Archive for August, 2005

Men, rage, statistics

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on August 18, 2005
in Marriage, Men and Masculinity and Men's Movement
. 87 Comments

Last night, I went to a screening of a new documentary on men and domestic violence.  The film (which has not yet been released) is called "Before the Fact"; it’s one man’s particularly candid and powerful story of his own marriage and what led him to a single act of physical violence against his wife.   The filmmaker/narrator, Michael Holland, connects his own act of violence to the stories of men who’ve famously murdered their wives (Simpson,Blake, Peterson, Hacking), and he repeatedly asks the question "What can we do ‘before the fact’ to prevent domestic violence, especially before it escalates to murder?"

The producer of the film, Adryenn Ashley, invited me and four other men to participate in a panel discussion immediately following the screening.  My friendly adversary Glenn Sacks was one as well, and the other three fellows were all from the Men’s Rights Movement.    The others were Marc Angelucci, Los Angeles director of the National Coalition of Free Men, the Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson of BOND (Brotherhood Of a New Destiny),  and a state lobbyist for the men’s rights movement whose name I regret I’ve completely forgotten.  (UPDATE: I’ve been told his name is Michael Robinson.)  I was invited to offer the pro-feminist perspective to counter the positions my fellow panelists might be expected to take.

What happened in the discussion period was fascinating.   Though Holland’s film had focused on what all of us can do to help men before they batter their wives,  several of my fellow panelists were more interested in talking about men as the victims of domestic violence — a topic not addressed in the film at all.  (For the record, Glenn Sacks was the one MRA who tried very hard to keep on topic, and I honor him for that.)   What followed was a mind-numbingly tiresome exchange of statistics, as several of the other panelists bandied about various figures from various studies designed to suggest that the real focus of the evening ought to be upon men as victims of physical abuse. 

Lord, is there anything as useless as an argument over statistics?  I don’t think I’d ever seen Twain’s old aphorism that "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics" demonstrated as well as I did last night!  To be fair, I know darned well that a great many folks on "my side" use statistics in debates as well.  I’m also sure that good, reliable, studies have their value.  But after years and years of this sort of thing, I’ve never seen anyone change anyone else’s mind by throwing numbers at them.  Shrieking "38% of men are battered by women" (or any other similar figure) fails to move anyone.  We all have our "counter-statistics", and things quickly degenerate into a war of competing studies and competing authorities.

If there is one thing even less productive than arguing from statistics, it’s arguing from anecdote.  Look, folks, everyone who does this work — on either side of the debate — has dozens of stories to tell.   In the domestic violence world, any of us can tell many stories of where the legal system has failed both men and women.  We can tell our own stories and share our own hurts, and we can describe outrages committed against husbands and wives in order to bolster our respective cases.  But when each anecdote is immediately met by a counter-anecdote, it’s damned difficult to see how we make any progress on an issue like this.  Here on the blog, I do tell stories of my own life.  This is because this blog is not intended to be polemical.  But I assure you, I neither teach nor debate the way I write.  While story-telling has its place, in and of itself it’s an ineffective tool for either resolving conflict or creating consensus.  Usually — as last night — sharing outrageous anecdotes just reinforces one’s self-perception of being a victim of a system stacked against (depending on your perspective) men or women.

As I’ve written before, I really don’t like it when we get into the "suffering Olympics".  In that post in January, I suggested that activists on both sides of the "sex wars" ought to commit themselves to three things:

1.  Become aware of the institutions and structures in our own and other cultures that shape and distort our attitudes towards gender identity and sexuality.   (Examples can range from female genital mutilation to pornography to reproductive rights to, yes, father’s issues.) 

2.  Take positive action to dismantle or weaken these structures.  This is basic activism. It doesn’t involve name-calling with one’s opponents.

3.  (This is my favorite). Become aware of our own complicity in "the great crime"!  Rigorously examine our own attitudes, behaviors, thoughts, and past actions — where have we been at fault?  Where have we injured others?  How have we, consciously or not, bought into cultural lies about gender and sexuality, and how have we behaved as a result?  We need to focus not merely  on our intentions, but on how others have perceived us.

What I loved about the film last night — and I hope it comes to public release in due course — was that the filmmaker so clearly "got" the third precept.  Holland acknowledged his own failings, and then tried to stimulate discussion about how we can more effectively help men and women to avoid the tragedy of domestic violence.  He suggests that both men and women need more support and skills, a position that I think that virtually all of us could endorse.  It’s just too bad that three of the four MRA panelists with whom I shared the stage last night were more interested in promoting the notion of men as victims of both battering women and an unsympathetic culture.

The Rev. Peterson was particularly rude.  He’s got quite a reputation apparently; check out his World Net Daily columns here.  (And he’s a whopping homophobe.)   He belittled one woman in the audience who (like so many others) had shared her own anecdote of abuse; she and her friends walked out of the screening in response to his ridicule.   Still,  despite the rancor, all of the panelists managed to be civil and friendly to one another afterwards. Most of us are good American men, after all, raised on sports culture:  rip each other to shreds on the field, and afterwards, pat each other on the back and laugh about it.   I had a friendly chat after the discussion with several MRAs; we were all able to acknowledge that even when our public rhetoric gets heated, we can still be civil and even cordial when we’re "off duty."  (As I’ve written before, there’s an element of male privilege in that as well.)

Thursday Short Poem: Nemerov’s “First Day of School”

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on August 18, 2005
in Poetry
. 0 Comments

Okay, so this poem is a few weeks early.  But lots of schools (including my own PCC) begin in August these days, so it seems appropriate enough.  I’ve liked this poem for a long time, and don’t know why I didn’t post it last fall.  (And since we had Denise Levertov, last week, I figure having Howard Nemerov today could continue some sort of Slavic-American theme…)

September, The First Day Of School

My child and I hold hands on the way to school,
And when I leave him at the first-grade door
He cries a little but is brave; he does
Let go. My selfish tears remind me how
I cried before that door a life ago.
I may have had a hard time letting go.

Each fall the children must endure together
What every child also endures alone:
Learning the alphabet, the integers,
Three dozen bits and pieces of a stuff
So arbitrary, so peremptory,
That worlds invisible and visible

Bow down before it, as in Joseph’s dream
The sheaves bowed down and then the stars bowed down
Before the dreaming of a little boy.
That dream got him such hatred of his brothers
As cost the greater part of life to mend,
And yet great kindness came of it in the end.

II

A school is where they grind the grain of thought,
And grind the children who must mind the thought.
It may be those two grindings are but one,
As from the alphabet come Shakespeare’s Plays,
As from the integers comes Euler’s Law,
As from the whole, inseperably, the lives,

The shrunken lives that have not been set free
By law or by poetic phantasy.
But may they be. My child has disappeared
Behind the schoolroom door. And should I live
To see his coming forth, a life away,
I know my hope, but do not know its form

Nor hope to know it. May the fathers he finds
Among his teachers have a care of him
More than his father could. How that will look
I do not know, I do not need to know.
Even our tears belong to ritual.
But may great kindness come of it in the end.

This line haunts me, as a teacher and a youth leader:

May the fathers he finds
Among his teachers have a care of him
More than his father could.

Wow.

Brother Roger

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on August 17, 2005
in Aggression and violence, Faith and People
. 2 Comments

Visiting Kendall’s place, I read this shocking news:  Brother Roger, founder of the Taize Community, was murdered last night at a prayer service in France.  He was ninety.

I am stunned and saddened at the violent death of this remarkable man.  My main exposure to Taize has come through its now world-famous meditative worship.  When I was prayer commission chair at Pasadena Mennonite, we organized a couple of mini-retreats to the beach, with Taize music and liturgy. Here’s a good Lutheran website quickly summarizing Taize worship; the instantly recognizable music has played a huge part in my prayer life.

Brother Roger was a man of enormous influence and extraordinary generosity.  And though he had reached four score and ten, I grieve the circumstances of his passing.

Thoughts on closing a different kind of door

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on August 17, 2005
in Marriage, Sexual ethics and transformation and Youth ministry
. 16 Comments

Lynn Gazis-Sax has a terrific post up today: Where Do You Draw the Line? It begins:

There’s someone with whom you’re sure you should not be having sex. Maybe because you’re married to someone else. Maybe because he or she is. Maybe because you’re taken a lifelong vow of celibacy, or because that person is not quite legal, or maybe you’re waiting till marriage, or maybe you’re just waiting till the third date. Maybe the person is attractive to you, and you’re trying to manage your attraction. Maybe the person isn’t the least bit attractive to you, but others might suspect you if you do the wrong thing, and you’re trying to manage your reputation. Whatever the reason, if you seriously want to be clear that you’re not going to have sex, there are probably a bunch of things, short of sex, that you’re also not doing. Where do you draw the line?

Lynn then considers the various possible responses to the question, and considers the boundaries in her own marriage, as well as what the implications are for her, as an openly bisexual (though monogamous) woman.  Read her whole post.

I’ve become fairly rigid about my boundaries in recent years, largely because in my past I got into so much trouble for not being so.  In my youth, I had plenty of "platonic" friendships with women that sizzled with barely unexpressed sexual tension.  I figured that infidelity was an action, not a thought or a desire; I allowed myself to indulge in the narcissistic pleasure of these non-sexual (but tense) friendships for years.  Another thing I did to harm all three of my previous wives was to maintain strong, ultimately inappropriate friendships with exes and other women with whom I had a "past."  At the time,  I thought I was demonstrating my maturity and sophistication by continuing to have warm, friendly, non-sexual relationships with ex-girlfriends and lovers.  At one party my third wife and I threw many years ago, I calculated that she had two ex-boyfriends/lovers and I had four ex-girlfriends/lovers in attendance.  That gave me a bit of a puerile thrill at the time, I’m rather embarrassed to say.  It’s not something that I would ever let happen now.

I’m not uncivil to the women from my past, but in the last few years have realized the wisdom of "letting the past be the past." Unless there are children involved, I don’t think it’s a healthy idea to maintain close friendships with one’s exes.  Somehow, it actually seems to diminish what was shared.  To transition from passion to non-sexual friendship seems to dishonor the intense relationship that did exist in the past.  Furthermore, I’ve come to realize that it’s my job, as a boyfriend, fiancee (and soon, a husband) to make sure that my beloved feels honored and cherished both by my actions and by the appearance of my actions.   A few years ago, a friend suggested that when with a woman who wasn’t the one to whom I was committed, I ought to imagine that my gal could see and hear everything I said and did.  (This includes, he said, e-mail and instant messaging.)  If I could be honestly certain that she would be untroubled by my behavior, fine.  If I wouldn’t want her to witness what I — or another woman –was doing or saying, then that was a good signal to cool it.  At the time, that sounded terribly restrictive; in the last couple of years I’ve grown to accept that as a wise and helpful tool.  To this day, I periodically imagine my fiancee seeing and hearing  and reading everything I do and write and say; it helps me avoid inadvertently crossing a line I ought not cross.

Do I recommend internalizing an "omniscient partner" in order to set good boundaries?  Not for everyone.  Frankly, my caution is based on my own recklessness in the past.  Plenty of folks I know have been able to practice good healthy common sense around issues of fidelity and attraction for years and years.  Different folks will have different comfort levels, and some will be able to have a much less restrictive policy.

On a related topic:  at a professional level, I meet with my students of both sexes behind closed doors.  (My office opens on to a very noisy hallway; if I even have the door ajar, I can’t hear myself think).   I don’t meet with teenage girls in my youth group behind closed doors, except in those rare instances when they approach me for a private discussion.  At those times, I often go into our youth minister’s office.  It’s got glass walls, happily enough (every youth pastor needs ‘em); folks can see in and out but can’t hear what’s being said.  That enables me to strike a safe and helpful balance.  I wouldn’t mind glass doors on my office at school, either, as long as what was said could be kept private.  But given that we can’t even seismically retrofit my office building (erected in 1937 by the WPA), I’m not holding out hope for chic transparent doors!

Closing the door; thoughts on the joys of growing older

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on August 17, 2005
in Addiction and mental illness and Age
. 10 Comments

I did my first track workout in over a year last night.  I’m flabbergasted by how much speed I’ve lost in recent years… Still, I’m feeling quite fit these days, and if I can’t get my legs to turn over as fast as they did in the second Clinton Administration, then I can live with that. 

I’ve been thinking quite a bit about aging.  I’m 38, and it’s really only in the past year that I’ve started to encounter real evidence of physical decline.   My muscles don’t recover quite as fast from a long run as they used to; my speed is not what it was.   As I found out this summer, if I really want to get back down to the weight I was five or six years ago, I can’t just go back to eating the way I did.  As they say in Twelve Step programs, "the road gets narrower"; when it comes to my aging metabolism,  my body’s ability to burn off fat and sugar has noticeably declined.

We’ve also finished hiring a new "crop" of full-time faculty at Pasadena City College.  Up until recently, I was still the youngest full-time instructor in my division.  For a decade, I was the "baby" of the department.  To be frank, I liked that status.  I got to play the role of the young hothead in more than one faculty meeting, and I assure you that that was a deeply satisfying part to play.  As I wrote a few months ago, the average age of new hires has been rising dramatically in recent years.  Though I was given a tenure-track job at 27, and many of my older colleagues were hired at similar ages, fewer and fewer twenty-somethings are getting full-time posts.

I’m still the "last" prof hired tenure-track in the division while still in his twenties.  But we have selected a couple of folks in their early thirties this year, and so at long last, after eleven years, my status as the "baby" has ended.  On the one hand, I’m delighted to see new "young Turks" join the division; on the other, I’m aware that it means that I am indeed not as young as I used to be.

But this is not a musing filled with regret over a vanishing youth.  Rather, I’m happy to say that it’s just in the past year that I’ve begun to embrace the very tangible blessings of getting a bit older.  While the gray is sprouting in my beard and on my chest, I’ve also found my patience growing.  Ask my friends from a decade or so ago; I was as prone to road rage as any Angeleno.   Monday afternoon, I failed to signal while changing lanes on the 210; a young man behind me "flipped me off" as a consequence.  In my twenties, rage and indignation would have boiled up instantly, and I would have returned the gesture.  Instead, this time I raised my hand, opened my palm, and mouthed "sorry".  The old anger just didn’t come, and as I thought about it, realized I couldn’t remember the last time I’d lost my temper on the freeway.

On an even more personal note, the struggle with depression has ended.   As I’ve written before, I battled many personal demons in my teens and twenties — and into the dawn of my thirties.   What I haven’t shared before is that I spent many years on a variety of anti-depressants and other psychotropic medications.   I was twenty when I began taking them; thirty when I stopped.    I am convinced that the meds I took in the late 1980s and early-to-mid 1990s saved my life.  But at around the same time as my 1998 conversion experience, I found that I no longer battled the same sort of crushing despair that had characterized my twenties.  On a spiritual level, I do believe I was healed by God.  But on a physical level, I wonder if my brain didn’t just "outgrow" the tempests of its youth.  I don’t know enough about neuropsychology to say, but I’ve been told anecdotally that many folks simply do outgrow certain kinds of mental illness.

Even when my faith has waned (as it does sometimes), that crushing despair has never returned.  It’s true that with age, I no longer feel things quite as intensely as I did a decade or two ago.   Fewer things make me angry; fewer things make me sad.  When I’m happy, I’m deeply, quietly happy; the manic elation of my teens and twenties almost never reappears.  When I work with teenagers, and see their volatile emotions on full display, I remember perfectly what it was like to feel that way.  But I can also say, with great relief, that I don’t feel that way any longer.  That centeredness may be part of God’s gift of faith, but it may also be part of the process of growing older and growing up.

Bring on the gray hairs, bring on the wrinkles!  Though I remain all-too-vain about my fitness and my weight, the exterior signs of aging on my head and face don’t bother me in the slightest.  A decade ago, I was anxious to fit in with the students whom I taught; today, I feel no desire to be viewed as a "slightly older peer".   Yes, growing older has cost me many minutes on my marathon time.  It’s put many a line on my face.  But it’s also brought me a very deep sense of peace, and it’s brought a degree of emotional stability I never imagined possible.  And those rewards are well-worth the slower track times, the aching muscles, and the crow’s feet.

Donald Justice wrote that "men at forty learn to close softly the doors of rooms they will not be coming back to."   What doors am I closing, twenty-one months away from forty?   I’ve got plenty in mind, but I’d like to think I’ve finally learned to close the door on the "pursuit of everlasting novelty".   Most folks, I think, can figure out just how terrible it is to spend one’s life on that hopeless chase.  If not, maybe I’ll manage a longer post on the subject.

Eclectic

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on August 16, 2005
in Music
. 10 Comments

Just thought you’d like to know that I’ve downloaded songs from the following artists today on itunes:

Dokken, Ronnie James Dio, Iron Maiden (yes, I’m still a metalhead in my heart); Jill Sobule; Billy Bragg; John Mellencamp; Iris Dement;  Pete Seeger; Bad Religion; John Hiatt; ABBA.

I confuse myself.  But it makes for a heck of an interesting soundtrack.  But no more for a while; at 99 cents a pop, they’ve added up!  I’m on probation until after I get the next credit card bill.

Musing on a letter from a vagina

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on August 16, 2005
in Christianity and Feminism
. 48 Comments

Sometimes, I’m struck temporarily speechless.

Via Aldahlia, here’s Not a Desperate Housewife’s "Vagina’s Monologue":

Greetings,

Let me begin with saying how pleased I am to be here. But I do feel it necessary to go over a few things with you before we head too much further into our life together.

First you should know that I am a perfect gift to you from God. I have a purpose and should not be used for anything else other than my intended use. You have received me as a gift to be given as a gift. So valuable am I, that a man will do just about anything to get me. You must be cautious, you must be vigilant.

I was given to you in order for you to give to one and only one man. Please know that the blessings you receive from this are greater than one can imagine. I am not to be shared among many, I am not to be taken for granted. If you adhere to God’s plan for me, I will in return bring you great joy. Great joy that comes with much honor and respect. Joy that comes with no burden of guilt. Joy that cannot be explained to anyone who has never experienced it.

If you respect me, you will not be subjected to sexually transmitted diseases. If you respect me, I will usher in an even greater gift from God. I am the gateway to your children. I will deliver them to you and your loving, needing arms. I will be there as you kiss the forehead of your child for the very first time. I will bring joy to your household as I fill it with the children you and your husband create.

I’m not sure if anyone has told you any of this. Many adults no longer respect me and indoctrinate you young people with lies. I felt that I needed to portray these things to you so that we might have a happy life together. You see, you only get one of me. I cannot be replaced, I cannot be upgraded. So I beg of you, take care of me. In doing so I will take of you.

Thank you,

Your Vagina

Apparently, this missive was intended for the author’s daughter or other young girls. 

It’s a tempting target, obviously, and easy enough to lampoon.  Rather than make fun of the letter (the author’s website makes clear she’s a Christian conservative), I’ll just say I have a" yes, a no, and a hmmm" in response.

Here’s my "yes":   The vagina says: "I am not to be taken for granted… You see, you only get one of me. I cannot be replaced, I cannot be upgraded. So I beg of you, take care of me. In doing so I will take of you."   Given that an earlier generation of conservative Christian writers simply ignored the vagina altogether (it was simply an "unmentionable"), this is progress.  Yes, we have surgeons in L.A. who most definitely do "upgrade" vaginas, but I’ll let that pass.   As a Christian educator, I can enthusiastically endorse any tract that encourages young people to appreciate and honor their bodies, especially those parts that we label private.

Here’s my "no":  The vagina says:

I have a purpose and should not be used for anything else other than my intended use. You have received me as a gift to be given as a gift. So valuable am I, that a man will do just about anything to get me. You must be cautious, you must be vigilant.

I’ve always intensely disliked this sort of language.  The implication, of course, is that girls must protect themselves from rapacious and predatory men.  There’s no sense that the vagina (or, more broadly, a woman’s libido) has its own agency.   Even for those Christians who do advocate abstinence before marriage, it’s terrible passe to use the language of female passivity and male aggression.  Nowhere in this letter is their the acknowledgment that girls and women want sex too.

I also am reluctant to use the language of "gifts".  To speak of our bodies as "gifts to be given as gifts" implies that we only use them rightly in relationship with others.   In other words, they don’t truly belong to us; even our sexuality is intended exclusively as a means by which to connect with others.   While as a Christian, I do believe we are called to love others with our bodies, I also believe our bodies are  gifts — and first and foremost, they are gifts to us.  Our flesh, in all its grandeur, fragility, and glory is a gift of the Creator to us. It can bind us to our spouses and our children; it can serve the community, but it can also bring us our own delight.   Though we may all be called to serve, I believe we are also called to honor the gift of incarnation by recognizing that our bodies are pleasurable in and of themselves.

Another "no":

If you respect me, you will not be subjected to sexually transmitted diseases.

Uh, not quite.  Tell that to two Christian women I know, virgins on their wedding nights, whose husbands were unfaithful and gave them some "lovely gifts."

And a last no:

If you adhere to God’s plan for me, I will in return bring you great joy. Great joy that comes with much honor and respect.  Joy that comes with no burden of guilt.

Yeah, right.  Read the countless letters in Christian marriage magazines.  Lots of "good Christian women" who were virgins on their wedding nights are struggling with sexual guilt.  Honestly, people, the human brain doesn’t just switch off and on.  You can’t tell a young woman over and over again "Sex is bad; save it for someone you love", and then magically expect her to have loads of guilt-free sex the moment she’s gotten married!  I don’t know how many evangelical Christians "Not a Desperate Housewife" knows, but I’ve got plenty of friends who "waited" and who have, nonetheless, battled all sorts of guilt.  If my dear fellow Christians want to get honest, they need to stop spreading the lie that waiting until marriage automatically guarantees freedom from doubt, anxiety, and shame!  (The best conservative writers on the subject, ala Lauren Winner, don’t fall for that, I’m pleased to say.)

Here’s my "hmmm": I will bring joy to your household as I fill it with the children you and your husband create.

Anyone else getting one heck of a visual?

Defending Malkin, Ingraham, and Coulter

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on August 16, 2005
in Feminism, People and Politics
. 56 Comments

Amanda linked to (and commented upon) this Michelle Malkin tirade about conservative women, physical appearance, and liberal hypocrisy. Here’s how Malkin begins:

Liberals say they want women to be taken seriously in the arenas of government and public policy. They claim they want women to be judged based on their ideas, not their physical appearance.

Unless, of course, those women are conservative.

Case in point: the continued leftist mockery of GOP Rep. Katherine Harris, who is serving her second term in Congress. Before serving in Congress, she was Florida’s secretary of state. Before that she was a state Senator, an IBM marketing executive, and a vice president of a commercial real estate firm. She has a Master’s Degree from Harvard University with a specialization in international trade and negotiations.

Despite her credentials, she has been repeatedly ridiculed–not for her ideas or record, but for her physical appearance. It started back in 2000 during the re-count controversy in Florida, when numerous columnists compared Harris to Cruella de Ville, the villain in "101 Dalmatians." The Washington Post published an entire article lampooning Harris’s make-up.

Michelle Malkin, of course, is no stranger to personal insults; like many on the right, she has been quite nasty about Michael Moore’s weight.

On the one hand, I dislike ridiculing anyone for their personal appearance.   Obviously, I’ve risen to the defense of Michael Moore in the past; I get very angry when confronted with right-wing stereotypes about "ugly, unwashed, overweight" feminists.   As a pro-feminist, I’m troubled anytime we at any point on the political spectrum make our opponent’s bodies into issues.  I’ve felt this way for years; I’m old enough to remember being deeply annoyed at the snarky remarks my fellow lefties made about the pearls and sweater sets worn by the godmother of today’s right-wing women, the venerable Phyllis Schlafly of the Eagle Forum.

But it’s also important to acknowledge the message sent by the appearance of conservative women like Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, and Michelle Malkin herself.  Amanda refers to an Air America interview with Rachel Maddow:

Maddow made a really good point about the self-presentation of these women, even though she had to climb through the hosts’ mockery of them to do it. Her point was that they very deliberately present themselves as almost caricatures of femininity for a very specific reason, which is they are trying to sell themselves as some sort of stereotypical "perfect" woman to a male-dominated conservative audience. Malkin, Laura Ingraham, and Ann Coulter all make arguments that would be considered masculine–Coulter especially is good at projecting a general disdain for the very existence of womanhood. Their audience therefore is pretty much guaranteed to be the very kind of people who are most threatened by assertive women, so they dress in a hyper-feminine way to counteract that effect. It works beautifully for them.

Maddow described the way that Ann Coulter presents herself as drag. Maddow was exactly right–Coulter is female, but she is still play-acting at being female much like a drag queen does. But her goals are completely different. A drag queen does that for fun, for play, and in part to sort of fuck with gender roles. Coulter does it for essentially wicked reasons–to reinforce gender roles, to exaggerate them and to trap other women with them. It’s not bad to comment on costumery in and of itself, it’s just bad when you do it to hurt someone who is just being him/herself and not harming anyone else. But female conservative pundits wear these costumes with the end goal of quite a bit of harm, so I don’t see the problem with criticizing them for that.

The bold emphases are mine. 

I hear what Amanda’s saying, and part of me agrees. On the other hand, as a feminist, I am very wary of ascribing intent to women based on their dress!  We’ve fought for decades against the notion that revealing dress is always a sign of sexual availability.   We’ve struggled to bury the notion that a woman in a miniskirt is "asking for it"; we’ve been justifiably outraged when rape and sexual assault are condoned because of a women’s provocative outfit.  What I object to about the Maddow/Marcotte theory is their certainty about the intent of the likes of Coulter and Malkin.  Must their feminine dress be a charade, a costume designed to send a specific message? Is it not possible that these pundits simply prefer dressing that way? 

As a pro-feminist man, I support the right of women to have sovereignty over their own bodies.  (How that sits uneasily with my waffling pro-life stance is a question I’m still struggling with).  Part of that sovereignty is the right of each woman to determine the ultimate meaning of her outer appearance.  Of course, the outside world will make judgments; that’s to be expected.   But for those of us who have fought hard for women to be free to wear miniskirts or long pants, to wear high heels or combat boots, to shave their heads or have spectacularly-coiffed tresses — and to be free to do so without judgment –  it’s dangerously inconsistent to be so certain about what signals our conservative sisters intend to send to the world with their fashion choices.

I’m not certain that Malkin et al don’t make choices about their appearance in line with their ideological agenda.    But I’m not certain that they do, either, and I seriously doubt that anyone else possesses that certainty.  There’s plenty of ideological ground on which to critique our conservative sisters; dress and body type and hair style should be off-limits to those of us committed to justice and equality for women.

More on Roberts

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on August 15, 2005
in People and Politics
. 4 Comments

It’s another busy Monday.  The good news is that the home computer is finally home from the shop; the bad news (if it can really be considered "bad") is that I’ve got so many various things to do this week that I doubt I’ll have much time to post.  It’s really during the school year, when I am in front of the computer so often, that I am able to post with regularity.

The enthusiasm of social conservatives for the nomination of John Roberts continues to diminish since the revelation about his pro-bono work for gay-rights partisans in the Romer v. Evans case.   The LA Times this morning produced this report on yesterday’s Justice Sunday, a nationwide satellite rally of evangelicals in support of "saving the court".   It seems safe to say that the excitement about Roberts among the religious right has cooled to lukewarm:

Organizer Tony Perkins, president of the conservative advocacy group Family Research Council, told reporters Friday that the event was "not a Roberts rally." In fact, few of the speakers mentioned Roberts by name, and those who did were restrained in their remarks. James Dobson, founder of another advocacy group, Focus on the Family, said, "For now at least, he looks good."

"For now, at least, he looks good" is hardly an overwhelming endorsement.   On Friday, Concerned Women for America put out a press release entitled "Roberts’ Role in the Romer Case Raises Questions".   Referring to Romer, CWA writes:

CWA finds the news troubling…

Judge Roberts allegedly donated about five hours to the case, playing the part of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia in a moot court and also providing advice to attorneys from Lambda Legal Defense Foundation, which brought the case.

It is standard practice for attorneys at private firms to donate pro bono hours, sometimes even for clients with whom they have philosophical differences. But they don’t have to take every case offered them. Columnists Ann Coulter and Don Feder have since written articles warning that little is known about Judge Roberts, much as little was known about previous appointee David Souter, who was touted as a conservative but who quickly became part of the court’s most liberal wing.

In another development, The Washington Times reported on August 11 that Roberts, in a 1982 memo to Attorney General William French Smith, referred to Free Congress Foundation founder Paul Weyrich as “of course, no friend of ours.”

Weyrich is a longtime friend of Concerned Women for America and one of America’s greatest conservative champions. The memo was written in response to an inquiry from the left-leaning American Bar Association to a book authored by Weyrich, “A Blueprint for Judicial Reform.” The memo, in which Roberts misspelled Weyrich as “Weyerich,” was one of several that Roberts wrote to advise Smith on how to handle conservatives who had been instrumental in securing President Reagan’s election, according to the Times.

Finally, Human Events, the conservative newsweekly, ran a story today that Roberts spent about 12 hours as a private attorney representing Playboy Entertainment Group in its case against a federal law that requires scrambling cable porn channels or restricting the hours so that children are not inadvertently exposed.

“Roberts played the role of a Supreme Court justice in a moot court setting, preparing Playboy’s lead counsel, Robert Corn-Revere, who worked in Hogan & Hartson’s communications department, for his oral argument before the Supreme Court,” Human Events reporter Robert Bluey reports. Unlike the Romer case, Roberts was paid for the work.

Bold emphases are mine.

I’ve written before that as a consistent-life progressive, I find Roberts’ wife’s background to be comforting.  And now, reading that he has worked for Playboy and on behalf of the plaintiffs in Romer, I’m further comforted.  No, I don’t think he’ll turn out to be much of a liberal on the court.  But to the dismay of all of us on both sides who want to see a right-wing or left-wing ideologue on the court, John Roberts may turn out to be a "lawyer’s lawyer", a man who will be far more interested in law and precedent than in pushing an agenda.  Given the political views of the man who nominated him, John Roberts seems to be the best that we on the left could hope for.

May he be speedily confirmed, and may the fears of social conservatives be justified.

A reflection on love and church-hopping

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on August 12, 2005
in Christianity and Faith
. 7 Comments

Aldalhlia kindly sent me this link to a post at Dan Kimball’s place.
It’s on the ten stages so many of us go through as we join a church:
from infatuation to disenchantment to alienation to leaving the church
to missing the church and coming back.  It’s dead-on accurate, and it
describes perfectly how I first came to All Saints Pasadena.

The First Stage: We
begin going to a church, excitement, thrilling, love Jesus, the church is
exciting, all things new.

Second Stage: We begin
getting involved, learn behind the scenes things, feel privileged to know the
church staff and leaders more personally, we are totally excited.

Third Stage: We see things
you start to question, the thrill of the big church meetings wanes, as it seems
more and more predictable, the leaders seem more human now and not as special as
first.

Keep reading all the way through; Kimball nails the whole experience perfectly. 

I’m not unaware of the parallels between my romantic and religious experiences!  Indeed, I think a great many of us, consciously or not, see churches and partners in much the same way.  We come into a new relationship with either a community or an individual filled with excitement and passion; the chemistry wears off, the flaws become evident, and we become frustrated and disappointed.  We end up leaving the church (or the relationship), and start the process over somewhere else or with someone new.

Breaking the cycle of church-hopping is similar to breaking out of a pattern of unhealthy, addictive relationships.  Essentially, it involves becoming much more realistic about what it is that a church is supposed to provide.   Just as a spouse is not there to make you happy, solve your problems, and give meaning to your life, so too a church is not merely some spiritual socket that will endlessly recharge you every time you stick your plug in!   I’ve come to realize that a good relationship with either a church or a partner requires tremendous patience, a willingness to sacrifice, and a hell of a sense of humor. Both marriages and churches work better when we (to paraphrase JFK) ask not what they can do for us but what we can do for them.

As long as I saw churches as spiritual refueling stations that existed only to meet my needs, I was inevitably disappointed.  As long as I saw women as providing everlasting novelty and passion, I was inevitably disappointed — and disappointing!  I do best with the church when I see it as a  Spirit-inspired community of lovable, infuriating, and flawed human beings whom I am called to serve.  I do best with my fiancee when I recognize that she and I are called to mutual submission, and it is my job to love her and serve her as Christ loved His church.

I’m not planning on leaving All Saints Pasadena any time soon.  And this next marriage will be my last.

Friday lunch

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on August 12, 2005
in Men and Masculinity and Youth ministry
. 4 Comments

First off, as I’ve mentioned before, my home computer is in the shop.  I hope to have it back on Monday, but the reduced frequency of my posts is linked to my inability to post from the house.  Only on brief visits to the office can I bang away at the keyboard.

Many of my MRA readers have pronounced themselves dissatisfied with Tuesday’s post in response to Dr. E’s query.  Keri gave what I think is the best response:

…if it were absolutely necessary to frame things in terms of "masculine" and "feminine," then there are some "masculine" traits I value in friends of both genders and some "feminine" traits I value in friends of both genders. Real or perceived "gender differences" are entirely irrelevant in terms of my friendships, because my friends are individuals. Anyone who cannot accept that answer obviously has a drastically different perception of human relationships than I do, one that gives gender far more weight than I am willing to grant it, and there’s really no point in debating about it.

The question, as originally posed, was NOT "What does Hugo think are inherently masculine qualities?"  Dr. E asked:  Can you tell us what you like about men?   I took that to be a polite, personal question about my own feelings — not about my views on men and masculinity in contemporary society.  I’ve answered the question, as it was asked, to the best of my ability,  and have nothing further to say on the subject at this time.

Am I dodging the follow-up questions?  Well, if you consider having better things to do to be "dodging", than so be it.  As BritGirlSF says, the weather has been pretty darned nice lately.  Combine great weather and summer vacation and an impending wedding with the absence of a home computer, and yeah, I’ve got things I’d rather do than answer every MRA question thrown at me.

On a distantly related subject:

I had lunch today with L., a 17 year-old from my youth group whom I’ve been spending time with for a couple of years.  He’s an amazing guy: a talented musician, gentle, handsome, thoughtful, creative.   (He’s in the process of redoing the floors in his entire house, by himself.  He’s ripping up carpet and putting down tile, and that’s more than I would try on my own.)   I heard about his new girlfriend, and we talked about how so few of his friends actually "date".  They hang out, they "hook up", but it’s rare in his circle for a couple to have a planned outing.

L. wants to take his new girlfriend out, and asked for ideas.  I started by telling him something I was told many years ago by a wise old fellow:  every good date has a beginning, a middle, and an end. No, sexual activity doesn’t count for any one of those three stages, though it can happen "after the end" of the date, if so desired.   L. liked the sound of that, and asked for an example.  Here’s what I suggested:  A typical beginning (given adolescent budgets) might be a walk in the L.A. Arboretum, complete with duck feeding and peacock gazing.  This could be followed by dinner, and L. and I discussed some good, non-chain, inexpensive places to go in the area.  After that, perhaps another walk to get ice cream, or a moonlight walk in Eaton Canyon.  The important thing, I stressed to L., is that he take the time to plan the date.  There’s nothing less romantic, I feel, than wandering around saying "What do you want to do? "  "I don’t know, what do you want to do?"   Too many of the young kids I know fall into that trap.

L. seemed enthusiastic.  Since we’ve been on gender topics lately, yes, I would give the same piece of advice I gave to him to a 17 year-old girl.  I don’t believe that only boys should plan dates; my somewhat old-fashioned "beginning, middle, and end" advice does not come with prescribed gender roles!  What matters is not "what the boy does"; what matters is, I think, that young people embrace rituals that allow them to feel noticed and valued.  In a dating relationship, I said to L., few things are better than feeling "planned for."  He agreed.  He’ll report, he says.

Tremble, MRAs; Hugo is spending lots of time this summer hanging out with young men.

 

A long reflection on the “good divorce”

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on August 11, 2005
in Faith and Marriage
. 30 Comments

I am getting more and more excited about my upcoming marriage.  No, I’m not going to reveal the exact date and details; some things don’t need to be sent out across the blogosphere.  I will post an announcement after the wedding, however.

As our wedding date draws get closer and the anticipation grows, I’ve also been thinking — just a little bit — about divorce.  No, I’m happy to say that I’m not filled with foreboding.  My certainty about the woman who will be my wife is deep, far deeper than I’ve known with anyone else!  I feel blessed that my fiancee is willing to marry a man who does have a track record of three divorces; her faith in me and our mutual belief that the past is not necessarily the best predictor of future behavior are great reassurances.

But this week, I’ve been filled with a strange sense of gratitude for my three previous marriages.  I’m keenly aware of the fact that I learned a great deal in each of them, and though all of the lessons were painful, they were ultimately very positive in my life.  Indeed, as far as I can tell, I cannot imagine having the relationship skills I do possess if I hadn’t gone through each of these brief, difficult, but nonetheless significant marriages.   If nothing else, my past has taught me a great deal about what NOT to do in a new marriage; it has also liberated me from most of the unhelpful fantasies about what relationships are.

I know I’m treading dangerously close to the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc ("after this, therefore on account of this.")  Obviously, lots and lots of men have become wonderful, thoughtful husbands and fathers without having three multiple prior marriages!   And let me hasten to argue that I don’t think that divorce is an inherently good thing.  But I also have learned that "failed marriages" can have a profoundly positive affect upon those who survive them, provided those who came out of that marriage chose to learn the lessons offered by the experience.   And I think it’s safe to say that for some of us, we might never have learned our lessons in any other way.

I don’t write in any detail about my previous marriages.  All were brief; none lasted longer than a few years.  All ended for different reasons, and they ended in different ways.  While my second marriage ended stormily and abruptly, my third marriage ended very gently and thoughtfully.  With this final divorce, my ex-wife and I spent a great deal of time in therapy, and as a result of that process came to see our entire marriage in a different light.

Our marriage counselor was — and is — a prominent Christian psychologist.  He was one of the early graduates of Fuller Seminary’s Graduate School of Psychology.  Obviously, I expected "Dr. K." to take a strongly anti-divorce tack.  But he surprised us, especially one day when my former wife, crying in his office, said "Divorce makes me feel like such a failure."  Dr. K said something remarkable (I paraphrase, though I remember it vividly): 

"You know, I used to think divorce was always a sign of failure.  But I don’t use the term ‘failed marriage’ as lightly any more.  I think the best divorces are more like graduations — they mark the moment when the marriage has served its purpose, both spouses have learned all that they could from it, and it’s time for them to move on."

(Oral emphasis in the original.)  Coming from the mouth of a famous Fuller Ph.D whom I knew came from a conservative Dutch Calvinist background, this was pretty stunning!  (And for those of you who know the small Pasadena community of "Fuller folk", don’t try and guess the identity of Dr. K.)  But as shocking as it was, it rang true.  These were not easy words offered to comfort two guilt-ridden people.   Dr. K was drawing attention to the very real possibility that in some instances, divorce can (for all its attendant hurts and disappointments) be a profoundly positive experience, particularly when it occurs in a kind, civil atmosphere where each partner gets a chance to share their personal pain and grief.

My evangelical theology and my romantic fantasy both tell me the same thing: all marriages should last forever.   It’s hard to extricate oneself from that belief, and even now, I’m not entirely convinced that we ought to try and do so.  There’s certainly some very real value in making a lifelong commitment, even if one’s own "growth trajectory" makes it impossible to continue to honor that commitment after a certain period of time.  At the same time, there’s no point in having divorced folks wander around guilt-ridden.  I can’t tell you how many of my Christian friends who are in their second or third marriages still feel shame and guilt about their divorces.  For those of us who believe in forgiveness, and who belong to religious communities that honor the possibility of remarriage after divorce, such guilt seems almost prideful.  If regeneration is a process that can happen over and over again, as our faith tells us is possible, then surely we are defying God’s grace if we continue to beat ourselves up for past marriages that were ended by dissolution rather than death!

But I don’t just believe that divorce is an "evil" that can be forgiven.   Though many divorces are bitter and nasty, not all of them need be.  I’ve gone the bitter and angry route (in my second), and I’ve gone the loving, charitable, and (dare I say it) "positive" route (in my third.)  Thus in my own experience, I have witnessed the very real redemptive possibilities that can be found in the experience of marital dissolution.

In this last divorce process, which lasted months, I allowed myself to experience the unique "refining fire" that the end-of-marriage process can offer.  I am absolutely convinced that few other experiences, if any, can force one to confront the realities of one’s own sinfulness and one’s own selfishness!  In that marriage, especially in the drawn-out process which ended it, I faced some colossally uncomfortable truths about myself.   In the safe atmosphere of the therapist’s office, my ex-wife and I confronted each other.  But rather than just "dump", we both took the time to hear what we were being told.    And by doing that "hearing work", we not only validated the other’s experience, we came to terms with facts about ourselves we would never otherwise have seen.

Strange thing:  We began the therapy process with Dr. K hoping the marriage could be saved.  But we continued to see him for weeks AFTER we had both agreed to divorce.  Our goal in those remaining sessions was not to find a way to stay together; rather, it was to make the separation experience as vital, as cleansing, and as cathartic as possible. It was a great gift that my ex-wife and I gave each other.  On the final night of therapy, I walked my ex to her car after we were finished.  "I feel elated", she said, "giddy."  "I know", I replied, "me too."  We hugged tightly for what would be the last time, and just before saying goodbye, we thanked each other once again.  The thank you was for all the effort each had put into the marriage, but also all the honesty and forgiveness and grace we had each brought to the divorce experience.  I wept as I drove away that night, but I was not in agony; the tears were tears of incredible gratitude for the amazing experience that I had just completed.

Of course, saying that there is such a thing as a "good divorce" or that it can be like "graduation" is not the same thing as saying that divorce is the best possible outcome!   Obviously, in the best and healthiest marriages, that experience of being in the "crucible", with all one’s selfish impurities melting away, will happen within the relationship itself, and not only in the therapist’s office as one prepares for the final goodbye!  As I prepare to get married again, I am filled with genuine confidence that my beloved and I will be able to challenge each other and help each other transform — all while making the marriage grow and survive.   

I am confident of this not only because of the tremendous depth of love I have for my fiancee, but because I feel that we each have a formidable "skill set" of spiritual and psychological tools that we can bring to the table.  In my case, I acquired those tools from many sources: from various spiritual communities, wise mentors and pastors, dear friends, and the grace of a loving God.  But I also acquired those tools through the immensely painful — and yet also immensely transformative –  experience of my three divorces.  When I stand with my bride-to-be not long from now, I will have thoughts of no one but her in my head.  She is my "now", and she is my "tomorrow", and Lord willing, will be my tomorrow for all the tomorrows to come.  But I am only truly ready to be hers because of all of my yesterdays, and all that they taught me.

Thursday Short Poem: Levertov’s “Thread”

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on August 11, 2005
in Poetry
. 3 Comments

I can’t remember if I’ve posted any Denise Levertov or not.  This is one of my favorites.

The Thread

Something is very gently,
invisibly, silently,
pulling at me-a thread
or net of threads
finer than cobweb and as
elastic. I haven’t tried
the strength of it. No barbed hook
pierced and tore me. Was it
not long ago this thread
began to draw me? Or
way back? Was I
born with its knot about my
neck, a bridle? Not fear
but a stirring
of wonder makes me
catch my breath when I feel
the tug of it when I thought
it had loosened itself and gone.

What is the thread, I wondered?  Destiny? Fate?  The working out of one’s own personal tikkun?  The call to follow Christ?   All I know is, a thread pulls me, and more insistently as I age.

Nothing today

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on August 10, 2005
in Stuff
. 0 Comments

I promise a Thursday Short Poem and a real post tomorrow…  I’m enjoying family things today.

“Dude!”: An answer to Dr. E

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on August 9, 2005
in Men and Masculinity
. 163 Comments

It’s a busy morning.  I did want to respond to one question from "Dr.E", who this morning asked:

I have a question for you. Can you tell us what you like about men? I don’t mean offering up the usual adjectives, I mean what **you** like about men and masculinity. I am very curious to hear. Thanks.

Dr. E (who is one of the moderators of a well-known MRA forum)  asked politely, which is nice.  Frequently,  Men’s Rights Advocates simply slap the label "self-loathing male" on me and don’t bother to ask questions.  As I’ve written before, the assumption that we "don’t like men" (and our own maleness) is one of the four classic strategies used to attack pro-feminist males.

I don’t feel the need to defend my fondness for other men.  At the same time, it is important to, whenever possible, combat the assumption of self-loathing that remains so persistent in the lives of pro-feminist males.

It’s tempting to respond to the question with a variety of anecdotes of the time spent hanging out with male friends: weekly 6:00AM breakfasts with Steve, long runs and long talks on Saturday mornings with Mark and Simon and Bill and Caz, the time spent mentoring teen boys at All Saints.  A day does not go by today when I don’t speak with at least one male friend, and that’s a joy.

But that doesn’t explain what I love about men.  It’s vital to note that making a list of what I like about the men in my life needs to come with this caveat: any qualities I list are not necessarily exclusive to males; many of the things I love best about my male friends are things that many women possess.  In that sense, it’s important to remember that saying "I love X about men" doesn’t correlate to " I don’t think women have X".

So what do I love?  Perhaps more than anything else, I love watching how hard so many of the men I know work to transform themselves.  Maybe it’s just the kind of guys I surround myself with, but I see men always pushing to become better, more loving, more complete human beings.  Yes, I train with athletes who talk about improving marathon times and lowering body-fat percentages.  But I talk with these same men about how we can be better husbands, better fathers, better Christians, better friends, better stewards of all that we have been given.  One good friend of mine calls himself a "growth junkie",and I think that’s as good a term as any for me and for most of the men in my life.    (Parenthetically, we are a deeply American, and deeply "Southern Californian" bunch in this regard!)

There are few greater joys than being witness to another person’s transformation.  I am continually encouraged by what I see the guys in my life do.  They are sales reps and scientists, teachers and doctors, husbands and fathers.  Their hunger to grow and deepen challenges me, and I do my best to respond by pushing myself and encouraging and praising those around me.

Sometimes, my happiest times with the men in my life are the times when we say nothing at all.  My friend Mark and I often carpool into the mountains for our long runs.  I can’t tell you how many times we’ve driven home together after a long run, our bodies thrashed and depleted; the endorphins coursing through our system making us high as could be.   One day (last fall, I think), we were coming down from Chantry Flats after a hard 18, our systems aching to be refueled.  Mark was so spent he pulled the car over, afraid he was going to pass out.  We traded places so that I could drive, but as we did so, gave each other jubilant, giddy high-fives.  "Dude!", I yelled.  "Dude", Mark replied.   It’s difficult to articulate just how happy we were in our mutual incoherence, sharing this experience together.  The experience didn’t need to be analyzed or discussed, just shared.  It was glorious, and I am so glad to know that he and I, and many of the other guys in my life, will share similarly laconic moments of profound joy.

Are there female friends in my life with whom I have shared similar experiences?  Of course.  But there are some days when it just feels so damned good to be out with the guys, sharing our suffering and our stories and our just-ran-for-four-hours-and haven’t-showered-since yesterday morning smell!   With these guys, we don’t need to complain about our wives and lovers, or go to strip clubs together, in order to bond.   We don’t need to use either our attraction to or anger at women to draw us closer together, and that’s something I’m frankly proud of.

Dr. E, I love being a man.  I love my brother and my father, and I love the men whom I am proud to call my friends.