Archive for the 'Vanity' Category

Of sweat and scent: in defense of infrequent bathing

I will be posting on various things in the week to come. I’ve got reviews of a couple of books to put up (including Men Speak Out), and will try and say something intelligent about Planned Parenthood, race, and the complex legacy of Margaret Sanger.

But it’s Saturday, and if I post at all on the weekends, it can’t be about anything too serious. My wife has been in Europe (doing various volunteer things) since last Sunday, and I miss her. She’ll be home in two days time. The stereotype of the generally neat married man who reverts to appalling slobbery when his spouse goes off for a few days is a time-honored one: yes, things are looking a little chaotic around the homestead these days. Newspapers and magazines on the floor; laundry arranged in sensible; adequately folded piles; coffee cups resting on any ledge they can find. And Hugo, unbathed as yet today.

I’ve let go of so many bad habits over the last few years. An earlier incarnation of Hugo on his own would have seen me in a home littered with filled ashtrays. Liquor bottles would have poked their heads out of the trash as well. Bits of clothing and long strands of hair, forgotten and discarded by those whose visit had had but one purpose, would have lingered under chairs for weeks or months. On these scores, all is different now. Continue reading ‘Of sweat and scent: in defense of infrequent bathing’

A rambling post about blogging, hubris, narcissism, and the longing to be liked

This will be my last post for a week. We’re off to the Philippines tomorrow night; I’ve got lectures in Makati City (Manila) next Tuesday and Wednesday. We’ll be home to Pasadena late on Thursday of next week, and then off on another trip as of January 16. I will post about the Kabbalah and Christianity lectures next Friday, deo volente.

(Just as I finished the last sentence, one of the chinchillas in the next room made an “I’m having a dream” call — a series of little grunts signalling not distress but something else. Perhaps just a desire for me to come into the room and make cooing noises to all of them.)

Re: Iowa. Thrilled by the strong turn-out, and deeply moved by Barack Obama’s speech. I said before that if Romney and Edwards were the nominees, we’d have debates between two immensely handsome, articulate men who struggle with slickness. But a debate between Obama and Mike Huckabee would be a thing to behold; two consummate “outsiders”, two men running on two differing visions of hope, two men who have an extraordinary ability to connect with a wide variety of people. The establishment right has underestimated Huck’s political skills. The left better not make the same mistake by assuming he won’t be the GOP nominee, and if he is, that he is unelectable.

Re: blogging. I’m not going to complain about the criticism I’ve received here and elsewhere for yesterday’s post on evangelism, feminism, purists and popularizers. But it reminds me of what I like least about blogging.

I’m an ENFP, and though I enjoy writing, I enjoy conversation more. When I’m talking with someone, I feel so much more confident, so much more at ease. I’m at my best “off-the-cuff”, with as few notes as possible. (I’ve got these two, two-hour lectures next week on a topic I’ve never talked about — and I’ll go up with a few quotes scribbled down and nothing more. I love the thrill of improv, the challenge of constructing a coherent argument extemporaneously. That’s not laziness as much as it is thrill-seeking.) But over the course of a debate or a conversation, there’s so much more opportunity to avoid misunderstanding, to avoid the accidental infliction of hurt. I know others feel the opposite is true, but honestly, I’m more careful with the words I speak than with the words I write, even though I write far more slowly than I speak. Continue reading ‘A rambling post about blogging, hubris, narcissism, and the longing to be liked’

Off for eight days, and an anecdote about wrinkles: UPDATED

For my last post before Christmas (I’ll return to blogging December 26 or 27), a little anecdote:

Students say the darndest things.

A woman came into my office last week to talk about her final. After we’d finished talking about her strategy for the exam, she said: “I hope you won’t mind my saying so, but I notice you have a lot of wrinkles for your age. My Dad’s a cosmetic surgeon, and he does great work, and we can get you a really good package. Your wife will love the change, though I’m sure she already loves how you look!”

Now, mind you, this was the second time this year someone had randomly suggested plastic surgery to me. But from a student in my office hours, it was a bit stunning. I thanked her politely, and told her that I loved each and every one of the well-earned, well-deserved lines that cross my face. She smiled and said, “Well, talk to your wife about it!” I assured her I would do so.

I suppose the little dear meant well. And I’ll admit, it stung a bit. I’ve had a couple of moments recently where I’ve looked in the mirror and been taken aback — just for a moment — by how old I look. But that’s more a reaction of surprise than of dejection; it’s akin to being surprised that Christmas is upon us once again, and that it seems to come faster each year.

But barring — God forbid — some sort of horrific disfiguring accident, I’m not going to have any sort of work done to improve my appearance. I have no desire to appear one day younger than my forty years. But of course, I’m a man. Even here, in deliciously vapid Los Angeles, I know that my success as a teacher, mentor, blogger or public speaker has little to do with my perceived youth or looks. I understand that the pressures are much greater upon women, and so I am careful not to condemn those who do choose cosmetic surgery. What I don’t do is give any credibility to the suggestion that the decision to go under the knife is inherently feminist, but that’s a different discussion.

I notice that just this autumn, I’ve picked up some more wrinkles on my forehead and around the eyes. They make me look just a bit more like my father, and that makes me very happy indeed.

A happy holiday to all.

UPDATE:
the wonderful Jenell Paris — fellow academic, and with me, one of the founders of the North American Evangelical Gender Studies Association, offers this suggested grading scale. Suggesting plastic surgery is definitely a minus on the Paris Plan.

The next right thing? Pink.

If the first post of the day was on the theme of “doing the next right thing”, the second deals with a small practical tip from Jeff at Feminist Allies: What Men Can Do: Resist Gender Essentialism (with Accessories!) Jeff was inspired by Melissa’s remark, regarding the seemingly never-ending struggle for gender justice: All I ever do is try to empty the sea with this teaspoon; all I can do is keep trying to empty the sea with this teaspoon.

One of Jeff’s “teaspoons” is his phone:

And it got me to thinking about one of the themes of feminism for me:Small Daily Acts of Feminism. I tend to think that (1)The ‘little’ things are often only seemingly little and (2)Lots of (seemingly) little things add up. Take, for instance, my little pink phone.

Jeff has a picture of his little pink phone.

I’m with Jeff wholeheartedly here. No, Jeff’s pink phone isn’t going to save the world. But as he does point out, it does start a lot of conversations where good can happen. I don’t have a pink phone, but as anyone who looks through my Flickr or Facebook albums can attest, I wear a lot of pink shirts. And I wince when I hear people say things like “Real Men Wear Pink”; I prefer “pink is for everyone”. A willingness to subvert common assumptions about gender is always helpful, especially when that subversion is simple and elegant.

Hurrah for pink on all of us. It’s one of my favorite colors (along with yellow, which I can’t wear), and it has been a staple of my wardrobe for a long time. My fondness for pink isn’t evidence of virtue — but if it inspires any reflection in anyone at all about gender essentialism, then it’s one more teaspoonful.

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

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.

Short campus anecdote

Earlier this morning, I walked across campus with a colleague to get some coffee. The Gideons were out in the quad, distributing free New Testaments. When a small green bible was offered to me, I refused it — but thanked the Gideon who offered it, warmly shook his hand, said “It’s great to see you on campus, God bless you.” I got the same blessing in return.

As we walked away, my colleague said, rolling her eyes, “What a hypocrite you are. I’ve heard you complain about campus evangelists before.” I protested that the Gideons were hardly the same as the sign-carrying doomsayers who wander around with bullhorns.

“Besides”, I said, “I’m not a hypocrite. I’m just, uh, indiscriminately sincere.”

Hugo is a Martha too: on addiction moving laterally, and struggling to be still

My alarm went off at 5:30 this morning; I had a relatively easy seven-mile run scheduled. Though I had had gone to bed before 11:00 last night, and slept well, I woke up drained. I lay there for a few minutes, trying to decide whether to get up and force myself through the work-out, or turn off the alarm and catch another hour next to my wife. I’m glad to say I did the latter.

It’s very, very easy for me to neglect my self-care. Like a great many people, I make lists in my head of the various things I want to accomplish in any given day. Time for sleep and time for spiritual reflection usually get bumped to the bottom of the list in favor of both fulfilling vital obligations (teaching, grading, writing letters of rec, taking care of chinchillas, doing laundry) and not-so-vital ones (reading blogs and exercising several hours per day.)

I’ve got to keep a close eye on my addictive nature. When I first got sober many years ago, my sponsor said to me “Watch out, Hugo, the disease moves laterally.” I wasn’t sure what he meant at the time, but quickly found out. I gave up the alcohol, and turned (in no particular order) to compulsive sex, disordered eating, and — briefly — fundamentalist religiosity. It was in sobriety that my weight dropped to 145 pounds on my frame (I’m a lean 175 now, for comparison). It was in sobriety that I experimented with intolerant zealotry. It was while sober that I began to struggle both with pornography and reckless promiscuity; I traded physical intoxication for the high of seduction. The disease moved laterally indeed. Continue reading ‘Hugo is a Martha too: on addiction moving laterally, and struggling to be still’

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

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.

Cosmetic surgery and the co-opting of feminist language: an excellent new Ms. article

The summer issue of Ms Magazine is on the shelves this week. I was raised on Ms. Magazine in the 1970s, and though it has gone through many transformations in the years since, it remains one of the indispensable serious reads for feminists and their allies.

One particularly noteworthy article is Extreme Makeover, Feminist Edition: How the pitch for cosmetic surgery co-opts feminism. Written by Jennifer Cognard-Black, it’s a superb and timely response to the increasingly common strategy of marketing plastic surgery to women under the guise of “empowerment”.

… the cosmetic surgery industry is doing exactly what the beauty
industry has done for years: It’s co-opting, repackaging and reselling the feminist call to empower women into what may be dubbed “consumer feminism.”
Under the dual slogans of possibility and choice, producers, promoters and providers are
selling elective surgery as self-determination.

Those who are eager to make a fortune out of women’s fear of growing older use the language of the pro-choice movement over and over again: “it’s your body, shouldn’t you be in charge of how it looks?” The precious right to be sovereign over one’s flesh becomes, in the hands of the beauty industry, the duty to battle against the onset of ageing. Feminists who critique cosmetic surgery are accused of inconsistency, of refusing to allow women the full range of “choices” to which they are entitled. Cognard-Black:

The word “choice” obviously plays on reproductive-rights
connotations, so that consumers will trust that they are
maintaining autonomy over their bodies. Yet one choice
goes completely unmentioned: The choice not to consider
cosmetic surgery at all.

One of my first posts to attract a lot of attention appeared in April 2004: Surgery, Sex, and Shame. I compared liposuction to nineteenth-century clitoridectomies (which were done far more often in the USA than many realize). Excerpt from my post (not Cognard-Black’s article):

…clitoridectomies were regularly performed on young girls in America and England to cure them of what one doctor called “the moral leprosy” of female masturbation. My students are always stunned to hear that; they falsely assume that female genital mutilation was never a Western practice. Young women were shamed for the inevitable (menarche) and the normal (masturbation) to a far greater degree than they are today.

But what occurs in the 20th century is a shift from morality to aesthetics, with shame being the constant. Though public discussions of menstruation and masturbation (even in an academic setting) are still sometimes awkward, most of my students seem to consider themselves far more educated and enlightened on those subjects than their Victorian sisters. But all too frequently, my students loathe their bodies with the same puritanical intensity as their forebears. They may not be as ashamed of their sexuality as their great-grandmothers were (though some are still understandably shy), but they are still ruthlessly critical of their own flesh. The negative judgments however, are now rooted in aesthetics. Fat has replaced desire as the primary enemy to be contained and controlled. If self-control and exercise fail, there is always the surgical removal of the offender (fat) through liposuction and body sculpting.

I try — with limited success — to make the case that Victorian clitoridectomies and contemporary plastic surgery are remarkably similar procedures from a feminist analysis. Yes, the former were performed on the young and the vulnerable, often against their will. But I’m not sure that the young students of mine who save and scrimp and go into debt for liposuction and breast enlargements (and I can think of quite a few who have done just that) really have much more agency and autonomy than their forebears. Slicing up the body to conform to a societal ideal is inherently a woman-hating act, whether the offending body part is the clitoris or thigh fat. There is no progress in moving from a culture that shames sexuality to a culture that shames any divergence from an unrealistic aesthetic ideal.

Yes, I have heard from my students who say they feel better about themselves after their surgeries. But the number of women in Somalia or Mali who support female infibulation are high as well. The fact that some women feel personally empowered by cutting up their bodies (or allowing their bodies to be cut) does not vitiate the essential horror of the practice. Some feminists are so in love with the notion of “choice” that they will defend any action a woman takes to alter her body. But choices are only exercised within a cultural context that decrees that certain choices are better than others. In this culture where even slight physical imperfections are seen as barriers to happiness, most young women who choose plastic surgery are not making a genuinely free choice

Feminists must be careful to walk a thin line — judging and condemning those women who do “choose” cosmetic surgery isn’t helpful, even if (as my use of quotation marks suggests) we are doubtful about the feminist authenticity of their “choice.” Our anger and our energy, rather, ought to be directed at those who repackage feminist language to market their wares. Feminism critiques the very standards of beauty that the cosmetic industry seeks to uphold; the surgeons offer women (at least the ones with money) the freedom to choose to alter their bodies to chase an ideal; feminists want women to have freedom from that very ideal.

Cognard-Black:

…it’s feminists who have emphatically and
persistently shown that cosmetic medicine exists because
sexism is powerfully linked with capitalism—
keeping a woman worried about her looks in order to
stay attractive, keep a job or retain self-worth. To say
that a preoccupation with looks is “feminist” is a cynical
misreading; feminists must instead insist that a furrowed,
“wise” brow—minus the fillers—is the empowered
feminist face, both old and new.

Pick up the new issue of Ms. at your local newsstand, or better yet, subscribe. And visit these sites:

Love Your Body
About Face
Real Women Project

Ten things

Taken from Rudy Carrasco, here are ten things you may not know about me, despite an extraordinary amount of public navel-gazing.

1. Since I was a child, my nightmares are almost all the same: I’m on a beach, a tidal wave is coming, and I can’t move. I still have them a couple of times a year. I’ve never dreamed of any other natural disaster or accident.

2. Of all of my button-down shirts, more are pink than any other color.

3. Of my closest friends, over half are Republicans. Several support the war and eat meat.

4. The combined total attendance at all four of my weddings: just over 500.

5. Number of people, besides me, who attended all four: eleven.

6. I took wood shop in high school, and actually loved it. My mom still has many things I made.

7. My senior year in high school, I was president of my school’s Model UN club. We represented Zaire at the state convention.

8. The first time I got drunk, it was on Andre Cold Duck . It was twenty-five years ago this month, and I was in ninth grade.

9. Sometimes, after a particularly emotional day of teaching (or, like last night, an emotional time with some of my youth group kids) I get into my car in the parking lot and cry before I drive home.

10. Though I love other breeds better, when it comes to dogs, I instinctively identify with whippets.

Why I’m not posting today

There’s some interesting discussion going on between both the DC Madam and Male Sex Drive posts below. I’ve got a post in my head that deals with lust, fantasy, fidelity, feminism, and the discourse of uncontrollable male sexuality, but it will have to wait until tomorrow.

Big bonus of being vegan (and, largely, raw): I need less sleep, as my body isn’t so tired from digesting meat, dairy, corn solids, and so forth. I’m now good to go on six hours a night on a consistent basis, and this makes me very happy, as it means I can fit more into my day.

Today I woke up at 5:00, did my morning meditation and journaling, had a cup of coffee (that’s one thing I have no intention of giving up) and headed out for a great 11-mile run. I’m now starting to ramp up training for July’s San Francisco Marathon, and that means one long run on Sundays and a “mid-length” run on Wednesdays. If I can get my mileage up to around 50 a week by the middle of the month, I’ll feel pretty good. By the end of the month, after my birthday, I’ll be ready for a little speed work.

Now I’m in the office, getting ready for office hours — I have several students coming, most to go over their midterms. At 10:25, I lecture on post-Napoleonic Europe and the rise of Nationalism; at 12 noon, I’ll discuss the rise of the Roman Republic and the Gracchi; at 1:25, I have my “dysfunctional family” humanities course, and we’ll be talking about Ibsen’s “Doll’s House” and the role of Christine Linde as proto-feminist hero.

After school, I have some student journals to finish marking. Then it’s off to the gym for some quick lifting, home for a quick shower and snack, and off to Wednesday night youth group. Then it’s home by 9:00PM for some chinchilla time, and some (Lord willing, quick) work on a proposal for some workshops I want to teach on men and sexuality. I’ll make my lunch for tomorrow, and lay out my clothes for the morning. And when all that’s done, my wife and I will sit down (she with a glass of Cabernet or Pinot, me with a glass of Gerolsteiner), and we’ll “de-brief” and laugh together. If all goes well, we’ll be lights out by midnight.

It’s gonna be an awesome day; I feel blessed beyond words to have the life I do. I don’t give a darn if I sound like a caricature, describing my day. This is an eponymous blog, after all.

More posting tomorrow.

The twelfth of Iyar

I was born on May 22, 1967; in the Gregorian calendar, that means my fortieth birthday is just over three weeks away. But I would like to point out that May 22, 1967 was also the 12 of Iyar, 5727 in the Hebrew calendar. Given that the Hebrew calendar is lunar, it means my Hebrew and Gregorian birthdays rarely match up.

And today is 12 Iyar 5767, so by that ancient method of reckoning time, I am forty today.

Tennyson and Sharon Olds, Ulysses and Telemachus: a very long post about endurance athletes, independence, and the single body alone in the universe against its own best time

Another busy Monday morning finds me sitting at the messiest desk in the Western Hemisphere. Really, it’s appalling — Clif bar wrappers and old tests, coffee-stained handouts and framed wedding pictures all jostling together. Merely to type a post or an e-mail requires blowing the crumbs off the keyboard. (I need a new keyboard annually, thanks to the food and drink spills).

I’m thinking this morning about a dear relative of mine. Because it’s a private family matter, I won’t share much, but I will say that this relation is a man in his mid-seventies, now suddenly frail and weak and battling serious illness. Though his physical diagnosis isn’t immediately terminal, he seems to have lost much of his will to live. I am praying and meditating for him daily.

This man and I have had a lot in common for many years. My relation was the first endurance athlete I ever knew; he started marathoning in the 1970s, back when the sport was first becoming popular. He ended up doing more than 80 marathons, as well as several Ironman distance triathlons (including a strong finish in the Hawaii Ironman back in the very early years of the event.) He was a great bear of a man, not terribly fast but with a tremendous will to compete and and a tremendous capacity to live with physical pain — two things any serious endurance runner must have. He gave me lots of good advice when I first became a distance athlete, and in many ways, has been an athletic role model for me for more than twenty-five years.

What he and I share, more than a love of sport itself, is an intense desire to maintain our own autonomy and to pursue self-perfection through the endless disciplining of our own flesh. So much of our identity is built around the very satisfying thought that we do things other people can’t do. While others sleep in, we push our bodies to their limits, always seeing what else we can do to improve. And while there is much that is praiseworthy about this tremendous longing to achieve maximum fitness and performance, there’s a dark side to all of this as well. At its worst, this addiction to endurance sports can isolate us from others, cause us to ignore social and familial responsibilities, lead us to prioritize logging miles rather than spending time with those who love us most.

Berkeley-born Sharon Olds’ most famous poem is surely the marvelous Sex without Love. I loved it the first time I read it, largely because it was as close to a perfect description of how my companions and I lived out our erotic lives in our twenties as anything I’ve ever seen. And as a man who was both sexually promiscuous and athletically obsessive, I recognized myself at once in the closing lines:

They do not
mistake the lover for their own pleasure,
they are like great runners: they know they are alone
with the road surface, the cold, the wind,
the fit of their shoes, their over-all cardio-
vascular health–just factors, like the partner
in the bed, and not the truth, which is the
single body alone in the universe
against its own best time
.

I long ago surrendered my sexuality to God, and gave up “sex without love.” I have received indescribable gifts in return. But I struggle, Lord how I struggle, not to think of myself as going through life as a solitary runner, alone in the world, always racing against my own best time. The danger for distance athletes, both world-class and amateur, is that we can become profoundly selfish. Beating “our own best time” becomes the one meaningful battle in our lives. We discipline ourselves with restrictive diets, we beat up our joints on endless hills, we drag ourselves out of bed hours before dawn to do solitary combat on the roads and trails and treadmills. And if we’re not careful, we mistake the pursuit of our own individual excellence with authentic virtue.

Authentic virtue is never selfish, as Aristotle and a hundred other wise folks have pointed out. Authentic virtue is about balancing one’s own need to endlessly recreate and improve with one’s responsibility to the world at large. If our running gives us great pleasure, but leaves us so drained and self-absorbed that we are less available for our loved ones and our community, then we’re not being virtuous. We have to make choices, and in the past couple of years, I’ve made that choice. Many folks think I work out a lot (14-20 hours per week). But that’s nothing compared to what I would do if I gave up more of my outside commitments! Oh, how I long to take eighteen good months and train for a solid 100-miler. But running 120 miles per week would take too much from my wife, too much from my chinchillas, too much from my students and my youth group, my seven classes, my mentees, my colleagues.

The greatest danger for distance athletes, however, isn’t that we become selfish. The greatest danger, one that I see in the life of my ailing relation, is that we become so enraptured by our own physical capabilities that we begin to believe we are radically autonomous. Our bodies do such incredible things, and bring us such pride and satisfaction, that we start to think we’re indestructible. We become particularly loath to rely on others, jealously, often pridefully guarding our own independence. The phrase “our bodies, ourselves” takes on a radically different meaning: our identity as human beings becomes enmeshed with our sense of what our bodies can do.

We came into this world naked and helpless. We had no control over our flesh; we were diapered and dressed and spanked and bathed and fed on another’s schedule. We wailed and flailed, but for the first few years were utterly incapable of meeting our own needs. And unless we are taken young and suddenly, most of us will leave the world in that same way. Even if we retain the ability to use the toilet and feed ourselves up until the end, old age will rob us, sooner or later, of our precious independence. If we’ve spent fifty or sixty years building up a personal myth of indestructible autonomy, “alone in the universe against our own best time”, we’re going to be absolutely devastated by the slow surrenderings we will inevitably have to make as we age.

I’ve posted a bit about my Dad lately. His dying was relatively quick last year; he got the terminal diagnosis in mid-April and he passed on on June 22. A gentle man, not in the least concerned with “personal best times” or “faster and farther”, he surrendered himself easily to his caregivers. He was uncomplaining as he slowly lost his abilities to do for himself what he had done for nearly seven decades. He maintained his dignity and his sense of humor, and above all, he maintained his sense of self even as his body shriveled. My father, a philosopher by training and a wise soul by natural temperament, knew that he was not his body. While he had a hard time accepting the soul as separate from the flesh, he knew that his “Hubertness” was not defined by what his muscles and bones could do. That knowledge gave him the strength to surrender gently when his time came.

My ailing relative, my fellow endurance athlete, is not going so gently. He’s raging against the dying of the light. For him, the “light” remains connected to what his body can do, and losing those capabilities is devastating for him in a way that it wasn’t for my far-less competitive father. As for me, I have had both these dear men as role models all of my life. Though there is much I owe to my Dad, and though I love him still with all my heart, I did not get my manic restlessness from him. That longing I have to climb the next mountain, and the next, and the next, until I reach the final summit from which there is no descent — that obsession comes from somewhere else. My cousin has it in him; his were the first pair of eyes in which I saw what I so often see when I look in the mirror: the sense that life is a constant struggle against weakness, against darkness, against our own sense of limitations. And when at last our limitations overwhelm us… it’s hard.

On the list of the hundred most famous English-language poems, Tennyson’s Ulysses must rank near the top. I first read it in college in a frosh Comp Lit class. I loved it then and love it now, and remember fighting with my Marxist TA who insisted that it was the “Ulysseses” of the world who were responsible for colonialism and imperialism and slavery. She hated the poem (and hated Tennyson) and wanted her students to mock the sentiments within it. I nearly lost my temper, so eager was I to defend both the poet and his protagonist. And I think of Ulysses often as I think of my dear cousin, fighting so hard in his hospital bed.

Ulysses was a lousy husband, to put it mildly. He wasn’t much of a king either, if we take Tennyson’s view — he has no interest in doing what his son Telemachus does:

…by slow prudence to make mild
A rugged people, and through soft degrees
Subdue them to the useful and the good.
Most blameless is he, centred in the sphere
Of common duties
, decent not to fail
In offices of tenderness…

Ulysses is not centered in that sphere of common duty; he hears a different call:

How dull it is to pause, to make an end,
To rust unburnished, not to shine in use!
As though to breathe were life!

It’s whopping hubris to compare oneself and one’s relations to the ancient heroes, of course. But when I think of my father, I think of one very gentle, loving, devoted Telemachus. My God, Dad was “strong in the sphere of common duties”! Though he was not a political man or a natural leader, he was a pillar of his family and of the broader community; the hundreds and hundreds of mourners at his memorial service were all touched and moved by him. In my life, especially since his death, I’ve sought to become more and more of the sort of man he was. Kindness and grace came naturally to my father, and I long to emulate him in those virtues.

But my cousin and I — like so many of my friends in the endurance running community — have the restlessness of a Ulysses. We are the ones who find “how dull it is to pause, not to shine in use.” And though we don’t kill monsters, we devote our lives to killing our own limitations. Contentment scares us; complacency unnerves us; we embrace domesticity with often considerable unease. We are capable of common duties, but we’re not centered there. Our center is always a mile further up the trail.

Near the end of the poem, Ulysses says:

Though much is taken, much abides; and though
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are…

That which we are, we are. I am thinking this morning of a man I love and admire, lying in his bed four hundred miles from here. A man who has climbed mountains, swum through oceans, run marathons on five continents. For him, the great question is finding the will to live now that so much has been taken. The question for him is whether “much abides”, and whether or not what remains is enough to continue to live.

Those with the spirit of Telemachus have an easier time letting go. They give up the bicycle, the running shoes, the car keys. They may mourn the loss of their independence, but they haven’t staked their identity to their autonomy the way those with the spirit of Ulysses have. And as one who struggles to reconcile his inner Telemachus with his inner Ulysses, I have much to think about this morning.

Being vegan…

…is hard to do while working out. I hadn’t realized that most of my bars and protein supplements contained milk solids until last week. I hadn’t realized I have to give up my beloved Altoids, as they contain gelatin. Oh, blissful ignorance, I do miss you!

I’m pumping in a lot of Vega. It’s actually pretty good, though Eloy, my office colleague, thinks it looks disgusting. It’s not bad, and it takes care of lunch.

In terms of training, I think I’ll shoot for the San Francisco Marathon in July. If I can get some speed work done, and get my weight back down around 165 (ten pounds below where I am right now), I might be able to do a nice clip…

But dang, even as a happy vegan, I miss the Altoids.

Tuesday notes

My Lenten practices are still going reasonably well.

Each morning while I teach, my body aches for a diet Coke. So far, I’m restricting very well.

I’ve been getting up very early — earlier than usual — to take some time for prayer and spiritual writing. It’s definitely a stretch physically, but after nearly a week I notice it’s really starting to pay off.

And I’m trying to be completely vegan for Lent. That isn’t going as well as I’d like. I had a bagel on Sunday after my run; no cream cheese but no doubt plenty of egg in it. I had a bite of egg salad yesterday too, and on Friday, I had a protein bar with milk product in it. But for the most part, I’m doing okay.

In other news, the Matilde Mission has at long last won a quiet little battle we were having with the IRS. For eighteen months, the chinchilla charity that my wife and I helped start in honor of our first chin had been battling to be recognized as a non-profit. We were granted provisional 501(c)3 status, but the IRS kept coming back with bizarre and arcane queries, perhaps trying to make absolutely sure that the Mission is not affiliated with groups like Animal Liberation Front and other organizations that employ violence.

After spending a small fortune on lawyer’s fees (out of our pockets, not the Mission’s), we finally convinced the IRS that every dime we spend is for chinchillas, their rescue, and their housing. And we got all of our paperwork at last; we are no longer provisional.

So with that said, feel free to donate here! It’s tax-deductible, we’ve got a secure server, you can give as little as $5.00… We’ve saved the lives of a few hundred precious little ones, and we can save many more with your help.

The IRS approves.