Aleksandar Mandić, in his column in the Cultural Supplement of “Politics” in which he commented on “men’s day”, also mentioned my smallness, so I considered it necessary to clarify some things.
In order for Mr. Mandić to understand the context of my words, he would have to be at a lecture or forum, since this way he could extract some views from a wider context. Since he managed to conclude that I think that men are not threatened structurally and socially, but that the problem is only in showing emotions, I must say that, on the contrary, I pointed out precisely that the change in the socio-political system also caused changes in gender roles, which lead to new inequalities and different circumstances in which men do not fare well.
Aleksandar Mandic does exactly what I pointed out: he sees things dichotomously and in black and white, so a man who cries is necessarily the opposite of a strong and brave man. Thus, it floats into the classic biological narrative in which an attractive man is the one who rescues a woman from the jaws of a tiger, while she waits, elated and hopeful, for a knight on a white horse to rescue her (or change the tire, since her heels won’t allow it).
On the contrary, men face various problems, depression (which they mostly show through anger), the inability to get custody of children after a divorce, and on top of all that, a cultural position that makes it impossible to show suffering. That stereotypical position of a man who is always strong and strong and never cries is unsustainable, since social circumstances have changed and gender roles have become different (which does not mean they are the same).
In the same way, propagating the values of one time in another time, without adapting to the new circumstances, is counterproductive, solves nothing, and represents another general position that only supports this image of a man that I was talking about. After all, look at the divorce rates in Belgrade.
There are structural problems, but until they are solved, it will take a long time, and in that in-between space, it does not help anyone to talk about what is attractive to women, who changes whose tire on the road and who wears high heels. Neither women are in the position they were in, nor are men. Insisting on traditional gender roles when women are no longer in them is counterproductive for men. A man who, as Aleksandar Mandić says, is brave and never vulnerable, but always a protector and savior, today is the only one who can attract a woman who is a victim and needs saving. If he wants to attract and keep a woman who is not a victim and who does not need saving, he will have to understand that no one is omnipotent and that today a person who is not in touch with himself, his needs and his problems will not be tolerated. Staying together involves a lot of negotiations, pain and effort, and this requires introspection and understanding in socio-economic circumstances that have taken away free time, imposed a lot of business obligations and stresses, as well as many roles in a world where the malignant promotion of individuality is on the rise (and actually egoism) to the detriment of the environment.
The position of gender roles has changed. Neither a good part of women wants to be only in the role of mother in the family itself (they dedicate themselves more to other roles), nor men can ignore it. There are always exceptions, but the fact is that the degree of misunderstanding, divorce and violence show that it is not a matter of attraction, but of misunderstanding the fact that the circumstances have changed and that kind of control over the relationship with clearly defined roles can no longer be maintained.
No one wants the person across the street to cry all the time and be a victim of circumstances, but it is also very dangerous to assume that someone who never cries is healthy.
The political climate that was mentioned, which mostly talked about women’s vulnerability, is precisely what I am saying. All this is threatening to the image of the man we grew up with, as it displaces us from clear roles. Things won’t go back to the way they were, and they especially won’t be solved by talking about how things used to be different.
Courage does not rule out tears, but I guess someone who thinks can decide when he can and when he can’t cry, and in front of whom. There is no closeness without tears and suffering and no strength without controlling fear.
Everything else is an introduction to disease and problems.
Milan Damjanac,
psychotherapist
