I was sort of half-listening to the Ellen DeGeneres Show last week, when I overheard a segment called "Hunk in a Box". This caught me by surprise, so I started paying attention. The women in the studio audience (which seem to make up about 99.7% of Ellen's audience) were on their feet cheering wildly at a very large box which apparently contained a "hunk". The box opened and there was a guy wearing a tank top shirt and tight exercise shorts (if it hadn't been for the half a foot more height, 30 pounds less weight, 15 fewer years, the handsome face, and head full of hair, this guy could have been my twin!) When he did a few deep knee bends, the women again went wild.
I understood that it was in good fun, and I found out afterwards that it this segment was to raise money for disaster relief in Japan, which obviously I applaud. But I couldn't help wondering, what if Jay Leno, or Conan, or Letterman, or any of the other male talk show hosts had a "Hot Babe in a Box" segment? Even were it to raise charity for an extremely worthy cause, wouldn't many feminist groups, equal rights organizations and other PC-sensitive individuals be all over them for sexism?
Hopefully they would be, and rightfully so.
So, I started thinking about reverse sexism and double standards in our society. And since I really hadn't come to any firm conclusions on the subject, I posted the question in one of my Facebook groups. Two of the women in the group and I got into a bit of a discussion, and I understood their point of view, and was fascinated by their take, but it left me feeling even more uncomfortable than the segment on Ellen made me feel to begin with.
Essentially what these friends said (if either of you is reading this, I hope that I am accurately representing your views, and if not, please let me know in the comments section below) was that given the history of sexism and objectification of women over the centuries and to this very day, that in the very rare instance that it is done by the historically oppressed women to the historically oppressive men, then it's, if not acceptable, at the very least understandable and since it doesn't come close to what men have been doing for generations to women, what happened on Ellen's show is essentially a non-issue.
To further the point and to demonstrate how there is a currently an attempt being made by some men to make amends for the years of wrongs inflicted upon women, one of my friends shared the link to this clip:
This clip is based upon a document called "A Manifesto for Conscious Men" written by Arjuna Ardagh and Gay Hendricks. It has a very interesting idea behind it, and I like the underlying premise – that it is time for society, particularly the men in society, to recognize the wrongs which women have suffered for many generations, and to ensure that current and future societies do not commit the same grievous wrongs against women which have been prevalent for much too long.
So far, I wholeheartedly agree.
But then the clip takes a turn which I simply cannot accept. The men apologize to the women for the wrongs that the women have suffered at the hands of men in the past. Never mind that these particular men have not committed any of the atrocities themselves, and never mind if a woman seeing the video has not personally suffered any injustices – these men have taken it upon themselves to apologize on behalf of all men everywhere for the way in which society has viewed and treated women for millennia.
With all due respect to the sentiment, this strikes me as bordering on the absurd.
For one thing, I am very inclined to believe that we cannot ignore the societal influences in every generation which have played a significant factor in how women have been often treated. I am not sure how much we can judge the standards of other eras by the values of our present era.
Obviously here we need to be very careful, and to make a distinction between certain forms of mistreatment of women. Rape, abuse and sexual slavery are never acceptable, by any societal or periodic norms. Ever.
But things such as barring from political and religious leadership roles, even what we today recognize as subservient chores, are a bit trickier. It can be a very slippery slope applying our 21st century Western societal standards and sensitivities to other times, other places, other societies and other realities.
Beyond that, how can any men presume to apologize "on behalf of their gender" simply because we all have possession of a penis in common? Are we not each responsible for ourselves, our own actions, attitudes and prejudices?
Even more absurd is that the men who wrote this Manifesto acknowledge that they themselves never committed any of these wrongs, and that many of the men who were responsible for them are no longer living. So why the apology? Because, as they say "Among the living, many men may be unable to apologize because they remain shackled in a prison of anger, fear and shame".
OK – that's one possible explanation for the lack of apology by men who have not yet gone to meet their Maker. Another possibility is that of all the men still alive, there are men who have been guilty of sexism and of mistreating women, and those who have not. Of those who have been guilty of it, many haven't apologized because they are unaware that what they have done (or are still doing) is wrong. Of those who are not guilty of sexism, it is possible that they have not apologized because they have done nothing to apologize for, and they do not see is as incumbent upon them to speak on behalf of other men.
What bothers me the most about this Manifesto is that rather than breaking down gender stereotypes, in many instances the document reinforces the stereotypes, and in doing so, they reinforce the very roots of sexism.
So, obviously I have "issues" with this "Manifesto for Conscious Men." But even if one is to accept it all as it stands, it still does not really address what initially bothered me – which is the double standard I believe would exist if a male-hosted talk show included a similar "Hot Babe in a Box".
If gender-based objectification is inherently wrong, then it is wrong no matter who is on the receiving end of it. Otherwise, we are simply grouping all men as "guilty" of what women have endured, and even justifying collective punishment on an entire gender by "doing to them what 'their kind' have been doing to women for years".
The "Hunk in a Box" has nothing to do with the history of women's oppression. If I could invent a time machine, and go back to undo the wrongs committed against women through the centuries throughout the world, I would do so, and gladly.
But alas, we are limited by the fact that life is not a fantasy novel or movie, so we need to be focusing on what we can do. And that is to concentrate, men and women alike, on celebrating the common ground which lies between the genders as well as whatever inherent differences may exist between us. Our job is to treat all fellow members of the human race, no matter their gender (and of course race, creed, color, religion, and so forth), as equals, worthy of love, respect and equality in every way. Most of all, it is our responsibility to educate our children, and they in turn their children, what gender equality and respect truly are.
To be honest, I seriously doubt that we will ever see true full gender equality in our lifetime. But if all men and women begin planting the seeds today, perhaps by the time our great-grandchildren have been born, the entire issue of sexism will exist only in history books.
Until then, if they insist on using my near-double as the "Hunk in a Box", I think I should be paid some royalties.
