Archive for March, 2005

Navel-gazing and being a good sport

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on March 22, 2005
in Vanity
. 35 Comments

Okay, skip this one if you aren’t interested in self-absorbed introspection.

In his latest e-newsletter, Glenn Sacks is quite charitable.  Under a heading entitled "Giving the Devil His Due", he writes:

Hugo Schwyzer is many things to many people but whatever one’s opinion of him, he certainly is gracious and a good sport about receiving criticism.

I’m pleased by that.  I am well aware that one classic stereotype of feminists and their male allies is of humorlessness.    When I speak publicly about feminism, or lead workshops on gender issues, I find that both men and women expect me to be uptight, serious, and entirely devoid of playful good nature.   I have a friend who teaches English; when he tells folks at parties what he does for a living, they often get just a bit on edge, making feeble jokes about their own poor grammar.  (As if they expect him to interrupt them mid-sentence, crying "Stop!  You just split your infinitive!)  I run into the same sort of thing all too frequently — people seem to expect someone who works in gender studies to be tiresomely earnest and perpetually grim.

During the debate on Sunday’s show, I made it a point to make regular eye contact with Glenn and Amy, and to smile as often as possible.  When we went to a commercial break after one vigorous exchange, I took off my headphones, grinned at them both, and said "That was a good segment, wasn’t it?"  I suppose I wanted to make it very clear that being a pro-feminist advocate does not mean that one has to be unpleasant to one’s critics.  I was also following an old family script of mine.  I was raised to "disagree without being disagreeable."   Folks in my family don’t shout.  Ever.  We try and avoid getting red in the face.  We may verbally skewer each other, but when the argument is over, we were all taught to hug (or at least shake hands) and go about the business of life together.  In a family that often included Marxists and strict Reform Calvinists at the same dinner table, that kind of "good sportspersonship" was essential to our collective happiness.

But it’s in this area that I also fall short.  My own sin is clear: I’m sorry to say that I still tend to view those who personalize political and cultural disagreement as being "less evolved."   When I get really nasty hate mail (and boy, do I get a lot of it in my inbox these days), I read it, chuckle, and delete it.  I was taught that outer expressions of anger and the accompanying use of profanity was vulgar, and that folks who behaved in such a fashion were not to be emulated, or, for that matter, taken seriously.   When I am confronted with a "shouter", my fighting style is to become ever more soft-spoken. I don’t back down, but I confess I do start to patronize my opponent. A big part of me believes that in any disagreement, he or she who first loses emotional control has also lost the argument on its merits.  I’ve worked hard to change this about myself, but it isn’t easy.  (Is it now becoming obvious why I’ve been divorced three times?)

It’s easy to confuse a commitment to calm and civility with the absence of real convictions.  I do have passionate core beliefs, though I freely confess that many of those have changed and shifted over the course of my life.  (My family motto is "Often in error, never in doubt.")  But as I’ve written before, my belief in politeness and civility is deeper than my political commitments.  I long believed that this commitment to good manners was a sign of virtue, but I have begun to wonder if it isn’t simply a rather unpleasant (and passive-aggressive) way of trying to assert dominance.  I’m still struggling with that one.

At the same time, I continue to believe it is always and everywhere a good idea to be cordial with one’s opponents.  I have to admit, I like Glenn Sacks. I liked Amy Alkon.  I think they’re wrong on the issue of Choice 4 Men, and they obviously regard me as deeply misguided.  But even profound disagreement ought never trump warmth and affection for God’s immensely loveable creatures.

Fair Share

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on March 22, 2005
in Pasadena City College and Teaching
. 13 Comments

I’m happy to report that the Pasadena City College chapter of the California Teachers Association has, at long last, made the brave move to impose the "fair share service fee" on all of our full-time faculty.  Our union engages in collective bargaining with the district, and is the sole representative of faculty interests during that process.  For years and years, membership in our local CTA chapter has been optional.  About half of the current faculty (including myself) are members, but about half choose to get a "free ride" by enjoying the benefits CTA negotiates without paying dues to the union.  (Dues are steep, mind you: I pay a base of about $850 annually, and I also add in a bit extra for our local political action committee.)

Since 2001, California law has permitted public employee unions to collect fees from non-members.  The principle is simple — no full-time teacher ought to receive for free the benefits that his or her colleagues have paid to negotiate.  Membership in the union itself, of course, is voluntary — and those who will now have the fair share fee automatically deducted from their paychecks will not be obligated to participate in union activities. 

I confess I have mixed feelings about forcing some of my virulently anti-union colleagues into paying for union activities.  (Yes, Virginia, there are tenured faculty members who loathe the very idea of employee unions.  Some of them are even my friends.)   I have to confess that when union membership was voluntary, I took a small amount of pleasure in gently reminding the non-payers in the department that my voluntary dues were subsidizing their benefits!  Now, I expect to hear their outrage.

Ultimately,of course, I support fair share implementation.  Like it or not, faculty are laborers.  Though our individual relationships with college administrators may be warm and cordial, we cannot forget that under the rules of collective bargaining, they are the management whose primary charge is to lower costs (which means limiting salaries and benefits.)  In this (admittedly civil and friendly) adversarial atmosphere, faculty ought to stand together.  Those who don’t like collective bargaining don’t have to give a minute of their time to the process — but they don’t have the right to reap the benefits without having paid for them.

The good news for those of us who have been paying dues is that once fair share is implemented, our monthly deductions will decline (slightly), as we will no longer need to cover the hundreds of faculty who have so far refused to stand with us.

I’m curious to know how many other teachers out there belong to "fair share" collective bargaining units.  How many other states permit this practice?

Russell Fox on Terri Schiavo and consistent life

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on March 21, 2005
in Abortion, People and Politics
. 4 Comments

I haven’t blogged Terri Schiavo, largely because I can’t get my own feelings clear on the issue. Fortunately, fellow blogger Russell Arben Fox has done the work for me in a magnificent post today entitled "Frayed Garment."   Russell and I share, at least in many ways, a commitment to the consistent-life ethic — what is often called the "seamless garment" approach to life issues. 

In his post, Russell relies on John Paul II’s Ecclesia in America (1999).  An excerpt that Russell cites is particularly fine:

Nowadays, in America as elsewhere in the world, a model of society appears to be emerging in which the powerful predominate, setting aside and even eliminating the powerless: I am thinking here of unborn children, helpless victims of abortion; the elderly and incurably ill, subjected at times to euthanasia; and the many other people relegated to the margins of society by consumerism and materialism. Nor can I fail to mention the unnecessary recourse to the death penalty when other bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons….

I’m with His Holiness on that one.  I want you to read all of Russell’s piece on Schiavo, but this bit stood out.  I can’t remember the last time I read something by a blogging colleague that made me say,"Yes, that’s exactly it."  Russell concludes:

Those teen-agers with the red tape over their mouths, silently shouting "Life!" to those who pass by–I would not critique the purity of their intent for a moment. But when the movement which makes use of their intentions is one which separates concern for the unborn from concern for the born, which disaggregates social policy governing feeding tubes from that which governs food stamps, which rushes to engage the federal government to give Terri Schiavo every therapeutic measure, but provides no therapy for those who already lack such…well, perhaps what we have here isn’t wrongheadedness, isn’t crass manipulation, but defect. Something cultish, engaged in a selective and derivative witnessing, rather than something broad and decent. I defer to no one in my horror of abortion, but to make abortion and abortion alone (or euthanasia and euthanasia alone, or even just this case or that case but not all the sundry–and expensive!–cases in between) the measure of one’s seamless garment of life is to wear something frayed and threadbare.

Jeez, that last sentence alone made me sit up at my desk and cheer.

Thoughts on the show and the false charge of the declining libido

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on March 21, 2005
in Age, Men and Masculinity and Sexuality
. 48 Comments

My second appearance on the Glenn Sacks show seemed to go a bit smoother than the first.  (You can listen to the archived broadcast here.)  Despite suffering from vertigo, Glenn was his usual pleasant self.  (He had a column published in the LA Times yesterday on boys, schools, and the gender gap.)

Amy Alkon was a delight.  She’s caustic, warm, and talks a mile a minute.  While waiting for the show to begin, we sipped Cokes in the radio station lounge and engaged in some friendly sparring.  She asked about Matilde, which made me very happy, and we had an extremely brief pre-show debate on sexual ethics.

As I wrote after my first appearance on Glenn’s show, the format of AM talk radio does not lend itself well to thoughtful discussion.  (Which explains why I spend most of my time listening to NPR; I’m a "Talk of the Nation" junkie.  Further evidence of my hopelessly blue-state, out-of-touch with the mainstream tendencies, I suppose.)  The first time I was on the show, I had reams of notes filled with things I felt I had to say.  This time, I brought nothing with me, and was a bit nonplussed when Amy pulled out sheets and sheets of paper, including copies of my posts on Choice 4 Men.  Fortunately, I didn’t forget everything I wanted to say, and remembered to get my key points across as quickly as possible.

Much of the discussion focused on the issue of men’s choice and equal protection. I think Ampersand and Trish Wilson have done a fine job addressing the legal questions raised by the Choice 4 Men movement (check out some of the suggested links at their sites, as well as the comments sections.)  I’m not a constitutional scholar, and defer to the wisdom of those more familiar with American jurisprudence than I.  My attack on Choice 4 Men was on ethical and moral rather than legal grounds, and I feel more comfortable keeping the discussion in that particular arena.

Ultimately, Amy and I were arguing our positions out of two radically different world views.  Amy believes that sex outside the context of a committed relationship can be good and healthy.  She believes very strongly that both men and women can separate the desires of the body from the needs of the heart and the spirit, and (assuming adequate birth control is used), do so with physical and emotional impunity.  As the listeners heard, both Amy and I regard each other as fundamentally unrealistic about human nature.  When I made the point that at its very core, sexual intercourse is always a relational act that connects two people emotionally and spiritually (whether the parties involved are conscious of it or not), as well as physically, she asked, "What world are you living in"?

On the other hand, I think her conviction that most human beings can (and should) sever sexual activity from a concomitant responsibility for another human being is based on a poor understanding of human psychology.   It’s a particularly destructive idea for young women.  Our "culture of promiscuity" (a phrase she asked me to clarify) encourages young people to "hook up" without emotional expectations.  The evidence is considerable that this is immensely damaging to the self-esteem of young women; particularly harmful is the notion (that I think Amy implicitly endorses) that young women can "learn to outgrow" what she regards as the culturally imposed connection between sexual activity and emotional connectedness.  I am convinced that sexuality itself can never be successfully separated from commitment and connectedness, even if many of us manage to fool ourselves that it can.

Amy and I also disagreed on the question of whether Choice 4 Men’s agenda reflects the best interest of the child.  She argued that biological fathers who don’t want to be involved in their child’s life ought not to be coerced into any involvement (even financial), as unwilling fathers invariably make poor fathers.  I am certainly not suggesting that every man who unintentionally impregnates a woman ought to marry her.  Even if he never sees his child, however, his financial support (voluntary or compulsory) will almost certainly improve his child’s life circumstances.  But I also think that marrying for the sake of the child may have some positive benefits.  As Judith Wallerstein points out in her terrific The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce, children who were raised in high-conflict (unhappy) marriages "do better" statistically than children who were raised by single parents.  (Obviously, children raised by two parents in a low-conflict marriage do best of all.)  To my mind, there’s no question that forcing even unwilling fathers to be at least financially (and ideally, physically) involved in their children’s lives is demonstrably in those children’s best interests.

Anyhow, I feel "done" with this topic for a while.

Oh, one more thing.  Glenn really annoyed me when he suggested, near the end of the show, that it was relatively easy for a "middle-aged" man like myself (37!) to advocate male sexual restraint.  After all, he said, teenage boys have raging libidos that are much more difficult to control.  Isn’t it unfair, he asked, for "older men" such as he and I (whose sex drives have presumably diminished) to demand that our younger brothers exercise the same kind of self-control that we are able to maintain?   For the record, I completely reject the premise of the question, but I chose not to do so on the air.  After all, nothing could be more pointless (and potentially embarrassing) than making a stirring declaration as to the enduring strength of my libido!  How can I disprove his implication without blogging about matters far too personal for even this relatively candid forum?  I suppose I’ll just have to accept not being able to respond to Glenn’s suggestion that my diminishing sex drive is responsible for my commitment to male self-restraint.  But I’m a bit irked about that this morning.

Race and marriage

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on March 18, 2005
in Marriage and Race
. 18 Comments

I won’t have time to post again between today and Sunday’s show, but I will have a full wrap-up on Monday morning.  Lots of grading to do today, and if I am going to give student papers the attention they deserve, I need to take myself to a coffee shop (away from the computer and the television.)

I must credit the Stand Your Ground forum for the link to this article from the Guardian:  Whatever Happened to Sista Love?  

According to the most
recent National Survey of Ethnic Minorities, half of Caribbean-origin
men had a white partner, and 40% of Caribbean origin children had one
white parent. In contrast, 80% of Asian men had same-race partners.
"For most of us, the mixing of races is the inevitable result of
socialising in big cities," says the writer Sophie Radice. True. In
fact, white female fascination with black men, and vice versa, is as
old as slavery and stereotypes of the black male libido.

But
what is happening now is not the result of random, individual choice
but a manifestation of a rejection of black women. Sure, you hear all
the cliche rhetoric about "I don’t see colour" or "love is
colour-blind", but not even the person saying it believes a word of it.
The unfortunate bottom line is that most of these "brothers" think
their sistas are an inferior product. What makes the situation galling
is that rather than accept that’s how they see things, the men try and
come up with a thousand reasons why black women are their own worst
enemies.

This is a familiar story in the USA, but I hadn’t realized that it had also become a British phenomenon.  It’s got me thinking this morning.

My  black students are overwhelmingly women.  Outside of my gender studies classes (which are 80-90% female), my courses have roughly equal numbers of male and female students.  As far as I can tell, I have similar numbers of white men and women, Hispanic men and women, and Asian men and women.  But among African-Americans, I have at least three women for every man.  The disparity is notable.   The disparity is also notable in terms of academic achievement.   I’ve quietly kept tabs on the ethnic break-down of my grading; I note that women and men do equally well among all ethnic groups except for blacks.  I’ve never blogged this before, but running some numbers in my office last year I discovered that black women were more likely to earn high grades than any other demographic group with the exception of older (over 40) students.  On the other hand, black males were statistically less likely to earn As.   (Again, for any students who are reading this, please don’t take this as an infallible predictor of future performance!)

As a white male, I’m obviously aware that my own racial bias might play a part in this.  I’ve quietly checked out my grading patterns with a few of my colleagues, and I hear the same things.  We all have our stories of remarkably ambitious, talented, and interesting black women students.  We have far fewer stories of exceptional black men.  (I can think of a couple, but not many.)  It leaves me wondering if rather than internalized racism, it’s the "success gap" between black women and black men that’s the major culprit in black men’s rejection of their sisters as mates.  A little Internet research seems to bear this out.  See here, and here, and here.  Are black men simply intimidated by this success gap?  It’s not a question I am qualified to answer, but I find it interesting to consider.

On the other hand, we see far fewer marriages between black women and white men.    Though I zealously guard my fiancee’s privacy, I have mentioned before that she is of Afro-Colombian descent.  In the traditional language of black culture, she can "pass"; most white folks are actually surprised to discover she has considerable black ancestry.  (Black men and women seem to have a much easier time identifying her as such.  No, you don’t get a photo.).   For the record, I note with some chagrin that many people seem unduly astonished at the "racial aspect" of our relationship.  For far too many people, marriages between white men and black women remain virtually unheard of.   When people ask about my fiancee’s mixed racial heritage, I am always careful to mention the African part first, usually to quickly ferret out any hidden bigotry.  Happily, we don’t tend to run into overt racism — but we do tend to encounter some astonishment from time to time…

Off for coffee and grading.

Choice, and Hugo is a cyborg

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on March 17, 2005
in Abortion, Feminism, Men and Masculinity, Sexual ethics and transformation and Vanity
. 19 Comments

Lots of discussion going on about the upcoming Sacks show and my opposition to Choice For Men.  One thing I’ll say for Glenn, he sends my traffic spiking.  Last time I was on his show in January, I went from under 2000 unique hits a day to just about 5000.  In recent weeks, my hits had fallen back into the low 2000s, but today we’re back above the 4K mark.  The only problem is that I fear Typepad will eventually start charging me more for the extra bandwidth.

Amp has completely changed the look of his blog (it looks terrific and loads more easily). He’s also weighed in on the subject of Choice For Men:

Both men and women should have every reproductive choice biologically possible. For men and women both, that means they should have the choice not to f*ck, if they don’t want to. For men and women both, that means they should have access to every kind of birth control. And for women, that should mean access to abortion.

Cutting either men or women off from their biologically possible options is wrong, in my view. But “abortion” just isn’t one of men’s biologically possible options.

To say “well, if an argument’s valid for women, then it should be valid for men as well” is true most of the time - but it’s not true in a discussion of abortion, because men can’t have abortions. Men and women are not, when it comes to this issue, identically situated; and it’s illogical to act as if they are.

(The bold is in the original, the expletive was altered by me.)

Amp and I agree on most things — except, perhaps for abortion.  I am really worried that we won’t be able to get away from the abortion discussion on Sunday’s show.  It really is not what I want to discuss.  I remain strongly pro-life, but I also remain committed to my self-imposed period of silence on the subject.  It’s not cowardice that keeps me quiet — it’s a profound and painful ambivalence rooted in a viscerally powerful connection to all sides of this immensely complex topic.  If forced, I will say that I do oppose abortion, but am unsure as to whether the state ought to ban the procedure in most instances.  I freely admit to vacillating on this.  Though I haven’t written about it, I have been praying for wisdom and discernment on this subject regularly.

Still, I think it is possible to emphasize the basic point that both men and women ought to approach sex with an awareness of its procreative design and possibilities.  I believe that every conceived child is entitled to be born, and that once born, every child is entitled to the physical and financial support of both parents.  I recognize that male and female differences mean that women will, in our current legal environment, get to make decisions after conception and before birth that men will not get to make.  That is not a function of unfairness, unless you consider biology itself unfair.  I’ll save the rest of my argument for Sunday.

If you’re interested, a reader alerts me that the fellas at Stand Your Ground are on my case; she also informs me that the much farther-out types at Mancoat Forum have, shall we say, an even more extreme take.  I rather liked this bit:

This "Hugo" (whom I suspect isn’t human, but is in reality a cyborg from the future who has been sent-back through a Time-Tunnel to trigger the apocalypse) is an interesting character.

Oh, now I am flattered. 

But before I trigger the apocalypse, I need to pick up my dry-cleaning, hit the gym and the trails of the arroyo, and go home to grade papers in front of the TV (watching the NCAA, of course).  And I’ll make dinner, tend to Matilde, and spend time with my fiancee.   The life of a cyborg is deceptively mundane.

Lucky Charms overdose and an answer to John

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on March 17, 2005
in Abortion, Christianity, Politics, Vanity, Youth and Youth ministry
. 38 Comments

I’m feeling the effects of a sugar hangover on this St. Pat’s Day morning.  Last night at youth group, we played a fun and silly game with the teens.  In honor of today,we divided them into groups and had them unpack boxes of Lucky Charms cereal, separating out each type of colored marshmallow charm into different bowls.  (For the record, there are now nine types of colored sugar bits in Lucky Charms; in my youth, there were only five. I remember when the ads promised "new blue diamonds".)  Of course, after this game was over, we all ate the little charms, which left me with quite a headache.  We also had a splendid limerick contest, which was — to our considerable relief — quite "clean."  It’s nice to have fun and games every once in a while; our conversations in recent weeks have been quite serious, and we needed a break.  Did I need to eat sugary horseshoes and clovers?  No.  But I did, and am living with the consequences this day.

My inbox is full this morning with missives from folks outraged by my position on Choice For Men.  I’m sorry that I won’t be able to reply to most of them, but I did patiently read through every one, including those that use the most extraordinary epithets.  As tempting as it is to share some of the hatefulness that has arrived in my e-mail, I’m going to refrain.

My dear friend John from New Zealand has a long post up this morning about youth groups and conservatism.  He tells the stories of three young fellows he works with, and how his experiences with them helped shape and galvanize his political beliefs.  Though he drops a few rhetorical bombs, it’s a splendid and challenging post, and I recommend it with enthusiasm.

Of course, I’m sympathetic to some of the tenets of social conservatism myself, particularly those that advocate personal restraint and responsibility.  (Naturally, I don’t see those virtues as the exclusive domain of the right.)  But my Christian socialism and my commitment to youth are not uneasy allies.  I’d like to think my politics and my work with teens inform one another.

Like John, I see the pernicious effects of drugs, divorce, and parental narcissism on my teenagers.  When he writes about the value of fathers and two-parent households, I find little with which to disagree.  I’m happy to say that in the instances of divorce he cites, John does not blame women or the feminist movement, but a man’s selfish "pursuit of novelty" (which seems to me to be the chief, but certainly not the only, culprit in my family break-ups.  Women, of course, can fall victim to the dangerous seduction of everlasting novelty as well.)

Here’s where John and I disagree:

I also see another cancer afflicting my kids, one that John leaves out: materialism.  So many of my teens, regardless of background, are obsessed with things.  They talk about clothes, about I-Pods, about cars.  They gleefully make lists of what they want, and speak with almost bitter envy of their peers who have more "stuff."  Many, not all, but far too many, long to be rich in order to have all of their material desires fulfilled.  Though they are reluctant to admit it, far too many connect personal happiness to possessions.  Most are smart enough to recognize the shallowness of that belief, but it’s what has been ingrained in them by the culture.

My Christian socialism is profoundly troubled by the contemporary uncritical conservative acceptance of the virtue of wealth and the pursuit of things.     A economic structure built on ever-increasing consumer spending and the pursuit of the latest and the hippest does tremendous damage to all of us, both those who are able to afford much and those who are not.  I cannot be a true conservative until the organized right is willing to see the damage that materialism wreaks upon our culture, and willing to take policy steps in order to do something about it. I’m tired of hearing the gospel preached on the sexual issues and having it ignored on the economic ones.  (For what it’s worth, I get tired of hearing the opposite preached in liberal churches).  Conservatives rail — and rightly so — about the culture of human disposability; they worry that abortion and euthanasia allow folks to get rid of the vulnerable because they are inconvenient obstacles on the road to one’s own personal happiness.  Fair enough.  But when conservatives turn a blind eye to cultural forces that teach kids to always want "more, more", they fail to realize how the market itself teaches the young to think of possessions — and lives — as disposable.

I’m not a liberal in the classic sense.  Consistent-life ethic Christian socialism has common touchpoints with liberalism, particularly in a profound concern for social justice.  Like organized conservatism, it advocates restraint and care and a sense of the sacred in matters of the body, particularly around sexuality.  But it refuses to see the pursuit of wealth and physical comfort as virtuous, and it sees crass materialism as being at least as damaging to kids as sexual promiscuity.

Thursday Short Poem: Szymborska for my commenters

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on March 17, 2005
in Poetry
. 7 Comments

My mom, who has given me her love of poetry, sent me this one.  She offers the suggestion that it’s a nice way of thinking about oneself and one’s commenters. Those who regularly visit here can decide where it is that they themselves fit.

A CONTRIBUTION TO STATISTICS
        by Wislawa Szymborska

Out of a hundred people

those who always know better
    - fifty-two,

doubting every step
    - nearly all the rest,

glad to lend a hand
if it doesn’t take to long
    - as high as forty nine,

always good
because they can’t be otherwise
    - four, well maybe five,

able to admire without envy
    - eighteen,

suffering illusions
induced by fleeting youth
   - sixty, give or take a few,

not to be taken lightly
    - fourty and four,

living in constant fear
of someone or something
    - seventy-seven,

capable of happiness
    - twenty-something tops,

harmless singly
savage in crowds
    - half at least,

cruel
when forced by circumstances
    - better not to know
even ballpark figures,

wise after the fact
    -   just a couple more
than wise before it,

taking only things from life
    - thirty
(I wish I were wrong),

hunched in pain
no flashlight in the dark
    - eighty-three
sooner or later,

righteous
    - thirty-five, which is a lot,

righteous
and understanding
    -three,

worthy of compassion
    - ninety-nine,

mortal
    - a hundred out of a hundred.
Thus far this figure remains unchanged.

Choice 4 Men and the Glenn Sacks show

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on March 16, 2005
in Abortion, Feminism, Having children, Men and Masculinity, Men's Movement and Sexual ethics and transformation
. 316 Comments

Glenn’s promo for this Sunday’s show is up. I’m going to be debating the concept of "Choice 4 Men" with Glenn and columnist Amy Alkon.  Here’s the promo:

Nationally syndicated advice columnist Amy Alkon believes that men, like women, should have reproductive rights. Condemning women who get pregnant intentionally and "turn casual sex into cash flow sex," she notes:

"In no other arena is a swindler rewarded with a court-ordered monthly cash settlement paid to them by the person they bilked…Penelope Leach, in her book Children First, poses an essential question: ‘Why is it socially reprehensible for a man to leave a baby fatherless, but courageous, even admirable, for a woman to have a baby whom she knows will be so?’…the law, as written, encourages unscrupulous women to lure sex-dumbed men into checkbook daddyhood."

The "Choice for Men" movement seeks to give unmarried fathers the right to relinquish their parental rights and responsibilities within a month of learning of a pregnancy, just as mothers do when they choose to give their children up for adoption.

Feminist Gender Studies professor Dr. Hugo Schwyzer, Ph.D calls Choice for Men "profoundly offensive," noting that it "seeks to give men the right to evade responsibility for the children they help to conceive."

I’ve been very clear on this issue, especially in this post during last summer’s Amy Richards controversy.  I said then, and still believe now, the following:

Every man who ejaculates inside a woman, whether or not contraception is used, is signalling his willingness to become a father. If men are not ready and willing to raise a child conceived through an act of sex, they are morally responsible for refraining from sex…

I’m not familiar with Alkon.  I’ve been reading through the material on her site today, and she seems like a fairly standard "libertarian feminist".  I can’t say we’ll disagree on everything, but on this issue, we will.  This will mean that in some very real sense, I may be taking her on from the right, at least in my insistence that the only real choice that a man deserves in this situation is whether or not to have sex in the first place.  After that decision has been made, I am adamant that he, jointly with the woman with whom he briefly partnered — is morally (and financially) responsible for any and all outcomes from that initial decision.  Even if those outcomes last a lifetime.

Whatever your views, please consider calling into the show on Sunday afternoon.

Update

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on March 16, 2005
in Stuff
. 15 Comments

Looks like I am likely to be on the Glenn Sacks show again this Sunday; more details soon.

I’m busy grading papers in the office, finishing my bracket predictions for both the men’s and women’s NCAA tournaments (I’m picking North Carolina and Tennessee, respectively), and trying to decide whether or not I can afford to go on a shopping spree to update my spring wardrobe.  Suffice it to say, I am not feeling filled with Mennonite simplicity at the moment.

Christian women and sports

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on March 16, 2005
in Christianity, Feminism, Sports and Youth
. 9 Comments

Amanda properly fisks this embarrassing screed by a Scott Jonas, entitled Should Women Play Sports?  His is an appalling mix of bad biblical exegesis and sheer ignorance.  For example:

One of the trends in schools is the participation in sports by women; therefore it shouldn’t surprise us that so many Christian daughters today participate in sports. But is this really all that bad?

For those of us who believe we should train our daughters according to Titus 2, 1 Peter 3, and other Biblical passages, my answer is “Yes, it is not good.” I propose that sports greatly hinders the development of godly, Biblical, feminine character.

Amanda, writing from a secular view, rightly pokes fun at Jonas’ take.  But I think  it’s vital for evangelicals to take issue with him as well, lest our silence give the impression that most Bible-believing Christians share his views.  It’s interesting to me that Jonas picks 1 Peter 3.  Here, Peter writes to women:

3Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. 4Instead, it should be that of your inner self…

If there’s one thing we know conclusively, it’s that participation in sports helps young women shift their focus away from an obsession with their outer appearance.  Allison Schultz of the Sports Psychology Research Team at Northern Iowa University writes:

In attempting to de-emphasize the importance their daughters place on beauty and emphasize the importance of physical competence, parents may find it helpful to utilize the benefits of participation in sport.

The best way to help young women overcome culturally imposed vanity and self-obsession is to help them see their bodies as something more than a mere object for others’ gaze; they need to experience their bodies as competent and strong — something that competitive sport alone can teach.

Most of the rest of Jonas’ polemic is not based on Scripture, thankfully enough.  Amanda does a splendid job of taking apart his attacks on coed sports (such as soccer and wrestling) and the threat of "immodest attire" by girl athletes.

But it’s vital to understand just how many evangelical Christian women participate in sports in this country, using athletics as a means of glorifying God. Christianity Today has a whole section on faith and sport with biographies of a number of evangelical women athletes.  See WUSA player Amanda Caldwell, golfer Wendy Ward and triathlete Sheila Taormina, just to name three.  (Yes, I know the WUSA is no more.  Don’t remind me.)

It’s hard to think of a more conservative Christian college in the West than The Master’s College in nearby Santa Clarita.  Founded by the very conservative Calvinist John Macarthur, the Master’s doctrinal statement puts it on, at the least, the center-right of the evangelical theological spectrum.  It is the official position of the college that women are not to be ordained to ministry, and they cannot attend the Master’s Seminary.  (The Seminary motto: We Train Men as if Lives Depended on It). But women’s sports?  The Master’s has some of the best small-college teams in the nation in softball, basketball, and cross-country.  The women’s basketball team is ranked sixth in the national NAIA polls, and is currently in the NAIA tournament, led by the remarkable Tiffany Webb. Here’s what Webb said when she came to the Master’s two years ago:

I’m extremely excited to see what the Lord has in store for me at The Master’s," said Webb. "I chose The Master’s College because I wanted an environment where I can grow spiritually, play in an excellent basketball program, and meet quality people who can help me in my growing process. The Master’s is a solid school of faith that the Lord has led me to and I am anxiously awaiting to see what He has planned.

Jonas was worried that women’s sports "may very well foster pagan and humanistic attitudes".  Scott Jonas, grow up.  And go meet Tiffany and the Mustangs of the Masters. 

Scott Jonas may fear women’s sports for any number of reasons.  But none of those reasons are based on a sound reading of Scripture, nor can they be justified in light of the remarkable record of young Christian women in sports. 

UPDATE:  Master’s College beat Oklahoma Baptist, 71-55, this morning to move into the second round.  Webb had 21 to lead all scorers. Go Mustangs go. 

Some reflections on sisterhood and male obligation

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on March 15, 2005
in Body, Faith, Feminism, Men and Masculinity, Older Men & Younger Women and Sexuality
. 58 Comments

On the same subject we’ve been on around here lately,  Erica has some excellent remarks:

As a girl of sixteen, my body was all but my enemy according to the church.  What I thought could be sinful, said could be sinful, smoked or drank could likewise be wrong.  What I wore had the attention of several married women who spoke through the pastor or his wife to let me know that half an inch above my knee was half an inch closer to sin…

(Emphasis mine).

I look toward a time when a young woman’s body isn’t foremost a threat.  I am looking to the day when other attractive women are not perceived as a threat to my marriage.  When younger women get the direction and validation they need in healthy ways. It must be possible…

(Emphasis in the original). 

I’m struck by how effectively the "myth of male weakness" serves to divide women.  I’m not sure, of course, why the (presumably older) married women In Erica’s church went to the pastor about her dress. It’s possible that they were motivated by a sisterly desire to protect her.  But as Erica implies from her own perspective as a married woman, it seems likely that they had another, less charitable motive as well: the worry that she might be a distraction to their husbands.

Last year, I put up this Sisterhood is Easier in Winter post.  (I note that it seems to be one of the more popular ones in my archives.)  I said this then, and I think it’s relevant here:

…in our culture, rightly or wrongly, revealing dress, sexuality, and self-esteem are inextricably linked. I recognize as well that revealing dress fosters a culture of competition, even among college-aged women, and that competitiveness does irreparable damage to the already fragile bonds of gender solidarity that those of us in this field are working so hard to foster.

I do believe, of course, that outside of a nightclub setting, we all ought to practice modesty in our dress.  That said, I’m keenly aware of just how much this competition among women is rooted in the assumption that men are too weak to control their thoughts and actions when faced with a young woman in revealing clothing. 

On the one hand, Erica is absolutely right that we need to do much more to provide young women with positive, non-sexual validation.  (That was part of the point I was trying to get to here.)  Men have a vital role to play in providing that validation to younger women.  Every time an older guy refuses to respond to a younger woman’s desirability but focuses on her identity and her abilities, he’s taking positive action.  But he’s not just taking positive action for the sake of that young woman — his restraint affects everyone positively.

Let me put this in personal terms.  When I’m working with young women at the college or in my youth group, I’m aware that I have a broad set of obligations.  Here they are in no particular order:

A. I have an obligation not to abuse the trust placed in me by the college or the church.  When I teach or lead youth group, that institution’s reputation is also on the line — and it is mine to defend.

B. I’ve also got an obligation to the young woman with whom I’m interacting.  It is vital that she feel respected and cared for; it is essential that she see me as safe and nurturing rather than predatory and dangerous.  Perhaps she wants to be seen as sexually desirable; perhaps she doesn’t.  But almost paradoxically, in order to honor her as a human being I may have to ignore her wishes.  I’ve got to be brave enough to risk being called paternalistic!

C.  Without question, I’ve got an obligation to my fiancee.  I want all of my words and my actions to honor her.  I often ask myself:  "If she could see me right now, would she be okay with what I’m doing?  Would she feel threatened or disrespected?"   I want my fiancee to feel comfortable around the younger women with whom I work, partly because I think she has so much to offer them herself.  It’s my job to make that possible by making it clear to everyone, near and far, that my devotion to her is absolute and unwavering.

D.  I’ve got an obligation to other men, both older and younger.  They need to see that it’s possible for a man to set very clear boundaries and be scrupulous about avoiding impropriety.  They need to see that avoiding impropriety is not the same thing as withdrawing love and attention from those for whom one is charged to care.  Though I am fully human and fully flawed, they need to know that our culture perpetuates inaccurate myths of male weakness that disempower men and pit women against each other.  And they need to see in my actions that those are just myths.

Obviously, women have a great deal of work to do as well.  But as I’ve written 97 times, as a pro-feminist man, it’s not my job to police the sisterhood.  It’s my job to focus on my own actions as a man and to call my brothers to accountability.  If we all are willing to take risks while practicing great self-restraint, there’s a lot we can do within our communities to change the dynamics between women, between men and women, and between men and men.  And one example at a time, we can put the myth of male weakness to rest.

Church shooting, church schism

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on March 14, 2005
in Aggression and violence and Christianity
. 24 Comments

Though most of the nation’s attention this weekend seemed to be focused on the Brian Nicholls story in Atlanta, I was struck by the Wisconsin church shooting that left seven dead.

The congregation that was hit was connected with the Living Church of God, one of the half-dozen offshoots of the old Worldwide Church of God.  Worldwide began with the late Herbert W. Armstrong, who mixed the strange theology of British-Israelism with a strict adherence to Old Testament law (circumcision, dietary law, the works.)  Worldwide folk rejected other Christians as hopelessly compromised with the world.  The church peaked in popularity in the 1970s, and then lost followers in the wake of sexual scandals and failed millennial prophecies.  The church was centered here in Pasadena from 1956 until the early 1990s, where they built Ambassador College and Ambassador Auditorium.  Thousands of followers came to Pasadena to be near Armstrong and his church.

In the late 1980s and early 90s, following Armstrong’s death, the church was torn apart in a series of schisms.  Joseph Tkach took over the main branch of the church, moved it into the theological mainstream, and made it virtually indistinguishable from countless other evangelical ministries.  But others clung to the old Armstrongian beliefs in mandatory tithing, Saturday worship, the observance of Old Testament feasts, and so forth.  Of course, these schismatics could not agree amongst themselves, and split again and again.  The Living Church of God (the denomination of the victims of Saturday’s shooting) was one of only eight different offshoots of the old Worldwide Church.  In addition to Living (as it is usually known), the other large branch of the schismatic churches is the United Church of God.

I’m struck by all this for personal reasons.  I can’t even begin to count how many students I’ve taught these past 12 years at PCC who come out of one or another of these traditions.  I’ve taught "Living" students and "United" students and a few from the smaller offshoots.  Time and again, I’ve heard stories about the chaotic years of the late 1980s and 1990s as families were torn apart all across Pasadena by the schisms.  A few years ago, I had one girl whose entire family had gone with the Tkach clan into the mainstream Worldwide Church; she alone, at 19, was clinging to "Living".  She had left her parents’ home and moved in with an older church couple.  She took time off to travel for the feasts of Trumpets and Tabernacles; she was very proud of her faith and very bitter at her entire family for what she saw as their collective apostasy.  A year or two later, when I was teaching on our Florence study abroad program, I had a young woman who was very active in "United."  The only fellow church-members in Italy were in Milan; every Friday afternoon she took the train from Florence to Milan to spend the weekend with them, returning late Sunday.  Her faith was humbling, even as the theology was positively bizarre.  Both young women have since left the church; I recently ran into one at a restaurant she manages.  She looks much happier; a load has been lifted from her shoulders.  I asked her about the church, and she said she had been grateful that it had been there for her in her adolescence, but that she had moved beyond it now.  I told her I was happy for her.

I still run into quite a few of these heirs to Armstrongism.   They always tend to show up in my Western Civ classes, usually when we are talking about Paul and circumcision (or dietary laws.)  They do their utmost to convince me that Paul didn’t mean what most Christians think he meant when he proclaimed observance of the Law in these matters no longer necessary.  I always smile, affirm them, and invite them to come and chat in my office.  They’ve usually got a good story to tell, and they are usually with United or Living.  They’re bright kids, more often than not, and I enjoy their participation and their challenge.

And when I heard it was a Living church that was the target of Saturday’s shooting, I thought of their faces.

Notes, lust, and Marcus Aurelius inspires a prayer

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on March 14, 2005
in Christianity, Pasadena City College, Sexual ethics and transformation, Sexuality and Sports
. 27 Comments

The Solvang century ride on Saturday was long and glorious.  I was born in Santa Barbara County, and I know the countryside through which we rode (through Lompoc, Orcutt, Santa Maria, Vandenberg Air Force base and other areas) fairly well.  Never have I seen the hills so lush and green; thanks to this winter’s rains, the wildflowers were spectacular.   We enjoyed the century immensely, though I do think I would have an easier time during the last 25 miles of these events if I actually bothered to train for long rides. 

In other news, I wish to congratulate my Pasadena City College Lancer women’s basketball team; for the second straight year, they played in the state championship game.  Once again, however, they fell just shy of the title.  I’m very proud of these tough and talented women and their fine coaches.  Next year, Lancers.

I was honored that my anti-technology, pro-lecture rant was linked by Inside Higher Ed; that site will now be a regular read of mine.

More than forty comments below my Friday post on choices, and no one weighs in on the applicability of the Yeats poem?  Focus, people, focus!

In a comment below this other post, Erica posed an interesting question:

Since Jenell’s post about the very free worship leader, i have been trying to figure out what it means to acknowledge and even celebrate others’ sexuality, without channeling our own precious energy toward the wrong people (as in, not our partners)…

It’s a great question, really, and we’ve sort of danced around this on this blog.   I’m going to take an initial run at it, and maybe shape it up later.

Erica’s question is rooted in a value that she and I (and I would suspect many, but not all of my readers) share.  That value, of course, is monogamy.   Though I’m not an anthropologist or a theologian, a definition of monogamy that works for me is as follows:  the conscious direction of all of one’s romantic and sexual energy towards one other human being with whom one is a committed relationship.

But as everyone is aware, the fact that you’ve made such a commitment doesn’t remove other people from the face of the earth.  You and I and everyone else will go through life exposed to other attractive people.  So how do we honor our partners while also honoring other people’s sexuality?  One solution is a familiar one, and a useful one as well: recognize the reality of human frailty, and gently ask men and women alike to be conscious and responsible in the way in which they display their bodies in public space.  That sounds easy enough, but as the intense debate here and elsewhere over Jenell’s anecdote showed, it’s not easy to agree on what constitutes "responsible" dress and behavior, even for church settings.

So let me do what I prefer to do on my blog: substitute my personal experience and practice for an actual theory. Heck, it’s easier, and I’ve got papers to grade.

All of my sexual and romantic energy flows towards my fiancee.   When I was younger, the idea of channeling all of that intensity towards just one relationship seemed impossible.  How could I ignore other attractive people around me?  In my younger years, I thought of monogamy as a kind of heroic quest.  Staying physically and (especially) mentally faithful amidst omnipresent temptation was like going on crusade.  It required lots of prayer and lots of hard work.  It’s little wonder that many Christian men’s groups use archetypal images of warriors and knights in their literature and their sermons; it fits in well with the difficulty level of the task with which so many of my brothers struggle.  (Check out Pure Warrior ministries for a fairly obvious example of what I’m talking about.)  Let me hasten to say that I think the work these groups do is terrific.  I’m not going to argue with success. 

Perhaps it’s my inner Anabaptist (or my inner pro-feminist), but I tire quickly of all of this martial imagery around issues of sexuality.  It’s rousing and exciting, but too often it seems to get misdirected.  It’s one thing to say that misguided lust (that is to say, lust outside of the context of one’s marriage/partnership) is the enemy; too easily, however, other women themselves can become the enemy.  In my experience around some of these more passionate and basic men’s groups, it seems that Satan often comes not in the form of our own objectifying desires, but as the object of those desires itself.   That’s a huge mistake.

Both my faith and my academic work teach me of the immense importance of our sexuality.   Many of my classes focus on sexual issues, particularly in historical perspective.  I help teach our sex-ed curriculum to senior-highers at All Saints.  In that context I want the kids with whom I work to honor and accept their sexuality, to see it neither as a tool to be used for selfish gratification nor as a set of urges of which they ought to be frightened and ashamed.   After all, in a Christian perspective, sexual desire is one (but only one) of the ways in which we rightly ought to select our partners.  There’s no merit in marrying someone who doesn’t make ya feel a bit hot and bothered!  Lust has a very real place, especially when it is wedded to a commitment to live out all of the enormous and varied consequences of acting upon that lust.

This post is wandering. Let me get to the point.   Ultimately, my commitment to my fiancee is not contingent on other women covering up around me. It is not contingent upon whether or not the college’s Internet filters are working.    On a daily basis, without shame or sweat, I simply remind my eyes and my mind of where it is that they ought to be focused.  I remember the prayer I’ve written of before, especially if I am in a troublesome situation:  "Lord, show me this person as you see her, not as I see her."

When I was a child, my mother often recited to me the very famous meditation of the stoic emperor Aurelius:

Begin the morning by saying to thyself, I shall meet with the busy-body, the ungrateful, arrogant, deceitful, envious, unsocial…

In my own way,  though I am no stoic, I often rewrite old Marcus:

"Today, Lord, I shall meet with many people: the busy-body, the ungrateful, arrogant, deceitful, envious, unsocial — and the beautiful and the desirable.  Remind me, Lord, that these latter ones are my sisters.   How they dress and how they act is not my concern.  It is not my place to judge them or condemn them.   Remind me, Lord, of the marvelous purpose of your gift of sexual love.  Guide my eyes, Lord.  Guide my thoughts.

Somehow, I find that very comforting.  I don’t think I’ve finished answering the question Erica was raising (particularly the "celebrate other’s sexuality" part), but I’ll get back there.

Choices, young women’s dreams, and Yeats

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on March 11, 2005
in Feminism, Marriage and Relationships
. 65 Comments

It’s another busy day.  Not much time to post.  I’m resting up for the century ride tomorrow, and trying to return an unusually large number of e-mails.

Stephanie links to this article in yesterday’s Independent:  Desperate to be housewives: young women yearn for 1950s role as stay-at-home mums.   An excerpt:

Research into the attitudes of 1,500 women with an average age of 29
found that 61 per cent believe "domestic goddess" role models who
juggle top jobs with motherhood and jet-set social lives are
"unhelpful" and "irritating". More than two-thirds agree that the man
should be the main provider in a family, while 70 per cent do not want
to work as hard as their mother’s generation. On average, the women
questioned want to "settle down" with their partner by 30 and have
their first child a year later.

Vicki Shotbolt, deputy chief executive of the National Family and
Parenting Institute, said: "This is the generation of young women who
have seen the ‘have it all’ ethos up close and personal, and they have
realised that it doesn’t work.

"Their own mothers may have tried to juggle motherhood and careers,
and it may have been the children who feel they lost out … I think
women really are coming of age now, and are accepting that it is
virtually impossible to have it all."

Stephanie writes in response:

I would have to agree, it’s very hard to try and have it all. In some
ways, I think I may have given up on the dream myself. That is a
problem. But I think the either/or solution we’ve resigned ourselves to
seems more likely to breed resentment than anything else. I don’t see
much point in agreeing that the best way to organize society is for men
to be the breadwinners and women the childrearers. That just
potentially limits everyone to a lifetime of unfulfillment. I know from
experience that unhappy parents make lousy parents so I’d argue that
doesn’t do the kids much good either.

I’m always encouraged when folks start questioning false dichotomies, as Stephanie does here.  One important role feminists play in society is that of dreaming out loud; it’s vital that we have change agents questioning whether the given paradigm ought to be accepted as is.  And in terms of social policy, it’s clear that much can be done to make it possible for both men and women to better balance family and work obligations.

That said, the title of the article bugged me.  Obviously, it’s a riff on the TV show "Desperate Housewives."   But I see nothing in the article that says that these young women actually want to return to the "1950s." (For what it’s worth, I’m tired of both sides in the culture war dragging in the 1950s.  Conservatives need to stop idealizing it; progressives need to stop demonizing it.  It was one decade, folks, and a complex and interesting one at that.)  More to the point, why is it that we assume that the yearning for marriage and motherhood is somehow defective?   

Feminists are often tarred as "anti-family", a charge that is, in general absurd.  Most feminists desperately want to strengthen families by giving parents more time, more choices, more state and social support.  But it’s true that among at least some in the women’s movement (and their male allies), there remains an ugly, patronizing, dismissiveness towards young women who genuinely aspire to marriage and motherhood.   Mark, who commented at Stephanie’s place, wrote:

A disturbingly high number of women in college (at least in SE Ohio/N
Kentucky), do not want to work after graduating…

(Bold emphasis is mine.)  This raises the question, is college really only about preparing people for the work force?  (I sure hope not, because I have no idea how next week’s lecture on the Peloponnesian War is going to help anyone.)  What about college as an opportunity to engage new ideas, a place to be challenged, and a time to discover what one really wants?  And what about the possibility that some rational, intelligent, interesting and creative young women might conclude "Hey, the more I think about it, the more I realize that nothing is likely to be more fulfilling to me than raising a family."  Why must we assume that she is a victim of low expectations?  Is it not possible that such women have weighed their options, considered their choices, and made a heartfelt decision?  As feminists and pro-feminists, should we not be interested in empowering young women to live out their hopes and dreams?

More specifically, are we so sure that if high-quality, subsidized day-care was widely available, every woman who wishes to stay home would suddenly change her mind?  Mind you, I’m a big believer in high-quality, low-cost day care!  But I’ve known enough women who could afford the best day-care, and chose to stay home anyway, to know that not all mothers approach the issue in precisely the same manner. 

I’ve written a few times that I want to raise up young feminists and pro-feminists.  I want my female students to be aware of the tremendous, varied possibilities for their lives that may not have existed for their mothers and fore-mothers.  I want them to challenge themselves and take risks.  But I don’t presume to tell them that a high-paying career in the workforce is superior to building a loving home and raising children.  My goal is not to empower them to live out an ideological agenda; my goal is to empower them to lead lives that will be both personally fulfilling and socially beneficial.  I don’t know what each one of them will find fulfilling, but I am damn sure that different choices will please different people in different ways.  And to those young women who want to prioritize children over career and marriage over management, I say "Good on you."  It’s the same exact thing I’ve said to young women who pledge never to marry, and devote their lives to public service.  But when it comes to the future dreams of my students, I will not create a hierarchy of wants, in which certain desires are validated and others are shamed.  To do so would go against everything I have been taught that real feminism is.

And you know, when it comes to time and children and life itself, we really can’t have it all our way all the time.  I know it’s Friday, but the best lines on this subject come from the great W.B. Yeats:

The intellect of man is forced to choose
perfection of the life, or of the work,
And if it take the second must refuse
A heavenly mansion, raging in the dark.
When all that story’s finished, what’s the news?
In luck or out the toil has left its mark:
That old perplexity an empty purse,
Or the day’s vanity, the night’s remorse.

It’s clear where Yeats’ sympathies lie.  And mine.