Opinion | On Bill Maher's "Make America Grind Again"

I like to watch Bill Maher's segment "New Rules". He has interesting points and I agree with a lot of what he has to say... But I disagree with his arguments this week, and though it was worth writing a few lines about it. 

Bill starts his monologue by stating that "you can go on about how masculinity is itself toxic or you can be horny for Volodymyr Zelenskyy but you can't do both." He mentions that the internet is flooded with social media posts and memes about women having the hots for the Ukrainian president (he even shows a handful of these posts), and goes on to say that the reason is that  Zelenskyy is what used to be called a "man's man" and that this is entirely incompatible with women wanting to "retrain men" and "turn them into their favourite Twilight character. He posits that women may "want to create the perfect man" but that there will always be "a bit of toxic in the mix". Well, I don't subscribe to the notion that masculinity is toxic, nor do I want to create perfect men (and if I did, I would certainly not look to Twiligh as a guide book). While I can certainly understand a man's impulse to defend himself from these perceptions I don't agree with the way in which Bill defended his position. 

Personally, I don't think twitter (a medium that encourages repetition and regurgitation) can be used to take the temperature of the general population. Putting that aside though, Bill credits the brutality inherent to masculinity as the reason why we, as a species still alive. He concedes that there are brave women fighting in Ukraine, but, in his words "the images of people fleeing all seem to be of women and children while every able-bodied man in Ukraine is sticking around to fight and maybe die."

Men of conscription age, aged 18 to 60, were banned from leaving Ukraine after the Russian invasion on 24 February. It seems to me that is is more likely that this ban is the principal reason why most refugees now are women and children, not some innate quality of masculinity that makes men, in Bill's words, "stick around to fight and maybe die." In fact, the guardian reported on how, even after the ban, many men were trying to cross the border. Furthermore, Bill completely disregards the difference in societal attitudes towards men and women under these circumstances. During war, men are shamed for not volunteering to the fight. For a man, joining the war means honour, courage and glory. Our literature is full of examples of this (think of how the boys are encouraged to join the war effort in Remarque's All Quiet on the Western Front, for instance). I am not saying this is wrong. I can centainly understand why these attitudes developed, the need to make going to war see desirable, in order to encourage the soldiers and save the country. But it is a mistake to assume that these social pressures have nothing to do with the reason why there are more men in the military for instance. Women on the other hand are expected to flee. A woman is shamed, not for fleeing her country, but for not sacrificing her desire to protect her land, and staying with her children instead.

Ukrainian refugees around the end of February. source of images: https://www.kpcc.org/npr-news/2022-02-26/people-fleeing-ukraine-cross-into-romania; https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/u-s-to-accept-100000-ukrainian-refugees-levy-more-sanctions-on-russia/; https://www.timesofisrael.com/nearly-120000-ukrainians-have-fled-the-country-so-far-seeking-refuge-from-fighting/; https://www.timesofisrael.com/thousands-of-ukrainians-inquire-about-moving-to-israel-jewish-agency-official-says/ ; 
 

Personally, I think staying around to fight for one's freedom is admirable. But I don't think Zelenskyy is doing it because he is a man. I think he is doing it because he is a good leader, and I can see a female leader doing exactly the same in his place. What is more, I would hope most men nowadays would find that attitude just as admirable in a woman, as women find it in Zelenskyy. 

It is easy to describe the general differences between men and women in biological terms. It becomes much harder to do so in terms of character, personality and psychological make up. Most of the stereotypes that seemed to defined each gender are falling. What are the qualities of a man? Courage. Strength. Intelligence. What about a woman? Shouldn't a woman also be brave? Shouldn't she be strong and intelligent? I certainly hope to possess all three of those qualities in sufficient amount. Sensitivity is not a quality generally associated with manhood. But most of the greatest writers that ever were are men, and you can't produce great literature without a good dose of sensitivity. What about it then? 

The biggest problem I have with Mr. Maher's argument is that it implies that these qualities - the qualities that inspires a person to fight for their freedom instead of fleeing to safety - are inherently masculine characteristics. It doesn't seem to me that bravery is gendered at all. There is certainly no biological basis for that argument.  And it's personally offensive to be labeled as the coward sex. 

I am not what is called a "radical feminist," by any means. But I recognize that, despite the strides made by recent changes in societal attitudes towards women, true equality is more an idea than a reality. Even in our world, the value of a woman's individuality is secondary to motherhood, and a woman's personal freedom is conditional. I am not myopic enough to deny that there are biological differences between men and women, and I have never been offended by the small rituals derived from traditional gender roles, such as allowing a man to open a door or lead in a dance. But I do hope for a time when the word woman isn't synonymous with inferiority, and the qualities associated with womanhood are not agreeableness and sweetness, but assertiveness, intelligence and courage.