Morality, equivalence, and pacifism

Jonathan Dresner is single-handedly responsible for at least a dozen of my posts.  Today, he sent me this link to a Michael Neumann article in  Counterpunch. Entitled "How We Became Barbarians", it is a provocative op-ed on terrorism, civilian casualties, and collateral damage. It got me thinking about many things, especially pacifism (something I haven’t blogged about in a while).

Some excerpts:

People can get astonishingly sensitive when they discuss moral
issues.

Someone who can scarf popcorn all through *both*
Kill Bills will go hoarse about the killing of innocents in Israel or Iraq or
anywhere suitably distant. Someone who’d cheer a B-52 strike on Baghdad will
murmur feelingly about the perfect little hands of a second trimester fetus. And
everyone hates terrorism with a passion because it victimizes innocent people:
that’s so outrageous!

Really the claptrap about terrorism has gone far
enough. Brutes should at least recognize their own brutality. None of us, left,
right, or center, are all that bothered about the deliberate killing of
innocents. Virtually none of us think it’s that big a deal to tear the flesh off
a child.

Okay, now you’ve got my attention. What Neumann means, of course, is that since the advent of air power, we in the industrialized West have become increasingly accepting of the "collateral damage" (loss of civilian life) that comes with bombing.

The brutalization of attitudes towards attacks on
civilians was and is quite universal. We may deplore some such attacks, but not
all of them. We disagree, not about whether they are ever legitimate, but rather
about whether they should be blatant. Some think it’s ok to kill civilians as
long as they’re not really your target. Others think that they can be all or
part of your target. It’s the difference between dropping bombs you know will
kill civilians and dropping bombs to kill civilians.

Amen. It’s refreshing to see this argument made by a secular leftist rather than by an Anabaptist; Neumann sounds here as if he is  indeed close to the position of most Mennonites around the world.  It’s the refusal to see as morally legitimate the sophistry that he describes so well that led me to embrace pacifism in the first place.  Christian morality ought to be about total and radical congruence between "ends" and "means" — peacemaking can only be done peacefully, modelled on the life of Christ Himself.

But Neumann is not an Anabaptist pacifist. (He’s a Canadian philosopher.)   The central point of his article revolves around the distinction between "expected" and "unexpected" collateral damage.  You’ll need to read that bit carefully. 

But it’s Neumann’s conclusion that is so remarkable:

What, then, is left to us, if we have become so
cruel? We cannot say that two wrongs don’t make a right, or that our hypocrisy
doesn’t justify others’ savagery, because it is the very rules of morality that
we have come to view differently. We really do believe that murdering innocents
is, in the relevant cases, no sort of wrong at all. We cannot reproach others
for terrorism, not because this would be hypocritical, but because it would be
inconsistent. Our own standards allow what we might like to forbid.

Terror, by our own standards, isn’t always wrong.
Neither is the murder of innocent civilians, including children. Excoriating
these practices is nothing more or less than a cynical or pointlessly moralistic
diversion from any serious attempt to prevent them.

Such an attempt can’t attack the practices
themselves for the excellent reason that we have no moral basis for attacking
them. To the extent that they can be prevented, it is only through appeals to
self-interest, not to compassion or a level of decency we quite obviously
lack.

There’s much more.  Like much of what appears on Counterpunch, the rhetoric is harsh.  And I can in no way agree with Neumann’s rather remarkable conviction that this is why Israeli and American atrocities are so
much worse than Iraqi or Palestinian atrocities.

Uh, sorry Mike, you lost me there.  Neumann does a far better job of stripping American military tactics of moral legitimacy than he does of imbuing the intifadas with that same legitimacy.  Consistent-life pacifism is never as concerned with intent as other philosophies are; it is concerned with method.  The Mennonite vision of pacifism (to which I still cling) is one of radical faith that God holds us responsible for our actions, but He remains sovereign over the outcomes of those actions. 

Our limited humanity often sees no way other than violence to accomplish a good end; we are like Peter in the garden on that last night, flailing away with a sword at the guards who had come to take Jesus off to die.  We justify violence because we are, for all of our external piety, mostly "Good Friday" Christians.  We see the world as violent and chaotic, and feel compelled to use the sword to defend the vulnerable and to bring in justice.  Christian pacifism is an Easter theology — it is only when one is convinced and convicted of the absurd and marvelous Good News  of the resurrection that one can contemplate letting go of even the noblest justifications for the use of violence.

Chinchilla coats

To the person who found this site just a short while ago with the search terms chinchilla coats for men:

Please look in my photo albums to the right.  Please think long and hard about the methods which are used to put a sweet little creature like my Matilde to death.

I’m sorry, folks, I am not prepared to be rational on this issue.  Anyone commenting in defense of fur will have their comments deleted.  That may not be fair, but I am unprepared to see both sides of what to me is a fundamentally black and white issue.

I will debate civilly with folks on all sides of the abortion issue.  I welcome folks with widely divergent views on faith, homosexuality, and the men’s movement.  But I see no other side to the factory farming issue.   Purchase of a chinchilla coat is grounds for termination of friendship and family affection — and I can think of no other issue that could lead me to make such a blanket statement.

Please visit here:

Save the Wild Chinchillas
PETA’s account of chinchilla farming practices (warning: read with caution, it is graphic)
Chincare’s page on the chin fur industry

Of course, it is easy to be compassionate towards the small, the furry, the adorable, and the loving.  The challenge in my life is not to love Matilde and her kind less — it is to have that same level of intense compassion for the rest of life.   I still — intellectually — cling to pacifism, and aspire to vegan-hood (though I fall woefully short).   I long to live out a radical consistent-life ethic, and pray regularly for God to help me draw closer to a life of total non-violence.  I know  I am far from the mark, but I struggle on.

For those of us who are yet without children, small animals teach us responsibility, sacrifice, patience, and unconditional love.  I cannot find adequate words to describe  how much I love this 2 pound ball of fluff.  But as much as I love her, I know I must love more than her alone!  Matilde is one tiny creature in His vast creation; when I watch her and hold her, I am overwhelmed by the unspeakable beauty of those things He made!  (I often hum this old standard to myself when I hold her.)  And I am reminded that just as I care for her, I am called to care for others as well.  (On a related note, check out this very touching link.)

I know other pet lovers who say, for any number of reasons, that they prefer animals to people.  I’ve certainly been sympathetic to that sentiment on many an occasion!   But loving little creatures in my own life has made me more rather than less compassionate towards my own species.  Matilde teaches me patience, she teaches me love, and she shows me Christ.  (And no, I don’t imagine I see the Virgin in her droppings!)

But though I can pray for those who wear fur coats, and those who profit from them, I cannot yet love them.  Nor am I ready to suffer their voices on my blog.

More signs of progress

UC Santa Cruz has named Denise Dee Denton as its new chancellor; Denton has a doctorate in electrical engineering, and is the first open lesbian to hold such a post in the UC system.  Her partner of seven years, Gretchen Kalonji, teaches engineering at the University of Washington, serving in the same department of which Denton was dean. 

What I like best about the coverage of her hiring is how little attention was paid to her sexual identity.  Clearly, it was not the reason she was hired at UCSC; rather, she seems to have been chosen for her skills as a fundraiser.

Even in dark times, progress abounds.

On an unrelated note (that I am determined to stick in the same post), Lee at Verbum Ipsum has an interesting piece on defining what it means to be a Christian in the 21st century.  Here’s an excerpt:

…it seems clear from the New Testament that part of God’s purpose is to create a new community of people who bear witness to the victory and reign of Christ. There is no being a Christian in isolation from that community. Alfred North Whitehead may have thought that religion is what man does with his solitude, but following Jesus can only be done with others. This means the church is an essential part of the picture. Again, what exactly this entails in terms of church structure, authority, etc. is a matter of debate.

So, to sum up, my (again, somewhat arbitrary) definition of a Christian is someone who confesses Jesus as Lord, not just of my life ("my personal Lord and Savior," etc.) but of all creation, and is part of the community that seeks to witness to his reign.

Bold emphasis is mine.  Good on you, Lee.

Marriage, poundage, and more musings on men’s rights

I can report that my jeans are definitely a little tighter this morning.  The indecent seasonal consumption of chocolate continues apace, and even slight increases in running mileage have failed to counteract the effects of this onslaught.   For all of its joys, marriage will not help this process, according to a report this morning from the National Center for Health Statistics:

Married people are healthier than other adults, although husbands have a tendency to pack on extra pounds, the National Center for Health Statistics said Wednesday.

Well, I know I’ve always lost weight when I’ve been single and lived alone.  Something to do with eating cans of Spaghetti-Os over the sink, I’m sure.  I also know that whenever I was single, I was much more likely to catch colds and have bouts with the flu.

I don’t believe marriage is for everyone; I am not one of those neo-cons who is convinced that marriage is the cornerstone of healthy civil society.   But I do think it important to point out that, slight weight gain aside, this study suggests what previous studies have claimed:  men derive tremendous benefit from marriage. 

Much of the rhetoric of the men’s rights movement suggests that marriage is bad for men.   Here, from the website of the United Kingdom Men’s Movement:

  • for a married man continuing to live with a partner, marriage is not a distinguishable condition, as there are no benefits over cohabitation;

  • for a married woman continuing to live with a partner there are marginal benefits over cohabitation, but only obtained on the death of the man;

  • for a married man whose marriage ends in divorce, there is usually more serious damage to his life than if he had cohabited. For those married fathers with children, the damage is very serious;

  • for a married woman whose marriage ends in divorce, there are considerable benefits compared with cohabitation, and these benefits are obtained due to damage to a man’s life.

Approximately 50% of marriages end in divorce in the UK in the 1990s, with outcomes based on the ‘no fault’ principle. Marriage for men therefore usually constitutes a more damaging condition than cohabitation, whether children are involved or not, but is especially damaging for the man with children, and the man contemplating marriage must base his decisions on this fact.

It’s odd, isn’t it, how for radically different reasons, both pro-feminist men and the men’s rights movement have real reservations about the institution of marriage?  While the men’s rights movement often focuses on the aftermath of divorce, it also (as the above quotation makes clear) regards marriage itself as fundamentally harmful to men.  On the other hand, some pro-feminist men worry about the ways in which traditional marriages limit women’s autonomy and reinforce suffocating gender roles.

The wing of the men’s movement most likely to support marriage is one we haven’t heard from in the recent debate:  the Promise Keepers.   For PK (and similar Christian men’s groups), marriage is an essential vehicle for personal spiritual growth.  "It is not good for the man to be alone" is an essential component of PK teaching.  PKers and the men’s rights movement fellas are both distrustful of feminism and pro-feminist men, but with some crucial differences.

The single most important difference between the men’s rights movement and conservative groups like Promise Keepers is that the latter emphasize the importance of male self-control.  The men’s rights movement (as seen in the comments section below the Manpower post) seems to have little interest in encouraging men to be strong and humble disciples!  The men’s rights movement worries about men being "trapped" into marriage by women who mislead men about using birth control; PK suggests if we all practiced biblical abstinence until marriage, that wouldn’t be a problem. 

In a very real sense, there is much more to admire about conservative Christian men’s groups than there is in the men’s rights movement.  However flawed their theology, Promise Keepers and its affiliate organizations are vehemently opposed to a culture that sexually exploits women and girls.   Indeed, when it comes to an issue like pornography, pro-feminist men and Promise Keepers can find much on which to agree.  While we may differ as to the fundamental reasons as to why we find pornography so destructive, we are in agreement that it does colossal damage to the lives of men and women alike.  Furthermore, groups like PK provide men with spiritual tools to fight against porn — tools that may well be useful even for pro-feminist men troubled by patriarchal theology.

In my own men’s work, I’ve been influenced by Promise Keepers as well as by NOMAS — and by the work of mytho-poetic men’s groups like those inspired by Robert Bly.  But sad to say, I’ve found little worthy in the reactionary writings of the men’s rights/father’s rights movement.

Thursday Short Poem — Wilbur’s The Writer

I’ve always liked Richard Wilbur; I quoted another of his poems here in the context of, I think, the Abu Ghraib scandal.  This is one of his better-known ones, and also one of my favorites.   Like most of the poems I put up here, it made me well up with emotion the first time I read it.

The Writer

In her room at the prow of the house
Where light breaks, and the windows are tossed with linden,
My daughter is writing a story.

I pause in the stairwell, hearing
From her shut door a commotion of typewriter-keys
Like a chain hauled over a gunwale.

Young as she is, the stuff
Of her life is a great cargo, and some of it heavy:
I wish her a lucky passage.

But now it is she who pauses,
As if to reject my thought and its easy figure.
A stillness greatens, in which

The whole house seems to be thinking,
And then she is at it again with a bunched clamor
Of strokes, and again is silent.

I remember the dazed starling
Which was trapped in that very room, two years ago;
How we stole in, lifted a sash

And retreated, not to affright it;
And how for a helpless hour, through the crack of the door,
We watched the sleek, wild, dark

And iridescent creature
Batter against the brilliance, drop like a glove
To the hard floor, or the desk-top,

And wait then, humped and bloody,
For the wits to try it again; and how our spirits
Rose when, suddenly sure,

It lifted off from a chair-back,
Beating a smooth course for the right window
And clearing the sill of the world.

It is always a matter, my darling,
Of life or death, as I had forgotten.  I wish
What I wished you before, but harder.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Former students and faulty recall

Finals week chaos continues.  Again, I have little time to post — I am hoping to have more time by Friday.

My mother and I were talking on the phone last night; she recently retired after many years of teaching philosophy at a community college in Central California.  We spoke about a phenomenon we both know well, especially around this time of year: encountering former students who are eager to share with us what they still remember from our classes.  It’s both a flattering and disconcerting experience — flattering because it’s nice to think one has had an impact, disconcerting because what the students remember is often nothing like what one recalls having taught!

Yesterday afternoon, I was in the gym for a quick workout.  A young man with vaguely recognizable features came up to me.  "Professor Schwyzer?", he asked.  I agreed that that was who I was (less recognizable in a t-shirt and shorts and three days of beard), and we shook hands. The young man was very nice, telling me that he had just graduated from Cal State Los Angeles, and was thinking of going into teaching high school.  He told me he had always remembered something I had said in my History 1A class a few years back:  that the major theme of Western Civilization is the triumph of individual ambition, and "we can do anything we want if we only set our minds to it."  He said that had been very inspiring.  I nodded and thanked him, wished him well, and returned to my lat pulldowns.

Except I never, ever, said anything like that.  At least, I don’t think I did.  The last thing I would do is teach "great man" history, and I certainly would not use Alexander or Caesar Augustus as role models for how I would like my students to behave!    (I’m not one of those profs who believes that Julius Caesar’s tactics in conquering Gaul can translate well into the modern corporate world.)  So one of us was mistaken yesterday — either he has forgotten what I said, or I am completely in the dark as to what my students hear me say!

I can’t tell you how often this happens.  My beloved and I will be dining out in Pasadena, and our server will be a former student.  (This has its perks, mind you — I have gratefully accepted many a free dessert, and I’m not ashamed to admit it.  Free creme brulee is hard to pass up.)  The server will tell my fiancee things that he or she learned in my class, usually facts or details that bear only a passing resemblance to anything I remember saying.  I never correct these former students, both because it would be rude and because I think it plausible that that was in fact what they heard me say.

I’ve noticed that many of my students tend to project things on to their professors.  Christian students often tend to think that I share their own particular theology.  (I was once told, by an earnest parishioner of the infamous John MacArthur, that taking my class had made him much more certain of the "total depravity" of humanity.  It remains the best back-handed compliment of my career.  How else do you think I was asked to be adviser to Campus Crusade for Christ?)  Gay students often think I’m in the closet.  The "students for social justice" types are convinced I’m one of them.  Of course, depending on my mood, I am sympathetic at times to everything from Five Point Calvinism to Frantz Fanon.  It’s a character flaw, I’m sure, but I think it makes for good teaching.

Look, I’m immensely flattered to be remembered.  Indeed, the high I get off getting visits and emails (or even chance encounters on the street) from former students is almost embarrassing!  I am just bewildered, sometimes, by what it is that they are so happy to tell me that they learned in my classes.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Top Five Posts

Bob Carlton at The Corner had an excellent idea:  get bloggers to create a list of their "five best posts" of the year.   What a marvelous exercise in self-absorption!  I’ve been doing some thinking, and here are the five posts I’m proudest of for 2004, in ascending order:

5.  Men  Key section:

Through high school, college, and graduate school, I prided myself on the large number of women who were close to me, with whom I had mutually supportive, generally non-physical relationships. Of course, the real truth was that I was absolutely terrified of intimacy with men. Men were colleagues and rivals, but never friends. I made all sorts of excuses as to why I didn’t have more male friends; the most frequent one was that "most American men are sexist pigs, and I can’t relate to that." (That was a lie on several levels!)

4.  Sailboats, Thanksgiving, and Growing Up Loving Lesbians  (This may be my favorite title).  Key section:

And even now, when I hear words like "unnatural" or "immoral", I think about real people whom I loved and who I believe loved me. I think about sailboats, Thanksgiving dinners, and chocolate. And when folks start condemning or pathologizing women and men who lived and loved like Jane and Carla, Christine and Rachel, I get very, very, very angry.

3.  Boys, Girls, Hugs  Key line:

But a place where every gesture of physical affection is seen as dangerous is an inherently unsafe environment! Our young women need to be reminded, over and over again, that they are loved and cared for non-sexually; in that effort, a hug is worth ten thousand words. Our young men need to be reminded, over and over again, that here, at least one night a week during youth group, they don’t have to be "tough guys." They need men in their lives who will love them without judging them or assessing their fragile masculinities.

2.  Porn, Hiv, Freedom, Responsibility  Key section:

As a man, I am called to do the hard but essential work of looking beneath the hyper-sexualized surface image that young women so often adopt in our society today. I owe it to myself, to the woman with whom I share my bed and my life, and to these young women themselves. The fact that many young girls and women choose to make themselves objects of desire does not lessen for one second my obligation to look past that veneer and see them as my younger sisters whom I need to honor, love, and care for.

1. Obesity, Poverty, and Choice:

I don’t make healthy choices because I am virtuous. I make them because I am fortunate.

There are other posts I could have picked, I suppose — but those were the ones that came to mind.  Come on, bloggers, go through your archives and share your top five!

Assorted reflections on magazines and vacuity

Thomas Reeves has his own blog at the History News Network.  Saturday, my fellow Cliopatriarch Jonathan Dresner drew my attention to this Reeves post entitled "The Joys of Jane".  It’s about Jane the magazine in particular, and contemporary women’s magazines in general:

Articles display such titles as “My Boyfriend Used to Be My Girlfriend,” “When I Smoke Pot, I Turn Into Ms. Satan,” “How to Date Eight Guys at Once,” “’I Want Her Babies.’ What’s With Guys All Of a Sudden?” and “Yet another great reason to keep on smoking!” In the November issue, an article gives eight tips guaranteed to help the reader pick up guys. (If you try all eight tips and the you fail to pick up at least eight guys, Jane Pratt will refund the $3.50 price of the magazine.) In a monthly column called “It Happened To Me,” there is a horror story by a woman who dated a Libertarian who did not believe in premarital sex. The author also reveals having had a brief affair “with someone who has flown in Air Force One with Dubya. And when we talked politics, it always degenerated into a pretty amazing sexual romp.” Information abounds in Jane, including how to train your brain to have dreams of sex with celebrities, and which SUVs are the most comfortable for having sex.

Reeves decries the intellectual vacuity that such magazines feed and inspire, wondering:

Where are the women crying out for higher moral and intellectual standards in the popular literature designed for their consumption? We hear enough about the right to abort, glass ceilings, and sexual harassment. Why not speak out about the literary pollution that damages and destroys the mind and soul? The voices of informed and concerned women might do much to reverse the cultural slide that degrades our civilization.

I have not read the particular issue to which Reeves refers.  Knowing, however, that Jane tends to have its tongue planted firmly in its cheek, I am not as certain as Mr. Reeves that its contents are truly damaging and destroying mind and soul.  Fewer young women use these magazines as instruction manuals than conservatives fear or advertisers might like!  Rather, I suspect most young women who are flipping through Jane and its competitors are looking for momentary distraction and amusement.  Yes, the content of these magazines is vacuous — but after a hard day at the office, or in the lab, or the classroom, or the board room, sometimes folks like to unwind with a little vacuity!

Of course, there’s a bit more to these magazines’ popularity than escapism!

I know I’m posting with quotations, something I don’t normally do, but reading Reeves’ piece, I immediately remembered the following passage from Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale, which I assign each semester in my women’s studies classes.  Offred, the title character, is given an old copy of Vogue, a magazine now banned in her dystopic world of Gilead:

Staring at the magazine, as he dangled it before me like fish bait, I wanted it.  I wanted it with a force that made the ends of my fingers ache.  At the same time I saw this longing of mine as trivial and absurd, because I’d taken such magazines lightly enough once…  After I’d leafed through them I would throw them away, for they were infinitely discardable and a day or two later I wouldn’t be able to remember what had been in them.

Though I remembered now.  What was in them was promise.  They dealt in transformations; they suggested an endless series of possibilities, extending like the reflections in two mirrors set facing one another, stretching on, replica after replica, to the vanishing point.  They suggested one wardrobe after another, one improvement after another, one man after another.  They suggested rejuvenation, pain overcome, and transcended, endless love.  The real promise in them was immortality.

The more I read these magazines and work with those who consume them, the more Atwood’s words seem apt.  I’m not defending their content, but I am defending their readers.  A woman can read with amusement about dating eight men at once, or about embarrassing sexual episodes in the lives of others, without compromising her right to be taken seriously in "real" life.  Indeed, the more responsibility we carry, the greater the longing to escape!

I like to unwind reading about college football.  Now, there’s an intellectually vacant activity!  After a day of teaching and grading, I come home and curl up with any number of sports magazines.  I lose myself in average yard-per-carry statistics for running backs in the SEC, or speculation about where the hottest high school players in Texas will sign.  (And national letter-of-intent day is less than two months away!  Oh, the excitement!)  It’s trivial, empty stuff — and it amuses and relaxes me.  I don’t blog about it because most folks don’t care, but gosh, I enjoy it.  I know that big-time college football is corrupt.  I know that its players are immersed in a culture of violence that encourages and condones sexual assault.  And though these realities are never far from my mind, I continue to find great and simple pleasure in reading the magazines that cover the game I love in glorious and numbing detail!  Am I "dumber" as a consequence?  I would like to think not.  Rather, I’m indulging in remarkably harmless escapism, allowing my brain to rest.

I suspect that with different magazines, millions of my brilliant and interesting and ambitious sisters are doing exactly the same thing.

Pain and the misprescribed cure

Yes, sharp-eyed readers, there are new pictures of Matilde in her photo album!  This one is my absolute favorite. 

Not much time for blogging at the moment; finals week has begun and I have grading to do, exams to write, and lots of anxious students to meet with.  (I also have a host of emails to return from those same students; some are a bit miffed that I don’t return emails on Sundays.  Some things must be sacred, however!)

I should have known better than to link to Manpower in my Friday afternoon post.  The result was predictable:  an avalanche of invective (much of it tinged with homophobia) headed this way.  Feminist bloggers like Sofia and Trish Wilson have been dealing with this far longer than I, and they have endured some stunningly vitriolic attacks.  Perhaps it was just my turn to wade into the fray!

It’s tempting to want to respond to personal attacks.  To do so, however, invites more of the same, as my fellow bloggers know all too well.  The last thing I want to do, of course, is bring more attention to the "men’s rights movement".  What I did want to do was shift the focus towards the other wings of the movement, particularly those led by pro-feminist men.

Here’s a link that may be helpful: Responding to Men’s Rights Groups at Xyonline.  Michael Flood, the brave Australian pro-feminist, summarizes the men’s rights groups thus:

Men’s rights men focus on the costs and destructiveness to men of masculine roles. They dispute the feminist idea that men (or some men) gain power and privilege in society, claiming that both women and men are equally oppressed or limited or even that men are oppressed by women. Men are "success objects" (like women are "sex objects") and burdened as providers, violence against men (through war, work and by women) is endemic and socially tolerated, and men are discriminated against in divorce and child custody proceedings. As far as "men’s rights" are concerned, these men believe that men’s right to a fair trial in domestic violence cases, to a fair negotiation in custody settlements, and to fair treatment in the media have all been lost.

The men in men’s rights groups are typically in their forties and fifties, often divorced or separated, and nearly always heterosexual. In both general men’s rights groups and fathers’ rights groups, participants often are very angry, bitter and hurting (with good reason, they would say), and they often have gone through deeply painful marriage breakups and custody battles.

Men’s rights arguments correctly identify areas of male pain, but misdiagnose their prevalence and their source and thus misprescribe the cure.

The bold section is mine.  I like that. I suspect Flood is right about the near-universal heterosexuality of these fellows, though I also gather that some are considerably younger than forty.  Still, "angry, bitter, and hurting" seems apt.

Flood inspired me to take on Manpower with this:

We need to show that anti-feminist men do not speak for all men.

We also need to defend women’s organisations, services and feminism in general from attacks by men’s rights forces. Men have an important role to play as allies of feminist organisations, putting ourselves between them and men’s rights groups, taking the heat and limiting the extent to which women’s energies are used up in responding to these attacks.

Amen.  But Flood also reminded me of my obligation to listen to the real pain that underlies the bitterness and the vitriol, and to acknowledge that as a pro-feminist man committed to male consciousness raising, I have a moral obligation to hear the stories of hurt my brothers are sharing:

We will be better able to respond to men’s rights agendas if we have a proper idea of the experiences, needs and fears of the men who support them. This was brought home to me in a confrontation with a very angry and hostile man, a men’s rights activist from Melbourne. After two hours of talking, he told me of the effect on him of having being sexually abused as a child by his mother and another woman. I’ve also heard some men’s stories of their ex-wives acting maliciously or dishonestly and of an unsupportive legal system. I did not accept the wider conclusions that such men drew from their experiences, and I assume too that for any one incident (like a custody battle) there will be multiple versions of what happened. But if I want to reach such men at all, I do have to accept that what they describe is their reality for the moment and I have to show that I have heard them.

I believe that it is politically more effective, and ethically appropriate, for us to act with integrity, to be prepared to listen and to deal respectfully with conflict.

So, friends, I’m willing to engage in thoughtful discussion on men’s issues.  I’d like it if personal slurs can be avoided (though I am still chuckling over being referred to as a "feminist butt monkey" — even if it is hetero white male privilege that allows me to dismiss bigotry with a grin).  I’d like it if instead of making blank generalizations, folks grounded their statements in their own histories.  In gender work, sharing one’s story honestly and without hatefulness is the admission price to the discussion.

Let me get through some work today, and I’ll have more to post.  In the meantime, let’s keep the comments section civil.  And anyone posting any unpleasant comments about Matilde the chinchilla will be banned posthaste!

Manpower

One of the problems with being a man involved with the pro-feminist men’s movement is that we often get mixed up with the men’s rights activists who are virulently anti-feminist.  Thisgirl notes the appearance  of the new ManPower blog, and it is not an arrival to be welcomed.  It is a joint blog with many contributors.  Here’s a sample from a fellow named Kurt:

It is about time that we take the men’s movement from
virtual reality into real reality and this is the first step in that
direction. By working to make men more masculine we will be paving the
way for a change.

By working to install masculinity in men we will work towards
making men self-reliant, proud and independent. A man who is
selfreliant with a good selfesteem doesn’t have to rely on women or
others to support him and he can thus set his terms for any engagement
with women.

If women don’t like these terms then it’s just too bad.

What we want from women is that they are nurturing, supporting and responsible.
That women have other qualities is not interesting to men because we don’t need them!


Femininity will be the price women pay for enjoying Masculinity in men!

This should the personal viewpoint of every man. By holding this point
of view you will be helping other men and, more important, you will be
helping boys grow up to become men.

The bold emphasis is mine.

It’s puerile and angry stuff, like most of what comes out of the men’s rights movement.  It’s annoying, because those of us who are trying to do authentic, pro-feminist men’s work tend to get lumped in with these fellows. 

Interested in the "real" men’s movement?  Check out these links:

NOMAS (National Organization of Men against Sexism)
Men Can Stop Rape
XYOnline

NOMAS’  statement of principles includes these ringing words:

We affirm that working to make this nation’s ideals of equality a reality is the finest expression of what it means to be men.

We
believe that the new opportunities becoming available to women and men
through the feminist movement will be beneficial to both. Men can
become happier and more fulfilled human beings by challenging the
old-fashioned rules of masculinity that embody the assumption of male
superiority.

Traditional masculinity includes many positive
characteristics in which we take pride and find strength, but it also
contains qualities that have limited and harmed us. We are deeply
supportive of men who are struggling with the issues of traditional
masculinity. As an organization dedicated to changing men, we care
about men and are especially concerned with men’s problems, as well as
the difficult issues in most men’s lives.

That’s the men’s movement I belong to; that’s the men’s movement I teach.  I note that the fellows at Manpower want many of the same things that the pro-feminist men’s movement wants: greater seff-esteem and self-reliance.  It’s not as if women benefit from being in relationships with men who are emotionally stunted and dependent!  The feminist movement is eager for male transformation — but feminists don’t wait around, hoping that "we boys get our acts together."  Helping boys grown into confident, responsible, loving, nurturing, responsible MEN is at the core of the pro-feminist men’s movement. 

While the men’s rights movement sees organized feminism as its adversary, pro-feminist men see feminist women as our allies.  Pro-feminist men don’t ask women to do for us what we can do for ourselves (such as tell us how to feel, or motivate us to transform); nor are we interested in taking leadership roles in the women’s movement.  Rather, we work in solidarity with each other, honoring our differences as well as our common goal.

I got involved in the men’s movement out of a sense of frustration with the superficial nature of most of my relationships with men. (See my "popular posts" sidebar for earlier posts on men.)  I also came to the men’s movement out of a sense of righteous pro-feminist anger.  I’ll be the first to admit, I didn’t like other men when I was younger.  But doing men’s work led me to love and cherish other men — without becoming hostile towards women.  It is my hope that a similar journey may lie ahead for these fellows in Manpower.