Mammoths, feminism, and "masculism"

I've been digging through my college notes recently, culling some things. One of the gems I thought I'd lost was a curious essay.

It's titled "The Other End of the Mammoth: Qualification Rituals for Male Bonding in and out of Literature" and it's by John S. Harris. Probably not the politician one, but I really don't know.

The Internet doesn't seem to know that it exists, which is quite surprising to me. I would love to know where to find it legitimately so that I can freely share it; as it is, I probably won't scan my copy. It's quite worth the read, especially in contrast to modern vehement rhetoric.

Spoilers lie below... You've been warned.



It came to mind recently when discussing feminism with a friend, when I learned about second vs. third wave feminism and The Patriarchy (trust me, it's capitalized). The general notions of the Patriarchy are quite distasteful to me, and I occasionally long for more reasoned discourse about masculinity that I can actually relate to.

Mr. Harris states his thesis in his somewhat analytical prefatory note and not his essay: "The camaraderie of men is the result of trust in the capability and courage of one's companions." I have found this to be a fascinating and useful analytical tool when trying to understand the world around me.

Part of what I was reminded of was something Mr. Harris says in his prefatory note:

I had, like everyone else in the last twenty years, been subjected to much rhetoric on feminist issues. Much of it I found very valid. Unquestionably, women have often been treated unfairly and shabbily in the family, in the workplace, and in society. Further, the argument of the last decade that women thinking as women rather than as neuters, can bring special insights to both the production and the analysis of literature also seems to me entirely valid. But equally valid, and less often spoken of, is the corollary that men, thinking as men rather than as neuters, can bring special insights to the production and analysis of literature.

As you can see, he is NOT anti-feminist. His essay comes across as an educated and reflective foray into a dimly lit corner rather than a directed bombshell on an ideological front. What my friend described to me as The Patriarchy corresponds closely with what he calls "macho" culture, and he discusses what he calls "masculist" culture (though mostly literature). Ideally the best of feminism and the best of masculism would complement each other: "Gender considerations can make a difference in both the production and the reading of literature."

He addresses the argument that masculist literature is simply literature. I cannot match his grace in stating why the argument is right and why it is also generally wrong, so I'll commend his essay to your perusal.

His essay then discusses just what the title and thesis say--there's a curious bond men tend towards based on courage and competency. My brothers do it with words, probing each others' technical prowess and speed of thought with conversations that whoosh by in a nearly incomprehensible dialect. Harris points it out in Thurber's story of Walter Mitty, as well as reality:

Women who have entered the previously all-male societies, such as the brave women pilots of the WASPs during WWII, frequently have said, "The men were always testing us." I am sure they were, but they were not just testing the women. They were always testing each other too. [...] Once the candidate has reached that threshold level--which may or may not be acknowledged--the testing changes. Then it becomes a testing to see who is top dog. This second level is usually good-natured. The top dog position is likely to change constantly within the group, according to the immediate task.

If you know how to reach me already, I'll be happy to help you find a way to get it.