Archive for the 'Sexual harassment' Category

“The opposite of rape is not consent; the opposite of rape is enthusiasm”: a revised and expanded post

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on June 15, 2008
in Aggression and violence, Favorite Posts 2008, Sexual ethics and transformation, Sexual harassment, Sexuality and Youth
. 42 Comments

I’m very much looking forward to Jessica Valenti and Jaclyn Friedman’s forthcoming anthology: Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power and a World Without Rape. I submitted a piece for inclusion, but a week or two ago received a very kind rejection note from the editors. I don’t think the short essay I wrote is viable for publication elsewhere, as Yes Means Yes will likely be the definitive work on the subject of consent for some time to come. So I’m posting the submission here.

This essay is a revised version of an earlier blogpost, of course. And though I am naturally disappointed that this essay won’t be included, I’m still very much looking forward to the appearance of the book, scheduled for later this year. in any case here goes:

“Yes means yes.” It’s a powerful, simple phrase, and important enough to be the guiding theme for this anthology. But the problem, of course, is that there is more than one kind of “yes.” There’s a world of difference between the “yes” said to appease or please, and the “yes” that comes from our core, brimming with enthusiasm. From the time we were children, most of us have been raised to say “yes” to things we would rather say “no” to: doing household chores, covering a co-worker’s shift, agreeing to pick a friend up at the airport. “Yes” often means “I am willing” rather than “Gosh, I’d really like to do that.” And while part of living in community with other human beings involves saying “yes” to things we’d rather not do, this issue of consent and enthusiasm is very different when the subject is sex.

This essay argues that when it comes to teaching young people about sexuality, we need to do more than make the case that “no means no, and yes means yes.” We need to make the case that consent is not enough. Great sex – ethical sex – is rooted less in mutual agreement than in mutual enthusiasm. It’s about moving from a “yes” to a “Hell, yes!”

I’m the elder of two sons raised in the ‘70s and early ‘80s by an avowedly feminist single mother. Mom hosted meetings of the League of Women Voters in our living room; Ms. Magazine rested on the coffee table. My brother and I didn’t get much of a sex talk from our mother, but she was gently insistent that we “respect” the girls we dated. When I was fifteen, I had my first girlfriend, Carmen. One afternoon, as my Mom drove me over to Carmen’s house, she warned me: “Don’t push her further than she wants to go. No means no, always.” I was acutely embarrassed (Carmen and I hadn’t moved beyond the kissing stage), and changed the subject. But I remembered the message.

The problem with the “no means no” slogan, as vital as it is, is that it implies the opposite is always true: “yes means yes.” “Yes means yes!” can be a triumphant statement about women’s sexual autonomy. But in a world where so many young women feel pressured to please others (particularly men), too many of the “yeses” uttered in dorm rooms and in the back seats of cars don’t reflect authentic desire. Too many “yeses” are coerced; too many quiet “okays” and “I guess so’s” are interpreted as blanket permission. When we confine our advice about sexual decision-making to a simple “no” means “no”, we risk sending the message that anything that isn’t a clear and strong “no” constitutes a “yes.” And as countless anecdotes told by young women reveal, that’s a recipe for disaster. Continue reading ‘“The opposite of rape is not consent; the opposite of rape is enthusiasm”: a revised and expanded post’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Find out what it means to me”: some thoughts on respect, chivalry, and campaigns against sexual violence

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on December 17, 2007
in Aggression and violence, Chivalry and performing gender roles, Feminism, Male feminists, Men and Masculinity, Music, Sexual harassment and Youth ministry
. 29 Comments

Vanessa posted last week about the Coaching Boys into Men program, a product of the New York Family Violence Prevention Fund. Vanessa posts one of the flyers produced by the program; it features a boy in an orange hoodie with the words “Awaiting Instructions” emblazoned across the front. And the instructions the boy receives:

1. Eat your vegetables
2. Don’t play with matches
3. Finish your homework
4. Respect women

And in the comments section at Feministing, there’s a mix of praise and criticism for the campaign, mostly revolving around the “problematic” meaning of “respect” for women. ProFeministMale writes:

…often times, when I hear the general, non-feminist public teach young boys to “respect” women, I get the impression that a lot of what they’re teaching also involves “chivalry,” to to see women as somehow being “different,” that they’re nimble and weak and need to young boys and men to serve as the “protectors.”

This is a good idea - but I can’t help but think these boys are also being indoctrinated into gender roles that so much of the world is buying into.

In the various workshops I’ve put on for young men (and not so-young-men) in church and school settings, I’ve talked a lot about the real meaning of one of my favorite words, “respect.” (And if you’re thinking of the Aretha Franklin song now, hold on, I’ll get to it.)

I often start by writing the word “respect” on a flip chart or chalkboard, and then ask the folks I’m working with to play the word association game with me. Everyone gets to throw out the first thing that comes into their head when they hear or see the word. As you might expect, I get a lot of different definitions. Some people do think of chivalry; almost always, someone will say that “opening the door for a woman” is the first thing that he thinks of when he hear the word. Others will offer a negative definition, suggesting that “respect” is more about what you don’t do than what you do: “It’s like watching your language around a girl”; “It’s about not grabbing her just ’cause you want to”; (I remember that definition vividly from one high school group), “It’s treating her as a girl and not like a guy.” I write as many of the definitions and word associations on the board as I can. Continue reading ‘“Find out what it means to me”: some thoughts on respect, chivalry, and campaigns against sexual violence’

I’m “viral”, and it makes me happy

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on October 18, 2007
in Blogging, Links, Sexual ethics and transformation and Sexual harassment
. 16 Comments

Actually, it’s the “enthusiasm not consent” post from July that’s getting the attention. Nothing I’ve ever written gets quoted as often as these lines:

“The opposite of rape is not consent. The opposite of rape is enthusiasm”. It’s dangerous because it’s shocking, and of course, it’s dangerous because it twists the purely legal meaning of the term “rape.” But from the standpoint of one who cares desperately about the well-being of young people, my goal in offering workshops like these is not merely to prevent sexual assault that meets the legal standard of a criminal act. My goal is to prevent that, of course, but to also offer shy and uncertain young people tools to prevent them from having bad sex characterized by obligation, confusion, and detached resignation. I always argue that anything short of an authentic, honest, uncoerced, aroused and sober “Hell, yes!” is, in the end, just a “no” in another form.

Looking through my pings, trackbacks, and hits, it’s my most-linked-to post ever, and I’m genuinely glad, because the subject matters so much.

Thanks, Curmudgette!

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

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on August 31, 2007
in Age, Feminism, Sexual harassment, Teaching and Vanity
. 24 Comments

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

Jolt writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Street harassment and recruiting alpha males

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on July 24, 2007
in Men and Masculinity and Sexual harassment
. 32 Comments

I got an e-mail last week from a man named X, asking about pro-feminist men and responses to sexual harassment — particularly on the street.

There’s been a lot of blogosphere discussion about street harassment lately, and I was interested in your thoughts about how, and whether, men can help (aside from Not Doing It, and acknowledging the pain it causes).

I’m embarrassed to admit that I only started to become aware of how big a problem this is fairly recently, and so it’s been on my mind. This morning, for example, I was walking to the subway and right about when I passed by a woman, a guy sitting in a parked van made some remark to her. I felt ashamed to just walk by, as if I didn’t notice or I approved, but also couldn’t bring myself to say anything.

On the one hand, I think there are good reasons why confronting other men in situations like this might not help at all–as a post at Feministe (where I originally posted this, before realizing maybe asking you would be a better venue) and some comments have noted, most harassers simply won’t acknowledge their behavior as wrong, and there’s a non-trivial chance of violence. (This inability to productively engage may be even more true insofar as class and race issues enter into things.) It seems that especially in cities, people almost never sanction strangers for their public improprieties; attempting to do it on a regular basis, especially as a third party, is hard to imagine. On the other hand, is that just cowardice speaking?

I agree with the suggestion that verbally accosting harassers in the street can be dangerous and (almost worse) unhelpful. While we might be called on to jeopardize our own safety to assist someone who is being physically assaulted, I’m not sure that that moral mandate applies to all instances of sexual harassment. Male feminists are not asked to be “knights in shining armor”, rescuing helpless damsels. And while it is certainly true that male feminists have a special and vital role to play in challenging other men to rethink what is acceptable, that doesn’t mean that we ought to ask men who embrace feminism to put themselves into regular physical danger.

Continue reading ‘Street harassment and recruiting alpha males’

Sexual harassment training

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on June 18, 2007
in Sexual harassment
. 6 Comments

Several times over the last few years, I’ve presented lectures and led workshops on sexual harassment and sexual misconduct. I began doing them as a member of a group called Peer Sexuality Outreach when I was a student at Berkeley in 1986, and have continued to offer them to various organizations. Many times I’ve thought about creating a more serious side business out of these trainings, but haven’t gotten around to it yet.

I’ve done trainings in a variety of settings — with Greeks on college campuses and with Presbyterian seminarians at Fuller. I always try and adapt what I’m doing to the specific needs of the organization I’m working with; seminarians get a slightly different message than secular high schoolers. And last Thursday, I did a training at my once and future boxing gym here in Pasadena. (I’m taking a break from boxing to concentrate on marathon training; I’ll go back to lifting and hitting things in August.)

I’d never done a sexual harassment/misconduct training in a gym setting before. I spend a lot of time in gyms, and indeed have flirted with the idea of going through trainer certification at some point in the future. Personal trainers have been a huge part of my life. I’ve worked with running coaches and boxing coaches and weight-lifting coaches; my wife and I are absolutely devoted to Stephanie, our Pilates instructor. I’ve got enormous respect for the folks who have not only made fitness the source of their livelidhood, but who are committed to helping others reach their physical goals.

But gyms, like restaurants, are notoriously hostile work environments for women. While sexual harassment can happen anywhere, I hear an unusually high number of (often appalling) anecdotes from folks who have worked in the fitness world. And even though boxing and kickboxing have become much more popular in the past decade, gyms that focus primarily on these activities have a particularly bad reputation. Folks who have never worked out in a boxing gym make some unfair (and some warranted) assumptions about what might go on there; many women in particular are nervous about walking in the door to sign up for classes or personal training. The fear of being harassd, of being hit on, of being placed in an ugly situation — these fears are real, and they hurt the business potential of those who own and operate these clubs.

My sexual harassment seminar on Thursday was light-hearted. There’s a trick to doing these workshops: on the one hand, you need a certain amount of engaging humor in order to put folks at ease. On the other hand, you want to make it absolutely clear that you take this subject very seriously — too much humor can make it seem as if sexual harassment training is like one of those Comedy Traffic Schools, where the unstated message is that the whole experience is a frustrating waste of time. Getting people to understand what sexual harassment is, and what it isn’t; getting people (especially men) to make a commitment to work to create a safe environment for all employees and clients — this is vital, serious stuff.

The most sensitive area of my whole presentation dealt with “consensual relationships” between trainers and clients. I reminded the various coaches and trainers at the gym that every national certifying body in the American fitness world considers sexual relations between a trainer and a current client to be profoundly unethical. This gym, like most gyms I’ve been around (and I’ve been around a great many) has a certain percentage of trainers who honor this rule more in the breach than in the observance. I noted the rules barring these sorts of relationships between professors and students, between lawyers and clients, between doctors and patients. “If you want to be seen as the professionals you are”, I said, “then you need to be willing to live up to a professional code of behavior. And you’ve got to do more than just follow the rules yourself — you’ve got to be willing to hold your fellow trainers accountable. Their misbehavior reinforces a stereotype that ends up reflecting badly on you and everyone else in the business.”

In an ideal world, people would go through sexual harassment workshops because they want to create a safe space for everyone. Realistically, the fear of litigation is the reason why I get paid to come in and do these trainings (and some larger, corporate entitites get paid huge sums to come in and present slick, packaged, day-long workshops.) But my concern is less with the motive than with the outcome. Whether I’ve been brought in to prevent lawsuits or because there’s a genuine desire to create a safe, fun, healthy atmosphere for everyone doesn’t matter. If people end up doing the right things for the wrong reasons, it’s still a damned sight better than not doing the right things at all.

This was my first workshop that got videotaped; at some point, I’ll see if I can’t get excerpts on to Youtube.

Loving the look, ignoring the sport: some thoughts on Allison Stokke: UPDATED

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on June 4, 2007
in Athletics and Fitness, Feminism, Sexual harassment, Sports and Youth
. 22 Comments

It was a busy weekend. My wife and I were able to spend some excellent time together, and on Saturday night — before heading out for some vegan Nepalese — I got some of the live coverage of the California high school track and field championships. I got to see the future Golden Bear running back, Jahvid Best, show some awesome speed in the 200; I got to see the remarkable Jordan Hasay (whose career I’ve been tracking since she was an eighth grader) lap most of the field on her way to another easy victory in the two-mile. Hasay is only a sophomore, and if she keeps her composure and stays injury free, she’s going to be a household name outside of the track world very soon.

Track doesn’t get much coverage in the mainstream press, even in the sports section. But Friday’s LA Times featured a front-page piece on Allison Stokke, a high school pole-vaulter from Orange County. Allison’s a fine vaulter (though she finished fourth at state on Saturday), and I’m happy to say she’s a future Cal athlete. But the article was about the attention Allison has drawn for her looks:

…intelligence and athletic ability aren’t what made her the most-watched athlete at the state high school track and field championships in Sacramento on Friday.

It was the Internet.

Stokke happens to be physically attractive, with shiny dark hair; flawless olive-colored skin; a wide, bright smile; and the toned 5-foot-7 frame of a well-trained athlete — and that’s why her name has become among the most searched on the Internet, making her a flashpoint for debate about 1st Amendment rights and who can post what about whom in cyberspace.

One day she was just another accomplished high school athlete. The next, she was the topic of media reports from London, Spain and Italy; her YouTube video got nearly 200,000 views; and photos of her were posted on college message boards around the country and linked to by bloggers around the world.

Keith Richmond, chief executive of Break.com, has a term he uses for the instantly famous: “e-lebrities.” His site bills itself as an “entertainment channel for guys fueled by user-created media.”

The Times, helpfully for those who don’t follow the sport, offers two pictures of Stokke, one vaulting, one just smiling for the camera. The latter is captioned “head-turner.”

On so many levels, this is so infuriating. For starters, it’s one thing for the Times to report on the unseemly obsession that many men (who probably know damn all about field events, and couldn’t name one of Stokke’s competitors) have with a high-school aged female athlete. It’s another thing for the Times article (written by Diane Pucin) to label Allison a “head-turner” and rhapsodize about her “flawless” skin. A whole lot of folks who didn’t know about Stokke before surely did internet searches for her after reading the paper last Friday. And how the heck can Pucin be sure that Stokke was the one all the fans were focused on? Can she not draw a distinction between drooling middle-aged men on the Internet surfing for T&A and serious aficionados of T&F?

I’m angry about the way in which the attention paid to Stokke marginalizes the many other athletes in the sport. Stokke is a great vaulter, but as any T&F fan will tell you, the best in the country right now is Palo Alto’s marvelous Tori Anthony, who this past weekend became the first high school girl in the United States to clear 14 feet in outdoor competition. Anthony has been consistently ahead of Stokke all year — except in camera attention. (To be fair, Stokke is no Anna Kournikova, the Russian tennis player who never won a significant tournament but made a fortune off her looks; a better comparison might be to Maria Sharapova, another Russian player who gets tremendous camera attention for her physical features but who also has two grand slam championships to give heft to her credentials.) Thirty-five years after Title IX, and women’s sports still get far less media attention and financial support than do boys’ athletics. Paying attention to one bright and talented athlete among many, merely because she is judged beautiful, isn’t healthy for women’s sports. And it certainly doesn’t leave many of the women who are competing in track and field feeling good.

I’m also angry about the way in which we legitimize the eroticising of adolescents. I’ve spent a fair amount of time at track and field events over the years, and I’ve noted not insignificant number of creepy lookin’ guys with cameras who seem unduly interested in taking pictures of just one or two female athletes. A few years ago, I was at the big Arcadia Invitational meet, watching the high jumpers. One girl was wearing a particularly tight outfit, and as she flopped over the bar, a man a few rows behind me frantically clicked his camera with its long lens. “Ve-ee–ee–ry ni-ii-ii-ce” he muttered excitedly at one point, studying the digital images he had just taken. Like the guys at football games more interested in snapping a photo of a cheerleader’s kick pants than the action on the field, there’s a small cadre of these characters who make the circuit at track events. They aren’t generally asked to leave unless they make trouble, and most of them don’t. (I’ve gotten into it with one of them, and nearly got myself thrown out of the meet for my trouble). The pictures they take do end up all over the internet, and they are usually much the same. (You can imagine what body parts they like to focus on.)

All things being equal, there are more white girls than young women of color doing vaulting and high jumping. While events like the long jump and the triple jump tend to be dominated by young African-American women, pole vaulters and high jumpers are largely drawn from the ranks of former gymnasts. Gymnastics lessons are priced for the middle and upper-middle classes, of course, and thus there ends up being an economic and even ethnic component to women’s track and field competition. We live in a culture that tends to erotically fixate on tall, slender, pretty white girls — and in track and field, they are disproportionately found in the pole vault and the high jump. Thus, there’s a classist, racist, and sexist element in this focus on Allison Stokke.

I like Allison Stokke. I’m a fan (especially since the smart gal has chosen to go to Berkeley). But I’m also a fan of Tori Anthony. I’m an even bigger fan of Hasay, and of Jamesha Youngblood, who brought home two state titles this past weekend. The latter is probably the most dominant female athlete in the West right now. But her pictures aren’t plastered all over the internet.

Straight men don’t love their male athletic heroes because they’re sexy. Teenage boys are quite capable of idolizing LeBron James or Peyton Manning without fantasizing about them. They fantasize about being them, which is very different. But we live in a culture where a great many men can only identify “hot” female athletes. As a sports fan, a teacher, and a mentor, I find that exasperating, disappointing, and even enraging. I can idolize a female athlete as easily as a male one. Growing up, Martina Navratilova and Bjorn Borg were my tennis heroes. I wanted to emulate both of them, and I was sensible enough to see that I had no reason to identify with Borg more merely because he was male. I had no more chance of being as good a tennis player as Borg than I did of waking up one day as a woman; even as a child, I knew that much. And so I could look up to, be inspired by, and want to emulate athletes of both sexes equally. And though as a lad I certainly had my athletic crushes (even a few with a sexual component), I never picked who to root for — of either sex — based on looks. Surely, I’m not that unusual a bear.

So google Allison Stokke. But then google Jordan Hasay, and Jamesha Youngblood. And remember that whatever they look like, they are simply young women of extraordinary ability and talent who deserve to be recognized on the basis of what they achieve alone.

UPDATE: Twisty at I blame the patriarchy has a long post on this subject with over 100 comments; she posted on Saturday, and I ought to have done a search to see who else had touched on the issue first. As usual at IBTP, the language is raw and eloquent. Twisty and I have, in the end, much the same view. Read it.

Boys, girls, the fag discourse and compulsive heterosexuality: a review of CJ Pascoe’s book

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on May 16, 2007
in Aggression and violence, Books, GLBTQ, Men and Masculinity, Sexual harassment and Youth
. 25 Comments

I’m taking a day away from writing about Jerry Falwell. I will post my own reflection, including “the good, the bad, the ugly” tomorrow.

On a blessedly different subject than anything I’ve been writing about lately, I’ve just finished a wonderful new book that I’m considering for use in my “men and masculinity” course next year. Dude, You’re A Fag: Masculinity and Sexuality in High School is from C.J. Pascoe, a Cal grad and a sociology professor at Puget Sound up in Washington state. It’s a remarkable, challenging, provocative and at times depressing study of the obsession with “proving masculinity” and the “fear of faggotry” among contemporary American high school students.

I picked the book up on Saturday afternoon, and read it all by Sunday night. Though like many social science texts, it’s jargon-laden (and the APA style of citation drives me bats), Pascoe’s work is fresh and exciting. While in grad school at Berkeley, Pascoe spent a year among students at the pseudonymous “River High School” in Riverton, California. (She’s very careful not to name the real school or real town, though from little references she drops, it sounds suspiciously like somewhere near Stockton.) She didn’t pull the Cameron Crowe trick of pretending to be a high school student; Pascoe made it quite clear to the administration, the teachers, and the students that she was there as a researcher writing a book about boys and masculinity.

Pascoe writes of what she calls the fag discourse. The discourse manifests itself in the almost incorrigible way in which young men label each other “fags” while seeking to avoid having that label applied to them. According to this discourse, fear of being called out publicly as a “fag” is the primary driving force behind what Pascoe cleverly calls the display of “compulsive heterosexulity.” Playing on Adrienne Rich’s classic notion that contemporary society functions with a discourse of compulsory heterosexuality, Pascoe notes that among young men desperate to establish their masculine bona fides with their peers, what we see in American high schools amounts to compulsive, almost frantic efforts by young men to prove their manhood.

Anyone who has worked with adolescent boys knows how much anxiety many of them feel about their own masculinity. It’s not news to say that our sons, like their fathers before them, often have to endure or participate in physical or at least verbal violence that we tragically and falsely believe is necessary to transition into manhood. It’s not news that boys torment each other with the “fag” epithet. And it’s not news that the real stigma in being labelled a “fag” doesn’t lie in the association with homosexuality, but with being seen as feminine. Pascoe correctly points out what has been clear for years — that what we often see as homophobia is really thinly disguised misogyny.

Pascoe’s most original insights are her most troubling. After a year of observing the kids at “Riverton”, she found that boys chronically used their access to girls’ bodies as a way of establishing masculine credentials and escaping the “fag” label. Pascoe describes what I’ve seen all too often (and what I always try and break up as quickly as I can when I’m with high schoolers): the tendency of many young men to touch and “playfully” harass young women as a way of proving their own manhood. Pascoe describes incident after incident, in cafeterias and gyms, in breezeways and even, sadly, in classrooms. Pascoe:

… other ‘touching’ episodes has a more explicitly violent tone. In this type of touching the boy and the girl ‘hurt’ each other by punching or slapping or pulling each other’s hair until in the end the girl lost with a squeal or a scream. Shane and Cathy spent a large part of each morning in government class beating up on each other in this sequence of domination. While it was certainly not unidirectional, the interactions always ended with Cathy giving up… while this sort of interaction disrupted Cathy’s work and actually looked exceedingly painful, she never seriously tried to stop it.

There are quite a few similar, heartbreaking anecdotes. Pascoe notes, not surprisingly, that this sort of aggressive behavior (which to an impartial observer regularly constituted assault) was only done in the presence of other men. Pascoe notes what I’ve often observed:

When not in groups — when in one-on-one interactions with boys or girls — boys were much less likely to engage in gendered and sexed domination practices. In this sense boys became masculine in groups… when with other boys, they postured and bragged. In one on one situations with me they often spoke touchingly about their feelings about and insecurities with girls.

Bold emphasis mine.

Many men in the men’s movement have lamented the “fag discourse” in American youth culture. Most adult men have their own scars and wounds that they received in adolescence as they struggled to establish their manhood in the eyes of their peers. Less often discussed, most adult men — when pushed in therapy or group discussions — will cop to the various ways in which they cruelly inflicted wounds on other boys. As Pascoe and others have pointed out, the only way to deflect the fag label is to slap it on to some other nearby man. Most adult men carry with them the wounds inflicted by the fag discourse in their youth — and many carry the guilt of the verbal and psychic violence they did to their peers.

But when men get together to lament the fag discourse and to talk about how difficult it is to grow up male in this culture, how painful it is to try over and over again to establish one’s manhood, we forget something that Pascoe, rightly, doesn’t. The fag discourse doesn’t just victimize men; indeed, men aren’t even it’s chief victims. Pascoe notes that time and time again, women’s bodies are used as yardsticks for men to measure their manliness. When boys brag about their sexual conquests, or pressure young women for sex in order to have a story to tell “the guys”, it is women who are the chief victims of the fag discourse. When boys, as Pascoe describes, snap bra straps and slap bottoms and pull hair in order to display their apparent “right of access” to girls’ bodies, they do this not out of authentic sexual desire but because of this compulsive need to perform, over and over again, as masculine. Women are harassed, assaulted, and taunted because we are raising generation after generation of young boys that sees no better way to establish their manhood than by demonstrating their ability to impose their will on the bodies of their female peers.

So much of the writing by pro-feminist and gay men about the “fear of faggotry” has focused primarily on the profound psychic (and occasionally, physical) injury young men inflict on each other. Pascoe doesn’t dispute the genuine pain and desperation that adolescent guys endure, but she convincingly makes the case that they are not the chief victims of the discourse they perpetuate and try, over and over again, to escape.

I recommend Dude, You’re a Fag with enthusiasm.

Sexual harassment on campus: CNN misreads the study

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on January 24, 2006
in Feminism, Links, Men and Masculinity, Sexual harassment and Sexuality
. 52 Comments

A major new study of sexual harassment on college and university campuses has been released today.  Here’s how CNN reports it:

Nearly two-thirds of U.S. college students are affected by sexual harassment — ranging from offensive jokes and gestures to touching and grabbing, according to a study released on Tuesday.

Men are more likely to harass than women, but women and men are equally likely to be harassed on U.S. campuses, according to a report by the American Association of University Women.

Researchers found that 62 percent of college students experienced sexual harassment, and 32 percent of college students said they were victims of physical harassment.

Intrigued by the assertion that men and women are equally likely to be harassed, I went to the AAUW website.  After fiddling around a bit, I downloaded the PDF file of the whole report.  You can get it from them, or you can get it from me here: Download DTLFinal.pdf

CNN’s report makes the assertion that men and women are equally likely to be victimized, but the report itself (as summarized in the press release here) makes it clear that sexual harassment on campus inordinately burdens women:

Sexual harassment is affecting both male and female students. More than half of college students who’ve experienced harassment—both male and female—say they were upset by their experience. Yet the impact of sexual harassment is markedly differently for young women. Female students are more likely than their male peers to have negative behavioral and emotional responses to sexual harassment. Female students are more likely to take measures to avoid their harasser (48% versus 26%), to stay away from particular buildings or places on campus (27% versus 11%), to find it hard to study or pay attention in class (16% versus 8%), to have trouble sleeping (16% versus 6%) and to find someone to protect them (16% versus 4%).

The negative emotional responses are equally striking… female students who are harassed are more likely than male students to feel embarrassed, angry, less confident, and afraid.  Nearly one-fifth of female college students who are harassed say they feel disappointed with their college experience- compared to eleven percent of male students.

Notably, our research also shows differences in the experiences and responses of lesbian, gay and bisexual students, who are not only more likely than heterosexual students to be harassed (71% versus 63%), but are also more likely to be embarrassed, angry, afraid and disappointed in their college experience as a result.

CNN mentions none of this.

I’m very concerned by the tone of the CNN report, and worried that other media outlets will simply broadcast a message of false equivalency: "both men and women are harassed."  But will they also report that the overwhelming majority of harassers (of both men and women) are men?  Will they report that women perceive the harassment as more serious and threatening, and are more likely to endure significant consequences that affect their education and their emotional health?  CNN doesn’t explore that (or offer a link to the actual report), and most of the folks who read the online news sources are unlikely to follow up.

One of the most destructive tactics of men’s rights advocates has been to take certain issues that primarily concern the victimization of women (rape, domestic violence, divorce law, sexual harassment) and claim that men are — at the least — equally likely to be hurt by  these.  They will now gleefully point to stats that suggest that men and women are equally likely to be harassed on campus, without bothering to discuss the severity of the harassment or the long-term consequences for the victim.   The AAUW study makes it clear that no legitimate argument for equivalency can be made when we take into account the actual impact sexual harassment has on the day-to-day lives of its victims.   The question is, will the press get it right and report the full results of the study, which make abundantly clear that the vast majority of those who suffer the most severe consequences of campus sexual harassment are women.

Some links and a self-indulgent note about reconciling irreconcilables

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on December 5, 2005
in Animal Rights, Blogging, Christianity, Clothing and Fashion, Feminism, Links and Sexual harassment
. 29 Comments

First off this afternoon I’ve got some links and notes.  I’ve been remiss in not putting up my own link to HollabackNYC, a site that offers a safe way for women to "fight back" against street harassment in our nation’s largest city.  Check it out — it’s stern stuff.

Jessica Valenti and her partners at Feministing have created a terrific new idea: The REAL Hot 100.  Here’s the idea:

The REAL hot 100 are young women who are smart, savvy, and actively trying to make the world a better place. They contradict the popular notion that sex appeal is all young women have to offer.

The REAL hot 100 also highlights the important — but often overlooked — work young women are doing. Are you a younger woman who is REALLY hot? Do you know a younger woman who is REALLY hot?

Consider submitting a nomination.  Read the guidelines here.  It goes along nicely with the Men Can Stop Rape "counterstory" campaign I blogged about almost exactly one year ago.  I’ll think about some good nominations.  I’ve got some likely candidates, though, ranging from Bethany Torode to duVergne Gaines, Micki Krimmel, and the other women who blog at "Stand Up".  I could think of several dozen young feminist bloggers whose work I admire.  I could also think of the many fine young Christian women I know who write or are doing public activist work on a variety of issues. 

If you click on my links, you’ll notice they fall into two general categories: Christianity and feminism.  A few such links are to blogs that specifically reconcile these two commitments, but most of the writers I read in the ’sphere are healthily suspicious of feminism or of institutionalized Christian faith.  (A few folks I read reject both.)   And though I’ve surely brought it on myself, sometimes it does get tiring shuttling back and forth.

I think the thing I find most exhausting about being a self-proclaimed "Pro-feminist progressive evangelical Christian" is that I tend to be the subject of a fair amount of suspicion.  Many of my secular feminist allies don’t like overtly religious language, and they worry when I make remarks that suggest that individual autonomy is not the most important component for personal happiness.  My evangelical and conservative Christian friends are convinced that my spiritual beliefs have been sabotaged by my ideological convictions; I have made, in their eyes, too many compromises with the culture.  And my progressive Christian friends (like some of my readers at All Saints) worry that I spend too much time hanging out with folks on the so-called "religious right" to be a real, trustworthy progressive.

The temptation I have to fight is to be "all things to all people."  It’s easy for me to "talk evangelical" when surrounded by conservative Christians.  It’s just as easy for me to employ the language and the rhetoric of the feminist left, both in its secular and Anglican manifestations.  But what is harder for me to do, and what I realize I am called to do more and more, is to develop one consistent, large vocabulary.  I’m called, I believe, to carry the good news of Christ to everyone.  I’m called, I believe, to work for gender justice as my own particular vocation.   My secular feminist friends want me to work with them but keep my religious opinions to myself.  My conservative Christian friends welcome me in worship, but would rather I not challenge many of their traditional beliefs about sex roles. 

I am convinced that feminism and faith are not irreconcilable.  I’m equally convinced that one can thoughtfully reject traditional teaching about both sexual behavior and gender roles while living humbly as a disciple of Christ within His church.  And the hard part isn’t holding these seemingly contradictory value systems in tension.  The hard part is witnessing to the passionate adherents of one about the virtues of the other, and doing so in a way that is irenic, humorous, winsome, and, above all, gentle and kind.

I’m not saying "poor me", mind you.  I love doing what I do.  I’m just trying to work up the courage to be braver in all the various forums in which I find myself.  I need to do a better job of listening, that’s for sure.  I need to hear the very real fears my feminist friends have about the church, and I need to hear the very real fears my  conservative Christian friends have about feminism.  But having heard those fears, I need to be bold enough to suggest that what my friends hold dear and what they loathe may not in fact be as inimical as they imagine.   I need more guts and more sensitivity.  Right behind lots of donations for the Matilde Mission, and right ahead of some really nice new jeans, those virtues are tops on my Christmas list this year.

 

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.

Action in different kinds of courts

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on March 30, 2005
in Feminism, Politics, Sexual harassment and Sports
. 23 Comments

First off, I’m delighted the Supreme Court ruled yesterday to protect Title IX "whistleblowers".  It’s a big victory for advocates of women’s sports, and I am happy to say that for once, the Bush Administration was on the "right side" of this fight.  Here’s the press release from the National Women’s Law Center.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education represents a huge win for women, girls and civil rights protections in general, the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) said today. In this critically important Title IX retaliation case, the Court decided that individuals who protest sex discrimination may sue to challenge retaliation if their schools punish them as a result. 

This decision is a slam dunk victory for everyone who cares about equal opportunity,” said Marcia D. Greenberger, NWLC Co-President. “The Court has confirmed that people cannot be punished for standing up for their rights. This protection is not just critical for Title IX, but also for other bedrock civil rights laws.

More commentary here at Inside Higher Ed.

Sweet.  I watched coverage of both women’s games yesterday, and was pleased with the results.  I have to confess, as a good Golden Bear, I always root for Stanford to lose.

The relief of the verdict in the OC Rape Case

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on March 24, 2005
in Aggression and violence, Feminism, Sexual ethics and transformation, Sexual harassment, Sexuality and Youth
. 6 Comments

Sheelzebub has been doing a fine job of blogging the retrial in the now-infamous Orange County gang-rape case.  I haven’t posted about it, but I was quite relieved yesterday when I heard that the three defendants were convicted of sexual assault.  (For the background and history of this case, see the Orange County Weekly’s archive of stories.  It’s grim and tawdry reading, I’m afraid.)

Feminists have long complained that rape victims are forced to defend their character in court.  I’d like to be able to tell my students and my youth group kids that the days when defense attorneys asked rape victims if they were "asking for it" or were "sluts" are long over. Alas, as the many stories in the OC Weekly make clear, the teenage survivor in this case was subjected to the most appalling personal attacks by the defense attorneys.  Last summer, in the first trial in this case, the slurs worked; 11 of 12 jurors voted to acquit the three rapists.  This time, the prosecution took on a more aggressive pro-feminist sensibility, one that argued explicitly for the rights of all women, including the promiscuous and the addicted.  I am so happy to say today that this time, the jury rejected the defense attacks and chose to defend all victims of rape, regardless of their sexual histories.

No one denies that Jane Doe (who was 16 at the time of the gang-rape) was and is a troubled young woman.  She has stipulated to her own history of promiscuity and addiction, and she currently faces charges of methamphetamine possession.  Faced with the overwhelming evidence provided by the videotape of the rape, attorneys for the three men accused of the assault made Jane Doe’s past (and her integrity) the central issue in this case.  They called her every name in the book, and dwelt with disturbing eagerness on her sexual history.  Happily it didn’t work, and much of the credit must go to the prosecution, which wittingly or no, struck a real blow for women’s rights. 

Here’s a powerful description of part of the closing argument in the case:

…prosecutor Chuck Middleton, the chief assistant DA, made his final remarks to jurors. He displayed a simple chart that read:

Prostitute
Teacher
Stripper
Mother
Daughter
Lawyer
Nun
Slut
Virgin
Sister
Porn Star

”All these people have the same rights no matter what their sexual history is,” said Middleton. “Each of them can be a sexual-assault victim under the law which governs this case. Even if payment had been exchanged for sex, all bets are off once that person passes out and cannot consciously consider whether she wants to have sex or withdraw consent. The law does not allow the assumption that a woman’s sexual history renders her body an object which can be used and abused for another person’s sexual, criminal gratification.

For using that chart, Middleton gets to be my pro-feminist male hero of the week.

I’ve worked with some fairly troubled teenage girls.  I’ve known some who, by their own admission, have led lives not dissimilar from Jane Doe’s.  Some have endured similar assaults, but were left with only physical pain and foggy memories, but no videotaped proof of what was done to them.  I can think of one young woman in particular whom I know quite well.  I’ll call her "Kala." She’s 16, the same age as the survivor in this case.  Kala’s got a "reputation", one that may be somewhat exaggerated by her "friends", but as she herself admits quite openly, is also partially deserved.  Her problems with substances and with boys have led to more than one intervention, but Kala has not yet pulled out of her downward spiral.    And yet all of Kala’s poor choices, and all the names thrown at her, do not for a minute rob her of her right to be seen as a human being, a child of God, worthy of dignity and protection.  Knowing what Kala gets up to, many of the adults in her life fear for her, aware that we can only do so much to protect her.  We know that what happened to Jane Doe can happen to her.  But if it were (God forbid) to happen to her, we also know that her poor judgment would not for a minute mitigate the guilt of those who would abuse her if she were incapacitated and defenseless.  In a small way, this verdict makes me feel that the Kalas of the world are just a bit safer today.

What cheers me most about the verdict is that it sends the message that all young women, even those who are derided as "tramps" and "sluts", are worthy of the law’s protection.  The wise jurors in this case, guided by a strong (and in many ways, pro-feminist) prosecution chose to defend the dignity of all women, even those whose sexual decision-making offends popular sensibilities.  I’m very pleased.

Scandal, harassment, and opportunity

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on December 6, 2004
in Christianity, People and Sexual harassment
. 14 Comments

Thanks to Ralph at Cliopatria, I learned today of Millard Fuller’s resignation as president of Habitat for Humanity.

The allegations are depressingly familiar:

In a characteristic act of frugality, Habitat for Humanity founder Millard Fuller hitched a ride to the Atlanta airport with a female staff member to save the organization a $75 shuttle ride. That ride ended up costing him — and Habitat — a great deal more.

Allegations of "inappropriate conduct" during that drive last year led to Fuller’s temporary banishment from the headquarters of the Christian home-building organization he and his wife, Linda, founded 28 years ago.

The allegations themselves are, by some standards, mild but still serious:

Habitat would not divulge details of the allegations, but Fuller told The Associated Press recently that Victoria Cross accused him of touching her on the neck, shoulder and thigh, and of telling her she had "smooth skin."

I am sad because Fuller is one of my heroes, has been for years — along with folks like Tony Campolo, Ron Sider, Jim Wallis, Millard Fuller was a "practical evangelical" with a passion for God and justice.   Like others in leadership, sexual misconduct has brought him down — but compared to the misconduct of his Christian brethren on the pentecostal right (Bakker, Swaggart, Crouch), Fuller’s misdeeds are quite tame.

Sexual harassment has long been one of my passions.  Hah, did that get your attention?  No, I don’t mean harassing itself — I mean working to help men avoid behavior that can get them in heaps of trouble.  At times, I’ve thought seriously about trying to get a consulting business going, one that would work with businesses and non-profits to help create safer, more congenial working environments.  I know that there are others who do that consulting, but most of them are focused heavily on litigation prevention.  I’d like to go deeper, helping men explore their own anxieties and misconceptions about our contemporary cultural attitudes towards sexuality and appropriate behavior and language in the school and workplace.

I’ve done a few of these workshops already.  Two years ago, a good friend of mine who is a newly ordained Presbyterian minister (PCUSA) asked me to develop and co-lead a seminar on sexual harassment at Fuller Seminary (which is not named for Millard, of course.) The local presbytery (San Fernando? I can never remember how Presbys organize themselves) insisted that all PCUSA seminarians at Fuller complete a sexual harassment training.  My friend, who is a woman, wanted a man to co-lead the seminar.  We spent a few weeks developing a little curriculum and implementing it.

We spent most of a Saturday two springs ago in a large classroom at Fuller.  I gave them the legal definition of sexual harassment with all the buzzwords ("persistent", "unwelcome", "quid pro quo", "hostile environment"); my colleague gave them the PCUSA position.  After this dry beginning,  we looked at Scriptural images of healthy and unhealthy sexuality and boundaries.  (Lots of time on David.)  We prayed, drank coffee, asked questions.  We also had folks share their fears and their stories.   Many of the women shared stories of abuse at the hands of youth ministers and other clergy, many of the men shared their own discomfort at being trapped in what they saw as ambiguous situations.

After lunch, I spent some time with the guys, while my colleague took the women off into another classroom.  We had just an hour together to debrief the morning session, laugh and sigh and share some more.  What we talked most about were the gray areas — the compliments, the emotional intimacies, the time alone with folks of the opposite sex.  We talked about accountability,which I think is the key principle here — always having another man to whom you are accountable for your actions.  We talked about how difficult it was to set up accountability partners, especially for those of us who are teachers and pastors and accustomed to "being in charge" in our work settings.  We talked about lust; we talked about giving compliments; we talked about porn; we talked about what "realistic holiness" looked like.  It was very moving.  The day finished with each group sharing some of the highlights of their discussion with the other-sex people. 

It was a great experience; alas, my Fuller Seminary colleague has moved on, and I hear that no one has offered a similar seminar since.  Since I’m not a Presbyterian (I know it’s hard to believe, reading this blog, but Calvinism has little appeal for Hugo), I can’t lead that same seminar without pastoral oversight and participation.

In any event, I know that my own credibility in my field hinges on my reputation.  if that is true for me, it is even more true for my brothers and sisters in ministry, who face special temptations.   And I do think God may be calling me to do some more work in this area.  I’m putting this out there because it has been a dream of mine for a couple of years now, and I’ve been procrastinating about getting anything done in terms of putting together a real plan for a consulting operation.  I know I’d be in it primarily as an act of service (though money would be nice), and I’d be especially interested in targeting non-profits, schools, and churches.   

I’ve got some free time in January.  Maybe I can take a few days and bang something out on the computer, and see if I can’t get the ball rolling a bit.