Ceasefire!: Why Women and Men Must Join Forces to Achieve True
Equality.
By Cathy Young. New York City: The Free Press, 1999.
From
time to time, a book may be published which by rights should be
recognized as a flawed yet creative, courageous, well-documented
contribution to an issue of profound social importance. And yet the
book may be underestimated and overlooked due to a paradoxical
combination of its contrarian perspective and the natural-seeming
nature of its arguments and conclusions.
Cathy Young's contribution to ending the gender
wars, Ceasefire!, is such a book. The Russian-born journalist
painstakingly documents and then demolishes shibboleth after feminist
shibboleth. It is violence against MEN which is treated more callously
by society. Often, "even if it's the woman's fault, it's the man's
fault" somehow. The author skewers the current "moratorium on female
responsibility."
One favorite pastime of Young's is calling the
feminists on their propensity for trying to have it both ways: women
are weak analogs to children when that is strategically advantageous,
morphing at a moment's notice into amazons as physically strong as the
toughest man when THAT claim will result in further advantages to
women. Women claim they are equal to men, often denying even obvious
biological differences, and yet they simultaneously imply or even
state openly that their sex is the morally superior one. Women claim
to be physical equals of men, except in the sphere of domestic
violence. Mothers complain that they want their husbands to be more
involved in child care, but they do not want them TOO MUCH more
involved.
Young reminds us that feminist tendencies harm women
as well as men. Placing nearly all blame for all societal problems on
men encourages women to avoid taking responsibility and becoming truly
equal partners of men. A man can be railroaded in a domestic violence
case even where the woman implores the authorities to drop all
charges.
Young is not a lawyer but she devotes significant
space to the disastrous effects feminist dogma have wrought on our
legal system. She demolishes the so-called thinking behind modern
court interpretations of Title 9, the federal law whose recent
interpretations have forced the dismantling of men's university sports
programs in pursuit of a false equality. She documents how grotesquely
feminist concepts--rape shield laws, sexual harassment law--have
distorted our laws nearly beyond the breaking point, thereby obscuring
the genuinely grievous cases.
Without any particular justification other than
political pressure, special exceptions in certain areas of feminist
interest have been grafted onto time-honored legal principles.
Meaningful distinctions with real implications for the lives of
thousands of men and women have been eroded or eradicated. And the
placement of the sexual harassment standard in the eye of the beholder
has created an utterly unprecedented, subjective legal standard. So it
is that hugging your secretary after her mother's death becomes a
"crime" which can destroy a career. If traffic laws were modeled on
sexual harassment laws, she writes, "there would be no stop signs or
speed limits; you could be fined for failing to stop when someone
expected you to, or going at a speed that made another driver
uncomfortable."
Young is not afraid to cry from the mountaintops
that of course there is a difference between violent stranger rape and
date rape. Some rapes ARE worse than others, and some "rapes" aren't
rape at all. She supplies several dreadful stories documenting the
harm caused to innocent men, under the rape shield law, by utterly
frivolous or even vengefully false rape allegations. Our approach to
domestic violence, which refuses to consider relationship dynamics and
joint responsibility as contributing to domestic violence, is of
course exactly wrong.
Though not without her own blind spots in this
regard, Young skewers society's lack of compassion for men. Why does
outrage over rape trials typically only run in one direction, and fail
to encompass the false accusee whose life may be ruined despite
complete innocence? Why do we make it so difficult for men to obtain
adjustments in their child support after a job is lost or wages are
cut? We often define "primary caretaker" without even thinking that
this very concept excludes the provider role from the definition of
"care."
But Ceasefire! has some grave flaws too. Young is
least compelling when she talks about the men's movement which strives
to correct many of these wrongs. Unfortunately, she analogizes
masculism to radical feminism, and she dismisses the mythopoetic
movement without serious evaluation. Even more regrettably, she
minimizes the harm to males caused by such phenomena as circumcision,
football, and even reduced lifespan. In a generally well- researched
book she attempts to discount Warren Farrell's excellent work
documenting women's power in the home based on one possible,
relatively trivial error. Such an approach seems more akin to that of
the feminists whom the author, elsewhere in this book, so rightly
calls on their selective use of data.
In sum, I highly--if less than
wholeheartedly--recommend Ceasefire! The book contains much of value,
and may offer more documented, referenced information on masculist
issues than any work this side of Warren Farrell. Cathy Young does
care about men, and those of us who care about men have much we can
learn from her.
