Monthly Archives: June 2005

Thursday Short Poem: Morgan’s “Pictures with Cigarettes”

Posted on by

I’ve posted poems about cigarettes before.  I was a small boy in the 1970s, and when I was young, everyone smoked.  My childhood was hazy with smoke; as a small boy doing dishes, I did countless family ashtrays.   Before big family parties, I unwrapped packs of cigarettes, and placed them butts up in attractive silver cups, and arranged them around the living room next to boxes of matches.  I came through just fine, though some near and dear to me have been scathed by cancer.  But my family pictures look a lot like those of Elizabeth Morgan, who offers this fine poem.

Pictures with Cigarettes

Look closely:
Mother’s pack of Luckies lies on the endtable,
See Dad’s face against the baby’s cheek?
The hand not lifting Tommy holds the smoke.
In this one, Grandpa’s cigar smolders by the highchair
while Grandma holds her cigarette and wineglass
and a baby with one hand.

But this is not a tract; all these babies thrived,
survived their separate sorrows, bloomed
into periods of pure beauty, whole weeks
of unadulterated success,moments of total
attention from what seemed like the whole world.
All still know results of love.

Of the smokers this is not a judgment,
only a report on mortal signs in pictures –
the scythe laid propped against the press,
the hourglass, sunset, drooping pheasant
replaced by cigarettes.
The pictured smokers are all gone,
not up in smoke, but somewhere we hope
they remember life as right in length
and without regrets.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Dating to disappoint and the Bulworth solution

Posted on by

Rilina links to the Sandra Loh post, and one of her commenters notes that when she first saw the title "daring to disappoint one’s parents" she misread it as "dating to disappoint one’s parents."  Rilina replies:  "Well, many children of immigrant parents do that too. Heh."

This got me thinking.

I’ve often asked my students how comfortable their parents are with the idea of interracial, inter-religious dating.  (I usually ask this question in the gender studies courses as the topic of race emerges.)  The results are predictable.  Very few of the native-born white kids think their parents would mind if they dated someone of another race.  (To be more precise, I’ve never had a white male claim his parents would be upset if he were to date — or marry — a non-white person, but I have had a few white female students admit their parents would be distressed if they brought home a young black man.)   My Latino students generally report that their parents would prefer another Hispanic, but would be comfortable with their child dating someone white, but not black.  My more recent immigrants, particularly Asians and Armenians, almost imvariably report that their parents would be extremely distressed if they dated, much less married, outside of their culture.

This is where my own white liberalism blinds me so!  I get very, very angry when I hear of parents forbidding their children to date someone because they didn’t meet the right ethnic profile.  As far as I’m concerned, it’s pure unadulterated racism.   Real tolerance must be about more than being willing to share public space with folks of other ethnicities, it must also be about the willingness to welcome them into one’s family and rejoice when they become the spouses of one’s children and the parents of the grandkids.  I’m convinced that that’s true, and I admit I see interracial/interethnic marriage as a fundamental social good.  How else can we fully eradicate racial and ethnic prejudice save through mixed marriages?

One of my favorite movies ever made (I own it and watch it over and over) is Warren Beatty’s brilliant Bulworth.   Beatty’s character Sen. Jay Bulworth, in the middle of a television interview with a newscaster named Connie, delivers a magnificent rap on this very subject of race (warning, expletives ahead):

Bulworth:
Rich people’ve stayed on top, dividing white people from colored people. But white people’ve got more in Common with colored people than rich people. We’re just gonna have to eliminate ‘em.

Connie:
Eliminate?

Bulworth:
Eliminate.

Connie:
Who?
Rich people?

Bulworth:
White people.

Bulworth:
Black People, too.
Brown people,
Yellow people.
Get rid of ‘em all.

Connie:
Get rid of them all?

Bulworth:
We need a voluntary, free Spirited,
compatible, open ended program of
procreative racial deconstruction.

Connie:
Uh…

Bulworth:
Everybody just got to keep fucking everybody
till we’re all the same color.

When I heard that in the movie theatre seven years ago, the audience (of mostly upscale whites, as I recall) erupted in cheers and raucous laughter.   I heard a loud "amen", and I think it may have escaped from my lips.   My liberalism was, and in some ways still is, the liberalism of the melting pot.  The historian in me and the Christian in me regard ethnic distinctives (other than food and innocuous holiday customs) with suspicion.  How can we form religious and political unity when we still hold historic allegiances to our own ethnic group, I wonder?  Isn’t Beatty’s Bulworth, for all his madcap vulgarity, absolutely right about the solution?  Aren’t those parents who are adamant that their children marry within within their ethnic and religious group enemies of progress, civilization, and a functioning civil society?  Shouldn’t kids from these parents "date to disappoint", and eventually give their parents grandkids who don’t look like them?

But I’m aware of the weakness of what can be called the "Bulworth" solution.  I know full well that the desire to retain cultural distinctives is not the same as a belief in racial superiority.  For example, for Jews and Armenians whose forebears survived genocide, the preservation of cultural identity has an imperative to it that I don’t always grasp but of which I am not unaware.   In a culture that is predominantly Anglo still, is the Bulworth solution — Hugo’s solution too — another form of well-meaning genocide? Heck, from the perspective of women of color,the Bulworth solution is also problematic.  Everybody just got to keep fucking everybody  till we’re all the same color sounds like a sensible battle cry to me.  But given the history of rape and sexual abuse of indigenous and African women by white men in this country, I’d understand if Bulworth’s rap doesn’t sound so inspiring to some of my sisters.

My generation of my family is, as I’ve written before,  practicing melting pot marriage with enthusiasm.   In recent decades, I’ve seen my cousins marry folks of Latino, Chinese, and East Indian descent.  Some very beautiful mixed-race babies have been born.  I’ll be marrying my fiancee soon, of African-Colombian-Croatian ancestry.  A generation from now, the family photos will be far browner and richer than they were a generation ago.  I celebrate that.  Nothing has been lost, from my perspective, and much has been gained.  But I’ve never known what it is to feel like a resident alien in a strange land, never known what it is to desperately try and cling to the ways of my family in a country that finds those ways alien and impenetrable and anti-modern.   The Bulworth solution excites and inspires me.  But I also wonder if that doesn’t say more about me and my whiteness (and my hero Warren Beatty) than it does about the sensibility of the solution itself.

Rethinking Loh: a response to Camassia

Posted on by

First in her comments here and now at her own place, Camassia has a very thoughtful, critical response to my post on Sandra Tsing Loh’s graduation address at Caltech.  Camassia writes:

…my personal experience is coming to bear on this. When I was a twentysomething college grad hanging out with my peers in San Francisco, the challenge wasn’t getting us to play around but getting us to stop. We hopped around from job to job, city to city, going back to school, trying this and that. And we were nearly all horrible at managing money. My friend who live on her credit card in Spain was perhaps the most dramatic example; but there was also getting your power cut off, running up debts, running out of food, and trying to withdraw money only to discover you didn’t have any. One friend didn’t even have a permanent home, last I heard from him, but engaged in a practice common enough to develop a name: “couch surfing.” None of this really harmed us, and we mostly learned our lessons, but that was precisely because we had parents willing to bail us out of real trouble. Blowing them off is not a good idea if you’re probably going to have to go back to them asking for help.

She’s right, of course.  But neither Loh nor I are advocating permanent slacker-dom!  She urges Caltech grads to spend a summer snorkeling, not to spend a decade couch-surfing.  There is a difference, and one would like to think that those bright enough to receive degrees from Caltech (or equivalent institutions) would recognize that.   Choosing not to be a workaholic for a season is hardly the same as dropping out of civilized society and becoming a leech! (Parenthetically, Camassia and I had different post-college experiences.  I went straight from undergrad to grad school, straight from passing my Ph.D. qualifying exams at UCLA to teaching full-time at Pasadena City College.  From my days at Humpty-Dumpty Nursery School in Santa Barbara to today, I’ve never not been in school.  I might have benefited from some more time off to reflect.  Then again, I might have gone mad and never gone back had I left school for even a brief period.)

In the comments below Camassia’s post,  Rilina writes that she’s surprised that I didn’t deal with the Christian implications of Loh’s address:

Hugo’s reaction to it (somewhat surprisingly) had no reference to what it means to be Christian thinking about these issues. And I know of what Loh speaks here: I’m your classic overachieving middle class Asian American. But I’m also a Christian child of non-Christian parents. From my perspective, “dare to disappoint” seems to replace one idol, the traditional Asian family, with another idol, happy-go-lucky Western individualism. Christianity, in contrast, supports neither of those things: it challenges as the supremacy of the family unit (Mark 10, etc.), but also reminds the believer that believers still have commitments and responsibilities for others. We may be called to leave family behind for the sake of the good news, but we’re also called to honor our parents and to care for the elderly.

A lot of my friends are Asian American and the children of immigrants; I’ve seen many of them, especially the Christians, come into conflict with their parents over their life choices. (”Why do you want to work for a non-profit? Why don’t you become a doctor or lawyer?”) I’ve been very lucky in this regard; my parents may have urged me toward the traditionally acceptable life paths–law, medicine, business–but they didn’t press when I declined to go that way. “Dare to disappoint” may be an important message for those who haven’t yet figured out that honoring one’s parents and obeying one’s parents aren’t always the same thing, but for those of us who have figured that out it’s way too simple.

(Bold is mine).  That’s a good corrective from Rilina, and of course, I agree with her completely.  One of the things I liked best about Pasadena Mennonite (where Camassia now worships, and where I was on Leadership Team for a brief season) was its insistence that "salvation is as much communal as individual".  The Kingdom, Mennonites insist, is built in community as much as it is built in the privacy of our hearts.   Our greatest responsibility as Christians is neither to obey our parents blindly nor follow our own transitory impulses, but to build the Kingdom of God.  Rilina is right that there’s a tremendous difference between disappointing one’s parents by becoming a missionary or a non-profit fundraiser instead of a doctor or an engineer, and disappointing one’s parents by couch-surfing through one’s twenties!

When I read Loh’s piece, I thought of many of the students I’ve had from traditional Asian families who’ve told me of the immense family pressure that they are under to be successful.   I’ve had at least a dozen in recent years tell me that they like history much, much better than chemistry or engineering, but know that they could never major in the liberal arts without devastating their mothers and fathers. (Their parents sound much like Loh’s father, whom Loh describes as considering the humanities akin to poledancing.)   I want these students of mine to dare to disappoint their parents by following their genuine academic and spiritual passions.  I’m not encouraging anything less than that and I’m sorry that my post gave that impression. 

In this regard, I’m struck again by the very famous words of our second president, John Adams:

I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain.

Perhaps "disappoint your parents" is another way of exhorting young people to embrace the values of the generation of Adams’ grandchildren.  Note that he mentions what his sons "ought" to do, as opposed to what his grandkids will have the "right" to do.  One generation’s obedience ensures the next generation’s freedom.

The kingdom of heaven will be built by people who allow their own desires and the needs of the world at large to intersect.   Fulfilling our parents’ dreams for us, rather than our own, brings no glory to God.   Only following our transitory impulses is no better.  We need to teach young people to discern their own inner muse, but also to ask how following that muse might be of service to the planet and its people.  But while they are busy figuring out how their passions and the world’s needs might both be met in their choice of future career, it’s also worth telling our hardest-working and most dutiful young people that they ought to take a break!

More to teachin’ than lecturing

Posted on by

Tenured faculty at PCC are evaluated only once every three years.   When I was first teaching, I was always fearful about evaluations, knowing that to at least some degree, tenure hinged on favorable feedback.  Now, I look forward to in-class evaluations because I get the chance to learn what my students think about the class, and how I might improve my teaching.  It’s a lot easier to take constructive criticism when one’s teaching position is secure, I’ll say that.

This week, I’ve been looking over the evaluations that were done last fall (I finally had a chance to sit down with them).  They were mostly laudatory, happily enough.  Many of the criticisms revolved around reading load, and my insistence that grammar and spelling ought to count in history term papers.  One student didn’t like the way I dressed, another didn’t like the goatee I sport on-and-off, and two complained about the early office hours I have.   

Immodestly, I’ll say I’m a very good lecturer.  But there’s more to teaching than lecturing, and the only regular and serious criticisms I got this year were that  I spend too much time on lecturing and not enough time leading discussions.  (For the record, my women’s studies class — where discussion is far more frequent — made no such complaints; these suggestions came from my Western Civ survey courses.)  I note that at Rate my Professors, a number of recent commenters (I do check periodically) praise my lecturing but imply that I ought to employ other methods as well.   

The frustrating thing about this is that years ago, I was accused of having "too much discussion."   When I first started teaching, I was far more worried about monopolizing the classroom.  I invited lots of discussion and questions.  A few students seemed to like it, but I got a great many criticisms about this in the evaluations. (E.G.:  "I paid to learn from my teacher, not from my classmates"; "He spends so much time letting us debate small points he never tells us about the important points we need to cover.")  I began to fall behind badly in some classes.  One year in Western Civ, when I was supposed to reach the Reformation, I barely made it to the barbarian invasions of Rome.  In modern European history, rather than reaching the present, I was lucky to reach the outbreak of World War One.  I was so eager for my students to reflect at length on what we were covering that the material that ought to have come at the end of the course was ignored.

Teaching survey courses is hard.  I’m required to cover everything from Mesopotamia through the Middle Ages in the first half, and the Reformation to the end of the Cold War in the second.   The more class time spent lecturing, the greater the chance that I will meet the parameters of the course stated in the syllabus.  The best solution would be to have four semesters of Western Civ, cutting the amount one has to cover each term by half.   That would help tremendously.

I’ll reflect this summer on ways to encourage discussion that don’t sacrifice the obligation to cover a vast amount of material in a very short time period.

The Archbishop on the way forward, division, and friendship

Posted on by

Over at his superb Titusonenine,  Kendall Harmon is busy blogging the events taking place in Nottingham, England, this week.  The Anglican Consultative Council is meeting there to discuss many issues, chief among them homosexuality.   The American Episcopal Church has been asked to explain its inclusive position, a stance that has led the church to embrace same-sex unions and to  consecrate an openly gay man as bishop.  Among those leading the delegation from the States is Susan Russell, president of Integrity and a priest at All Saints.  Progressive Episcopalians from across the country have been praying for the delegates to Nottingham, who are making their main presentation to the ACC today.

On Monday, the Archbishop of Canterbury addressed the gathering.  It was a fine homily indeed, one that has given both those who support and those who oppose full inclusion for gays and lesbians much to think about.  Archbishop Williams’s address is up in full at Kendall’s place, and it’s worth blogging about here. 

For starters, the good Archbishop summarizes the two positions deftly and fairly.  The traditionalist stance he summarizes thus:

One story is this. The churches of the ‘North’ are tired and confused,
losing evangelistic energy. For a variety of reasons, they have been
trying to reclaim their credibility by accepting and seeking to
domesticate the moral values of their culture, even though this is a
culture that is practically defined by the rejection of the living God.
A history of over-intellectual approaches to the Bible and the
communication of the faith has led to a disregard of the Bible’s call
to transformation. The revolt against the plain meaning of Scripture’s
condemnation of same-sex activity is a symptom of this general malaise.

That’s good.  I can’t imagine any serious conservatives quibbling with that.  The progressive, inclusive view is then described:

Another story is this. The churches of the North have been made aware
of how much their life and work has been sustained in the past by
insensitive and oppressive social patterns, with the Bible being used
to justify great evils. Whether they like it or not, they inhabit a
world where authority is regarded with much suspicion; it has to earn
respect. In recent decades there has been a huge change in the general
understanding of sexual activity. Can the gospel be heard in such a
world if it seems to cling to ways of understanding sexuality that have
no correspondence to what the most apparently responsible people in our
culture believe? It is not enough, some have said, to stick to the
words of the Bible; we have to go deeper and ask about the logic and
direction of the Bible as a whole. And when we do that, we may find
that it is not so impossible to reach a position that can be taken
seriously in contemporary culture.

This liberal is quite satisfied with that summary.

At All Saints, we talk weekly of acting "prophetically."  Williams reminds us of just how problematic it is to describe one’s teachings and one’s actions in that way:

It is said that there are times when Christians must act prophetically,
ahead of the consensus, and that this is such a time for some of our
number. We should listen with respect to what motivates this
conviction. But we also have to say that it is in the very nature of a
would-be prophetic act that we do not yet know whether it is an act of
true prophecy or an expression of human feeling only. To claim to act
prophetically is to take a risk. It would be strange if we claimed the
right to act in a risky way and then protested because that risky act
was not universally endorsed by the Church straight away. If truth is
put before unity – to use the language that is now common in discussing
this – you must not be surprised if unity truly and acutely suffers.

Bingo!  He nailed exactly the reason why I, as a progressive, have no problem seeing the Anglican Communion fracture over just this issue.  I am interested in putting truth before unity, especially if maintaining unity is at the price of denying full inclusion in the body of Christ to my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters!   At some point, focusing relentlessly on "staying together" (in the Anglican Communion or in a marriage) becomes idolatrous.  We are reminded by Christ that to follow Him is more often to choose the path of division rather than unity.  Rather than asking either side to sacrifice their own perception of such vital and important truths, is it not far better to honestly and amicably sever the historic bonds that have held the Anglican Communion together for centuries? Rather than seeing schisms as sinful or tragic, might we not see schism and divorce as an opportunity for new beginnings?  If all the energy expended on staying in relationship with those whose views we find unChristian were instead expended on the poor and the marginalized, could we not do far more good for God’s kingdom?  These are the questions that this Episcopalian is asking himself this week.

I think the Archbishop is aware that the Anglican Communion is about to founder over the issue of homosexuality, and he’s not willing to see endless attempts to patch holes in a ship that ought to have long since slipped beneath the waves.  The most moving part of Monday’s talk was his suggestion for a way forward, after the separation has happened:

But if there is no easy solution, and there is not, we can at least
think about this simple suggestion. If it is difficult for us to stand
together at the Lord’s Table as we might wish, can we continue to be
friends? Its sounds so weak, doesn’t? But, I actually think it is of
great significance. It is a way of saying that we do not know how to go
on being visibly full brothers and sisters, that we can find no clear
visible way of expressing any sense of being together in the Body of
Christ. But this is the case already with a number of other Christian
bodies, and several other Christian bodies view us in this way, notably
the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches. And yet we maintain respect
and often something more than respect. Friendship in Christ, it seems,
is possible even when sacramental communion isn’t.

What would be the defining qualities of this future friendship?  Williams is magnificent here:

Friendship in Christ is a willingness to share prayer, to listen
without rancour to each another, to respect and even enjoy difference,
to be patient with each other, not expecting quick healing of divisions
but not walking away every time difference raises its head. Friendship
in Christ is best and most creative when it is linked with sacramental
fellowship; but if that fellowship is hard or controversial, we need to
remember from our ecumenical experience that this need not and should
not mean a spirit of bitter contempt towards each other. It has taken
the great churches of the world centuries to make this sort of
friendship a routine matter, but, thank God, it is so now for the most
part. Can we make a resolution – not pass but make a resolution – that
it will not take so long to confirm these bonds between us? Of course
it is harder in some ways: direct conflict and even rivalry darkens the
sky so much. But when we cannot witness together as fully as we long to
do, this is something of real witness nonetheless. We can look at and
listen to the language we use about each other and watch how easily we
are ready to let it slip from proper and honest disagreement towards
contempt and mutual exclusion. Yet as baptised believers, we still have
something to offer each other; and the friendship of the baptised
should remain, whatever else divides.

Bold emphases in this and earlier sections are mine.

All my life, I’ve been interested in those who work at building bridges across ideological and theological divides.  To stay in friendly relationship with those with whom one disagrees mightily –without ignoring those disagreements — is vital.  Far too many of my friends surround themselves with those who share their world view.  (I remember a friend of my mother’s, years ago after the 1984 election, express disbelief that Reagan had been reelected.  "But everyone I know voted for Mondale", she said, with a tone that implied that Fritz’s overwhelming  defeat must therefore have been due to fraud.) Lord, save us from only being in relationship with those who know you as we do!  Save us from only breaking bread with those who understand your word as we think it ought to be understood; save us from our hubris and our petty certainties, and save us from isolation into intellectual and theological ghettoes where we are always surrounded by "our kind of people."  But save us also from false unity with those with whom there can be no real agreement!   Archbishop Williams wants a third way , and he calls that third way neither unity nor division, but friendship.

“Dare to disappoint” — cheering on Sandra Loh

Posted on by

I’m a big fan of local comedian, writer, and commentator Sandra Tsing Loh.  Today’s paper contains a version of her recent commencement address at her alma mater, nearby Caltech.  (Nearby, heck, it’s across the street from PCC).  It’s very fine, it’s very funny, and it’s worth quoting this section:

I remembered the one thing that freed me, post-Caltech. And I believe it can free you too. The advice being not "Dare to dream"” every young person dares to dream. Frankly, it’s all they do all day! But many bright young people, under their A-student masks, also harbor a secret passion. And the key to releasing that last exotic bird to flight is not "Dare to dream" but, listen carefully: "Dare to disappoint your father." That’s right, Caltech graduates, freedom begins now! Diploma in hand, start today veering wildly off course! Have the fabulous graduation lunch, at the Ath or Burger Continental. Let your parents get a few bites in, and then boldly unveil your hideous summer plans! Skiing, snorkeling, belly-dancing, sleeping” maybe try out for "American Idol," why not?

And you Asian students? That goes double for you. You know who you are. Don’t make me come and get you. Don’t be shy. Look at me:” I went into the liberal arts, which, for a Chinese father, is like pole-dancing.

Failing one’s elders is serious business and not currently in fashion. These are times of great anxiety, and great conventionality. I see very few black armbands here today.

Graduation is the beginning of the hero’s journey, which is a little bit Oedipal. Just a little. I’m not saying kill your father! But the hero’s journey does begin by leaving the safety of the village.  (Bold emphases are all Hugo’s).

Oh amen, Sandra, amen and amen and amen.  My classes in summer school are filled with the dutiful and the studious (I always get "better" students in the summer.)  Over one half of all my students are East Asian, many are recent immigrants or are still on student visas.  So many worry so much about their grades.  How often I’ve wanted to give them the advice that Sandra Tsing Loh gave here, but feared being told (as I was in my post about moving away), that "You just don’t understand."   Loh, of Chinese descendant, has the authority to say to Asian students what I cannot: the hero’s journey does begin by leaving the safety of the village.

May it be so with all the hard-working, the dutiful, the eager-to-please, the obedient of all ethnic groups and social classes:  "dare to disappoint your parents."  Best graduation advice for overachievers I’ve ever heard.  Preach it, sister Sandra.  This commencement address is going up on my office wall.

Family bragging, male body anxiety, and the questioning of masculine credentials

Posted on by

Before anything else, let it never be said that I do not brag about my very accomplished siblings.  My sister Elizabeth is a company member with RJC (Reggae, Jazz, Contemporary) Dance company of Leeds; they’ve been on tour all over England (from Ilfracombe to Sunderland) this summer.  A very nice review in last week’s Guardian, though I’m at a loss as to why our family’s nationality had to be mentioned.  After all, we have US and UK passports.  I am a proud eldest brother.

We had a very happy father’s day visit with my Pa in Santa Barbara yesterday.  I may have some photos up later today.

I’ve been thinking about the comments below my "marriage" post from last Friday.  (No, not the one where a Mr. or Ms.  Snowglobe tells me I am very definitely going to be burning in hell.  It’s always bad form for one believer to make presumptions about the state of another’s salvation, but given that this poor person is living in perpetual intellectual and spiritual winter, I can be understanding.)   Rather, I’m thinking about something Mr. Bad said to me that’s been in my head for a day or two:

You… have a very inaccurate, uninformed and distorted view of healthy, normal masculinity. You instead are much more attuned to feminist and homosexual (i.e., gay and lesbian) issues than most people. There’s nothing wrong with that – in fact it’s necessary and informative – but the fact remains that IMO you’ve shown yourself to be clueless on the topic of normal, healthy masculinity.

Rather than respond in anger, I’ve been thinking about the ways in which this might be true.  Am I, I wonder, really out of tune with "mainstream masculinity", whatever that is?  From an academic standpoint, I’ve read a great deal of the still small canon of work on men’s studies.  I’m familiar with everyone from Michael Kimmel to Warren Farrell to Robert Bly to Shepherd Bliss to Bill McCartney to R.W. Connell.  From an activist standpoint, I’ve trained with groups like Men Can Stop Rape.  From a volunteer standpoint, I’ve helped lead men’s retreats at places like All Saints Church and Fuller Seminary.   And Lord knows, I’ve participated in enough group therapy (I was in two long-term men’s groups in my late teens and early twenties)!

But what does that teach me about "normal guys"?  The academic in me wants to pretend that normalcy itself is an artificial construct.  But part of me is reacting to Mr. Bad with the realization that my own life experiences are radically different than those of the majority of American men.  Of course, anyone who does any academic work at all in gender studies is participating in a classically "feminine" activity, in that we presume that "normal" American men have no interest in the thoughtful analysis — and subsequent challenging — of traditional relationships among the sexes.  Thus studying and teaching the subject become proof that I am not an authentic man, and thus excellent grounds for dismissing my conclusions.

It’s true, I wasn’t raised with "All-American" guy concerns.  My father, whom I love with all my heart and with whom I have a very close relationship, was born in Austria and raised in England.  (He knows the rules of cricket, not baseball.)  He taught me to kick a round ball, not throw one; he taught me to appreciate the life of the mind and classical music.  My father and I didn’t go to baseball games or learn how to barbecue together.  We did go to Gilbert and Sullivan operettas and Jean Renoir retrospectives.   (Despite his influence, however, I did develop some stereotypical American interests, chief among them an interest in college football that has only grown more passionate in the two decades since I first entered university.)

I have lots of male friends today.  How normal are they?  Most of my male friends are straight and married; a few are gay and a few are single.  Most, but not all, are college educated white guys between 30-55. Half have children.  About half are serious Christians, but others are agnostics, Unitarians, and students of Kabbalah.  Most are liberal Democrats, but a few are solid Republicans.  But there’s one thing every one of my close male friends has in common: we are all, to a man, quite concerned with the appearance and performance of our bodies. 

Mr. Bad commented, with a grain of what I acknowledge is truth:

Almost every day you post something about yourself, often times shallow and/or silly, and usually relating to your body with a healthy dose of your feelings thrown in. For this reader, you come across on this blog as having a very strong "mirror, mirror on the wall…" princess approach to your life. So, considering that your professinal focus has been on women and homosexuals, I humbly suggest that perhaps that’s the basis for the model you’re projecting as the "typical" male you keep trying to offer up. And because of this, you’re missing the mark vis-a-vis typical men by miles and miles.

Yes, I have my shallow and silly qualities.  But I’m convinced that Mr. Bad is wrong when he implies that an intense concern with one’s own appearance is not "typically male."  Every one of my male friends works out.  Many are marathoners and ultrarunners and triathletes.  In that sense, we are a self-selecting group.  We are perhaps a shade more neurotic about our bodies than your average Joes.  (On Saturday, my two running buddies and I discussed the details of the cleanse I’ve been on for quite some time, as well as having a heartfelt discussion of the nagging problem of "lower-back fat deposits.")   But Mr. Bad is wrong when he implies that most American men are utterly unconcerned with their appearance.

Here I don’t have to rely on anecdotal evidence.  See here.  See here.  Note the proliferation of men’s fitness magazines which focus not on health but on appearance.   I don’t think these magazines are raking in fortunes off a few unusual narcissists!  Rather, the evidence is overwhelming that  American men are rapidly becoming as concerned with body image as women have been.  The fact that they are not yet as vocal about it — outside of the fitness community — does not mean that the anxiety isn’t growing to the point of being omnipresent!  (See books like The Adonis Complex, the very subtitle of which makes clear the nature of the problem: The Secret Crisis of Male Body Obsession.) 

Yes, I’m very concerned with my body’s appearance and athletic performance.  Yes, I’m vain.  Yes, I do something straight men aren’t supposed to do, which is talk about these concerns in a very public way.  But the research (and abundant anecdotal evidence) suggest that my friends and I are far from alone.  In blue-state cities it may be easier for men to discuss these anxieties and obsessions openly, but the evidence suggests that they are becoming universal.  In that sense, men who are open about their "body image issues" are fully and completely "normal" — perhaps just more candid than some of their more truculent and inarticulate counterparts.

All in all, I think it’s counterproductive, even dangerous, to question the masculine credentials of those who do gender work.  Given the rigid rules of American sexual culture, it’s all but certain than any man who does speak critically about male behavior will have his manhood questioned.  Indeed, it’s a standard debating tactic, usually employed by those who oppose progressive agendas, to suggest that feminists and their allies are "out of touch", "elitists", who don’t "get it" or who aren’t "real women" or "real men."   One of the hallmarks of the pro-feminist men’s movement has been a resistance to this false dyad of "real men" and "girly men" (which, after all, is more or less what Mr. Bad’s language implies).  The authentic men’s movement sees masculinity as a continuum, not a fixed point.

Snowglobe questions my Christian faith; Mr. Bad questions my masculine credentials; some (not all) of my erstwhile allies are so irked by my post on marriage that they may be questioning my feminism.  It’s one thing to dismiss our opponents’ arguments as poorly reasoned, another to engage in ad hominem attacks.  At the same time, my own choice to bring in my own personal experience — a strategy and a technique I learned from feminism — makes these attacks all but inevitable, if disappointing.

Friday news and links

Posted on by

The happy news of the day is that I’ve reached day ten of the cleanse.   I can have soy beans (tofu), fruit, and nuts again.  And just one more day to go!  I managed to get in two very slow laps around the Rose Bowl this morning.  Without any carbs in one’s system, it’s hard to get going. 

Scraps of news:

My doctoral dissertation was on the role of the bishops of Durham and the archbishops of York in defending northern England from Scottish attack in the first half of the fourteenth century.  I’ve always paid attention to the current occupants of these two sees, and was very interested to learn that a new archbishop of York was appointed today: Ugandan-born John Sentamu.  Sentamu is England’s first black archbishop, and his seems a wise appointment.  Nothing in his career suggests that he holds inflexibly traditional views on human sexuality akin to Anglican bishops in his native country.  There’s quite a lot of discussion about Sentamu in the comments section of a post at Kendall Harmon’s blog.  In any case, it’s very interesting news for those who love beautiful old York.  (Though I’ve always felt, especially after doing research there, that York Minster is just too bloody big.  Give me old Durham Cathedral any day.)

Camassia has a very good post on Zach, the young gay man sent by his parents against his will to a "Love in Action" camp.  Even XRLQ gets on board with the "right side" on this issue.  The good guys at Ex Gay Watch have more news on Love in Action here.

If you go to Jenell’s blog now, you can see pictures of Wesley and Oliver, her twin boys born Monday.  The boys are still in a special care nursery, so pray please that Jenell and James can bring them home very soon.

Annika has invented a new religion.

Lucky White Girl has a humorous and poignant plea.

Visit the blog of an old high school and college friend of mine, Chris Leib.  He’s quite an artist; here’s his self-portrait.

And happy news.  As I write, busy paralegals are putting the finishing touches on all the documents for our new chinchilla re-homing charity.  The official name: The Matilde Mission: Pet Homes for Ranch Chinchillas, Inc. (It’s based, of course, on the marvelous PHFR). We’ll have official non-profit status by the end of the month, and we’ll get the bank accounts set up as well.  Lots of ranch chinchillas are going to be saved from pelting and have much, much happier lives.

Matilde will be soliciting donations from everyone soon.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Marriage and “Miracle Grow”

Posted on by

A good discussion is emerging in the comments below yesterday’s post and that of the day before.

Several commenters below the post about "Scarlett" suggest I’m conflating "emotional maturity" with "willingness to marry".  Guilty as charged, folks.  Here’s where my evangelical Christianity trumps my feminism. I believe God calls all of us to one of two states: monogamous marriage or celibacy.  Indeed, one of the reasons I am so strong a supporter of gay marriage is because I want to see the value of lifelong monogamy publicly exalted in the gay and lesbian community over all other alternatives!

Yes, I know, I’ve been divorced multiple times.  But my failings — and the failings of those to whom I was married — do not undermine the inherent value of the institution.  My divorces say nothing about marriage itself; they say a heck of a lot about me and the man I used to be.

I am eager and excited to marry again because I believe that God has called me to marriage.  I believe He calls most people to marriage, except for a few to whom he gives the very special gift of celibacy.  (Here’s where I think Protestantism falls down:  too much anti-Catholic bias has left too many in the evangelical camp denying the very special value of celibacy that Paul celebrated.)   But I am not merely eager to comply with God’s will.  I believe monogamous marriage is a vehicle for personal growth and transformation unlike any other.  I believe the experience of marriage changes us and deepens us and challenges us in ways that nothing else (cohabitation, polyamory, promiscuity) can.

Every older man in my life I deeply admire is either married or celibate.  I do have friends who are still single in their thirties and forties.  One or two are desperate to find the right woman (or man)  and settle down.  I encourage them and support them in that search.  But I have other friends who are –for all appearances — blissful in being neither married nor chaste.  Though I love these men as well, I see that almost every one of them is remarkably self-involved!   In my experience, men who stay single too long simply don’t mature and develop as much as those who marry, even those who marry multiple times.   God knew what he was talking about in Genesis 2:18.

My married male friends are not perfect husbands, by any stretch of the imagination.  But I watch them push themselves and push themselves and respond to the challenge of monogamy, commitment, and in many cases, fatherhood.  Many of them I’ve known since before they were wed and before they became daddies, and I can see the way in which they’ve deepened, softened, and developed.  They know that only marriage reveals their deepest flaws, and only marriage provides sufficient incentive to overcome them.  (One said to me several years ago:  "Getting married was like pouring Miracle Grow on my defects of character."   He was grateful, though pained, to have his sinfulness really exposed.  He’s grown a lot since then.)   Long-term monogamous relationships expose our weaknesses — but also provide the opportunity to overcome them.   Marriage, done right, strips away a man’s selfishness and self-absorption like nothing else.  Permanently directing all of his sexual energy to one person frees him to be a safe, loving man in the lives of those around him.

When should a man marry?  Obviously, that depends on the person.  We do mature at different rates.  But if we wait until we are "settled" and "know who we are" we miss the point completely.  Marriage isn’t for those who already know themselves, marriage teaches us who we are!  We don’t get married after we become who we were called to be, we become who we were called to be through marriage!

Look, I know this post will infuriate many folks who support me on other issues. I am open to the possibility that marriage can be extended beyond the traditional man-woman dyad.  But I am not open to the suggestion that marriage will ever become irrelevant or unnecessary.   Indeed, I remain convinced that save for those happy few called to celibacy, marriage is the finest choice we can make for ourselves and the world around us.