Men’s activists indicate that we live in a social structure that reserves many special rights and privileges for women and none for men. Perhaps the most obvious example is the female’s exemption from compulsory military service and dangerous combat, a practice common in even the most egalitarian-minded societies and which most people,myself included, accept and support. “Equal rights” are simply not desirable in many instances, because most people want women to have the privilege of protection. My question then becomes, what compensating rights, privileges, or special treatment do men deserve?
The work of anthropologists Robin Fox and Lionel Tiger may help answer this question. They vividly describe the social structure of primates in The Imperial Animal, which in their view is essentially a system for ensuring the success of a breeding group. They maintain that this basic structure, with important modifications, persists and will always persist in humans: alpha males in the middle, surrounded by all the females and young males, and all the other adult males on the fringes. The alpha males lead, resolve disputes, breed with their choice of females, and work together to maintain their position. The adult females demand help with their young from the alpha males, acquaint their male offspring with the alpha males as a means of promoting them, and ward off (or occasionally run off with) other adult males. They are always protected from invaders, and strive for access to the alphas males. On the fringes, the non-alpha males provide defense from predators, challenge the alpha males in dramatic ways, and occasionally partake in liaisons with adult females.
What makes this system stable is the attention paid to the alpha males; indeed, without a patriarch or set of patriarchs, the primal group dissolves completely. The demands on the patriarch can be so onerous that some find they don’t like it and wander off, either tolead a solitary life or one with the other non-alpha males. Unless a new adult male takes over the role, a group without a patriarch scatters, and each of the pieces joins up with another group that does have male leadership.
The natural human system is similar an many respects. The often-heard adage that “If you look at those who hold a lot of power in society, you’ll find they’re almost all men” is a true statement, and the “If…” part is emblematic of the primal tendency to ignore marginal males such as military conscripts, workplace fatalities, the homeless,and so forth, while star-struck by the high-status guys. The term “male-centered culture” as well reflects the invisibility of those in the outer circle. The “old-boys” network is real, and exclusive; just as real but less recognized are the challenges involved in maintainingmembership such as enduring harassment by the females, challenges by younger males, a lack of privacy, and so forth.
In this system, there is no mechanism of patriarchs promoting or caring for lesser males. In fact, lesser adult males mostly constitute a threat to the patriarchs. Lesser males must usurp authority; they are not given it. This is another reason besides the undesirability of”equal rights” that petitioning the power structure for relief from injustices against males is unlikely to succeed.
Of course, we are not exactly like apes. Fox and Tiger mention a few characteristics of humans which distinguish them from the other primates, with the supposition that these changes were necessary for survival: people make deals to share food and resources, men play an important part in raising the young, and as men began hunting together male bonding evolved. All men were eligible to participate in the hunt.
Because men so easily and routinely bond with each other, as only the alpha males do in the primal system, I believe men have a capacity for the role of patriarch to a much greater degree than the other primates. However, a limited number of positions can ever be available in large human groupings, and usually involve stiff competition. Until recently, the family offered most men a means of expression for their primal tendency to lead, resolve disputes, reproduce, help raise the young, take responsibility for defense, and so on.
In The Decline of Males, Tiger says we are devolving into the primal system with the human modifications greatly diminished. This comes as a result of industrialization, which causes individuals to act as independent contractors, instead of an integral part of society. The devolution consists of men living increasingly on the fringes offamily and political life, and marginalized to the point that they must sneak around to engage in male bonding. Today family courts routinely drive men away from their families and out of their homes. Laws and institutional rules increasingly disallow normal male behavior, and cries to ban an all-male golf club fall on many a sympathetic ear. In my workplace, the only time men seem to spend together is their lunch hour playing cards in the corner of the cafeteria. Men’s activism against these recent changes often takes a strident, revolutionary tone, underscoring their place on the fringe.
Based on these facts, I suggest the set of compensating rights, privileges, and special treatment that men can fairly claim for themselves is the legitimate position of patriarch. This position includes responsibility and authority to provide for and protect womenand children, to raise girls to be capable women and boys to be capable men, and to coach each other actively in their performance of the role. As Elder George states frequently, “Men provide the environment and means that enable women to bring forth life and nurture it.”
If the baboons can do it, why can’t we?
Marc Roemer
