Reach out if you need me
Libido, gender equality, prosocial behaviours
VB: Some heterosexual middle aged men complain about misalignment of libido with their spouses, meaning the wives don't want to "do it" as much as they do. These men do not understand that there is a spectrum for libido within each gender, in addition to possible misalignments because of age or biology. Patriarchy has been riding this wave of misalignments by giving men domination and entitlement over the narrative of male-female intimate relations. Since MeToo many men have started to behave as victims, and then reacted by doubling down on misogyny and the objectification of women, pushing further towards a Right wing that justified their frustrations.
Sure, the reality of these potential misalignments cannot be denied, but I often think the Left responds with counterproductive solutions, such as to focus just on the emancipation of identities, that have been traditionally oppressed, while ignoring the material conditions behind the misalignments (gender pay gap, unpaid care work, free healthcare including reproductive etc.).
At the same time, Dominic Pettman talks about “peak libido”, in which general fatigue follows in the wake of 24/7 access to virtual sexual stimulation. It is reasonable to think that women and men feel this fatigue differently? What is your take on this?
OB: I honestly don't know if the misalignment of libido is a common problem among the older generation. But I know that the sex lives of some of my mother's friends have been a life-long misery, way before MeToo, because for the boomer generation, lots of women still considered sex a duty. My impression of those marriages was that male pleasure took precedence, so the women perhaps didn’t want to have sex because there was no pleasure in it for them, and there was no shame for the men in taking but not giving. In many cases, I would expect that this has improved, but it's complicated. I feel under-informed, honestly.
On the patriarchy responding to MeToo - I don't think that this is about sex. It's about power and ego. Put it this way - I don't think that educating chauvinists about women's desire would counter the trad wife narrative. My instinct is that, if a man is willing to engage on the topic of female desire, he is already a feminist.
VB: It is difficult to establish a clear statistical representation of the entire spectrum of masculinity. It is somehow clear that MeToo has uprooted the inertia of patriarchy which has allowed men to behave with entitlement and impunity for so long. Some men are “fed up” with the gender affirmation culture, not necessarily because they are heterosexual traditionalists, or because they do not believe in equal rights, but because they feel MeToo has gone too far and has infringed on meritocracy. They think that underqualified women get picked over them for promotions, and that gender fluidities are overly emphasized in school which is confusing children. Therefore men are losing their status, which is exactly what you say about power and ego, which I 100% agree with.
OB: The irony of men being fed up because they think that women are being given promotions because they are women, without merit, is almost laughable. Before we even get onto whether meritocracy can exist without complete equality coming first, it is baffling that a man would make such a claim without realizing that he is, for the first time, understanding what women have felt for so long. As they say (although it’s not clear who said it first) “to those who have the power, equality feels like oppression”.
VB: Patriarchy has had its historical run long enough, and it hasn't gotten us to a position of enlightenment. Quite the contrary. Proper feminism, which I think is about equality not reversing the hierarchy of power, is precisely what culture needs in order to progress.
A culture of ethical consent in all areas of private and public life is fundamental to the emancipation of women. Libido may even experience a revival if ethical consent in private life becomes the backbone of relationships. Not just in our private lives, but in consumer society, or when we are forced to sell our labor for wages. I emphasize ethical here, because often consent can be extracted to appear voluntary and informed.
Men, of course, can overcome any frustrations with the new cultural norms by embracing the wonderful institution of Self-Eroticism while supporting and expanding the culture of ethical consent. Certainly, some men will just have to “suck it up” while riding the waves of changes, like women have since time immemorial.
OB: I don’t trust that the men who are against MeToo are able to meet their own sexual needs, because their needs are to dominate and control, as well as to derive physical pleasure.
But these things aside, there is a large spectrum of inequality between men and women. Sexual frustration and domination are only one end of it. That’s why the focus on identity politics alone can feel frustrating, because it flattens a much more rounded issue. Equality should address the whole spectrum, not shortcutting to “give women more jobs in the patriarchy and try not to rape them” but respecting, including, and holding in higher regard female ways of being. Eco-feminism, for example, is not about giving women space in ecology, it’s about a female approach to ecology, which is different.
It’s hard to get this stuff ingrained in people’s minds. I know that both you and I have seen men and women respond to prosocial projects differently. Right?
VB: In my experience with grassroots organizing I have seen men offer skills and showed interest in participation, but it’s packaged as “reach out if you need me”, as if they were supposed to be nudged until they became available, and even then couldn’t guarantee commitment. When a concrete action was suggested, very few showed up compared to how many declared interest, both women and men. It seems that the notion of prosocial behavior, which is acting to the benefit of others and society in general, triggers a sort of cost-benefit thinking in some people, men especially, along the lines of “If I don’t get any clear personal benefit, I will not commit to a collective endeavor”. This smells of patriarchal thinking.
OB: This makes me think of the domestic emotional load. Many more men in heterosexual partnerships do domestic chores now, which is great. But not all of them are self-motivated. The woman is required to manage their participation. It’s seen as ‘helping’, without shared ownership, which is only half the job. And that includes set-ups where both partners do paid work.
I suppose it is not so much prosocial behaviour in their eyes – it’s not that the labour of living benefits everyone and is done by everyone – but a willingness to help someone else with their responsibilities. Like you say, “reach out if you need me”.
VB: Prosocial behavior requires the transfer of self-interests into collective interests, but it does not mean the surrender of identity which is what worries many men. I sense that women are more predisposed towards prosocial behavior than men, not by some sort of natural design, but the effects of power structures under capitalism, which are largely still dominated by men. To break this chain and reignite prosocial thinking, men would need to do an honest self-examination and read some history, while narratives should focus on achieving material equality by the most inclusive democratic means.
Can thinking about sufficiency and wellbeing drive these changes in gender relationships, and boost prosocial behavior?
OB: As we think about this, I’m wondering if the big shift would be collectively deciding what is important. It’s not just doing the work, or the labour but a recalibration of value. I guess it’s accepting that just because a person didn’t think of something themselves, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t add value overall. It’s getting rid of the need for personal recognition in every situation. Not all situations, necessarily – but getting the credit shouldn’t be the incentive.
I say person because our personal experiences here are about males, but any person can engage in male coded behaviour.
VB: Absolutely, collective decision making, from positions of equality, can level the playing field for everyone. I believe that thinking prosocially may also have the potential to unlock more social agency for both women and men. While the struggle for the complete emancipation of women around the world is far from having achieved success, I remain hopeful that there are enough good humans of all genders and identities who have embraced resilience and courage. The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice, or so we hope.
OB: I genuinely believe that there are! I think if people were given the foundations to let go of old patterns that aren’t serving them - like the constant need for recognition and affirmation that make a life that feels like a battle worthwhile – the changes would be more likely to happen. In the meantime we can work at it from all sides. It will take more than one mental shift to get us to where we are all comfortable and contented.
Photos by Tiitus Saaristo, Drew Hays, Claudia Soraya, Canva