Grateful for Female Friends

Found myself this week feeling especially grateful for all of the female friends I currently have in my life, and also for the female friends I had growing up. Been thinking a bit about it because of two stories that dug deep into my brain: Gus Van Sant's film Paranoid Park, and the graphic novel Sentences: The Life of MF Grimm, by Percy Carey, wherein the male protagonists seem almost wholly separated from women as friends.

Paranoid Park is a fictional account of a white, middle class high-school skater boy navigating not only his parents' divorce, but also the aftereffects of a severe trauma. No spoilers here, but he is surrounded mostly by his male skater friends, who aren't particularly good at even noticing he's been through a trauma, and who respond to any deviations from traditional masculinity by wondering if somebody "is a faggo".   The only girls his age in the film he interacts with are his girlfriend, who really only sees him as something of a fashion accessory, and a friend-who-is-obviously-smitten-with-him that he mostly blows off. (To be fair, this second girl is one of the only positive influences in his life.) The movie does a good job of conveying the isolation he feels because of the secret he doesn't feel he can divulge, but also the basic isolation that kids growing up can feel--and especially focuses on the isolation boys feel as they try to fit into the straight jacket of traditional masculinity. 


Sentences: The Life of MF Grimm is a beautifully illustrated autobiographical comic about Percy Carey, otherwise known as MF Grimm, who was/is a hip-hop star of some renown. (Carey is now president of Arch Enemy, a comic company that puts out some interesting stuff, which goes to show this man knows how to create success in just about whatever he does.) He pulls no punches in the telling of his story (and his story includes a lot of literal punches), and my favorite aspect of his writing was that he sets the tone by explicitly laying out some of the culture he was immersed in to those of us who might not be familiar with it-- the culture of a not well-off black kid in the United States. One of the only women he talks about in the book, his mother, is central to the story of his life: She always has his back, and is the central person in his life who teaches him to take shit from no one. (The scene where she punches out a stranger who pinches her ass was one of the best parts of the book, if also heartbreaking.) But that one page on his mom, with the exception of a few words about his grandmother's death, is basically the only time any relationships with women are talked about. Carey seems to have lived a life among men, to the extent that almost all of the formative moments he has chosen to tell about were about the men in his life. If he had friends who were women, he left them out of this book. 

Which brings me to what I have always been grateful for, but feel more strongly these days: All of my female friends. A few of them are ex-girlfriends, but most of them are just people I clicked with on some level, and they have offered me (as I look back) lenses through which to look at the world that I would never have had access to if I had kept my friendship circle to mostly men. Sure, as a man who is romantically interested in women, sometimes friendships with women are sometimes more...complex. There's the sentiment, which I learned from When Harry Met Sally, that men want to sleep with all of their women friends:



And of course this sentiment isn't limited to movies from the 80s. Here's the same idea, in a relatively modern discussion:



To whatever extent that stereotype may hold true, I'd say it's partly because we don't encourage men to be "just" friends with women. ("Just"--because somehow friendship is less-than romantic relationships?) There are too few blueprints for and examples of mixed-gender friendships, especially among straight folks.  

So a thank you to all of my women friends, past, present, and future. 

You Don't Get to Be Kathleen Hanna

It hasn't quite even been a year since the whole Schwyzer meltdown, and we already have the newest "top feminist dude" showing his true misogynist colors. When Schwyzer's truths became impossible to ignore (and, sadly, I did ignore them for far too long), I began some deep rethinking of how I go about practicing feminist ideals in my daily life, and online. Clymer's bullshit has pushed me back into rethinking things, yet again.

I came to feminism through theory (women's studies classes), through lived experience (raised by a bad-ass single mother), and through folks like bell hooks who provided both theory and insight into practice (Feminism is for Everybody).  I knew enough women who wanted men to do some of the hard work of feminism that I began to consider myself an ally. Enough women thought I was an ally that I felt justified in that. Now I see lots of women supporting a dood like Clymer who (to me) clearly isn't fit to lead a gender equality site that I'm starting to doubt (as many other have before me) whether "ally" is even a useful term.  For quite a while I didn't see why men can't be leaders in some feminist fights, but I'm starting to get it now, with slow, dawning understanding. 

And after all the good ideas put forth by many people around why men shouldn't lead anything in feminist movements, it was finally this rather simple analogy that brought it home to me, for which I'll forever be grateful to @heatherurehere on twitter:

"The women of Bikini Kill let guitarist Billy Karren be in their feminist punk band, but only if he's willing to just "do some shit." Being a feminist dude is like that. We may ask you to "do some shit" for the band, but you don't get to be Kathleen Hanna."--@heatherurehere on twitter

Sure, sometimes men listen more to men, and that's one reason why men have to be a part of feminist movement. And patriarchy harms men, which is another good reason for men to be pro-feminist. There are myriad important reasons for men to support feminism. But do we need men to lead gender equality sites? Nope. Do we need men to lead Slutwalk? Nope. 

I still think that men need to connect with other men, and folks of all genders, to build communities, to support each other, all while doing feminist work. I still haven't found that supportive community, really, though lots of new friends on twitter do a good deal of that work.  So I'll keep blogging, and talking with people in Real Life, and amplifying the voices of women, but I'm not even comfortable calling this thing Feminist Allies any longer. I'll call it Feminism Helps Men for now, and see where that takes me. 

Men and Feminism: Kind of Complicated

Isabelle Allonso interviewed John Stoltenberg for her blog, and Feminist Current was kind enough to publish an english translation.  It's an illuminating interview that is definitely a worthwhile read for feminist allies. When asked about men's place in relationship to feminist work, Stoltenberg said this: 

First of all I don’t think any man of conscience—whether self-identified as pro-feminist or not—can or should presume to speak in women’s place or “decide what feminism should be about.” That’s just a baseline principle. Many women have justifiable grievances about individual men who have disregarded it. Those “me too” men ought to know better, and they should not require scolding and hand-holding from women to figure it out, because exemplary life lessons abound: Individuals from the dominant class in other struggles have found countless meaningful ways to be of use while analogously abiding by that principle—for example, whites in the black civil-rights movement in the US, sons and daughters born to wealth in the movement for economic justice, non-Jews in the movements against antisemitism. Such sincerely committed allies always recognize and acknowledge the privilege that stems from their membership in the dominant class. And often such allies have found that their usefulness lies in deconstructing, disrupting, interrupting, exposing, protesting, and defying such systems of oppression from the inside. Same holds for any man of conscience who wishes to be of use on behalf of feminist revolution. It’s not complicated.--john-stoltenberg 

As with much that Stoltenberg has written, I find myself agreeing with the central points here, but disagreeing in important ways about how the execution of this stuff works; often my disagreements boil down to "but it's more complicated than that," something that one can almost always say and be correct about; still given that in this case Stoltenberg says "It's not complicated," I feel like I should chime in, because I think it can be complicated in important ways that we should acknowledge.

I think presuming to speak for women is something that allies constantly have to guard against doing--male privilege runs deep. But when Stoltenberg says pro-feminist men shouldn't decide what feminism should be about, we have to be careful to not equivocate: I agree that pro-feminist men shouldn't simply put out there what they think feminism should be about as if they are some sort of final arbiters of the definition of feminism.  However, pro-feminist men not only need to decide what feminism(s) make sense (to them), an argument can be made that they need to voice their views on this decision, perhaps even in the face of disagreeing with other feminists, regardless of the genders of those feminists.

Feminism isn't a monolith.  When folks of any gender first run into feminist concepts, we all begin to learn the conceptual frameworks involved.  Some find these concepts in academia, some through communities they are involved in, some even from pop culture.  To be clear: We all encounter what sexism is far earlier than that--but the conceptual frameworks around feminism come later.  Indeed, that is part of what feels so empowering for many of us--we finally have different ways of talking about (and hopefully changing) how fucked up sexism (and homophobia, and class issues, etc.) are, when we discover feminist frameworks, or lenses. Thing is, depending upon our own experiences, and upon how we first start understanding how we might work against sexism and the like, we almost immediately have to choose which feminism(s) seem to make sense to us. People of all genders do this, though of course they do it from different perspectives because of their gender (and for other reasons).  

So-called "radfem" folks, in the opinion of many feminists, are wrong about trans folks in important ways. "Mainstream" feminists are wrong about what feminism is about, according to many "radfems". Pro-sex feminists are wrong about sex work, according to folks like Gail dines (as well as the folks at Feminist Current, and Stoltenberg himself!) Womanists and other women of color call out feminists for racism underlying much of modern feminism. And these are just a few of the major disputes--there are myriad disputes around all sorts of issues. Where female feminists disagree, pro-feminist men may/must also disagree with at least some female feminists!

Now, because of various complexities, I also don't think that pro-feminist men need to be chiming in on every issue in every feminist space; even in spaces that welcome men explicitly (and there are many), I think Stoltenberg's general ideas here are true: There are so many ways that men can be of use to "feminist movement" (to use bell hooks' phrasing), and given male privilege, we ought to do much more listening than talking, more assisting and less leading. But I don't think it's "just that simple".  Men also may need to support the feminism(s) that we think make the most sense--and to do that we may need to also engage other men, women and folks of other genders in conversation about what we think makes the most sense.  That may mean (for me) mindfully talking about why I think some anti-pornography stances are wrong, or why I find the racism underlying much of modern feminism problematic. It might mean calling out other men on their sexism. It also means helping to create some feminist spaces that include men consciously and consistently in the movement--all the while acknowledging that some spaces will not and should not include men. 

And much of this work is complicated.  I think there is some harm that can come from the "it's just that simple" ways of thinking about men and feminism, because it can encourage folks to tend to ignore that feminism itself isn't a monolith, and to ignore that men, too, must understand, engage within and choose what feminism(s) make sense.  It's a good rule of thumb to defer to women in general as regards what feminism is, but because not all women agree on what feminism is, we're going to sometimes disagree with some female feminists--this may be read as "trying to define feminism," but if we back up what we're saying by acknowledging female feminists who agree with us, this is something valuable to do, if sometimes complexities abound. 

In that spirit, here's bell hooks:

 “A male who has divested of male privilege, who has embraced feminist politics, is a worthy comrade in struggle, in no way a threat to feminism, whereas a female who remains wedded to sexist thinking and behavior infiltrating feminist movement is a dangerous threat.”—  bell hooks, Feminism Is For Everybody.

 

bell hooks Monday: NOMAS and Ditching the Dominator Model

Been thinking a lot about whether men can get together with each other to work on shifting masculinities without falling so easily back into traditional masculinity and the misogyny that comes with it, partly because of the fucked up silencing that happened recently from NOMAS (details at Shakesville).

I'm starting to think that men, even really well-meaning men, should always work with women (and folks of all genders) when trying to transform traditional masculinities, or do any feminist work. (I recognize that this blog is guilty of that, and am thinking that through too.)  And yet that brings in other problems, of course: Men already ask women to do so much work in the world, and now we want/need to ask (some of) them to help us change? 

Not sure yet what to do, but it all makes me think of bell hooks infinitely deep contributions to men and feminism(s):

Before the realities of men can be transformed, the dominator model has to be eliminated as the underlying ideology on which we base our culture. We already see that within patriarchal culture men can be more emotional, they can parent, they can break with sexist roles, but as long as the underlying principles are in place, men can never be truly free. At any moment this underlying patriarchal ethos can overshadow behaviors that run counter to it. We have already seen that many men changed their thinking for a time when feminist movement was a powerful force for social change, but then when the patriarchal thinking that undergirds our society did not change, as the energy of the movement began to wane, the old order began to reestablish itself. Sexist thought and action that had been harshly critiqued during the height of feminist movement have once again become more acceptable. Clearly, ending patriarchy is necessary for men to have collective liberation. It is the only resolution to the masculinity crisis that most men are experiencing.--bell hooks, The Will to Change

The dominator model is so obvious in some of the exchanges between some folks at NOMAS and the women they're currently trying to gaslight--I also know that lots of men are working on ditching domination, and that (I think) they need feminism to do it.  

bell hooks Monday: On Feminist Masculinity

Wonderful drawing by k funk. Please go buy stuff from them. 

"As interest in feminist thinking and practice has waned, there has been even less focus on the plight of men than in the heyday of feminist movement. This lack of interest does not change the fact that only a feminist vision that embraces feminist masculinity, that loves boys and men and demands on their behalf every right that we desire for girls and women, can renew men in our society. Feminist thinking teaches us all, males especially, how to love justice and freedom in ways that foster and affirm life. Clearly we need new strategies, new theories, guides that will show us how to create a world where feminist masculinity thrives."--bell hooks, The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity and Love

 Yet another passage that demonstrates why bell hooks is a favorite writer of many a feminist man!  (I would also add that "feminist masculinity" isn't something that only men can benefit from, but people of various genders who think that traditional masculinity is long overdue for some seismic conceptual shifts.) 

I think it is interesting to re-read The Will to Change, a book that is only 8 or 9 years old, and to see how things have changed as regards men and feminism (and also, of course, how they haven't).  Certainly online feminism seems to have upped the ante as regards including men and addressing issues with traditional masculinity.  An article from 2012 on Feministing even addresses the issue that hooks is talking about directly.  Shira Tarrant's book, Men Speak Out: Views on Gender, Sex and Power is now in its second printing (full disclosure--I have an article in the 2nd edition).  I also see a lot of change coming online in the twitterverse--there are myriad feminist and pro-feminist men on twitter who are doing the day-to-day work of online feminism.  And IRL feminist men exist in some of what one might think are the oddest of places.  For instance, I had the good fortune to attend the "allies track" of the Ada Initiative's Ada Camp not too long ago, and met a bunch of feminist and pro-feminist men (and other folks!) who work in open source technology, and are vehemently interested in getting more women to work in open source software fields.  

All of which is not to say that hooks' point doesn't still hit home:  One of the reasons I'm still (occasionally!) writing on this blog is because there need to be various places where men and feminism get discussed, in part so that men don't "take over" feminist spaces that women create, but also simply because the more the merrier (and the more work we'll get done).

bell hooks Monday: From Personal Struggles to Systemic Change

From The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity and Love:

"Even though not all men are misogynists, feminist thinkers were accurate when we stated that patriarchy in its most basic, unmediated form promotes fear and hatred of females. A man who is unabashedly and unequivocally committed to patriarchal masculinity will both fear and hate all that the culture deems feminine and womanly. However, most men have not consciously chosen patriarchy as the ideology they want to govern their lives, their beliefs, and actions. Patriarchal culture is the system they were born within and socialized to accept, yet in all areas of their lives most men have rebelled in small ways against the patriarchy, have resisted absolute allegiance to patriarchal thinking and practice. Most men have clearly been willing to resist patriarchy when it interferes with individual desire, but they have not been willing to embrace feminism as a movement that would challenge, change, and ultimately end patriarchy".--bell hooks

Some of what hooks says is here exactly why I think showing men how patriarchy hurts men can be such a powerful tool, but can also be a bit of a trap if you don't follow through.  Show men how traditional masculinity creates men who can't show feelings (other than anger), and some men get that. But if you don't continue to show/see that this fact also harms women, and then on to how women are harmed in general by patriarchy, then you end up with a Men's Rights Activist instead of another feminist. 

And it's a tough move to make--for all of us who have some kind of privilege, it can be a struggle to continue to recognize it, and divesting oneself of it even more of a struggle. (Which is not to compare it to the struggles of folks who are oppressed.)

In some meditation traditions, compassion for others begins with compassion for self; the way it spreads to compassion for others is (in part) by recognizing our interdependent relationships with others.  In the case of the harm of patriarchy, I can, at times, have compassion for men doing harm through patriarchy by myself recognizing how I have been harmed by patriarchy, but then by also acknowledging how we all have been harmed by it--even the men doing the damage right now. It's not a simple thing, of course, and part of the idea is that it's a process that may go on for a lifetime. 

I'm playing with ideas here, and may be way off base, but I suspect that one way of getting more men to understand and embrace feminism has to do with having compassion for the ways that men are harmed by patriarchy--even though this harm may pale in comparison to the harm that women continue to suffer (most often at the hands of men).  I don't claim this is what feminism is all about or anything--but I do think that we men who embrace feminisms need to have compassion for ourselves and for other men, even before those men have begun to understand the harm they are doing. In this way, maybe we can more easily move from what hooks notes is "individual" stuff to actually changing the status quo.   

First Steps in Yoga Pants

There are a lot of things that Nathan Graziano gets wrong in his recent article about his own struggles with lusting over women in yoga pants, but there are also some things that he is beginning, at least, to get right. What he gets wrong is covered pretty thoroughly in the twittersphere, but one of the things that strikes me most directly are his naive assumption that women wear yoga pants, in some sense, for him.  He just can't quite believe that they wear them for comfort: 

 And when I ask women about yoga pants—hoping they’ll tell me the trend will pass—most women tell me that it isn’t that yoga pants are fashionable, per se, but they are comfortable to wear. As a claustrophobic guy, I couldn’t imagine being comfortable in anything that tight, but I’m going to suspend my disbelief and assume they are, indeed, comfortable.

But baggy sweatpants are also comfortable, so I can only assume there’s more to it. There is an implicit game here—the age-old tease where women flaunt and men look.

Where to start?  Lots of folks don't find sweatpants comfortable at all--people who do yoga, for instance, find that sweatpants don't work so well--it helps to have something that is flexible, but also close to your skin; and, hey! some women like how that feels while out shopping, too. Just imagine. 

The above assumption isn't just a naive assumption, though--it is tied to a lot of the other assumptions that Graziano makes throughout his piece; assuming that women are doing something for men is directly related to the fact that he feels kinda douchey when he finds himself having trouble not staring.  It's directly related to his gender essentialist thinking ("men are pigs").  It's directly related to an over-simplistic nod to "biological components".  

All of this stuff makes folks who have done quite a bit of thinking about gender, and about feminism, cringe (ok, at least it makes me cringe, and lots of people object on twitter).  And all sorts of criticisms are justified. Hopefully he'll listen to some of the criticism and grow a bit (men who are feminists are needing to do this, pretty constantly, I've found).  

That said, I think there are some places where he's on the right path, if only a few steps down that road.  I recognize this could be "give me a cookie" territory (there is a tendency to give any man who has even the slightest feminist leanings more credit than needed), but I also think it's important for men to encourage other men to think these things through. So, here's my encouragement.

I was grateful for this passage:

Let me start by saying that women have every right to wear whatever they want, where they want, without having to be leered at and objectified. Intellectually and philosophically, I know this. And the ex-Catholic in me tries his best to recognize the lechery and look away as the minutes and miles tick off on the treadmill’s dashboard in front of me.

I know that acknowledging that women have every right to wear what they want is a low bar, but I like that he explicitly pointed out that he's discussing his issue, his problem (even though he goes off the rails and calls women "complicit" later on). 

I also appreciate how he ended the article:

And there I am, running like a gerbil on the treadmill. At 37 years old, I’m trying to ward off any impending middle-aged flab, trying to remain strong and youthful.
About ten yards in front of me, an attractive blonde with a high ponytail is doing step-aerobics in black yoga pants.

I stare and fear she knows, so I glance down at the dashboard on the treadmill. It reads, 29 minutes, 3.1 miles. Yet, somehow, I’m still going nowhere.

 To me, this acknowledges a reality that a lot of men feel--men who are trying to not be misogynist assholes, and yet still manage to be:   

@daniparadis @athenagenevieve @anne_theriault yeah, you're never going to get me to stop calling misogynists 'assholes', sorry
— Jessica Valenti (@JessicaValenti) February 20, 2013

Valenti makes it clear that she respects folks who want to educate this guy, but wants it known it's not her job--and I (of course!) agree completely. I think it's the job of other men, most of the time, actually. So here I am. I understand and support folks like Valenti who want to call this guy an asshole; I also think that almost all men who were raised in patriarchal society start out as "assholes" of this type (or worse!), and I want to acknowledge here when men are also working on it. Maybe not fast enough. Maybe not hard enough. But there he is, noting that he feels like he's "going nowhere", while trying to get to a place where he feels less douchey. I'm going to put that in the "plus" column for men trying to undo their own training. 

(That said, I also think this is the kind of watered-down feminist-ish bs that the Good Men Project is sort of famous for putting out, right?)

Empathy and Working on Alternative Masculinities

 Interesting read over at rosiesays, as a guy responds to her piece on street harassment.  He spells out how he has felt as the guy doing the harassing:

Here is something you should know about me. I intentionally hurt people sometimes to make myself feel better.    Being in the presence of a woman can be anguish. It’s loneliness (and sometimes horniness), and all that other Freudian bullshit rolled up into mundane moments. Just walking down the street can make me feel helpless when I pass a woman sometimes. I can’t shake it. If I could shake it, I would. Trust me. It’s no fun. But this is the hand I’m dealt, so I roll with it. 

I have a lot of empathy for men, in part because I have experienced the alienation that can come in a culture where traditional masculinity is so important.  I also think what I call the supply-and-demand model of dating is pretty broken, for all involved.  But I think striving against traditional masculinity is one of the ways that feminism can help men.

Despite my predilection toward empathy, it's difficult for me to respond with compassion for this guy. Even though he is suffering (and I think that he is--suffering within the shackles of bs masculinity), lines like "If I could shake it, I would. Trust me," just don't ring true for me. There's this thing called the internet.  Take a look around, search for alternative masculinities. Let me google that for you.

Yes, the masculinity we are given and trained in is bullshit. So let's create another one, rather than harass women.

Emily, like many feminist women, understands that traditional masculinity harms men, as well as women, and she expresses some empathy for this guy:

Without minimizing the overwhelming perfect storm of body hating, slut-shaming, victim-blaming, mixed messaging media bullshittery that women face on a daily basis, I do think there’s a void for young men about what modern masculinity really means. This is a conversation we’ve sorta kinda maybe a little bit started in this country, but for guys like this writer, already in their twenties, there are few role models of “manliness” that don’t involve killing the bad guy and getting the girl.

 Yes, men (and folks of all genders!) are having to reconstruct masculinity in a way that is hopefully not harmful. Yes, this task is difficult. Yes, men are alienated because of (in part) traditional masculinity. (As far as role models go, there are many to be found, if you look for them.) But I respectfully disagree with her when she notes that women should do something about this day-to-day: Be nicer:

And this is not unidirectional. Ladies (in this imaginary all-hetero world I’m writing in at the moment), don’t be jerks to guys that try to talk to you (assuming they are civil), whether you’re interested or not. You can politely move on without rolling your eyes, turning away, sighing in disgust, or being a generally uninterested pretentious douchface.   

People, be nice to each other. Niceness is a awesome. Niceness doesn’t mean I want to bone you, and it doesn’t mean you deserve a date or a drink or anything of the sort. It means that shit is hard out there, son, and a little kindness goes a long way.

Compassion and niceness is great, in general (of course!), but this line of thinking tends to ignore the lived experience of so many women--politely moving on is something that isn't "allowed" oftentimes, inasmuch as men so often respond to it with aggression and anger. The more empathy people can have toward men who are caught up in bogus masculinity, the better, but I think the onus is mostly upon men to do lots more work in this area before we can ask for or expect women to take on even more in this regard.

Men, Depression and Anger

Men, regardless of age group, often don't recognise when they are depressed. Depression in men is likely to be signalled by anger, so won't be recognised either by men themselves or by women as depression. Ironically, they may end up in jail rather than a GP's surgery. For a man to ask for help is seen as failure, because by convention men are supposed to be in control at all times. -- The UK Guardian

The past few weeks I've been inordinately quick-to-anger.  Mostly it's been people in cars cutting me off while I'm on my bicycle, but I've also been grumpy with my partner and just in general easily frustrated.  I've had this sort of mood before, throughout my life (in fact, I think I basically spent my 30s in that mood), but it's been a while since I felt it so strongly.  And the thing is, it's not the world "out there" that is creating this anger in me--not directly, anyway.  There are lots of reasons to be angry in the world, but those reasons haven't just popped up in the past few weeks, while my anger has.  I'm not (just) angry: I'm having some depression. 

Without going into the history of my relationship with depression, I just want to put it out there that I wish I had recognized the relationship between depression and anger, my relationship between depression and anger, years ago.  Recognizing it isn't any sort of cure, but it sure is a nice little clue when trying to figure out how to be less angry in the world. 

One thing that has helped me deal with this type of anger and depression is using meditation and Buddhist-ish authors to cope.  Part of that coping is letting myself feel the depression, instead of trying to push it away (which is pretty much how, exactly, it so easily translates into anger).  I'm also using some tools of 12-step recovery programs--in particular, focusing on recognizing, consciously, what I can't control.  

Here's an example:  The cars cutting me off in traffic are really more like the weather than individual people doing bad things--it's like the weather because it's ubiquitous.  Any one person I get angry at for cutting me off (this morning a guy made a u-turn right in front of me, and it was a close call) doesn't really matter, because tomorrow, there will be a different person doing similar stuff--it's how driving works in Oakland (at least for now!).  I'm convinced getting angry does absolutely nothing.  I can't communicate thoughtfully or forcefully with a driver when I'm that angry.  People who do really harmful driving things don't care what an angry cyclist has to say. Changing the way this works will have to be indirect (teaching people about bicycle safety, etc.).   In short, I can't control this. And I (sometimes) desperately want to. So I get depressed, and angry.

I know that this sort of issue isn't only happening to men--but I do know that, at least in my experience, traditional male masculinity says men can control it all.  It shouldn't be a huge surprise that this negatively affects men.  Add to that the culture in the United States that says that we are each the creators of our own destiny, and it's no wonder that suicide kills twice as many people here as homicide.

And like I said, noticing the relationship between depression and anger doesn't solve the problems that are created, but it does help me to let go of the need to control, just a bit. I don't believe I've ever had a conversation with another man about how depression turns to anger.  What's up with that?

Men in Feminist Spaces

“Men who want to be feminists do not need to be given a space in feminism. They need to take the space they have in society & make it feminist.”

—Kelley Temple, National Union of Students UK Women’s Officer

  

Here's a quote that's been floating around various online spheres of mine--it's one that I love, but at the same time, it also shows the limits of slogans (even good slogans).  Inasmuch as it addresses the persistent problem of feminist men barging in and attempting to take over feminist spaces to various degrees, it's fantastic.  And as a beginning of a plan for feminist men, "go out and make the spaces you're already in feminist" is quite a fine start. It was partly in that spirit that I originally started this blog--while I had recognized that men would often take over comments sections of various feminist posts ("what about the menz!?!!1!"), I also recognized that some of the stuff that men were bringing up in comments were legitimate issues that just weren't being brought up in the right context. I wanted Feminist Allies to provide some of that context, to provide a place where men who were feminists could talk about feminist movement, including their concerns about their place(s) within feminism.  

Thing is, "go out and make your spaces feminist" can only be the start of what feminist men can (and ought) to go out and do--it can't be the start and end of what we can do. Imagining that men can do feminist work without having a community backing them up, that men can do feminist work without support from other men, women, and folks of all genders, is to partly buy in to the notion of traditional masculinity, buying in to the notion of hyper-individuality which is really specifically harmful to men, even though it of course affects folks of all genders.  

Feminist men don't "deserve" a place in all feminist spaces. But there have to be some feminist spaces that men are allowed into; even if the majority of those spaces are created and maintained by other feminist men, I suspect that there is a real, necessary need for some feminist spaces created and maintained by women to make some space for feminist men.  Luckily, there are lots of such spaces, actually, which is why I can still embrace the above slogan, even though I think it's way more complex than it implies.  

I think bell hooks has it right, in The Will to Change:

"Women and men alike in our culture spend very little time encouraging males to learn to love. Even the women who are pissed off at men, women most of whom are not and maybe never will be feminist, use their anger to avoid being truly committed to helping to create a world where males of all ages can know love. And there remains a small strain of feminist thinkers who feel strongly that they have given all they want to give to men; they are concerned solely with improving the collective welfare of women. Yet life has shown me that any time a single male dares to transgress patriarchal boundaries in order to love, the lives of women, men and children are fundamentally changed for the better."(pp10)

I also think that the love that men need includes some open space in feminist communities, at least some of the time.

Confronting Sexim...Women's Work?

Finding it fascinating that a recent study on how men react to being called out on certain types of sexism only included women calling out the men, instead of other men calling out the men. While it's good information to learn that, in certain situations, calling out men on sexism may have some positive effects and seems to have no negative effects, I'd also like to know how men react to men calling them out on their sexism--because calling out sexism is something that men ought to be doing to other men, as well.

Forbes article on the study here.
Actual study here.

Men and Grief

Great post up over in the feministing community about "disenfranchised grief" and men. Rachel In WY says:

So as I've been thinking about this it occurs to me that men may often experience disenfranchised grief more often than women, because it's more socially acceptable for women to express their grief, and because men are often expected not to have the same depth of feeling. I've known several men who really wanted children, and were deeply emotionally invested in having a family. When they (and their partner) encountered infertility or miscarriage, their grief was barely even acknowledged, while their partner received a lot of support. When men do express their grief over infertility or a miscarriage, or don't "get over it" quickly enough, they're viewed with a mixture of confusion and disapproval. So I think this is one example of the damage a patriarchal culture inflicts on men. What do you think of this? Are there other examples of disenfranchised grief I haven't thought of? Are there cases where a woman's grief is more disenfranchised than a man's?

Go check out her whole post, and the comments.

Saturday Linky Goodness: Feminism 101 and "Things Happen to Men, Too!"

Tekanji has a fantastic post/FAQ up over at Feminism101 regarding "What’s wrong with saying that things happen to men, too?" (Full disclosure: In her 'other reading' section, she quotes a couple of posts from Feminist Allies, one by me and one by Dave.)

Tekanji's take on the work that men need to do, and the importance that context plays as regards discussions of what hurts men, is particularly lucid:

No one is saying that discussions on men and masculinities shouldn’t go on. It is absolutely important to have dialogue on men’s issues, including discussions on violence done towards men. The thing is, a feminist space — unless the topic is specifically men’s issues — is not the place to have that discussion and neither are spaces (feminist or otherwise) in which the topic is specifically focused on women’s issues. What it boils down to is this: Men, not women, need to be the ones creating the spaces to discuss men’s issues. There are a lot of feminist allies who do this, in fact, and there also a lot of non-feminist (or anti-feminist, if you really want to go there) spaces that are welcoming to this kind of discussion. Thus, the appropriate response to a thread about women is not to post a comment on it about men, but rather to find (or make) a discussion about men.

Now, I consider FA a feminist space. As such, certain types of discussion will be discouraged. But at the same time, I wonder if FA couldn't sometimes be a discussion forum for some of this stuff that many of us deem as inappropriate in some feminist women's spaces. What do y'all think? Is FA an appropriate forum for discussions about men's violence against men? About men and porn? If there were more forums where men could discuss such things, and do some good work in helping men overcome the negatives caused (in part) by conceptions of traditional masculinity, would it be worth having this be (in part) one of those forums?

Feminism Helps Men: Better Relationships

Y'all probably saw this over at Feministing, but in case you didn't: Looks like there's a new study out that reinforces my intuition that feminism helps me, at least, have better 'romantic' relationships:

They found that having a feminist partner was linked to healthier heterosexual relationships for women. Men with feminist partners also reported both more stable relationships and greater sexual satisfaction. According to these results, feminism does not predict poor romantic relationships but is actually the opposite.

The authors also tested the validity of feminist stereotypical beliefs amongst their two samples, based on the hypothesis that if feminist stereotypes are accurate, feminist women should be more likely to report themselves as being single, lesbian, or sexually unattractive than non-feminist women.

Their study reported that feminist women were more likely to be in a heterosexual romantic relationship than non-feminist women. The authors conclude that feminist stereotypes appear to be inaccurate, and therefore their unfavorable implications for relationships are also likely to be unfounded.

It's unfortunate, though perhaps not surprising, that the study focused on self-identified hetero's. It's also unfortunate that I can't seem to find the study itself online (if anybody can, I'd greatly appreciate a link). But it's a happy thing that somebody is even doing research on this stuff...and it doesn't hurt that the results seem promising to those of us who count ourselves as feminists, or feminist allies.

When "Making a Logical Argument" = "Emasculating"

What does making a logical point in a political argument have to do with one's testicles? Apparently the folks over at Talking Points Memo think that backing off in an argument is emasculating. They note, introducing this clip, that "It may be a first. Castration via live satellite hook up.":


What? Only Real Men stand by stupid opinions?

The thing is, I agree with TPM on their critique of Scarborough...he's generally a portrait (from what little I've seen) of a guy full of himself and full of hot air, and he bandies about traditional masculinity like it's nobody's business. And in this clip he clearly has no problem spouting off his opinions to his cohost (who happens to be a woman), but has more of a problem trying to assert his masculinity with Senator Webb on the line; but TPM buys into traditional masculinity by characterizing Scarborough-backing-down as having lost his testicles, and having lost his status in the hierarchy:




True, it looks like it was Veracifier that originally placed the comments in the video, but then TPM just keeps the traditional masculinity ball rolling by introducing the clip as having something to do with castration. There's plenty to criticize about Scarborough without resorting to the language of man-challenges.

Feminism Helps Men: New Lenses, New Mirrors

One of the great ways that feminism helps men is to give us another set of lenses for looking at the world. This means not only incorporating the perspectives of others and another set of theoretical frameworks when trying to understand the world; it also means having some new lenses and a set of theoretical frameworks for understanding ourselves. Sometimes I wonder about the need for feminist men to not only find ways in which feminism helps men, but also to explain to other men, non-feminist men, how feminism helps men. Sometimes I wonder, about this or that particular aspect of feminism: Isn't it enough that it's true? Or: Isn't it enough that it helps women?

But the practical side of my brain tends to take over, eventually, and I start worrying about how we're actually going to change the world, what the best paths to do that are--so I begin to think that, yes, if feminism does help men, we should shout from the rooftops the ways in which it does. Should selfish motivation be the primary motivator encouraging men to use feminist lenses, to do feminist work? One would hope that it wasn't always, but perhaps selfish motivation is the only way that some men, some of the time, are going to come to begin to examine feminist ideals. And if some of those men are reached, then I say it's worth trying. (I also think that attempting to appeal to those men is primarily the responsibility of other men--women have enough on their plates.)

And certainly, lots of men see some types of feminism as harming men, rather than helping them. Though this is almost always some version of 'kill the messenger' mentality, it's somewhat understandable where some of these ideas come from--there is lots of privilege to renounce, lots of power to give up--at least on the face of it, for men, so messages about patriarchy . But of course it's much more complex than that--and what men give up now because of their role in patriarchy, because of what they have to do in order to be seen as Real Men (and therefore to keep their privilege), because of the way that traditional male masculinity beats them down, is often hidden. One way that feminism helps men is to point out the damage that happens from the social enforcement of rigid gender roles, damage that happens to both women and men.

The ways in which men are damaged by rigid, traditional masculinity are myriad, and in the coming weeks I hope to analyze some of them, but the one that sticks out most in my own psyche has to do with the traditional stereotypes of women-as-social and men-as-independent/autonomous. As with many traditional gender roles, these two 'sides' are defined in terms of their supposed oppositional status, as if being social and being independent were entirely disparate sorts of things. There is lots of feminist writing out there which debunks the very idea that these things are oppositional: I recommend both Relational Autonomy, an anthology edited by Catriona Mackenzie and Natalie Stoljar, and The Autonomy Myth: A Theory of Dependency, by Martha Albertson Fineman.

The essays in Relational Autonomy read more like philosophy of feminism to me, and are in some ways more esoteric, but they tackle complex notions of agency from feminist perspectives quite well. The Autonomy Myth is a mix of sociology and feminism (in my mind) that debunks a lot of the ideas around so-called autonomy, pointing out the relational aspects of autonomy (i.e. 'the family' has often been thought of in political/social theory as an autonomous unit, but of course families depend to no small degree on 'the state,' and even what a family consists in is regulated by the state--who can and can't get married, for instance).

I could (and will!) mine these works for lots of ideas here, but my main point is this: Without the influences of feminism, these types of analysis wouldn't be happening the way they are. Without feminism, we might not understand that 'autonomous' doesn't mean 'without others'--we might miss some of the connections. And, in missing those connections, we get more caught up in false dichotomies and rigid gender roles.

The Comments That Help a Lot

Lots of good, encouraging words and ideas coming out of my post about ally work, and I thank everybody for their kind words. I also have to say that comments like this will keep me going for a long, long time:

I've been using this blog to gather strategies. So, two things: In a confrontation with an anti-feminist or a non-ally, I've found that "Not cool, man," works every time I had to use it. Jeff, your description of your mother's reaction to your Lego toys inspired me to start teaching feminism to the two young sons of a couple of friends of mine. "Is that fair to say that Mrs. B-- has to do all that by herself?" and so on. -- Bach-us

Bach-us not only gives me an excellent, simple strategy to employ, but also encourages me by noting that some of my words may influence how some young boys are raised, however much. That, in a nutshell, is why I'm writing this stuff at all.

Thanks again.

Including Men in Conversations About Abortion

Amanda Marcotte has a post up on Unsprung which mostly disparages an article that Courtney Martin recently wrote regarding acknowledging men's emotional responses to abortion. In the article, "Why Men Should Be Included in Abortion Discussion,"Martin describes some reasons why men feel isolated as regards how abortion affects them, and she suggests that men be more included in the discussions around abortion, and that men be more included in the clinical setting--currently, men are generally not even allowed into the procedure room, and (Martin says) don't get the counseling they might need. (Note: Her argument in this regard doesn't seem as based in fact as I'd like--Planned Parenthood does offer counseling to men, for instance.)

Marcotte takes issue with the article in general, though she first notes where she thinks Martin gets things right: Traditional male masculinity makes it hard for men to get any help they might need. Marcotte says:

I love Courtney and usually think her writing is interesting, and I certainly like how she briefly makes the point in the article that men probably feel lost after an abortion because masculinity standards make it hard for men to even begin to describe their feelings about sex, relationships, and especially accidental pregnancies.

She immediately takes issue with the rest of the article, however, beginning by noting that masculinity standards causing problems aren't limited to the abortion issue:

But that’s an issue with masculinity standards, not with abortion per se.

While I agree that this arena is just one area in which traditional male masculinity standards cause men (and people of all genders) harm, I don't really understand the force of Marcotte's argument here. Sure, this is just one area where men face a problem with male masculinity standards, but we don't overcome problems with traditional male masculinity in a vacuum--we have to confront the problems of male masculinity standards in exactly these sorts of situations, where everybody is harmed by them.

But What About the MENZ?
I think we need to talk about this issue keeping in mind the complexity of the situation, and not let Martin's points be reduced to the all-too-common "But what about the men!" sorts of thinking. And Marcotte points out in a comment later on that part of what's going on here for her is that she sees Martin's post as a call to divert resources from women to men:

Which would mean they have to take away from resources devoted to women. On that day that women have enough, men can have more. But until women have enough, men should not get any more. This is pretty basic. There's nothing wrong with being a grown-up and saying, "Well, it sucks to be me, but it sucks way worse to be her, so my job here is to be supportive."

I think this is an overly simplistic way of interpreting what Martin has to say, but I also think that conversations about men and abortion need to be seen through the lens of resources, and I agree that it's best that women, who don't even have enough resources for reproductive rights as things stand now, shouldn't have to suffer a loss of any of those resources so that men can have some of them. And in a way, I think Marcotte's position on this issue stems from the very real fact that women don't have enough resources, and I can understand that calling for some resources for men, in the light of that fact, can seem preposterous.

On the other hand, I think that wanting more resources for women and wanting more resources for men don't have to be oppositional positions--to some degree Marcotte is setting up a false dichotomy. For instance, I think it would be great if feminist men showed a greater interest in this issue, formed some support communities, and found a way to raise some money for such services for men. Of course, Marcotte's point might still hold in this case--those men could be raising that 'extra' money for the women who don't yet have enough access to reproductive services. And I think feminist men should be contributing to groups like Planned Parenthood for that reason.

The question remains, for me: Is it practical, it is ethical, to demand that men get no resources for counseling, no inclusion in the larger discussion, until women have all of the help they need?

No Easy Answer
And that isn't a rhetorical question, at least for me. I think it's a tough one, mostly because of the poor showing men have historically regarding the reproductive rights of women. It makes a good deal of sense that we might want to ignore the needs of men in this regard until we've taken (more) care of the needs of women. And men are already getting some of their needs met, anyway--Marcotte points out that men do usually take part in discussions with their significant others regarding abortions, that they do come to the clinic waiting rooms. What more could men want? Marcotte notes in the comments:

Literally, there's not much left there except to have your girlfriend rubbing your back to make sure you feel comforted during her D&C.

I think this line of thinking comes from a rational, practical place, mostly because there are so often cries of "What about the men!" But I also think that it's harsh and oversimplifying, and that it sets up a false dichotomy. It's harsh because it's doubtful (in my mind, at least) that having their backs rubbed for comfort during a D&C isn't what the men in Martin's article seem to be claiming they need. Instead, they seem to be claiming to need a community, somebody to talk to, about their experience:

Jack looked to close friends for support -- one male, one female -- but felt somewhat abandoned while actually in the clinic waiting room: "I remember sitting there feeling terrified. I would have appreciated someone to talk to who had been through that moment."

Philip*, a 27-year-old, regrets his inability to handle the significance of his girlfriend's abortion. He received little support at the time and still -- years later -- feels like he hasn't truly processed what he went through.

Are these men going through emotional turmoil akin to the kind that some women go through when they choose to abort? Probably not. But they are going through turmoil, and that fact is what Martin is pointing out, along with the suggestion that their turmoil matters. I think that such emotional turmoil should be addressed. I agree that we should not take resources away from women to do so, but that doesn't mean that nothing can be done, that nothing should be done, for men.

The False Dichotomy
I noted that I think Marcotte's position here is oversimplifying and reflects a false dichotomy. She says that men already are already included enough, and to include them more takes away from the needs of women being fulfilled. I think that we should be careful to make sure that women get taken care of, but I also think that, given that most women do include the men in their lives when deliberating an abortion (as Marcotte points out), given that men do show up in waiting rooms at clinics with their significant others, it seems as if at least some women might agree that men have an emotional stake in the abortion decision, even if they don't have (and shouldn't have!) the right to make the decision. (In fact, it may be that men need more counseling regarding abortion in part because they don't have a right to make the decision. Feelings of powerlessness are some of the most difficult things to deal with, especially for men raised in a culture of traditional male masculinity.)

And here's where the false dichotomy comes in: It's likely in men's best interests to get some counseling (if they need it) around abortion decisions--but it's also likely in the interest of the women involved; in order to be a good, supportive partner, men may need some help. Does that mean that resources for women should be taken away from them to provide this help? Nope. But it does mean that putting some resources toward men would likely benefit women as well. I admit this is treacherous territory, because this position could easily be construed as "Give resources to men in order to help women!" but I think that if one keeps in mind the complexities of the situation, such conclusions don't have to be immediately made.

What Can Men Do?
An important part of my position here is this: Men need to provide resources for men regarding possible emotional fallout from making decisions around abortion. Men should be raising some money, volunteering, and be learning to talk to each other. This doesn't mean that men can ignore that women need resources--but it does mean that they out to provide some resources for each other. Does this mean that resources for men ought to be men's primary concern around abortion, around reproductive rights in general? No. But it also doesn't mean that men shouldn't try to get the emotional help that they feel they need. We should be supportive of our partners as much as we can, but part of supporting them is taking care of ourselves at the same time.

What to Do With Stereotypes of Masculinity?

Over at Feministing the other day, Jessica submitted this video, with the title "No Comment Necessary":



Of course, there were a few comments about it, mostly ranging around how people weren't at all surprised by the results, and a few about how the video was obviously edited to show that all men think about are their penises and all that women think about are their brains. It's a wee little clip, and as such, we can take it at face value as just an amusing little piece of culture.

But of course, as a guy who finds meaning in even daily comic strips, I think that some comments are definitely necessary.

When Stereotypes Are True
Thing is, while we have no idea what the general response from men and women is represented in the video from any information they give us, we do have some good intuitions based on our own experience in this culture that they are probably somewhat representative. It would be great if we were given some statistics, but that wouldn't make for a very entertaining video, perhaps. (Ok, it would make it more interesting to me.) There's some circularity going on here--people who pay attention to culture understand that men are taught to revere their penises, to worry about them, to think about doing violence with them, to focus on them, to be insecure about them, on and on, ad infinitum. Men are taught that what is important about them is centered on their cocks, which is part of why, when asked by a person on the street about bionic parts, lots of men respond with 'penis'.

What do we do when we suspect that a stereotype (in this case, that all men think about are their dicks) actually represents the reality of the situation? How do we change the world so that the stereotype doesn't ring true?

Some Possible Paths
One way to ask such questions is to simply post a video like this without comment. People who understand that patriarchy hurts men will sort of automatically know that these guys are being played by the system. They do think way too much about their cocks, but we all know that's because (in part) it's what they've been trained to do, and to give up doing that involves rejecting traditional male masculinity (in part) and patriarchy. But I think that there isn't enough recognition of how patriarchy hurts men in general to make this assumption very often, even in feminist spaces. So, instead of people reacting to this video with "yep, men get trained to be penis-worshiping jerks, doesn't that suck," we get "this needs no comment and isn't it funny that men are penis-worshiping jerks!?" I think simply posting this thing without acknowledging some of the complexities involved is like posting the video of the beauty show contestant spouting racism and then laughing because all white women are so like that, when obviously they're not.

Instead of simply implying/acknowledging that men are stupid cretins who can (obviously!) only think about their penises, I would love some questioning about why it is that (some? most?) men are so penis-focused. Why not bring some questions along about why men even joke about smacking somebody upside the head with their bionic penis? How does living in patriarchy contribute to such things? And why is it that we don't (often?) think that women would respond in a similar way? In a more egalitarian culture, one in which men weren't encouraged to participate in traditional male masculinity and to focus on their cocks, or one in which women were taught to revere their pussies in some of the same ways that men are taught to revere their penises, would the men not be so prone to cockfighting references? Or would women be more prone to violence-by-vagina references?

Changing Things
I think that men are taught to be penis-focused. No doubt. I also have no doubt that lots of men would respond to the question in the video with 'penis'. Maybe even most men. What I want to know is: How do we, as feminists, work to change things so that shaking our heads and laughing at the men who embody (so to speak!) the stereotypes isn't the only response we have? And I think that putting up a video like that without comment doesn't do any of that work--rather, it reinforces the stereotype without giving any explanations as to why, or without giving men a path toward understanding how they're trained by being part of this culture to want bionic cocks.

Note: To be clear, I'm not saying that it's Jessica's responsibility to do this work: I think in general that there is a lot of room for feminist men to recognize that there is work to be done in this regard and to do it. I'm am a bit disappointed that the commentors on Feministing, who are so often full of vocal and varied voices, didn't see anything complex that needed some discussion. But maybe that just reflects that more feminist men need to do more work in getting the message out that patriarchy hurts men, too.

Men Speak Out

I'm a little bitter about this, because I submitted something to this anthology which was rejected, but I'm still eagerly awaiting the upcoming book edited by Shira Tarrant, Men Speak Out: Views on Gender, Sex and Power. I think it will likely be worth a pre-order, even without my stuff (which I eventually turned into blog fodder here, here and here).

It seems like we're currently riding a wave of feminist interest in how men fit into feminist movement, which is very nice to see, and makes me hopeful.