Archive for the 'Men's Movement' Category

Pro-feminist responses to the “Queen for a Year” problem

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on January 11, 2006
in Class, Clothing and Fashion, Feminism, Men and Masculinity, Men's Movement, Modesty, Pasadena City College, Porn, Sexual ethics and transformation, Sexuality and War
. 50 Comments

Annika sent me a link to this NPR interview with Kayla Williams, author of "Love My Rifle More than You", about serving as a woman in the army during the current Iraq conflict.  As part of the interview, there’s a lengthy excerpt from the book in which Williams describes the "Queen for a Year" phenomenon:

A woman at war: you’re automatically a desirable commodity, and a scarce one at that. We call it "Queen for a Year." Even the unattractive girls start to act stuck-up. It’s impossible not to notice.

"Queen for a Year." You won’t find the phrase in the dictionary or any compilation of military terms. But say it among soldiers, and they’ll know immediately what you mean. That’s what we’ve called American women at war since nurses traveled to Vietnam in the sixties.

There’s also this "deployment scale" for hotness. Let me explain. On a scale of ten, say she’s a five. You know — average looks, maybe a little mousy, nothing special. But okay. Not a girl who gets second glances in civilian life. But in the Army, while we’re deployed? Easily an eight. One hot babe. On average every girl probably gets three extra points on a ten-point scale. Useful. After you’re in-country for a few months, all the girls begin to look good — or at least better. It changes — how should I say this? — the dynamics of being deployed.

Because there are relatively few women (compared to men) deployed in Iraq, these few can experience a significant rise in attention and status.  Resisting the urge to make use of that enhanced status was difficult for Williams, and impossible for others:

You could get things easier, and you could get out of things easier. For a girl there were lots of little things you could do to make your load while deployed a whole lot lighter. You could use your femaleness to great advantage. You could do less work, get more assistance, and receive more special favors. Getting supplies? Working on the trucks? It could be a cinch — if you wanted it to be. It didn’t take much. A little went a long way. Some of us worked it to the bone. Who says the life of the Army girl has to be cruel?

Lots of girls succumbed to temptation. The younger girls were the most susceptible. Many thrived and fed on the male attention they were getting for the first time in their lives.

I did my personal best to resist. So did my friends and the girls I respected. (That’s why I respected them.) But many girls became full-fledged Queens for a Year. We saw it. And the guys talked.

From a feminist standpoint, this is just a re-framing of the old question of whether or not women can ever be justified in using sexual desirability in order to gain professional or personal advancement. It’s all too easy to condemn those women who, as Williams describes, feed "on the male attention they were getting for the first time in their lives."  It’s too simplistic to insist to young women that they ought never use their sexuality, no matter what the potential rewards.

But as the excerpt makes clear, many young women feel profoundly dis-empowered in the traditionally male-dominated setting of the military.  Before she’s even opened her mouth or performed a single task, it’s likely that a young female soldier has already been judged and dismissed by many of her male peers who may remain deeply suspicious of women’s fitness for army service.  Even outside of the military, we live in a world where young women — particularly from the sort of economic background from which most enlisted women hail — are not taken seriously.

It’s axiomatic that the fewer educational and professional opportunities a young woman has, the more valuable her sexuality becomes as a marketable commodity.  (This is why, for the most part, most female sex workers come from working-class rather than affluent backgrounds.  One enduring fantasy in male-centered pornography is of "coeds" and "sorority sluts" — but the sad truth is that most of the young women who play those roles on screen will never get a chance to be in a sorority or experience the full richness of the undergraduate life.)   It’s also nearly as axiomatic that young women will be pulled in opposite directions on the subject of whether they ought to make use of that sexual desirability. 

Many middle-class feminists, and many irate men’s rights activists, find common ground in decrying young women’s use of sex in order to try and gain some small degree of power.  Of course, feminists and MRAs have different reasons for disliking the phenomenon!  Feminists are worried that by using their sexuality for career advancement (or merely the small perks that Williams describes), young women reinforce destructive stereotypes about female sexuality and power.  They are also concerned, and rightly so, that using sexuality tends to create rifts between individual women, particularly in male-dominated settings (like the army) where feminist solidarity could prove so invaluable.  On the other hand, MRAs are angry because they feel that men are being manipulated and "used" by "scheming women"; they are frustrated, I suspect, both by their own inability to gain access to women and by their own vulnerability to flirtation and arousal.  They become enraged by what they desire but generally cannot have.

I’ve pointed out before that there’s a consistent socio-economic element to young women’s dress here at the community college.  Generally speaking, the young women most likely to dress for school as if they are going to a nightclub come from working-class backgrounds. Those whose life experiences have made them uncertain about the likelihood of success through purely academic means (or who lack professional female role models) tend to be the ones most likely to want to "sexualize" the classroom.  Of course, countless women from disadvantaged backgrounds come to college and aren’t interesting in displaying their sexuality.  But there’s no question that a place like my own Pasadena City College is more likely to see female students "dressing to impress" than a more affluent four-year institution!

So, what’s the pro-feminist response?  Ultimately, we will only end the "queen for a year" problem by doing a much better job of making it clear to young women from all backgrounds that they do have other tools at their disposal besides their sexuality.  We have to continue to be aggressive about promoting women into positions of authority, and providing still more role models who can exemplify professional success achieved through hard work and intellectual ability rather than flirtation. 

Above all, men in positions of authority — superior officers, teachers, employers — have to hold themselves accountable for how they respond to sexually desirable subordinates.  Without shaming young women who do attempt to use their sexuality for advancement or perks, we must go out of our way to make it clear that we will give them our attention and mentoring irrespective of their appearance.   Every time we give extra attention or "perks" to a pretty student, or a flirtatious private, or an attractive intern, we do damage to her, to our institution, and to other women.  Yet every time we withdraw our attention from a woman merely because she is attractive, fearing our own response or the judgment of others, we also do damage.  The key to ending the entire problem is conditioning adult men to see beyond the surface appearance of the women around them. And once we’ve looked beneath the surface, we then have to have the courage to mentor fearlessly.  That’s not easy work, but it’s at the heart of the contemporary pro-feminist task.

“But you’re pretty”: a pro-feminist musing on why compliments don’t help

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on January 5, 2006
in Body, Feminism, Men and Masculinity, Men's Movement, Sexual ethics and transformation, Vanity and Youth
. 83 Comments

The discussion sparked by Jill’s online experience with her fellow NYU law students continues.  Here’s my post, Amanda’s, and Lynn’s.  Amanda and Lynn both have excellent things to say about the difficult position women find themselves in on the Internet, and in the wider society, when it comes to their appearance.    I liked this bit from Amanda:

Calling feminists ugly is actually shorthand for a longer thought process that goes something like, "Women’s most important quality is their looks, so good-looking women have everything they could want. The only reason a woman could be dissatisfied is if she isn’t good-looking, and so feminism is the last resort of women in denial that they are failures as women." That argument falls apart if you show that conventionally attractive women also feel like second class citizens, and that being eligible for being a well-regarded sex object doesn’t mean that you aren’t still being treated just as a sex object.

Nicely put.

When the fellas at NYU called Jill "fat" and "ugly", many folks at Feministe rushed to reassure Jill that she was anything but.  There are several problems with responding to insults with compliments, as zuzu pointed out in the comments:

These guys are obviously assholes, but it bothers me that being called fat and/or hideous provokes such a strong, “But you’re not fat! You’re not ugly!” response. I could just be feeling marginalized by the idea that being fat is the worst thing a woman could be called.

I’m thinking this morning of what a male pro-feminist response to this issue might be.   

Most men are aware, to one degree or another, of how powerfully the women in their lives are affected by messages about beauty.   If we’ve been raised in this culture, we’ve grown up with mothers, sisters, cousins, classmates, girlfriends and wives who’ve suffered from the tremendous pressure to be thin and pretty.  We’ve witnessed that anxiety from an early age, and many of us have tried — with limited success at best — to offer comfort and reassurance to the women around us.  When I was younger, whenever any woman would worry out loud about her weight or her looks, I would rush to compliment her.  I figured dispensing kind compliments was part of my job as a man.

The subtext of this, of course, was that I was being raised to believe that women were emotionally dependent upon my praise and my judgment.  And just as I — or any man — had the power to comfort and reassure, I also had the power to hurt and wound.  As a "nice guy" in my youth, I knew that I ought never call a woman "fat" or "ugly", but the fact that I didn’t use those epithets didn’t mean that I wasn’t aware of their potential power.  And I’m convinced it’s fundamentally unhealthy for men to have this kind of power over women, even if we don’t use that power abusively.

When I first read Jill’s original post, I felt the old temptation to do as many did: to offer words of reassurance about her looks.  Compliments, especially in cyberspace, are awfully easy; a quick "Those guys are idiots, you’re very attractive" would have been effortless.  But I’m convinced it would have been wrong to write it.  Today, I am very careful with compliments and reassurance about physical appearance.  I save that sort of thing for my marriage. With my female friends, students, and especially with the girls in my youth group to whom I am close, I am quick with compliments about everything but physical appearance.

As a professor and a youth leader, I’m keenly aware of how many young women are desperate for praise and validation about their looks.  And I’m equally aware of how damaging it will be if I provide it.  Even when my "kids" ask for that sort of praise in subtle — and often not-so-subtle — ways, I won’t make comments about visual appearance.   But ask anyone who’s seen me with teens — I’m a hugger and a complimenter about everything else extraordinaire.  It’s easy to praise exteriors; harder to get to know a girl or a boy and find out his or her special gifts and talents that lie beneath the surface.  I’m intensely interested in finding the different intellectual, emotional, athletic, artistic and spiritual gifts that my students and youth group kids possess.  And about those qualities, I’m consistently effusive.

Obviously, this is a good rule for a thirty-eight year-old youth worker to use when dealing with teenagers.  But this "be very careful with physical comments and compliments rule" is applicable in the rest of the world, as well.  Pro-feminist men must recognize that men constantly use compliments to gain access to women, and that that is a fundamentally destructive dynamic.   How many bad pick-up lines start with overzealous praise of a woman’s appearance?  Men use these lines because as hackneyed as they are, they know sometimes they work.   By the time they reach college, most men recognize that a great many women are deeply and profoundly hungry for praise, and by offering that praise, guys will be able to gain an opening.  When men praise the beauty of women they barely know, they are employing an old patriarchal strategy that preys upon a serious vulnerability. 

Mind you, I regularly tell my wife she’s beautiful.  But she’s my wife, and my enthusiastic and sincere praise is not tied to an agenda; I’m not trying to get her into bed or gain some other power over her.   Indeed, I think we all should compliment our lovers and spouses, and in a different way, our sons and daughters.  Praise for physical attributes has its time and place, and all of us — men and women alike — need to hear it from time to time.  But for too long, men have recognized women’s socially-constructed need for body-centered praise, and they have used that need to their advantage.  So men can play a vital role in transforming culture for the better by being very careful  with the physical compliments towards women they don’t know well — and very generous with praise for women’s other attributes.  Let’s save the "you’re beautiful" remarks for those with whom we’ve already built a relationship.

I’m not accusing the guys who wrote complimentary words to Jill of having a hidden agenda, though some may have hopefully anticipated her gratitude, something that men tend to expect in return for that sort of praise.  But we need to recognize that when we do offer such compliments to those we barely know, even when we do so with sincerity and without expectation, we are helping to reinforce the destructive anti-feminist notion that women are dependent upon near-constant reassurance from lovers, acquaintances, and strangers alike.   Sometimes, the best thing we can do is check our desire to offer that praise, and choose a different strategy to express our admiration and our solidarity.

No more silent “good guys”: some thoughts about North Country

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on October 31, 2005
in Feminism, Men and Masculinity, Men's Movement, Movies, Pacifism, Sexual ethics and transformation and Sexual harassment
. 18 Comments

Last night, my wife and I were finally able to see North Country, the new Charlize Theron film about sexual harassment in the Minnesota iron mines.  I’ve been eager to see it since I was first asked to be part of the Stand Up online community organized by the film’s producers, Participant Productions.

What struck me most about the film was the pivotal role that seemingly good men play in allowing sexual harassment to flourish.  The iron mine in which Theron’s character works has a long-standing culture of hostility and resentment towards women, often expressed in brutal and degrading ways.  But not all of the men in the mine are flagrant harassers.  Others are simply witnesses, even with flashes of sympathy for their female co-workers.  They do not participate in the abuse, but they are unwilling (at least until the end of the film) to confront the harassers.    What allows the harassment to flourish in the film — and in so many settings in real life — is not only the complicity of management, but the silence of the "good guys". 

I’ve worked with young  - and not so young — men around issues of sexual violence, date rape, and harassment for quite a few years now.  I often get the same line:  "I don’t need a training program.  I’m a good guy!  I don’t harass women; I know that "no" means "no".  In the workplace, in college fraternities, any one who does sexual harassment prevention work will run into many a "good guy" who will vehemently insist that only a small minority of men are real threats to women.  In a very literal sense, they "good guys" may be right.  But the goal of sexual harassment prevention is not only to target the harassers or potential rapists! The goal is to reach the "silent majority" of "good guys" who are too afraid to challenge the harassers and the culture that encourages them.

The pre-eminent scholar of masculinity, Michael Kimmel, points out that American men live their lives in a heavily homosocial culture.  We are raised to seek the approval of other men on the athletic field, in the workplace, in the bar.  Homosociality means that most men are more likely to risk disappointing women rather than their "brothers."  And of all of the rules of male homosocial culture, one stands above all others: the importance of silence.  Men are raised not to call each other on their treatment of women, no matter how offensive or abusive it may be.  To speak out, to "stand up", is to risk being thrown out of the brotherhood.  (Brotherhood is an important subtext in the film.)    To stand up against sexual harassment is to risk ostracism from a community of men whose acceptance is vital to most men’s self-concept.

The key goal of sexual harassment prevention, at least as I’ve been involved with it, is never just about reaching potential harassers. It’s about creating a climate where men feel emboldened to challenge each other.  It’s about identifying the "alpha males" (not always the bosses or the presidents, just the guys with the highest degree of homosocial credibility) in the office, the fraternity, the factory, and getting them to "buy in" to the idea that men can and should hold each other accountable for how they treat the women with whom they share public and private space.  Effective sexual harassment prevention is about reaching young men, and empowering them to speak up when they see other boys or men engaging in abusive behavior.  Above all, effective harassment prevention is about undermining a culture of silence that allows so many men to imagine that they are "good guys", even as they are complicit in the abuse and mistreatment of their coworkers, sisters, daughters, and female friends.

Let me be honest:  in my work, I’ve found that nothing is more difficult than getting men to hold each other accountable for how they treat women.   And yet, I’ve seen many guys start to do just that.  The key, as always, is offering them role models whose masculinity is unimpeachable, but whose commitment to standing up against a culture that encourages harassment is unquestionable.

I’ve got no qualms about using the language and rhetoric of masculine culture to try and undermine the conspiracy of silence.  Though some of my feminist allies cringe when I use the phrase "real men", I’ve found that the most successful way to reach guys is to make use of familiar concepts and ideals.   My friends as Men Can Stop Rape have been doing this for years with their "men of strength" campaign which offers an alternative vision of what it means to be a powerful, authentically masculine man.

Above all else, the vital message of North Country is one of individual responsibility.   Stopping harassment and abuse is about making every one of us, especially men, aware that remaining silent in the face of the mistreatment of women makes one a co-conspirator.  Real men stand up.

MRAs, documentaries, “assaults” –UPDATED

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on October 21, 2005
in Men and Masculinity and Men's Movement
. 108 Comments

I did not watch the PBS documentary "Breaking the Silence: Children’s Stories" that aired last night. I can say that my inbox has been filled with mail from MRAs and father’s rights groups, all of whom lobbied PBS (unsuccessfully) to get the documentary pulled off the air. Lots of posts about the film can be found at Trish Wilson’s place, and she links to this newspaper review of the documentary.

My friend and polite adversary, Glenn Sacks, sent out this email alert earlier this week; Glenn calls the film an "assault on fatherhood."

Though I haven’t seen the film, I’m troubled that Glenn — and his fellow MRAs — use the verb "assault" in this context.   It may be a film whose ideological commitments are at odds with MRA doctrine; it may not parrot the father’s rights activist line — but it is not, under any circumstances, an "assault."  All of us who work on issues of gender justice, domestic violence, and sexual harassment are obligated to speak out against the pervasive habit of using words like "assault" and "bashing" to describe the work of our movement.

One of the most unpleasant tactics of the Men’s Rights Movement has been to appropriate "victim language".  MRAs talk incessantly about being "assaulted", either literally by women or figuratively by a court system that they see as hopelessly biased in favor of mothers.  They call women’s studies courses exercises in "man-bashing", even though they cannot name a single incident where a man has been physically assaulted in such a class!  It’s a smart tactic on their part, as it allows the primary perpetrators of violence against women to claim to be the real victims. 

Outside of a few spectacular cases, it’s difficult for MRAs to document what they claim to be the widespread practice of women’s physical abuse of men in American society.  As a result, they use words like "assault" to describe PBS documentaries.  In doing so, they unwittingly (or perhaps quite intentionally) minimize the suffering of the real — and overwhelmingly female — victims of very real physical and sexual assaults.

Language matters!  As a women’s studies professor, I’ve made the effort to purge certain catch phrases like "patriarchal oppression" and "male privilege" from my public vocabulary.   These phrases describe important realities, of course — but they also are easily misinterpreted as the tired rhetoric of a movement well past its heyday.   I find it helpful to make the language of pro-feminism as jargon-free as possible; I still have work to do in that regard.  That said, I wish my friendly adversaries on the MRA front would leave loaded and precise words like "assault" out of a discussion of documentaries, and save it for real incidents of real violence.

UPDATE:  Glenn writes me an email to stress that the goal of his campaign was not to get PBS to pull the show, but to provide father’s rights groups the opportunity to respond on air with their version of the issue.

Considering debate

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on September 14, 2005
in Feminism and Men's Movement
. 8 Comments

Lots to do this morning.  I’m pleased to note that I’ve got an extended version of an earlier post up at Inside Higher Education this morning.   Turning blog posts into publishable articles is something I’ve been meaning to do for a long time now, if only in hopes of reaching a wider audience.

I can report that in the fine tradition of Eleanor Smeal and Phyllis Schlafly, or of Timothy Leary and G.Gordon Liddy, my friend and sparring partner Glenn Sacks and I are considering doing some public debates together, perhaps on college campuses or in other settings.  Despite our obvious ideological differences on issues of feminism and men’s rights, Glenn and I have formed a cordial working relationship.  What’s more, we’re both pretty darned entertaining; I imagine that we could do a lot of good work together.  We’re in the preliminary discussion stages, but if any readers are connected with organizations that might be interested in having Glenn and me come by, do feel free to contact me.

At the risk of offending many colleagues, I’ll say this:  most of the leadership of the pro-feminist men’s movement in this country is not terribly media-savvy.  There are a few shining exceptions, particularly Jackson Katz and Michael Kimmel, but it seems that a lack of media interest and a certain degree of shyness on the part of many leading pro-feminists leads to the exclusion of our perspective from the public conversation.  Though I can’t say that I’m qualified to become a national spokesperson for pro-feminist men (my movement credentials are far less impressive than many, and some of my views are more than a little idiosyncratic), I do feel that I’ve got  sufficient years of professional and academic experience in gender work to put myself out there.  Glenn Sacks is quite well-known in the men’s rights community; in that sense, I’d be honored and delighted to be his public foil.   He and I are both confident that we could do a considerable amount of good for our respective movements if we pursue this current project.

Of course, at the risk of being accused of affected modesty, let me say that I think Glenn will surely have the upper hand in our debates.  Running a radio show with precise to-the-second time constraints, not to mention dealing with hostile callers,  is a very different thing from lecturing –without commercial interruptions — for an hour or two to students held captive by the power of the gradebook!  Still, eleven years of drama training in my childhood and adolescence may come in handy, and I hope to be able to keep up with my opponent.

At their worst, debates simply provide opportunities for two sides to lob tired rhetorical grenades at each other.  In bad debates (and I’ve been in a few of those), each participant is thinking less about what the opponent is saying, and more about what she herself ought to say when it’s her turn again.  Each talks past the other.  In good debates, each is challenged by and made better by the other.  As a result, the issues that are on the table become more comprehensible for the viewers or listeners.  Both the pro-feminist and men’s rights movements have everything to gain by having new and greater opportunities to carry their messages to a wider audience.  And while I have no doubt that getting this project going will be a lot of work, I’m excited by the chance to work with such a kind and competent adversary.

A brief response to Dr. E

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on August 22, 2005
in Feminism, Men and Masculinity and Men's Movement
. 83 Comments

One week until the start of school…

Rather late, I’m following up on a question from "Dr. E", a regular commenter and Men’s Rights Advocate.  In a recent comment, he quoted from my June 2004 post entitled "Men":

About 1998, it finally hit home to me that much of my academic interest in women’s studies was rooted in my own fear and dislike of my fellow men.

Dr. E asks:

I am curious about this "dislike of my fellow men." What was it you disliked?

In high school and college, I was one of those boys who felt more comfortable hanging out with women than with other males.   I felt I had very little in common with most guys in high school; though I was moderately interested in sports, I was very nonathletic.   I was teased by the "jocks", and most of the male "nerds" were into things that bored me to tears, like Dungeons and Dragons.  (I have no patience for role-playing games).  I was interested in things like poetry and relationships and talking a great deal about feelings, and found that while few of my male peers shared those enthusiasms, a very large number of my female peers did.

But of course, most of my dislike of my fellow men was not based on my own "feminine traits".  Rather, it was rooted in an intense dislike for the ways in which masculine hierarchies functioned in high school (and beyond.)  I remember well the teasing and the ridicule which greeted (and probably still greets) any boy who fails to live up to the standards of "jock culture."   I disliked the way the guys I knew talked about girls; the boasting and the bravado and the objectification bothered me intensely.  I found I could join in in the guy talk (though I was invariably making up whatever it was I bragged about), but it left me feeling ashamed and dirty. I realized that if talking about women in a certain way was the admission price to a feeling of brotherhood and camaraderie, that was too high a price to pay.  Of course, sometimes a desire to fit in drove me to saying things I didn’t really believe, but it left me feeling fairly miserable.

What I loved about women’s studies was, and still is, something very simple.  My first courses in the field taught me something that I’ve never forgotten, and it’s something I always try and pass on to my students.  It’s this:

The greatest lie in gender relations is "that’s just the way things are."

Though I was raised by a feminist mother, my culture and my peers and my elders all told me essentially the same thing:  "Men are a certain way, and women are a different way, and you just need to accept that."   This "myth of inevitability" — also known as gender essentialism –  is the single greatest obstacle that any of us doing gender work must overcome.  In those first classes I took at Cal almost two decades ago, I became convinced that all that I had been taught about men and women was simply a social construct.  More importantly, I began to realize that my own dislike of my fellow men was not a loathing of all males as they truly were, but rather a hatred of what our culture has done to shape what it means to be masculine!  Doing gender history and cross-cultural comparison showed me that there were myriad ways in which gender could be constructed, including ways that were infinitely more egalitarian and joy-filled than what I had been raised with!

My feelings about men began to change as soon as I began to realize that what I really disliked and feared was not men themselves, but the cultural standards to which they were trying so hard to live up.  That realization took years, and its last vestiges weren’t stripped away until about seven years ago.  Today, as I’ve written, I have both male and female friends whom I treasure, and my closest ties — beyond my fiancee — are with other men.   As I’ve aged, my own anxieties about proving myself in the eyes of other guys have (blessedly) faded; as a result I can welcome men in to my heart and love them in a way in which I had once imagined impossible.

But though I do acknowledge that in a very real sense men and women are "different", I can’t think of any uniquely masculine quality that I prize in my male friends that I don’t also honor in the women in my life.  I’ve seen courage and competitiveness and compassion in both sexes, and though cultural pressures often dictate that these virtues be expressed differently by men and women, I’m convinced that at the core, they are indeed the same.

Men, rage, statistics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Husbands, wives, male feminists

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on August 1, 2005
in Christianity, Faith, Marriage, Men and Masculinity and Men's Movement
. 42 Comments

It’s the first of the month, and there are bills to pay and various paperwork items to complete around the office.  The home computer remains in the shop, so I must blog and work from the campus.  It’s odd to be on a nearly empty college campus; my footsteps echo in the hallways and I can have the finest parking space in the faculty lot no matter what time I arrive.  Four weeks from today, when the fall semester opens, all of that will be very, very different. 

I still have a number of spots left open in my History 24F "Introduction to Lesbian and Gay American History Class"; all of my other classes are full.  (My women’s studies course is always the first to close, and I’m pleased with how consistently high the demand is for it.  My department chair has asked me to consider teaching two or three sections of women’s history per semester, but that would be simply too much work.  With all the assigned journals and papers, no one would get the attention they deserve.)    It is difficult to get some folks to take a course in Lesbian and Gay history; some students have said that they are afraid of what others will think of them if they enroll.  (The course title will be on their transcript, after all).  For that reason, I’m rather shameless about flattering the courage of those who do enroll.  I know very well that even in 2005, a great many of my students on this majority-minority campus come from homes where their parents would be apoplectic if they knew their son or daughter were taking a course in "queer studies".  Thus all the more reason to openly applaud those brave enough to take the course, and to risk the opprobrium and ridicule that, based on what I’ve heard from former students, is all too real.

Last week, Hannah at Feministing linked to this LA Times opinion piece by Crispin Sartwell, a political scientist at Pennsylvania’s Dickinson College:  I Married  A Feminist.   The op-ed is ostensibly about John Roberts and his wife, but it’s really about feminisms and marriage. 

Sartwell makes it clear that as in many families, he and his wife (Marion Winik, who has apparently retained her maiden name) disagree around the breakfast table:

I am a married man, and if I know anything from day-to-day experience, it is that you cannot infer a man’s politics from those of his wife.

This truth came home to me again in a discussion about the politics of Jane Sullivan Roberts, the spouse of Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. Over breakfast, I mentioned that Ms. Roberts has been active in a group called Feminists for Life.

I don’t think you can be a feminist and try to force women to have babies they don’t want," my wife, Marion Winik, said.

That claim succinctly expresses why many believe that abortion rights are central to feminism: Freedom entails control over one’s own body. The idea that the state ought to control female reproduction is therefore an odious violation of the autonomy feminism seeks to uphold.

That’s what Marion thinks. But for me, the matter is considerably more complicated.

Sartwell takes the same position I’ve taken, and that is essentially that there are multiple "feminisms".  All feminists are characterized by a belief in justice and equality for women, but different strands of the movement define justice and equality differently.  More to the point, even within feminist history there is no absolute unanimity on the subject of abortion rights, something Sartwell (and those at Feminists for Life) constantly point out.

Pro-choice critics of this "big-tent" picture of feminism often accuse folks like Sartwell and me of being so inclusive in our definition that we’re watering down essential feminist principles, especially the ones about the sanctity of personal autonomy.  I understand that concern, and I realize that at least in my own case, my desire to be radically inclusive of everyone tends to trump, with remarkable regularity, any other principle.  "Making everyone feel welcome", whether in a women’s studies class or at the altar for eucharist, is of such paramount importance to me that I am quite unwilling to challenge anyone who proclaims himself or herself a "feminist" or a "Christian."   

At Feministing, there’s some good discussion in the comments section about Sartwell’s piece.  Amanda makes the following point with her customary incisiveness:

Can you be pro-life and a feminist? I don’t know. But I do know that I strongly dislike reading a man write an article where he attempts to override his wife’s definition of feminism. Jesus Christ, talk about missing the point.

This leads the Feministing discussion directly into a discussion of men, women, marriage and feminism.  Do read all the comments through.

The question raised is an obvious one: when and how ought men to speak on feminism, both with their partners and in a public forum?  Can one be a pro-feminist man and hold opinions about feminism that are at odds with the majority of women in the mainstream feminist movement?

In one sense, to borrow a phrase from Amanda, I have a dog in this hunt: I’ve been teaching women’s studies at this college for over a decade.  Just last week, I cheered the appointment of David Allen as chair of the UW women’s studies department, and I’ve defended "my right" to teach the subject as well.

But even though I believe passionately that men can and should teach women’s studies courses, I also believe we must do so with a profound sense of humility.  Ultimately, no matter how strongly we sympathize with our sisters, no matter how committed we are to women’s liberation and equality, we can never claim to be equally affected by the issues we are discussing.   If Roe v. Wade is overturned, I will have not suffered any loss to my personal autonomy.   Regardless of whether or not I am pro-choice or pro-life, I am incapable of truly understanding — on a visceral and emotional level — what it means to live as a woman in a body that many believe ought to have its natural processes regulated by the state.  That’s not a personal failure on my part, and it’s not something for which I feel compelled to apologize.  But while men can be deeply interested in women’s issues (I am) we cannot claim personal expertise in what it means to live as an embodied woman.

Of course, there’s more to feminism and women’s studies than personal experience.  I may never have menstruated, but I can teach my female students about the history of sanitary products.  I will surely never get pregnant, but I can give a narrative history of the expansion of reproductive rights as effectively as anyone else.  Personal experience is not a vital qualification for effective teaching, even in gender studies, but humility is.  What is the essence of that humility?  A willingness to recognize that male biology grants us the freedom from being pregnant, and that privilege inevitably blinds even the most sensitive and compassionate among us to the reality of what it means to carry a child inside of us — particularly an unwanted one.  And what I think Amanda and others found lacking in Sartwell’s op-ed was that sense of humility that ought to be in place whenever a man discusses an issue that is primarily about what happens inside women’s bodies.  (To be fair to Sartwell, while he makes it clear that he married a feminist, he doesn’t claim to be a feminist or a pro-feminist; to me that’s an important distinction.)

Though I am a pro-feminist man, I am quite willing to disagree with my feminist sisters about any number of feminist issues. I do think one can be a pro-feminist, progressive evangelical Christian pro-life man without being crushed by contradictions!  But I’m also aware that when I disagree, it is my job to do so humbly. It is my job to make it clear — in the classroom or at the breakfast table — that I speak not as a disembodied intellect (there’s no such thing) but as a man. I’d like to think I’m a compassionate, thoughtful fellow.  I know that I have a very good grasp of the story of the women’s movement and of contemporary feminist literature.  But professional expertise is not a complete substitute for personal experience.  Hence, I must always be scrupulous about acknowledging my maleness.  That doesn’t mean apologizing for having a penis!  But it does mean recognizing that biology does shape our world view, and those of us who are biologically protected from the reality of an unwanted pregnancy must be very, very careful when we share our thoughts with those for whom that unwanted pregnancy is a real possibility.

Feeding the lambs in Laodicea

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on April 29, 2005
in All Saints Pasadena, Christianity, Men's Movement, Youth and Youth ministry
. 44 Comments

Before anything else, let me say that Amanda at Pandagon has done a terrific job this morning summarizing the Men’s Rights Movement.  Though it’s always vital to note that there are many strands to the men’s movement (including large numbers of pro-feminist men), it’s the MR fellows who often seem to get the most press.   She does note, correctly, that Glenn Sacks is very charming.

Lots of interesting — and challenging — comments below my previous post about my words to the All Saints teens Wednesday night.  Regular commenters from the more conservative end (Chip, Stephen, and John) have taken me to task; some of my secular feminist allies have strongly supported my words; still others have taken a more nuanced view.  (I think in particular of Thunder Jones.)  It has not escaped my attention, however, that those who showed the strongest agreement with me were the most secular of my commenters, while those who challenged my answer to the kids were mostly fellow believers.

I’m still struggling this Friday morning, honestly.  The fact that I’m uncomfortable with what I said is not evidence of a guilty conscience, at least I don’t think so.  But heck, I’m prone to second-guessing myself all the time.  A hallmark of my own spiritual peregrinations has been a simultaneous fascination with, and fervent rejection of, absolute truths.  In the past quarter-century, since I first started thinking about God and morality when I was about to enter adolescence, I’ve vacillated between a fierce libertarianism and a kind of communitarian censoriousness on moral issues.  I’m getting better than I used to be, but sometimes, to play with the old saying about whirlwind travel, "If it’s Tuesday, Hugo must be a social conservative."  It’s hard to be so uncertain about so many things.  It’s hard to be "living in Laodicea" all the time, as some of my more conservative friends suggest I am.  It’s hard when I know that my own ambivalence about practically everything serious makes it difficult to take me seriously.  (I think it makes me an interesting teacher, however.)

I’m embarrassed by how difficult it is for me to have deep enduring convictions, especially around issues of sexual morality.  There are many things I have strong, unshakeable feelings about. (A recent example of my implacability is here.)  But perhaps because of my own past experience, I’m tremendously reluctant to set limits.  That’s odd, because the lack of limits in my own life caused great pain to many people in my younger years, myself included.  Like too many young people, I suppose I’d rather be labeled anything in the world except for a hypocrite; I’ve fallen prey to the modern notion that hypocrisy is the greatest vice of all, while tolerance is the greatest virtue.  I know what a superficial and flawed notion that really is, and yet… and yet.

Do I love the All Saints kids?  Absolutely.  I’m passionate about them.  As I wrote yesterday, I see them as individuals rather than generic teens, and I am acutely aware that they have different psyches and maturity levels and desires.  At the same time, I know that there are some universal truths about adolescents that apply to every one of them, and one of those truths is that they are not miniature adults!

I wonder: if I could have the "best" for them, the complete and utter best, if I could have them "hit the mark" directly, would I want them to wait to become sexually active until they were older?  Yes, I would.  Would I want them to wait until marriage?  In all honesty,  I’m not sure.  Despite the fact that I have dear friends of mine today who did "wait" for marriage, my own background and life experience still tells me that for most people, that’s an impossibly lofty goal that isn’t even worth shooting for.  I wonder if my theology of sex isn’t being informed by my own sense of frailty.

I’m not ambivalent about Jesus.  I believe He died for me.  I believe He loves me.  I believe He loves the kids I care for far more than I comprehend, and I believe that as a youth leader, I am a shepherd whom He has asked, in the words of the Johannine gospel, to "feed my lambs."  I stand by my words on Wednesday night still.  At this moment, most of me still believes that for at least some kids, sexual activity in adolescence can meet the "Regas Test" of being liberating, life-giving, joyous, fun, easy, ecstatic, fantastic…resist(ing) all cruelty, all exploitation, all impersonalization. But George Regas, for all his tremendous talent and legacy of devotion to social justice, is not Jesus, and I can’t substitute a sermon from my church’s former rector for the gospel.

I wonder (as I wander), was there much substance to the food I gave to these lambs I love?   I was eloquent, I think, and sincere.  I do eloquence and sincerity well.  But was I right?  Were they fed?

I’m still in a lot of doubt this morning.  Much to pray about before next Wednesday’s youth group meeting.  My kids whom I treasure need a consistent message from me, and that means I need some clarity.  Fast.

Rape, Blame, and a parody of Hugoboy

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on April 4, 2005
in Blogging, Links and Men's Movement
. 13 Comments

I have a critic: check out Rape, Blame, and Taking Responsibility (A Parody of HugoBoy). Have a visit, it’s not the usual MRA sort of thing at all.

Choice 4 Men and the Glenn Sacks show

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Courtly love and double standards

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on March 3, 2005
in Christianity, Faith, Feminism, Men and Masculinity, Men's Movement, Modesty and Sexual ethics and transformation
. 77 Comments

First off, read this post from Lauren about hair.  Off you go and read it now.

Longer post from me:

The comments on this post from last week about accountability have shifted to the topic of bad male behavior, particularly the sort that takes place when no other fellow is around.  Mythago recently wrote:

Chivalry has always been about good manners towards ‘ladies,’ not to women, period. It’s as true in the modern day as it was when The Art of Courtly Love was written.

She’s right about the Art of Courtly Love.  Andreas Capellanus, who wrote that famous medieval tract, argued for immense patience in pursuing women of gentle birth.  As for peasants:

"If you love a peasant woman, praise her and force her–peasants don’t respond to gentle wooing."

So much for seeing all women as one’s sisters in Christ!  Capellanus makes it clear that the pursuit of courtly love is likely to be immensely frustrating for a man — which is why peasant women make such a convenient outlet for pent-up sexual desire.

Mythago is right when she suggests that nine centuries after Capellanus wrote his tract, the attitudes within it survive.  Many of the male commenters on my recent posts about responsibility and propriety have implied that good manners are essentially reciprocal.  Their thesis?  If a woman dresses appropriately, she is deserving of respect in return.  If she doesn’t respect herself or her community, then she forfeits her right to be respected.  In other words, "nice" girls, "demure" girls, have the right not to be objectified and openly lusted for; "bad" women (you know, the bra-less ones, the ones in short skirts), deserve the wolfish stares from their brothers and resentment from their sisters.

I find that attitude sad and infuriating.   I was raised to believe, and still do believe, that the whole point of good manners is that they aren’t reciprocal!  Any fool can be polite to those whom he perceives as deserving of that courtesy; I was taught to believe that a gentleman insists on seeing the humanity even in those who are doing their damnedest to disguise it.  Christ says in Matthew 5:

43“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?

Surely, that’s applicable to how men of character, decency, and faith ought to see all women.  At the risk of blasphemy, let me rewrite that passage in a way that (with all humility) I think is consistent with His intent:

You have heard it said, "Respect decent women, but condemn those who appear promiscuous."  But I tell you, respect and honor even those who do not seem worthy in your eyes.  If you merely respect those whose demeanor demands it, what reward will you get?  Do not most men manage to do that?  And if you are only courteous to your sisters who do not arouse you, what are you doing more than others?

Mythago goes on:

I’ve worked as a stripper, and it’s very illuminating to see how some men act when they perceive that there are no "nice girls" around and therefore they are free to be as sexist and obnoxious as they please.

I don’t have a lot of experience in strip clubs, but I’ve known many women who’ve worked in one facet or another of the "adult industry", from porn to stripping to prostitution.  Most have said what Mythago says here.  Most report seeing plenty of husbands and fathers and other "nice guys" who feel perfectly at ease saying the most appalling things to the sex workers whose services they are purchasing.  Indeed, perhaps because they are behaving so "nicely" to "deserving" women, they feel free to be as obnoxious as they like to their sisters who work in the adult industry.

As both a pro-feminist man and a Christian, I loathe the idea of categorizing women as "nice girls" and "sluts."  My worth as a man of faith will be measured by how I treat all women, particularly, perhaps, by how I treat those whom society says I am entitled to objectify!   

As Christians, we know that Christ often appears to us in disguise.  In Matthew 25, we are told that when we feed the the hungry, clothe the naked, and care for the sick, we are in fact caring for Him.   Doing these corporal works of mercy is not easy.  The homeless often smell bad.  They can be frightening.  They repulse and scare us.  But Christians must override their senses and their fear and their disgust and embrace those who seem unembraceable.  To hug such people is to overcome one’s natural urge to withdraw.  And I am convinced it is exactly so with men, women, and sexuality.   I think it possible that Christ is also to be found in the sex worker, in the scantily-clad classmate, in the pages of the porn magazine! Just as I’ve learned to touch and hug the homeless (even when they reek of urine and alcohol and the street), I know that I — and other men — are called to overcome our natural urge to lust and see "unrespectable" women as our sisters, made in His image, worthy of far better than to be used for our own pleasure and release. 

This Saturday, I’ll be taking the All Saints kids to feed the homeless, something we do fairly regularly.  In my own extroverted way, I’ll be doing my best to talk to the clients we’ll meet.  From years of experience, I know what some of them will look like and smell like.  I will want to keep my distance, feeding them with a forced smile while trying to avoid body contact.  Instead, Lord willing, I will gently and politely draw close to them.  I will shake hands and give hugs (if the latter are welcomed), and I will pray the same prayer over and over again:  "God, show me this person not as I see him, but as you see him."  It’s the exact same prayer I was taught to use to overcome the equally human desire to objectify and lust.  And I can assure you from experience that it works.

I could have posted this in less explicitly Christian terms.  But to be honest, it is only my faith in Christ that puts me in the homeless shelter.  It is only my faith in Christ that lets me, one day at a time, renew the "covenant with my eyes" that lets me see all women as my sisters. It isn’t easy, and I am so far from perfect it’s not even funny.  But if I can do this, any man can.  And in the interests of justice, I think we all ought to be giving it one hell of a try.

A note on links and objectivity

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on February 16, 2005
in Feminism, Links, Men and Masculinity, Men's Movement and Teaching
. 11 Comments

I suppose I give the impression that my gender studies courses take a narrow ideological line.  In my comments below my previous post about my men and masculinities class, I point out that in addition to assigning the pro-feminist Michael Kimmel, I also assign Chuck Palahniuk’s Fight Club and Robert Bly’s Iron John.  It would be difficult to make the case that either is a pro-feminist tract!

In that particular class, I do my best to expose my students to five major strains of the men’s rights movement: pro-feminists, men’s rights advocates, mytho-poetics, Promise Keepers, and the gay men’s movement.  I also provide the students with a list of websites that give them an introduction to all of these.  Yes, my MRA friends, I’ll stick several of your websites on their list this semester!

I do the same thing with my Women in American Society class.  I provide a website list that suggests visiting everything from Feminist Majority to Feminists for Life, from the Independent Women’s Forum to NOW, from Off Our Backs to On Our Backs.  It’s critical that college students be exposed to a broad range of perspectives on gender issues.  But at the same time, that doesn’t mean that my job is merely to describe those perspectives.  Ultimately, good teaching is not merely descriptive, it is prescriptive.  Good teaching and impassioned advocacy are not antonyms; as long as that advocacy is accompanied by objective grading standards, it is appropriate and even desirable in the classroom.

Those who disagree are always welcome in my classes.  But a feigned disinterest is a colossal disservice to one’s students in a field as dynamic and important as gender studies.

Pushing the “masculinity must be changed” barrow

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on February 15, 2005
in Links, Men and Masculinity, Men's Movement, Sexual ethics and transformation and Teaching
. 33 Comments

Before I forget, check out a couple of new blogs.  My old high school and college buddy, Chris Leib, is a San Francisco artist; here is his blog with some of his recent work.

Lawrence Krubner has recommended Alex Marshall’s blog, which has some fascinating and provocative stuff on transportation and urban planning.  Dig it.

And "craichead", who has been one of the most thoughtful and civil of the men’s rights advocates to comment here recently, has his own blog — named, of course, CraicPipe.

A couple of interesting queries in the comments below yesterday’s post.

Alyric asks:

I have a bit of problem with pushing this ‘masculinity must be changed’ barrow. Why? and most particularly, why you?

Alyric links the "why you" to my Myers-Briggs profile; apparently, ENFJ’s have a rather "feminine" outlook.  I know next to nothing about Myers-Briggs, but it’s one of those things that in my case describes me perfectly, so I tend to use it when self-disclosing. Heck, I could also mention that I’m a Gemini with his moon in Scorpio, and that the attributes of those signs fit me well too.   (My evangelical friends tend to get nervous around astrology.  Pace, dear brothers and sisters.)

And Redneck Feminist (who also has a very worthy blog) asks:

Is the purpose of your class to try to "deconstruct masculinity"? I ask this because I think rigid gender roles for men are harmful to them.

Good questions. 

First and foremost, my course on men and masculinity is a history class.  I’m concerned with identifying ways in which the definition of manhood has changed over the past three centuries.  There’s a strong narrative component to the course; Michael Kimmel’s Manhood in America is our source text for this aspect.

Another critical aspect of the course is exploring cross-cultural definitions of masculinity.  To this end, I use Muy Macho, a superb Latino anthology edited by Ray Gonzalez.  Obviously, I can’t assign material covering every single imaginable ethnic group.  Choosing to focus on Latino manhood makes sense demographically, however.  I do share material on African-American, Asian-American, and gay masculinities, and my very diverse student body constantly challenges and inspires me to bring in more and more.

One of the hardest things to do is to convince both men and women that masculinity does, in fact, have a history.  Just as "white" is also a "color" (in the cultural if not artistic sense), so men are as gendered as women.   It is often more difficult to get men to see themselves as a distinct group whose sense of themselves has been socially constructed.   But as we move through the narrative parts of the course and into a discussion of contemporary definitions of manhood, most of them begin to appreciate the cultural forces that have shaped their identity.  It’s powerful stuff.

To answer Alyric’s question, masculinity must be changed because the pursuit of traditional masculine ideals makes most men very unhappy. I do think rigid gender roles harm men.  I do think it is appropriate to work to liberate men from the pressure to be "sturdy oaks", "big wheels", and all the other damaging rules of American manhood.  Indeed, helping young men to create alternative visions of masculinity is as important as helping young women to overcome the culturally imposed preoccupation with beauty.  (I often argue that these are equally damaging obsessions.)  It’s difficult work, and it starts with the obvious — gently and patiently getting men to "open up."  Helping men develop a vocabulary to describe their own emotional terrain is one of the chief goals of the course, and, I’m happy to say, it’s a goal I’ve had some success with in the past.

But vocalizing frustration and pain is not the end goal.  After all, men’s rights advocates often do a fine job of expressing their emotions, though they often give primacy of place to anger (the most acceptable male emotion) rather than hurt or despair or grief.   Acknowledging pain is a first step, but identifying the source of the pain — and then doing something about it — are the next ones, and they are essential to doing effective men’s work.  And of course, diagnosing the cause of the hurt and discussing possible cures is one of the chief activities of the second half of the semester.

Why me?  A question for another post, perhaps.

Quick additional thoughts on men and accountability

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on February 9, 2005
in Men and Masculinity, Men's Movement and Youth
. 30 Comments

As of this morning, Amanda has now weighed in on the "nice guy" discussion that I posted on yesterday; she joins Kameron at Brutal Women in doing so. (The latter has some important and interesting thoughts on violence in her comments section).

I did want to clarify something, however. In the comments section below my "nice guys" post, "bmmg39" wrote:

See: you just contradicted yourself and are engaging in a double
standard. You suggest that when women behave badly men must see what
they have done wrong to cause it. But men are not to blame women in
general or even particular women for men’s problems. In other words,
women’s problems are the fault of men, and MEN’S problems are the fault
of men, too. Sheesh.

Frankly, based on what I wrote yesterday, I can see how someone might come to that conclusion.  Let me try and do a better job of explaining myself.

My faith teaches me that we all, men and women alike, are in some sense "broken."  Though my theology is sometimes muddled, I do believe in the pervasiveness of sin and the reality of human depravity.  I don’t think either sex is "more broken" than the other.

My feminism teaches me, however, that men and women manifest that brokenness in different ways.  Some — usually men — use their socially prescribed power to dominate, while others — traditionally women — choose in their weakness to manipulate.  Of course, women can dominate and men can manipulate as well.   In any case, it’s safe to say that plenty of folks of both sexes have done cruel and unpleasant things to each other.  I can’t imagine anyone would dispute this.

The first question that any activist, in any movement, must ask himself or herself is this:  "What can I do?  Whom can I change?"  It seems clear that there is one clear answer:  your ability to transform the world hinges on your transforming yourself first.  For the men’s movement, that means focusing on changing men rather than on lashing out at women, the legal system, or modern culture.  Once the process of self-transformation is underway, then and only then ought one to begin focusing on changing larger societal institutions.  (The danger, of course, is that some folks in the men’s movement become so self-absorbed that they never start work on addressing the culture at large.  Balance is needed)

"Nice guys" — as stereotyped –  and men’s rights advocates actually seem to share something in common.  They are both remarkably focused on women.  The "nice guy" (what, as Aegis points out, Robert Bly calls the "soft male") is immensely interested in pleasing women.  His self-esteem is linked to getting female affirmation.  Many men go through such a phase; some don’t ever leave it.  Such men tend to suppress their own authentic selves in order not to offend those whose validation they crave.  They are, in today’s therapeutic language, "people-pleasers".  They are exasperating to be around, largely because they are, on some level, inclined to be fundamentally dishonest.  They value the preservation of validating relationships more than they value the truth.

Men’s rights advocates who blame the feminist movement and women for men’s contemporary condition are no better.  (To be fair, not all MRAs play the blame game, but most do seem to).  Just as the "nice guy" often needs women to affirm his worth, many MRAs blame women and the feminist movement for the major misfortunes of their own lives.  Both, in different ways, absolve themselves of personal responsibility for their own actions and their own happiness.  Both look to women (either individual females or women in general) in order to justify their own behavior.  Fundamentally, both have an "outward gaze", looking at women with either intense craving or intense dislike or some combination of the two.

Pro-feminist men are in solidarity with their sisters in the feminist movement.  As such, they encourage women to challenge themselves, to better themselves, to become stronger, more empowered and more effective human beings.  But pro-feminist men understand that ultimately, the work of transforming women is women’s work.  Women need to mentor and guide other women.  And men need to mentor and guide other men.  We are at our most effective when we are ministering to the unique needs of our own sex.  And before we can mentor and guide other men effectively, we have to accept responsibility for our own actions and our own lives.

When I was first a youth leader at All Saints, we had a teenage couple in our Wednesday night group who could not keep their hands off each other.  They were both "popular" kids.  They wore cool clothes, were unusually good-looking, were intelligent and sweet — but were also in the throes of adolescent hormones.  Their behavior and their language was consistently inappropriate.   Our initial attempts at discipline were too mild; saying "cut that out" to the pair only meant a momentary respite from their pawing each other.  Finally, one of the female youth leaders and I decided on a strategy. She would sit down (alone) with the girl; I with the boy.  We would each have what we called a "come to Jesus" talk with the young person.  (Some folks at All Saints cringe when I use that expression, but it works.)

When I met with the boy (I’ll call him Mark, not his name), I first made it clear to him how much I liked him and respected him.  I told him I honored his relationship with "Betsy."  But I also told him that his public behavior with  her was inappropriate.  I made it clear to him that I expected him to set limits, that I expected him to exercise self-restraint, and I expected him to set a good example for the younger kids in youth group.  Though I knew perfectly well that my female colleague was giving almost the identical speech to Betsy, I made it clear to Mark that his behavior was solely his responsibility.   Betsy’s irresistibility was not an excuse.  My colleague said the same thing to Betsy about Mark.  We both understood that this was a message that for any number of excellent reasons was best delivered by a same-sex adult.  And we both understood that the message of individual  responsibility had to be the primary thing we conveyed to the pair.

I trust that my sisters in the feminist movement are busy mentoring young women and challenging them to take ownership of their choices and greater responsibility for their own lives.  I know plenty of women who are doing just that.  But my commitment to advocating male self-examination and accountability is not contingent on whether or not women are doing the same.  The call to become who we were meant to be is not a quid pro quo; even if women were to fail to take the same degree of responsibility as men (which I don’t think is the case), that would not absolve those of us in the men’s movement from pushing ourselves and our brothers to be braver, kinder, more ethical,  more loving, more generous  men.