Archive for August, 2007

Men, women, ageing, and the “slide into invisibility” after 35

Mythago links to this post by “jolt” about women, ageing, and objectification. Read the post, and the one to which she also links.

Jolt writes:

I have definitely experienced all sorts of verbal harrasment, but not as frequently as I used to. It may be that years of suffering these unwarranted intrusions have made me oblivious a lot of the time, worn down from the constant onslaught. But I think it’s also that now I am in my late 30s I have moved from “potentially fuckable and thus subject to any and all pestering that any idiot male chooses to provide” to “eh, not old, but why bother.”

Part of me is really enjoying this slide into the invisibility of females over 35. Part of me is just pissed off. Look, I don’t need the hassle, but when even the lack of hassle pulls you into the swirl of the patriarchy and assigns you your rank therein, it’s annoying as hell.

Obviously, one of the most insidious aspects of patriarchal culture is the way in which it teaches women to assess their own value through the desire that they arouse in men. Even more toxic is that your average 17 year-old girl will receive more catcalls and sexualized comments on the street than her 45 year-old mother. No less an authority than the infamous John Derbyshire insists that women hit their “sell by” date somewhere around twenty.

Of course, rude, crass, and decidedly unwanted sexual attention can be annoying and disillusioning at best — and soul-scarring at worst. Yet we teach young women that that attention — no matter how vulgar — is a measure of their value. It’s easy to dismiss that connection intellectually, but I’ve known plenty of women who have found, much to their own frustration, that on some level they’ve “bought in” to this notion that strange men on the street do have the power to assign their value.

As a forty year-old man on the cusp of what was, traditionally, middle-age, I am ever more keenly aware of my male privilege. I’ve been teaching full-time since I was 27 (and I was a very young-looking 27 when I started). In my first few years, I felt as if my youthfulness was an obstacle to being taken seriously. I felt as if a great many of my students were asking themselves, “How much can he possibly know? He looks too young to be a professor.”

In the last thirteen years, I’ve gained a tremendous amount of experience. That experience has made me a better teacher, of course. But I also am keenly aware that ageing has brought me a degree of respect from my students and colleagues that I simply did not enjoy when I was younger. In 1994, my students looked at me as a slightly older peer, and I know that for some, that proved an obstacle to their learning. While in those early years I received far more validation for being “cute” or “hot” than I do these days, the concomitant perceived lack of gravitas compromised my legitimacy as a teacher.

I’ve heard from a number of female friends in my age group (late thirties, early-to-mid forties) who are coping with what jolt so accurately calls the “slide into invisibility of females over 35.” These are accomplished, creative, brilliant, interesting, beautiful women. None defines herself solely by her sex appeal, but several have quietly pointed out their own considerable ambivalence about ageing and this increasing “invisibility.”

Earlier this year, right before my 40th birthday, I was telling a group of colleagues in the faculty “party room” about how excited I was to be hitting this chronological milestone. One of my female peers reminded me, gently, that my enthusiasm was at least in part tied to male privilege. There is little that men lose by ageing, she noted. Not only do we traditionally tend to see older men as more desirable, even when older men lose their looks, we don’t hold their slide into middle-age against them. I can’t remember exactly what her words were, but my colleague — who has known me since I first came on board at the college — said something like “What you, Hugo, lose in ‘youthful hotness’ you gain in ‘weight’; men who get older don’t get noticed less, they just get noticed differently. Women sometimes don’t get noticed at all.” (She had a cleverer way of saying it than that, and when I remember it, I’ll revise this post!)

I’ve written many times about the “older men, younger women” problem. Make no mistake, our cultural obsession with sexualizing very young women is inextricably linked to a dismissiveness of “older” women’s desirability. While the catcalls and the wolfwhistles and the cheesy pick-up lines may become less common (to a not inconsiderable amount of relief on the part of their targets), as jolt writes, “even the lack of hassle pulls you into the swirl of the patriarchy and assigns you your rank therein.”

I’m really, really, really happy being forty. I like my wrinkles. I like watching my body change. Age is not my enemy today. To put it simply, when I was a boyish 27 I felt my youth was a decided liability in my work; at 40, I have no such concerns. But even when I enjoyed the flattery, I never connected my worth to my (brief) status as the “young hottie” on the faculty. Male privilege meant that my perceived attractiveness was essentially irrelevant to my work as a professor, and its disappearance has not impacted my credibility. The same has not, I’m sorry to say, always been true in the experience of my colleagues. And in that sense, the freedom to celebrate ageing without a trace of anxiety is, at least in part, considerably easier for men.

A quick Diana note

I want to quickly note today’s tenth anniversary of the death of Diana. As I wrote last fall, Diana’s death remains — for me — the single most shocking public event of my lifetime, save for 9/11 itself. Here’s what I wrote last year:

As luck would have it, I flew into Manchester Airport on the very day Diana died — Sunday, August 31. I was traveling to a medieval history conference at Durham University, and had to drive the several hundred miles from Manchester to Durham in the pouring rain. It was my first experience of driving on the “wrong side” of the road, and to do so in a downpour, jet-lagged, while listening to the BBC coverage of the terrible accident and its aftermath was positively surreal. It was an amazing thing that my life didn’t also end on the same day that Diana’s did!

I was 14 when Diana and Charles married; six years younger than the Princess, I had an almost obligatory crush on her from the time their engagement was announced in February 1981. I was exactly the right age to be mesmerized by her. I followed her story for years and years, and like many, was saddened by the divorce. (The separation from Charles came in the Queen’s “annus horribilis” of 1992, the same year my first wife and I split up.) And I can say without question that if the 9/11 terrorist attacks are the single most shocking event of my lifetime, Diana’s death in that Paris tunnel ranks a close second. No shuttle explosion, no assassination attempt, no earthquake — no other historic happening is as vivid in my memory as those stunning days in 1997.

So in her honor, I’m listening to “I Vow to Thee My Country” and “Jerusalem” on my Itunes this morning. And while the theology of the former song is problematic, I confess I have no trouble singing along.

Friday Random Ten: anticipating college football edition

1. “Forever in Blue Jeans”, Neil Diamond (yes, for real)
2. “Jamais”, Charlotte Gainsbourg
3. “Driftwood”, Travis
4. “If I Had a Boat”, Lyle Lovett
5. “You’re Gonna Make Me Lonesome When You Go”, Bob Dylan
6. “Umbrella”, Rihanna
7. “Bad” (live version), U2
8. “End of the Party”, English Beat
9. “We’ll Sweep Out the Ashes in the Morning”, Gram Parsons and Emmylou Harris
10. “Cum On Feel The Noize”, Quiet Riot

Bonus Track: “Jerusalem”, Steve Earle

“No, I won’t sponsor you in the Run for Life, but here’s a nice gift certificate for some shoes”: some thoughts on medical charities, athletic events, and being cruelty-free

Just within the past year, my wife and I have become strong supporters of Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. After spending a long time flirting with becoming strict vegans, she and I made the final commitment to eliminating the last vestiges of animal product from our diet this past spring, after returning home from the PCRM gala in Washington DC.

One of PCRM’s chief campaigns is to end the use of animals in medical and scientific research. I’ve written about the anti-vivisection movement before. And our growing commitment to the cause of cruelty-free research has led to an interesting and ongoing problem.

Hardly a week goes by in which we are not contacted by friends, former students, colleagues or distant relatives with a request to sponsor one of them in a fundraising event for a medical charity. Because I’m a marathoner and my wife is a triathlete, we regularly hear from those who have made the commitment to train for their first endurance event — and are doing so as a fundraiser for a health-related cause. Even before we got together as a couple, my wife and I were loyal individual contributors to groups that fought AIDS or Breast Cancer or Crohn’s Disease or Leukemia or Multiple Sclerosis or what-have-you. We sponsored friends with amounts small and not-so-small, and threw in as much helpful advice about training as we could.

But now, the obvious dilemma. We are mutually committed no longer to give a single penny to medical research that involves animals. And, sadly, a great many of the leading “disease organizations” sponsor animal-based research. Though many of these organizations do some work that is wonderfully free from cruelty, there exists — in most cases — no way to ensure that no part of a donation will go to any kind of animal-based medical research.

The only medical organizations to which we feel safe donating are those that have received the “Humane Seal” from PCRM. The list is here. It’s interesting to see who’s on it: The American Breast Cancer Fund, for example, is cruelty-free and safe for donations; The Susan B. Komen Foundation (which mainly fights breast cancer and is closely linked with many athletic fundraisers) still sponsors animal research.

Most of the requests we get these days to sponsor a niece, cousin, co-worker or friend would require a donation to a charity that does still fund animal experiments. And so, when we’re asked, we politely decline, explaining our reasons. And we also offer to fund some of the training that is being done. For example, one of my cousins recently did a triathlon in Hawaii to raise money for a medical organization that participates in animal research. We told him we couldn’t sponsor him — but we gave him a goodie-bag filled with gear, gels, socks, and hydration tools. The amount we spent was at least equivalent to what we would have contributed to the medical charity on his behalf.

In other cases, I’ve simply started giving small gift cards to be used at the local running or cycle store. Anyone training for their first big race or endurance event will need lots of stuff, and we are happy to support our loved one in that aspect of helping him or her reach her exciting goal. In this way, we can show our commitment to our friends — and to defenseless creatures.

I’ll admit we’ve had what diplomats call “frank and candid exchanges” with some people who’ve asked for our support. A few have been genuinely outraged (perhaps especially in light of my own father’s death from cancer last year). But when you ask for money for your cause, you’re going to be told — gently and kindly — why we may not be able to support it. But we will offer an alternative.

Oh, and on the vegan/health front: anyone who knows me knows how frequently I get colds. Well, folks, I’m sure I’m about to jinx myself, but since knocking out the last vestiges of dairy products from my diet earlier this year, I’ve been healthier longer than I can ever remember. My body is bouncing back from running-related soreness faster as well, and for someone now in his forties, that is good news indeed…

Thursday Short Poem: Milosz’s “Account”

The late great Czeslaw Milosz was a wonderful Berkeley professor; I never took a class from him but shook his hand at a celebration of his work out in Claremont in 1998. I’d like to think that this poem is less applicable as I grow spiritually, but am not so filled with hubris as to imagine that this is not still me.

Account

The history of my stupidity would fill many volumes.

Some would be devoted to acting against consciousness,
Like the flight of a moth which, had it known,
Would have tended nevertheless toward the candle’s flame.

Others would deal with ways to silence anxiety,
The little whisper which, thought it is a warning, is ignored.

I would deal separately with satisfaction and pride,
The time when I was among their adherents
Who strut victoriously, unsuspecting.

But all of them would have one subject, desire,
If only my own — but no, not at all; alas,
I was driven because I wanted to be like others.
I was afraid of what was wild and indecent in me.

The history of my stupidity will not be written.
For one thing, it’s late. And the truth is laborious.

“Boys Adrift”: part one of a lengthy review

Last week, with not inconsiderable trepidation, I picked up a copy of Boys Adrift: The Five Factors Driving the Growing Epidemic of Unmotivated Boys and Underachieving Young Men. The book is by Dr. Leonard Sax, who wrote the very troubling and numbingly essentialist Why Gender Matters a couple of years ago. I read WGM last year and was disturbed by Sax’s claims, most of which seemed to be largely in service of his pet issue: advancing the spread of single-sex education, which he argues is vitally important for boys.

But a couple of people who disliked WGM told me that they’d read “Boys Adrift” and thought that it was significantly better, if still flawed. It’s a quick and easy read, and I made my way through it during “chinchilla out time” last Saturday.

I’m going to review this book in two parts. The criticism comes today, the praise later this week.

First off, there’s much here that is troubling. Though this may be an instance of the pot calling the kettle black, Sax is still prone to the whopping and unsupportable generalization. In discussing the importance of competition, he opines:

Most girls value friendship above team affiliation…Boys are more likely to understand that friends don’t have to be teammates, and teammates don’t have to be friends. And boys are more likely to be invested in the success of their team regardless of whether any of their friends are on the team.

Dr. Sax, please, come and watch some of the girls I mentor and teach play soccer and softball. If “Megan” is playing catcher, and her best childhood friend “Melissa” is a runner for the other team trying to steal second base, I guarantee you that “Megan” isn’t going to hesitate for an instant in trying to throw out her closest confidante! I’ve worked enough with both male and female athletes to know that team solidarity and competitiveness flourishes just as effectively among girls as among boys. I suspect Dr. Sax spends very little time with young female athletes.

Of course, sometimes the good doctor focuses on the science he is far more qualified to discuss. But like most of those who defiantly cling to the “nature” side of the argument, the evidence doesn’t necessarily support his conclusions. For example, Sax has an interesting section about why boys don’t like reading any more. It’s not, according to him, because video games are inherently more interesting (though he is, I’m relieved to say, no fan of them). It’s because the kind of questions teachers ask about reading assignments don’t address boys’ concerns.

Sax comes up with the following scenario: a junior high-school English teacher has assigned the kids “Lord of the Flies.” An essay question is given for homework:

“Write a short essay in the first person, in Piggy’s voice, describing how you feel about the other boys picking on you. Remember to include lots of detail.”

Sax writes:

This homework assignment boils down to: How would you feel if you were Piggy? When I spoke with the teacher who assigned this homework, she explained that she wanted to teach the children about empathy… I submit that this assignment didn’t teach anything about empathy. Instead, the message reinforced for (boys) is that doing homework is for girls, not for real boys. No self-respecting boy, in this boy’s frame of mind, would do such a homework assignment.

The answer (you knew this was coming) is that boys and girls have different brains:

It’s easy for most middle school and high school girls to answer a question like “How would you feel if you were X?” because the area of the brain where the feeling is happening is closely linked to the area of brain where talking happens. For boys, that’s not the case… it’s not easy (for them) to answer, in a genuine and articulate way, the question “How would you feel if…?” He may attempt to produce the answer he thinks the teacher wants to hear, but it’s a chore. A better question for most boys would be “What would you do if…” That question may sound similar, but it’s actually a different question, and much more boy-friendly — for most boys.

I’m willing to concede that biological differences may explain why some boys have a hard time articulating feeling. I’m not qualified to disprove that possibility. But for heaven’s sake, one of the most vital tasks the schools have is to help young people overcome natural obstacles. If there are differences in the brain that make it more difficult for boys to empathize with fictional characters (or make it more difficult for girls to understand calculus), that’s hardly a case against teaching empathy or higher math! Rather, it’s a signal to teachers and parents that we have to work even harder with certain students (who may be clustered in one sex or another) to help them develop into full and complete human beings.

Dr. Sax complains that for a boy, it might not “be easy to answer, in a genuine and articulate way, the question “How would you feel if…” Fine, I concede his point. But boys do hard things all the time. Getting to level 346 on the latest video game is hard. Getting in shape for football is hard. Building muscle, building reflexes — these aren’t “natural”. Sometimes, getting in shape to be a soldier or a quarterback feels like a chore, but no one suggests that because it’s difficult for the young to do, they ought to be excused from doing it!

I suspect (and hope) that Dr. Sax is genuinely concerned with the well-being of young American men. I share his concern and his commitment. But he draws dangerous conclusions from his own considerable research. His diagnosis may be accurate, but his remedy is wrong. Though for the sake of discussion, I am willing to concede that his findings about brain differences are real, I think he sells boys woefully short by suggesting that these differences are so significant that they serve as obstacles to the development of empathy, tenderness, and an articulate vocabulary for one’s own inner emotional terrain.

Feminists are often accused of suggesting that “there are no differences between boys and girls, between men and women.” We’re accused of ignoring nature and over-emphasizing nurture when it comes to psychological development. Though some feminists may have denied difference, most feminists today accept that brains and hormones may operate differently between the sexes. But we also point out that once you start characterizing boys and girls as fundamentally different, you immediately encounter so many exceptions (sensitive boys, aggressive girls) that the usefulness of the whole damn dichotomy becomes moot.

More importantly, some feminists (I include myself in this bloc) argue that the whole purpose of social institutions (be they churches, schools, or extended families) is to help each individual achieve full human potential despite whatever limitations are imposed by biology. Access to birth control helps address the biological reality that women get pregnant and men don’t. Toilet training socializes children to overcome their own physical impulses. “Nature” might have us all peeing our pants; “nature” might have every woman the mother of ten. Though real biological differences do exist, they ought never be used as an excuse for failing to develop our children into complete, effective, kind, tolerant, well-rounded human beings.

I’m willing to accept the premise that for biological reasons, it may be harder for some boys to articulate empathy — and for some girls to do advanced mathematics. But all that tells me as a teacher and a mentor is that we may need to redouble our efforts to help our sons and daughters reach their full potential. Rather than doing as Dr. Sax suggests, and re-phrasing the questions in order to make things “easier” for boys, we need more commitment from teachers and parents to help our sons “do hard things.” And while “hard things” might include making the football team or playing a fantasy game at a very high level, it also includes learning to identify emotionally with the vulnerable.

In the end, feminists don’t deny nature. But we refuse to be in thrall to it. And we sure as heck refuse to buy the tired excuse that “nature” means that our sons cannot all be kind, gentle, articulate and ambitious.

Part Two soon.

Urinal chat: UPDATED

This morning in between classes, I slipped into the third floor faculty men’s room for a quick pit stop. We have just two old-fashioned urinals there, and one of my least favorite senior colleagues (I’ll call him “Manuel”) was stationed at one of them.

I’m not fond of this man; he and I have waged several ideological and pedagogical battles over the years. Nonetheless, I’m a cheery ENFP, and as I joined him to do my business, I said “Hey, my friend! What’s up?”

My colleague zipped himself, flushed the urinal, turned to me, and replied in a cool tone: “Why are you calling me your ‘friend’, Hugo?”

A bit stunned (and still busy with the task at — or in - hand) I slipped into the standard WASPy mode of cheerful, teasing, aggression: “Why, Manuel, are you saying we aren’t friends?” I threw in a wink.

Manuel made his way over to the sink to wash his hands, saying sharply as he did so, “I haven’t got time for your insincerity.”

As he headed out the door, I couldn’t resist an even-more exuberant, “You have a great day, buddy!”

Sigh. It’s true, I do address virtually every casual acquaintance as “buddy” or “my friend”. (My close male friends I call “my brother” or “brother man.”) I picked this habit twenty years ago, while spending two college summers working with the Public Works department in my hometown, hanging out with plumbers and carpenters and janitors. I suppose it does come across as frightfully insincere to some folks, and perhaps even aggressive to others.

And perhaps Manuel is right. I can come across to some folks as glibly insincere. And my standard response to hostility is to become even more polite and jovial (it’s violence, OKOP-style). I need to work on this.

UPDATE: Some folks have suggested that my use of the phrase “my brother” or “brother man” borrows from black culture. I picked up the former from all-white coworkers more than twenty years ago, and “brother man” has been in my vocabulary since I first read “Cat On A Hot Tin Roof” in high school — where it is used by whites to refer to an affluent white man.

Similarly, when we were kids my brother and I affectionately called each other “boo”. (My mother called me her “little boo” starting around 1967.) My brother and I started doing this in the 1970s, and were both stunned to find out, years later, that it was a standard African-American term for a lover! My brother is and always will be “my boo boy”; I will always be his. And we’re as white as can be and trust me, the use of “boo” in our family has damn all to do with cultural appropriation!

More on staying home, parenthood, responsibility and trust

Lots of discussion below my reprint of this old post.

My point in the original was not to elevate “stay-at-home motherhood” above other choices a young woman might want to make. Of course, when college-age women express a desire to “stay home with (their) kids”, those of us who are feminists are right to dig a bit deeper to discover the roots of that longing. As we’ve all pointed out eighteen times before, choices are always exercised inside of a cultural construct that teaches us that some choices are better than others. (This is why, for example, lots of women get their noses made smaller and very few get them made bigger — cosmetic surgery is in some sense a choice, but it is a choice heavily influenced by a lot of cruel and often racist aesthetic standards.) And when a young woman who has grown up hearing “mothers who work outside the home when their kids are small are selfish” says “I don’t want to be one of those selfish working women”, feminists are right to start up a discussion lickety-split!

But of course, it infantilizes women to say that the gal who longs to be a wife and a mother rather than an independent businesswoman is victimized by a patriarchal understanding of gender roles. There are choices that are made in order to please others, and there are choices we make out of our own deep desires (perhaps so deep that they are below the level that is influenced by culture). And while social conservatives often elevate the “stay-at-home wife” above all other roles for women (think of Dr. Laura’s tiresome “I am my kids’ mom”), progressives are sometimes unwilling to accept the desire to stay at home and be the primary caregiver as a legitimate want. (Think of the huge proliferation of guilt-inducing books about working and motherhood that have appeared just within the past two years!)

And of course, a significant component of the feminist project lies in liberating men to have far better relationships with their children than they may have had in earlier eras. The “separate spheres” ideology of the nineteenth century (it isn’t older, contrary to popular opinion) placed child-rearing solely in women’s hands, and earning solely in men’s. And while of course many women worked for money (in and out of the home) while raising their own children, historically far fewer working men took on an equal share of childcare.

If I’ve given the impression that I encourage stay-at-home motherhood while not also encouraging men to consider taking on the role of primary caregiver, I’m sorry. A key aspect of pro-feminist men’s work is encouraging young men to rethink the role of “father”. Many guys I work with do (when they feel they’re in a safe space) admit that they’ve fantasized about “staying home with the kids” while their partners worked outside the home. Of course, some of these lads haven’t the foggiest idea how much backbreaking work is involved in child-rearing. But some — often those who grew up in single-parent households — have a very clear idea of how much work and care is involved, and they still believe that they’re up to the task. It’s important for feminists to encourage men to develop and explore this often-atrophied capacity to nurture. And it’s important that we work to dispel the stigma society still attaches to a man who longs to be a “house husband.”

In a two-parent household — something that remains for many the ideal — women’s freedom to “stay home” is, of course, contingent on male reliability. While there are far fewer two-parent households where wives work outside the home while the men provide childcare, the reverse is true in those instances. It’s not a stretch to say that “staying home” without a steady independent income places one in a vulnerable position. Traditionally, it’s been women who’ve been in that vulnerable place — and that lack of autonomy has often meant women were not able to escape abusive or philandering husbands. Equal access to financial resources is a defense against being trapped. Anecdotally, I’d say one whopping reason why so many of my students don’t want to “stay home” is because of that justifiable fear of being unable to leave a disastrous marriage.

Does this mean that I’m returning to the tired old line that “all feminism is rooted in a disappointment in men”? No. Even if every man were willing and eager to be a devoted and faithful husband and father (and even if our economy permitted a working-class father to support an entire family on his salary), I don’t believe that the majority of women would gleefully abandon all of their public ambitions for the bliss of diapers and casseroles. Women’s desire for a public role is not a singular response to a frustration with unreliable men. But there’s no question that fears about male reliability play a part in some women’s decision-making about when and whether to marry, or whether to have children without a male partner with whom to raise them. Feminists thus do well to focus both on women’s liberation and male transformation.

My wife and I are both committed to raising our future children together. We both have flexible schedules, nearby relatives, and the resources to have some help. How the division of labor will break down when a child arrives remains to be seen, but I have every intention of being a competent and enthusiastic care-giver, wiper of vomit, changer of diapers. And how fatherhood and its responsibilities impacts my views will surely be a subject of a future blog post!

Note: This post is open for commenting only for those who are feminist-friendly.

Dollinger on Israel

I ought to have linked to this earlier. My dear old friend and former colleague Marc Dollinger (with whom I taught here at PCC for seven years) had this op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle ten days ago: Anti-Israel Boycott Movement is Misplaced. Here’s the key bit:

Boycott defenders have constructed a revisionist narrative of Israeli history and politics that is rooted more in their underlying anti-Zionist ideology than it is in offering a complex and textured understanding of the Jewish state and its Arab neighbors. It recasts victimization, replacing Jews, who have historically been perceived as quintessential outsiders, with Palestinians, who are cast as sufferers from Jewish colonialism, imperialism and abuse of power. With this narrative, ideology trumps complexity and the political extreme drowns out the vital center.

Marc, who left Pasadena City College to take the Richard and Rhoda Goldman Chair in Jewish Studies and Social Responsibility at San Francisco State University, is one of the most deeply moral men I’ve ever known. I miss him very much; we both had undergrad degrees from Cal and Ph.Ds from UCLA, knew many of the same people… We talked college football a lot.

In any case, my wife and I are visiting Israel in the not-so-distant future. And I’ve been doing a lot of thinking and reflecting on the intersection of Judaism and Christianity lately. When we’re back from Israel, I’ll have much more to say.

I will say that as someone who (as I mentioned this morning) was active in the anti-apartheid campaigns of the 1980s, I have been deeply frustrated by the parallels that the left draws between apartheid South Africa and modern Israel. While I do not think for a moment that the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians is above reproach, I am troubled by the extent to which the American and European left has, as Marc points out, lost all sense of nuance in the rush to demonize Israel. Hamas is not the African National Congress, after all.

Anyhow, read Marc’s piece.

A note on white privilege

Thanks to Barry (Ampersand) the 16th Erase Racism carnival is up. It’s there I found a link to this powerful post from Naima: “It ain’t privilege, it’s injustice”. It begins:

a particular phenomenon in the immensely white Leftist circles at yale is a rhetorical and ideological obssession with the notion of White Privilege.

it is not uncommon to hear a white liberal campus organizer at yale say something along the lines of, “we white students at yale walk around enjoying a great deal of privilege because of the color of our skin - it is because of this privilege that we must work to uplift the citizens of new haven.”

…as a blactivist at yale, i have found it rare to emerge from an organizing conversation or meeting with a white peer without a guilt-stricken or self-righteous allusion to “White Privilege.”

I have a hard time believing that in 2007, any “white liberal campus organizer” would use the verb “uplift”, unless they did so with tongue planted firmly in cheek!

Still, I smiled when I read this. I had impeccable liberal credentials during my undergraduate years at Berkeley in the mid-1980s. My freshman year, I participated in anti-ROTC and “divest from South Africa” demonstrations. Later, I worked with groups that sought an ethnic studies requirement for graduation; that mandate was eventually put in place my senior year. In my ethnic studies classes (where I was often one of the only white men), I alternated between being adversarial and apologetic. Both served a purpose. When I was adversarial, I provided a helpful foil; when I was apologetic for my white privilege, I was demonstrating my good intentions, if nothing else.

I grasped quickly that white privilege manifested itself in a variety of ways. It had never occurred to me to question why it was that store managers never followed me around, worried that I would shoplift. It never occurred to me that it was unusual to have the first police officer to pull me over for speeding (when I was 17) address me as “sir” and let me off with a warning. It never occured to me that it was a huge confidence-booster to have most of my classes taught by professors who looked as if they could be my uncles or aunts. Realizing that the color of my skin gave me this unmerited privilege was eye-opening.

Of course, I quickly became adept — as many well-intentioned and earnest young white liberals invariably are — at bringing up my white privilege as often as possible. I said things like “I’m really becoming aware of how privileged I am” or “I never knew how many things I could take for granted because I was born with white skin.” I also began to believe that if I pre-emptively apologized for having this privilege, I could redirect the anger of “people of color” away from me and towards those “other white people”, the ones who weren’t as enlightened as I.

It’s almost axiomatic on college campuses that a significant percentage of white progressives are eager to expiate real or imagined guilt. One rather simple (and to many people of color, exasperating) way for white people to prove their progressive bona fides (and get rid of that pesky guilt) is to throw some acknowledgement of their own white privilege into virtually every sentence. It’s similar to what some young men do when they first start discovering feminism. These anti-racist newbies (of which I surely once was one) imagine that approaching virtually ever situation with an “I’m sorry” on their lips is one road towards the acceptance they crave.

The problem is that many young white liberals value expiating their own guilt over really getting rid of race-based privilege. Naima:

if the world were organized by “White Privilege” rather than “Racism,” a police officer might be especially kind to white people while nonetheless providing people of color with legal protection, aid, fairness under the law.

and so the white Leftists who think they are down because they have got the courage to lamentably declare, “We’ve got White Privilege,” it would be more accurate and truthful to say instead, “We are beneficiaries of racism,” or “We participate in a racialized system of oppression.”

how much more reluctant is the race conscious white activist to admit that his “privilege” has a consequence, that his whiteness is more than merely a personal reality about his own social power but is also an agent of violence.

Bold emphasis mine. That was me for a very long time. Talking about one’s own “white privilege” and, better yet, claiming to “renounce” it (as if that were genuinely possible), is immensely satisfying. It’s also more than a little self-centered. Reading this post, I’m reminded that all too often, the language of “white privilege” serves to re-center the discussion of racism away from its victims and back on to the sensibilities of the privileged and the powerful.

I don’t make apologies for my cultural whiteness any longer (see my “Happy White Boy” and first OKOP post on that subject). But of course, no one was ever asking me to apologize for preppiness or a long-term subscription to Town and Country. What the activists of color I’ve worked with have asked me to do is, first of all, be honest as North Star asks the white Yalies to be honest. It’s not enough to cop to white privilege — we who benefit from that privilege do so at the expense of others. In this case, privilege is a zero-sum game.

And of course, the real problem is that talking endlessly about “white privilege” reinforces its power. Endlessly lamenting something you think you wish you didn’t have simply makes it seem all the more potent.

First day of school

I’m sitting in my office on a warm Monday morning, ready for the first day of fall semester classes.

I’ve been in this same office — at this same desk — since 1994, when I was first hired as a tenure-track instructor at Pasadena City College. In 1994, I didn’t have a computer on my desk. In 1994, I had very different framed photographs to gaze at. In 1994, I had a very different office mate (my newest colleague, Lynora, just moved in last week.) I note, however, that I have the same darned office phone — an ancient plastic contraption that has been dropped dozens of times but still somehow survives.

I can’t think of many peers of mine who’ve had the same full-time job since 1994. I was 27 when I was hired full-time (I’d already been teaching here as an adjunct for a year); to have the same job at 40 is increasingly rare. Many of my peers have had three, four, or five different serious jobs in that same time span.

When I was hired over thirteen years ago, I said to everyone who would listen that this was my “dream” job, one I would have “forever.” (I wrote at length two years ago about my reasons for preferring the community college environment.) The danger in getting security so young is obvious: if not careful, one could stagnate very easily. There’s no “publish or perish” pressure at the community college, and few tenured professors are ever let go here, even in cases of serious incompetence.

Because I’ve had tenure and stability, I’ve had to push myself very hard to develop new courses, explore new avenues for writing and for public service. I have to remind myself not to settle for “good enough”. Ambition, in my case, cannot be about material comfort or security (though those are lovely things for which I am very grateful). Rather, tenure is an island on which to stand, a foundation on which to place my feet while I explore new opportunities (like rescuing chinchillas, writing books, finding novel venues for youth ministry). Indeed, those of us who have tenure — especially at a non-research-oriented place like the community college, have an obligation to use that “gift” of lifetime job security wisely and responsibly. For some, that wise and responsible use will come in the form of political activism; for others, it will come through exciting innovations in the classroom. But we waste this precious gift if we keep on doing the same thing, over and over and over again.

I will, howver, be talking on the same phone and sitting in the same seat that I was talking on and sitting in around the time the O.J. Simpson trial began.

My hero…

… this morning is Haile (Heila) Satayin of Israel. At age 52, he finished 19th in the marathon at the World Track and Field Championships this weekend, in a blistering 2:22 — run in high humidity. Satayin, a Jewish native of Ethiopia who made his aliyah in 1991, has qualified for the Beijing Olympics, where he’ll be by far the oldest marathoner in the field and almost certainly the oldest Olympian. Mazel Tov, Haile!

The older I get, the fewer still-competitive athletic heroes I have. And though I can admire men and women younger than myself, I’ll admit I can only truly look up to those who have a few years on me. And no, this doesn’t mean I am an exuberant Barry Bonds fan.

Final Summer Reprint: Young women’s dreams, choices, Yeats

I won’t be reprinting any more oldies again this summer, as a regular posting schedule resumes on Monday. Alas, the links in the post below no longer work.

This post originally appeared Friday, March 11, 2005.

Stephanie links to this article in yesterday’s IndependentDesperate 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.

 

Ten Favorite Albums, 1970-76

I flippantly remarked today that my favorite musical era is marked by the period between the Kent State shootings (May 1970) and the election of Jimmy Carter (November 1976). And so, here are ten of my favorite albums from that period. I turned three the month Kent State happened; I was nine when Carter defeated Ford. (The 1976 presidential election was the first one I followed closely, and I walked precincts in Carmel for Carter-Mondale that fall).

I’d take all of these albums to a desert island with me. Of course, I’d love to have them on original vinyl with that wonderful “hiss and pop” sound that came with an old-fashioned record.

I’m limiting myself to one album per artist, and though I might change the order a week from now, I’m ranking them as follows:

1. “Late For The Sky“, Jackson Browne. There are very few albums from any era on which every single track is a gem. This is one such recording. I burned through two cassettes before I finally got the CD. Favorite Track: “Before the Deluge.”

2. “Pieces of the Sky“, Emmylou Harris. Favorite Tracks: “Boulder to Birmingham”, “Queen of the Silver Dollar”

3. “The Last of the Red Hot Burritos“, Flying Burrito Brothers. Favorite Track: “High Fashion Queen”

4. “Turnstiles“, Billy Joel. Favorite Track: “I’ve Loved These Days”

5. “Blood On The Tracks“, Bob Dylan. My favorite Dylan album ever, hands down. Favorite track: “Shelter From the Storm.”

6. “Manassas“, Steven Stills and Manassas. Favorite track: “The Treasure (Take One)”

7. “Eagles“, The Eagles. Everyone says “Hotel California” is the essential Eagles album, but I’ll take their self-titled debut. Favorite song: “Peaceful, Easy Feeling.”

8. “Blue“, Joni Mitchell. Who doesn’t love this album? Most people pick the wonderful “Carey” as their favorite song, but I’ll go with “This Flight Tonight”.

9. “Madman Across the Water“, Elton John. Obviously, “Tiny Dancer” is one of the greatest songs ever, but I’ll select the title cut as my fav.

10. “Harvest“, Neil Young. Favorite track: “A Man Needs A Maid.”

And the bonus album is obvious:

Born to Run“, Bruce Springsteen.

Anesthesia is not recovery: a note on breaking up and healing

I have a weak spot for the sort of pop psychology studies that end up being spread around by the internet; I justify that interest by telling myself that regardless of their reliability, many folks clearly believe in them — which makes them worth reflecting on for that reason alone.

In reality, breaking up doesn’t feel that bad is this week’s attention-grabber:

“We underestimate our ability to survive heartbreak,” said Eli Finkel, an assistant professor of psychology at Northwestern University, whose study appears online in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.

Finkel and colleague Paul Eastwick studied young lovers — especially those who profess ardent affection — to see if their predictions of devastation matched their actual angst when that love was lost.

“On average, people overestimate how distressed they will be following a breakup,” Finkel said in a telephone interview.

That makes good sense.

What I wonder is, how much of that “ability to survive” is a testament to the reality that the relationship wasn’t particularly significant? How much is attributable to our ability to grow emotional scar tissue? After all, as any veteran of divorce will tell you (and I am a thrice-decorated veteran of that agonizing process), it’s often tough to distinguish between numbness and recovery.

Folks often ask me about how I “survived” three divorces. I get that question a lot, especially from those who are in the midst of their first (and, one hopes, their final) divorce. “How could you go through this again and again and not be permanently devastated?”, they inquire. Some of that resilience and willingness to begin again is a result of grace, surely. And some of it is also attributable to stubbornness. (See my post last year on “the king of starting over”.)

But let’s be honest: ending a marriage (or any other significant, long-term relationship) is desperately painful. It’s agonizing, crazy-making, soul-scarring. When I was going through my second and third divorces, I remember thinking to myself “How could I ever have put myself back in this situation? How did I forget how much this hurts?” (It’s a question I also ask myself around mile 23 of every marathon, and I’ve heard from some of my female friends that they ask themselves the same thing when they give birth for the second or third time.) And of course, the answer is that most of us have not only a great capacity to endure pain, but a great capacity to forget. Time is just slow-acting Percoset, sweet anesthesia coming at its own maddening pace.

But anesthesia and real recovery aren’t the same thing. The absence of pain is not always a reliable indicator of good emotional health. I know plenty of young people who move serially from relationship to relationship, and I know them well enough to know that their post-break-up insouciance isn’t an act. But for many, the real pain comes months or even years later. Sometimes, we need a shot of anesthetic to get us out of an unhealthy relationship. Two or three weeks after the break-up, we’re smiling and laughing and feeling on top of the world; three months later, we’re curled pathetically on the couch, sniffling in misery. The lag time between the separation and feeling the hurt is often quite substantial (and, in my experience, it’s a good deal longer for men than for women.) And during that lag time — the period between leaving the dentist’s chair and the novocaine wearing off — it’s easy to underestimate just how much the loss of a love really did hurt.

Do I feel today the pain of three divorces and a half-dozen other serious break-ups? No. But in order to move forward, I had to go back (in therapy, in spiritual retreats, in writing) and look carefully at each of those many past relationships. I needed to feel the pain — and cop to the pain I inflicted. It took a lot of work to make sure that I wasn’t mixing up numb forgetfulness with genuine healing.

And I suspect that some of the folks in this little study will discover that they’ve been mixing up those very things.