Of the 26 responses five, were personal, and involved some behaviour or interaction which had some emotional impact. For example: one of the men reported that he was involved in a birthday celebration for a male friend. Someone in the group announced that he had made arrangements at a local night club. Upon arriving at the club, it was clear that it was “strip joint”. The respondent told his companions that he would not participate, that it was demeaning to do so. The group agreed. This behaviour seemed clearly to be risky with the potential for negative emotional consequences. In another instance, the man described a medical examination he had undergone with his young woman physician. This examination included a rectal probe which he realized he was experiencing as an uncomfortable procedure, rather than a fanaticized sexual encounter. His realization that this was different that his past reactions, came after the fact and to him, was strong evidence of change from his past sexual objectification of women. Six responses were personal/general, and of the remaining, 8 or 30 % were general/non-behavioral, and 5 conceptual or ideological.

While nothing definitive can be asserted from numbers this small, derived from the methodology employed, there are interesting suggestions. The responses of five men were classified as being personal, that is, described personal behaviour, direct interaction with another person with some emotional of affective content and impact. Three men had no responses which were classified as general non behavioral; and five of the men gave responses which were clearly abstract or theoretical. So, it might be said that to some extent, the issue of sexism is a personal issue to each of the men in the study but an intimate personal phenomenon to only four of the men. An interesting question to explore is; what difference, if any, does the personalness or non-personalness of the issue of sexism make in regard to a man’s commitment to non-sexism.

The men were asked to consider what benefits they derived from being or becoming non-sexist. In other words, “what’s in it for you?”. Again, extracted (or is it abstracted) from the responses were elements that spoke to the benefits men believed that they derived from their emerging non sexism. The response elements were then classified using the previously described classification format, as ranging from personal and intimate, to political, philosophical and ideological.

The total number of codable on this issue was 21. For four of the men the benefits were quite personal, and for three of the others, the rewards had some personal implications (examples her). In three cases the issue did not arise in the interview and none of their other responses could be coded for this item. Only two of the men discussed the rewards of their emerging non-sexism in general, non-personal terms. One of the men started his response by saying that he might have expected that nonsexism would somehow facilitate his “getting more sex”, but actually it did not and on reflection felt that it was good that id did not, since it made possible, he said, richer and fuller relationships with women. One of the men said that he believed that his attitude also made relationships with men more positive, but was not able to elaborate on that part. Another man said that he was often told by his wife that her women friends complimented at having a husband who anticipated so equally in all the household, land, child caring activities. The implication of the question in this area was that presenting a non-sexist orientation might be well be self serving. However, none of the responses suggested such motivation, directly or by inference.

What was not explored was the possibility that the least some of the men may have projected outcomes and then adopted the “appropriated” stances to achieve those outcomes; a frankly manipulative strategy. None of the responses even began suggest that this was a possibility. Even the suggestion of such motivation would be manifestly contradictory to “real” non-sexism so it might be well be worth exploring further for this possibility.

Having raised the question of benefits, it seem appropriate to query into the perceptions of obstacles to development and maintenance of non-sexism. The greatest number of responses were made in this area, 38. Eight men made 14 responses which were classified as personal. That is, they described obstacles which had a personal and an affective impact on them. In most cases the obstacles had something to do with their non-sexism as somehow impairing their relationships with other men. Several of the men candidly referred to the loss of power, the relinquishing of power in general and vis-à-vis women in particular. One of the men said that some of the power supposedly lost was illusionary, but that some was real. One of the men responded in part with and aphorism: The three hardest things in the world are steel, diamonds and self-awareness; this in reference to his belief that his change was an inevitable consequence of his growing self awareness and that changing in such basic ways was among those hardest of things. While five of the men who gave the personal responses also described non personal obstacles, only two of the men gave only non-personal responses. Developing and maintaining non-sexist life styles, for these men, is a very personal and at least at times, a difficult, perhaps even occasionally painful endeavor.

The question: what does it cost you to maintain your emerging non-sexism; was the category which elicited the fewest responses. It may well be that these men did not experience any cost, or at least, were not aware of experiencing any cost. It is of course also possible that the question was redundant, a rephrasing of the question about obstacles. It is also possible that casting the issue in terms of the concept of “cost” introduced an element of “political incorrectness” that inhibited responses. Given that the men interviewed represented the “good guys” in terms of sexism, even the minimal possibility that responses may have been inhibited, makes this an area deserving of further pursuit. There may be some other reasons for the paucity of responses. In this area, none of the men acknowledged any direct personal cost. Five of the men referred to some personal impact but only in general ways. It is interesting that this was the one category in which the abstract, conceptual responses was greater than in any of the others.

The question concerning the stimuli to the process of emerging non-sexism was raised to generate some understanding about factors that may have precipitated the awareness of the phenomenon of sexism, and began the efforts to counter the socialization. Part of the rationale was that information from the responses in this area might provide insight into ways to approach men in general. It is not at all clear that objective was even minimally approximated. However, the responses are of some interest in terms of the focus on the issue of personalness.

This item elicited 29 responses. Six of the men said that the origins of their awareness of sexism and the beginning of their emergence, were very personal and emotionally important. In addition, two reported personal experiences, which however did not have emotional impact. Thus eight of the eleven men credited some level of personal experience for the awareness and their emergence. Only one man’s response was totally non-personal, and one of the men made no codadable response.

Relationship with mother was referred to by most of the men as a major source of understanding and movement. Interestingly, however, many of the men characterized that relationship as either distressing or in some instances, destructive. One man, typical of several others said that his Mother was always angry, frustrated and disappointed, as a consequence of which he grew up feeling guilty, originally about her suffering and then about the suffering of women in general.

As an effect of this history, he suggested, he felt obligated to do something about the condition of women, hence, his involvement in the pro-feminist men’s movement, and its concomitant, the emergency of his non-sexism. That the experience of sexism is so personal a phenomenon, or was to these men, suggests an important insight, the importance of which deserves further investigation.

The men were asked to consider the factors in their present lives that support the continuation of their emergence. Twenty six responses were made by ten of the eleven men. The non-respondent will be discussed at a later time. Curiously, the preponderance of responses to this issue were non-personal. 19 of the 26 responses were a combination of general/non-personal and conceptual-ideological. Having been stimulated to become aware of sexism by rather personal experiences, and deriving personal benefits from their emerged state, the men report that maintaining the state of relative non-sexism they achieved is supported essentially, by factors in their lives which are not directly personal. The responses of five of the men referred to personal factors; all but one of those men also credited non-personal factors as supports. Obviously, no individual, human experience is non-personal, however, in the responses to this item, the men focused on fairness and correctness as concepts rather than as personal characteristics; it was the “right” way to be. Does this introduce a contradictory or paradoxical element, or is their a consistency which is not immediately apparent?

The relationship between sexuality and sexism was introduced as the last area of exploration. It was anticipated that this might be a “loaded” area, and, that raising it earlier could possibly have a distorting effect on the rest of the interviews. The questions formulated to pursue this area varied from a direct general question about the relationship, e.g.: “what, in your opinion, is the relationship between sexuality and sexism” to vignettes describing exposure to erotically stimulating interactions, situations or materials. It was reasoned that men’s’ attitudes towards sexuality, their feelings about arousal and arousal patterns, and their experiences with and about their sexual behaviour had some bearing upon their perceptions of themselves as progressing towards non-sexism.

Thirty codable responses were made to the questions in this area. Many of these responses reflected some ambivalence of the respondent. Sexual arousal was accepted as “natural” and by some men as desirable, both to men who experienced it and women who stimulated it. Several of the men, having expressed such acceptance, went on to assert that they would likely try to avoid situations where arousal might occur. There was general agreement that acting on arousal, in the traditional male manner “hitting” on women, leering, suggestive remarks etc.) was certainly a manifestation of sexism. Four of the men seemed to feel that it was necessary to be on continuous guard against their propensity to behave, sexually, in a sexist mode. This was inference drawn from rather minimal clues, partly verbal, partly a sense of hesitation and discomfort. This suggested that there may be a feeling, if not a belief, that there is a rather basic contradiction between being non-sexist and sexual feelings and energy. In fact, three of the men expressed their confusion about the reconciliation of sexual feelings and the non-sexism, personally for each of them and for men in general. In two cases, the responses were totally non personal; .. eg. “sexual arousal is biological, but one must be careful that its expression (by men) not be demeaning or oppressive”. As an example of comments which were directly personal, in response to the question: “Do you ever find yourself turned on by the sight of women that you might see, say walking on the street?” (chuckle) “most of the time I enjoy it!” “Does that raise questions in your mind about your non-sexism?” “Not at all, there is absolutely no contradiction, it is at least partly sensual, and even a little esthetic; it feels good!”

IV - Discussion