Welcome back to the deep dive. We are really getting into it today. Looking at a huge question for gender equality,which is how do we get men involved and not just, you know, showing up sometimes, butreally committed reliably for the long haul. Yeah. Sustained commitment. That's the tricky part.Absolutely. And it feels more urgent than ever, doesn't it? You look around, you see these ongoing systemic attackson women's rights. The source material we're using today even points to the DOS decision in the US in 2022. A reallystark example of how persistent sexist oppression still is. It's not abstract history. It's current.Exactly. So passive support for men, just agreeing in principle. It's clearly not enough anymore. We need activeparticipation. Reminds me of something Bel Hooks wrote way back in 1984. She said, "Sexism andoppression can only really be ended if men are uh compelled to assume responsibility for transforming theirconsciousness and the consciousness of society as a whole." That word compelled, it's strong.It is. It suggests that initial push might be needed. But the real challenge, the one we're tackling today, is whatkeeps that commitment going, especially when it gets difficult or frankly inconvenient.Right? We need to move past just like performing allyship. It has to be authentic. And that's precisely what thepaper we're diving into is all about. It's called Men in Feminism, a self-determination, perspective, andgoals for the future by Moser, Seagull, and WY, published just this year, 2024.Okay. And what's really interesting is they're not just giving a list of do this, don't do that. They're looking deeper at thepsychology, what actually drives sustained action, the engine behind it all. Exactly. So, for you listening, think ofthis as a shortcut. We want to help you understand why it's not just about how much effort a man puts in. It's aboutthe quality of why he's doing it. That quality, that underlying motivation, that's what predicts if someone's goingto be consistent, effective, and ultimately if they can be trusted as an ally. Quality over quantity of motivation.Got it? Okay, let's dig in. First things first, let's make sure we're on the same page with terms. When we say feminism,what are we talking about? Let's use Bell Hook's definition again from 2000 this time. Super clear. a movement toend sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression. Simple, direct, action focused.And crucially, modern feminism has to be intersectional. We have to recognize that sexism doesn't exist in a vacuum,right? It connects with racism, classism, homophobia, transphobia, abbleism, all of it. Women's experiencesaren't monolithic. Intersecting identities create really different realities of oppression. So, ending sexism means fighting allthose connected systems, too. Absolutely. But before men can really internalize that big goal, they oftenface these while the research calls them obstacles, psychological and social mindfields. Really?Okay. What are these mindfields? The researchers drawing on earlier work too point to four main barriers thatstop men from engaging or at least engaging sincerely and consistently. Let's break them down. What's the first one?The first is maybe the most straightforward. Just plain unawareness. A lot of men are genuinely just unawareof how widespread gender inequality still is or they don't see their ownmale privilege because privilege is often invisible to the people who have it. Right. Like the fish not noticing the water.Exactly. That if you've never had to say clutch your keys between your fingers walking home at night or think twiceabout jogging alone after dark, you might just not register that fear as a systemic gender issue. it doesn't crossyour radar. Okay, so unawareness is number one. What happens if they do become aware? Uh well, that's barrier number two. Thefeeling that it's not their place to get involved. H explain that. They might recognize the problem butthink this is really for women to sort out or maybe they worry about messing up, saying the wrong thing, maybe evenmansplaining. So they hang back even if they agree there's an issue. Precisely. It's a kind of paralysis.That reluctance to act even with awareness just stalls everything. Makes sense. Okay. Number three. Youcalled this one a gut punch earlier. Zero sum thinking. What's that about? Right. Zero sum thinking. It's likebelieving there's a fixed pie of status or resources. Okay. So, if women gain maybe morerepresentation and leadership, equal pay, whatever the assumption is that men must automatically lose something, women get a bigger slice, so my slice must getsmaller. Ah, the pie fallacy. Like equality is taking something away from them.Exactly. And this anxiety seems particularly strong for men whose sense of self is really tied up in traditionalideas of masculinity. It makes gender equality feel like a direct threat, not a collective win.So if you think like that, every step towards equality feels like a personal loss. How could you possibly investauthentically in that? You couldn't. It creates this inherent conflict which leads directly to the fourth barrier. Social stigma.Stigma from who? primarily from other men supporting feminism, speaking out against sexism. These actions oftendirectly violate those unspoken rules of traditional masculinity, like being seen as soft or weak.Exactly. There's a real fear of social punishment, of losing status within the male group, being labeled maybe subtlyor not so subtly with what one researcher called the femininity stigma that can get attached to feminist men.Wow. It's the fear of not measuring up, of being ostracized by your peers. So, let me get this straight.Men might fear losing status relative to women because of zero sum thinking, andthey fear losing status among other men just for engaging with feminism at all. That's the double bind. It's powerful.And that's why just telling men do better isn't enough. We have to understand the why behind their actionsor inaction. Which brings us back to the quality of motivation. Precisely. This is whereself-determination theory or SDT comes in. It's a really influential psychological framework. SDT basicallysays motivation isn't just about how much you have. It's about the type, the quality. And it splits motivation intotwo broad types. Okay. What are they? First, you've got controlled motivation. Think of this as motivation coming fromoutside yourself or from internal pressure that feels like an obligation. Give me an example. Okay. So maybe you only speak up againsta sexist comment because you know your boss is listening or because there are strong social norms against prejudice inyour immediate circle. That's external pressure, right? Performance. Or it could be internal pressure likefeeling guilty if you don't do something or ashamed. You're doing it to avoid a bad feeling, not because you trulybelieve in it. Like maybe sharing a feminist post online just so your friends don't call you out. Exactly like that. And the problem withcontrolled motivation, it's unstable. It's fragile. If that external pressure disappears or if the cost of acting getstoo high, the behavior disappears, too. Right? That inconsistency is the hallmark of controlled motivation. It'sthe performative allyship we've all seen. Shows up when it's easy, vanishes when it's hard. And that inconsistency isn't justineffective, is it? It can actually be damaging. hugely damaging. When people, especially women, perceive that a man'sactions are driven by these controlled motives, trying to look good, avoiding guilt, they actually evaluate hisefforts less positively. It feels insincere. And it can lead to weird behaviors, too,right? Like defensive helping. Yes, that's a fascinating concept. Defensive helping is when someone maybefeeling threatened by the idea of group equality helps the lower status group in a way that actually reinforces thehierarchy. How does that work? Like helping in a way that highlights the helper's competence and the other person's dependence. Or sometimes menmight engage in surface level feminist actions specifically to deny their own privilege rather than confront it. It'shelp that's ultimately self- serving. Wow. Okay. So that's unwanted counterproductive help. What's thealternative then? The alternative and the goal is autonomous motivation. Autonomous, meaning self-driven.Exactly. This is when the goals of feminism aren't just things you agree with intellectually. They've become partof you. You've internalized them, integrated them into your own values, your sense of self. So fighting sexism isn't a chore youhave to do. It's an authentic expression of who you are and what you believe in. Precisely. This is where consistencycomes from. Reliability, real growth. When your motivation is autonomous, you prioritize the actualgoal, ending sexism, supporting women over your own ego or defensiveness. You persist even when it's tough, even whenno one's watching, even when you don't get praised for it. That sounds like the kind of allyship we actually need. It's the only kind that truly works longterm. Okay, this is fascinating. ST says this internalization, this shift toautonomous motivation only really happens when three fundamentalpsychological needs are met. That's the core idea. If we want to foster this deep, reliable commitment, we need tocreate conditions, social interactions, environments, maybe even physical spaces that satisfy these three needs.And those needs are autonomy, relatedness, and competence. ARC. Autonomy, relatedness, competence. Okay,let's spend the rest of our time really breaking down what each of those means and how the research suggests we can actually foster them for men engagingwith feminism. Sounds good. Let's start with autonomy, right? Autonomy. the need to feel like you're engaging freely, that youractions align with your own values, that you're not being forced or coerced. Exactly. Because if men feel pushed orguilted or like they have to engage maybe through really poorly designed mandatory training or shaming tactics,it backfires. That's how it triggers something called psychological reactance. It's that natural human tendency to push back whenyou feel your freedom is being threatened. Instead of internalizing the message, people resist it. They mighteven double down on their previous views. So forcing it actually reduces the chance they'll identify with feministgoals. That's what the research suggests. So the first big strategy for fostering autonomy is about ensuring men seeengaging with feminism as a voluntary choice, something that aligns with their own values and even benefits them.Okay. But how do you do that? How do you make feminism personally relevant without minimizing the focus on women'soppression? Great question. One key way is to actively reframe feminism as a men'sissue too. Not instead of a women's issue, but in addition, how does that work in practice?Well, the research from a feminist and gender perspective highlights the costs of traditional masculinity for menthemselves. Sticking rigidly to those old school norms, it's linked to worse mental health, worse physical health,like not being able to show vulnerability or resisting asking for help. Exactly. higher rates of depression, anxiety, risky behaviors, even highersuicide risk. So fighting sexism isn't just about liberating women. It's also aboutfreeing men from the toxic parts of that restrictive man box. So engaging becomes an act ofself-liberation, too. It's not just doing someone else a favor, right? And think about structural disadvantages men face because ofpatriarchy. Like what? Parental leave is a big one. often the structures just aren't there or there's huge stigma preventing men from beingprimary caregivers even if they want to be. It reinforces that outdated man as provider only model.So a man fighting for gender equality is also fighting for his own right to be a fully involved parent or partner.Precisely. And studies show that when you frame gender equality as something that benefits both men and women, men'swillingness to participate goes up significantly. It feels less like that zero sum threat we talked about. Okay,that reframing sounds crucial for autonomy. What else? Another strategy is value affirmation.Value affirmation. Tell me more. Okay, so imagine a man hears a message about male privilege. If he feels likethat message is attacking his core identity, maybe he sees himself as a good, fair person, he's likely to getdefensive, shut down, protect his self-image, right? But research shows that if you give people a chance to affirm theircore values before they encounter threatening information, maybe by writing briefly about somethingimportant to them, like creativity or family totally unrelated to gender, it can buffer that threat.Yeah. It seems to reinforce their sense of selfworth, making them less defensive and more open to considering challengingideas like how they might benefit from sexism without feeling like their whole identity is under attack. They can thenconnect feminism to those affirmed values like fairness or equality. Interesting. It lowers the defenses.Mhm. Which leads naturally to the next point, right? The need for non-judgment and self-reflection.Exactly. Because let's be honest, learning about your own privilege, realizing you've maybe said or donesexist things without realizing it, or just understanding your role in an oppressive system.That's not easy. It can be painful, shameful even. Definitely. And if someone's first stepsinto that learning process are met with immediate hostility or harsh judgment, what's the likely reaction?Defensiveness, walling off, not growth. Precisely. Right. So, the research suggests men need environments wherethey feel their perspectives are at least heard, where mistakes are seen as part of learning, not instant cause forcondemnation. This helps reduce that shame and defensiveness. Okay, but I have to push back here. Thissounds dangerously close to asking women to cuddle men's feelings or do even more emotional labor.Feminism demands accountability, right? How do we balance non-judgment with the need for men to take responsibility?That is the critical tension here. And the authors are very explicit about this. They draw on thinkers like SarahAhmed to emphasize. It is absolutely not the responsibility of women who are already navigatingoppression to provide endless patience and non-judgmental handholding for menwho are just starting their journey. Okay, good. Because that expectation would be deeply unfair.Totally unfair. It adds yet another burden. So the nuance is who facilitatesthese spaces for reflection and learning. Yeah. The author suggests these non-judgmental, supportive spaces wheremen can grapple with these difficult truths and learn without feeling attacked are best created and facilitated by other men. Specifically,men who are further along in their own feminist understanding and development. Ah, like a mentorship model. Exactly. A mentor can guide someone,call out blind spots, share their own mistakes, and offer support from a place of shared experience, understanding thespecific psychological hurdles men might face without placing that burden on women. So, it meets the man's need forautonomy learning without reactants, but doesn't exploit women's labor. That's the idea, a really crucialdistinction. Okay, that makes sense. Let's move to the second pillar. Relatedness.Feeling connected. This seems complicated, too. It is. Relatedness is about feelingconnected to and cared for by others. Feeling like you belong. For men in feminism, this need is challenged fromtwo directions. connection with other men, their in-group, and connection with feminists, often perceived as anoutroup, especially feminist women. Let's tackle the in-group first. Other men, we already talked about the socialstigma, right? And a big reason that stigma persists is something called pluralistic ignorance.Pluralistic ignorance. Sounds academic. What does it mean simply? It means individuals privately reject aparticular idea or norm, but they assume incorrectly that most other people accept it. So they go along with thenorm publicly reinforcing it even though many people secretly disagree. Give me a gender example.Okay, think about the classic scenario. A group of guys, someone makes a casually sexist remark. Maybe severalmen in the group inwardly think, "Ugh, that's not okay." But they look around, nobody else says anything, so theyassume everyone else is fine with it. And they stay silent because they don't want to be the odd one out. Exactly. Especially if they're worriedabout their own masculinity appearing precarious or fragile. So, their silence makes it look likeeveryone approves of the sexism, even if privately many don't. This massivelyinhibits men from speaking up or identifying as allies. They think they're alone. So, how do you break that cycle?You have to challenge the perception. You need to make support for gender equality visible among men. Framefeminism not as something weird or feminine, but as normal, even admirable, and consistent with a healthier, moremodern masculinity. Like those public health campaigns. Yeah. like Australia's White Ribbon Campaign, which positions men protectingwomen from violence as a masculine strength. And simply exposing men to positive example, seeing other respectedmen living feminist values, increases their willingness to identify with the movement. Role models are key here.Making it seem possible and acceptable within the male group. Crucial for satisfying that in-grouprelatedness need. Okay. Now, the other side, relatedness with the out group, specifically otherfeminists. This seems fraught too. Definitely a major barrier here is the misandry myth.The idea that feminists hate men. Yes, it's a persistent, powerful, and largely false stereotype. But if menbelieve that feminists inherently dislike them, why on earth would they want to connect with that group? It directly threatens their need forbelonging and acceptance. So what counters that? Positive contact, realworld interaction.Research shows that when men, particularly heterosexual men, have positive experiences with feministwomen, when they feel genuinely accepted, listened to, appreciated, their solidarity with the movementincreases. Lived experience trumps the stereotype. It can. But it's not just about feelingpassively accepted. It's also about active collaboration. Collaboration. Yes. Feeling like you're part of theteam. Research on collective action shows that when group members reach consensus on goals, strategies, andpriorities, it really boosts feelings of relatedness and helps internalize the group's mission.So for men, feeling like they're working with feminists towards mutually agreed upon goals, makes them feel moreconnected and committed. Exactly. It satisfies that need to belong and contribute meaningfully.But yeah, we have to come back to that emotional labor point again, especially thinking intersectionally. uhwomen, especially women of color, queer women, disabled women already carry somuch. Expecting them to constantly provide welcoming, validating experiences for men seems problematic.It absolutely is. And again, the authors are very careful here. They explicitly state that providing this support,acceptance, and positive contact is the woman's choice, never an obligation. It cannot be demanded.Cannot be demanded. Given the history and ongoing reality of sexism, women's potential skepticism or caution isentirely valid. The paper talks about this as a kind of two-way street. Men often approach feminist groups withquite low expectations of being welcomed. So often any positive contact might feel better than anticipated,but that doesn't give men a free pass, right? The onus is on men to act in ways that build trust, to be reliable, consistent,and genuinely committed. rooted in that autonomous motivation we keep talking about. Relatedness, especially acrosslines of power and privilege, has to be earned through trustworthy action, not assumed or demanded.Okay, autonomy, relatedness. The third pillar is competence, feelingeffective. Yes, people generally don't stick with things they feel bad at. Men need to feel like their efforts to supportfeminism actually make a difference. They need a sense of efficacy. So, how do they gain that? What does effective action even look like for amale ally? Well, sometimes just their presence and voice can have an impact. For instance, in spaces dominated bymen, when a man speaks up for gender equality or inclusion, it can powerfully shift group norms and help women feelsafer and more included. It signals that equality isn't just a women's issue.But knowing how and when to do that effectively requires skill, doesn't it? It's not always obvious.Absolutely not. And that's why vague advice like be an ally isn't very helpful. To build competence, men needconcrete, specific guidance, like actual training. Yes. Things like bystander intervention programs are shown to be effective. Theydon't just talk principles. They use active learning, role- playinging, practicing specific phrases and actionsfor intervening in common situations. So, you actually build the muscle memory for acting. Exactly. You gain confidence bypracticing in a lower stake setting. It makes people feel more capable, more competent to act when a real situationarises. And this competence can't just be generic, right? It needs to be intersectional. Critically important. This is where webring in those migrant racial justice, queer theory, and abbleism perspectives fully. We have to address intersectionalinvisibility. Explain that again for listener. It's the idea that when we talk about women, the default image that often popsinto people's minds is a white, straight, cisgender, non-disabled woman,a prototype, right? which means the unique experiences and specific forms of sexismfaced by women of color, trans women, queer women, disabled women, workingclass women, they often getoverlooked or erased in mainstream conversations about gender equality. So if a man only learns to recognizesexism as it affects that prototype woman, his competence is incomplete. He won't be effective for all women.Precisely. Therefore, any training or skill building for male allies must be inclusive training. It has to explicitlyhighlight how intersecting identities shape women's lives and how sexism manifests differently depending on race,class, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, and so on. Building competency across the board.Yes. And this includes trans inclusion. The authors make a point of stressing this. Anti-trans rhetoric, the kind yousee from so-called gender critical groups or turfs, is fundamentally based on rigid essentialist ideas aboutgender. The idea that gender is strictly binary and fixed by biology at birth.Exactly. Which is completely at odds with the feminist goal of dismantling harmful gender hierarchies andstereotypes. True feminist competence means understanding that trans women are women and supporting their rights andsafety is integral to the movement. Okay. So, specific skills, intersectional understanding. Yeah.What else builds competence? Role models. Again, feminist men as mentors and role models are huge forcompetence. How so? Seeing other men, especially men you respect, successfully navigate feminist allyship makes it seem achievable. Itdemonstrates that it's possible to live a feminist life effectively. But it matters why the role model seemsto be doing it right. Absolutely critical point linking back to our core theme. Research suggestspeople, including men, are much less inspired by leaders or role models they perceive as being motivated byperformative reasons. is doing it for show, for status, for external validation. That's controlledmotivation. They need to see authenticity, autonomous motivation. Yes, we're drawn to sincerity. And thosementors, men who are further along in acting from that authentic place, they can be invaluable. They can provide thatnon-judgmental space we talked about for learning, help newer allies avoid common pitfalls, share practical strategies.Essentially, they actively build the competence of others through guidance and lived example. Exactly. It makes the whole process feelless daunting and more achievable. Okay, this ARC framework, autonomy, relatedness, competence is reallypowerful for thinking about the psychology. Now, let's make that explicit connection we've been building towards.How does this apply to our ongoing project, the idea of designing a feminist park, right?A physical space for liberation. Well, this research basically validates the need for such intentional design. Itshows us that typical public spaces and even many social movement spaces ofteninadvertently punish men for trying to engage with feminism through that social stigma, the zero sumthinking, right? The existing environment often undermines arc for men. So a feministpark needs to be designed from the ground up to actively counter those barriers and intentionally fosterautonomy, relatedness, and competence. Okay, let's take them one by one. How could the park's design support autonomyand relevance? Well, the park's messaging, its very layout and signage, needs to visibly frame gender equality not just as awomen's issue, but as a community issue, something that benefits everyone, including men. Make that personal relevanceunavoidable. Exactly. maybe through exhibits, information panels, or even program discussions within the park space thatexplicitly address the ways patriarchy limits men, the stigma around mental health, restrictive emotional norms,lack of support for caregiving roles. Connecting back to those points about men's well-being, and structural limitslike parental leave. Yes. Making it clear that this space is relevant to their liberation, too. Thisencourages voluntary engagement, not feeling forced, fostering autonomy.Okay. What about relatedness and representation in the park's design? How do we build connection?This is where visual representation becomes key. The park needs to actively combat that femininity stigma andpluralistic ignorance. So, statues and murals could be public art, informationaldisplays, maybe programming featuring diverse feminist men, historical figures, contemporary activists,everyday men living these values. Making feminist men visible helps normalize allyship among men. In-group relatednessshows other men that you're not alone. This is something respected men do. Exactly. And for outgroup relatedness,the park's design could incorporate spaces specifically meant for dialogue and consensus building. Right. maybe designated conversationpits, amphitheaters for community forums, shared workshop spaces, placesdesigned to facilitate constructive interaction between different groups within the movement, allowing men to feel part of a collaborative effort,working with feminists on shared goals, building that sense of shared purpose. Yes, satisfying relatedness needsthrough shared action. And finally, how does the park design foster competence and skill development,making men feel effective? The park needs dedicated spaces for learning and practice that feel safe and accessible.Not intimidating. So, not just lecture halls. Definitely not. Think more like community workshop rooms. Maybe adedicated mentorship hub where men can connect with more experienced allies. Perhaps even a designated practice zonelike a small informal stage or area where people can roleplay bystander scenarios or practice difficultconversations in a low stakes environment. Borrowing directly from those effective bystander programs. Build the skillssafely. Right. Make gaining competence feel supported, not judged. And crucially, the entire aesthetic andnarrative of the park must scream intersectional competence. What do you mean? The stories told, the figurescelebrated, the issues highlighted, they must visibly and actively center the experiences of multiply marginalizedwomen, queer women, trans women, women of color, disabled women, workingclass women.So, it counters that default white woman prototype from the start. Exactly. the very design signals.Competence here means understanding and fighting sexism in all its interconnected forms. It sets thestandard for what effective inclusive allyship looks like within this space. Wow. Okay. Designing for ARC offers areally concrete way to think about making a space like a feminist park truly effective for engaging everyone,including men. It moves beyond just hoping people show up to intentionally creating the conditions for sustained autonomouscommitment. All right, as we start to wrap up this deep dive, we need to touch on limitations and the bigger picture.Absolutely. First, a really important caveat about the research itself. Most of the studies underpinning SDT in thesespecific applications have been done in what researchers call weird societies. Weird, western, educated, industrialized, rich,and democratic. It means the findings might not automatically apply everywhere. We desperately need moreresearch in diverse cultural, economic, and political contexts to get a truly global understanding of these dynamics.What works in one place might need adapting elsewhere. For sure. And the second big point,changing individual men's motivations, while crucial, is only part of the puzzle.It's not just about individual psychology. No, gender inequality is baked into our social structures, our institutions, ourcultural norms. Individual change is vital. But we also need systemicstructural interventions to achieve broad lasting equality. Can you give an example of a structuralchange that relates back to ARC? The parental leave example we touched on earlier is perfect. Think about Sweden'spolicy reserving a portion of paid parental leave specifically for fathers on a use it or lose its basis.So it's not transferable to the mother, right? And look how that policy supports ARC. It increases fathers autonomy bylegitimizing and enabling their choice to be deeply involved caregivers. It boosts relatedness both with theirchildren and potentially with other fathers taking leave, normalizing it. And it enhances competence by giving them the dedicated time and opportunityto develop parenting and domestic skills. So the structure itself encourages the internalization of that caregiving role.It shifts motivation from controlled maybe feeling obligated towards autonomous seeing oneself as a capableinvolved parent. Exactly. It shows how smart policy design can activelycultivate the quality of motivation we need. It's not just about individual ahamoments. Structures shape possibilities. That's a really powerful connection. Okay, let's bring it home. We started bytalking about reliability, trustworthiness. And the core idea is that autonomousmotivation is what fuels that reliable, trustworthy allyship. While the research notes it might be genuinely difficultfor women to perfectly distinguish a man's inner motives when things are ambiguous. How do you really know why someone'sdoing something right? But one thing women are likely to pick up on is inconsistency. And inconsistency is the calling card ofthat fragile controlled motivation. Men who show up sometimes but disappear when it's hard, they're likely to beperceived probably correctly as acting performatively, which erodess trust completely. So here's the final thoughtwe want to leave you with. If autonomous motivation, that deep internal commitment is what's requiredfor the sustained effort and trustworthiness that genuine allyship demands. And the real challenge for men isn'tjust deciding to start supporting feminism. No, the deer challenge is consciouslydesigning their lives and demanding that the spaces they inhabit, like workplaces, communities, maybe even afeminist park, are set up to continually support their autonomy, relatedness, andcompetence in this work. So they have the psychological resources to keep going. Exactly. To never stop. Because truereliable allyship isn't about one grand gesture. It's about the integrated consistency of a lifelong commitmentfueled from within.