The Limits of "The Male Sex Role": An Analysis of the Men's Liberation and Men's

Rights Movements' Discourse

Author(s): Michael A. Messner
Source: Gender and Society , Jun., 1998, Vol. 12, No. 3 (Jun., 1998), pp. 255-276
Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/190285

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Gender and Society

This content downloaded from

202.116.205.76 on Sun, 04 Dec 2022 03:22:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE LIMITS OF
"THE MALE SEX ROLE"
An Analysis of the Men's Liberat
and Men's Rights Movements' Disco

MICHAEL A. MESSNER
University of Southern California

Some feminists have seen sex role theory as limited, even dangerous; others see it as useful mid-r
theory. This article sheds light on this debate through an examination of the discourse of the m
liberation movement of the 1970s. Men's liberation leaders grappled with the paradox of simultane
acknowledging men's institutional privileges and the costs of masculinity to men. The language of
roles was the currency through which they negotiated this paradox. By the late 1970s, men's liber
had disappeared. The conservative and moderate wings of men's liberation became an anti-fem
men's rights movement, facilitated by the language of sex roles. The progressive wing ofmen's liberat
abandoned sex role language and formed a profeminist movement premised on a language of gen
relations and power. The article ends with a discussion of the implications of this casefor debates
sex role theory, and urges the study of contemporary organizations whose discourse is based on
language of sex roles.

Male liberation seeks to aid in destroying the sex role stereotypes that regard "bein
a man" and "being a woman" as statuses that must be achieved through proper
behavior... If men cannot play freely, neither can they freely cry, be gentle, nor
show weakness-because these are "feminine," not "masculine." But a fuller concept
of humanity recognizes that all men and women are potentially both strong and weak,
both active and passive, and that these human characteristics are not the province o
one sex.

Sawyer (1970, p. 1)

The liberation of the female has freed her almost totally to pursue an
of what was once considered traditionally masculine behavior or

AUTHOR'S NOTE: Parts of this article appear in my book, Politics of

Movements (Sage, 1997). Thanks to Beth Schneider and three G&S reviewersfo
comments on an earlier draft. And thanks to Barrie Thorne for sharing with
liberation movement.

REPRINT REQUESTS: Michael A. Messner, Department of Sociology, University of Southern Califor-

nia, Los Angeles, CA 90089-2539.

GENDER & SOCIETY, Vol. 12 No. 3, June 1998 255-276

? 1998 Sociologists for Women in Society
255

This content downloaded from

202.116.205.76 on Sun, 04 Dec 2022 03:22:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
256 GENDER & SOCIETY / June 1998

however, is still role-rigid, afraid to give expression to the female component in him.
Role rigidity makes life precarious. In a changing world where women are increas-
ingly taking traditionally male jobs it leaves him with few alternatives.

Goldberg (1976, pp. 54-55)

Most men responded with either hostility or stunned silence to the women's
liberation movement in its early years. At the same time during the first half of the
1970s, some men, mostly centered around colleges and universities, were starting
to consciously engage with feminist ideas and politics, and to ask a potentially
subversive question: What does this all have to do with us? One of the first
organized responses by U.S. men to the reemergence of feminism was the organi-
zation of "men's liberation" consciousness-raising groups, workshops, and news-
letters. As early as 1970, women's liberation gatherings such as the March 8 teach-in
at Northeastern University were including workshops on "The Male Liberation
Movement" (Sawyer 1970). The first book-length texts that appeared-Warren
Farrell's The Liberated Man (1974), Marc Feigen Fasteau's The Male Machine
(1974), and Jack Nichols' Men's Liberation (1975)-optimistically posited men's
liberation as the logical flip side of women's liberation.
Men's liberation discourse walked a tightrope from the very beginning. First,
movement leaders acknowledged that sexism had been a problem for women and
that feminism was a necessary social movement to address gender inequities. But
they also stressed the equal importance of the high costs of the male sex role to
men's health, emotional lives, and relationships. In short, they attempted to attract
men to feminism by constructing a discourse that stressed how the "male role" was
"impoverished," "unhealthy," and even "lethal" for men (Jourard 1971). Thus, from
the outset, there were obvious strains and tensions from the movement's attempt to
focus simultaneously on men's institutional power and the "costs of masculinity"
to men. By the mid- to late 1970s, men's liberation had split directly along this
fissure. On one hand, an overtly anti-feminist men's rights movement developed.
Men's rights organizations stressed the costs of narrow conceptions of masculinity
to men and either downplayed or angrily disputed feminist claims that patriarchy
benefited men at women's expense. On the other hand, a pro-feminist (some-
times called "antisexist") men's movement developed. This movement tended
to emphasize the primary importance of joining with women to confront
patriarchy, with the goal of doing away with men's institutionalized privileges.
Patriarchy may dehumanize men, pro-feminists argued, but the costs of masculinity
are linked to men's power.
The brief appearance-and then virtual disappearance-of men's liberation
discourse and practice gives us a window into the limits, dangers, and possibilities
of a politics of masculinities in the United States (Messner 1997). It also provides
us with a recent historical example that sheds light on a theoretical debate within
sociology about the possibilities and limits of the language of sex role theory. After
briefly describing sociological debates about sex role theory over the past three

This content downloaded from

202.116.205.76 on Sun, 04 Dec 2022 03:22:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Messner / THE LIMITS OF THE MALE SEX ROLE 257

decades, I will critically examine the language and themes of the major
liberation texts of the early 1970s, the major men's rights movement texts
mid-1970s through the 1980s, and more recently, the Web page of the ma
rights organization, the National Coalition of Free Men.' I will first desc
men's liberation premised itself on a liberal language of sex roles that con
to both its promise as a movement and to its eventual demise. Next, I w
how the men's rights movement adopted a more narrowly conservative
of sex roles, while the pro-feminist men's movement largely rejected the
of sex roles in favor of a more radical language of gender relation
conclusion, I return to a discussion of the continued need to socio
analyze contemporary organizations for which sex role theory remains i
cally central.

THE PROMISE AND LIMITS OF SEX ROLE THEORY

In the post-World War II years, functionalist analyses of the family (

and Bales 1955) described a socialization process that channeled men
mental roles and women into expressive roles. In the functionalist vie
reproduction of men's and women's reciprocal roles were importan
maintenance of the social system of the family, and thus of the broade
this same era, some early feminist scholars took up the language of r
begin to illuminate the limits and pressures that narrowly defined se
on women and on men (e.g., Hacker 1957; Hartley 1959; Komarovsk
of the key pioneers in the study of the male sex role, Ruth E. Hartle
the first to examine the "costs" of the male sex role to boys and men
article, "Sex-Role Pressures and the Socialization of the Male Ch
identified "the conflict in role demands" imposed on a boy:

On the one hand, he is told that he is supposed to be rugged, independent, ab

care of himself, and to disdain "sissies." On the other, he is forced into clo
with the epitome of all sissy-things-women-for most of his day and h
manded to obey and learn from them. In other words, he is compelled to
under to that which he has been taught to despise. ([1959] 1974, 9)

Hartley noted that there are clear privileges attached to the male sex
family, [men] are the boss; they have authority." But still, she wonde

whether the compensations are enough to balance the weight of the burdens
see themselves as assuming in order to fulfill the male role adequately.
from this point of view, the question is not why boys have difficulty with
but why they try as hard as they do to fulfill it. ([1959] 1974, 11)

Hartley answered this question by noting the negative social st

women's personalities and activities, such as "they are indecisive; the

This content downloaded from

202.116.205.76 on Sun, 04 Dec 2022 03:22:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
258 GENDER & SOCIETY / June 1998

of many things; they make a fuss over things, they get tired alot, they need someone
to help them, they stay home most of the time, they are not as strong as men." She
concluded by asking,

What boy in his right senses would not give his all to escape this alternative to the
male role? For many, unfortunately, the scramble to escape takes on all the aspects of
panic, and the outward semblance of non-femininity is achieved at a tremendous cost
of anxiety and self-alienation. ([1959] 1974, 12)

In the context of the prefeminist 1950s and 1960s, this sort of thinking was
especially subversive. The language of sex role theory facilitated a partial break
from biological essentialism. It connected personality formation and social struc-
ture and suggested principles for a politics of reform, especially emphasizing the
need for less sex role stereotypical socialization processes (Connell 1987, 48-49).
But despite the virtues of sex role theory, by the late 1970s and into the 1980s, many
feminist sociologists were arguing for an abandonment of the language of sex roles
in favor of the development of a language of "gender relations."
A general summary of the critiques of sex role theory reveals five common
points: (1) The language of sex roles tends to dissolve into individualistic, volun-
taristic levels of analysis, rather than institutional analyses of relations of power
between groups; (2) the language of sex roles implies a false symmetry between
the male role and the female role, thus masking the oppressive relations between
women and men; (3) the language of sex roles smuggles in normalizing tendencies
in such a way that any difference from the male sex role appears as deviance from
a falsely universalized (middle-class, white, heterosexual) norm; (4) sex role
analysis tends ultimately to fall back on categorical dichotomization of men and
women, based on unexamined biologically essentialist assumptions about male and
female sex categories; and (5) while it might be useful in explaining some of the
ways that society is reproduced, the static nature of sex role theory makes it
inadequate in examining resistance, change, and history (Connell 1983; Lopata and
Thorne 1978; Stacey and Thorne 1985).
Feminist critics of sex role theory also drew parallels to the language sociologists
employed when analyzing other forms of social inequality, especially race and
class. "It is significant," Lopata and Thorne wrote, "that sociologists do not use the
terms 'race roles' or 'class roles' " (1978, 719). We may speak of race or class
identities, but we do so within the context of an understanding of the historical
dynamics of race and class relations. Similarly, they argued, sociologists might
rightly examine gender identities, but we should do so within the context of an
examination of the historical construction of gender relations. By the mid-1980s,
this historicized and politicized concept of gender relations had almost entirely
supplanted the language of sex role theory within sociology (although not within
psychology, education, social work, or other disciplines). The "Sex Roles" section
of the American Sociological Association, begun in 1973, had by 1976 already
officially changed its name to "Sex and Gender." And the official journal of the

This content downloaded from

202.116.205.76 on Sun, 04 Dec 2022 03:22:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Messner / THE LIMITS OF THE MALE SEX ROLE 259

Sociologists for Women in Society began in 1986 with the title Gender &
In addition to a language of gender relations, feminist scholars of the 1980s
on transcending the universalizing tendency built into the concept of the
role by adopting instead the concept of multiple masculinities (e.g., Br
Connell 1987; Kimmel 1987).
The shift from sex role theory to gender relations in sociology is com
viewed in retrospect as an indicator of a paradigm shift from structural fu
ism to feminism in the study of relations between women and men. In
however, Mirra Komarovsky revisited and defended "the concept of socia
the pages of Gender & Society. Drawing on her own and others' research
rovsky disputed the claims of the critics and argued that "role analysis af
exceptionally productive link between macro- and micro-level perspective
306). She suggests that the critics have tended to falsely blur the feminis
development of sex role theory with its conservative Parsonian roots. For
she notes that

[flor a number of sociologists interested in contemporary women's problems, m

included, the concept of social role, far from being tied to "consensus, stabilit
continuity," proved to be an important construct for locating dissensus, discontin
and change. The macrosociological background of my analysis was the glacia
at which patriarchy was weakening in American society and the slow improve
in the status of women in economic, legal, familial, and other social institution
contexts. (1992, 303)

The apparent silence that greeted Komarovsky's 1992 defense of sex role
perhaps an indicator of the extent to which a generation of feminist soc
considers the book to be closed on sex role theory. Nevertheless, analysis o
of sex role language should be considered a live issue for empirical invest
especially in those instances in which it has become the accepted curre
various groups and institutions. The language of sex role symmetry is sti
ishing in men's rights organizations and is very common currency in th
public and the media. It tends, for instance, to be used to discuss and inform
about affirmative action and can be employed to fuel backlash against
treatment" for women. R. W. Connell, one of the main critics of role the
argued,

[T]he obviousness of role theory is the obviousness of ideology, not of truth. A full
demonstration of this would require not only a conceptual critique, but an exploration
of the way that the role perspective operates in various fields of social practice.
(Connell 1983, 194, emphasis added)

My aim in this article is to supply just such an analysis of the practical operation
of the language of sex role theory in one context: the men's liberation movement
of the 1970s. I ask two questions that neither the critics nor the advocates of sex
role theory ever grapple with: What results when the language of sex roles is used

This content downloaded from

202.116.205.76 on Sun, 04 Dec 2022 03:22:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
260 GENDER & SOCIETY / June 1998

as a foundation for the discourse of organizations that are attempting to bring about
social and interpersonal changes? What are the practical and political implications
of the language of sex roles? These questions clearly cannot be answered with one
empirical example, but in what follows I will suggest that an examination of the
discourse and eventual fate of the men's liberation movement of the 1970s, which
actively took up the language of sex roles as the basis of its discourse, sheds light
on this theoretical debate.

MEN'S LIBERATION
CONFRONTS THE MALE SEX ROLE

Many of the first advocates of men's liberation in the early 1970s were psy
gists, who were drawing on the sex role theory that had developed in the
previous decades. By the mid-1970s, when the first men's liberation antho
were published, Ruth Hartley's 1959 "Sex Role Pressures and the Socializa
the Male Child" was canonized as a foundational work (e.g., Pleck and Saw
1974). The ideas that socially created symmetrical (but unequal) sex roles t
men into alienating, unhealthy, and unfulfilling lives, and that the devalu
"the feminine" was the main way through which boys and men learned to dis
themselves to stay within the confines of this narrow sex role, became a foun
in men's liberation discourse and practice (e.g., Farrell 1974; Fasteau 1974;
1975), as well as within the scholarly work that began to emerge in the w
men's liberation (e.g., Balswick and Peek 1971; Pleck 1976; Pleck and Bran
1978).
Working from the strengths of sex role theory, these early scholar/activists began
to demonstrate that masculinity and femininity were socially scripted behaviors,
rather than biologically based male and female essences. For instance, psychologist
Robert Brannon's highly influential 1976 article, "The Male Sex Role: Our Cul-
ture's Blueprint of Manhood and What It's Done for Us Lately," summarized the
four main rules of the male script: "No Sissy Stuff, Be a Big Wheel, Be a Sturdy
Oak, and Give 'em Hell." Not only did Brannon demonstrate how this script is
socially constructed, he also argued that the male sex role was both oppressive to
women and harmful to men. In the 1970s, many men's consciousness-raising
groups found Brannon's concepts to be extremely useful starting points for discus-
sions of male socialization, as did many of the first teachers of college "sex roles"
courses.

Psychologist Joseph Pleck arguably took sex role theory to

and progressive limits (Pleck 1976,1982; Pleck and Sawyer 19
article, "Men's Power with Women, Other Men, and in Society
of the most insightful and often reprinted contributions to und
construction of masculinity in the United States. In this article,
come to grips with a paradoxical reality: Men hold institutional
societies, but most men do not feel very powerful. Pleck argu

This content downloaded from

202.116.205.76 on Sun, 04 Dec 2022 03:22:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Messner / THE LIMITS OF THE MALE SEX ROLE 261

role that was necessary for men to compete and win in public life was em
and psychologically impoverished, leading men to feel that women had "e
power" and "masculinity-validating power" over them. As Pleck explained

Men's dependence on women's power to express men's emotions and to val

men's masculinity has placed heavy burdens on women. By and large, these ar
powers over men than women have wanted to hold. These are powers that men
handed over to women, by defining the male role as being emotionally coo
inexpressive, and as being ultimately validated by heterosexual success. ([1
1995, 7)

Despite the subversive intentions of its most sophisticated adherents like Bran-
non and Pleck, the language of men's liberation had built-in limitations and dangers
that were grounded in its attempt to criticize the existence of men's power over
women while simultaneously pointing to the ways that men are hurt and limited by
the male sex role. Although the more scholarly activists like Pleck and Brannon
finessed this contradiction as smoothly as might have been possible, many activ-
ists-especially those trying to convince men to join consciousness-raising groups
or men's liberation organizations-increasingly faced the pragmatic question of
how to appeal to a broad range of men. Leaders reasoned that a men's liberation
program that played up its potential gains for men might expect to draw much more
interest than a program that positioned men as oppressors whose only morally
correct action would be self-flagellation.
The language of sex roles appeared to be an ideal means by which to package
liberal feminist ideas for men in a way that lessened the guilt and maximized the
potential gain that men might expect from liberation. In particular, the idea of sex
role symmetry was central to this approach. Eventually, the idea that reciprocal
roles (with men taking on the instrumental tasks and women taking on the expres-
sive tasks) are limiting to the full human development of both sexes allowed some
men's liberationists by the mid-1970s to argue that men and women were equally
oppressed by sexism. In this usage, the concept of oppression was depoliticized and
seemed to refer only to a general condition faced by everyone in a sexist society.
The language of sex role theory allowed men's liberationists to sidestep a politicized
language of gender relations, in favor of a falsely symmetrical call for women's
and men's liberation from oppressive sex roles. In short, early men's liberationists
tended to give equal analytic weight to the "costs" and "privileges" attached to the
male sex role.

The resulting sense of gender symmetry-the belief that sex roles hurt both
women and men, and thus that "there's something in feminism for men too"-was
one of the major draws of men's liberation for many men. Indeed, this sense of
gender symmetry in men's liberation resulted in the enlistment of some men as
allies in liberal struggles such as the attempt to pass the Equal Rights Amendment
(ERA). But gender symmetry also constituted one of men's liberation's major
limitations and dangers, and the case of Warren Farrell is perhaps the best single
example.

This content downloaded from

202.116.205.76 on Sun, 04 Dec 2022 03:22:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
262 GENDER & SOCIETY / June 1998

In the mid-1970s, Farrell was known as the most public "male feminist" in t
United States. He was an early member of the National Organization for Wom
(NOW), an outspoken advocate of the ERA, and his workshops in the early 197
included activities such as beauty contests for men, which were aimed at raisi
men's consciousness about the oppressive ways that sexual objectification turn
women into "pieces of meat" to be consumed by men.
Like all early men's liberationists, Farrell highlighted the ways that women h
been limited and hurt by sexism, and he challenged men to end their complicity i
women's oppression. He also attempted to illustrate linkages between the existe
of men's power and the costs of masculinity, thus building a case for the idea tha
when viewed broadly, women's liberation and men's liberation were mutuall
supporting, symmetrical movements. This was an idea applauded by many femi
women-especially many of the early leaders of NOW. But others were wary
even openly critical-of Farrell's tendency to downplay the institutionalized pri
leges that men still enjoyed at women's expense. A look at Farrell's 1974 book T
Liberated Man (a book that was used as a sort of bible by many men's consciousnes
raising groups in the mid- to late 1970s) illustrates these tensions and contradictio
Borrowing from the language of Betty Friedan, Farrell argues that men a
trapped in a "masculine mystique" that narrowly positions them as breadwinn
and protectors, and leaves them "emotionally constipated." He connects the eff
of the pressure on men to achieve to the fact that women are economica
dependent on them. Thus, he argues, when men are supportive of wome
movement into the workforce on an equal footing with men, they are benefiting
releasing themselves from the burdens of the breadwinner role. Not only are t
benefits of feminism potentially symmetrical for women and for men, but app
ently the continued existence of barriers to equality were posited as equally t
responsibility of women and men:

The unliberated woman, who has internalized her need to live through her children
and her husband, has unwittingly contributed her half to the strength of the cage the
man has built around himself. The man contributes the other half. Living vicariously
has become a two-sex problem. (Farrell 1974, 73)

Farrell's analysis continues to argue for support for women's liberation, b

largely in a way that is decontextualized from an analysis of institutionalize
relations of power and that allows for the conceptual framework in which a m
may blame women for his own lack of freedom. Farrell's level of analysis is
primarily individualistic and conducted within the language of symmetrical s
roles. For instance, in response to feminist criticisms of the effects on women be
constructed as "sex objects," Farrell posited an equally negative effect on men bei
constructed as "success objects."

Women become objects not only of the male sex drive but of a man's need to use
women to prove himself a man to other men.... However, the more a man has to
"produce pussy" the more he molds himself into the object he thinks will attract the

This content downloaded from

202.116.205.76 on Sun, 04 Dec 2022 03:22:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Messner / THE LIMITS OF THE MALE SEX ROLE 263

woman.... A woman becomes a sex object as a man becomes a success ob

(Farrell 1974,48-49)

When he examines the media, Farrell suggests that perhaps men are ev
off than women:

The counterpart of the media's housebound-mother-wife-maid-mistress is the

libly successful, accomplished, virile male. Men may be even more restricted in
identity as human beings. Men can climb to the top of a wide range of occupa
to fulfill their image; but they are even more restricted than women in the conte
they receive should they deviate into a feminine role or fail in the mas
one.... Women can smoke a Marlboro, but no man dares smoke an Eve; wome
wear pantsuits, yet no American male wears a dress. (Farrell 1974, 98)

Although Farrell's text leans pragmatically toward emphasizing the cost

male role to men, and thus the potential gain in giving it up, his continued
on men's institutional privileges ("men can climb to the top") maintains
in his analysis, a tension that he increasingly manages with a sort of slight
that explains away men's institutional privileges as a sort of illusion. For
after reporting on the political program of the NOW Task Force on the M
Mystique (on which he served)-which included calls for a breakdow
segregation by sex; workplace and state policies that supported men's sha
child care equally with women; changes in education and media to under
role stereotyping; research into male birth control technologies; and an e
glorification of war, crime, and violence on television-Farrell directly con
any fears that men might have that these changes might require them to los
up something. In fact, Farrell attempted to build a case that supporting these
is entirely congruent with men's interests. Liberated men with liberated
partners, Farrell promised, would enjoy reduced sex-role-related anxieties
personal freedom due to less-controlling female partners, more and bett
more balanced ego released from the responsibility of always having to initi
less pressure to be a success object, more time to spend with one's child
ability to choose a job on the basis of satisfaction rather than on how muc
it pays, and freedom from the legal burdens such as alimony payment
discriminate against men (Farrell 1974, 162-77), a precursor of his later men
concerns.

What's not to like in this program? After having read this, sh

harbor a fear that men's liberation might ask them to give up s
on work or responsibilities they would rather not do, Farrell
feminism cause men to lose their economic control in public
women into the market of 'men's jobs' can be seen not as com
lessening of the need to compete" (Farrell 1974, 169). More ho
domestic life? "The responsibilities of the man within the h
situations becoming greater, will in other situations be lesse
172). Men will be "released" from the "narrowness of role defi

This content downloaded from

202.116.205.76 on Sun, 04 Dec 2022 03:22:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
264 GENDER & SOCIETY / June 1998

they must be the ones to paint the house, repair cabinets, mow the lawn. Inste
liberated couples will find that they can now do these tasks together, "which w
draw them together, rather than farther apart" (Farrell 1974, 172).
Not surprisingly, some feminist women greeted the arrival of the men's libe
tion movement with critical skepticism. For instance, Nancy Henley wrote in a 19
newsletter that men's liberation groups often focus on

the bitchiness, rather than the oppression of women: under the present system, women
are taught to be bitches, manipulating men, etc. If we off the system, women will be
tolerable, and men will therefore be liberated. Such discussions are not only inade-
quate and misleading, but also dangerous, since they ignore the political context which
is necessary to understand women's oppression. (Henley 1970, 1)

Similarly, in the 1975 collection Feminist Revolution, edited by the radical femin
Redstockings collective, Carol Hanisch warned of the "anti-woman, anti-wome
liberation" impulse in men's liberation.

What [the men's liberation movement] really amounts to is just more of the same old
male supremacist complaint that women are really nags and bitches-the power
behind the throne-henpecking their men into subservience. The new twist is their
attack, sometimes subtle and sometimes not, on the women's liberation movement
they usually claim to support. (1975, 72)

In a prophetic observation, Hanisch asserted that the purely psychological (rath

than institutional) focus of the analysis, as well as the positing of a false symmet
between the oppression of women and men by socially imposed sex roles, held
danger of defusing the radical potential of feminism and turning sensitive men i
antifeminist advocates of men's rights. This is precisely what happened to War
Farrell in the 1980s and 1990s.
In addition to positing a false symmetry between women's and men's liberati
a symmetry that was facilitated by the language of sex role theory, men's liberat
had another limitation: a tendency to falsely universalize the experiences of wh
middle-class, college-educated heterosexual men as those of all men. Most of t
early men's liberation texts were written by heterosexual men who recognized
ways that homophobia hurt all men, but they rarely focused on the experiences a
lives of gay men (Nardi 1994). Moreover, mirroring problems inherent in libe
feminists' false universalization of women (Baca Zinn et al. 1986), men's libe
tionist texts such as Marc Gerzon's (1982) A Choice of Heroes tended unblinkin
to speak of men's problems with work, success, relationships, and health as tho
all men were white, college-educated professionals.
This tendency to assume professional class status as the norm was mirrored
much of the early academic writing on masculinity. For instance, the section
men and work in Pleck and Sawyer's groundbreaking collection, Men and Masc
linity (1974), contained articles about stockbrokers, doctors, academics, and exe
tives, but nothing on blue-collar or unemployed men. As Clatterbaugh points o

This content downloaded from

202.116.205.76 on Sun, 04 Dec 2022 03:22:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Messner / THE LIMITS OF THE MALE SEX ROLE 265

"the owning/professional/managerial class" (1990, 113) constitutes only a

percent of the population, so this focus on the experience of class-privil
leaves out the experiences of the great majority. By ignoring the institut
racial and class constraints faced by Black, Latino, Asian, working-class,
men, men's liberationists preoccupied themselves with the "lethal aspect
male role" and the "burden of the breadwinner role," while avoiding the
their own positions of privilege within race, class, and gendered hierarc
result, calls for changing masculinity were reduced to simplistic argum
greater lifestyle choices, a wider range of acceptable emotional express
opportunities for self-actualization for (relatively privileged) men. As Eh
(1983) observed, this men's liberationist focus on self-actualization was ar
in the individualist language of an ascendant middle-class human potenti
ment that gave middle-class men "permission" to abandon the responsibi
the male breadwinner role. Liberated men, it seemed, could now "get in to
their feelings" and still feel good about their status, power, and privilege ove

THE RISE OF THE MEN'S RIGHTS MOVEMENT

Although the dominant tendency within early men's liberation discour

attempt to give equal weight to the limitations and oppressions imposed o
and men, some early men's liberationists tended to lean their analysis h
the direction of an emphasis on the costs of masculinity to men. Herb G
The Hazards of Being Male: Surviving the Myth of Masculine Privilege w
published in 1976 (and can still be found today, somewhat revised,
bookstores). Goldberg's book was similar to other early men's liberationi
in that it tended to employ a language of symmetrical sex roles that imp
both women and men have been hurt by sexism. In fact, the difference
Goldberg's The Hazards of Being Male and works of the same era by Warr
and Jack Nichols are not differences of basic ideology or analysis, but r
emphasis and focus.
As Goldberg's title suggests, his work tended to place much greater e
on the costs of masculinity than on the problems faced by women. Goldb
the same challenge that Farrell confronted in using the language of
symmetry to attract men to a movement. But where Farrell used slight o
explain away men's institutional power and privilege, Goldberg directly
that male privilege is a myth. Men actually have it worse than women,
argued, because the male role is far more rigid than the female role, an
have created a movement through which they can now transcend the
culturally imposed femininity:

Unlike some of the problems of women, the problems of men are not rea
changeable through legislation. The male has no apparent and clearly defined t
against which he can vent his rage. Yet he is oppressed by the cultural pressur

This content downloaded from

202.116.205.76 on Sun, 04 Dec 2022 03:22:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
266 GENDER & SOCIETY / June 1998

have denied him his feelings ... He has responded to feminist assertions by don
sack cloth, sprinkling himself with ashes, and flagellating himself, accusing him
of the very things she is accusing him of ... [He] is buying the myth that the
is culturally favored-a notion that is clung to despite the fact that every cr
statistic in the area of longevity, disease, suicide, crime, accidents, childhood e
tional disorders, alcoholism, and drug addiction shows a disproportionately hig
male rate. (Goldberg 1976, 4-5)

In our "largely matriarchal" society, Goldberg asserts, the social organiz

sexuality, marriage, and divorce laws keep men stuck in a bind that does not
them and seems more to benefit women:

He knows that if he loses status, power or money he stands to lose sexual attractiv
as well. The male thus finds himself in an impossible bind. If he continues to pu
success vigorously he has less capacity for involvement in his love relationship.
does not pursue success vigorously, he becomes less desirable. (Goldberg 1976

Although Goldberg's early work fell short of overt anti-feminist backla

the late 1970s and early 1980s, Goldberg and others had broken from the
liberation movement's gender symmetry and pro-feminism, and had be
articulate their own distinct "men's rights" discourse that increasingly ex
an overt and angry anti-feminist backlash. Feminism came to be viewed as w
plot to cover up the reality that it is actually women who have the power
who are most oppressed by current gender arrangements. Men's lower lif
health problems, military conscription, and divorce and custody laws were
evidence of men's oppression. From this point of view, women's liberatio
movement that was forcing men to receive "the worst of both worlds" (G
1979, 153).
Men's rights discourse began to take form in various organizations. In 1977,
Men's Rights, Inc., an organization that focused on legal and policy reform was
formed; three years later, the Coalition of Free Men, an organization inspired by
Herb Goldberg, with a wide agenda of change, took shape. Also in 1980, these two
organizations joined with several fathers' rights organizations to start an umbrella
organization, the National Congress for Men. In those years, men's rights advocates
were claiming that men are the true victims of prostitution, pornography, dating
rituals, sexist media conventions, divorce settlements, false rape accusations, sexual
harassment, and even domestic violence. Whereas men's liberation discourse-
despite its limits-often relied on solid social-scientific research, men's rights
discourse most often displayed a blatant disregard for widely accepted sociological,
economic, and psychological studies. Instead, men's rights discourse tended to rely
on anecdotal stories, combined with a few highly questionable studies, that pro-
vided an emotionally charged basis for the development of an ideology of male
victimization. This practice continues throughout the 1990s.

This content downloaded from

202.116.205.76 on Sun, 04 Dec 2022 03:22:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Messner / THE LIMITS OF THE MALE SEX ROLE 267

The issue of spousal violence is one such instance. Men's rights activi
argued that feminist ideology and men's shame have combined to cover u
numbers of men in families who are physically abused by women (Log
and murdered by women (Panghorn 1985). The current Free Men Websit
that "[e]very study that has used random sampling techniques to look at
of spouse abuse has concluded that men are at least 50 percent (or higher
battered spouses in America" (Free Men 1997). But in a recent surve
research on this topic, Jack Straton (1994) concluded that the much-touted
husband syndrome" is a myth. U.S. National Crime Survey data show t
between 3 percent and 4 percent of interspousal violence involves attack
by their female partners, and 92 percent of those who seek medical care
private physician for injuries received in a spousal assault are women (
1987). For every 46 women hospitalized for injuries received in a spousal
only 1 man is hospitalized (Saunders 1988). Many of the studies that co
spousal violence rates do not include violence that occurs after spousal se
and divorce, yet "these account for 76 percent of spouse-on-spouse assau
a male perpetrator 93 percent of the time" (Straton 1994). This is an es
noteworthy fact in the context of this discussion, since men's rights adv
often angrily preoccupied with the ways that they believe divorced fa
victimized by the law.
Although men's rights organizations have a broad agenda of change, th
of fathers' rights has been their most successful rallying point. Arendel
research suggests why some divorced fathers are attracted to the men
agenda. In her study of recently divorced fathers, Arendell found that man
divorced fathers she studied responded to "the stresses and turmoil of th
by developing a "masculinist discourse on divorce." This discourse includ
main themes (1) the belief that father absence is a viable "strategy of ac
objective of which is to control situations of conflict and tension and em
states," and (2) the development of "a rhetoric of rights through which relat
actions and emotions were framed and defined" (Arendell 1992, 582
divorced fathers, who may feel additionally that the courts have discr
against them in child custody rulings simply because they are men, ha
men's rights organizations to be powerful vehicles through which to foc
anger and sense of injustice. Men's rights leader Rich Doyle sums up the
this anger:

Divorce courts are frequently like slaughter-houses, with about as much compassion
and talent. They function as collection agencies for lawyer fees, however outrageous,
stealing children and extorting money from men in ways blatantly unconstitu-
tional.... Men are regarded as mere guests in their own homes, evictable any time
at the whims of wives and judges. Men are driven from home and children against
their wills; then when unable to stretch paychecks far enough to support two
households are termed "runaway fathers." Contrary to all principles of justice, men

This content downloaded from

202.116.205.76 on Sun, 04 Dec 2022 03:22:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
268 GENDER & SOCIETY / June 1998

are thrown into prison for inability to pay alimony and support, however unreasonable
or unfair the "Obligation." (1985, 166)

Fathers' rights discourse has attempted, with some success, to co-opt the liberal
feminist rhetoric of gender "equality" and "rights" to forge a campaign that aims
to alter laws related to divorce and child custody. What fathers' rights discourse
rarely includes is a discussion of fathers' responsibilities to children before di-
vorces. Fathers' rights activists, who are predominantly white and middle or
working class, tend to ignore how work and family institutional relations benefit
them, both before and after divorces. Instead, they focus on the economic and
emotional costs that are attached to these masculine privileges-among them, the
common legal assumption after a divorce, that children are better off spending
the majority of their time with their mothers. Although it is likely that very few of
these fathers ever contributed anywhere near 50 percent of the child care before the
divorce, they passionately argue for the right to joint custody-or, in some cases,
sole custody-of their children after the divorce (Coltrane and Hickman 1992).
Bertoia and Drakich conclude from their interviews with fathers' rights activists
that "the rhetoric of fathers' rights gives the illusion of equality, but, in essence, the
demands are to continue the practice of inequality in postdivorce but now with legal
sanction" (1995, 252).
It is instructive to examine the slippage in the discourse from the symmetrical
mid-1970s men's liberationist language of "equal oppressions" faced by women
and men to an angry anti-feminist men's rights language of male victimization in
the late 1970s and 1980s. This slippage was, in fact, built into the language of men's
liberation from the start, and this is best illustrated by the words of some men's
rights leaders-several of whom were early men's liberationists. For instance, M.
Adams, writing in 1985, said that in the early 1970s he had been hopeful that
feminism might lead to human liberation but was disappointed to find that the
women's movement was only interested in "unilateral liberation" for women and
did not address the problem of male oppression. To prove his point, he did some
"research" on sex role attitudes and the results "showed that men were truly the
victims of prejudiced thought, discriminatory attitudes, in general, oppression. I
felt that I had won the theoretical argument with feminism." But when nobody
would accept his perspective, he laments, "I began to consciously hate women"
(Adams 1985, 14). By the end of the 1970s, he had become an outspoken member
of the Free Men, and when he told some women at a party that he understood
oppression from his own experience, "They didn't have the slightest idea what I
meant. I laughed out loud at the expressions on their faces. I didn't bother to explain.
The movement was coming ... they'd understand soon enough" (Adams 1985, 14).
Three themes in Adams's story are repeated in much of the autobiographical
discourse of men's rights activists (e.g., Baumli 1985; Farrell 1993). First is the
claim of having been an early and ardent supporter of (liberal) feminism in hopes
that it would free women and men from the shackles of sexism. Second is the use

This content downloaded from

202.116.205.76 on Sun, 04 Dec 2022 03:22:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Messner / THE LIMITS OF THE MALE SEX ROLE 269

of the language of sex role theory that equates sexist thoughts and attitu
oppression without discussing gendered institutional arrangements and in
relations. And last is a sense of hurt and outrage when women do not ag
men's issues are symmetrical with those faced by women, coupled with a
siastic embrace of an angry and aggressive anti-feminist men's rights discou
practice. Former men's liberation leader and current men's rights spok
Warren Farrell is the best-known example of a man who has traversed thi
the shift in tone of the titles of his books indicate: In 1974, it was The
Man; by 1993, it was The Myth of Male Power. Farrell has helped take me
discourse to a new level, now claiming that, in fact, women have the po
men are powerless. For instance, in response to women having fought bac
sexual harassment in workplaces, Farrell now claims that, in fact, male em
are disempowered and victimized by their secretaries' "miniskirt power,
power, and flirtation power" (1993, 129).
Although it may be true that some women learn to use their sexuali
manipulate male employers, is this a sign of women's power over men? O
not, as is clear by a cursory glance at the fact that sexual harassment clai
result in the woman being (formally or informally) forced to leave her jo
the male perpetrator's hand is slapped. A woman who uses sexual manipu
get by in the workplace has drawn on what she has learned is her one
resource to better her condition, in a context where she had no direct
political, economic, and legal institutional power. But men's rights lead
Richard Haddad even seem to have an answer to this point. Haddad states
really do not have a "monopoly on power" in public life-they are simp
represented in decision-making positions in... government and industry" (
The anti-feminist backlash tendencies in the discourse of men's rights a
are clearly evident, but these activists are not arguing for a return to pa
arrangements and traditional masculinity. To the contrary, men's rights
are critical of the ways masculinity has entrapped, limited, and harmed m
they want to reconstruct a masculinity that is more healthful, peaceful, and
ing. More important, they do not see feminism as the way to accompl
improvement in men's lives. Just the opposite, they disagree with the f
contention that men enjoy institutionalized privileges. For example, the
Free Men Web page emphasizes that the organization hopes to

free men from the notion which (a) ignores the rigid definition of their roles an
insists that they are culturally favored; from divorce laws which presume the nat
superior capabilities of women to care for children and which stereotype m
wallets; from the notion that they oppress women any more than women as
oppress them, or than society in general oppresses both sexes through stereoty
(Free Men 1997)

The Free Men continue today to use the language of sex roles to argue fo
constructionist perspective that positions society abstractly as the oppres

This content downloaded from

202.116.205.76 on Sun, 04 Dec 2022 03:22:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
270 GENDER & SOCIETY / June 1998

viewing stereotypes as limiting and oppressive to both women and men. Th

women's movement, they argue, has largely succeeded in getting society to el
nate the stereotypes that hurt women and, in fact, has gone too far in this effor

For 30 years, the women's movement has gone unchallenged and this has contribute
greatly to the breakup of American families and the social ills which follow: high
rates of teen pregnancy, high rates of juvenile crime, high rates of teen suicide
depression and poor school performance. (Free Men 1997)

Thus, to men's rights advocates, while the women's movement now allo
woman to "have her cake and eat it too," the continued imposition of a rig
narrow male sex role results primarily in costs to men (and ultimately to the fam
schools, and other institutions). For these men, what is now needed is a movem
that will free men, who will then counter these destructive effects of feminism

PRO-FEMINIST REJECTION
OF THE LANGUAGE OF SEX ROLES

By the late 1970s, men's liberation, as a self-conscious liberal feminist

ment, was gone. To be sure, some of the ideas of men's liberation-especia
belief that women and men are both hurt and limited by narrow se
eventually filtered into the general culture. But the men's liberation movem
split into two directions. The first, as we have seen, was the men's rights mo
for which liberal feminist sex role theory, with its individualist and falsely
rical language, had supplied the conceptual building blocks. The second
pro-feminist, or antisexist men's movement. I develop the discussion of th
men's pro-feminism (and its different radical and socialist tendencies) el
(Messner 1997, forthcoming). For my purposes here I want merely to un
how the pro-feminist shift away from the individualistic (and often ther
discourse of men's liberation involved a clear rejection of the language of
and an adoption of a more politicized language of gender relations and po
In the mid-1970s, Warren Farrell represented the political center of
liberation while Herb Goldberg represented the Right, but there were als
more leftist men's liberationists. These men tended to be less impressed
liberal, middle-class feminism of Farrell and NOW, and they were far
influenced by the student antiwar movement, the Black power movem
especially by radical feminism and the radical impulses in the fledgling
lesbian liberation movement. Like other early men's liberationists, thes
feminist men initially focused a great deal on the costs of masculinity, as
on the institutional privileges afforded to all men under patriarchy (e.g.
Consciousness-Raising Group 1971). But by the early to mid-1970s, as f
women began to criticize men's liberation, these radical men began to m
discourse more clearly in the direction of de-emphasizing the costs of ma

This content downloaded from

202.116.205.76 on Sun, 04 Dec 2022 03:22:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Messner / THE LIMITS OF THE MALE SEX ROLE 271

and emphasizing the ways that all men derive power and privilege within p
society. This shift did not take place definitively until later in the decade,
foreshadowed when in the spring of 1971, a collective of four radical
Berkeley, California put out the first issue of Brother: A Male Liberatio
per. By the fall of 1971, the third issue of Brother now had a different
Forum for Men against Sexism. By the mid- 1970s, men's pro-feminism
to take organizational form, as indicated in the formation of the East B
Center (EBMC) in Berkeley. An excerpt from the EBMC's "Statement o
illustrates how far the radicals' antipatriarchal discourse had parted fro
role symmetry of men's liberation discourse: "Sexism is a system whe
sex has power and privilege over another. In a society, such as ours, where men
women, this system can be called male supremacy" (Snodgrass 1977, 137)
The EBMC's statement contains the themes that came to characteriz
feminist men's discourse as distinct from men's liberation. First, sexism
a system of male supremacy-patriarchy-rather than simply as a set of
values, or sex roles that can be unlearned. Second, in this system, men
dominate women. In other words, men are viewed as a category of pe
systematically oppress-and benefit from the oppression of-another ca
people, women. This perspective was presented in a clear and analyticall
ticated way for the first time in a 1977 collection called For Men again
edited by Jon Snodgrass. Several articles in the book soundly criticized
liberation movement, including one entitled "Warren the Success Object"
Don Andersen wrote that while reading Warren Farrell's book, The Liber
"I sometimes got the feeling that businessmen are finally reacting to th
the women's movement, and that Farrell is here to take the bite out of
demonstrate how women can be compromised" (1977, 147).
In place of men's liberation, these radical men posited a men's p
antisexist practice, focused mainly on sexual violence issues. By the beg
the 1980s, pro-feminist men's organizations (such as the National Organi
Changing Men, later to become the National Organization for Men Again
or NOMAS), as well as pro-feminist magazines such as Changing Men, h
positioned themselves in opposition to men's rights organizations (see
1981-82).

CONCLUSION

Does the devolution of the conservative wing of the liberal femin

liberation movement into the anti-feminist backlash of the men's rights
"prove" that the language of sex roles is inherently dangerously conse
does the pro-feminist men's movement's rejection of the language of
favor of a politicized language of gender relations lend further proof to
Not necessarily. But these shifts do lend credence to the claim that sex

This content downloaded from

202.116.205.76 on Sun, 04 Dec 2022 03:22:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
272 GENDER & SOCIETY / June 1998

can provide a conceptual foundation for anti-feminist backlash, especially whe

movement appropriates the symmetrical language of sex roles to divorce itself fr
historical and institutional analyses of power. These dangers may be especial
salient when a movement made up for the most part of the dominant group, m
develops a program that is aimed chiefly at the troubles and problems faced b
individual members of this group. Under these conditions, the individualist, ah
torical, and falsely symmetrical dangers of the language of sex roles become m
clearly apparent.
But what of other less overtly political institutional or organizational contex
in which the language of sex roles has become the dominant currency of discou
on gender? At the beginning of the 1980s, Connell commented on the implicati
of the fact that role theory had been comfortably and uncritically absorbed into
psychologically oriented helping professions even as it was receding as the ma
currency of social theory:

It now becomes clearer why role theory is unable to deal with the theoretical problems
of resistance. This is because role theory is, in effect, a theoretical ideology developed
to cope with the stresses in the cultural order created by movements of resistance. At
a less abstract level, it is the practical ideology of counselors, social workers, teachers,
and personnel officers so far as they are concerned with shaping people and their
activity to the requirements of the system, i.e., forestalling resistance. (1983, 204)

Connell's criticism of the adoption of role theory by "the psychological helpi

professions" should be taken seriously, but as a working hypothesis rather than
the final word on ways that the language of roles has permeated various professio
and organizational sites within the gender order. For instance, sociologists sho
examine the specific ways that the language of sex roles is now used in vari
workplaces by personnel officers who are grappling with issues related to occu
tional segregation, affirmative action, or sexual harassment. We should exami
the ways that the language of sex roles often operates as the common currency
discourse among teachers and school administrators who are dealing with gend
issues in hiring, curriculum, playground violence and harassment, and equity issu
in school sports and other activities. In both workplaces and schools, the langua
of sex roles has been imported by activists who have mounted organizational a
legal challenges to male domination, and it has been used by advocates of girls
women to push for equity. However, once the language of sex roles is built into t
bureaucratic structure of workplaces and schools, does it lose whatever subvers
impulse it began with and become part of the controlling apparatus of conservativ
organizations? Or does the language of sex roles in these organizations represen
contested discourse that can be harnessed either for progressive or regressive end
Similarly, empirical research on the process and outcomes of family therap
could shed light on the question of the current possibilities, limits, and dangers b
into the largely uncritical adoption of the language of sex roles within man
professional therapeutic communities. Research might find that nonfeminist

This content downloaded from

202.116.205.76 on Sun, 04 Dec 2022 03:22:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Messner / THE LIMITS OF THE MALE SEX ROLE 273

anti-feminist therapists are conservatively employing an individualized, sym

rical language of sex roles to reinforce very unfair and oppressive relational pa
between women and men. If so, this would support Connell's fears about
conservatism of role theory. However, rather than necessarily being a "pra
ideology" through which therapists are "forestalling resistance" by "shaping
and their activity to the requirements of the system," some feminist therapists
argue that the symmetrical language of sex roles can be used to empower w
to develop more effective gender strategies in their relationships. And, m
important, the language of sex roles can be used as a pragmatic thera
intervention with individual men to convince them that by changing their beh
within their relationships, they have something to gain. In effect, this strateg
help to nudge heterosexual families toward greater equality. If this is true, t
heterosexual couples' therapy, especially with a feminist therapist who is aw
the larger context of gender inequality, the potential gains of the language
roles may outweigh its limitations. Ultimately, empirical research on this s
practical and strategic use of the language of sex roles by feminist therapists m
support Komarovsky's (1992) argument discussed earlier, that when situated
macropolitical analysis of power, role theory is a useful tool, not only for anal
change but for promoting it.
This article has offered one example of the reactionary implications of
language of sex roles as employed by a men's movement, but it does not a
finally or conclusively the more general question facing feminist sociologis
the language of sex roles, as it is currently institutionalized in various organiza
and professions, now working as a conservative stabilizing influence o
disruptive, progressive influence in the current gender order? I suspect th
answer to this question, rather than being either/or, is most likely mult
contradictory, and paradoxical, depending on the specific empirical contex
examines.

NOTE

1. I drew from two major sources to examine the early men's liberation discourse. First, I ex
early men's liberation newsletters and magazines; second, I examined the major published b
which there were very few). My choice to focus my analysis largely on Warren Farrell's 1974 b
Liberated Man, and to a lesser extent Jack Nichols's 1975 book Men's Liberation, is based on s
indicators of their centrality and importance: First, men's liberation newsletters from the mid-197
recommend these books as the main texts of men's liberation; second, a small study I cond
men's consciousness-raising groups in Berkeley and Santa Cruz, California in 1979-80 revea
most of the groups had used these books as starting points for their discussions; and third, th
and success of Farrell's book can be measured by the fact that in 1998, it is still in print and
available in bookstores. As for the academic sources I focus on for early men's liberation liter
Pleck and Sawyer's (1974) Men and Masculinity was the first major collection of writings on m
masculinity, and it was widely adopted in many of the first "sex roles" and "men and mascul
courses. Moreover, the articles that I cite on the male sex role and men's liberation by Joseph

This content downloaded from

202.116.205.76 on Sun, 04 Dec 2022 03:22:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
274 GENDER & SOCIETY / June 1998

(1974), Robert Brannon (1976), and Pleck and Brannon (1978) were well known and discussed
mid- to late 1970s men's consciousness-raising circles, and they were widely reprinted in a
books on sex roles.

Similarly, I decided to focus my analysis of men's rights movement discourse largely on Herb
Goldberg's 1976 book The Hazards of Being Male and on Frances Baumli's 1985 collection, Men
Freeing Men, on the basis of these texts' centrality to the men's rights movement. Goldberg's book was
read and discussed (often critically) by the men I studied in the late 1970s, and it was adopted in some
college courses on men and masculinity. And similar to Farrell's The Liberated Man (1974), Goldberg's
The Hazards of Being Male (1976) is still in print and available in bookstores over 20 years after its
original publication. Moreover, Goldberg's work is still cited as a foundation within men's rights
discourse. Baumli's 1985 book, although not as commercially successful as Goldberg's, is a collection
of writings by nearly every men's rights leader of the 1970s and early 1980s, and it thus offers an
invaluable look at a range of men's rights discourse. My examination of the current men's rights Web
site indicates that the works of Goldberg, Farrell, and the writers in the Baumli volume are still a
foundation to men's rights discourse.

REFERENCES

Adams, M. 1985. Child of the glacier. In Men freeing men: Exploding the myth of the
edited by F. Baumli. Jersey City, NJ: New Atlantis.
Andersen, D. 1977. Warren the success object. In For men against sexism, edited b
Albion, CA: Times Change Press.
Arendell, Terry. 1992. After divorce: Investigations into father absence. Gender & So
Balswick, Jack, and Charles Peek. 1971. The inexpressive male: A tragedy of American
Coordinator 20:363-68.
Baumli, Francis, ed. 1985. Men freeing men: Exploding the myth of the traditional male. Jersey City,
NJ: New Atlantis.
Bertoia, C. E., and J. Drakich. 1995. The fathers' rights movement: Contradictions in rhetoric and
practice. In Fatherhood: Contemporary theory, research and social policy, edited by W. Marsiglio.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Brannon, Robert. 1976. The male sex role: Our culture's blueprint of manhood, and what it's done for
us lately. In The forty-nine percent majority: The male sex role, edited by Deborah S. David and
Robert Brannon, 14-15, 30-32. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
. 1981-82. Are the "Free Men" a faction of our movement? M: Gentle Men for Gender Justice
7 (winter).
Brod, Harry. 1987. The making of masculinities: The new men's studies. Boston: Allen & Unwin.
Clatterbaugh, Kenneth. 1990. Contemporary perspectives on masculinity: Men, women, and politics in
modem society. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Coltrane, S., and N. Hickman. 1992. The rhetoric of rights and needs: Moral discourse in the reform of
child custody and child support laws. Social Problems 39:400-420.
Connell, R.W. 1983. The concept of role and what to do with it. In Which way is up?: Essays on sex,
class, and culture, by R. W. Connell. Sydney, London, Boston: Allen & Unwin.
. 1987. Gender and power. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Doyle, R. 1985. Divorce. In Men freeing men: Exploding the myth of the traditional male, edited by
Frances Baumli. Jersey City, NJ: New Atlantis.
Ehrenreich, Barbara. 1983. The hearts of men: American dreams and the flight from commitment. New
York: Anchor/Doubleday.
Farrell, Warren. 1974. The liberated man. New York: Random House.
. 1993. The myth of male power: Why men are the disposable sex. New York: Simon & Schuster.

This content downloaded from

202.116.205.76 on Sun, 04 Dec 2022 03:22:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Messner / THE LIMITS OF THE MALE SEX ROLE 275

Fasteau, Marc Feigen. 1974. The male machine. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Free Men. 1997. National Coalition of Free Men. Web Page.
Gerzon, Mark. 1982. A choice of heroes: The changing faces of America 's manhood. Boston: Houg
Mifflin.

Goldberg, Herb. 1976. The hazards of being male: Surviving the myth of masculine privilege. New
Signet.
. 1979. The new male: From macho to sensitive but still all male. New York: Signet.
Hacker, Helen. 1957. The new burdens of masculinity. Marriage and Family Living 3:227-33.
Haddad, R. 1985. Concepts and overview of the men's liberation movement. In Men freeing men:
Exploding the myth of the traditional male, edited by F. Baumli. Jersey City, NJ: New Atlantis.
Hanisch, C. 1975. Men's Liberation. In Feminist revolution, edited by Redstockings. New York: Random
House.

Hartley, R. E. [1959] 1974. Sex-role pressures in the socialization of the male child. Psychological
Reports 5:457-68. Reprint, in Men and masculinity, edited by J. H. Pleck and J. Sawyer. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Henley, Nancy. 1970. Male chauvinism: Attitudes and practices. Newsletter of the New University
Conference. Chicago.
Jourard, S. M. 1971. Some lethal aspects of the male role. In The transparent self, edited by S. M.
Jourard. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
Kimmel, Michael S. 1987. Changing men: New directions in research on men and masculinity. Newbury
Park: Sage.
Komarovsky, Mirra. 1946. Cultural contradictions and sex roles. American Journal of Sociology
52:184-89.

. 1992. The concept of social role revisited. Gender & Society 6:301-13.
Logan, D. 1985. Men abused by women. In Men freeing men: Exploding the myth of the traditional
male, edited by F. Baumli. Jersey City, NJ: New Atlantis.
Lopata, H. Z., and B. Thome. 1978. On the term "sex roles." Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and
Society 3:718-21.
Men's Consciousness-Raising Group. 1971. Unbecoming men. Washington, DC: Times Change.
Messner, Michael A. 1997. Politics of masculinities: Men in movements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
. Forthcoming. Radical feminist and socialist feminist men's movements in the U.S. In Feminism
and men: Toward a relational feminism, edited by S. Schacht and D. Ewing. New York: New York
University Press.
Nardi, P. 1994. Do ask and do tell: Stonewalling men's studies. Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the Pacific Sociological Association, San Diego, CA, April.
Nichols, Jack. 1975. Men's liberation: A new definition of masculinity. New York: Penguin.
Panghom, K. 1985. The murdered husband: Family violence and women's lib. In Men freeing men:
Exploding the myth of the traditional male, edited by F. Baumli. Jersey City, NJ: New Atlantis.
Parsons, Talcott, and Robert Bales. 1955. Family, socialization and interaction process. New York: Free
Press.

Pleck, J. H. 1974. Men's power with women, other men, and in society: A men's movement analysis.
In Women and men: The consequences of power, edited by D. V. Hiller and R. Sheets. Cincinnati,
OH: University of Cincinnati, Office of Women's Studies.
. 1976. The male sex role: Definitions, problems, and sources of change. Journal of Social Issues
32:155-64.
. 1982. The myth of masculinity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pleck, J. H., and R. Brannon. 1978. Male roles and the male experience: Introduction. Journal of Social
Issues 34:1-4.

Pleck, Joseph H., and Jack Sawyer. 1974. Men and masculinity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Saunders, D. G. 1988. Other "truths" about domestic violence: A reply to McNeely and Robinson-
Simpson. Social Work 32:179-83.

This content downloaded from

202.116.205.76 on Sun, 04 Dec 2022 03:22:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
276 GENDER & SOCIETY / June 1998

Sawyer, Jack. 1970. The male liberation movement. A workshop presented at the Women's Liberation
Teach-in, Northwestern University, 8 March. Published in revised form in 1970 as "On male
liberation," Liberation (August-September-October).
Schwartz, M. D. 1987. Gender and injury in spousal assaults. Sociological Focus 20:61-75.
Snodgrass, Jon. 1977. For men against sexism. Albion, CA: Times Change.
Stacey, J., and B. Thorne. 1985. The missing feminist revolution in sociology. Social Problems
32:301-16.
Straton, Jack C. 1994. The myth of the "battered husband syndrome." Masculinities 2:79-82.
Zinn, Martha Baca, Lynn Weber Cannon, Elizabeth Higgenbotham and Bonnie Thornton Dill. 1986.
The costs of exclusionary practices in women's studies. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and
Society 11:290-303.

Michael A. Messner is an associate professor of sociology and gender studies at the University
of Southern California, where he teaches courses on sex and gender, men and masculinities,
sexuality, and gender and sport. His most recent book is Politics of Masculinities: Men in
Movements (Sage, 1997).

This content downloaded from

202.116.205.76 on Sun, 04 Dec 2022 03:22:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms