Men! Gail Dines Wants to Save You!

Still working my way (slowly) through The Feminist Porn Book, and still really enjoying it.  I used to be an academic, but no longer consider myself one, so I appreciate how the different writers selected for this book approach the subject from different angles; some of those angles are more traditionally academic than others, as is the case with "Emotional Truths and Thrilling Slide Shows: The Resurgence of Antiporn Feminism", by Feona Attwood and Clarissa Smith.  Attwood and Smith are researchers who wrote this article in part to point out that antiporn feminist analysis has moved away from academic analysis (with, y'know, facts and stuff) and now relies more on the kinds of shock and awe tactics that the religious right has been known for using. 

I appreciate their take on things, in part because they zero in on something that has been bothering me for a while about antiporn analysis, but something I was unable to pinpoint myself:  Antiporn feminist analysis has as an underlying feature the idea that there is good, normal sex that good, normal people have, and there is bad, abnormal sex as is portrayed in porn.  This isn't anitporn feminists' explicit argument, of course, but as Attwood and Smith point out, it's implicit in their change of methods from more academic/scientific methods to methods which are used to get an emotional rise out of folks.  They point out that antiporn folks most often now do a comparative sketch of sexual development, comparing 'normal' sexual development which may or may not have included seeing your older brother's Playboy magazines, as up against current sexual development, which now includes easy access to modern-day porn.  In their analysis of Decca Aitkenhead's ideas, they note:

"In her address to a presumed audience of coupled, heterosexual women, male sexuality is naturalized as inquisitive, but in danger of taking a wrong turn if subjected to the wrong kinds of images at too early an age. Aitkenhead calls upon her readers to reflect on their own experiences of life with men who were schooled in the quaint transgressions of the Kays catalogue, and to envisage the tortured imaginings and sexual mores of future generations of men who, as children, have seen the excesses of bukkake. It is this mangling of what had seemed genuinely yet innocently transgressive in the halcyon days of the 1970s that renders contemporary pornography so potentially threatening, made all the worse by being too easily obtained...This complex narrative of nostalgia and futurology is a central theme of these accounts where pornography is acknowledged as an already existing feature of the landscape, but one that has developed outside the knowledge of “ordinary” adults and needs urgent redress."

Of particular interest to readers of Feminist Allies, however, may be Attwood and Smith's analysis of how antiporn feminists like Gail Dines see themselves as out not only to help women, but to "save men":

The “domino theory” of the passions is invoked here along with a search for increasing levels of stimulation that leads inevitably toward more misogynous and damaging material. Pornography programs men’s sexual instincts and can have only one possible trajectory—to ever more encounters with sexually explicit imagery and toward more and more “extreme” material. Men’s sexuality is figured as totally plastic, intrinsically so—a barely constrained appetite that has to be civilized and ought to be kept away from the inflammatory influence of sexual media for its own good...

...[t]he view that underpins this approach can be usefully compared to the “crystal clear set of guidelines” about sex, set out in evangelical Christian and other conservative antiporn campaigns: “sexual pleasure is for men and women to enjoy inside marriage,” but those who fall from grace and are willing to repent can be forgiven. Under the guise of a politics based on gender equality, antiporn feminist writings are increasingly modeled on this religious approach to porn, though using a medical model of “healthy sex” and discourses that encourage men to see themselves as addicts, or the victims of “grooming” by pornographers or popular culture, as “abused,” “consumed,” and desensitized.

I dig this analysis in part because it shows that many antiporn feminists are using one of the most egregious of patriarchy's fables about men:  That men are animals who can't control themselves sexually in the face of some skin being revealed (or, in the case of modern porn, in the face of seeing people enjoying anal sex, for instance).

They manage to fold in a brief criticism of Robert Jensen's work, which is always a bonus for me--Jensen is a darn good writer, and it's clear to me that his heart is mostly in the right place, which makes the stuff he says all the more frustrating.  Smith and Attwood point out that much of Jensen's analysis of porn is rooted in the idea that there is 'good, normal sex' and 'not-so-good, abnormal sex'.  Good sex is never public, but is always a deep, private experience:

This view of good sex as private rather than public, and clearly linked to love rather than to gratification, is also found in Robert Jensen’s work. Jensen argues that sex should involve “a sense of connection to another person, a greater awareness of one’s own humanity and sometimes, even a profound sense of the world that can come from meaningful and deep sexual experience."

Of course, some sex can include all of that, if we want it to. And some folks will really want to!  But some folks won't want to, or won't want to all of the time!  We are human beings--we create our culture, consciously and unconsciously; we create our sexual culture as well, and as such, there just isn't a normal/abnormal dichotomy that somehow exists apart from what we create. Sure, we can't make up any sexual ethics we want out of whole cloth--we have to consider our interdependence with other human beings and all of the ethical stuff that implies--but we can't look up 'healthy sex' in the dictionary and just do that; no such definition exists, and one definition certainly won't apply to all people.

And I want to thank Attwood and Smith for nicely pointing out that one thing that underlays much of antiporn analysis is the idea that there is some sort of writ-in-stone sexual morality that we need to 'get back to'.  There are good criticisms of some sorts of porn, but in general, folks like Dines and Jensen aren't doing it, and they are implicitly depending on conservative, normative tropes that are not based in the reality of beings that create what is normal.

Masculinity Is Not One Experience

The realization that the black men that I loved — my father, my brothers, my friends — men who certainly enjoyed some measure of privilege relative to me, were themselves deeply entrenched within a system of racist and hegemonic patriarchal values that called itself ‘masculinity,’ was very troubling to me. I understood then that the masculine cannot be constituted as one category, or one experience. --Muna Mire

Men Doing Feminist Work: Adam Horovitz

The Beastie Boys are kind of well-known these days for having learned some feminist lessons early on  in their careers, and with trying to make up for mistakes in their past. And I had heard a lot about all of that when Adam Yauch passed away recently.  But what I hadn't known was that Adam Horovitz and Kathleen Hanna are longtime partners, or that he did so much over the years to support Hanna during her illness, some of which will be revealed in the upcoming documentary about Hanna, The Punk Singer.  I never thought this blog would quote Entertainment Weekly, but here goes:

The Punk Singer is no dry polemic and it’s not just for hardcore fans of the music. There’s good laughs, and, my, what a romance. The movie revisits the early days of Hanna’s relationship with Beastie Boys’ Adam Horovitz, whom she married in 2006. The scenes of him at her side through her illness and the literal loss of her voice paint such a warm portrait of a working partnership. Punk Singer producer and good friend Tamra Davis, who’s married to Mike D., agrees. “I would read back in Bikini Kill press ‘They don’t like men, they don’t like men.’ And I really wanted to make sure that this film didn’t ever have that opinion because that’s not what that message was ever about. Kathleen and Adam have this incredible love story.”   

 Hanna’s eyes well when she talks about her husband’s devotion to her throughout these trying several years. “He’s so awesome I want to scream it from the mountains,” she says. “I mean, dude hooked me up with an IV for eight months every day.”

So Horovitz is pro-feminist in his professional life, but he's also doing what is sometimes the most important feminist work for men to do, in his day-to-day life, in his relationship with his partner. The filmmaker thought this supportive relationship was important enough that Horovitz is the only man on camera during the entire movie:

 “It wasn’t a given in the beginning,” Anderson said. “I think a lot of people would expect that because of this story of Kathleen -- 'President Feminist' -- that Adam is not going to be in there. First of all, I know what a cool, amazing and supportive relationship they have. There was no assumption whether he would be in or out, but over the course of filming it became really apparent that this is not only Kathleen’s husband but it’s also her best friend. “

The film's site is here.

A clip from the movie, which I can't wait to see:  

Listening to Sinnamon Love

"I was naive about the sexual liberation movement, and had never considered whether or not my decision to flaunt my sexuality on screen was a feminist act. I had never wondered whether fighting for the right to be both mother and sex worker was part of a greater fight for the rights of women around the world. I certainly had never given thought to whether my choice to be tied up, disciplined, and fucked by men and women on film contributed to sexual freedom.All I knew was that I alone was responsible for my body, my life, my sexuality, and my bills. It never crossed my mind that someone might tell me what I should or shouldn’t do with my body or my sex".--Sinnamon Love, The Feminist Porn Book

As I talked about in my post on Jiz Lee's contribution to The Feminist Porn Book, I find that listening to folks who work in and produce porn to be one of the best ways to understand how so many of the arguments from anti-porn feminists just don't hold up.  Once we listen to the folks who are actually doing this kind of work, it's easier to understand that this work can be inextricably intertwined with not only straight-up feminist work, but also social justice work around race, class, queerness and the like.  

Sinnamon Love has been in the industry for almost twenty years and, as a black woman, she has the nuanced, complex insight into the industry that one would expect from somebody so experienced.  Racism is rampant in porn (as it is in film, and society in general, of course), and Love gives us all sorts of insights into how her work from inside the system has helped to fight the good social justice fight around race, and in doing so she touches on how "feminism" sometimes needed to take a back seat because of the intense need to de-stigmatize black women's sexuality:

 "I’ve set a goal to enjoy my work so that my fans will enjoy it as well. I find myself more concerned with the representation of black women’s sexuality than making a statement only about my gender. Perhaps this is because so many people fight the good fight on behalf of (white) women and so few are fighting for black women like me. For example, there are countless examples of white women’s sexualities portrayed in porn, but very limited images of African American women. And when you do see black women in porn, they are often stereotyped or demeaned."

As she began to better recognize the negative elements in her workplace, she began to fight them, utilizing feminist ideas and methods (for instance: she became a producer!).  And, as was echoed in Jiz Lee's piece, agency is all-important as regards doing this kind of work:

"There is no doubt in my mind today that I am a feminist....[f]or me it is about agency. My black feminism is about helping women like me to be able to claim their sexuality in the face of decades of mis-education of African American women who were made to believe that they must choose between education, marriage, and family, or sexual freedom...I suppose, if I were to label who I am today, I would call myself a black feminist pornographer. Instead of accepting work merely to insure the bills get paid, I purposefully work for directors and companies that portray black female sexuality in ways that I feel are expansive, progressive, and interesting."

I encourage y'all to read the entire piece in The Feminist Porn Book, as it is packed with so many insights that it was tough to pick the ones I wanted to talk about here.  She covers 19 years in the industry in just a few pages!  It's also a thoroughly "positive" piece, talking about the practical ways that Love has worked to change things in the industry.   

Links:
Sinnamon Love's site
The Feminist Porn Book

 

Listening to Jiz Lee

I’m wearing a bright pastel blue suit I hand-dyed myself to match the suit worn by David Bowie in his music video for “Life on Mars.” I’m a dapper version of Bowie, standing for photos with a golden glammed-up Adrianna Nicole in one of the biggest and most outlandishly decorated homes I’ve ever seen. Adrianna has handpicked her co-stars, creating scenes from her personal fantasies. She reclines on a white chaise lounge, gold lamé legs wrapped around me, wide eyes hungry. My large, flesh-colored strap-on cock juts out from the fly of my David Bowie blue pants and my hand pushes forcefully into her mouth. It all feels so good. Warm, wet, incredibly intimate. My fingers probe her wide mouth. I could do this for hours.--Jiz Lee, The Feminist Porn Book

Reading the opening of Jiz Lee's article in The Feminist Porn Book makes me wonder:  How is it that anti-porn feminists can so easily disregard the experiences of a person like Lee, who has consciously taken on porn as part of their exploration of self, utilizing their body as a "canvas for art"?  Sure, Lee's experiences in porn (and in life!) may not be run-of-the-mill, but they are the result of conscious choices that have led to, according to Lee themself, a set of positive growth experiences, along with being part of simply making art. 

I often hear anti-porn feminists declaring that positive experiences by performers in porn are not only few-and-far between, but irrelevant--it's the general masses of porn performers who are being harmed, they say, and happy, successful porn performers are the exception that proves the rule. I know there are issues, serious issues, with sex work in porn--similarly there are serious issues with work in nursing, in sweatshops, in teaching. I also understand that sex work is different (for some!) than other kinds of work, in important ways. But I would rather listen to the sex workers themselves.  I'd rather listen to them tell me how it can be different, how the negatives and positives of porn play out for them, than assume that I know, or should judge whether folks should do porn for work. 

Consent is sometimes complex (can women who have a dearth of options for employment be consenting to do porn in the same way that men, who have more options, consent?), but Lee's experiences opens our eyes to the cases where the consent is not only fairly obvious, but fundamental to what they are doing--specifically, in queer porn. Lee says: 

For example, the decision to shave my legs for queer films, like Superfreak, was my own. The key is that it is a choice, not an ultimatum...[c]hoice, or performers’ sexual agency, is one of the main differences between queer porn and mainstream genres...[I]f there’s one thing that makes queer porn different, it’s respecting a performers’ choice—the choice to safely fuck how they want and to look how they believe is sexy.

Lee's article is a perfect example of what listening to folks who do porn can do to one's ideas about working porn--I was always aboard with queer porn's politics (among other things!), but Lee solidifies things for me, because Lee is taking "the personal is the political" very seriously, as I think all feminists ought to do:  Where sexual identity and gender identity (among other identities) intersect with porn performing, there is much to be learned, Lee thinks, and I take them at their word:

My mixed identities have led me to conclude that there’s no right or wrong, no definitive experience, no one way of looking at the world. Nothing is black or white, and that fact is even clearer when you’re gray.

I think their article alone is worth the price of The Feminist Porn Book. 
 
Links:
Lee's site.
The Feminist Porn Book.

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?)

It Was Rape: New Documentary by Jennifer Baumgardner

First off:  I am well aware that as a man, "reviewing" a documentary film about specific stories of rape is something of an "iffy" premise--so I'm aiming at just talking about the film, how it made me feel, and why I think the feminist and pro-feminist readers of this blog would be interested in seeing it, with a nod to what a film like this means for feminist and pro-feminist men.  That said, I do feel the need to mention that this is a film with high production values (although there is one interviewee for which the sound seems to be a bit off).  Oftentimes films that have amazing content are also difficult to watch (for me!) because of poor sound/film quality, or poor editing--not this one.  This film is rock-solid. 



It Was Rape - Trailer from Jennifer Baumgardner on Vimeo.


A new film is (hopefully) coming to a film festival (or campus) near you:  Jennifer Baumgardner's It Was Rape.  Before I heard of this film, Baumgardner was already known to me as the author of one of my favorite books:  Look Both Ways: Bisexual Politics.  (And I really do mean it's one of my favorites--I reread it again from time to time, even though it's from 1997.)  Come to find out she was already famous way before that--as both a filmmaker and an author--you can see a 15-minute preview of her film I Had an Abortion, here on her site.  Baumgardner continues her streak of powerful, personal, intelligent work with It Was Rape.

Diverse Stories

One of the most fantastic things about this film is the incredible diversity that Baumgardner achieves within a one-hour running time, while still managing to give us deep details about the lives of the survivors she interviews, and weaving in (through creative film making and editing) a subtext of the sort of things we all should be talking about as regards rape.    At the same time, the film does convey very particular stories, all of which are about rape, but also very different from each other; Baumgardner includes not only straight-identified white women (whose stories are more often told), but also queer folks, people of various ages, people of color (including, and this group of folks is so often overlooked, an indigenous woman), and people from different class and educational backgrounds.  There are a few exceptions--these folks all seem to be all cis-gendered women (though I could be wrong), so we don't hear any stories from trans women, or from cis- or trans men; also the film centers on folks in the United States.  But given these limits, we have to admit that no set number of stories in an hour will convey all stories, and acknowledge that Baumgardner has clearly made a strong attempt at inclusion and diversity.

Conversations

I have had conversations with friends (too many friends) about them having been raped.  The conversation is never the same, though they often hit some of the same notes.  And that's one of this movie's strengths:  It allows us to be part of the beginnings of conversations with women who have been raped, and to be encouraged to have conversations with others.  These interviews are the beginnings of conversations that we all should be having with people in our lives--friends, sisters (and, I'd argue, brothers) and parents should all be talking about and listening to these sorts of stories.  The intimate nature of the interviews, including Baumgardner's questions being heard off-camera from time to time, makes the film difficult to watch, but of course at the same time that is what makes it so powerful.  Something in the way the film allows us to enter into these stories.  A mix of straight-up just listening to these women as well as short shots of visualizations from time to time made me feel like these women could be friends of mine, and I'm listening to them tell their stories.  As Baumgardner says toward the end of the film, this started as a film about speaking out, and ended up being a film about learning to listen. 

For Allies

Which brings me to the "allies" part of what I felt during the film.  While hearing any stories about rape can help feminist allies to begin to understand and dismantle rape culture, there are specific messages for men to be had in this film.  As a man who acknowledges and fights against rape culture, it's difficult to watch a film about rape without feeling really shitty about men in general.  I don't think this is an unhealthy reaction, though it's likely not healthy for this to be the only emotional reaction;  such a reaction perhaps indicates a deeper understanding of rape culture, and how men perpetuate it.  It can sometimes be difficult not to empathize so much with these women that I begin to lament if there are any men who really "get it", including me.  (Of course, men who have been raped understand more than most.)  Rape culture has deep, deep roots, and this movie digs down deep to expose some of them in a way that all men, and allies in particular can learn a lot from.

For instance, one of the women interviewed said something that resonated deeply with me:  She said that, if she could, she would ask her rapist to be strong enough to share his story, to help end the cycles of violence, to talk about what he felt during the time, and after, he raped her, because, hopefully, he would want things to be better for women and for men.  And, while I know that this film will reach out to so many women to help them feel less isolated in their pain, anger and suffering after having been raped, I also deeply hope that all the men who see this will begin conversations with their inner selves, and with other men (and women, and folks of all genders)--I think men need to do the work to dismantle rape culture, and I think listening to these stories is one step toward that.  

I'm not a film critic or a film maker, but I put the call out to male film makers out there who want to do some work in dismantling rape culture:  Please, please, please make more movies where men talk about how traditional masculinity, growing up in rape culture, and other factors have helped to create rapists.  (This is not taking away responsibility for being rapists, but instead is an attempt to look at all the causes.)  Or, if she felt like a sequel of sorts, I would welcome Baumgardner herself to take a shot at such a film:  Even though I think more men need to do more work in this regard, I'm certain the world could handle two such documentaries!   

There are, luckily, some films which do touch on rape culture with an audience of men in mind:  The Men's Story Project documentaries include stories about ending cycles of violence (full disclosure--I took part in this project).  Galen Peterson's piece, The Violence of Masculinity, is a strong call out for an end to violence by men, for instance: 




And perhaps there are many more films about rape than I know about aimed at men, attempting to work at eliminating rape culture! Names/links to such films would be more than welcome in the comments.

I applaud Baumgardner's film, and am very grateful for the strength and bravery of all of the women in it for telling their stories. 

Notes and Pleasant Surprises

Some related links, including links to sites by folks interviewed in the documentary:

• Activist blogs started by interviewees:  
• Raped At Tufts 
• fuckyeahfeminists 
• An article about violence in an indigenous community, written by one of the interviewees:  "Tiny Little Laws"-- A plague of sexual violence persists in Indian Country — while law enforcement turns a blind eye.
• The Film's official site. 
• The Film's Facebook Page
• Buy the film.  
• Screenings. 
• And interview with the film maker at Bitch Magazine. 

Can a Film About Rape Have a Great Soundtrack? YES I also want to say:  How does a film about rape come off having such a great "soundtrack"? It's fabulous. It did feel a bit odd enjoying Amy Ray's Let It Ring as the credits rolled, after hearing so many stories that are difficult to hear.  I wonder if the soundtrack might be sold for fundraising?



 Also:  Mercy Bell!

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?

Guest Post: Nicole Louise Melleby and Rape Culture

What follows is a guest post by filmaker Nicole Louise Melleby, outlining her documentary film, Trigger Warning. Among other things, the film shows real folks sharing their ideas about rape culture through discussions about "rape jokes" in particular.  She and her team are trying to keep the conversations going by getting the film into film festivals, which costs money; head over to their donation page and show them some love. 

For readers of this blog, of particular interest may be the voices of the men in this film.  In my eyes, it's a brave decision on the filmmakers' parts to seriously include men in this discussion.  We all need to talk about rape culture more; it's my hope and belief that the more men have these sorts of discussions, the less of a rape culture we will eventually have.

Here's Nicole:

“A man walks into a bar…”

Every joke can be a setup for a rape joke. When rape victims turn on their TVs, they face a strong possibility of being confronted with reminders of one of the worst experiences of their lives. What’s worse, these experiences are likely to be laughed at.

Rape jokes are abundant in a variety of media forms, and they don’t exist in a vacuum. They are accepted as the norm within a rape culture, a society wherein male sexual aggression is encouraged and violence against women is supported. Trigger Warning aims to bring awareness of this issue and to encourage an ongoing conversation about the topic.

My Name is Nicole Louise Melleby and I am a filmmaker seeking to raise awareness of the consequences of rape jokes in popular media with my documentary Trigger Warning. Only by opening up dialogues can we ever hope that people will come to recognize the issue and then be able to take an informed stance on it. Trigger Warning does exactly that. It is more than a film – it is a conversation that I hope to encourage others to have. 

Presently, my team and I are in need of funds in order to get the film out there and seen. We have over 30 films festivals we’d like to submit to. Any and all contributions are greatly appreciated. We need your help to make this happen. If you have any questions or comments, feel free to email us at filmmakers@triggerwarningfilm.com

You can also check out our Facebook.

All-Women X-Men

I love Brian Wood. He has written some of my favorite comic books of all time (Northlanders, for example).  He's also got a pretty fantastic track record for writing female characters (he's even BUST magazine-approved).  And I suspect his new book, simply titled X-Men, featuring an all-female cast of characters, will be a really good read.  I have high hopes, and I also appreciate that the cover, at least, includes a lot less skin and a lot more badass than many comic covers including women characters have. Also, it looks like half the team (so far) are women of color.  So, lots to look forward to, lots to be appreciative of.  A wait-and-see attitude is probably a good one.

And yet, it's tough to ignore that this is an all-female book named X-MEN.  Which is not to say that anybody wants the book to be called X-WOMEN, really. It's just a stark contrast, seeing all of the women on the cover, standing behind the X-Men logo. It's easy to see it as a fine example of the concept of men-as-default-women-as-secondary/other.  (Yeah, yeah, it's "just" a comic--but if you're taking that line of thought, you're reading the wrong blog.)  

Of course, folks are calling out Wood on this (even though it's unlikely it's really his decision).  I'm not on board with Wood's response, however: 

No reason to change that?  As I tweeted back, if we keep following that sort of logic, we'll always have female firemen and congressmen.  It's a dismissive response to something that I'm pretty sure has more nuance, and I'm pretty sure Wood knows that.  A response like "hey, yeah, it's a complex issue, and we'll deal with that sort of stuff with these characters in the book" would have been welcomed.  And I admit that's a lot to ask--it is a comic book, after all--but I'm also pretty sure Wood is savvy enough to write this book well, keeping the complexities in mind, so I will wait and see.

Still, would it have been so difficult to find a woman writer for the book? Or a woman artist?  Would women who write and draw professionally have wanted to do this book?  I'll be interested to see what folks say, and I can't wait to read the book.

Update:
Brain Wood points to this, which is something of a rehash of what he's said before:

Everyone certainly acknowledges they are women. But what they also are, are X-Men, and have been forever - these are classic characters. If several of them congregate in the absence of a penis, it doesn't change them into something else. They are entitled to the name and they've earned it, and this is what they ARE. "X-Women" suggest a sub-category, or at least a group to one side, and that's doing all these characters a disservice.   

 I get what he's saying and thinking here (and we'll leave aside the "penis" comment--though is it too much to ask him to be aware that some women have penises?), but I just disagree. "X-Women" doesn't *have* to suggest a sub-category, any more than than "congresswoman" has to. Also: They're entitled to be called men? They earned that? Meh. 

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.