Archive for December, 2009

Until next year

The Thursday Short Poem returns next week. The final post of 2009 is a brief one, as I have jury duty today, of all days.

I’m enough of a pedant to be in that small crowd that insists that this is not the last day of the decade; the decade will properly end one year from now, just as it began on the first day of 2001, not 2000. I do, however, want to give thanks for this glorious year that has been. Whatever else may have happened, whatever other global challenges and disappointments may have arisen, I became a father in 2009! I had waited so long to become a Dad, and Heloise Cerys Raquel seems to me still, weeks shy of her first birthday, like the most extraordinary gift I’ve ever been given. Or, rather, the chance to parent her in partnership with my wife is the gift — because the child, after all, doesn’t belong to the parent.

In any case, until next year. A blessed and happy and challenging-in-all-the-right-ways twenty-ten to all.

UPDATE: Yes, I deleted temporarily deactivated my Facebook account today. I will continue blogging (and, it is to be hoped, writing in other areas), but the social-networking time suck was too much for this ENFP to handle. I can also still be found under my own name on Twitter.

On being insufficiently supple: more silliness from the infidelity apologists

Because of the Tiger Woods business, we’ve had a lot of posts about infidelity up in December. Amanda Marcotte gets the cap tap for the link to this article in today’s Daily Mail: Why an affair could be the key to a healthy marriage. Some of what’s in the Tamara Cohen piece is the familiar lament about how much more civilized the French are about these things, and a French expert on affairs gets trotted out. Maryse Vaillant, struggling to say something new and even more absurd about a very old and familiar subject, offers this gem of insight: men who do not cheat may lack strength of character. Not a typo.

Cohen quotes Vaillant: These are often men whose father was physically or morally absent. These men have a completely idealised view of their father and the paternal function. They lack suppleness and are prisoners to an idealised image of a man of duty.

I love Paris, I really do. I learned to read Anglo-Norman French for my dissertation. The first car I ever rode in was a Peugeot. And I know enough to know that much of what the English-speaking world represents as authentically French is in fact a caricature. But Vaillant is certainly willing to play the part of the oh-so-sophisticated woman-of-the-world for the British and American press. Reading her words, one can almost smell the mix of Chanel #5, cigarettes (Gauloises), and the familiar Francophone blend of pity and condescension for the puritanical and repressed Anglo-Saxons who are making her a richer woman. Lack suppleness? Really?

Real suppleness is the capacity to find endless variety in the same relationship with the same person. The capacity to have affairs is not evidence of admirable flexibility; it is evidence of the fundamentally puerile tendency to get easily bored. A fool needs novelty with new people; the wise can find novelty with one.

America’s largest rescue of exotic animals; chinchillas need your help

It’s been a long time since I’ve mentioned our chinchilla rescue work. As my regular readers know, in 2005, my wife and I started The Matilde Mission: Pet Homes for Ranch Chinchillas. Our partners, Adam and Sally Blacke of Michigan, handle the website and much of the actual rescue work; we handle much of the fundraising. The organization, a 501(c)3 tax-exempt charity, was named for our first chinchilla, Matilde, who died in 2006.

Earlier this month, Texas authorities made the largest seizure of exotic animals in American history. Some 30,000 underfed and mistreated creatures — including snakes and lizards and large mammals — were rescued from Global Exports, an Arlington-based outfit. Among the animals removed were several hundred chinchillas. The Matilde Mission has been asked to provide financial assistance for the medical treatment, long-term housing, and eventual re-homing of 70 of the chinchillas — many of whom are on their way now to a partner rescue of ours in New Orleans. (Nice to think of refugees from Texas headed to Louisiana, for a change.) This is the biggest “ask” we’ve ever received in the history of the Mission, and we need your help.

Our donation page is here, and you can contribute (securely) as little as $5 with your Mastercard or Visa. Remember, donations made on or before December 31 are tax-deductible for 2009 taxes.

Many thanks.

A short follow-up on work

One theme starting to emerge in the comments section below yesterday’s post revolves around my implied criticism of extraordinary dedication to any cause. Robert asks:

America can probably make it without this one high-end football coach. Can it make it without dedicated doctors, professors, business people, farmers, scientists, truck drivers?

Of course, from a feminist standpoint, Robert is positing the false choice that our free-market system requires. In the absence of generous family leave and other policies designed to help workers balance their professional and private obligations, we force everyone to make difficult and painful choices — and assume that those are the only options available. But the social democratic model, as unsustainable as it may be in some instances, at least posits an alternative — one in which a worker can be a loving and present mom or dad, a responsible worker, and a contributing member of the community.

I’m glad we’re having this discussion, even if I don’t have a host of answers. I note that much of the conversation about work/life balance is pushed by a recession that has seen more men than women lose their jobs, and a pair of conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan that have seen more wives head off for long wartime deployments than ever before. Of course, having a father absent for a year is not automatically less devastating to a child than having a mama gone for the same time period; it’s only when it’s the latter who is gone, however, that we start asking vital questions about what the real impact is of our military culture.

The title of yesterday’s post, taken from Yeats’ poem, dealt with the inevitable choice (not a false dichotomy) between perfection of the life and of the work. Those of us who are in families of any sort recognize the impossibility of domestic perfection — which is why the illusion of professional perfection seems so much more appealing to many. But putting one’s relationships first, or at least making sure that they aren’t jeopardized by one’s livelihood, is something that those who are fortunate enough to choose their livelihoods ought to strongly consider. And with the right economic and social policies, we could create a world where even our most valued professionals are less likely to disappear into their work.

Perfection of the Life and the Work: the tragic hubris of Urban Meyer

If you’re a college football fan, you surely didn’t miss the breathless coverage of the mixed messages sent this weekend by Urban Meyer, the head coach at the University of Florida. Meyer, recently voted the “coach of the decade”, announced Saturday he was stepping down from the position in order to focus on his health and his family; on Sunday, he changed his tune, noting that he was taking only a “leave of absence”, and expected to be back on the sidelines for the two-time national champions soon. The paper of record summarized the most wrenching aspect of the story:

One of the most poignant moments of the Urban Meyer resignation-unresignation as Florida coach came Christmas Day.

After weeks of soul searching, prompted by a trip to a hospital, he told his family that night that he would be leaving his job, Meyer said to The New York Times.

Meyer said that upon hearing the news, his 18-year-old daughter hugged him and said, “I get my daddy back.”

A day later, Meyer was gone again. Not completely gone. He announced Sunday that after a day away to think about things, he had decided to stay put. He is merely taking a leave of absence.

Jeremy Foley, Florida’s athletic director, made it clear — to fans and to recruits — that order had been restored in Gator Nation. “He is the head coach taking a leave of absence,” Foley said.

In 24 hours, we went from the perfect holiday story to a tale about the relentless pull of the coaching profession. The king leaves his throne for his family and then decides — or is convinced — that the throne was not so bad after all and announces that for a time he will be the power behind the throne.

What do we make of this bizarre drama?

The bit about Meyer’s daughter is heartbreaking, isn’t it?

Football coaches occupy a particularly significant niche in the American psyche: as archetypes, if not always in reality, they are the most hyper-masculine of older men. (Meyer is a youthful 45.) In a culture where the young warrior and the youthful athlete are those with the greatest masculine cachet, gruff generals and taciturn football coaches have the unique privilege of claiming unimpeachable toughness even as they soften and age. The demands of both war and coaching tend to be all-consuming, involving long separation from family — and as we all know, the classic masculine archetype is of the man who chooses a world away from women and domesticity. Think of Hector pushing away Andromache before he goes out to die at Achilles’ hand; think of Gary Cooper in “High Noon”, turning away from new bride Grace Kelly to take on a desperado who threatens his town; heck, think of three-quarters of the movies you’ve ever seen. And think of Urban Meyer, torn between his daughter’s tearful longing for her daddy and his own sense of responsibility, not to his family or to his team, but to a masculine ideal of work and sacrifice that has torn apart Western families for millenia.

And it’s hard not to think of 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.

Urban Meyer wants, like so many Americans, to imagine that he can have both the perfection of the life and the work; he seems, judging from his mixed messages this weekend, to long to “be there” for his daughter and still be the relentlessly driven coach of the most successful college football team of the past half-decade. Like so many ambitious men, he tells himself “If I just work harder, or pray harder, or learn a new technique, then I can manage to ‘do it all’”. The Greeks knew hubris when they saw it, and the modern manifestation of hubris is the belief so common to so many men that they can live their lives in compartments, keeping everyone happy and winning praise from all. Meyer’s hubris isn’t that different from Tiger’s: both the philandering golfer and the workaholic football coach believed that they could lead double lives with impunity. Tiger’s deception is the more obvious, but Meyer’s — rooted in the tragically mistaken belief that one can serve two masters, ambition and family — is no less destructive to those who love and rely upon him.

I rejoiced when I heard the news on Saturday that Meyer was stepping down: a man putting his health and his relationships ahead of his career, how refreshing! As the father of a daughter, I thought of Meyer’s girls weeping with relief that they were getting their “Dad back”, and I teared up a bit myself. And then came Sunday’s “vanity”, and I thought of his daughters again — and all the rest of us who are the collateral damage of the heroic ideal.

Holiday hiatus

This will be my last post until the week of December 28. Though I will likely post again in 2009, and will be checking in on comment threads as needed, I do want to take an opportunity to thank those of you who read this blog. Even though the vast majority of you don’t comment, when I check my stats to see how many folks are visiting regularly, I am delighted and humbled to know that there is a steady readership. Blogging has been a source of great joy (and occasional frustration) for me these past six years or so, and I am immensely grateful to all who have supported, encouraged, and challenged me along the way.

A Happy Hanukkah (last candle tonight); happy Solstice; and Merry Christmas to all.

Ten Firsts for Feminism in 2009

For the second straight year, let me offer my own entirely unofficial “ten great firsts for feminism in 2009″ list. (Last year’s list is here.) These come in no particular order, and you’re welcome to add your own in the comments section (or at your own blogs).

In 2009:

Charles Darwin’s great-great granddaughter, Ruth Padel, becomes the first woman to hold the Oxford chair in poetry, perhaps the most important public position in the world of English-speaking poetry; Carol Ann Duffy takes the second-most prestigious position, becoming England’s first female poet laureate.

Jennifer Figge, a 56 year-old Coloradan, becomes the first woman to swim all the way across the Atlantic becomes the first woman to swim, in stages, from the Cape Verde Islands to Trinidad.

President Obama names Harvard’s Elena Kagan to be America’s first female Solicitor General; the president also nominates Sonia Sotomayor to be only the third woman — and the first Latina — to sit on the nation’s highest court.

The first International Conference for Women in Trade Unions is held in Brussels in November, recognizing the growing importance of women in labor organizing across the globe.

Elinor Ostrom of Arizona State University becomes the first woman to win the Nobel Prize in economics.

Annise Parker becomes the first lesbian elected mayor of a major US city (Houston); Mary Glasspool becomes the Anglican Communion’s first openly lesbian bishop when she’s elected in the Los Angeles diocese.

For the first time, women voted — and entered parliament — in Kuwait; in India, the parliament in the world’s largest democracy elected its first woman speaker. Botswana’s parliament also elected its first female speaker.

Australia won the first-ever Rugby Sevens Women’s World Cup, held in Dubai.

President Obama creates the first White House Council on Women and Girls, and signs the Ledbetter Act, a major (if incomplete) step forward in the battle against wage discrimination.

Abby Marshall wins the Denker Prize as America’s top high school chess player, the first woman ever to claim that title.

Both sinned against and sinning: how Maggie Gallagher gets Tiger Woods and adultery all wrong

Maggie Gallagher, who has devoted much of her adult life to making sure that gays and lesbians cannot marry those whom they love, considers herself something of an expert on what she sees as an imperiled institution. Occasionally, she takes a break from what will surely be, in the end, a failed campaign to protect the narrow exclusivity of the franchise; on these breaks, she likes to shift her aim towards heterosexual women. Her column in this vein yesterday, Sex Makes People Stupid, gets one or two things right and far more things wrong. Gallagher begins:

Girls, can we talk? I don’t really like piling on a man in the midst of a multi-million-dollar public and personal implosion, but here’s one big obvious lesson to be learned from Tiger Woods: Sex makes people stupid.

And not just the men. How else do you explain the mistresses and semipros coming forward to say that a married Tiger betrayed their trust by sleeping with other women, too.

Sex makes people stupid. This is why we need a little thing called “civilization” to intervene between people and sexual passion, so we don’t leave the young-uns to rely on their own genius to figure out certain enduring truths, like: A married man cannot betray you. You are not a betrayee. You are the co-betrayer; you invade another woman’s marriage for your own personal satisfaction. A married man can’t be unfaithful to you. He can only be unfaithful with you, to his wife.

It’s typical, by the way, for Gallagher to bend over backwards (as she does in her first sentence) to avoid any criticism of any heterosexual man, no matter how great “a cad and a bounder” (as my uncle Stanley would have said) that man might be. Maggie is happier training her guns on the women who slept with Tiger and who had the temerity to feel hurt as a consequence.

I’m up to my ears in papers to grade, but I simply can’t let the wrong-headedness of Gallagher’s post pass. Yes, a married man who sleeps with a woman who isn’t his wife betrays his wife. He also betrays his children. But if he tells his mistress that “she’s the only (other) one” or that he loves her when he doesn’t, that too is a betrayal. Gallagher is so blinded by reverence for the marriage contract that she fails to see that betrayal comes in a variety of forms, including this one: we betray others not only when we break public covenants, but when we deliberately use others for our own pleasure while misrepresenting our intentions, our feelings, and our actions. Continue reading ‘Both sinned against and sinning: how Maggie Gallagher gets Tiger Woods and adultery all wrong’

Thursday Short Poem: Milne’s “King John’s Christmas”

The traditional pre-Christmas poem is always this AA Milne classic. For the seventh consecutive year, it’s up on the blog. I will recite it to my children for as long as I live, just as my mother has recited to me from my earliest remembered Decembers.

But hey, it’s a bit longer than some of the others, so it’s tucked below the cut. Continue reading ‘Thursday Short Poem: Milne’s “King John’s Christmas”’

Sending the love to academic feminism

Jessica has a post up at Feministing to throw some feminist love out there to Women’s and Gender Studies departments. She writes:

I’ve been critical of academic feminism in the past - writing that it’s not as accessible as it should be, and that it makes feminism something that only folks who are fortunate enough to go to college can take part in. While I think those criticisms do hold water, I also think we often don’t give enough love to the amazing teachers and students in these departments - the way the organize, the way they teach and the way they change people’s lives. So, much love to all of the teachers I’ve had and to all of the departments out there making a difference every day - you are all amazing.

It’s nice to be appreciated, and as someone who has taught women’s and gender studies for many years, I won’t disagree that courses in these subjects do have the very real capacity to change lives. When folks ask me why I teach these courses (in addition to my women’s history class, I also offer courses on Lesbian and Gay History; Men and Masculinity in America and “Beauty and the Body”) I invariably answer that my goal is to “raise up young feminists.”

That doesn’t mean indoctrination; it doesn’t mean an insistence on a narrow interpretation of what feminism is; it doesn’t mean a refusal to brook thoughtful criticism. It does mean that teaching is about more than the transmission of knowledge — good teaching is about inspiring students to see the world (and their own place within it) in a radically new way. Good teaching offers an antidote to passivity and the easy if chilly comfort of late adolescent cynicism. I don’t require or expect all my students to “claim the name” of feminism, but I do very much want to give each and every one of them exposure to the “feminist tool kit” with which they can begin to remake their lives, their relationships, and their communities.

In any case, you can comment at Feministing (or here, if you prefer) if you want to join in sending out some love to my colleagues across the nation and the world who do this vital work.

What does kill us can’t make us stronger: a note on youth, drugs, and mentoring

The front pages of both the Pasadena Star-News and the Los Angeles Times today have major articles on the death of Aydin Salek, a popular and promising senior at South Pasadena High School who succumbed to apparent alcohol poisoning after a weekend party. Salek, the son of Iranian immigrants, represented his entire high school on the local board of education, was a staff writer for the student newspaper, and was widely regarded as a leader of his class. He died after consuming a large but undisclosed amount of alcohol; one factor in his death may have been that his friends, worried about getting in trouble for drinking underage, initially transported him by car to the house of another friend whom they thought knew CPR, rather than taking him directly to the hospital. An investigation continues.

I didn’t know the boy, but am confident that many kids I know did; many of my students here at the college come from South Pas, as it’s known, and that school was a major feeder into the All Saints youth program which I helped lead for seven years.

Of course, it’s an unspeakable tragedy to have a child die young. If I were inclined to turn this post into social commentary, I would note that the death of a student leader at a middle-class suburban high school receives front-page attention across the region, while deaths due to drugs, alcohol, suicide or homicide among the student bodies at less prosperous institutions happen on a weekly (if not daily) basis in Los Angeles County, but almost never make the front pages. (The Los Angeles Times this morning even printed a timeline of the final hours of Salek’s life. The last time Southern California’s paper of record offered something similar about an overdose was the day after Michael Jackson died.) If I were the parent of, say, a Hispanic or black teen in South Los Angeles who had died in a similar manner — and whose death was noted in a single sentence deep within the paper — I might be a bit miffed at the rather obvious classism of the Salek coverage.

But I’m not going to belabor the point; the Salek family doesn’t need anyone suggesting that their grief is undeserving of respectful coverage.

What I’d like to post on, briefly, is the heartbreaking reality that on some occasions, a single mistake can indeed ruin or even end a life. I blog a great deal about the resilience of young people (and of human beings in general). I’ve railed against the myths of male weakness and of female frailty. I’ve seen the damage done by baby-boomer “helicopter parents” who infantilize their teenage children, and — against all historical evidence — imagine that this generation of adolescents face greater peril than any before. I’ve seen time and again how well-meaning parental concern becomes a teen’s crippling, even incapacitating anxiety. Empowering young people means allowing them to risk more and more each year that they grow; healthy parenting (as I am beginning to learn firsthand) means resisting the powerful urge to cover the child in bubblewrap.

I’ve written many times about my own life, noting that I abused alcohol and drugs for many years, starting in high school when I was considerably younger than Aydin Salek. My drinking career began at a high school party in April 1982, and ended sixteen years turbulent years later. I was hospitalized many times, had my stomach pumped again and again, catheters and IVs inserted up and down my body. Recklessly and willfully and episodically, I put toxin after toxin into my system. My sexual habits were compulsive and undiscriminating, and though I ruined quite a few relationships and a couple of marriages as a result, my body remained strangely impervious to harm. I never “caught” an STI or HIV, when people who did far less than I did, did.

I talk about this narrative to stress the possibility of change and transformation, an enduring theme in my writing and my mentoring. I leave out details of the sort that seem overly titillating or likely to wound; I’m keenly aware that my daughter will someday wince at the words I write, and I do my best not to compound (in advance) her embarrassment. But I worry that the message that many of the young people I work with get from me is “You can survive anything, and therefore it’s okay to try anything. Look at Hugo — he screwed up six ways to Sunday and is now blissfully sober with his lovely wife and child. If he can make it through the drugs and the booze and the other compulsive acting-out behaviors, so can I.”

I like to attribute my survival to divine grace, excellent therapy, wonderful Twelve Step sponsors, and my own tenacious will to live. But the truth is that there’s another factor I’m less inclined to credit, and that’s pure old-fashioned luck. To be honest, “luck” doesn’t fit my worldview; it isn’t something I can encourage others to pursue, it isn’t something I can directly credit God or my therapists or my “program” for. If it could be drunk or snorted or smoked, I did, and I survived (though I needed a few urgent medical interventions along the way). I have — gratias deo ago, baruch hashem — no enduring physical or psychological damage to my body. I have scars a-plenty, but they are all on the surface. And the plain truth is that a great many people out there, including some I knew and loved, did the same things I did and they didn’t make it.

That we can survive anything isn’t a guarantee that we always will. Resilience varies, and what might kill one leaves another bruised and sick but otherwise unscathed. Those of us whose hearts were just a bit stronger, whose timing just a bit better, whose guardian angels a bit more attentive — we make a huge mistake when we look back on our lives and imagine that luck wasn’t a huge part of our survival. And when we talk to young people, who are often both a cynical and superstitious lot, we need to emphasize that our good fortune might not be theirs.

Many young people know Nietzsche’s famous maxim that “What doesn’t kill me, makes me stronger” (Was mich nicht umbringt, macht mich stärker). I’ve never liked that much, which might be a surprise; Yeats came closer to the truth when he pointed out that “too long a suffering makes a stone of the heart.” I’ve seen people survive trauma but remain incapacitated by it physically and mentally for the rest of their lives. But the real problem with the Nietzsche maxim is that in order for the second part of the statement to come true, you need to manage not to die — and young people are, for all their surprising durability, not impervious to lethal substances — and other choices with lethal consequences.

We who were strong enough or lucky enough or graced enough to have both survived and thrived mustn’t reinforce the myth of post hoc ergo propter hoc. Yes, I have a certain amount of wisdom as a result of the life I’ve lived, but I’m not at all sure even now that I might not have turned out to be a better, kinder, and more successful human being had I been a little less reckless in my younger years. The pain I caused others left lasting injuries; even now, I suspect my mother still fears another phone call in the middle of the night. Though I did no lasting injury to body or mind or soul that I can discern, I can see the damage I inflicted in the people who still won’t speak to me after all these years, and in the flash of suspicion I see sometimes on the faces of my nearest and dearest.

Not every kid who drinks too much meets an unfortunate end like Aydin Salek. We must avoid hysterically overselling the risks; when we do, we earn the derision of young people who know better. (Think of the sex ed scenes from Mean Girls for an example.) At the same time, we mustn’t be too blasé about the fact that sometimes, some kids really do die doing things that others do with impunity. Striking that balance in a way that resonates with young people is at the heart of good mentoring, teaching, and coaching, and it is something to which I am re-committing myself today.

Spoilsport feminists and the monogamy ideal

Andrea sends me a link to this Jay Michaelson piece that ran last Wednesday at the Huffington Post: It’s Not Just Tiger: Monogamous Marriage Is An Anomaly. The title is, one admits, historically accurate; marriage, as Stephanie Coontz has shown so ably, is a dynamic rather than static institution, and it has meant different things in different cultures. Certainly monogamy (at least for men) hasn’t always been expected, and in making this rather familiar and unoriginal observation, Michaelson is on solid ground. But once we get past the title, we’re off to a bad start:

It was understood - in the Bible, in the Talmud, in Protestant Europe, in colonial America - that married men would visit prostitutes. And while this may have been a sin, it was everyone’s sin - and not a particularly serious one.

That’s simply bizarre. I assume Michaelson has read Midrashic commentaries on Judah and Tamar, for example, or Richard Godbeer’s Sexual Revolution in Early America. Godbeer, an old friend of mine, ably demonstrates that the Puritans actually believed that men had more (rather than less) self-control than women, whom they regarded as disordered by the unfortunate condition of hysteria. The notion that in deeply religious Western cultures men were always seen as entitled to sexual release outside of marriage is absurd. Certainly, men were generally (though not always) punished less severely for sexual transgressions than were women, and prostitutes treated more harshly than their patrons — but to say that the record of Western civilization is one that reveals that men’s use of prostitutes was largely accepted is to grossly misrepresent the evidence.

But that’s not the real objection to Michaelson’s piece, which is written, more or less, in defense of philandering. (As a post, it stands as a terrific illustration of how to “praise with faint damns”.) It turns out, according to Michaelson, that feminists — who else — spoiled the fun men had been having for centuries by insisting on companionate, monogamous, egalitarian marriages:

What changed all this was, ironically, feminism. The first feminists weren’t bra-burning radicals: they were pious scolds, who in late 19th century America mobilized for purifying American manhood. They cleaned out the brothels and closed the pubs - feminists were the first prohibitionists. What had for hundreds of years been the common practice of men of all social classes became a great vice to be eradicated.

Twentieth century feminism added another layer of condemnation: after all, why should men be allowed to philander while women were expected to remain faithful and stand by their (abusive, cheating) men no matter what? Why are promiscuous men heroes, and promiscuous women sluts? Women aren’t slaves, feminism taught us, and men need to respect them as equal partners in marriage. Infidelity had been a religious sin - now it was a secular one as well.

Nineteenth-century feminists, as Michaelson doesn’t know, were far more concerned with fighting prostitution because of what it did to the lives of women and girls; purifying American manhood was about saving their wives and sisters and daughters and mothers from exploitation and misery. Of course, Michaelson is, like a great many men, attached to the idea that any woman who demands responsibility from a man is a hen-pecking killjoy who fails to understand men’s earthy, rambunctious, eternally puerile nature. And Michaelson ignores the countless male advocates for sexual restraint and fidelity, like Sylvester Graham, John Kellogg, and Anthony Comstock, whose influence was (probably unfortunately) far more significant on Victorian American culture than that of Susan B. Anthony or Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Continue reading ‘Spoilsport feminists and the monogamy ideal’

Top Ten in 2009: the top five

Last week I posted the “bottom half” of my top ten posts of 2009. Here are my top five, in ascending order.

5. “She’s got you wrapped around her finger”: fathers, daughters, and a variation on the myth of male weakness (August 25)

Excerpt:

I’m also troubled by the message this version of the myth of male weakness sends to girls. It encourages the noxious idea that men are loveable but easily led, and that “pretending to be weak” or “dressing real cute” are better strategies for young women to use to get what they want than simple forthright candor. In a very real way, it teaches little girls that manipulation is preferable to directness, and that good looks and feminine wiles are the most valuable tools a woman can possess. Above all, there’s a sinister reality that undergirds this whole discourse: if men are easily manipulated, than they can never fully be trusted. If a Dad can’t say no to his daughter, he sends her a message (however subliminal) that men are fundamentally unreliable. Whether in families or in boardrooms or in bed, one basic rule of life is that you can never, ever trust anyone who doesn’t have the strength and the agency with which to tell you “No”.

4. Rihanna, Chris Brown, myths of male weakness and lies about transformation (March 10)

Excerpt:

And while we might be right to question Rihanna’s judgment in returning to this callow young man, it’s vital that we don’t put the onus for his transformation on her. Women are not responsible for “making men change.” Despite what the myth of male weakness tells us, men do not need to be nurtured and guided by their wives and girlfriends into becoming competent adults with a reasonable degree of self-control. If anyone is responsible for holding the Chris Browns of the world accountable, it’s other men — particularly older men — who need to signal, in an unmistakable way, that this sort of violence is puerile and utterly unacceptable. Chris Brown must change even if Rihanna doesn’t; whatever “issues” she has that leads her to be willing to return to a man who has beaten her savagely do not mitigate his moral and legal responsibility to deal with his own violent nature. If he hits her again, he is entirely responsible and she is entirely innocent. The first person to escalate a domestic dispute from a verbal exchange to a physical one is always to blame; to say otherwise is to repeat the odious lie that we humans are so frail that words can override our capacity for self-restraint.

3. “Sin boldly”: against the trap of the “emotional” affair (February 24)

Excerpt:

Both men and women are equally prone to self-deception about emotional affairs. For men, acculturated to think of sex in purely physical terms, it’s often difficult to grasp the degree to which an emotional betrayal can be just as devastating as an explicitly carnal one, but women are not immune from this misunderstanding either. One of the ugliest aspects of the emotional affair is that the participants often applaud themselves for what they see as their own admirable restraint. A couple that goes to lunch every day, exchanging intimate chatter and exchanging longing glances, may feel both the agony of unsatisfied longing and the perverse satisfaction of imagined virtue. It’s easy to say “Oh, Frederick, aren’t we wonderful people? We know we want to be together, but too many people would be hurt! It’s proof of how special our love is — and proof of how good we both are — that we are only exchanging these texts and emails and longing looks rather than getting naked at the Good Nite Inn out by the interstate.” As the kids say these days, epic fail.

2. Of never feeling hot: the missing narrative of desire in the lives of straight men (May 4)

Excerpt:

The very real hurt, the very real rage, that men often feel as a result of having no sense of their own attractiveness has very real and very destructive consequences. It’s not women’s problem to solve; it’s not as if it’s women’s job to start stroking yet another aspect of the male ego. The answer lies in creating a new vocabulary for desire, in empowering women as well as men to gaze, and in expanding our own sense of what is good and beautiful, aesthetically and erotically pleasing. That’s hard stuff, but it’s worth the effort. I know what it is to believe myself repulsive, and what it was to hear that not only was I wanted, but that I was desirable for how I appeared as well as how I acted. That was precious indeed, and far too few men have known it.

#1 Post of the Year: “My wife is my best friend”/”My wife is my only friend”: the Guy Code, and the inability to get naked without getting naked (April 7)

Excerpt:

The problem with connecting sexual intimacy with emotional vulnerability is that it breeds a particular kind of dependency. Once married or in a long-term monogamous relationship, the man becomes increasingly dependent upon his partner for emotional release. While she may also feel connected to him (one hopes that she does), women in our culture are generally given permission to separate emotional and sexual availability. Women are more likely to have friends of either sex with whom they can “get naked without getting naked”; women are also more likely to have strong family support systems. And because both partners figure out that there is some sort of connection between sexual and emotional intimacy for the guy, it becomes all the more difficult for him to find others besides his wife or girlfriend with whom he can be vulnerable. One of the factors that works to prevent married men and women from having close opposite-sex platonic friendships is this suspicion that at least for men, sexual and emotional closeness are easy to confuse.

Friday (not at all) Random Ten: carols and videos

Instead of a regular Friday Random Ten, here are my ten favorite traditional carols, — in order of fondness — with Youtube videos. Sound quality varies.

1. O, du Fröhliche
2. Angels We Have Heard on High
3. The Holly and the Ivy
4. God Rest Ye Merry, Gentlemen
5. Lo, How a Rose E’er Blooming
6. O Come, Emmanuel
7. For Unto us a Child is Born
8. Joy to the World
9. Masters in this Hall
10. In the Bleak Midwinter

“If they could see me now”: sex, homosociality, and the internalized male audience

In the comments below yesterday’s post about Tiger Woods and homosociality, Tom questions my use of the concept in describing the golfer’s infidelities with a certain type of woman. If homosociality drives men to use women to seek status in the eyes of other men, he wondered, how does it explain the behavior of men who have (what they thought were) clandestine affairs? Doesn’t the desire for secrecy vitiate the argument that the behavior is driven by a longing for validation from other men? It’s an important question, and deserves a longer answer than can fit in the comments.

In 2005, I wrote a long post about the task of helping women silence their internalized audience. The internalized audience is that Greek chorus in one’s head, made up of parents, peers — perhaps pastors and professors — and so forth. When one does something, even in secret, that one imagines might either delight or scandalize members of that audience, one spends time ruminating “What would they think if they could see me now?” For many women in particular, that internalized audience is incapacitating and shame-reinforcing, as I wrote in that post and again in this one.

The notion of homosociality dovetails nicely with the male version of the internalized audience. In other words, status-seeking young men don’t just perform for other flesh-and-blood males (fathers, brothers, coaches, Alpha guys) — they perform for the internalized audience of those figures. In Guyland, Michael Kimmel’s marvelous work about contemporary young men, Kimmel interviews a fraternity member who recalled having sex with a young woman whom all of his “brothers” thought was incredibly hot. The young man remembered that all he could think of while hooking up with this woman was what his “bros” would think if they could see him at that moment. The homosocial boost to his ego, in other words, was more powerful than his own sexual excitement — even though his fraternity brothers were not, in fact, watching or (yet) aware of his “conquest.”*

This young man wanted his male peers to find out eventually. But his pleasure came not merely from letting them know that he had sex with a particularly desirable woman, it came from contemplating their reactions before they knew about it. This is a not-uncommon scenario; the actual revelation of “what happened last night” is almost anti-climactic compared to the delicious validation that comes with imagining other men’s envious, even awed responses to this evidence of his masculine prowess.

In describing his own coming-of-age in rural Mexico, Amherst professor Ilan Stavans writes in the anthology Muy Macho of his ritualized first visit to a brothel:

Losing our virginity was actually a dual mission: to ejaculate inside the hooker and then, more importantly, to tell of the entire adventure afterward.

It’s not a leap to imagine that the thrill while with the prostitute lies chiefly in the imagination of how the recitation of the night’s events to one’s peers will go down!

For men who, for any reason (often because of adultery) need to be secretive about their extra-marital sexual lives, it’s certainly possible, even probable, that the validation that comes from imagining the status-boost that would come if their buddies knew who they were bedding is almost as good, or perhaps even better, than actually letting them know. Just as so many little boys, playing alone on a court or a field, imagine that they are in a stadium in front of a huge cheering audience, so too slightly older boys, getting it on in a hotel room with a gorgeous young woman who isn’t their wife, may imagine something remarkably similar.

*It is popularly believed that in single-sex groups, it’s common for women’s discussion of the sex they’ve had with men to be much more graphic than men’s discussion of the sex they’ve had with women. If this is true, then it reinforces the point that men’s story-telling is not about the exchange of detailed information, but about the opportunity to gain status in the eyes of other men. Other men may want to know that you got the “hot chick” into bed, they may want to hear your claims of how good it was (and how good you were), but any further detail about what transpired is positively unnecessary. For homosocial reinforcement to work, that it happened is enough — how it happened is irrelevant.