Women’s Studies Journal, Volume 25 Number 2, December 2011: 43-55. ISSN 1173-6615 © 2011 Women’s Studies Association of New Zealand Hosted at www.wsanz.org.nz/ Feminism and the mythopoetic men’s movement: Some shared concepts of gender HELEN GREMILLION Abstract Feminist critics of the mythopoetic men’s movement (MMM) have argued that the MMM de-politicises and rein- forces gender inequalities. This paper revisits these 1990s critiques, acknowledging their value, and also identifes concepts of gender that cut across the MMM and particular feminist legacies. Specifcally, it shows that the MMM and certain strands of feminist thought share binary and essentialist gender constructs, which remain broadly in- fuential today and arguably hamper the common goals of shifting culturally dominant gender ideologies in (neo) liberal social contexts. Research is lacking in New Zealand (and elsewhere) on contemporary manifestations of the MMM, and on feminist responses to and engagements with it. This paper draws on preliminary feldwork, including recent confictual conversations amongst MMM participants and feminist activists in New Zealand, in order to signal and to challenge middle-class, Pākehā, and heteronormative standards that are persistently embed- ded in universalising assumptions about gender identity. In an ‘age of difference’ for both women and men, the paper also identifes alternative and diversifying concepts of gender that could support more productive dialogue. The analysis is underpinned by an international body of feminist literature supporting poly-vocal, intersectional, and multi-layered accounts of identity wherein gender is one discourse and category of experience among many. Keywords Mythopoetic men’s movement, feminism, gender, essentialism, neoliberalism, gender binaries, deconstruction Introduction I frst met ‘Joe’ 1 , a key fgure in the mythopoetic men’s movement (MMM) in Aotearoa New Zealand, at a 2001 community gathering in Taupo. After a brief conversation with him about my work at the time in the U.S. as a gender studies scholar and cultural anthropologist, and about his work within the MMM, I posed the question: ‘what is the relationship between the MMM and feminism?’ We discussed the emergence of the MMM in the context of other social movements, including feminism’s ‘second wave’. We also identifed shared goals within femi- nist and mythopoetic men’s movements (broadly speaking): questioning and refguring gender norms; emphasising the responsibility of men to transform masculinity (although some femi- nists suggest that some aspects of masculinity are relatively fxed and cannot or will not change – they can only be managed); and re-valuing what have been culturally devalued and stereo- typically feminine ways of being (although some men’s movement discourse comes close to a full masculinist appropriation of femininity). Joe then ventured that men need to work on men’s issues on their own terms. He said a feminist perspective can take men only so far, as it is not men’s own perspective. ‘But,’ I asked, ‘is the MMM a feminist movement? Does it acknowledge a feminist legacy in its content?’ Joe was very interested in these questions. After some thought, he offered that the MMM is a separate movement, existing alongside feminism. A partnership of sorts might be possible. Our conversation ended there, and I found myself quite energised about possibilities for further dialogue. I also wondered sceptically what sort of gendered partnership Joe was foating: one with presumed ‘separate but equal’ terms? A metaphorically heterosexual one? One that sidesteps its relational conditions of possibility? In addition, I wondered: what versions or defnitions of feminism were Joe and I considering? 43