Archive for February, 2005

Commenting rules

I am so grateful that so many folks have been commenting lately.  It is important, however, that I set some ground rules, especially in an environment where (and again, I’m grateful), I regularly get over 100 comments on a single post.

1.  Please show restraint in the number of comments you make in a given day.  Ten would seem to me to be reasonable.

2.  Please stick to the topic of the post.  Endless tangents are not helpful.

3.  No ad hominem attacks or slurs directed at other commenters, please.

4.  Try and keep your comments under 250 words.

5.  No intimation that the wearing of fur, especially chinchilla fur, is acceptable under any circumstances.

Thanks so much.

My good friend John…

… and I disagree about many things.  But he has a post about teaching boys this week that is so good, I cheered out loud.  Here’s an excerpt:

My church is a great one; one that reposes trust in us. We are strictly
monitored, and oversighted. The Discipline requires exactly that, and
we believe in Church discipline as a principle and a practice. We are
incredibly careful about our leaders, and we have policies within those
bounds which tie us even further. But within the strict boundaries of
integrity and policy, we are relatively free. I can take my lads out
and teach under a tree. I can hug them, play basketball with them,
rough-house and horse-play with them, and treat them like boys, and I
get nothing but encouragement. I’m quite strict about behaviour, too,
and I’m encouraged in that as well. Indeed, the more gently strict I
am, the more my boys seem to like it. I suppose when you come from
homes with few or no boundaries, to have them clear is comforting, and
they are. I know if I were to step out of line, I would get correction
from the Church twice as fast. There’s tremendous security in that for
me too.

If John and I were to switch youth groups, our kids would find that our theologies were different, but our pedagogies were darned near identical!

Meanwhile, I await similar posts from  my friends in the men’s rights movement, offering similarly winsome and touching details of how they interact with the young boys and men whom they volunteer to teach.  After all, since they are so dedicated to men’s issues, it would be absurd to  presume that the MRAs didn’t spend at least as many hours volunteering with male youth as a Pentecostal Kiwi and his Pasadena Anglican friend!

My new hero

I’m big on sports heroes.  For example, I have yet to take off my Lance Armstrong "Livestrong" band, even though the popularity of the little yellow rubber things has diminished in recent months.  I bought a Trek because of him, and I wear his 2004 Tour de France jersey (though of course, since he’s switched teams, it’s outdated.) I’m an unabashed fan, having read all his books (borrowed from my fiancee); I’ve often remarked that he and my brother are the only men in the world younger than myself to whom I look up in unqualified admiration.

For the record, I don’t need comments drawing attention to Lance’s personal life.

I have other heroes as well, especially in the ultra-running world — perhaps because its one of the few sports where elite women can beat elite men over the same distance and in the same conditions.  (See the Pam Reed story).  But as of today, I’ve got a new one: Ellen MacArthur, the 28 year-old Englishwoman who yesterday set the record for a solo sail ’round the world.  It’s an extraordinary story that’s getting bewilderingly little coverage in this country.

“Nice guys”, profeminism, personal transformation — a longer post

A friendly reader sent me a link to this discussion forum at Stand Your Ground.  The thread starts with typhonblue, who rails against the so-called "Nice Guy".  She links to a post she wrote last year about "nice guys".  I’m struck by her piece, and am quoting from it despite its vulgar language:

In a nutshell, this is why nice guys suck: A Nice Guy would treat me
the same if I were fixing his car or booting him in the face.

Do Nice Guys realize how dehumanizing this is?

Nice Guys are incapable of discerning differences in
the personality traits of women. Perhaps this is why Nice Guys always
bemoan the model-types who date Jerks, rather then the average types
who date Jerks. Since all women have the same personality – beatific,
angelic, perfect – there is no way Ms. Plain Jane can compete with a
beautiful woman for the attention of a Nice Guy via any positive
character qualities she might possess. Beauty is the only criteria for
judging women in the eyes of a Nice Guy. Thus the Nice Guy’s astounding
tendency to complain about how no woman notices him, while a Nice Girl
is trying to say hello.

Any sane person can see that women
vary wildly in character. Some are catty, vicious and bitchy. Others
are smothering, clingy and suffocating. And then there are those who
are honest about it.

But not the Nice Guy.

All women are goddesses to the Nice Guy, worthy of worshipful adoration, which means no woman is a human being.

Back at Stand Your Ground, typhonblue makes it clear that I — and presumably other pro-feminist men — fall into this category of "nice guy."  I have no intention of discussing my own level of "niceness", or of responding to ad hominem attacks.  But I am concerned that these posts reflect a wider perception that all pro-feminist men are these fabled "nice guys" who view all women as "goddesses, worthy of worshipful adoration." 

A month and a half ago,  I posted about the four typical slurs used to attack male pro-feminists.  As a reminder, here they are again:

1.  Pro-feminist men are lapdogs; weak, frightened, and under the control of strong, feminist women.

2.  Alternatively, pro-feminist men are "wolves in sheep’s clothing",
sexual predators using a facade of compassion to attract victims.
Pro-feminism is a slick tactic designed to help "score" with certain
women. 

3. Pro-feminist men are gay, and thus not "real men". 

4.  Pro-feminist men are filled with self-loathing.
To be involved in the feminist movement is likened to psychological
self-castration. Pro-feminist men are filled with rage at other males
(perhaps rooted in bad experiences with their fathers, or being picked
on after school), and thus align themselves with feminists to get
revenge.

All four have been used against me since my Glenn Sacks show appearance last month, though I find that #s 1 and 4 have been particularly popular. 

The suggestion that pro-feminist men are all "nice guys" of the sort typhonblue laments seems to fit into the first category of slurs.  First off, I don’t deny that there are some men who are very much the sort that typhonblue and her Stand Your Ground allies describe.  I’ve met a few of them in my day, and (perhaps in high school) was briefly one of them.  When I was 16, I was indeed one of those boys who had a great many female friends, but no one who wanted to go out with me.  The "you’re too nice" line was one with which I was decidedly familiar by the end of my junior year at Carmel High.  (The fact that I was a bit chubby with acne may have had something to do with these rejections as well.)

But authentic pro-feminism does not teach the moral superiority of women!   Pro-feminists are committed to full and complete equality and inclusion for women in all spheres of modern life, both public and private.  At the same time, pro-feminist men are working to reshape masculine culture in order to give men new and healthier visions of what it means to be a man in contemporary society.  (NOMAS has a great summary of that aspect of its mission here). In doing this important work, we are not suffering from the mistaken impression that all women are angels!  No serious pro-feminist man I’ve met would deny that women can be angry, violent, bitter, lustful, and cruel.    To place women on a pedestal is simply a slightly subtler way of robbing women of their essential humanity.  I don’t do this in my personal or my public life, and I have not met any legitimate leaders in the men’s movement who would do so.

I cannot speak for all pro-feminist men.  (When I try to do so, I am gently reminded that my opinions — particularly on the "life" issues — are hardly representative of the movement at large!)  But I can say that pro-feminist men are committed to taking responsibility for how their individual and collective actions impact others.  That means that when we see the women in our lives "behaving badly", we first examine our own behavior.   "How", we ask ourselves, "have my actions contributed to this situation?"  That does not mean we absolve the women in our lives of all responsibility!  But pro-feminist men recognize that we cannot ask others to hold themselves accountable until we ourselves have done the same.  Where men’s rights advocates blame feminism, or an unjust court system, or individual women, pro-feminist men turn that critical gaze inward.  They do so NOT as an act of self-loathing, but as an adult and mature act of taking responsibility for two things:  1. their own individual behavior as men; 2. their often unwitting participation in a larger system that despite the shrill rhetoric of the MRAs, continues to benefit men more than women.

In our culture, women are more likely to second-guess and analyze their own behavior than men are. They are also likely to enlist the help of other women in doing so.  Though some of this self-examination can be unproductive (particularly when it is focused on the body), it also serves a healthy function.  Women hold other women accountable to a far greater degree than men do.  Same-sex accountability ( a subject I never seem to tire of writing about) plays a critical role in helping us to transform our own behavior.  Pro-feminist men, along with many men in the Christian men’s movement, are committed to this monumentally important task of self-examination and subsequent metamorphosis.  Frankly, we expect our wives and sisters to do the same, and are  confident that they will do so. 

I have no illusions as to women’s superiority or inferiority. But I am damned clear that our first responsibility as men is to be engaged in in the immensely painful and rewarding process of becoming the men I believe we all want to be:  men of moral integrity, kindness, compassion, and tremendous spiritual strength.  As long as we see women, individually or collectively, as the source of our unhappiness, we aren’t yet in the process of being transformed.

UPDATE;  Kameron at Brutal Women shares her thoughts on typhonblue’s piece and "nice guys."

Women, age, and the Oscars –UPDATED

I mentioned this morning that I was pulling for Annette Bening to win the Oscar for best actress this year. 

In addition to wanting to see such luminous, flawless acting rewarded, I’d also like to see an "older" actress take home the Oscar.  The dominance of wins by under-40 actresses in recent years has been troubling, and I say that with no disrespect intended towards the winners.  Compare  the winners in recent years for Best Actor and Best Actress, with age at time of performance (awards are always given the subsequent year):

1996: Geoffrey Rush (age 45); Frances McDormand (age 39)
1997: Jack Nicholson (age 60); Helen Hunt (age 34)
1998:  Roberto Benigni (age 45); Gwyneth Paltrow (age 24)
1999:  Kevin Spacey (age 40); Hilary Swank (age 25)
2000:  Russell Crowe (age 36); Julia Roberts (age 33)
2001: Denzel Washington (age 47); Halle Berry (age 35)
2002: Adrien Brody (age 29); Nicole Kidman (age 35)
2003: Sean Penn (age 43); Charlize Theron (age 28)

Average age for male winners: 43.1
Average age for female winners: 31.7

Since 1996, no actress over 40 has won the Oscar (though twelve have been nominated), while six of the eight male winners were over that chronological barrier.

Numbers-crunching doesn’t necessarily tell us a great deal, of course.  But it does tell us something: older actresses are given precious few opportunities to shine, and even when they are given plum roles, rarely are they given the highest honors for their performances.   In recent years, the Academy has shown an interest in rewarding actresses who either undergo remarkable physical transformations (Swank, in both her nominated roles; Charlize Theron in last year’s winning turn) or who turn in gritty, highly sexualized performances (Halle Berry).  It doesn’t seem enough for a woman, particularly a young and "beautiful" one  to merely "act" — she must strip off her clothes, gain tremendous amounts of weight, wear prosthetics, and endure tremendous physical abuse, usually at the hands of men.  Though Hollywood does like to see that kind of visceral, physical acting from men as well, it rarely demands it to the same degree. 

I  mean no disrespect to the young women who have carried Oscar home in recent years; all were surely deserving.  But this year, with the nominations of Annette Bening and Imelda Staunton, the Academy has the opportunity to honor women of "a certain age" (or older)  who underwent no significant physical metamorphosis to play their parts, but who simply acted.  A win for either actress would be most welcome in our household.

UPDATE:  A little playtime with Google reveals that the last seven Best Actress winners were all on the People Magazine "50 most beautiful people" list  either immediately before or after their Oscar win.  Needless to say, Google reveals that the same is not true of the seven male Best Actor winners.  Thought you’d all like to know.

Notes, bicycles, sidewalks

‘Twas a busy and very happy weekend.

New pics of Matilde (and her papa) will appear shortly in her album.  I’ve been informed by the good folks at Pet Homes for Ranchies that it is important to limit the number of nuts that chinchillas take in.  Apparently, nuts are difficult for their livers to process.  SO, it’s lots of hay and the occasional raisin from now on…  so far, she hasn’t complained.

We saw Hotel Rwanda and Being Julia over the weekend.  For different reasons, both are highly recommended.  The former, despite its predictability, was intensely moving — and yes, shaming.  The latter was an unabashed delight, and I will be pulling very hard for Annette Bening to win the best actress Oscar.  I’ll explain why in a subsequent post.

I’m thinking this morning about bicycles and affluence and sidewalks.  Let me explain.

My fiancee and I live in northwest Pasadena, in a neighborhood that is largely Hispanic and African-American.  In our part of town, it is extremely common to encounter young men of color riding bicycles on the sidewalk. In the mornings, one sees dozens of them riding off to work, often wearing work uniforms.  In the evenings, they can be seen riding home in equally large numbers.  To avoid the fellows on bikes when we’re both on the sidewalk, many times I’ve had to jump out of the way.  I’ve seen more than one pedestrian-bicyclist collision. 

A few years ago, I struck and injured a young man on a bicycle here in the neighborhood.  I was making a legal right on red late in the evening, and he was speeding along the sidewalk (where I was not looking) and raced into the intersection just as I was turning. He ended up on my hood; his bike was knocked into the road.  I leapt out of the car and ran to his aid.  I had no cell phone.  He spoke no English, and my Spanish then (as now) was very poor.  I told him I wanted to take him to the hospital, and he became agitated.  He limped over to his bike (which had a badly bent frame), picked it up, and started to hobble off.  I ran after him, and not knowing what else to do, gave him all the money I had in my wallet.  He took it, mumbled something, and kept going.  I wasn’t prepared to physically stop him, and I understood his reluctance to see a doctor — though he was clearly hurt.  I’m better now about checking the sidewalks when I’m turning in this part of town!

I’ve never seen any of these young men wearing helmets.  I have no doubt that they can’t afford them.  I am certain that the primary reason that they are riding bikes on the sidewalk (rather than the street) is that they lack the protective gear that wealthier cyclists are able to wear.  They are far less well-defended against traffic than are my fiancee and I.

This morning, my beloved and I went for a ride in the hills.  I rode my Trek, she rode her Cannondale.   While our bikes are not state-of-the-art, they are legitimate road bikes with carbon fiber frames and triple chain cranks and all the other modern cycling amenities.  We had our gloves, our special seats, our Shimano bike clips, and of course, our $130 Bell helmets.  Of course, we rode in the street, with the traffic.  Our bikes are fast enough and sufficiently maneuverable for us to do so.  We are well-protected (as much as humanly possible) against injury.  It is our relative wealth, not our superior respect for the law, that allows us to stay off the sidewalks.

Neither of us commutes to work on a bike.  For us, cycling is a sport, a recreation, a pleasure.   For our neighbors, bikes are an absolute necessity,  often the only means of transportation.    I am confident that if they had the equipment with which to ride safely in the street as we do, they would do so.  Perhaps some local charity exists where helmets can be donated.  But until the day that my fellow riders are as fortunate and well-equipped as I, I’ll continue to be willing to move out of their way on the sidewalks, honoring both their necessity and my privilege.

UPDATE:  My fiancee gently notes that she has a double chain crank, not a triple.

“Further up, further in” and moving towards veganism

I’ll be off-line over the weekend, and back at the computer on Monday with a fresh post.

My fiancee and I are moving forward on wedding planning, and we need to devote some time this weekend to that.  Church and other volunteer activities will eat up many hours, as will workouts on bikes or on trails or with various weights. Of course, there will also be some lovely sleeping in, playtime with Matilde, and perhaps some further progress towards our goal of seeing every Oscar-nominated film before the awards themselves.  (I’m thinking "Hotel Rwanda" for Saturday’s "date night".)

This weekend, with some small steps, we’re going to begin what we anticipate will be a slow and gradual transition towards first becoming full vegetarians, and then, vegans.  Lately, I’ve been praying and reflecting a lot on the subject of food, cruelty, and consistent life politics.  I’m a passionate defender of animal rights and  opposed to war, abortion, euthanasia, and capital punishment — and yet, I still eat meat.  I still buy leather. But in recent months, it’s been starting to bother me more and more.  I know that I am called to live radically cruelty-free, but I’ve been resisting that call because I know just how much work such a lifestyle entails.  (Folks, by the way, I really do believe in the concept of "call".  Please don’t read my understanding of what I am called to do as an attack on those who feel otherwise.  How we eat is a matter of individual conscience.  Then again, our individual choices affect the world around us in countless ways.)

Those who know me well know that throughout my life, I have made a series of dramatic changes.  "Often in error, never in doubt" is my old family motto — and for years, I lived up to it.  I’ve  embraced new fashions and marriages and theologies — and then discarded them.  But in recent years, this manic obsession with novelty and reinvention has begun to diminish (praise Jesus for that).  What has come in its place is the quiet conviction that I am simply called to be he whom He intended me to be, and He intended me to be someone who leads a far simpler, far kinder, far more just and far more excellent life than I had ever imagined.  I’m not interested in resting on any laurels.  I know God calls us, as C.S. Lewis so perfectly puts it at the end of the Narnia books, to go "further up and further in."   That’s really all I want to do these days.  And  becoming fully vegetarian is simply the next step on that upward and inward journey towards that more just and more excellent life.

I’ve got a number of role models in the endurance athlete community who are vegans.  (Scott Jurek and Tim Twietmeyer, two contemporary legends of ultra-running, maintain vegan diets with their mammoth training loads).  I’m beginning the process of educating myself about supplements and meal planning; my fiancee is excited about joining me in this next step in our lives together.

As we begin this transition with faith and prayer, I promise to keep folks posted on how it goes.

Manners and feminism

In my interview with Annika, I remarked:

…chivalry and feminism are not incompatible.

That might need a bit more explaining.

My family was not a religious family in the conventional sense.  Neither of my parents were believers, nor were (with a couple of notable exceptions among some cousins) were any members of my extended family.  But growing up in a family led by my late grandmother, we did have our own brand of religion: civility.  And if civility was the highest spiritual ideal, than good manners at table and in company were the required daily observances of our faith.

At age five, I was given handshake lessons by an uncle.  I was taught how to apply exactly the right amount of pressure with my right hand (no "fish grips" or "vises").  I was taught to make eye contact, smile, and say "How do you do."  Because of the forgetful nature of five year-olds, these lessons were repeated for an entire summer until I had mastered the art of the handshake to the satisfaction of all.  In addition, my family made the young folk take part in brief improvised skits before parties or holiday functions.  We would practice our pleases and thank-yous, and practice leaping to our feet when anyone older than ourselves entered the room.  We were taught about holding doors, and pulling out chairs for all women (even our younger cousins). 

I have to admit, I rather liked the manners lessons.  Well, most of them.  While I liked the interactive bits, I had a harder time learning not to speak with my mouth full.  (My grandmother finally put a mirror in front of my plate to force me to watch myself masticate.  It was a very helpful trick.)

My grandmother told me over and over again that the purpose of manners was very simple: "to make other people feel comfortable."  It was a lesson that served me well until I went to college, when I discovered that the very behaviors that I had been taught would make others comfortable actually offended certain people.  I was a freshman at Cal when I first was snapped at for holding the door open for a good friend of mine.

She: "I can get it myself", she snapped.

Me: "But Dara, I’m just trying to be polite."

She: "I know, Hugo, but your opening the door for me implies that I can’t do it on my own. It suggests that I’m weak. It’s a subtle way of reinforcing male domination.

Me: "Oh."

"Dara", of course, was as young as I was.  She was "trying on" feminism for the first time.   As is usually the case with folks who begin this work, she was hyper-attuned to both real and perceived injustices.  Misogyny lurked around every corner, and virtually all male-female interactions had to be filtered through the lens of feminist theory.  I’m not being patronizing, nor am I making fun of the Daras of the world — heck, for years, I was one of them!  That intense sensitivity is a necessary phase in one’s development, because it marks the first time one questions the "normal" gender roles one has been taught.  But it is still a phase, and one that happily, most of us who do gender work get to grow out of.

Once I began taking women’s studies courses, I grew more conflicted about the appropriateness of the manners my family had taught me.  I was not prepared to be rude, of course.  Rather, I decided that I was going to be "gender-neutrally polite",  and treat everyone the same way.  This worked well with doors, but not so well at dinner parties with chairs.  Once I held the chair for one of my roommates at a graduation dinner for the seniors in our co-op.  He gave me a withering look and told me "cut that sh*t out now, man."  Not long thereafter, I tried to hold the chair for one of my male cousins, who simply pretended to ignore me and forcibly pulled the chair from my hand.  Clearly, treating everyone with the exact same politesse was not going to work.

Gradually, I began to re-embrace the traditional "chivalry" that I had been taught.  As I reached my twenties, and then my thirties, I found that the vast majority of women, including self-identified feminists, very much appreciated the gestures.  Most of them already knew me before I ever held their chair, or opened their car door.  They were thus less likely to be troubled by these simple actions. On a few occasions, I would still run into women, who, like Dara, would ask me not engage in these courtly rituals. I decided never to argue with them.  After all, I remembered my grandmother’s admonition: "manners are to make other people feel comfortable."  The corollary to that, I decided, was that if what you think is polite is making someone else uncomfortable, stop it.  Manners are not a particularly subtle weapon in the gender wars, though they can be used that way!

I vividly recall an incident my brother and I had on a train in Wales a few years ago.  At that time, my brother was living in the West Wales market town of Carmarthen.  I was visiting, and one day we took a very crowded train for a short ride down to Swansea.  There were seats for us when we got on, but by the next stop, there were none.  The train was filled with young Welsh teens and twenty-somethings.  A middle-aged woman and her young daughter boarded and stood in the center aisle, just inches from my brother and me.  I mouthed to him "Let’s get up", and I started to rise.  "Don’t", he said, and leaned in to explain why.  "Everyone can already tell you’re American", my brother said.  "They’ll think you’re trying to be posh and show up every man on this train.  What you see as manners, they’ll see as aggression.  Trust me."  I was floored.  As much as I trusted my brother’s knowledge of working-class South Walian culture (heck, he had learned to speak their notoriously difficult language, which is pretty impressive for a boy raised in California), I still couldn’t believe that that would be how my actions would be interpreted.  Later, I retold the story to at least half a dozen of my brother’s Welsh friends — and they all agreed with him.  I learned something very important on that train.

So, what do I do now?  Well, I hold the car door open for my fiancee.  When she excuses herself from the table during a meal, I briefly rise.  I go down the stairs in front of her, and up the stairs behind her, just as I had been taught.  She does countless, wonderful, sweet things for me.  In our relationship, traditional gender-based manners are a small way in which we can show appreciation for each other.  We each feel validated and affirmed by the other’s kindnesses.  We are fully and completely aware that "equality" and "sameness" are not synonyms.  In many small ways, our relationship is enhanced by the way in which we each choose to play these roles.

My kids in youth group and even in college classes often ask about gender roles.  Indeed, they seem nearly obsessed with them. (How many teenage girls have said to me something like "Oh, I’m not a feminist; I like doors being held for me"!)  I try and remind them that manners can be used to make people feel comfortable and affirmed, but they can also be used to make people feel small and weak. I tell the guys that it’s okay to go ahead and be "chivalrous", but if it meets with displeasure, don’t force the issue. 

After all, the point of manners is not to prove how wonderfully polite and well-brought up one is; the point of manners is to make the other person feel seen and valued.  We would do well to always remember that.

Annika interviewed me…

Annika was the very first blogger ever to link to me.  I began blogging in August 2003, and made a comment on one of her posts about the Catholic church.  Her link instantly boosted my traffic, as my parents were (at that time) the only regular readers.

Much has changed since then, but Annika is still a regular read — heck, she inspired me to start Short Poem Thursdays (since she has a Wednesday poetry day).  Since last fall, she’s also been interviewing a number of bloggers via IM; last week, she interviewed me.

You can read the whole thing here.
  We touch on abortion, pacifism, Gandhi,  Clinton, medieval English mystics, low-rise jeans,  and (of course) chinchillas.  Oh yes:  do pro-feminist men hold doors open for women?  Read and find out.

State of the Union, Boys, and “shifting our gaze”

We didn’t watch the State of the Union address last night in youth group.  Instead, we talked with the kids about love.  We almost always do that at our meeting right before Valentine’s Day, but did it a week early as next week we’ll all be observing Ash Wednesday.

Thus I had to read the State of the Union in the paper this morning.   Not surprisingly, this caught my eye: Laura Bush to Shepherd Program for Troubled Boys.  For obvious reasons, that’s more interesting to me than Social Security reform.

First Lady Laura Bush, a popular figure and a potent campaigner for her
husband’s reelection, is taking her first official policy role of the
administration: She will oversee a new program to assist troubled boys
and curb gang violence.

The program, announced Wednesday by President Bush during his State of
the Union address, is to funnel $150 million over three years to
churches and other community groups that mentor at-risk children,
particularly boys ages 8 to 17 in cities prone to gangs.

"Our government will continue to support faith-based and community
groups that bring hope to harsh places," the president said. "Now we
need to focus on giving young people, especially young men in our
cities, better options than apathy or gangs or jail."

"Taking
on gang life will be one part of a broader outreach to at-risk youth,
which involves parents and pastors, coaches and community leaders, in
programs ranging from literacy to sports," he said.

Gosh, I bet even the Men’s Rights Advocates I’ve been sparring with will join me in saying "hallelujah!"  $150 million over three years is a pitifully small investment in the lives of boys and young men, but it is $150 million more than had previously been allocated, so I’ll celebrate.   I can think of dozens of ways to spend money on inner-city teen boys.  Maybe I ought to write a grant proposal for All Saints!  (I hope some of the money also ends up at Rudy Carrasco’s wonderful Harambee Christian Center here in Pasadena.) 

Beyond the obvious "drop-in centers", we need to bring in strong and loving adult men of all races and economic backgrounds to minister to the emotional, spiritual, and physical needs of inner-city teen boys. In the end, getting adult men to spend their time with these lads is more important than getting federal money.  But when it comes to the basic business of youth work like renting 15-passenger vans (I am such the pro at driving them), reserving campgrounds, buying basketballs and books, and above all, supplying massive quantities of pizza — money helps!

But in the same article, I found something that troubled me in something the First Lady said:

"I also want to work with
children, and particularly adolescent children and adolescent boys,
because I feel like over the last several decades maybe we’ve neglected
boys a little bit," she told ABC’s Barbara Walters last month.

"They’re the ones who are most often in trouble," Laura Bush said.
"There are a larger number of boys [who] drop out of school…. And I
just think it’s time for Americans to sort of shift our gaze to boys
and see what we can do to nurture boys."

Bold emphasis is mine.

I don’t like the phrase "shift our gaze."  I hope it was just an unfortunate choice of words on Laura Bush’s part, but to me it implies that we’re going to pay less attention to adolescent girls in order to give new (and much needed) attention to their brothers.  The phrase I would have used is "broaden our gaze to include the needs of boys as well as girls".  The last thing we need to do is to neglect the unique needs of teen girls.  We’ve made considerable progress in recent decades in empowering young women to make intelligent decisions about their minds, bodies, and ambitions.  But it would be absurd to conclude that in a culture rife with sexual exploitation, eating disorders, and a persistent glass ceiling, that young women have an easier road to adulthood than young men.

Caring for our youth must never, ever, ever be a zero-sum game.  My passion is for working with young men, perhaps because I am an adult man who longed for older male mentors in his teens.  There are certain things that a same-sex mentor can give to the young that an other-sex adult, no matter how loving and well-meaning, cannot.   But because I believe we need to do more for boys does not mean that I think we have done too much for girls.  We have more to do for all of our precious young people.  And so, while I am delighted with what I’ve heard so far about this new White House initiative, the First Lady’s suggestion that we will be "shifting our gaze" troubles me a bit.

Thursday short poem: Lober’s “Girltown”

If Robinson Jeffers is the great poet of the Central Coast where I was raised, George Lober is at the least the region’s best living poet.  This is one of my favorites of his, and after showering with all sorts of lovely-scented things this morning, it just seemed perfect.

Girltown

Not every man has had the same pleasure as I
of being reminded each morning while shaving
that body soufflés come in tangerine,

that no matter what shape or size they come in,
all lotions are good, and in the shower
the truly enlightened mind never can,
nor ever should confuse
shampure´ with shampoo,

and that later while getting dressed,
of the eternal verity no house can have
too much closet space,
or while going downstairs for coffee

how flowers by Nature’s intended design
hold the center of every flat space,
end and dining table, kitchen counter,

in fact, any surface otherwise begging
for stacks of sports magazines,
old newspapers, the mail unopened
for, say, fourteen days,

that citrus-fresh, sparkling cleanliness

in the kitchen, the bathroom,
everywhere is God,
and candles may burn in broad daylight,
in the morning, afternoon,
and there’s nothing illogical
or odd about Slim Fast and chocolate

occupying the same cupboard shelf,

that for reasons within rules wrapped
in a mystery the self may never know,

suddenly after two years, because of some aesthetic slight or insult,
akin, perhaps, to thumbing one’s nose,
a chair in the living room, an area rug

or floor lamp is found wanting,
and, worse, "It has to go,"

but the vase bought yesterday,
or a painted potpourri bowl will be perfect

on the flat space above the television
if, and trust me on this, it’s turned just so

Self-realization

I’m  frequently (and unfortunately) immodest about the fact that I have dear friends scattered across the political spectrum.  I know and like Christian Reconstructionists and committed Marxists; lesbian activists and ex-gay preachers; Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Greens; Catholics and Kabbalists;  Bahais and twelve-steppers.  I even like cat people, and that’s a stretch.

But on my way home from my trail run this afternoon, I realized I am a hopeless Blue State Southern Californian.  I’m a childless, 37 year-old Peet’s coffee drinking, NPR listening, New York Review of Books subscribing, lycra bike suit wearing, tofu burger eating, pro-feminist bloggin‘, inclusive Episcopal church attending, Dennis Kucinich voting,  teachers’ union dues-paying. marathon running, Villaraigosa for Mayor donating, aspiring vegan Berkeley alum who wears David Yurman jewelry, drinks rice milk with his cereal and wants to rescue chinchillas.

On the other hand, I am proud and blessed to be the college’s adviser to our chapter of Campus Crusade for Christ.  Come the spring semester, you’ll find me at noon meetings, with my right hand gently swaying in the air, my eyes closed, and my body rocking without pretense or affectation to the music of dear old Matt Redman.  (I own several of his CDs.)

Still, I am not Red State America. 

I am off to youth group, where we shall watch the state of the union address together.

Honoring Joe Ehrmann, and men transforming football culture

As I mentioned in my previous post, I’ve been thinking a lot about football.  It’s the quintessential masculine American game, and both players and fans are often associated with a callous and exploitative attitude towards women.  But the fact that the game is in some ways inherently violent does not mean that valuable lessons about justice and gender cannot be taught through it.  This morning, on the Men Can Stop Rape website, I read that they will be giving their annual Frederick Douglass award to Joe Ehrmann.  As a football fan and a men’s movement activist, I rejoiced.

Ehrmann became a hero to the real men’s movement after he was profiled last summer in this Parade magazine article.  (Which I first learned about thanks to Christy at Dry Bones Dance.)  Ehrmann, who played 13 seasons for the Colts (when they were still in Baltimore), is the defensive line coach of the Gilman High School (MD) Greyhounds. When I read how he opened his practice sessions, I cried:

“What is our job as coaches?” Ehrmann asks.

“To love us!” the Gilman boys yell back in unison.

“What is your job?” Ehrmann shouts back.

“To love each other!” the boys respond.

Now, if all of us who work with youth started our practices, classes, and youth meetings with that, we’d be a damned sight better off.

Ehrmann correctly diagnoses the problem, and describes his solution:

Aside from the X’s and O’s of football, everything
Ehrmann teaches at Gilman stems from his belief that our society does a
horrible job of teaching boys how to be men and that virtually every
problem we face can somehow be traced back to this failure
. That is why
he developed a program called Building Men for Others, which has become
the signature philosophy of Gilman football.

The
first step is to tear down what Ehrmann says are the standard
criteria—athletic ability, sexual conquest and economic success—that
are constantly held up in our culture as measurements of manhood.

“Those
are the three lies that make up what I call ‘false masculinity,’”
Ehrmann says. “The problem is that it sets men up for tremendous
failures in our lives. Because it gives us this concept that what we
need to do as men is compare what we have and compete with others for
what they have.

Bold emphases are mine.

Ehrmann calls his method "strategic masculinity". It is, he says, all about "relationships."

Masculinity, first and foremost, ought to be defined in terms of
relationships,” Ehrmann says. “It ought to be taught in terms of the
capacity to love and to be loved
. It comes down to this: What kind of
father are you? What kind of husband are you? What kind of coach or
teammate are you? What kind of son are you? What kind of friend are
you? Success comes in terms of relationships.

While coaches elsewhere scream endlessly about
being tough, Ehrmann and (head coach Biff)  Poggi teach concepts such as empathy,
inclusion and integrity. They emphasize Ehrmann’s code of conduct for
manhood: accepting responsibility, leading courageously, enacting
justice on behalf of others.

“I
was blown away at first,” says Sean Price, who joined the varsity as a
freshman and is now a junior. “All the stuff about love and
relationships—I didn’t really understand why it was part of football.
After a while, though, getting to know some of the older guys on the
team, it was the first time I’ve ever been around friends who really
cared about me.”

Ehrmann’s got as good a set of guidelines for raising young men as I’ve ever seen.  And for those who question whether young men coached with these values can do well, the Gilman Greyhounds have finished three of the past six seasons undefeated and were ranked #1 in Maryland at the end of the 2002 season.

Feminists and their male allies have good reason to be leery of American football culture. The connection between this most violent of high school and college sports and rape has been well-documented.  The tendency of many coaches to use cruel and misogynistic language with their players is well known.  And yet, Ehrmann’s strategy offers a vision for how the real men’s movement ought to approach an activity such as football.  Rather than condemning it (or any other popular pastime for young men) out of hand, we must seek to change the culture in which the game is both taught and played.  The profeminist men’s movement will be most successful when we bring our values of justice, inclusion, and love into locker rooms and other traditionally all-male environments.  We need to change from within rather than condemning from without.

Coach Ehrmann, with his years as an athlete and his success in coaching, has a special legitimacy that allows him to deconstruct traditional ideas of what it means to be a man.  Those men who long to do the same kind of work with their younger brothers would do well to ask where it is that they too can serve.  Though cross-country is not nearly as "macho" a sport in terms of its public face as football, I know that as I continue to pursue my interest in coaching high school boys, I’ll try and bring a bit of the Ehrmann philosophy to the task.  And I have already started to do some of this with my high schoolers.

So, hurrah for Men Can Stop Rape, hurrah for Joe Ehrmann, and "go Greyhounds."

Wednesday links and notes

Not only is it Groundhog Day, but for those of us who love college football, it’s National Letter-of-Intent day (when top high school football players announce where it is they’ll be going to university.)  I’ll be following the news of the signings on various websites, especially Rivals and Scout.  Of course, I’m hoping for a fine haul for my California Golden Bears…  Pro-feminism and a passion for big-time college football coexist easily in my world.  (I’ve never had the same interest in the NFL.) 

In response to yesterday’s second post, I’ve received quite a number of e-mails, some kind and some… not.  Thanks to all who have taken the time to share their thoughts with me.

I’ve been remiss in linking to other blogs. 

Jenell Paris has published a very funny article on vomit.

Kurt at Gay Spirituality and Culture has this fine post on the Spongebob controversy.

Pseudo-Adrienne has a splendid "fisk" of this absurd bit of relationship advice.

Jay ’s got a short and powerful meditation on "the weaponization of truth".

John writes on abortion and disability and his own pro-life story.

And a typically splendid post from Amanda on feminism and witchhunts.

And because it’s fun, here are some search terms folks used this morning to find this blog:

pregnancy layoff workforce
rx330 feminine masculine
older men younger women
(three separate queries in an hour)
status quo not helping obesity
new zealand mennonites
trader joes part time health benefits
scarlet magazine
millard fuller scandal

short poem about monkeys with gun

Feminists for Life, men and abortion

Several years ago, I became a regular contributor to Feminists for Life.  It wasn’t much, mind you, just a few bucks deducted each month automatically from my checking account.  I first found FFLA (as it is often called) in 2000 after reading a Frederica Mathewes-Green article on the web.  I was very excited to join, particularly as Feminists for Life seemed to advocate a strong consistent-life ethic; they opposed abortion, of course, but also euthanasia, capital punishment, and had several articles on their site about domestic violence.

I joined FFLA because I was eager to match, in some way, my convictions about the sacredness of all life (including embryonic human life) with my belief in equal political, social, economic, and sexual rights for women.  Everything I had learned as a student in women’s studies courses (and from my solidly pro-choice family) had convinced me that the right to control one’s own flesh is the most basic and important right of all, the sine qua non, if you will, of feminism. On the other hand, as my faith grew and deepened (thanks in no small part to my encounters with the Mennonites), I was increasingly convinced that the life of a Christian ought to be one of radical, total non-violence.  My conviction that life began at conception deepened as I read everyone from the aforementioned Mathewes-Green to Mary Ann Glendon whose famous address to the 1995 Beijing Conference on Women I have read and reread.

During this time, I came to believe that abortion was also a critical issue for men.  Glendon’s words from the conference struck me:

…as John Paul II has emphasized, primary responsibility for a
woman’s tragic and painful decision to have an abortion often lies with men
and
with the general social environment. All who are genuinely committed to the
advancement of women know that society can and must offer a woman or girl who is
pregnant, frightened, and alone, a better alternative than the destruction of
her own unborn child. Many proponents of abortion as a woman’s
"right", however, are far from having women’s interests at heart. In
fact, hiding in the shadows of the abortion rights movement are: irresponsible
men
; the prostitution traffic…

(Bold emphases are mine)

Honestly, I still find myself in complete agreement with every single word in that paragraph. 

I’ve been thinking a lot about what it means to be a pro-life, pro-feminist man.  (For starters, it means you’re going to confuse a lot of people, and annoy lots of others.  Oh, and you’re gonna have lots of ’splainin’ to do!) I’ve come to the conclusion that the only way I can reconcile these two aspects of my faith and my beliefs is to focus solely on calling men to greater accountability.  In practice, that means dropping out of the current abortion wars.  I have, as of this month, cancelled my contributions to Feminists for Life.  I’ve been thinking about doing so for a while, ever since they quietly dropped their anti-death penalty advocacy (I find nothing about it on the site these days, though there were once many articles on capital punishment) and become a solely abortion-focused movement.  At the same time, I’m not going to give a dime to NARAL or Feminist Majority or Planned Parenthood.  To the best of my ability, I’m going to avoid supporting either side in the struggle over legalized abortion.  My heart is too torn, my politics too conflicted, for me to do anything else.

But I am not going to shirk all responsibility here.   Rather, I’m determined to work harder on reaching out to and interacting with young men on the issue of sexual accountability.   That may mean several things.  For one, it means working with teenage boys to resist the overwhelming culture of peer pressure that encourages them to "hook up" and "hit it" with as many young women as possible  It means working to break the cultural connection between having sex and being a "man".  It means teaching them that being "responsible" is about more than wearing a condom (though heaven knows, some of them need to start doing just that).  It means teaching them that they are responsible for the outcome of any sexual activity in which they engage.  At its bluntest, that’s a message that says "don’t ejaculate inside a woman until you are ready to raise the child that may follow."  In my book, coming inside a girl or a woman is the moment at which you give your complete consent to all that may follow as a result, physically, emotionally, spiritually.

I can already anticipate the Men’s Rights Advocates’ response: "What about the woman’s responsibility?"  Women, including sexually active teenage girls, have their own agency.  They have their own moral responsibilities.  But I do believe that at this phase of the struggle, the most effective work that pro-life/pro-feminist men can do is with other young men.   That doesn’t mean I won’t work with and counsel young women (I already do as a youth leader).  But my primary focus, and the primary focus of all men who want to end abortion must be to change the hearts, minds, and above all, the behavior of their brothers. 

I’ve decided that in both public and private, I will take no position on whether abortion ought to remain legal.  But I will work, in whatever way I can, to make it unthinkable.