency in recent years for some groups to look upon non-members as nothing more than opponents or potential enemies, and not as fellow citizens to be viewed with empathy and accepted as collaborators in the common life.

This in-group, out-group psychology has produced a degree of social fragmentation that has made it difficult for some groups to work together for their mutual benefit or in the service of the common good, and it has prevented their respective memberships from understanding each other’s human needs. Moreover, the clash of groups at times has been carried beyond the bounds of civility.

Such a social atmosphere is not conducive to the free exchange of ideas, which is a prerequisite of social advance. I would urge that the emerging men’s movement, whether it attains the level of a fully articulated ideology or remains a pastiche of attitudes, avoid acquiring a separatist thrust. If it narrows men’s emotional horizons and confirms alienating parochialism, the human and social consequences will be unfortunate. But it need not do so.

If its predominant effects are to sensitize men to a greater awareness of the world around them, show them how institutional arrangements obstruct the projection of their humanity and give them the means of enlarging the emotional resources that formerly lay fallow within them, it will constitute a beneficial social development. Such a humane and thoughtful men’s movement would deserve to be judged emancipatory, rather than reactionary, and a boon to mankind and womankind alike.

Concededly, the men’s movement is entitled to its own special point of view and need not prostrate itself at the feet of feminism. But if it devotes itself to the propagation of narrow doctrines of masculine superiority or feminine inferiority, it will not achieve the full measure of its promise.

In this connection, I am reminded of G. K. Chesterton’s famous comment. When asked which were superior, men or women, he answered, “Which man, which woman?”