Archive for the 'Men's Movement' Category

A long post about dating, rejection, affirming and redirecting

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on June 02, 2009
in Chivalry and performing gender roles, Men's Movement and Relationships
. 219 Comments

The comment thread below this post from last Thursday is still active, and has taken a number of twists and turns. There’s been much discussion of the “seduction community”, lookism, privilege, and the difficulty in finding people to date. It’s been remarkably civil to boot. I think I’m gonna give out the “best comment thread of the year” award in December, and so far, this looks like the winner.

One comment jumped out at me, from “Eurosabra”, who wrote yesterday about the difficulty of meeting women:

…by the 50th sidewalk café, you’re feeling pretty tired and put-upon and wondering when you’re going to be seeing some of the mythical “female sexual agency” directed at you. So it’s a cart-horse problem, compounded by the fact that (at least in college) everyone is always constantly meeting people, it’s just that some people get…no results. And straight women’s means of showing interest are so indirect, because of that whole slut-shaming thing….

it really makes me feel like I have to put myself out there and hope, hope to be chosen, while initiating everything.

I’ve spent my share of time being quite tough on young men like Eurosabra, but having read enough of his comments, it’s clear that he’s not coming so much from a place of male entitlement as from a place of genuine hurt and disillusionment. And that hurt and disillusionment, that sense that meeting potential dates requires constant receptiveness to rejection, is widely felt among many men I know. Some lose all claim on sympathy with misogynistic tirades rooted in a sense of frustrated privilege. But others don’t claim that women are obligated to be attracted to them. They don’t secretly believe that they are God’s gifts to women. They’d just like to meet women with whom they could perhaps have a relationship, and the system for meeting potential dates seems so opaque, so difficult to understand, so set up to guarantee disappointment after disappointment after disappointment. No wonder some of these men retreat into pornography addiction, or turn to the slick purveyors of seduction techniques. No wonder that others just, well, get very sad and a bit cynical. Continue reading ‘A long post about dating, rejection, affirming and redirecting’

Men, women, and our common capacity for all that is human

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on March 24, 2009
in Chivalry and performing gender roles, Feminism, Feminist Pedagogy and Men's Movement
. 55 Comments

In the very first women’s studies course I took at Cal, more than two decades ago, the very first novel we read was Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s famous utopian fantasy, Herland. (Parenthetically, we live three blocks away from Gilman’s home in Pasadena, now a registered historic site.) The novel, published in 1915, tells the story of a country of women in which men have become entirely superfluous — and of the three men from “our” civilization who, thanks to a hot air balloon ride, stumble across the society. The three males represent three different visions of masculinity, with the poles represented by the violent, hyper-masculine Terry and the gentle, chivalrous Jeff. Jeff, we’re told from the start, has women on a pedestal — he thinks them incapable of wickedness (or much strength). Part of the fun of Gilman’s novel is the way in which she exposes the myths to which both Terry and Jeff cling.

I thought of Jeff’s character yesterday when I read the remark in the thread below this post which suggested:

Or, you can believe, as I think Hugo does, that women are some higher order of humanity. That if only we could free this half of humanity - the innocent half, the half that lacks Original Sin - from dependency on us broken souls that they will be like a light unto the Gentiles, and show us the way.

That’s Gilman’s Jeff, all right, but it’s not Hugo Schwyzer - or any other feminist, man or woman, with whom I’ve worked. In the tired compendium of anti-feminist bromides, there are a few classic slurs which re-emerge again and again: pro-feminist men are gay; lupine sexual predators in sheep’s clothing; filled with intense self-loathing; convinced of the innate superiority of women and the innate inferiority of men. The misogynists can’t go out the front door to come up with any new arguments, so they return to these again and again — and it’s the last of these to which I want to — briefly, I promise — respond this morning.

I do not believe for a second in the innate moral superiority of women over men. As someone committed to the sound principle that most of our beliefs about sex difference are rooted in cultural constructs rather than in immutable physiological truths, I take it for granted that both men and women are capable of kindness and cruelty, sexual aggression and passivity, courage and cowardice, homicidal rage and extraordinary empathy. One excellent feminist first principle is that there is no human emotional or intellectual capacity that does not belong in equal measure to both men and women. I’ve been a card-carrying member of the National Organization for Women and the National Women Studies Association for years — and I’ve yet to meet a colleague of either sex who expressed in public or in private a conviction that females were, on account of their biology, superior to men. Continue reading ‘Men, women, and our common capacity for all that is human’

We have used our power to dominate and our weakness to manipulate: more on the egalitarian vision, and the fundamental sinfulness of traditional gender structures

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on March 23, 2009
in Men and Masculinity and Men's Movement
. 72 Comments

Last Tuesday’s long post about feminism and the free market got a large number of replies. My basic thesis was that strong public institutions liberate both men and women from the forced reliance on family for survival; an adequately-funded welfare state allows relationships to flourish based on choice and desire rather than on necessity and desperation. I also rejected the notion that men’s sense of self-worth is somehow inextricably linked to women’s dependence upon them. The old “women offer their vulnerability in exchange for men’s responsibility” myth is a favorite of those who think that at our core, we are governed by what they imagine to be the needs of our paleolithic ancestors. I have no desire to continue to debate those who peddle the risible notion that all males are biologically hardwired for violence and promiscuity, and can only be tamed by chaste and faithful and adoring women.

That said, I want to respond to SamSeaborn, who seems deeply concerned that men are somehow becoming superfluous. Men need women in order to reproduce in a way that women don’t need men, he argues, a point which on a purely functional level has some merit. (It’s easier to get sperm than it is to find someone to carry a baby — paying men to ejaculate into a cup is a lot cheaper, rightly so, than paying a surrogate to carry a fetus to term.) If the state offers sufficient aid to women so that they can raise children without a man’s financial assistance, what, Sam wonders, is to stop many men from “opting out’ into what I call the “unholy trifecta” of pot, porn, and Playstation?

Sam asks:

How can (men) feel valued as a human being if there’s basically nothing only they can do that women cannot while there’s a lot of things men cannot do that women can’t? You either get detachment or service in this situation, but service, of couse, is requiring social checks on women - some kind of affirmative action for men, which one may call patriarchy. Which leaves a bit of a problem: reject patriarchy and you’ll get male detachment.

How would you get around this? What would you suggest that would make men actually feel like complete human beings AND complete men that would overcome this potential dichotomy?

Sam’s right. At least he’s right if you accept “masculinity” as an inevitable feature of maleness. Obviously, we cannot continue to raise our sons with outmoded definitions of what “makes a man” and then expect those lads to seamlessly adapt traditional ideas about manhood to a modern egalitarian culture. The “Little House on the Prairie” vision won’t work any longer, and it’s evident that raising our sons with a traditional masculine ethos is just setting them up for cognitive dissonance, alienation, and anger. You can’t teach a boy that “A good man is one who provides for his wife and children and protects them from harm” and then expect him not to be a bit bewildered by a world in which women have both agency and autonomy. Hence the pathetic appeal of mail-order brides; American men, determined to hold on to traditional gender roles at any cost, sending away for wives from the Third World. The need for a green card, the lack of English language skills — these are often powerful markers of vulnerability, and can serve to puff up the fragile masculinity of a male determined to cling to a dated and useless understanding of gender roles. Continue reading ‘We have used our power to dominate and our weakness to manipulate: more on the egalitarian vision, and the fundamental sinfulness of traditional gender structures’

Yes, we need a White House Council on Men and Boys — but not for the reasons you think

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on March 21, 2009
in Men and Masculinity, Men's Movement and Politics
. 39 Comments

A shorter Saturday night post.

Conservative culture warriors Kathleen Parker (she of Save the Males) and Marybeth Hicks have opined in complaint this week about President Obama’s creation of a White House Council on Women and Girls.

Both determined anti-feminists, Parker and Hicks wonder why the president hasn’t created a council on men and boys. Parker:

Where’s the White House Council on Men and Boys? Okay, let men fend for themselves. But boys really do need our attention, not only for themselves but also for the girls who will be their wives (we hope) someday. We do still hope that boys and girls grow up to marry, don’t we? Preferably before procreating?

Certainly, the Obamas seem to have this hope. A model family, they undoubtedly want their girls to excel and, eventually, to marry equal partners. But boys won’t be equal to girls if we don’t focus some of our resources on their needs and stop advancing the false notion that girls are a special class of people deserving special treatment.

Hicks:

A council on men and boys would promote stable marriage as the best avenue to improve the lives and living conditions of America’s women and families. A council on men and boys would address the crisis in American manhood that results in the scourge of infidelity, divorce, lack of commitment and fatherhood with multiple partners….

Such a council would work to train a new generation of boys to become real men, who honor and uphold women as equals in the workplace, the community and the home - not because the government regulates such an attitude, but because it’s right.

A council on men and boys also would address the underlying problems that create “women’s issues” such as child care, inadequate pay and domestic violence. These aren’t “women’s issues,” but issues related to the systemic collapse of the American family.

Sigh.

And though I’m not sure I’ll ever say this again, but I agree with Parker and Hicks. At least, I agree that a Council on Men and Boys would be very useful, and I would love to see President Obama create just such a White House department. But of course, the vision I have for such a council is worlds apart from that sought by these two conservative pundits. Continue reading ‘Yes, we need a White House Council on Men and Boys — but not for the reasons you think’

The old “male responsibility requires female vulnerability” lie, take 197: a response to Kay Hymowitz

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on November 20, 2008
in Chivalry and performing gender roles, Feminism, Men and Masculinity, Men's Movement and Relationships
. 16 Comments

I wish I had more time to respond to this Kay Hymowitz piece: Love in the Time of Darwinism. (Cap tap to Rudy.)

Hymowitz is best known as author of Marriage and Caste in America, one of the less-unfortunate texts in the cottage industry of publications devoted to the notion that lifelong heterosexual union is all that stands between us and the apocalypse. Those who want government to abjure responsibility for providing protections for the vulnerable are always quick to see marriage as the panacea for a host of problems. In some sense, arguments about what marriage ought to be are indeed very close to the core of some of our biggest contemporary cultural debates. Four times married — and in this last one, happily so — count me in the corner of those who argue against the over-promotion of the institution!

In any case, in this article Hymowitz takes on the modern dating scene, which offers any commenter of any political persuasion much opportunity for lamentation. But Hymowitz is primarily worried about the impact on we men-folk, who are apparently overwhelmed and bewildered:

Today, though, there is no standard scenario for meeting and mating, or even relating. For one thing, men face a situation—and I’m not exaggerating here—new to human history. Never before have men wooed women who are, at least theoretically, their equals—socially, professionally, and sexually.

By the time men reach their twenties, they have years of experience with women as equal competitors in school, on soccer fields, and even in bed. Small wonder if they initially assume that the women they meet are after the same things they are: financial independence, career success, toned triceps, and sex.

Oy. All of those women going to college and playing sports? They want husbands and babies and little fluffy puppies. But not money, independence, strong bodies, or that nasty sex stuff. And if they pretend they want money or orgasms, they are poor deluded dears who have bought into the lies promoted by… by… by women’s studies professors, of course.

In any event, Hymowitz catalogs the bad behavior of SYMs (single young men) and — this is strikingly original — lays the blame squarely on women.

Adding to the bitterness of many SYMs is the feeling that the entire culture is a you-go-girl cheering section. When our guy was a boy, the media prattled on about “girl power,” parents took their daughters to work, and a mysterious plague seemed to have killed off boys, at least white ones, from school textbooks. To this day, male-bashing is the lingua franca of situation comedies and advertising: take the dimwitted television dads from Homer Simpson to Ray Romano to Tim Allen, or the guy who starts a cooking fire to be put out by his multitasking wife, who is already ordering takeout. Further, it’s hard to overstate the distrust of young men who witnessed divorce up close and personal as they were growing up. Not only have they become understandably wary of till-death-do-us-part promises; they frequently suspect that women are highway robbers out to relieve men of their earnings, children, and deepest affections.

Bold emphasis mine. My head is starting to hurt. It’s Ray Romano’s fault? No, it’s all down to divorce — the kind where hard-working and reliable men get abandoned by flighty women who, with the help of a unjust legal system designed by the pantsuited and the predatory, steal everything from their husbands, who are (like all men, really) naive babes-in-the-woods. Wise young lads, these, to learn such important lessons! As the kids said in my day, gag me with a spoon. Continue reading ‘The old “male responsibility requires female vulnerability” lie, take 197: a response to Kay Hymowitz’

Looking for “the inoculation against cruelty”: how to help boys through the trials of Guyland

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on September 17, 2008
in Men and Masculinity, Men's Movement, Mentoring, Michael Kimmel's "Guyland" and Youth
. 39 Comments

This is the third installment of a three-part review of Michael Kimmel’s Guyland: The Perilous World Where Boys Become Men. Part one is here, and part two is here.

In the first two parts, I looked at Kimmel’s concerns about young men in America, noting his insights into the “Guy Code”, homosociality, and the recurrent theme of escape in boys’ lives. Kimmel is as good as any in identifying the problem, and making a compelling case that there are some immensely troublesome aspects to the way in which our culture helps (or doesn’t) boys transition into adulthood. But it’s axiomatic that diagnosis is always easier to write than remedy; most of us see the wrong more clearly than we see the right. And in the end, the most valuable contribution that any of us in the gender studies field can make is to prescribe workable solutions to the problems we are usually so good at identifying.

Many writers of similar books spend the first four-fifths of the text laying out the case that something needs to change, usually with copious anecdotes designed to illustrate just how bad things have gotten. The suggestions for change and transformation, if they have any, usually only appear in the conclusion. Too often in recent years, I’ve read books about “youth in crisis” in which practical solutions appear almost as a rushed afterthought. It’s as if the author never meant to include them at all, and only did so, grudgingly, at the firm insistence of an editor. I am happy to say that Michael Kimmel weaves his vision for an alternative “guyhood” into every chapter of his book. Though the bulk of his strategy for change appears towards the end of Guyland, the whole text is shot through with thoughtful and compelling suggestions for how things can be different.

First off, we need to acknowledge that there is much that is good in our young men. One of the classic slurs that anti-feminist men’s rights activists (MRAs) throw at the likes of Michael Kimmel (or Jackson Katz, Robert Jensen, Michael Flood, and — if I may be so bold –myself) is that we are filled with masculine self-loathing. We then apparently project our own self-hatred onto other men, longing (apparently) to change “real men” into women. This charge has as much credence as the suggestion that Barack Obama runs an al-Qaeda sleeper cell, but like those whispers, the spurious charge of misandry has proven surprisingly resilient. Kimmel does what all of us do, though we get too little attention for it: he honors the worth and dignity of the young men about whom he writes, and he honors them as men. Continue reading ‘Looking for “the inoculation against cruelty”: how to help boys through the trials of Guyland’

Yet another post on men, suspicion, youth ministry, and cheerfully proving one’s innocence

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on May 19, 2008
in Affection, Emotional and Sexual Boundaries, Men's Movement, Sexual harassment, Youth and Youth ministry
. 29 Comments

A reader, responding to the thread below this reprint, writes:

…talking about false allegations keeping men out of these fields (working with kids) and referencing things like To Catch a Predator and the McMartin / Buckey case to make out like the fear of abuse is totally overblown really hurts, you know? I try not to let things bother me. I’ve had to stop reading certain blogs because of the prominence of thinking that downplays the reality of child sex abuse… For someone to portray what concern that exists now as hysteria makes me feel invisible. For almost every woman I’ve known well enough to have a personal conversation with and almost every female family member, this is a big part of their reality, part of their life story.

I wasn’t able to do much moderating while I was in New York, and perhaps I ought to have weighed in a bit. Whenever I’ve posted about working with youth, and particularly about working with underage teens (see this category archive), men’s rights activists tend to show up in the comment threads. They often show up to give me a “friendly” warning that I risk being hit with a false accusation, or to lament what they see as a broader cultural climate that is deeply distrustful of men who work with young folks. As I said in this post and many others, the collective bad behavior of a great many men (not just a few “bad apples”) has led to a justifiable degree of suspicion on the part not only of the survivors of abuse but on the part of parents, communities, and the broader culture. My two-fold point has always been the same:

a. I welcome the opportunity to “prove myself safe” through a repeated willingness to submit to scrutiny, a scrupulous willingness not to be entirely alone with a minor, and a cheerful and undefensive willingness to answer questions about my actions and my pedagogy from any stakeholder in the community.

b. At the same time, I’m going to be fearless about being warm, loving, and where appropriate (and sometimes, it is very appropriate) physically affectionate with young people of both sexes. Good youth ministry with any group of teens is impossible without an environment in which non-sexual, affirming, touch is available. Continue reading ‘Yet another post on men, suspicion, youth ministry, and cheerfully proving one’s innocence’

“The chance to become something more than a man”: a review of “Men Speak Out”: UPDATED

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on March 05, 2008
in Books, Men and Masculinity and Men's Movement
. 9 Comments

I’ve been taking my time to make my way through the nearly forty essays in Men Speak Out: Views on Gender, Sex and Power. The anthology, deftly edited by Shira Tarrant, is a marvelous one, with a breadth and diversity of men’s voices that is impressive — and moving. Though I got a copy in mid-January, it’s taken me nearly two months to read all the essays, generally moving at the pace of no more than one or two per day.

A few of the essayists are celebrated names in the small world of the pro-feminist men’s movement: Michael Flood, Robert Jensen, Michael Kimmel, and Jackson Katz (who penned the introduction.) But most are not as well known. These male voices are ethnically, chronologically, and sexually diverse, united by a strong commitment to gender justice and to creating a different understanding of what it means to be a man in the modern world. The essays are organized into themes: Masculinity and Identity, Sexuality, Feminism, and Points and Perspectives. And yes, I have a short piece in the anthology as well.

Refreshingly, few of the essays are written by academics. This is not to say that those of us who “labor” in the ivory tower (whether in the Ivies or at community college backwaters) don’t often have excellent perspectives on gender, sexuality, and feminism. But the dynamics of the culture being what they are, it has often proved true that the men best positioned to publicly identify as feminists are those who enjoy the protection of tenure. Tenured professors have a firmer rock on which to stand than do their brothers in, say, the military, or the corporate world, or in a factory, or in graduate school. The men who contributed essays to this anthology come from all those places and more, and there is a richness and an authenticity to what they have to say about their lives. Continue reading ‘“The chance to become something more than a man”: a review of “Men Speak Out”: UPDATED’

The “three guy” rule: the third post in a series on numbness, growth, and male transformation

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on October 26, 2007
in Male Transformation Series, Men and Masculinity and Men's Movement
. 5 Comments

This is the third post in a series that began with this one last Friday and continued on Monday of this week here.

The problem I’ve been writing about is perhaps not entirely unique to men, nor is it universal among them, even in our culture. But the problem — call it “numbness”, call it lack of resolve, call it a profound sense of disconnectedness from both the self and others — does seem to manifest far more often among men than women. Men, both as individuals and in groups, do far less healthy self-reflection than women do. To put it in terms that mytho-poetic types use, men do less “soul work” than their sisters. That doesn’t mean that young American women are growing up healthier, mind you, only that women are generally allowed more emotional resources to help them grow.

The first two posts were largely about sketching out the problem. Today, I’m offering some preliminary solutions. (I realize that in doing so, I’m part of a fairly large crowd: the “what’s wrong with boys and men today” sector is a fast-growing one in the media and publishing worlds.) Below Monday’s post, ballgame notes:

I think your suggestion that males need solely to ‘look within’ to combat the emotional consequences of this enforced isolation is rather like telling someone, “That poison is making you sick! Here, have some more.”

Indeed. The kind of transformation we’re talking about here can’t be done in solitude, or at least not solely in solitude. The journey within is a difficult one, and it requires both guides and companions. To state the obvious, young men desperately need mentors. But the kind of mentors that they generally find in our culture aren’t much help in doing this work: a schoolteacher may make you a better history student, but won’t automatically help you go “deep and inside”. A basketball coach may make you a better foul shooter, but he won’t necessarily mentor you in developing a vocabulary for your inner emotional terrain. And your first boss may show you the skills you need in order to succeed in one particular job environment, but that boss probably won’t help you answer the existential “why” that explains what you’re doing there in the first place. Continue reading ‘The “three guy” rule: the third post in a series on numbness, growth, and male transformation’

“There is no ‘there’ there”: part two of a very long post on Robert Bly, male transformation, and the fear of one’s own hollowness

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on October 22, 2007
in Male Transformation Series, Men and Masculinity and Men's Movement
. 26 Comments

This is the second post in a three-part series. Part one appeared last Friday. It dealt with several issues, focusing in particular on the difficulty so many men have today identifying and acting on what it is that really want. Men who long to be “good guys” often have a particularly difficult time with what Robert Bly calls “resolve.”

Anti-feminist male voices play on this lack of resolve, mocking the aspiring feminist man for his apparent passivity. Anti-feminist men claim that they do know what they want: they want to get laid, make money, play Halo or World of Warcraft until four in the morning. They want to watch football instead of talking. They don’t want emotional intimacy, or so they claim; they want to work hard, play hard, and fall asleep after sex. These anti-feminist voices (one thinks of their popular high priest, the talk-show host Tom Leykis, who without any irony tells his male listeners to call him “Dad”) urge young men to give up the quixotic crusade of living a life of justice and self-control.

While the likes of the libertine Leykis urge calculated self-indulgence, traditionalist Christian voices implore young men to “seize back” their leadership roles as head of the family. Thus the feminist man is attacked from two sides: by the buddies that urge him to stop worrying about women’s feelings and give in to his id, and by social conservatives who call him to stop worrying about women’s feelings and take up his God-ordained role as warrior leader.

So many aspiring feminist men give up at this point. The siren songs of irresponsibility and fundamentalism both make the same promise: live this way, and you will have the certainty you lack. Both camps tell the same lie: that biological identity determines destiny. Continue reading ‘“There is no ‘there’ there”: part two of a very long post on Robert Bly, male transformation, and the fear of one’s own hollowness’

“But he could not say what he wanted”: part one of a series on Robert Bly, feminist men, and “Nice Guys”

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on October 19, 2007
in Male Transformation Series, Male feminists, Men and Masculinity and Men's Movement
. 22 Comments

This is the first of what I hope will be a successful three-part series. Part two to come next week.

This past week in my “men and masculinity” course, we began discussing Robert Bly’s Iron John. Nearly two decades after it was written, Bly’s alternately captivating and exasperating call for a return to the “deep masculine” still resonates. Many people who know nothing else about the men’s movement (not to be confused with the men’s RIGHTS movement, a different beast altogether) have heard of Bly and “Iron John”. I make sure that my students read Bly in conjunction with very different figures in the movement, like the pro-feminist Michael Kimmel. But as confounding and opaque as Bly’s writing can be, my students seem to enjoy “Iron John” more than any other book I assign in this course.

Re-reading the book in preparation for this week’s lecture, I found myself thinking about the much discussed “Nice Guy” phenomenon. “Nice Guys” often cloak their misogyny behind a facade of sensitivity. “Nice Guys” often talk garrulously about gender issues, and often establish their bona fides by bemoaning the way in which “other guys” treat women. About every ten minutes, a Nice Guy will drop an “But I’m not like other men!” into the conversation. The Nice Guy becomes less nice when he realizes that despite all he obviously has to offer, women are remarkably uninterested in dating or sleeping with him. Nice Guys often lose their temper when rejected, launching into embittered, “slut-bashing” diatribes about how foolish women are for choosing “bad boys” (or traditional men). Most Nice Guys alternate between stunningly low self-esteem and staggering hubris, secretly believing that their “sensitivity” makes them the answer to every maiden’s prayer. A great many feminist women have their share of “Nice Guy” stories, and if you spend much time in the feminist blogosphere, you’ll read your share of ‘em.

Nice Guys are, in a few respects, similar to the famous SNAG (”Sensitive New-Age Guy”) who first made his appearance some four decades ago. SNAGs, I suggest, aren’t automatically as passive-aggressive as Nice Guys; SNAGness is about much more than a tactic to get sex from women. Becoming a male feminist isn’t easy, and most men who start down this road do so with the best of intentions, often with a profound and genuine desire to create a more just world for both sexes. The stereotype that many SNAGs are the sons of single-mothers doesn’t always hold true — but a great many pro-feminist men did grow up acutely aware of their mother’s feelings.

I was raised the first-born son of a single mom; from age six (when my parents separated) on, I was a “student of my mother’s emotions.” My grandmother and aunt told me that I needed to “take care of my mother” after the divorce, as she’d been through a “hard time.” And so, of course, I did my best. While I did often annoy and exasperate my mother (not least when I would torment my little brother), I did become very, very good at taking her emotional temperature. My mother is hardly mercurial (though she is a Gemini), and she was generally on an even keel. But she was anxious about many things, and I picked up on that anxiety very early on. She and I talked a great deal together, and in some ways — especially in the period between the divorce and the onset of my interest in girls about seven years later — my mother was my best friend.

I’ve talked to many other men active in the feminist movement, and a very high number of us have similar stories about our mothers. Let me clear that this isn’t the only reason we remain committed to the feminist movement today. It’s easy to play armchair psychologist and pathologize every activist. An adult commitment to justice is always rooted in more than childhood experience. But one thing I learned about myself a long time ago applies to a great many other men in the movement, including the “SNAGs”: we often confuse verbal dexterity for authentic insight. Our commitment to women’s rights is sincere, but we’re often incapacitated by a surprising lack of self-awareness.

Bly, who is often wrong about the remedy but rarely wrong about the diagnosis, writes of men like this:

Part of their grief rose out of remoteness from their fathers, which they felt keenly, but partly, too, grief flowed from trouble in their marriages or relationships. They had learned to be receptive, but receptivity wasn’t enough to carry their marriages through troubled times. In every relationship something fierce is needed once in a while: both the man and the woman need to have it. But at the point when it was needed, often the young man came up short. He was nurturing, but something else was required — for his relationship, and for his life.

The “soft” male was able to say “I can feel your pain, and I consider your life as important as mine, and I will take care of you and comfort you.” But he could not say what he wanted, and stick by it. Resolve of that kind was a different matter.

Emphasis in the original.

Living a feminist life as a man is about more than sensitivity to women. It’s about more than ideological assent to egalitarian principles, and it’s even about more than putting those principles into practice in one’s public and private life. Part of being a true feminist is acknowledging the enduring reality of male privilege. For men in this society, that means doing the best one can to renounce that privilege. But the danger in that renunciation is that it can destroy the capacity to act. Too many aspiring feminist men, too many nice guys, are incapacitated. They are incapacitated by a fear of doing the wrong thing — and, as Bly points out, deep down they aren’t really sure what they want. These good guys have spent much of their lives focusing on women’s concerns, and have developed the vocabulary of sympathy and solidarity. They have not developed genuine self-awareness in the process.

And this self-awareness is a prerequisite for continued growth. It is the prerequisite for the sort of resolve that Bly mentions. And righteous action, predicated on both empathy for others and upon deep self-awareness, is something far too few men comprehend.

More to come.

“Boys Adrift”: part two of a review

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on September 05, 2007
in Books, Men and Masculinity, Men's Movement and Youth
. 11 Comments

Last week I had some very critical things to say about Leonard Sax’s Boys Adrift.

But as critical as I am of Sax’s gender essentialism, there is much within his latest work that I think is insightful and encouraging. When it comes to the now-famous “failure to launch” phenomenon (in which young men live at home throughout their twenties, essentially relying on their parents to support them), Sax makes good sense:

I agree that the real world is very rough. What’s the best way to help young people face that reality? If your child is ten or fifteen years old, then by all means, shelter him or her from that harsh reality. But what if your child is twenty-one, or twenty-six, or twenty-nine? How long is a parent expected to shelter a child who is not mentally or physically handicapped?

My own belief… is that if parents continue to shelter their adult child after the age of twenty-one years, the parents may make it less likely that the adult child will ever be willing and able to meet the challenges of the real world.

Tell it, brother Sax. Preach the good word.

Dr. Sax also deserves credit for being willing to reject traditional models of masculinity. Indeed, given how reactionary his views are on single-sex education, it is surprising and refreshing to read the following attack on Harvey Mansfield’s ludicrous Manliness (which was a big hit with a lot of social cons last year).

Right off the bat, Mansfield asserted without any disclaimer that “John Wayne is still every American’s idea of manliness.” He then proceeded with a detailed analysis of what makes John Wayne the epitome of manliness.

When I read that sentence… I was startled. “Speak for yourself” was the first thought that came to my mind.

Anyone who can rip apart Mansfield is okay with me.

But perhaps my strongest and most enthusiastic point of agreement with Sax comes on what is perhaps the one principle which virtually all the disparate voices in the broader men’s movement affirm: the central importance of strong, loving, adult male role models. Most humans, growing up in our gendered culture, are more likely to “identify” with and seek to imitate adults of their same sex. Given that most teenagers go through at least a brief period of rebellion against their parents, it is good to have adult role models who are not family members.

Sax urges parents (and parents are the primary audience for this book) to seek out good adult men to mentor their sons:

Don’t wait for your son to make this choice. If he’s like most of the boys I work with, he may need a push. That’s OK. Just choose an activity in which he can interact with grown men, where he can have opportunities to see how they live, how they relax, how they serve their families and their communities. In most cases, even a not-quite-perfect choice, perhaps even the wrong choice, will be better — will be more likely to engage your son in the real world — than no choice at all.

Dr. Sax has been rightly lambasted by feminist critics for his suggestion that we ask too much of young boys when we insist that they be able to articulate empathy as well as their sisters. But when he calls for safe, strong, loving adult men to be more involved in the lives of young boys, he deserves an enthusiastic “heck, yes!” All children — boys and girls alike — need good, non-familial role models, and they need them from both sexes. But when the majority of adults modeling compassion, competence, courage and emotional availability are female, then our boys often grow up without ever developing their own ability to be reliable, strong, ambitious, and articulate. That’s not women’s fault — it’s men’s.

In my teaching and in my volunteering, I am committed to working with young men. I mentor quite a few of them. Those in the men’s rights community who reject my feminist commitments would be wise to step up and mentor at least as many lads as I do. After all, my MRA friends, do you want me to be the only adult man working with your sons? :-) Put your volunteer time where your mouths are, and raise up a generation of young men with the same capacity for love and boldness as their sisters.

Wealthy and embittered with a victim complex? Leave your money to the MRAs

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on September 04, 2007
in Men's Movement and Money
. 18 Comments

This from Vanessa at Feministing:

Apparently in all seriousness, the lads at Men’s News Daily are asking elderly men’s rights activists (MRAs) to leave their money to charities that will continue the struggle:

Let me talk directly to older wealthy American married males: give us other men a break. Don’t assume that your wife is as conservative as you. Don’t die and leave her all of your money.

In 2007, money is not only flowing into feminist organization coffers from dead widows and vindictive ex-wives like Heather Mills McCartney. The feminist groups are also getting big dollars from big politically correct corporations like Exxon-Mobil and, of course, an American Congress which is filled with blackmailed perverts like Senator Larry Craig who have clearly been doing almost everything the feminists wanted just to keep themselves in business at the local men’s restroom.

Therefore, you real men who might die in the next 10 years (you could be hit by a truck) have an obligation to leave serious funds to men’s rights organizations that can do battle with the above-mentioned juggernaut. Please go change your last will and testament today (tomorrow if it is after 5PM when you read this).

Larry Craig was a feminist? If so, he was pretty darn well, uh, closeted.

Of course, there aren’t a lot of legitimate men’s rights groups that have 501(c)3 status, but perhaps that will change. The article advises:

You can also start a 501c3 non-profit before you die. Ask a lawyer about getting one started sooner rather than later.

Remember, no matter how much you love her, please do NOT leave all your money to a woman (wife or daughter) who could knowingly or unknowingly turn your grandson and great-grandson into the slave of a system completely dominated by feminists.

It’s beyond risible, of course, but worth a visit for the laugh. There’s an interesting comment thread at Feministing.

For my own categorization of the various branches of the men’s movement, see here. For one of many critiques of the so-called MRAs, see here. Quoting myself from many years ago:

The problem with the men’s rights movement is that they confuse men’s unhappiness with oppression. They assume that if men were in control, they would be happy, because patriarchal oppressors ought to be happy. Therefore, if a man isn’t happy, he isn’t oppressing. Newsflash, folks: Just because you don’t know you’re privileged doesn’t mean you’re not. Just because there are aspects of your power and privilege that you find alienating and burdensome doesn’t mean that you are any less a beneficiary of an oppressive system! Both men and women do need liberation from rigid, traditional, gender roles. The difference is that collectively, men are the architects of the system while women are merely forced to live within it.

But here’s the serious question, since I seem to be in a question-asking mood: which charities would you be most inclined to leave your money to, assuming you die with plenty to leave?

You can scroll down on the right sidebar to find my favorites. Put yours in the comments section.

Private virtue, public justice: some very long thoughts on men, leadership, and the lie of “compartmentalism”

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on July 12, 2007
in Men and Masculinity, Men's Movement, Politics and Sexual ethics and transformation
. 80 Comments

Responses to my post about pro-feminist men and Antonio Villaraigosa’s infidelities have been, well, lukewarm. At her place, Sassy worries that by suggesting that the mayor treats women in his life as disposable, I’m reinforcing an anti-feminist sense of victimhood. She also writes:

Part of feminism for me though is recognizing that women have the ability to make the best choices for themselves, that includes making the choice to stay or leave a man with a wandering eye. I know very little about his wife, but I can assure you that some of those tears she has cried has been from the assumption of others that he treated her as “disposable” and what others must think of her…

No doubt, but those of who work as male feminists have an obligation to do more than counsel women to make “the best choices” when faced with infidelity. There’s a strain in many of the responses to my post that suggests that bad male behavior is to be expected, and feminism should focus itself solely on giving women tools with which to respond to that behavior. That’s fine, and I do share an interest in giving women those tools — but I’m also convinced that those of us who call ourselves male feminists ought to be doing more to challenge men to transform their sexual behavior. Feminism is surely about more than empowering women; it surely is also (in part but not in whole) about holding men accountable and setting new standards for what is acceptable.

In the comments below my post, Catty writes:

I do think this hand-wringing is counterproductive and sets people up for failure.
In this day and age, Roosevelt or Kennedy would have neeeever gotten elected.

I understand the exasperation many folks have with the media’s incessant prying into the sexual lives of public figures. I hear the FDR and JFK line a lot, too; some people clearly yearn for an era in which great men were free to be great in public and have their quiet, discreet, unreported fun. Catty seems to believe, as many now believe, that there is no connection between public justice and private virtue; they believe that a man can simultaneously betray marriage vows and be desperately loyal to other, loftier principles. In other words, they believe that many people — perhaps great men in particular — can live their lives in compartments.

My faith informs my feminism, and vice versa. Though I acknowledge that philanderers have made great leaders in the past, that’s due less to their personal success at compartmentalization and more to God’s remarkable habit of “writing straight with crooked lines.” At the end of the day, my faith tells me we will all fall short of the mark; we are all works in progress; we are all going to sin in one way or another. But acknowledging that sin is part and parcel of the human condition is very different from turning a blind eye to it. Recognizing that humans are often frail is very different from accepting private betrayals as inevitable. And understanding that we all make mistakes doesn’t mean that we ought to continue to enable the making of them.

JFK and FDR were notoriously unfaithful; the Marilyn Monroe and Lucy Mercer stories (among others) are well-known. But these two men grew up in an era where men were expected and encouraged to live their lives in compartments. They were taught that it was permissable to be one way in public, and radically different in private. They were also raised in a culture where wives accepted their husbands’ infidelity as inevitable, asking only that their philandering spouses be discreet. The male-dominated press, filled with journalists who may also have had girlfriends on the side, conspired with the JFKs and the FDRs and others to keep everyone’s sexual behavior out of the public eye.

A feminist society is one in which we raise both young men and young women to treat each other with dignity, with kindness, with radical honesty. Feminism is not merely about liberating women to behave as badly as men have traditionally been allowed to behave; feminism is perhaps also about asking men to live up to the same moral standards that women have historically been required to meet. Of course, that’s a position grounded firmly in both faith and feminism rather than the latter alone. Secular proponents of women’s equality do not all share the conviction that the best advocates of public justice are also those who practice authentic private virtue.

In this country, the right-wing emphasizes private morality and often ignores the requirement to provide justice through public institutions. The left does the opposite. The right doesn’t see the communal responsibility (expressed through state institutions) to provide for the health and welfare of the vulnerable. The left doesn’t see much point in encouraging monogamy as a solution to social problems. The right sees the “family” as the solution to all problems, while the left almost completely discounts it. That’s a broad generalization, but it’s not all that far off the mark. Both left and right often fail to see that we need a combination of strong, accessible public institutions and strong, kind, morally accountable citizens to build a just society.

From a feminist standpoint, I prefer Bill Clinton to George W. Bush. The former’s track record on women’s rights globally, while far from perfect, was much better than his successor’s. On the other hand, not even his worst enemies have accused W. of any sexual impropriety since his conversion experience more than two decades ago. Clinton’s personal life was characterized by recklessness bordering (if the stories be half true) on abuse: Bush’s private life is above reproach — but his public actions have been firmly anti-feminist. But I refuse to accept a false choice between being led by a man of private virtue and public misogyny on the one hand and being led by a man who embraces egalitarian principles in the open but fumbles disgracefully with young women half his age in a hallway off the Oval Office on the other. Public justice matters; private virtue matters.

It is only unreasonable to demand both when we buy into the notion that men are fundamentally weak. We often wrongly assume that “great men” naturally have great sexual appetites that cannot possibly be met within the confines of a marriage to one woman. Their energy and their commitment to the greater good require that they have a little “down time” in the arms and beds of a variety of young women (or young men). We insist that it’s both unfair and unrealistic to demand that these men honor all of their commitments — as long as they are good servants to the public, it’s none of our business whether or not they are lousy husbands.

Every man, howver, who holds a position of power (be he president or professor) is instantly a role model to younger people, especially to younger men. We do take cues, and rightly so, from our leaders about what is acceptable and permissable. A teacher, a youth minister, a cabinet secretary, a monarch, a president — they are watched and studied by the young. The young want to know if those who guide them and provide for them are matching their public language and their private lives. When they see hypocrisy, when they see a profound disconnect, when they see that even the most admired of men cheat — they learn not to expect too much from men, or from themselves.

Had they been raised in a different era and held to a higher standard, I have no doubt that FDR and JFK could have both been successful politicians and faithful husbands. Had they been raised in a culture that taught men to speak and act when they are alone with their buddies the same way they speak and act around their sisters and wives, they might well have turned out to be even better leaders than they did. While feminists ought to care more about a politician’s ideas than about his or her private sexual behavior, it is not unreasonable or overly idealistic to ask for decency in every aspect of a leader’s life. Our sons and daughters need to see men who can treat women as equals in the boardroom — and at the same time, keep their commitments in the bedroom.

It’s not too much to ask, it’s not too much to demand. And I am demanding it less for myself than for the young people who so desperately need to know that radical, authentic integrity is possible. I’m not asking for perfection, but I am asking for an end, once and for all, for to compartmentalization.

What’s in it for men?

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on June 21, 2007
in Favorite posts 2007, Feminism, Men and Masculinity and Men's Movement
. 37 Comments

One question that those of us who are male feminists are bound to get asked over and over again: “What’s there for men in feminism?” The Chief asks a version of that question below Monday’s post:

Hugo, particularly, loves to preach on how men CAN change. He’s weak on providing the reasons why we SHOULD. To put it crassly, what’s in it for us?

I suppose I could quote Aristotle to the effect that virtue is its own reward, but something tells me that wouldn’t go very far.

I do answer this question regularly, as I’m asked it semester in and semester out. As most any serious feminist will tell you, feminism is about reconfiguring the culture in order to create greater equality between men and women. For most feminists, it’s also about liberating both men and women from the chains of sexism and patriarchy. As countless men in the pro-feminist movement have pointed out, oppressing women doesn’t make most men nearly as happy as one might imagine. We make a huge mistake when we assume that to be complicit in injustice brings joy and fulfillment. Yes, the benefits of living in a sexist culture are there for most men — but most men are so accustomed to taking these benefits for granted that they derive little if any sense of satisfaction from their own privilege.

When I meet with young men, I hear the same lament over and over again: “Why won’t women trust me? Why won’t women smile at me? I”m not a predator, I’m just a nice guy. Why am I always guilty until proven innocent?” I’ve answered those questions before: read “Guilty until Proven Innocent” and “No Right to be Assumed Harmless”.

When men work to transform themselves, to become genuine egalitarians in the bedroom, the boardroom, and cleaning the bathroom, they make the world a better place for themselves as well as for the women with whom they interact. When men challenge other men’s catcalls, porn use, leering stares and rude comments, they work to eliminate the very things that cause so many women to be justifiably mistrustful of so many men. Many men’s rights activists (MRAs) decry the epidemic of t-shirts that say things like “Boys are mean, throw rocks at them” or simply “Boys lie.” I’m not fond of those shirts myself, and I don’t think they’re in the least bit funny. But I recognize that in addition to reflecting an adolescent desire for attention, they reflect a legitimate anger, a legitimate fear, a legitimate frustration on the part of many women with men.

Quite a few men I know would love to be trusted more. They’d love to have their friendly “hellos” returned; they’d like it if everyone, male or female made eye contact with them and returned their smiles. They’re depressed by the way so many women respond to them, with guarded distance. Some of them become angry at women, blaming the targets of sexism for not being more warm and open to those who might well hurt them further. But the wiser ones understand that creating a world where men are trusted, believed, and smiled at involves changing the basic rules of masculine behavior.

One of the cardinal rules of American maleness is “Don’t call another man on how he treats women.” Men co-sign each other’s bad behavior far too frequently; the end result is that the “nice guy” who doesn’t harass women is rightly lumped into the same group as the jerk who does. Boys, if you’re not actively part of the solution you are — at best — passively part of the problem. If you’re respectful, friendly, honest and thoughtul to women in your interactions with them, but you remain silent while your male friends and relations behave otherwise, then you’ve got no right to complain about women’s suspicion!

I’m tired of living in a world where a man who wants to work with small children is automatically presumed to be a pedophile; I’m tired of living in a world where folks worry that the embraces I give the boys and girls in my youth group have a perverse, ulterior motive. But simply pleading my innocence isn’t enough. The incidences of abuse, the incidences of betrayal, the incidences of profound irresponsibility on the part of men in positions of trust aren’t just anecdotal — they’re overwhelming. And the answer for those of us who are trustworthy and long to have others know it isn’t to blame other people for being suspicious. It’s to work doubly, triply hard to create an authentically feminist culture in which men hold each other accountable, in which bad male behavior is immediately called out by other men.

In his comment, The Chief compares men to wolves. Just as its not easy to make a carnivorous wolf into a herbivore, he doesn’t think it’s easy — or even desirable — for men to change their essential nature. (I’m not a great believer in anyone’s essential nature, and have written umpteen times of the ways in which biology is used to excuse passivity and defeatism in the face of sexual injustice.) But it’s true that a great many women do see men as being like wolves, and a great many men do behave in ways that give women reasons for thinking that lupine comparison is apt. The damage predatory male behavior does to women is obvious. But what’s less obvious is that the “lone wolf” of lore is a symbol of isolation. I know a lot of guys who’ve tried to be lone wolves, tried to live up to the masculine ideal of the strong, silent, sturdy oak. Most of them, as Thoreau pointed out, lead lives of quiet desperation. Most of them, especially as they age, cope with an alternating sense of numbness and profound pain.

A sexist culture leaves men cut off from their own pain. Years and years of hearing “boys don’t cry” leaves many men in their teens and twenties in a state of permanent numbness, with only anger and lust as identifiable emotions still flowing through them. Feminism — with its insistence that men are as entitled to emotional expression as women — liberates men from the awful standard of “lone wolf-hood”. It allows us to stop being ciphers and become human beings, complete and whole and kind and good. It allows us to balance our strength with our humanity.

I am a feminist because I see organized feminism as one of the great vehicles for social justice and personal transformation. I am a feminist because I want to see a world in which both men and women are free to become complete people. When we shut down women’s anger, women’s desire, women’s impetuousness — we create half-people. When we shut down men’s tenderness, men’s vulnerability, men’s empathy — we create half-people. Half people alternately long for a partner to complete them, and resent the hell out of those partners for being able to do for them what they could not do for themselves. It makes for a pretty miserable existence, characterized by the strange and odious way in which men and women simultaneously long for and loathe each other. That’s not nature, that’s a social construct that needs to be dismantled.

I’m a feminist because I want to create a world where men and women alike can realize their potential; I’m a feminist because I believe that our potential is not directed or confined by our chromosomes or our secondary sex organs. My penis and my Y chromosome do not destine me to be unreliable, predatory, and emotionally inarticulate. My wife’s uterus and her estrogen do not limit the horizons of her professional or athletic ambition. Feminism is, as we’ve all heard, the radical notion that women are people. But it’s also the radical notion that men are people too, complete human beings, with the same range of emotions and the same capacity for empathy and self-control as any woman.

Feminism frees men to become truly complete human beings. And there’s an amazing payoff in that.

Note: You don’t have to be a feminist to comment here, but misogynist broadsides and anti-feminist bromides — as well as personal attacks — are out.