Archive for February, 2005

ESPN disappoints

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on February 17, 2005
in Feminism and Sports
. 10 Comments

I’m really being provoked (in a good way) by some of the comments below my previous posts, and by Mythago’s critique here.   UPDATE:  Media Girl has some thoughts as well. 

Amazonfemme writes about ESPN.com’s "Hottest Female Athlete" competition.  It’s deeply disappointing.  I never liked CNN’s alliance with the Sports Illustrated swimsuit competition (I ain’t linking to it, but I am sure you can find it on your own).  Amazonfemme writes:

The most maddening part of all is that there really are no other viable alternatives. What kind of business model do you suppose these sites have that encourage overt sexism? Are they trying to alienate female consumers?

My queendom for a sports site that doesn’t assume all male fans are horndogs - and that is savvy enough to realize that there are a hell of a lot of female fans out here, wallets in hand, waiting for the ESPNs of the world to stop pissing us off.

I’m a sports junkie.  Well, to qualify that, I care about certain sports with a passion.  I am devoted to all forms of football (particularly college), soccer, tennis, track and field, cycling, and endurance athletics.  I have my favorite teams and my many heroes.  I have male athletes I admire immensely — my current favorites range from Lance Armstrong (cycling) to Haile Gebreselassie (distance running) to Scott Jurek (really long distance running) to Alan Shearer (Newcastle United.)

I also am a huge fan of women’s sports.   The first Wimbledon final I ever watched was the first one Martina Navratilova won (1978?) — and throughout the 1980s and into the 90s, she was my idol.  I still follow women’s tennis, and my favorites today are Lindsay Davenport, Amelie Mauresmo, and, of course, the magnificent Serena Williams.  I love women’s soccer, and had a fondness for the power and elegance of Judy Foudy.

Above all, I love women’s track and field events.  The inimitable Paula Radcliffe (she of the world marathon record and Olympic agony) is my favorite, though America’s legally blind Marla Runyon is right up there.   I remember getting a 3rd place age group medal from Jackie Joyner Kersee following a 10K run I did many years ago — and nearly bursting with pride to be recognized, if only for a second, by such a magnificent and graceful athlete.  And I have an undying admiration for two-time Badwater Ultramarathon winner Pam Reed, who has regularly races in open competition, finishing first ahead of some of the best male ultrarunners in the world.

The point is, I’m a man.  I love sports.  And I don’t care about the sexiness of the athletes!  It infuriates me that undeserving tennis players like Anna Kournikova hogged the spotlight and the cameras, while less "hot" but infinitely more talented young women were ignored.  While I understand the motives that some young female athletes have in promoting their "hotness" (see the candidates at ESPN’s site for details), I think they risk harming their sports and their sisters by doing so.   

It’s not high on the list of the world’s great injustices, but it’s making me angry today.

Feminism and “making the first move”

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on February 17, 2005
in Feminism, Men and Masculinity and Sexuality
. 53 Comments

For whatever reason, my computer is very slow in loading the comments for all bloggers who use blogspot.  This is annoying, as blogspot hosts many of my favorites, including Amanda at Mousewords.  Yesterday, she put up this interesting post on men, women, feminism, and "initiating contact" in dating relationships:

…the one expectation that weighs heavily on men in the ever-fascinating courting process (is) of actually initiating contact. This is actually a somewhat new expectation, relatively speaking. In the past, introducing yourself to someone was pretty much rude across the board. In our modern life, it’s pretty much expected that you have to do this sometimes, lest no one gets laid ever, and the burden has fallen to men.

She quotes Lynn’s comment at my blog:

I have to confess, I didn’t do a lot of initiating in my single days, even though I do and did believe, as a feminist, that that role should be shared. The reason is, when I know that all the guys expect to be initiating, it’s hard for me not to assume that the reason a guy hasn’t approached me yet is that he just isn’t interested in me anyway, and so why bother?

I’ve posted before about my own comfort level with mixing traditional chivalry with egalitarian gender politics.  (Holding mutually contradictory ideas comes easily to me, much to the annoyance of those who are fond of a foolish consistency.)  For the record, when I was single, I was not particularly shy about approaching women.  Making the "first move" made sense to me, but that may have more to do with my personality than my gender.  I am perfectly aware that many of my brothers are intensely frustrated by the "rules" that place all of the burden for initiating contact on their shoulders.  For a shy man, the expectation that he must "make the first move"  must seem genuinely unfair and, at times, overwhelming.

Amanda, with characteristic candor, writes:

I’m in a steady relationship now that has the sort of inertia anyone with a good grip on reality delights in, but I know that if I were single, I’d probably fall back into my old habits. Again, it just makes sense. If you like a guy and he’s ignoring you, odds are he doesn’t like you so why waste your time? I see how it plays out and it frustrates me, but I don’t see a good way out of it. You can’t teach guys to be more reticent–that’s not fair to them. But teaching girls to be forward has only limited use, and efforts in that direction will be dashed on the first guy that strings them along and they take solace in books with obnoxiously long titles about how guys are just not going to be into a sort like you, and everything goes to shit.

Where Amanda and I differ is that I’m not sure we need to find a "way out of it."  For me, feminist principles in a marriage or other romantic relationship revolve around issues of mutual respect and mutual burden-sharing.   In an egalitarian relationship, each person’s goals and dreams and efforts matter equally — and each partner makes equal (if not identical) sacrifices for the success of these goals.  But that has little to do with the way in which a couple meets.

In a world where women are far more likely to be raped and harassed than men are, teaching women to be more forward is to expose them to considerable risk.  While forward men risk rejection (which hurts),  forward women risk far more. Most women have abundant experience with having their friendly, non-sexual overtures misinterpreted.  For some men, even a simple smile from a woman can mean sexual interest.  We have to do much more to make public space safe for women before we can expect greater willingness to make the first move!

But I think it’s also true that both men and women can derive real satisfaction from traditional roles.  Perhaps it’s because these roles are familiar, but perhaps it’s also because they speak to our deep and real desires.   Though making the first move is scary, sometimes it feels good to take a genuine risk.  Overcoming fear is difficult (perhaps all the more so for my more introverted brothers), but it is empowering and exciting to do so.  Making the first move does, I think, make some guys feel more like men.

And, at the risk of getting flamed, I think most women very much want to be wanted.  Of course, we all want to be desirable — but whether rooted in biology or culture, women’s longing to be longed for is powerful stuff indeed.  Though feminist theory emphasizes the importance of women’s agency, of making women into the subjects of desire, I think it’s important not to forget that every once in a while, being an object of someone else’s longing can feel pretty damn good.  Countless women I know feel a certain "feminist guilt" at taking genuine pleasure in being desired and in letting a man pursue them rather than the other way around.  But that guilt is, I think, both misplaced and unnecessary.   Amanda writes of

…this odd pattern where men and women become more and more equal all the time in negotiating their relationships, discussing their sexual needs, the whole bit. And yet getting the ball rolling is still pretty much left up to men.

It’s only odd if you assume that how a relationship begins must set the tone for everything that follows. To me, given the different levels of risk for men and women, and given our own innate (so I argue) delight in certain traditional gender roles, it actually makes all the sense in the world.

UPDATE:  I’m going to leave what I wrote above unchanged, but as I re-read it, I do recognize that despite all my years of men’s work, I have an unfortunate tendency to be a bit flip in dismissing the real anguish that my less assertive brothers may experience around dating issues.  I ought to be more sympathetic and less glib when I write things like "men risk rejection, nothing more."  Rejection is enough. It hurts and it stinks, and to make light of it for anyone isn’t fair.

Sometimes, according to my critics in the comments, it seems I’m insufficiently "masculine" to really empathize with other men.  On the other hand, I wonder if I’m too comfortable with traditional male roles to really connect with the pain of those guys who aren’t.  I’m working on it, and I have some things to pray about and reflect upon today.

Two Thursday short poems by Donald Justice

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on February 17, 2005
in Poetry
. 2 Comments

The late Donald Justice was a master of short, traditional verse.  He’s got two terrific little ones on men (one of my favorite subjects).   At almost 38, both ring true.

                                               Men at Thirty

Thirty today, I saw
The trees flare briefly like
The candles upon a cake
As the sun went down the sky,
A momentary flash
Yet there was time to wish

Before the break light could die
If I had known what to wish
As once I must have known
Bending above the clean candlelit tablecloth
To blow them out with a breath
Men at Forty

Men at fortyLearn to close softlythe doors to rooms they will not becoming back to

ENFPs, happy chinchilla news, and happy Lance news

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on February 16, 2005
in Animal Rights, Athletics and Fitness, Chinchillas, People and Vanity
. 7 Comments

I found a colleague’s copy of a Myers-Briggs personality test, and went through it again.  Since I hadn’t taken one since 1993, I wondered if I still was an ENFJ.  Nope!  Something has shifted in my life, as I now come out as ENFP.  Less judging, more perceiving — though it was very close between the two.

At the risk of being a boastful papa, I need to share that our gorgeous Matilde is a hardworking and generous chinchilla, and has been doing some splendid work this month to raise funds to help her friends in the Midwest in danger of being pelted.  And there is much good news to report on the Pet Homes for Ranchies site.  But so many more chins can still be saved, and Matilde is very interested in seeing this project expanded.  One way or another, our little family is going to start to play a role in ending chinchilla pelting in this country.  All rap stars draped in the bodies of hundreds of these precious babies, you are on notice!

The really exciting news of the morning is that Lance Armstrong ended months of speculation last week by announcing he will ride in this summer’s Tour de France.  In my world, these are indeed splendid tidings.  If I had watched Oprah on Friday, I would have known this.  As it turns out, I was riding around the Rose Bowl in the pouring rain as his show aired.  So this may be news only to me…

I miss having tons of time to post.  Three classes ahead today.

A note on links and objectivity

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on February 16, 2005
in Feminism, Links, Men and Masculinity, Men's Movement and Teaching
. 11 Comments

I suppose I give the impression that my gender studies courses take a narrow ideological line.  In my comments below my previous post about my men and masculinities class, I point out that in addition to assigning the pro-feminist Michael Kimmel, I also assign Chuck Palahniuk’s Fight Club and Robert Bly’s Iron John.  It would be difficult to make the case that either is a pro-feminist tract!

In that particular class, I do my best to expose my students to five major strains of the men’s rights movement: pro-feminists, men’s rights advocates, mytho-poetics, Promise Keepers, and the gay men’s movement.  I also provide the students with a list of websites that give them an introduction to all of these.  Yes, my MRA friends, I’ll stick several of your websites on their list this semester!

I do the same thing with my Women in American Society class.  I provide a website list that suggests visiting everything from Feminist Majority to Feminists for Life, from the Independent Women’s Forum to NOW, from Off Our Backs to On Our Backs.  It’s critical that college students be exposed to a broad range of perspectives on gender issues.  But at the same time, that doesn’t mean that my job is merely to describe those perspectives.  Ultimately, good teaching is not merely descriptive, it is prescriptive.  Good teaching and impassioned advocacy are not antonyms; as long as that advocacy is accompanied by objective grading standards, it is appropriate and even desirable in the classroom.

Those who disagree are always welcome in my classes.  But a feigned disinterest is a colossal disservice to one’s students in a field as dynamic and important as gender studies.

Pushing the “masculinity must be changed” barrow

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on February 15, 2005
in Links, Men and Masculinity, Men's Movement, Sexual ethics and transformation and Teaching
. 33 Comments

Before I forget, check out a couple of new blogs.  My old high school and college buddy, Chris Leib, is a San Francisco artist; here is his blog with some of his recent work.

Lawrence Krubner has recommended Alex Marshall’s blog, which has some fascinating and provocative stuff on transportation and urban planning.  Dig it.

And "craichead", who has been one of the most thoughtful and civil of the men’s rights advocates to comment here recently, has his own blog — named, of course, CraicPipe.

A couple of interesting queries in the comments below yesterday’s post.

Alyric asks:

I have a bit of problem with pushing this ‘masculinity must be changed’ barrow. Why? and most particularly, why you?

Alyric links the "why you" to my Myers-Briggs profile; apparently, ENFJ’s have a rather "feminine" outlook.  I know next to nothing about Myers-Briggs, but it’s one of those things that in my case describes me perfectly, so I tend to use it when self-disclosing. Heck, I could also mention that I’m a Gemini with his moon in Scorpio, and that the attributes of those signs fit me well too.   (My evangelical friends tend to get nervous around astrology.  Pace, dear brothers and sisters.)

And Redneck Feminist (who also has a very worthy blog) asks:

Is the purpose of your class to try to "deconstruct masculinity"? I ask this because I think rigid gender roles for men are harmful to them.

Good questions. 

First and foremost, my course on men and masculinity is a history class.  I’m concerned with identifying ways in which the definition of manhood has changed over the past three centuries.  There’s a strong narrative component to the course; Michael Kimmel’s Manhood in America is our source text for this aspect.

Another critical aspect of the course is exploring cross-cultural definitions of masculinity.  To this end, I use Muy Macho, a superb Latino anthology edited by Ray Gonzalez.  Obviously, I can’t assign material covering every single imaginable ethnic group.  Choosing to focus on Latino manhood makes sense demographically, however.  I do share material on African-American, Asian-American, and gay masculinities, and my very diverse student body constantly challenges and inspires me to bring in more and more.

One of the hardest things to do is to convince both men and women that masculinity does, in fact, have a history.  Just as "white" is also a "color" (in the cultural if not artistic sense), so men are as gendered as women.   It is often more difficult to get men to see themselves as a distinct group whose sense of themselves has been socially constructed.   But as we move through the narrative parts of the course and into a discussion of contemporary definitions of manhood, most of them begin to appreciate the cultural forces that have shaped their identity.  It’s powerful stuff.

To answer Alyric’s question, masculinity must be changed because the pursuit of traditional masculine ideals makes most men very unhappy. I do think rigid gender roles harm men.  I do think it is appropriate to work to liberate men from the pressure to be "sturdy oaks", "big wheels", and all the other damaging rules of American manhood.  Indeed, helping young men to create alternative visions of masculinity is as important as helping young women to overcome the culturally imposed preoccupation with beauty.  (I often argue that these are equally damaging obsessions.)  It’s difficult work, and it starts with the obvious — gently and patiently getting men to "open up."  Helping men develop a vocabulary to describe their own emotional terrain is one of the chief goals of the course, and, I’m happy to say, it’s a goal I’ve had some success with in the past.

But vocalizing frustration and pain is not the end goal.  After all, men’s rights advocates often do a fine job of expressing their emotions, though they often give primacy of place to anger (the most acceptable male emotion) rather than hurt or despair or grief.   Acknowledging pain is a first step, but identifying the source of the pain — and then doing something about it — are the next ones, and they are essential to doing effective men’s work.  And of course, diagnosing the cause of the hurt and discussing possible cures is one of the chief activities of the second half of the semester.

Why me?  A question for another post, perhaps.

Recruiting the “alpha male” and other thoughts on teaching men and masculinity

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on February 14, 2005
in Men and Masculinity and Teaching
. 15 Comments

My "Men, Masculinities, and the American Tradition" course met for the first time a few hours ago.  It’s taught as a "Humanities 1" course.  At PCC, Humanities courses are designed to be absurdly broad; here’s our catalog description:

How present-day ideas, beliefs, values and practices are grounded in the artistic, literary, philosophical and religious contributions to modern living from the most creative epochs and individuals of various cultures; an interdisciplinary course.

In other words, Humanities 1 can be anything the instructor wants it to be.  One of my colleagues teaches Hum 1 as a course on science fiction in literature and film; I teach it as Men and Masculinities.  Of course, we don’t ever seem to get around to printing the specifics of our courses in the schedule of classes.  Thus, students show up utterly unaware of what the subject is to be.  This makes the first day particularly interesting!

If past experience is a guide, a few students will be scared off, either by the topic or by the workload.  They will be replaced by others, who will come this week and next having heard about the course from their friends.  The final group will be somewhat different that what I start with, and it will be filled — I hope — with those who are genuinely interested in the subject.

I’ve been teaching women’s history here for over a decade.  In those classes, women are 85-95% of the students.  In the two years that I’ve been teaching Men and Masculinities, I find that women are still the solid majority, averaging around 65%-70% of those enrolled.  On one level, this is frustrating.   While I am happy to have so many wonderful women students, I do wish I had more male voices in the classroom, especially when men’s issues are in the forefront.

But for so many young men, "studying masculinity" is inherently problematic.  After all, as one young man put it to me last year, "The fact that I have to take a course on manhood implies I’m not really masculine, right?  I feel like I should just ‘know’ this stuff."  The other problem is the sense of homosocial betrayal.  Courses like this one ask young men to talk about their fears and their anxieties in a mixed-sex context.  For some, it seems that fear of other men’s judgment holds them back — for others, "revealing male secrets" to a majority-female audience does indeed seem like a betrayal of one’s peers.

And yet, great male dialogue does happen in these classes.  One thing I’ve learned to do is identify the alpha male in the class. (The older I get, the easier he is to spot!)  If other boys perceive that the "alpha male" — and there really is always one present — is willing to open up, they will follow much more rapidly.  I learned this working with youth many years ago.  As any one who works with young boys knows, the best way to control the "problem boys" is to give them leadership responsibilities. Co-opt all that energy, and you’re in business.   In some ways, recruiting the alpha male is dangerous. It reinforces hierarchies with which most boys/men are all too familiar, and that is problematic.  I’m careful never to hand any one fellow too much power, and I’m equally careful not to be discouraged if I don’t get his "buy-in."

We often play a game in this class that I learned at a Men Can Stop Rape retreat; it’s called "Who’s da Man?"  It involves showing two photographs of two different men simultaneously.  One might pair Bill Clinton and John Kerry, or Kobe Bryant and Eminem, or Bill Gates and Prince Charles.  All the men have to be famous enough for the majority to recognize them, beyond that, who you pick doesn’t matter.  It’s remarkable how rapidly a multi-ethnic classroom of men can come to consensus on which one of any given two males I show them is "da Man."  Often, my female students come to very different conclusions, but the guys are remarkable quick to reach agreement.  (You can try this at home, folks — it’s far more interesting and provocative than it sounds, especially when you ask the guys to explain their choices.)

My own masculinity is obviously an unspoken issue in the classroom.  In my student years, I would never have been the "alpha male"; I was far too "geeky" and awkward for that.  I’m not unaware that today, as I teach,I am being evaluated and judged.  Young men in particular are confused as to my motives for teaching such a class; many of them, I think, would prefer it if I were openly gay because then they would better understand my willingness to deconstruct masculinity so openly.  Frankly, this is an area where a knowledge of sports carries me a long way.  Having a genuine love for football (and a passing familiarity with everything from NASCAR to the X Games) has really helped me overcome the suspiciousness of many a young man in my classes.   But I am careful never to affect the demeanor of a "hail fellow well met" high school coach — because in doing so, I would reinforce a whole host of unpleasant masculine stereotypes that might alienate a number of my other male students, the sort who are eager to see a different vision of masculinity. 

Honestly, it isn’t easy.  Then again, it’s a whole buncha fun.

First day of school and Valentine’s reflections

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on February 14, 2005
in Holidays, Pasadena City College, Relationships and Teaching
. 13 Comments

This year, Valentine’s Day coincides with the start of the new semester at PCC. For the first time since December, I’m blogging from my office…

For some PCC students, this must seem a cruel juxtaposition!  The first day of classes is immensely chaotic.  We expect over 28,000 students on our 24-acre, 6000 parking-space campus this week.  Students will arrive without classes, begging and pleading to be admitted to any course, no matter how difficult or incompatible with their long-term academic interests.  The new arrivals — and at a community college, we always have first-time students arrive in the spring as well as the fall — will struggle to find a parking space, the right building for their first class, the bookstore, the restrooms.  It’s an overwhelming time.

I hate turning students away.  Every course in the history department is filled to capacity, but I will surely have dozens of students trying to "crash" the class.  (It’s standard to have 20 or 30 trying to add in to the course.)  They beg to sit on the floor, stand in the corner, do whatever it takes to "get" the class.  Invariably, they assure me that they desperately need this one class, and that I hold their entire academic future in my hands.  But even if I wanted to take them all, our classrooms are too small and our administration is increasingly concerned about fire code violations.  I will have to say "no" a great deal this week, and for a complete and utter ENFJ like myself, that’s a very unhappy task.

And then, of course, it’s also Valentine’s Day.  My fiancee and I are marking our third Valentine’s together today.  For us, it is a happy day — an opportunity to spoil each other just a bit.  (Yes, Matilde the chin will get a Valentine’s treat tonight as well.)  But I’m acutely aware of just how many young people feel excluded by Valentine’s Day.  Like most American kids, I grew up in elementary schools where one had to give Valentine’s cards to every child in one’s class — or none at all.  The fact that our "love" was both compulsory and undiscriminating did not take away from the fun of the day.  For years, I kept my bundles of Valentine’s cards from third, fourth, and fifth grade February 14ths.

By junior high school, Valentine’s Day had taken on a less pleasant aspect.  By seventh grade, it was clear that a privileged few had boyfriends and girlfriends; February 14th was now about them and them alone.  For most of my teens, I loathed this day, as the absence of my very own "Valentine" just seemed to reinforce my predictably adolescent sense of being uniquely unlovable.  I remember that one year, perhaps when I was fifteen, Valentine’s Day fell on a weekend, and I was intensely relieved. Of course, the popular couples in my high school simply marked the holiday on the previous Friday, and my sense of alienation and loneliness was as great as ever.

Those of us who do have someone with whom to celebrate Valentine’s day (and who have the means to celebrate it publicly), would do well to remember that displays of our own joy may only add to another’s sense of loneliness and isolation.  That doesn’t mean I don’t believe in sending flowers!  After all, to refrain from any open display of romance for fear of wounding the unhappily single would be unfair to one’s beloved.  But we must remember that no other holiday in the American calendar is as exclusive — and potentially wounding — as this one.   After all, one may belong to a culture that doesn’t celebrate Christmas.  But even if one feels alienated by the trees and Santas, one can presumably take refuge in one’s own community!  But because the contemporary Valentine’s day honors individual romantic relationships rather than group commitments, it leaves many single people feeling profoundly alone.

I still miss those days of a humble paper Valentine from every kid in the class. 

Perhaps more later.  Much to do before my first class of the morning.

Whose deep throat?

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on February 11, 2005
in Movies and Porn
. 22 Comments

This morning’s Los Angeles TImes (registration required) has a review of the just-released documentary, Inside Deep Throat.  In both my women’s history and gay and lesbian history classes, I spend a fair amount of time on the sexual revolution and the coming of the pornography industry.   On occasion, I have discussed the impact of Deep Throat.  While it is probably possible to exaggerate Deep Throat’s importance, there’s little doubt that this low-budget 1972 film had a significant impact upon American society.   The protests the film aroused helped (along with the Roe v. Wade decision the following year) to galvanize social conservatives; the modern culture wars indeed have a seed in this one movie.

But I’m not going to see the documentary.  It’s rated NC-17, and has much explicitness, including extended outtakes from the original Deep Throat.  I’d love to see some of the interviews, but I have no intention of sitting through that much pornographic imagery.  Others will make their own decisions, and I wouldn’t dream of condemning those who go to see the documentary. .  But I’ve got a pretty good gauge of my own comfort level these days, and this film clearly would exceed it.   (If an edited DVD is ever released, featuring just the interviews, I’d love to see it.)

The Times review is enthusiastic and upbeat:

By turns funny and sobering, sweeping and intimate, the consistently
entertaining "Inside Deep Throat" plays like a giddy prance through the
minefield of the last three decades of American sex and politics. It’s
a timeless story, really. Bawdy, can-do upstarts raise the vengeful ire
of the cynically pious.

(Cynically pious?  Ouch!)

Most of those associated with the film are to be interviewed.  At least, all the men involved in making, producing, acting in, and distributing the film.  On the other hand, the star of the picture is not on hand to be interviewed.  Linda Lovelace, who in her later years became a key anti-pornography crusader, died in a 2002 car accident.  Hers is a complicated story.  As Joe Bob Briggs pointed out in his obituary for Lovelace three years ago,

Lovelace may be the only American celebrity to publish four best-selling autobiographies. The first two celebrate free uninhibited sex as the most liberating form of human expression since man learned to speak. The last two describe pornography as a felony assault against women, a menace to the future  of civilization and the very essence of evil. In this one desperately unhappy woman we have both the yin and the yang of the sexual revolution played out before our eyes.

Lovelace, (born Linda Boreman), like so many women who would follow her into porn, came from a background of abuse and neglect.  In the 1980s, she made repeated and consistent claims that she had been forced into making that one famous movie:

When you see the movie ‘Deep Throat,’" she told the Toronto Sun  in 1981, "you are watching me being raped. It is a crime that movie is still showing; there was a gun to my head the entire time."

Whether that gun was literal or metaphorical, no one can say.  What is clear is that Lovelace was addicted to drugs at the time she made the film (she was arrested not long after its release for cocaine possession).  While male co-star Harry Reems ended up a born-again believer and a wealthy real estate broker (after getting sober in the late 80s). Lovelace’s last job was working as a night janitor in Denver office buildings.  She died penniless.

By all accounts, Inside Deep Throat pays scant attention to Lovelace’s claims and sad end.  Producer Brian Grazer told the AP that "I was less interested in the story of Linda Lovelace and more on the movie’s effect on popular culture." 

That’s convenient, Brian.  Though a discussion of the film’s impact on society is a worthy goal, to ignore the impact the film had on its female star is troubling.  Despite some legal troubles, all of the men associated with the film seem alive and reasonably well.  Harry Reems, bless his heart, is a millionare.  But the one woman whose performance was so critical to the picture’s success is unavailable to be interviewed.  She’s not in a position to laugh and reminisce with the fellas who made the film with her.  It’s not the fault of the producers of this documentary that Linda Lovelace died in a car accident.  But to put it graphically, hers was the "throat" that made the movie a success.  (And by naming the entire film after a woman’s orifice, the makers of the film set an industry standard for objectification.  And yes, I am aware that "throat" in this instance functions as both noun and verb.)  Her story and her perspective is absolutely vital to an understanding of the film — and to ignore that voice and that story is irresponsible and wrong.

Of course, perhaps it’s convenient that Lovelace is no longer alive.  If she were, the producers might feel compelled to interview her.  And her version of the story might spoil their "giddy prance" through our recent social history.

Note:  I wrote this BEFORE reading Echidne’s excellent post on this subject at Alas, A Blog.  There’s a particularly good discussion of the much-maligned Catherine Mackinnon that’s well worth a read.

Gender and blogrolling

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on February 11, 2005
in Blogging
. 9 Comments

Well, I broke down my blogroll by gender again. (I did it in September when I linked to fewer blogs and got fewer hits.).   As of tonight, I link to 76 blogs:

10 are "group" blogs with multiple contributors

27 are blogs published by men

39 are blogs published by women

12 are largely "feminist" in focus

22 are largely Christian-focused

Anyone care to share their analysis of their blogroll?

Charles and Camilla

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on February 10, 2005
in People
. 6 Comments

I confess I take considerable (and most unsocialist) interest in the various doings of the British royal family.  Part of that interest can be excused professionally: I did do my graduate work in English medieval history, and spent years delving into the military careers of Edwards II and III.  Some of it can be explained by citizenship: thanks to my father, my brother, sisters, and I all hold British as well as American passports.

But a great deal of that fascination is linked to the story of the late Princess Diana.  I was not quite fourteen when she and Prince Charles announced their engagement almost exactly twenty-four years ago.   I know I was not alone among my generation in developing a mad crush on Diana Spencer from the moment I saw her.  In the months that passed between the announcement of the engagement and that unforgettable morning in July 1981,  I devoured newspaper and magazine articles about the princess-to-be.  And of course, like so many Americans, I got up at 1:00AM to watch live coverage of the wedding. 

As I grew older, my crush on Diana waned.  By the time I was a college student at Cal, the last thing in the world I would have admitted to was my fascination with the royal family.   (Words cannot begin to describe how "uncool" that would have been.)  But I kept abreast of the news about her life, and was a bit stunned when Charles and Diana announced their separation in 1992 — at almost the exact same moment that I was going through the end of my first marriage.

By strange coincidence, I was on a flight from JFK to Manchester, England, when Diana and Dodi Fayed were killed in that Paris car crash in 1997.  I was on my way to give a paper at a conference in Durham, and I heard the news of the princess’s death while standing in baggage claim on that rainy Sunday morning in Manchester.  I had to drive all the way up to Durham in the rain that day, and spent the three and a half hours it took in the rented car listening to BBC coverage of that unthinkable story.  I’ll never forget the week that followed; I think I signed half the condolence books in northeastern England.  On a personal level, Diana’s death was for me the single most shocking news event in my lifetime — until, naturally, September 11, 2001.

So today comes news of Charles impending marriage to Camilla Parker-Bowles.  I couldn’t be happier for them.   In the quarter century since that wedding that captured my early adolescent imagination, I have lost many of my illusions about marriage and relationships.  I’m not much for fantasies any longer.  But like His Royal Highness and she who will be his Consort, I still believe in love, I still believe in marriage, and above all, I honor those who are willing — despite all their own experience — to once again pledge eternal fidelity and devotion.  As my amazing, wonderful, gorgeous fiancee and I head towards our wedding, I am well-positioned to know just how difficult it is to take that leap again.   I will be praying for so many things this Lent, but among other things, I will be praying for great happiness for Charles and Camilla.

More on self-discipline and privilege

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on February 10, 2005
in Athletics and Fitness, Class and Vanity
. 11 Comments

I think the comments below yesterday afternoon’s post are really terrific.  Camassia asks if this post has anything to do with Lent, which of course it does, except that in my excitement yesterday I forgot to mention anything about Ash Wednesday!  And La Lubu wrote:

"It’s a privilege to be able to take your body for granted enough to be able to think of how your choices affect others, rather than how your choices affect you. I mean, altruism is good and all, but sacrificing  your body for the good of others is something women are taught from a very early age. Frankly, I like the "selfishness" of being able to make choices for my body that are good for me, y’know?"

Absolutely. One of the reasons why I can celebrate self-discipline so enthusiastically is because I came to it as an adult, and I came to it by choice! My wonderful family taught me to mind my manners, but they never insisted that I exercise much in the way of self-restraint as a teen or a young adult.  I was expected to be kind, to be polite, and to work hard in school — but I was also given a tremendous amount of freedom to make my own choices about what I wanted to do with my body.  Beyond studying hard and proper manners, there were precious few "have-tos" in my youth.  I’m grateful for that.  In some sense, I suppose, it was a privileged upbringing.

Like so many secular folks raised in relative freedom and prosperity, I began to establish my own rules for intense self-discipline in my twenties.  I began, as so many women and men do, by restricting food intake.  Controlling what you eat is, for many folks, the first step towards both greater autonomy and greater self-control.  (In my mid-twenties, I counted calories obsessively, and promptly dropped to 144 pounds by Christmas of my 26th year.)  Being so thin gave me a brief feeling of power (odd for a man, not odd for a woman), but I quickly tired of it.  I began to eat more, and transferred my discipline from my eating to my exercise.  I ate to satiety, but also exercised like a fiend.

I’ve spent a lot of time with my fellow marathoners, triathletes, and other endurance enthusiasts.  Most come from similar backgrounds to my own.  Most are very interested in leading structured, disciplined lives — frequently because in childhood or early adulthood, they lived without such rules.  (The number of ex-alcoholics and addicts in ultra-running is enormous; those whose lives have been most chaotic tend to be drawn to the intense structure their sports demand.)

Of course, the problem with all of this wonderful calorie-counting and heart-rate monitoring and long trail runs/century rides is that it can end up being a self-indulgent activity for the few.  Endurance sports make immense demands on time — and, once one climbs on a bicycle, on money.  The benefits are inner peace,  a trim, lean physique, and a resting heart rate south of 50 beats a minute.   But it’s hard to see how endurance sports and calorie restriction automatically make the world a more just and livable place for other human beings and animals!

That’s why I think it’s vital that self-discipline and restraint must be about more than achieving individual excellence. It must be in the service of others as well.  And those who are in the best position to begin to exercise that kind of restriction on their desires are often those who have spent years indulging themselves.  In practical terms, that means the message of constructive self-discipline has to be directed more towards men than women, more towards those of means than the poor.  Those who have been most wasteful and unrestrained are those who most need to "hear the message."

My sport doesn’t make me a better human being.  But it was in endurance training that I first learned what it was to suffer and persevere, and those skills translate well, I think, into a lifestyle of modestly sacrificial self-restraint for the benefit of the earth and those who live on it.
 

Thursday Short Poem — Olds “Forty-one…”

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on February 10, 2005
in Poetry
. 2 Comments

I don’t know any worthy poems about chinchillas, but I do know that the marvelous Sharon Olds has written a few about various rodents.  Here’s a favorite:

Forty-One, Alone, No Gerbil

In the strange quiet,
I realize
there’s no one else in the house. No bucktooth
mouth pulls at a stainless-steel teat, no
hairy mammal runs on a treadmill—
Charlie is dead, the last of our children’s half-children.
When our daughter found him lying in the shavings, trans-
mogrified backwards from a living body
into a bolt of rodent bread
she turned her back on early motherhood
and went on single, with nothing. Crackers,
Fluffy, Pretzel, Biscuit, Charlie,
buried on the old farm we bought
where she could know nature. Well, now she knows it
and it sucks. Creatures she loved, mobile and
needy, have gone down stiff and indifferent,
she will not adopt again though she cannot
have children yet, her body like a blueprint
of the understructure for a woman’s body,
so now everything stops for a while,
now I must wait many years
to hear in this house again the faint
powerful call of a young animal.

I don’t ever want to live in a home again without living things that depend on me.  What a horrible thought.

A beginning attempt at a Christian male pro-feminist theology of appetite — or further proof that I have lost it completely

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on February 9, 2005
in Christianity, Faith, Favorite Posts, 2004-2006, Men and Masculinity and Sexuality
. 44 Comments

Not only was that a long title, this is going to be a long and meandering post.  I’m posting it now and I may amend it.

To whom does my body belong?  What limits must I place on its desires and my actions?

I was asking myself that question on this afternoon’s run. You see,  I’ve been working out a lot these past few weeks, doing several "two-a-days" (cycle in the morning, run in the afternoon) and upping my weekly mileage.  I’ve been hitting the weights four to five days a week as well.  I haven’t been teaching the college’s winter intersession, and thus have been off since mid-December.  It has been a welcome respite from my normal schedule of 19 classes a year.  It has also given me the opportunity to give my mind a rest, and think more than usual about my body.

When I say "think about my body", I don’t mean narcissistic self-regard.  I mean reflecting seriously on the relationship between matter and spirit.  In particular, I’ve been thinking about how critical the link is between justice and self-discipline.  Let me explain.

Born into a healthy white male body, I’ve had precious little experience in my 37 years of having external constraints put on my body.   My maleness insulated me against menstruation, the fear of unwanted pregnancy, and our culture’s intense sexualization of young women’s bodies.  (When I was younger, my worries about what was appropriate to wear to a formal occasion concerned matching my tie to my shirt; my female friends worried about being too sexy, or not sexy enough.  My burden, to put it mildly, was lighter).   Today, I can teach classes in a button-down shirt, tie, and khakis — or in my old Lucky jeans with a Kenneth Cole t-shirt.  (I have an unbecoming fondness for labels, and for synthetic fabrics, but I do try to buy "sweatshop-free")  I can do all this with the confidence that my body will not become an issue in the classroom — my masculinity assures me a credibility that cannot be compromised by my fashion choices.  My gravitas as a teacher is unaffected by whether I am trim or chubby, toned or flabby.   My sisters who teach cannot say the same; I’ve heard countless stories from my female colleagues of having their bodies or their clothing critiqued in classroom evaluations.  (This is at an urban community college - I suspect it might be different elsewhere, though I cannot know that for certain.)

Darn it, I’m already wandering off my topic.

When my fiancee and I marry and have children (God willing), it is her body that will bear the burden of nurturing that life.  I intend to be supportive in every imaginable way — but my flesh will not be directly affected by our decision to procreate.  Hers will.  I’ll be able to run an exuberant 10K the day after my child is born, if I so choose (I suspect I’ll prefer to be with my family).  Even if she were so inclined, it would be some time before my wife would be able to do the same!  And, as the years pass, I fear no biological clock — I will be able to father children (heavens forfend) into my eighth decade of life.  No woman — as of yet — can say that.

Ultimately, I believe a man’s body is fully his and his alone in a way that a woman’s generally isn’t. I don’t bemoan that fact, nor do I celebrate it.  Rather, I’m increasingly focused on the notion that as  a result of this unmerited privilege,  men have a special obligation to do justice with their bodies.  What on earth does that mean?  First and foremost, it means "do no harm."   Unrestrained male appetite for food, sex, and alcohol, wreaks tremendous devastation on both a small and a global level.    Am I saying that women don’t abuse all three of these things?  Of course not.  But I think it can be safely argued that when speaking of sex and alcohol,  male uncontrolled desire has done far more harm. 

When we overeat, we don’t merely harm our own bodies — we rob our children and we rob our planet.  In the industrialized world, men die earlier than women, frequently due to factors related to diet.  Overeating shortens our life span, robbing our children and our grandchildren of time that might be spent with us.  (The link between calorie restriction and longevity is increasingly well-documented.)  When we restrain our appetite for food, we also conserve precious resources.  This is particularly true if we work to eliminate packaged food (which tends to end up in landfills) and meat (most of which is raised on factory farms that are not only inhumane, but a woeful misuse of land.)   Thus, what I put in my mouth is an ethical issue.   For my family, the wider human  community and for animal life itself,  I have an obligation to be a good steward of my flesh in order to be of maximum service with minimal harm.  Obviously, I’m not trying to prescribe one particular diet - just to make the case that our food choices need to be seen as moral decisions. If I have to blot out another’s suffering in order to enjoy my meal, I’ve made a poor choice.

The same is true of our sexuality.  I’ve offered the beginnings of a case for a pro-life, pro-feminist approach to sexual ethics.  Though it wouldn’t end all abortion, getting each man to be willing to raise the children that his ejaculate helps to conceive would be a great step towards eliminating the  practice.  (If he isn’t ready to be a father under any circumstances, then abstinence is an excellent alternative.)  Male sexual self-restraint is critical to resolving another justice issue: the growing global sex trade.   Though both young men and young women are exploited in prostitution and pornography, the overwhelming majority of the "exploiters" are men.    I know it’s important to distinguish between the exploitation of minors and the legal activities of adult sex workers, but I am convinced that the entire industry — from strip clubs to child prostitution — harms the fabric of our culture.   Though I am not averse to addressing the "supply" side of the issue, I believe all truly effective moral reform focuses on the "demand" side — and the demand for the services of the global sex industry is almost exclusively male.

When I buy porn or go to a strip club (things I don’t do, by the way), I reward an exploitative and destructive industry.  I send a message that male sexual desire is uncontrollable, or at least, impossible to confine to a monogamous relationship.  Pleasuring my body comes not merely at my own financial expense, but at the expense of others’ respect for me and others’ respect for themselves.

I love my body, and not merely because it is "in shape" these days.  I love it because I have arms to hug with and a tongue to taste with and legs to power up a mountain with and hands to reach out with.  But I also recognize that my body is, to borrow a phrase from Stephen Carter, a "bundle of desires", some good, some not so good.  When I indulge myself in the latter, be it with a steak or a visit to a strip club,  my choices are harming other living things.  My right to pleasure stops when it extends to another’s exploitation, another’s degradation, another’s life, or even my own health.

Good food does not have to come at the expense of an animal’s life or the shortening of our own. Sexual pleasure can be found in the context of a safe, loving, committed, monogamous relationship. Self-restraint is not the same as asceticism.  Rather, it is the recognition that the most basic kind of justice we can aspire to is to do justice with our own bodies.  And for almost all of us, especially those of us who live in male flesh, doing justice will mean a deep and profound commitment to self-restraint.

Whew.  I’ve just edited this for the third time and I’m popping it out there.  Anyone make it through the whole thing?

I think this post is a sign I need to get back in the classroom.

 

Quick additional thoughts on men and accountability

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on February 9, 2005
in Men and Masculinity, Men's Movement and Youth
. 30 Comments

As of this morning, Amanda has now weighed in on the "nice guy" discussion that I posted on yesterday; she joins Kameron at Brutal Women in doing so. (The latter has some important and interesting thoughts on violence in her comments section).

I did want to clarify something, however. In the comments section below my "nice guys" post, "bmmg39" wrote:

See: you just contradicted yourself and are engaging in a double
standard. You suggest that when women behave badly men must see what
they have done wrong to cause it. But men are not to blame women in
general or even particular women for men’s problems. In other words,
women’s problems are the fault of men, and MEN’S problems are the fault
of men, too. Sheesh.

Frankly, based on what I wrote yesterday, I can see how someone might come to that conclusion.  Let me try and do a better job of explaining myself.

My faith teaches me that we all, men and women alike, are in some sense "broken."  Though my theology is sometimes muddled, I do believe in the pervasiveness of sin and the reality of human depravity.  I don’t think either sex is "more broken" than the other.

My feminism teaches me, however, that men and women manifest that brokenness in different ways.  Some — usually men — use their socially prescribed power to dominate, while others — traditionally women — choose in their weakness to manipulate.  Of course, women can dominate and men can manipulate as well.   In any case, it’s safe to say that plenty of folks of both sexes have done cruel and unpleasant things to each other.  I can’t imagine anyone would dispute this.

The first question that any activist, in any movement, must ask himself or herself is this:  "What can I do?  Whom can I change?"  It seems clear that there is one clear answer:  your ability to transform the world hinges on your transforming yourself first.  For the men’s movement, that means focusing on changing men rather than on lashing out at women, the legal system, or modern culture.  Once the process of self-transformation is underway, then and only then ought one to begin focusing on changing larger societal institutions.  (The danger, of course, is that some folks in the men’s movement become so self-absorbed that they never start work on addressing the culture at large.  Balance is needed)

"Nice guys" — as stereotyped –  and men’s rights advocates actually seem to share something in common.  They are both remarkably focused on women.  The "nice guy" (what, as Aegis points out, Robert Bly calls the "soft male") is immensely interested in pleasing women.  His self-esteem is linked to getting female affirmation.  Many men go through such a phase; some don’t ever leave it.  Such men tend to suppress their own authentic selves in order not to offend those whose validation they crave.  They are, in today’s therapeutic language, "people-pleasers".  They are exasperating to be around, largely because they are, on some level, inclined to be fundamentally dishonest.  They value the preservation of validating relationships more than they value the truth.

Men’s rights advocates who blame the feminist movement and women for men’s contemporary condition are no better.  (To be fair, not all MRAs play the blame game, but most do seem to).  Just as the "nice guy" often needs women to affirm his worth, many MRAs blame women and the feminist movement for the major misfortunes of their own lives.  Both, in different ways, absolve themselves of personal responsibility for their own actions and their own happiness.  Both look to women (either individual females or women in general) in order to justify their own behavior.  Fundamentally, both have an "outward gaze", looking at women with either intense craving or intense dislike or some combination of the two.

Pro-feminist men are in solidarity with their sisters in the feminist movement.  As such, they encourage women to challenge themselves, to better themselves, to become stronger, more empowered and more effective human beings.  But pro-feminist men understand that ultimately, the work of transforming women is women’s work.  Women need to mentor and guide other women.  And men need to mentor and guide other men.  We are at our most effective when we are ministering to the unique needs of our own sex.  And before we can mentor and guide other men effectively, we have to accept responsibility for our own actions and our own lives.

When I was first a youth leader at All Saints, we had a teenage couple in our Wednesday night group who could not keep their hands off each other.  They were both "popular" kids.  They wore cool clothes, were unusually good-looking, were intelligent and sweet — but were also in the throes of adolescent hormones.  Their behavior and their language was consistently inappropriate.   Our initial attempts at discipline were too mild; saying "cut that out" to the pair only meant a momentary respite from their pawing each other.  Finally, one of the female youth leaders and I decided on a strategy. She would sit down (alone) with the girl; I with the boy.  We would each have what we called a "come to Jesus" talk with the young person.  (Some folks at All Saints cringe when I use that expression, but it works.)

When I met with the boy (I’ll call him Mark, not his name), I first made it clear to him how much I liked him and respected him.  I told him I honored his relationship with "Betsy."  But I also told him that his public behavior with  her was inappropriate.  I made it clear to him that I expected him to set limits, that I expected him to exercise self-restraint, and I expected him to set a good example for the younger kids in youth group.  Though I knew perfectly well that my female colleague was giving almost the identical speech to Betsy, I made it clear to Mark that his behavior was solely his responsibility.   Betsy’s irresistibility was not an excuse.  My colleague said the same thing to Betsy about Mark.  We both understood that this was a message that for any number of excellent reasons was best delivered by a same-sex adult.  And we both understood that the message of individual  responsibility had to be the primary thing we conveyed to the pair.

I trust that my sisters in the feminist movement are busy mentoring young women and challenging them to take ownership of their choices and greater responsibility for their own lives.  I know plenty of women who are doing just that.  But my commitment to advocating male self-examination and accountability is not contingent on whether or not women are doing the same.  The call to become who we were meant to be is not a quid pro quo; even if women were to fail to take the same degree of responsibility as men (which I don’t think is the case), that would not absolve those of us in the men’s movement from pushing ourselves and our brothers to be braver, kinder, more ethical,  more loving, more generous  men.