Monthly Archives: June 2004

Bush, troops, and the ICC

Posted on by

I was pleasantly surprised to read this morning that the Bush Administration has withdrawn its UN resolution to secure an extension of immunity for American soldiers from the International Criminal Court:

The United States bowed Wednesday to broad opposition on the Security Council and announced it was dropping its effort to gain immunity for its troops from prosecution by the International Criminal Court.

“The United States has decided not to proceed further with consideration and action on the draft at this time in order to avoid a prolonged and divisive debate,” James B. Cunningham, the deputy American ambassador, said…

American diplomats, who had been confident of obtaining a routine “technical rollover” of the measure, appeared to have miscalculated the impact of the publicity given the American mistreatment of Iraqi detainees.

I wonder how this apparent acquiescence to Kofi Annan and the Security Council is going to play with the more conservative elements of the Republican base. For purely partisan reasons, I do wish that the far-right would put up a fine old isolationist in the Pat Buchanan mold, someone who could rail about the Bush policies on immigration and and the president’s apparent willingness to allow US troops to be tried for war crimes by the ICC.

A long and, it is to be hoped, not-too-tedious summary of the men’s movement

Posted on by

Folks often ask what the “men’s movement” really is. Part of the problem in answering that question is that there isn’t one “men’s movement” — there are several, with radically different approaches to men, women, feminism, masculinity, and society. So this will be a very long entry. You were warned. Skip it if you like!

Men’s studies is a very new field. Though women’s studies dates back to the 1960s as an academic discipline, men’s studies as a field did not get underway until the mid-1990s (though many were quietly working on issues of masculinity far earlier). If men’ studies has a leading light, it is surely the marvelous Michael Kimmel, who teaches at SUNY Stony Brook. I use his “Manhood in America” in the Men and Masculinity course I teach, and it is truly magisterial.

Kimmel, however, is very clearly identified with just one of four groups within the modern men’s movement: the Pro-feminists. Pro-feminist men are by far the group within the men’s movement most closely allied with the women’s movement. XYOnline is an excellent pro-feminist men’ site; they provide this nifty FAQ sheet on pro-feminist men. Here’s some of it:

Pro-feminist men are sympathetic to feminist understandings of society. We believe that women as a group suffer inequalities and injustices in society, while men as a group receive various forms of power and institutional privilege. The current, dominant model of manhood or masculinity is oppressive to women, as well as limiting for men themselves. We also recognise the costs of masculinity: conformity to narrow definitions of manhood comes with the price tag of poor health, early death, overwork and emotionally shallow relationships. We believe that men must take responsibility for our own sexist behaviours and attitudes and work to change those of men in general. Both personal and social change are vital.

Feminism is a movement and a body of ideas developed primarily by, for and about women. Men can never fully know what it is like to be a woman. If we call ourselves “feminists”, we run the risk of colonising feminism or looking like we’re saying we’ve got all the answers.

Some feminist women argue that men CAN call themselves feminists, as long as they live up to the same standards as women who are feminists — to support the equality of women and men. Nevertheless, most pro-feminist men use the label “pro-feminist” rather than “feminist”. We believe that there is plenty men can and should do to support feminism, and we don’t need to call ourselves “feminists” to do it.

Some of the best work in men’ studies today is done by the pro-feminist wing. I’m very sympathetic to pro-feminism, but it has its flaws. The chief flaw lies in pro-feminism’s kneejerk hostility to all aspects of traditional masculinity. Pro-feminists tend to see traditional gender roles as straitjackets to confine men and to oppress women; as Michael Flood, another noted profeminist, puts it: we must dismantle the whole system of dividing people into two “opposite sexes”, “male” and “female”. In other words, part of the problem is the two-gender system itself, one fundamentally based on hierarchy and privilege.

I know of no Christians who have published within the pro-feminist tradition. When I attended a weekend training seminar run by the outstanding profeminist outfit Men Can Stop Rape, I identified as an evangelical. The men at MCSR were fascinated; no one “like me” had ever darkened their door. Though they were friendly and warm and kind and gentle (very gentle), they had little sympathy with the notion that traditional gender roles might, just might, have some healthy aspects. Needless to say, it was an odd but enriching weekend!

The second group is the “men’s rights” movement. What Michael Kimmel is to pro-feminists, Warren Farrell is to “men’s-rightsers”. Farrell was a 1970s pro-feminist who underwent a metamorphosis, becoming convinced (as men in his movement generally are) that men suffer more in contemporary American society than women do. He wrote the bible of his movement, The Myth of Male Power. In addition to running for California governor during last year’s recall, Farrell is associated with the two main men’s rights outfits: the National Coalition of Free Men and the National Organization for Men. The latter group has a good summary of the men’s rights movement’s goals:

The long term goals of NOM are to reverse destructive social trends of recent decades. These trends have demonized the male image and marginalized men’s roles. In the process they have been destroying the family and our collective sense of social cohesion. These trends declare that history merely teaches a story of oppression and that men are responsible for all that is evil in the world. But history is many things, including the record of countless examples of human excellence, exemplary values, noble achievements, boundless courage, and immeasurable good. NOM does not see the struggle as men against women; rather, our effort is against the deterioration of basic values.

We, as citizens, may not wish to admit the broad scope of influence that a small highly organized coalition of radicals has forced on society. Members of radical groups – many of them bitter and resentful has misandrists (men haters) – make a living by sowing the seeds of dissension. But we must admit that, although it will take time, energy, money, and intelligence, we must reverse the negativity and social decay that has gripped our society.

Among NOM’s short term goals are to prepare a “Status of Men Right’s” report and submit it to the united Nation Center for Human Rights in Geneva Switzerland. This is being done through the research foundation established by NOM, The Institute for the study Matrimonial Laws. The report, among other objectives, is documenting tyranny of the false accusation movement – a movement made possible by the negative climate created against men – that includes false charge of rape, false charges of domestic violence, false charges of child molestation, false charges based on so-called “repressed memories” and false paternity charges. Men (and women) who commit terrible antisocial acts must be punished to the full extent of the law and this must include “bearing false witness.” Running rampant in our country and going unpunished, false accusation have ruined the live of millions of men, many of them languishing in prison. The report will include other highly important concerns.

Another of NOM’s short term goals is to bring test cases to the Supreme Court under NOM’s recently established Men’s Legal Defense Fund. Men are not provided equal protection under the Constitution, and NOM is currently fostering the protection of men’s rights by developing court challenges to protect the right of men. At a time in out society when very few men had to endure family court, the number of casualties – men being raked over the coal and deprived of their paternal right was small. But the number of male victims of the family law justice system is staggering in comparison.

And there you have it. The vast majority of men who come into the men’s rights movement do so during divorces and child custody battles. They are convinced to a man that the “system” is rigged against men in this country, and that feminists (misandrists) are largely to blame. An undercurrent of anger and bitterness, remarkably similar to that found in certain strains of radical feminism, runs through the Men’s Rights Movement. What they do best is identify ways in which men too can be victimized; where they fail is in their choice to lay blame for men’s victimization at the doorstep of the feminist movement.

The third group is the mytho-poetic men’s movement. It too is largely associated with one man: poet Robert Bly, author of “Iron John“, a huge bestseller from the early 1990s, and a book I assign in my classes. Other major authors of the mytho-poetic movement include Sam Keen and Shepherd Bliss. Everyman Magazine is the main publication of the movement; the Mankind Project is the main current focus of the movement.

Mytho-poetic men’s groups are similar to pro-feminist groups in their compassion for women, but are far more willing to see masculinity as inherently “good”. Here’s a snippet from Mankind Project’s website:

Our stated mission is to assist men in “reclaiming the sacred masculine for our time through initiation, training, and action in the world.” Interaction with the MKP begins with an experiential weekend “training adventure.” The weekend is followed by ongoing, supportive and self-led “integration groups” formed from the weekend participants which help integrate the men’s changes and new choices into their daily lives. In addition, there are numerous workshops offered throughout the year to further assist men’s development. Since 1985, more than 10,000 men from diverse races, faiths, nationalities and sexual orientations have completed New Warrior Training Adventure weekends.

The ManKind Projectâ„¢ is a progressive and non-sectarian, non-partisan alternative to other men’s organizations. The Project has two goals. The first is to initiate men into a mature masculinity, to lead lives of integrity, connection to feeling, and a renewed responsibility for their personal mission in the world. Through weekend “training adventures” and continuing on into post-training “integration groups,” men are challenged in deeply personal ways to look at who they are and how they make choices and live behaviors which work and don’t work for them. (Bold emphases are Hugo’s).

Mythopoetic men, heavily influenced by Jungian psychology, are ardent believers in essentialism: our masculine nature is bred into our bones, not merely acquired through socialization. They bemoan the loss of unique men’s rituals, of father-son intense relationships, and of the very notion of masculinity as “sacred.” Unlike the men’s rights movement, mytho-poets aren’t angry at women; unlike the pro-feminist men, mytho-poets have no desire to deny what they see as essentially good and positive aspects of truly traditional masculinity. They believe, as I wrote in my post about men early last week, that only another man can change a boy into a man – and that men will only change their behavior when they are in close relationship with other men.

In case you can’t tell, I am very sympathetic to the mytho-poetic movement.

The fourth and final group is the Christian Men’s Movement. By far the best known group within this branch of the movement is Promise Keepers, founded just over a decade ago by former Colorado football coach Bill McCartney. Though PK (as its devotees refer to it) has lost membership since its peak in the mid to late-1990s, it remains a vital force and has led to a number of spin-off groups. The Promise Keepers and other Christian men’s groups are convinced that men in our culture have been led astray by everything from pornography to racism to workaholism to isolation from other men. In many ways, PK has built on the work of the three older branches of the men’s movement, and given that work an explicitly evangelical focus. PK is noted for its “seven promises“:

A Promise Keeper is committed to honoring Jesus Christ through worship, prayer and obedience to God’s Word in the power of the Holy Spirit.

A Promise Keeper is committed to pursuing vital relationships with a few other men, understanding that he needs brothers to help him keep his promises.

A Promise Keeper is committed to practicing spiritual, moral, ethical, and sexual purity.

A Promise Keeper is committed to building strong marriages and families through love, protection and biblical values.

A Promise Keeper is committed to supporting the mission of his church by honoring and praying for his pastor, and by actively giving his time and resources.

A Promise Keeper is committed to reaching beyond any racial and denominational barriers to demonstrate the power of biblical unity.

A Promise Keeper is committed to influencing his world, being obedient to the Great Commandment (see Mark 12:30-31) and the Great Commission (see Matthew 28:19-20 ).

Promise Keepers became famous for huge stadium rallies (they don’t draw like they used to), where men would gather together across ethnic and class lines for a day of repentance, prayer, and encouragement. PK’s greatest success, even its critics agree, is in integrating non-white men into a traditionally white men’s movenent. There are more men of color in PK than in the first three groups put together. But critics both within and outside of the Christian tradition point to what they see as PK’s uncompromising acceptance of traditional gender roles, a hostility to feminism and to gay rights, and a noted fondness for military language. ( Their 2002 rallies were titled “Storm the Gates”, and featured images of knights in armor riding to battle!) Very conservative Calvinist Christians are uncomfortable with the high number of Pentecostals and charismatics in PK leadership.

Promise Keepers does great work in restoring marriages. Among traditional Christians who see heterosexual marriage as the bedrock of society, PK is literally a godsend. Its primary focus always seems to involve strengthening men for marriage, helping them to avoid the temptations of infidelity, pornography, work addiction, and rage. Countless testimonials from men and women bear witness to PK’s success in this area. But perhaps PK’s greatest influence has been the proliferation of men’s groups within the broader church, often subtly modeled on PK.

Whew. So next time someone mentions the “men’s movement”, ask them which men’s movement they mean. I appreciate the work of all four. (There are still other groups — such as socialist men’s groups — but their numbers are too small to count here). Though at this stage of my life, I am closest to the mytho-poetic movement, I am glad that I began my journey as a pro-feminist and have spent time in and around Promise Keepers. (I’ve never had much time for the men’s rights groups, but I honor their commitment to advocating for the rights of fathers.) I don’t know where the men’s movement in this country is headed, but I suspect it’s headed in a good direction.

Me? I just bought the Bill Clinton book. I know what will take up plenty of my time the next week or two!

Pressed the wrong button, and…

Posted on by

So I had this terrific post on male feminism all ready to go, and I deleted it just before publishing it to the weblog. Utterly maddening. I don’t have the energy to repost it.

What I did, and will do again — later — was break down for everyone the four main groups with the contemporary American men’s movement:

1. Pro-feminists and the radical men’s movement
2. Men’s Rights Advocates
3. The Mytho-poetic movement
4. The Christian men’s movement

I had little pithy summaries all written out, with commentary on the strengths and weaknesses of each. Sigh. All gone. It will come again, in the next few days — I promise!

But now, I’m off for a run in the hills above Altadena and the Jet Propulsion Labratory. I will soothe my own irritation at both Typepad and my technological incompetence.

More on Islam, dress, peace

Posted on by

Lately, several right-leaning bloggers have (in the aftermath of recent beheadings) been on quite an anti-Islamic bent. Going through some old articles of mine, I came across one of my favorite Mennonite pieces on Muslim culture: One Face of Islam, by Sonia Weaver, a Mennonite missionary who lives in the Gaza Strip. It’s a terrific essay on gender relations and Islam. Here’s what I (not surprisingly) liked:

In light of the perception that women in the Muslim world are more oppressed than their Western Christian sisters I offer my own limited yet heartfelt experiences in one Arab and Muslim context.

Islamic dress often strikes Westerners as one of the most discriminatory aspects of Islam. After living in North America where women and men of all ages, shapes and sizes unthinking show their hair, arms, legs and sometimes more in public, arriving in a country where most women cover arms, legs and hair in veils and loose fitting garments comes as quite a shock! When women who add gloves and face veils are thrown into the mix, it easy to understand why most Westerners conclude they are dealing with major patriarchal oppression. Given the huge gap in language and culture between North America and the Middle East, a cultural element as external, nonverbal and immediately obvious as dress quickly captures the attention and often provokes the indignation of international guests. I think many of the folks who conclude that the veil and other aspects of Islamic dress automatically denote oppression of woman would be surprised to learn the variety of perspectives that Middle Easterners themselves hold toward these garments.

Virtually all of the many Muslims with whom I have discussed Islamic dress stress that adoption of such attire must be the woman’s own decision. Kifayeh, one of my most devout friends who herself wears gloves and a face veil, believes it is wrong for anyone to force a girl or woman to cover her hair or dress a certain way. She herself has taken on these clothes in order to assert that she wants to be viewed as a person and not as a sexual object for the visual enjoyment of men. Kifayeh pities rather than envies scantily clad western women. To her they are victims of sexual objectification rather than symbols of personal freedom.

I have many friends who have worked with Christian Peacemaker Teams (my second favorite charity behind this one) in Iraq, Israel, and Palestine. Many of them have lived with Muslim families for years. They are adamant that groups like al-Qaeda are generally intensely disliked in the Islamic world. But the experiences of Westerners who live with and among Muslims are drowned out by the rage-filled voices of those who see beheadings and bombings and refuse to separate the murderous actions of a few from the heartfelt beliefs of the many.

God, fathers, Mennonites

Posted on by

My new issue of The Mennonite arrived a few days late; the theme was “God as father”, and it included this sermon. Pastor Karl Steffy:

To be sure, sexism is a sin. Discrimination on the basis of one’s gender is sub-Christian. Throughout history, men have been and are guilty of dominating and oppressing women. This is a real problem in our fallen world. But this is the result of rebellion against God our Father, not of submission to him. It is the result of leaving our Father’s house and living life our own way. Men need to repent of wrong attitudes and behaviors toward women (and vice-versa). The Scriptures are clear that women and men are fully equal, both created in the image of God. Genesis 1:27 (NIV): “So God created man in his own image, … male and female he created them.” Galatians 3:28 (NIV): “There is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ.”

Masculine gender: While God’s eternal inner being remains a mystery, we assume God is neither male nor female, per se. Both male and female images are used of God in Scripture. The expression “the Fatherhood of God” then encompasses and transcends maleness and femaleness. However, God reveals himself to us in masculine gender and in his incarnate Son. If we take revelation seriously, we are not at liberty to change this.

John W. Miller points out in his book Calling God Father that to equate the word “father” with male is to misconstrue the issue. “Father” is a word of relationship. Male is not. Fatherhood runs much deeper than simply being male. The role of males as father, Miller writes, “is one that has an impact for good or ill not only on females but on males also, for men as fathers, together with their wives, exercise responsibility for the care of children of both sexes. This suggests that for an appreciation of ‘pater’ [father] we must attend to the complex dynamics of fathering in the nurture of children and not just to the issue of male supremacy as it affects women. … The biblical representation of God is more, not less patriarchal than generally recognized. … [And] there are solid reasons for thinking that the biblical representation of God as caring father has had a generally humanizing effect in the lives of both men and women.”

One of the great tragedies of our time is the breakdown of the primary family unit resulting in fatherless homes. One psychologist speaks of an epidemic of “father hunger,” the longing children have for a close relationship with their father, which many do not have. Approximately two out of five children in America do not have a father living at home. The fatherless can find hope in God, whose name is Yahweh, “a father to the fatherless, a defender of widows” (Psalm 68:5 NIV).

I put in bold the sections that struck me most. Like Pastor Karl, I have no problem with the conclusion that God is neither male nor female; like the good pastor, I have a real appreciation for the “fathering” nature of God. I am fortunate to have a loving relationship with my earthly father. To me, “Daddy” (the literal meaning of the colloqial Aramaic “abba” that Jesus uses time and again) has always meant good things. This isn’t true for everyone. It always saddens me when I meet folks whose own relationships with their fathers have been so poisonous that they find it difficult to conceive of God as a father. I do understand that those who come from backgrounds of abuse, molestation, violence and abandonment might have real trouble grasping the “loving fatheringness” of God. At the same time, when we make the mistake of assuming that when God is loving and nurturing, God is showing only “mothering qualities”, we make the desperately sad mistake of concluding that to be loving is not an inherently father-like act.

In more liberal Episcopal churches, it is mind-numbingly common to substitute the phrase “Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer” for “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”. Frankly, that switch (the origins of which are obvious) bugs the hell out of me. The first phrase seems incredibly artificial: how on God’s green earth do I have a relationship with a Creator? The word creator (which smacks of Enlightenment deism) is a distancing word — it’s positively mechanical. “Father” is a word of relationship. It’s a word of family. I can’t love a “redeemer” (it always sounds to me like someone at the grocery store, redeeming my coupons); I can love a “Son”. I can be filled with the Holy Spirit (hey, I’ve hung with the charismatics); how can I be filled with the “sustainer”?

As a man, to know that God is father and that Jesus was incarnate as a male is the supreme challenge for me. If I am to follow Christ, I have to model my masculinity on His. If I say that every time He was tender, every time He touched another, all he was doing was displaying His feminine nature, I rob myself of the opportunity to see affection, love, and caring as deeply masculine. I am lucky. I call my earthly father “Daddy” still; I call my Father in heaven by the same name. Again, I know that not all have been as blessed as I. But as we in the church work to bring women in from the margins, to hear their voices, and yes, to capture the feminine nature of God, we cannot lose sight of the nature of God as loving father. I need that image as a Christian, but I also need it as a man.

Lengthy musings about Clinton, feminism, erotic justice

Posted on by

Bill Clinton is the only American president whose hand I have shaken. (That opportunity came in Pauley Pavilion at UCLA in 1994; I also shook his hand elsewhere on the campus in June 1992, when he was still a mere candidate). I voted for him in 1992, and for the last dozen years or so, have been utterly fascinated by him. With his autobiography due out this week, I’ve been thinking about him quite a bit.

Let me first say that my own attitude towards our 42nd president has shifted, and shifted again, over the years. My fondness for Clinton began when, during the 1992 campaign, I listened to his speeches and admired his oratory. He has never been a consistently good speaker. Some of his speeches were dry, meandering, and clearly disorganized, as if he hadn’t devoted sufficient time to preparing them. But when he was “on” — my goodness, no president in my memory could touch him! (That includes Ronald Reagan — the late 40th president always seemed to communicate well, and he had a gift for the one-liner, but Clinton could send shivers down my spine in a way that Reagan, even at his best, never could).

But I have to confess that what I have always loved most about Clinton is the hatred he aroused in conservatives. It’s often been said that “you can judge a man by the caliber of his enemies”. If that is true (and I am not sure that it always is), then from a liberal perspective, Clinton must be regarded as one of our greatest statesmen. Indeed, it was the venom of his enemies that kept me loyal to him through most of the 1990s! If he inspired such intense dislike amongst folks like Kenneth Starr and the editors of the National Review, he had to have considerable virtues! Indeed, even when I was deeply disappointed in his actions (like his signing of Welfare Reform and the Defense of Marriage Act), I comforted myself with the reassurance that if conservatives hated him so much, there had to be some wonderfully decent quality about his policies that I was missing! Had Clinton not been so hated by Republicans, I don’t think he would have been able to move the Democratic Party so far towards the right! He used his enemies to rally the left around him, even when we were deeply upset with his actions. It was brilliant politics, and in my case, it worked.

But I’ll let other folks talk about his policies and his politics. Clinton has also been a watershed figure in the history of the evolution of American masculinity. I remember in 1992, on election night, he and running mate Al Gore got up on a stage in Little Rock and hugged. Not a side hug, but a big, jubilant bear hug. They even bounced up and down while doing it. I was thrilled — because it was the first time I had seen an American president (or president-elect) demonstrate such strong physical affection for another man. I saw it as a triumph for the generation that came of age in the 1960s, the first generation of men in which public displays of affection between men could at least (sometimes) be acceptable. (Though I’ve got plenty of Scotch-Irish Calvinists in my gene pool, I’ve never regarded reticence as much of a virtue.)

Clinton not only could embrace men, he seemed to treat women as equals. To the centrist left in the early 1990s, Hillary was as much of a hero (if not more so) than her husband. (In some quarters, of course, she remains every bit as much a hero as she was a dozen years ago). I was delighted to see the first couple embody a new paradigm for marriage. It was clear to me that Clinton was a man unintimidated by women who had minds of their own. His marriage, his appointments of the likes of Janet Reno, Madeline Albright, and Ruth Ginsburg; these made clear that Bill Clinton was in a very real sense our first “feminist president”. But as the decade wore on, other names began to appear besides those of Hillary, Reno, Albright, and Ginsburg. Slowly, names like Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, and ultimately, Monica Lewinsky became unavoidable parts of the news. As a liberal, I tried very hard to be outraged at the right for their attacks on the president’s character. The impeachment proceedings seemed to me to be outrageously partisan. But as angry as I was at Clinton’s critics, I slowly (agonizingly, actually) came to see that Bill Clinton was the architect of his own adversity. Time and time again, his lack of self-control had handed the right-wing an opportunity to derail any hopes of implementing a progressive agenda. (I admit, by the time the Lewinsky scandal broke, I had little hope of seeing Bill implement anything resembling a progressive agenda — but loyalty dies hard sometimes.)

I came to the conclusion that Bill Clinton was, in many ways, like a lot of modern American men: he was only capable of treating women with respect when he was not sexually attracted to them. I’m obviously psychologizing here, but I am fairly certain Bill did not lust for Reno, Albright, or Ginsburg! In the absence of sexual attraction, he could see these women as people — and thus cheerfully appoint them to high office and rely upon their counsel. Intellectually, he was very much a feminist. But if you’ll forgive the purple prose, like so many men, Clinton’s feminist principles foundered upon the rocks of his libido. He not only objectified Monica Lewinsky, he treated her shabbily; his behavior with Paula Jones was similarly puerile and offensive. (I am aware that there are other issues at play here like education, age, and class — but let’s leave those aside.)

What I’ve come to see as so important — from a gender studies perspective — about the Clinton story is what it reveals to us about the problem of compartmentalization. To be a feminist man must be about more than mentally assenting to the idea of women’s economic, political, and social equality. It has to be about more even than working to secure that equality for women. Male feminism has to be embodied in every compartment of one’s relationship with women. It must exist in the bedroom as well as the boardroom, if you will. Most men struggle with objectifying women sexually. Some of that struggle is rooted in biology, some in culture. But though my socialist and progressive friends may disagree with me, I have come to see the struggle to live a life of sexual integrity as a more important aspect of male feminism than anything else. Of course, giving women equal pay matters. Giving women access to political and economic power matters. But what good is it for a man to join the fight for women’s equality unless he has first devoted his energies to reconciling his sexuality to his sense of justice? Indeed, given how gargantuan and destructive the global sex trade has become, one could argue that transforming male sexuality is unquestionably the central task for male feminists.

I still like and admire Bill Clinton. His virtues are almost as obvious as his flaws, his talent as massive as his appetites. But though a decade ago, I saw his as a role model, today I see him as a splendid object lesson. My goal as a feminist man is not merely to treat women as my political, economic and social equals, nor even to help other men treat women in that same way. With the help of many mentors and friends of both sexes, my goal for myself is to live a life of what progressive theologian Marvin Ellison calls “Erotic Justice”. Erotic justice means refusing to reduce another human being to the status of an object which exists for one’s own pleasure. For so many men, discipling the libido is one of the hardest struggles of their lives. A commitment to erotic justice is a commitment to engage in that disciplining, even when it is immensely difficult. Erotic justice is not, however, just exercising self-control. It is the conscious effort to transform one’s sexuality so that it loses its capacity to wound, to alienate, to objectify. It does not mean the end of erotic excitement — it is just the insistence that the truly erotic is incompatible with injustice. To put it mildly, it’s a long journey.

Bill Clinton used the language of gender justice, and on one level, he practiced it. On another level, he fell massively short. In those successes and those failiures, he was like many of us. But for me, his failures have become a source of inspiration and a challenge, not just for my personal life but also in my academic and avocational work with teens. For that aspect of his legacy, as well as for that wonderful and historic hug he gave Al Gore on that sweet November night in 1992, I am grateful.

Good news on two fronts, and an interesting phone call

Posted on by

News from the Roman Catholic and Episcopal Churches that made me happy:

1. The American Catholic Bishops have refused to bar pro-choice Catholic politicians from receiving communion, despite a vigorous reiteration of the Church’s teachings on life:

U.S. bishops issued a stinging rebuke yesterday to Catholic politicians who support legal abortion, but turned aside calls to bar them from receiving communion.

“To make such intrinsically evil actions legal is itself wrong,” the bishops wrote in a long-awaited statement.

“Those who formulate law therefore have an obligation in conscience to work toward correcting morally defective laws, lest they be guilty of cooperating in evil.”

It puts the onus on individual Catholics to determine whether they’re fit to receive communion.

The inveterate compromiser in me likes this. The hard right had clearly been hoping for an outright ban on pro-choicers taking communion, the left will be made uncomfortable by the language of “evil actions.” But I think the bishops nailed this one perfectly.

2. The Diocese of Vermont (Episcopal Church) is developing formal rites for blessing civil unions (as opposed to “same sex blessings”, an admittedly difficult distinction for some to make.) What is striking is how clear the Bishop of Vermont, Thomas Ely, is that these new rites should be equivalent to heterosexual marriage:

…same-sex couples are permitted to exchange rings, and only minor word changes are made in the liturgy, such as couples vowing to take their spouses “to be my partner in life,” rather than “to be my husband/wife.” Couples also are to sign a “declaration of intention” that closely mirrors that signed before marriage ceremonies.

“We incorporate parallel components to the matrimony ceremony for every single aspect of the union ceremony,” Ely said.

Conservative Anglican groups, already angry over the consecration of the Rev. V. Eugene Robinson of New Hampshire as the first openly gay bishop last fall, have warned of a schism and denounced such developments as precipitating a crisis in the church.

In regards to that last paragraph, when are the conservatives going to stop “warning” about a schism? As an old friend of mine used to put it, are they “going to step up and pat the pony, or should we go to the rodeo down the road?” There’s a “boy who cried wolf” element to these perennial warnings of schism…

Yesterday afternoon, just after posting my post below, I got a phone call from a most unlikely fellow. The man on the other end is a very well-known, theologically conservative Pentecostal pastor here in Southern California. Recently, he has “come out of the closet”, scandalizing his congregation. He’s on some kind of leave right now, but he called me because he had — through mutual friends in the Metropolitan Community Church – heard about the courses I teach in gay and lesbian history. He’d also heard I’m a Christian. We had quite a nice chat, and he’s going to come up to Pasadena for a meeting with me soon. As he put it, “I know all about the sex; now I want to know about the history.” I’m really flattered, and looking forward to working with him. He’s got a lot on his plate, but he knows two things: he still loves Jesus with all his heart and soul, and he’s a gay man down to that soul. I doubt I’ll be able to report in detail in this blog about our meetings (for the sake of his privacy), but if I can pass along how our meeting goes without harm, I’ll do so.

“All men are dogs”: Trust, suspicion, and youth ministry

Posted on by

I’m still thinking about touch and hugs, and though this will be my fourth post this week on the subject, I just can’t seem to stop. This will be the last one. I think.

There is no question that statistically, men are far more likely to sexually abuse children and teens than women are. (I have no idea what percentage of sex offenders are women, but I imagine it is a relatively small figure). There is also no question that in our culture, the primary care-givers for children and teens are women. Our elementary school teachers are overwhelmingly female; increasingly, our high school teachers are as well. And though there are plenty of men in youth ministry, it does seem to me (anecdotally, again) that far more women than men are interested in working with teens, especially long-term. (Lots of young men start out in the church working with teens, but their real goal is usually a pastorate).

We know how desperately our boys and young men need strong male role models. But even as churches and other institutions looks to increase the number of men (especially in their 20s and 30s) in children’s and youth ministry we create a climate of suspicion that looks upon every male youth worker as a potential predator. That’s strong language, of course. But I cannot tell you how often I’ve been asked what my “real agenda” is for teaching women’s studies and working with teenagers!

Surely, we are a culture that is profoundly frightened by what we believe are certain truths about male sexuality. Our films, our talks shows, our “real-life courtroom dramas” (Kobe Bryant), the Clinton-Lewinsky fiasco all reinforce the notion that, as so many of my teens of both sexes put it: “all men are dogs“. The assumption that most men are, at some level, fundamentally predatory is increasingly widespread. In the absence of strong men of character to serve as role models, our young people have no option but to believe that, as another of my students put it: “all men are weak; women are the ones who hold the world together.” Of course, it is personal experience as well as the media that reinforces this notion. When I ask my youngsters in youth group to share stories of betrayal at the hands of adults (a topic we approach with great care), the largest number of stories revolve around male weakness — alcoholism, infidelity, addiction, molestation. Men, it seems, are guilty until proven innocent.

I have hit the point in my life and in my volunteer ministry where I am willing to prove myself innocent. I can rail against the “unfairness” of judging me by the poor behavior of other men, but in this culture, that’s fruitless. As men, we do have to accept the fact that collectively, we have given good reason why it is that we ought not to be trusted — above all in the sexual realm. We can bemoan the injustice of paying for the sins of others, or we can shoulder the burden that our brothers have created for us (and that perhaps, in our own lives, we have helped to create). What that means practically is that I am committed to meeting suspicion with patience, openness, and accountability. I’m no longer hurt when folks don’t trust me just because I’m a man — I accept now that they have every reason not to.

I want a world where women smile fearlessly at men on the street. Where my female students stroll alone into parking lots at night in confidence. Where I can relate on my blog that I hug and kiss my teenage charges without raising any anxiety in the minds of readers. But the reason we don’t have that world is not because the world is unreasonable; it’s because the world is very reasonably responding to the sad reality of bad male sexual behavior. I can sulk about it, but that won’t help. What we men need to do is be willing to absorb scrutiny, answer questions, and hold ourselves and our brothers accountable. All the while, when it comes to relating to women and children, we have to balance good judgment with the Christian imperative to love boldly and recklessly. Despite the anxiety generated by the Kobes and the Clintons and the Catholic abuse scandal, we men have to be willing to with young people. Indeed, the Kobes and the Clintons make that work all the more imperative.

So, ask me your questions. Put me through your background checks. Confront me if I step across a line. You see, I’m going to hug, kiss, listen to, nourish, nurture, joke with, challenge, respect, and love on your kids with everything I’ve got. All things considered, you have the right to doubt why a grown man would want to do all that. But be open to the possibility that I — and so many men like me — are not what you fear we are. Be open to the very real possibility that on Wednesday nights and Sunday afternoons and countless other times, we could be as Christ to your child. Hubris? Maybe. But with every fibre of my being, I believe that being Christ to kids is what youth ministry should always be about.

This disorganized rant is done. Want to read a splendid and well-organized piece? Check out Andi’s long post on Buddhism and abortion. It’s terrific.

Oh, and I’m considering leaving Pasadena Mennonite Church. More on the reasons why soon.

“A Handshake Should Suffice”

Posted on by

In doing all this blogging and reflecting on boundaries, I came across this via Google: the Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia’s STANDARDS OF MINISTERIAL BEHAVIOR AND BOUNDARIES: For Priests, Deacons, Religious, Pastoral Ministers,Administrators, Staff and Volunteers.

It’s a heartbreaking document, though utterly understandable in light of the the current abuse scandal in the Church. Still, this part absolutely appalled me:

Pastoral Counselors and Spiritual Directors:

g. are to avoid physical contact of any kind (i.e., touching, hugging, holding hands) between themselves and the persons they counsel. Such actions can be misconstrued and should be avoided. Church Personnel should be mindful that not all members of the congregation are comfortable with physical touching and that hand-shake conduct should ordinarily suffice.

The rest of the document actually makes sense, but this just devastated me. I have no doubt that other places in both the Catholic and Protestant worlds have implemented similar, mad rules.

Hugs from pastors have meant the world to me. I remember when I was going through my last divorce, my priest at All Saints — Scott, a man in his mid-forties, the same one who had performed our wedding — hugged me and held me in his office the day I moved out of the house my ex and I shared. (I had meant to blog about this before when I posted about men , but I didn’t.)

It was an amazing pastoral experience. I was 35, I felt absolutely alone, and right then and there, I needed this man to be as Christ to me. And he was. As we finished our counseling session, he held me tight for at least thirty seconds, and I teared up. I felt safe and I felt loved. If Scott had given me a handshake, I would have responded with a firm grip and, in my gut, I would have felt betrayed. I didn’t ask for the hug — he knew me well enough to know it was what I needed. I didn’t feel sexual, I am pretty damn sure he didn’t feel sexual, and it changed my whole day. Heck, it changed my whole month. That night, when I fell asleep in my dingy new bachelor apartment for the first time, I remembered Scott’s hug and I felt safe. I know the difference between a priest and Jesus, but on that awful Friday two years ago, Scott was Jesus to me.

Look, I’m not ignorant of the climate in which we work today. But if I can’t be held by my pastor, then I’m in the wrong church. And if I can’t hug and hold those kids with whom I am in a pastoral relationship, then I’m in the wrong church.

Just for reflection, here is a link to what you get at Bible Gateway when you type in the key words “Jesus, Touch“. Good thing our Lord wasn’t in the archdiocese of Philadelphia.