Archive for the 'Relationships' Category

On “engendering” change

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on February 21, 2008
in Feminism, Links, Marriage, Quoting and Relationships
. 3 Comments

J.K. Gayle has a fine post up summarizing the history of women who have run for office. I knew all but one of the names; I learned today for the first time of Frances Farenthold. Good stuff. Also, see Reclusive Leftist for an excellent take on the “unconscious bias” that favors Obama over Clinton.

At Feministe, and at Elaine’s place, discussion has broken out over the question of how a married woman can best introduce her well-meaning but at times infuriatingly sexist husband to the basic insights of feminism. (The conversation is broad enough that it need not be limited to those who are married, and indeed, another thread has started about how to raise very young feminist daughters.) Despite some attempts at hijacking by the usual trolls, the discussion has been excellent; do check out Elaine’s post and the Feministe threads.

The last time I got involved in a discussion like this in the blogosphere, I said something idiotically pompous (perhaps at Punkass Blog, perhaps at Violet Socks) about being a “professional” who “did feminism for a living.” It was one of my many low points on the internets, and I do repent of it. The fact that I am paid to teach gender studies courses means that I am privileged enough to earn money for doing justice work, but it hardly makes me either wiser or more personally invested in the cause than other activists. But what all of these years and years of teaching feminism to often suspicious audiences has taught me is that there are indeed a few effective ways to “reach” the well-intentioned but misguided. Continue reading ‘On “engendering” change’

“I’m not like the others”: Nice Guys, self-flattery, and the myth of uniqueness

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on February 19, 2008
in Men and Masculinity, Relationships, Sexuality and Youth
. 12 Comments

Following up on yesterday’s post on teenage boys and love, Amy comments below my post:

Guys who accepted the “emotional aspects of their identity” also often still accepted the myth that most guys only want sex and nothing else. As a result, they’d believe they were special and uniquely able to be the emotional guy that they were taught every girl wanted. They saw it as their advantage in the dating scene.

Is this where we ask for the show of hands? How many lads have ever said to a woman in whom they were interested, “You know, I’m really not like other guys”? How many women have had that line laid on them a time or ten?

Amy’s on to something important. The SUNY Oswego study makes clear that most adolescent males aren’t nearly as sex-crazed as we popularly imagine. The study provides welcome reinforcement to the notion that boys as well as girls are interested in love, romance, and relationship. But of course, the conclusion is counter to what our culture teaches us about masculinity. And among the many victims of the discourse about what a man is — and isn’t — are boys themselves.

It is axiomatic that in American adolescent culture, it is dangerous for boys to be too open about their feelings and emotions. The fear of being labelled a “faggot” or a “pussy” is as prevalent for today’s young men as it was in their fathers’ and grandfathers’ generation. (A point ably demonstrated by C.J. Pascoe in her magisterial “Dude, You’re a Fag”.) As a consequence, those boys who don’t feel as if they live up to (or down to) the masculine stereotype may well begin to imagine that they are unique. Continue reading ‘“I’m not like the others”: Nice Guys, self-flattery, and the myth of uniqueness’

Guys in love: celebrating the new SUNY Oswego study on teenage boys and relationships

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on February 18, 2008
in Age, All Saints Pasadena, Men and Masculinity, Relationships, Science, Sexual ethics and transformation, Youth and Youth ministry
. 7 Comments

Reader “English Rosebud” sent me a link this weekend to this story that ran in the New York Times on Friday: Inside the Mind of the Boy Dating Your Daughter. As she mentions in her email, it’s a powerful corrective to the widespread notion that teenage boys have just one thing on their mind.

The stereotype of the 16-year-old boy is that he has sex on the brain. But a fascinating new report suggests that boys are motivated more by love and a desire to form real relationships with the girls they date.

Based on a study that appears in this month’s Journal of Adolescence, the researchers (from SUNY Oswego) concluded:

Among the boys who had been sexually active, physical desire and wanting to know what sex feels like were among the top three reasons they pursued sex. However, the boys were equally likely to say they pursued sex because they loved their partner. Interestingly, only 14 percent said they sought sex because they wanted to lose their virginity, and 9 percent did so to fit in with friends.

The researchers note that there is no way to assess the truthfulness of the boys’ answers, but the rate of sexual activity in the sample is consistent with national trends, suggesting the boys were answering honestly. The survey group was ethnically and economically diverse, and 95 indicated they were heterosexual, while 10 boys didn’t answer the question.

Bold emphasis mine.

The overall findings are contrary to cultural beliefs that boys are interested primarily in sex and not relationships.

“Let’s give boys more credit,’’ said study author Andrew Smiler, an assistant professor of psychology at the university. “Although some of them are just looking for sex, most boys are looking for a relationship. The kids we know mostly aren’t like this horrible stereotype. They are generally interested in dating and getting to know their partners.’’

(I wish Professor Smiler hadn’t used the phrase “horrible stereotype”. I wince at the implication that wanting sex for pleasure is “horrible”. After all, both men and women do sometimes pursue sex outside of the context of an enduring relationship. While dishonesty and manipulation are indeed “horrible”, the pursuit of pleasure for its own sake need not be accompanied by deceit or abuse. It’s “slut-shaming” at its most tiresome to suggest otherwise.)

Still, I’m delighted with this study, and not at all surprised. I’ve worked with adolescent boys as a youth minister for many years, and I’ve taught slightly older young men for even longer. One of the most common complaints that I — and anyone else who works with teen boys — hear is “I’m tired of having everyone think all I care about is sex”. Like the boys in the SUNY study, the teens I work with don’t deny that they are sexual creatures; they don’t pretend that sex isn’t frequently on their minds. What they find more frustrating than unsatisfied horniness is the enduring stereotype that they have no real interest in love and romance. When speaking of teens of either sex, it’s a false dichotomy to suggest that they want either sex or a relationship. All the recent research suggests that adolescent girls can have powerful libidos; this study makes clear what youth workers already know: that teenage boys, as horny as they are, have deep and complex emotional desires. Continue reading ‘Guys in love: celebrating the new SUNY Oswego study on teenage boys and relationships’

Empathy and exasperation: on men, ageing, and the “Peter Pan” syndrome.

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on February 8, 2008
in Age, Men and Masculinity and Relationships
. 44 Comments

I’m reading through the comments left below old posts while we were away. Below my post on the older man/younger woman dynamic in “Juno“, my old friend Bill asks for more compassion for men — like the fellow played by Jason Bateman in the film — who struggle to accept their ageing:

I wish you wrote about men who have had trouble growing up with a little more empathy, particularly those, like Mark, who had dreams with expiration dates and who did not see them come true and now must figure out where to go from there. I think you actually feel such empathy but it doesn’t come through here.

It might be helpful to read the original post for context. In Juno, the character of Mark is apparently in his late thirties. He and his wife are unable to conceive naturally, and are eager (or his wife is eager) to adopt. But as the audience discovers, Mark still has dreams of success as a musician. He bonds inappropriately with Juno, and it becomes clear as the picture progresses that that bond is less sexual than emotionally chronological. Her interests (comic books, music, horror movies) are his; his wife’s interests (domesticity, children, middle-class stability) are not.

(This doesn’t mean that an interest in comic books is inappropriate for older people. I know many fine folks over 40 who have seemingly adolescent hobbies. There’s nothing wrong with still going to punk shows or comic book conventions when you’re old enough to remember the Nixon Administration. Maturity is not about one’s interests; maturity is about the understanding that like it or not, ageing means the acceptance of certain responsibilities: financial, emotional, professional, and so forth. And, of course, as in the oft-quoted Donald Justice poem, it means “closing softly the doors to rooms (you) won’t be coming back to.”)

But to get to Bill’s point: I’m sympathetic, but not terribly empathetic, with men whose dreams turned out to have “expiration dates.” Part of that is that I am fortunate to be doing at 40 more or less what, at 20, I expected to be doing at this age. I was studying to be a history professor when I was a teenager, and by the time I was 26, I had a tenure-track job. I’ll admit, I was lucky. Getting the job I wanted wasn’t solely due to luck (I’d like to think talent had something to do with it). Continue reading ‘Empathy and exasperation: on men, ageing, and the “Peter Pan” syndrome.’

A very long post on how to rebuild trust

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on December 28, 2007
in Addiction and mental illness, Family, Memories and Relationships
. 17 Comments

I insisted on inflicting my Top Ten posts of 2007 on my readers. Not everyone is so unkind; many bloggers have managed to provide only their single best post of the year for public consideration. Jon Swift has compiled an excellent list, having invited his entire blogroll to send him a link to what each writer considered his or her finest offering from these past twelve months. Warning: it’s a time-suck, as the kids say these days.

A regular reader asks:

I do have a question for you that you may be able to answer. I am wondering if it is possible to reconcile with a person where trust has been broken and be able to rebuild the trust back again. Have you any personal experience in this area that you can shed wisdom on?

I’m not a relationship expert: three divorces by age 35 are proof of that. That doesn’t stop me from offering advice and reflections, and it doesn’t stop people from asking. So with the standard caveat that my opinion is only that, an opinion, here goes.

I’m going to assume my reader is writing about reconciling with a romantic partner. When trust is shattered in a sexual relationship, it’s usually qualitatively different than it is in other friendships or among family members. But I’d like to touch on the loss — and the restoration — of trust in a variety of relationships, because I’ve got a considerable amount of hard-earned experience in this area.

I had my first major mental breakdown in April 1987, shortly before I turned 20. I had my last (God willing) in the summer of 1998, shortly after turning 31. Over that eleven-year period, I was hospitalized more than half a dozen times. I also struggled very publicly with a host of addictions. And I know full well that addicts break the hearts of those who love them, over and over again. My mother, father, brother, and sisters suffered more than anyone. None of my friends, lovers, or wives were part of my life for that entire period; I very successfully chased everyone who wasn’t bound to me by blood out of my life.

My lies were the standard ones: “I’m sober”, I would say — when I wasn’t. “I’m seeing a great therapist” — when I cancelled all my appointments. “The meds are helping” — when they weren’t. Above all, my most consistent lie was “I’m fine.” Anglo-Saxon reticence, and the concomitant dissembling it requires, were part of my family culture. I spent many years on the stage as a child, and my acting skills came in handy when it came time to cover up the pain, the despair, and the appalling acting-out behavior that characterized my life in my late teens and twenties. Continue reading ‘A very long post on how to rebuild trust’

Once was lost, but now I still am: some thoughts on conversion and remaining teachable

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on November 27, 2007
in Christianity, Faith and Relationships
. 5 Comments

I’m still mulling the whole race, sex, and Full Frontal Feminism controversy. More on that soon.

On a different note, my friend “Clive” and I were talking a couple of weeks ago about a mutual buddy of ours, “Keith.” I met Clive and Keith at my old gym a decade ago; we’re all about the same age and we were “lifting partners” and “spinning pals” for several years. Clive and Keith are both evangelicals, both graduates of the same small prestigious Christian liberal-arts college. In different ways, they both played pivotal roles in my return to Christ in 1998. In my early days of sobriety and conversion, I found it difficult to talk easily about what was happening in my life. Working out together was the shared activity that made our masculine intimacy easier, and in different ways, Clive and Keith were able to do some vital “witness work” to bring me home to Jesus once again.

As it turns out, Clive and Keith aren’t speaking much these days. According to Clive, Keith (a very successful self-made entrepeneur) has turned his back on a lot of old friends. Keith has a hard time, apparently, hearing constructive criticism without getting outraged and defensive. The three of us belong to a Christian subculture in which loving confrontation and an insistence on mutual accountability are vital — and yet Keith has grown increasingly certain that he doesn’t need that kind of gentle challenge. Keith’s marriage is increasingly stormy, his relationship with his four children is strained, and his hard-driving business practices have alienated old and new acquaintances alike. We’re worried about him, and Clive and I spent a bit of time chatting about ways to “get through” to him. Continue reading ‘Once was lost, but now I still am: some thoughts on conversion and remaining teachable’

“She’s so pretty”: some thoughts on compliments, looks, and “trophyism”: UPDATED

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on November 15, 2007
in Feminism, Marriage, Relationships and Vanity
. 29 Comments

Here’s one I haven’t discussed.

Not unexpectedly, most of the photographs on my desk are of my wife and me, including a formal wedding portrait. Time and again, students and colleagues come in, look at the pictures, and say “Your wife is beautiful” (or something similar). And after a long time, I’ve grown very comfortable saying “thank you.”

Years ago, I was at a wedding (remarkably, it was one of the few in which I wasn’t involved as either groom or minister) with an ex-girlfriend of mine. I introduced my date to some friends, and one of them, an older woman, blurted out, “Hugo, she’s very pretty.” She said this right in front of my date as if she wasn’t there, and I said “thank you.” When my date got me alone, she punched me firmly in the arm and asked “Why did you say ‘thank you’? Are my looks your accomplishment to be praised? Some feminist you are!”

Ouch. There’s no question that within a great many different social circles, it is considered customary to offer praise of a woman’s looks to her husband, boyfriend, or father. It often doesn’t seem to matter whether the praise is entirely justified, either. Ever since I started dating, I noticed that it seemed standard protocol to make a remark about the perceived prettiness of the woman in my life. I note that with my fourth wife, I get the remarks more frequently because she is truly striking, but by now I know enough to know that this particular compliment is almost a cultural universal.

I understand why a visitor to my office might remark that my wife “looks lovely.” They can’t tell from looking at her picture that she’s brilliant, that she’s got an absolutely brutal left hook that can floor most men, that she has hundreds of phone, account and credit card numbers memorized in her head (it’s part of her job). They can’t tell that she’s a great salsa dancer or that she is a marvelous cook or passionate about Gabriel Garcia Marquez. They can tell that she’s lovely, and so that’s what they remark upon.

But saying “thank you” to a compliment paid to your wife or girlfriend about her looks is at least somewhat problematic. The friend at the wedding who praised my date’s prettiness directed that praise at me, and there seemed to be an implication then — as there often is now when folks comment on my wife’s pictures — that I am to be credited with having succeeded at something by “landing” a “hot” woman. One of the things that feminists work very hard to reject is the notion that women’s looks are currency for men to measure their own status. The phrase “trophy wife” or “arm charm” resonates painfully. Ask women whose husbands or boyfriends have dumped them because they couldn’t provide sufficient “hotness” to boost the ego of their male partners. Using women’s attractiveness to measure a man’s status is as disastrous as it is (still, sadly) ubiquitious.

On the other hand, I can’t give everyone who compliments my wife’s looks a lecture. Most of the time these days, especially since she and I have been married, I do say “thank you”. I say it not because I believe that my ego has just been boosted, but because I take very seriously the idea that my wife and I are joined together. We have become a team, a union of flesh and spirit. Her triumphs are my triumphs, my triumphs are hers. A compliment to either of us is a compliment to both, an insult to either is an insult to both. That doesn’t mean I need to fight all of her battles for her. That doesn’t mean that we don’t retain a considerable degree of autonomy even within marriage. It means that in terms of how the outside world perceives us, we are a unified front, standing shoulder to shoulder. (This unity, however, does not impose an obligation on my wife to look a certain way; if she gains a huge amount of weight, for example, I am not entitled to use the “but we’re a team” card to badger her into looking good for my benefit.)

On the other hand, I’m very reluctant to praise the looks of a male friend’s wife or girlfriend, at least until after I’ve gotten to know her much better. When shown a photograph that requires a compliment, I usually say something (fashionista that I am) about clothing or accessories. “What a great suit”, somehow, seems far less sexist than “She’s a knock-out.” Perhaps that’s not a distinction everyone sees as meaningful, but it works for me.

Please share your thoughts.

UPDATE: I’m bumping this up from the comments, because when I wrote this post, I gave the impression that I only say “thank you” when someone compliments my wife’s looks. What I almost always add afterwards is “I think so, too.”

And of course, perhaps the most feminist response would be the “I think so, too” without the “thank you.” But sometimes etiquette and ideology conflict and etiquette wins; I was raised to thank everything that moved.

The lure of victim consciousness: more on marriage, disparate desire, and responsibility

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on November 8, 2007
in Marriage, Relationships and Sexual ethics and transformation
. 33 Comments

Below Monday’s post on marriage and disparate desire, “Married Tom” writes:

There are two sides to the incompatible libido/unhappy sex life coin. I would argue that living with the expectation that most advances to your spouse will be met with a “not interested tonight, and since ‘I’ come before ‘us’ that is justifiable” can have equally “soul scarring” results. The sense of rejection, demoralization, and ultimately apathy that builds up over time from constant, predictable rejection is just as real and damaging as the bleak feeling that must come from being “pressured or nagged” into sex. Neither is good, yet you are implying that one is morally acceptable while the other is damning.

You are saying that regardless of whether the decision is mutual, you should learn to accept the situation and be happy with it. Many spouses do just that, I believe it is an example of the factors behind what Thoreau observed behind the “quiet desperation” in many men. Failing to see why the anxious spouse can’t just learn to “deal with it” is not particularly helpful–a strange mix of pragmatism and sanctimony.

Monday’s post was in response to a particularly asinine article. My point was that no one, married or not, is ever “entitled” to have sex with another human being. The “yes” of the wedding day is not a “yes” to every future sexual encounter with a spouse. Good sex is based not on duty but on desire — and when it comes to sex, most folks seem to find that duty makes desire disappear right quick. The author of the article suggested that lower-desire spouses ought to think of sex as one of the many tasks one undertakes to make a partner happy, like taking out the garbage or doing the dishes. I — and most of my commenters — vigorously reject that analogy. Taking out the garbage when one doesn’t want to leads to momentary resentment, while having sex you don’t want can be profoundly damaging to the spirit. Sex is not easily made analogous to any other household activity! Sophonisba makes this point well:

We are all aware that you have to do lots of things you don’t want to do, in life and in marriage. Every decent person does things they don’t want to do, every day–yes, even people who don’t put out on command.

Try stepping away from the easy, comforting “anything I don’t want to do” generalities for a second and put it in concrete terms. You’re not talking about having somebody do “something” or “anything” they don’t want to. You’re talking about having them have sex they don’t want to have. Not quite so vague and fluffy, when you look it in the face. Continue reading ‘The lure of victim consciousness: more on marriage, disparate desire, and responsibility’

Mutual submission, mutual dreams: more on one vision of a feminist marriage

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on October 30, 2007
in Favorite posts 2007, Feminism, Marriage, Relationships and Sexuality
. 29 Comments

So the discussion is spirited (if inclined to the anti-feminist ad hominem) below yesterday’s post on marriage and feminism. One anti-feminist does ask a question that deserves a better answer than I’ve given so far:

You’re in a “passionately feminist marriage”? What does that even mean?

I gave my “row boat” description yesterday, and I’ve written before about the central importance of Ephesians 5:21 and the appealing notion of “mutual submission.” I’m aware, of course, that different people have different visions of what equality looks like. Many who do like the comfort of strict gender roles insist that their marriages also reflect equality, arguing that “equality doesn’t equal sameness.” I’ve seen some of those marriages, seen how they thrive, and I don’t disagree that they can be wonderful. And as we’ve discussed recently around here, it’s possible to have healthy, loving marriages in which BDSM plays an important role. That’s not my vision of domestic bliss, but there’s certainly more than one path to marital happiness.

But what do I mean when I say my marriage is “passionately feminist”? In the eyes of the anti-feminists, that may conjure up an image of a timid and fearful Hugo, walking on eggshells around his domineering wife, asking her permission for everything. Anti-feminists tend to think that any man who embraces real egalitarianism has essentially been emasculated, and has surrendered his capacity for action to his wife. Or perhaps they imagine that we have a little dry erase board in the kitchen, on which we keep track of how much time each of us has spent on domestic duties, in order to ensure that each of us is putting in precisely the same amount of effort as the other. And God only knows what the anti-feminists imagine about our bedroom. Perhaps they imagine my wife is some sort of dominatrix, or that our sexual behavior precludes penis-in-vagina intercourse, as that would indicate our acceptance of the “hegemony of the phallus.” Jeepers, the mind boggles at the possibilities!

So if none of that silliness is true, what is explicitly feminist about this marriage? For me, feminism is both a political ideology and a guideline for private praxis. (Similarly, my Christian faith gives me a “public theology” and a private moral code.) As my beloved brother says, we’re all called to “match our language and our lives”. Fighting for justice and inclusion in the world while being a domineering jerk at home is to have missed the point entirely. Obviously, my wife and I have a private life that is not open for public inspection. But even in our most intimate moments, even in the sacred space of our bedroom, we’re called to act in a way that is congruent with our values. Continue reading ‘Mutual submission, mutual dreams: more on one vision of a feminist marriage’

“Me time”, introversion, and incompatible desire: a response to Donald

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on October 24, 2007
in Relationships
. 12 Comments

Part three of the little series on feminist men, “nice guys”, and numbness will appear on Friday, deo volente.

For this morning, a response to a letter from “Donald”. Donald, a 28 year-old Christian, writes:

The question I have to pose is: Is it reasonable to expect that my girlfriend (23) should let me have more time by myself?

I work full time until 5:30pm Mon - Fri, we are both involved with the music team at our church which means Tuesday night rehearsals and going early for most of the am and pm services on Sundays, and I haveThursday nights to do domestic things like wash clothes or do shopping or whatever else needs doing. She works two or three days a week at the moment but wants more work. Apart from that, I’m with her every night after work and most of the day on Saturdays and Sundays.

We have dinner at her house and then watch shows or listen to music or talk and of course make out for a while a few nights. I’ve insisted that I need to leave her house at 10pm at the latest so that I can get to bed, but she always seems so down and forlorn when it’s time for me to go home and it can take forever for me to get out of the door. I go home wondering what I’ve done wrong, get home, fall into bed and get up at 5am to exercise and have breakfast and get ready for work. Lately I’ve been feeling likeI’m in a daze because I don’t ever seem to have any time for myself.

Being an introverted person I need time alone to recharge, and also after having so many years of my time being *my* time, this is a drastic change for me. Is this normal in relationships? I don’t have any experience to gauge it against, so maybe it is. But I need to work out how to arrange more time to ‘retreat to my cave’ or else I think I’m going to fall over from exhaustion physically, mentally, and emotionally.

I chuckled a bit reading this. The clear implication from Donald’s letter is that he and his gal are not sleeping together in either sense of the word; presumably they are waiting until marriage. In an odd way, the commitment the two of them seem to have to chastity exacerbates the problem; if Donald was sleeping over at his girlfriend’s place regularly, that would eliminate the problem of her forlornness every evening when he left. (She might be clingy in the mornings too, but his need to go to work might carry more weight.) But of course, I’m not going to recommend that they begin spending the night together as a a solution to their dilemma.

Donald seems like a nice guy (lower-case, as opposed to the “Nice Guys” whom we regularly excoriate.) And it’s hard for someone who has people-pleasing instincts and little serious relationship experience to avoid feeling guilty when he happens to be the one who wants to spend less time together. It is almost axiomatic that whatever the activity (spending time together, sex, etcetera), whichever person in the relationship has the lower desire also has the greater power. And it’s not a lot of fun to choose, as Donald feels he has to choose, between disappointing someone he cares for and depriving himself of much needed “down time.”

Those of us who come out of Christian backgrounds often have a particularly hard time setting boundaries in relationships. Those who are “cradle Christians” or adolescent converts are often deeply attached to the idea that “true love” is always sacrificial. Donald might know his Scripture well — he’s called to love his wife (or the woman who might someday be his wife) as Christ loved His church, giving himself up for her. I know a lot of young Christians who take that language very seriously indeed. And when your notions of “true love” mix in the desire for romantic fusion with the theological language of endless sacrifice, it’s fairly obvious you’re gonna have a hard time setting limits.

I know lots of young Christians who are “waiting” to have sex. Like Donald, they do date, and often find themselves in intensely emotional relationships. It is possible to be deeply in love and deeply committed without having sex, or at least, without having intercourse. (Lots of young Christians draw the line at “everything but”, something I’ve endorsed. See: Between the Already and the Not-Yet: a Long Post on Pre-marital Sexuality and Doing “Everything But.”) Sometimes, I think that those who are practicing pre-marital chastity often have more unrealistic expectations of what love should be than do their less-restrained counterparts.

It takes a lot of idealism to “wait” — and that idealism often transfers over into some wildly unhealthy ideas about how conflict ought to be negotiated. Those who do have a sexual component to their relationship quickly discover that in any lasting romance, desire fluctuates and is rarely equally present. They learn to compromise (or so one hopes). The “higher-desire” partner learns patience, and learns not to nag or pressure or sulk; the “lower-desire” partner gets to work through his or her own guilt. It’s good, healthy stuff: Love 101. Chaste Christians put off the conflict over unequal libidos, but often run into the very sort of problem that Donald is writing about — apparently incompatible levels of desire for time together.

Donald, you sound exhausted. You also sound like a very nice young fella who has a hard time setting boundaries. But the longer you go without setting the boundaries, without carving out time for yourself (to do those things you introverts do), the more your resentment and exhaustion will grow. Your girlfriend, no matter how needy she may appear, will eventually sense that resentment, and it’ll only make matters worse. I don’t have a formula that can dictate exactly how much time you ought to spend together. That has to be negotiated. Every night is clearly too much for you, and that’s okay. One night a week is probably too few. Asking for a couple of nights a week for Donald simply to “be” (or to sleep) is not unreasonable. It’s not evidence that you don’t love your girlfriend as much as you could.

When you bring this up, girlfriend may hit you with “Maybe you don’t really love me! If you really loved me you would want to be with me all the time. I really love you and I want to be with you always, and if you felt the same way you’d want the same thing.” That kind of reasoning is very compelling to a great many people, but as any therapist or theologian (I’m, uh, neither, but I’ve been around the block a time or eight-nine) will tell you, it’s based on false premises. True love is partnership, not delirious fusion. Real romantic connection empowers both parties to be more effective in serving the world. The love that God calls you to is designed to strengthen and sustain both of you, helping you to become more of who it is that you were called to be.

When and if your girlfriend reacts badly to your desire for more “time alone”, you do need to be both reassuring and firm. Reassure her that you don’t want someone else, that you’re not falling out of love with her; be firm and don’t give in on the basic principle that you need your “Donald time.” I’ve been in your position, Donald, and I’ve been in your girlfriend’s. Years ago, when I was the guy who wanted to spend more time with a certain woman I was seeing exclusively, she was wonderfully candid with me: “Hugo”, she said, “you’ve got to give me the chance to miss you“. I heard that. It made good sense then and it makes good sense now. A little time away does wonders . Most healthy people aren’t attracted to needy partners. Your desire for independence may spark the same in your girlfriend if you stick to your commitment to get more time for yourself. And when you see her come alive with enthusiasm for other people and other activities besides you, I guarantee that your interest in spending time with her will flare up again nicely. Dependency is rarely sexy; autonomy almost always is.

Incompatible desire in relationships doesn’t have to be the deal-breaker most people think it is. Sooner or later, in every relationship some degree of profound incompatibility will emerge. Learning to negotiate through this usually painful, frequently scary experience is a vitally important skill to develop. You will have to work through your feelings of guilt; your girlfriend through her feelings of rejection. But if you do it prayerfully and lovingly and firmly, practicing radical honesty with each other and radical trust in the God who made you both, you have the great opportunity to transform your relationship and your selves. Best of luck.

Longing for “a divine spirit of sisterhood”: a note on Cirque de Soleil and male narcissism

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on October 22, 2007
in Men and Masculinity and Relationships
. 6 Comments

We drove down to Inglewood yesterday to see Corteo, the current Cirque de Soleil production touring the West Coast. One would have to be very curmudgeonly indeed not to find the various Cirque shows riveting, and we enjoyed ourselves immensely.

“Corteo” is based around the story of a clown imagining his own funeral. One of the most magnificent sections of the show comes in the first half of the performance. According to the program:

“In a divine spirit of sisterhood, the clown’s former lovers emerge above him as in a dream.”

Three dancer/acrobats, clad in lingerie, swirled from chandeliers over the head of the clown, who sat on his bed and reached for them. It was a visually impressive sequence, but I couldn’t help but chuckle at seeing such a classically narcissistic male fantasy. Continue reading ‘Longing for “a divine spirit of sisterhood”: a note on Cirque de Soleil and male narcissism’

The “expectation of desperation”: a response to Dave about women, time, dating, and the right to one’s own life

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on September 26, 2007
in Relationships
. 19 Comments

While we were away, a number of emails piled up in my inbox from various folks seeking input on gender issues (usually, of course, on the “older men, younger women” theme).

On a different note, “Dave” writes:

I’m three years out of a divorce, a good guy, a dad, sweet, generous, and back into dating.

Many, most, if not all of the women I’m interested in are so busy that they have a hard time shoehorning me into their schedules. They act like I’m a good catch, but they don’t carve out time for me. In the worst case, I spend time with them as they are doing other activities.

I just deferred a meeting with an online acquaintance because the only free time in her schedule for the next three weeks was this Saturday afternoon. I did meet a woman I liked who seems to have a good balance in her life of quiet and schedule, but she is 15 years older than me (I’m 45). Do I need to get more of a sample before I draw conclusions about this?

Yes, I was with a woman before who scheduled 100% of her time so that she wouldn’t have to pay attention to me except to tell me what to do. Am I subconsciously returning to my pattern, or is it just a fact of life that women overprogram themselves? Should I resign myself to being a slot on someone’s planner because no one is left who leaves the weekend open Just To Be?

Well, yes, Dave, you do need much more of a sample before drawing sweeping conclusions. I want to give Dave the benefit of the doubt, too, and assume he’s not expecting contemporary single women to leave their calendars wide open in the hopes a suitor will call. But the notion that the pursuit of a relationship ought to be someone’s chief priority, that a date is reason alone to cancel all other non-romantic plans, is rooted in a hopelessly outdated idea about how single women are supposed to live their lives. Call it the “expectation of desperation”; I’m a bit worried that Dave might expect the women he’s dating to be desperate enough (or grateful enough for his attention) to reschedule everything for him.

I don’t think Dave is coming from a place of pure male entitlement, but I’m afraid that’s how his note reads. He writes:

They act like I’m a good catch, but they don’t carve out time for me. In the worst case, I spend time with them as they are doing other activities.

Well, in the early stages of dating, that’s not necessarily such a bad thing. (I’m assuming that Dave’s first dates don’t involve accompanying the women he’s met online on their trips to the grocery store and the dry cleaners.) Dave is 45 and a divorced father; I’m assuming he’s dating women more or less around his own age in similar circumstances. It can’t be much of a newsflash to anyone that custodial single parents are generally very busy, with very little free time. “Carving out time” for a new relationship is something that any single parent generally does carefully and cautiously for obvious reasons.

And of course, a great many women are rightly wary of men who expect their girlfriends to “drop everything” to devote themselves to maintaining a relationship. We still live in a culture that, alas, defines a woman’s worth by her romantic status. We still live in a society that teaches women that to be single (”alone”) is in some sense to have failed in one’s obligation to be mated to a man. A great many women have had the bitter experience of sacrificing their friendships and their professional or academic goals for an ultimately unsuccessful romantic relationship. Most women have had female friends who “disappeared” every time they started dating someone new, throwing all of their energy into a romance with one man. And many of these women have been badly burned, not just because these love affairs often didn’t work out, but because the whole experience of “vanishing into a relationship” is so disheartening and discombobulating.

It thus ought not to be surprising, Dave, that so many women (and men too) who have a bit of life experience are wary of “losing themselves”! They’re also wary of controlling and possessive partners, and I must admit, Dave, that those were the two words that first popped into my head as I read your note. That doesn’t mean that that caution will be permanent. As you move from the “just getting to know you” stage to the “I really want to be with you long-term” stage, probably the amount of time that you’re willing to offer to the relationship will increase. If a woman you’re dating wants to move, say, towards marriage with you, wants to be in a monogamous relationship with you, and still only wants to see you one Saturday afternoon a month, then there’s a problem.

In a world filled with men who expect women to cater to them, it’s not unreasonable for sensible women to be interested in discovering one thing about a prospective male partner: is this guy going to be able to handle the reality that I have a life separate from his? Is he going to try and smother me, or is he going to honor the fact that I can be in love with and devoted to someone and at the same time have a rich life that has nothing to do with him?

The line often attributed to Rilke is relevant here:

A good marriage is that in which each appoints the other guardian of his solitude.

It’s not rational or healthy to expect someone you’re dating to drop everything to be with you. It’s not rational or healthy to long for complete psychic fusion with someone else. One reason why the people you’re dating, Dave, are so sparing with their time is because they’re busy. That’s a good thing; it’s no fun dating someone who doesn’t have a life! But it’s also quite possible that they’re waiting to find out if you can be appreciative of the reality that they have a world that is separate, that is theirs alone, that will not be sacrificed on the altar of eros.

Or, to paraphrase the title of last year’s celebrated advice book for women, maybe she’s just not that into you. In any event, Dave, starting with one Saturday afternoon is probably a good idea for both of you.

More on staying home, parenthood, responsibility and trust

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on August 28, 2007
in Family, Feminism, Having children, Men and Masculinity and Relationships
. 18 Comments

Lots of discussion below my reprint of this old post.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on August 25, 2007
in Feminism, Having children, Relationships and Working
. 31 Comments

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

This post originally appeared Friday, March 11, 2005.

Stephanie links to this article in yesterday’s Independent:  Desperate to be housewives: young women yearn for 1950s role as stay-at-home mums.   An excerpt:

Research into the attitudes of 1,500 women with an average age of 29
found that 61 per cent believe "domestic goddess" role models who
juggle top jobs with motherhood and jet-set social lives are
"unhelpful" and "irritating". More than two-thirds agree that the man
should be the main provider in a family, while 70 per cent do not want
to work as hard as their mother’s generation. On average, the women
questioned want to "settle down" with their partner by 30 and have
their first child a year later.

Vicki Shotbolt, deputy chief executive of the National Family and
Parenting Institute, said: "This is the generation of young women who
have seen the ‘have it all’ ethos up close and personal, and they have
realised that it doesn’t work.

"Their own mothers may have tried to juggle motherhood and careers,
and it may have been the children who feel they lost out … I think
women really are coming of age now, and are accepting that it is
virtually impossible to have it all."

Stephanie writes in response:

I would have to agree, it’s very hard to try and have it all. In some
ways, I think I may have given up on the dream myself. That is a
problem. But I think the either/or solution we’ve resigned ourselves to
seems more likely to breed resentment than anything else. I don’t see
much point in agreeing that the best way to organize society is for men
to be the breadwinners and women the childrearers. That just
potentially limits everyone to a lifetime of unfulfillment. I know from
experience that unhappy parents make lousy parents so I’d argue that
doesn’t do the kids much good either.

I’m always encouraged when folks start questioning false dichotomies, as Stephanie does here.  One important role feminists play in society is that of dreaming out loud; it’s vital that we have change agents questioning whether the given paradigm ought to be accepted as is.  And in terms of social policy, it’s clear that much can be done to make it possible for both men and women to better balance family and work obligations.

That said, the title of the article bugged me.  Obviously, it’s a riff on the TV show "Desperate Housewives."   But I see nothing in the article that says that these young women actually want to return to the "1950s." (For what it’s worth, I’m tired of both sides in the culture war dragging in the 1950s.  Conservatives need to stop idealizing it; progressives need to stop demonizing it.  It was one decade, folks, and a complex and interesting one at that.)  More to the point, why is it that we assume that the yearning for marriage and motherhood is somehow defective?   

Feminists are often tarred as "anti-family", a charge that is, in general absurd.  Most feminists desperately want to strengthen families by giving parents more time, more choices, more state and social support.  But it’s true that among at least some in the women’s movement (and their male allies), there remains an ugly, patronizing, dismissiveness towards young women who genuinely aspire to marriage and motherhood.   Mark, who commented at Stephanie’s place, wrote:

A disturbingly high number of women in college (at least in SE Ohio/N
Kentucky), do not want to work after graduating…

(Bold emphasis is mine.)  This raises the question, is college really only about preparing people for the work force?  (I sure hope not, because I have no idea how next week’s lecture on the Peloponnesian War is going to help anyone.)  What about college as an opportunity to engage new ideas, a place to be challenged, and a time to discover what one really wants?  And what about the possibility that some rational, intelligent, interesting and creative young women might conclude "Hey, the more I think about it, the more I realize that nothing is likely to be more fulfilling to me than raising a family."  Why must we assume that she is a victim of low expectations?  Is it not possible that such women have weighed their options, considered their choices, and made a heartfelt decision?  As feminists and pro-feminists, should we not be interested in empowering young women to live out their hopes and dreams?

More specifically, are we so sure that if high-quality, subsidized day-care was widely available, every woman who wishes to stay home would suddenly change her mind?  Mind you, I’m a big believer in high-quality, low-cost day care!  But I’ve known enough women who could afford the best day-care, and chose to stay home anyway, to know that not all mothers approach the issue in precisely the same manner. 

I’ve written a few times that I want to raise up young feminists and pro-feminists.  I want my female students to be aware of the tremendous, varied possibilities for their lives that may not have existed for their mothers and fore-mothers.  I want them to challenge themselves and take risks.  But I don’t presume to tell them that a high-paying career in the workforce is superior to building a loving home and raising children.  My goal is not to empower them to live out an ideological agenda; my goal is to empower them to lead lives that will be both personally fulfilling and socially beneficial.  I don’t know what each one of them will find fulfilling, but I am damn sure that different choices will please different people in different ways.  And to those young women who want to prioritize children over career and marriage over management, I say "Good on you."  It’s the same exact thing I’ve said to young women who pledge never to marry, and devote their lives to public service.  But when it comes to the future dreams of my students, I will not create a hierarchy of wants, in which certain desires are validated and others are shamed.  To do so would go against everything I have been taught that real feminism is.

And you know, when it comes to time and children and life itself, we really can’t have it all our way all the time.  I know it’s Friday, but the best lines on this subject come from the great W.B. Yeats:

The intellect of man is forced to choose
perfection of the life, or of the work,
And if it take the second must refuse
A heavenly mansion, raging in the dark.
When all that story’s finished, what’s the news?
In luck or out the toil has left its mark:
That old perplexity an empty purse,
Or the day’s vanity, the night’s remorse.

It’s clear where Yeats’ sympathies lie.  And mine.

 

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

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on August 24, 2007
in Divorce and Relationships
. 2 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

That makes good sense.

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

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

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

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

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

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