Ten cents a word…

Happy news. Entirely unsolicited by moi, Gale/Greenhaven Press have asked to reprint my August 2005 post A Long Reflection on the "Good Divorce". It will be in an upcoming edition of their Contemporary Issues Companion Series; the volume in which my little piece will appear will be on "Divorce and the Marriage Contract." And they’re payin’ 10 cents a word, which just might pay for a celebratory dinner. It’s the first explicit offer of money, however small, to reprint something I’ve blogged. Yay.

Here’s an excerpt from that piece I wrote nearly a year ago:

We (my third ex-wife and I) began the therapy process with Dr. K hoping the marriage could be saved.  But we continued to see him for weeks AFTER we had both agreed to divorce.  Our goal in those remaining sessions was not to find a way to stay together; rather, it was to make the separation experience as vital, as cleansing, and as cathartic as possible. It was a great gift that my ex-wife and I gave each other.  On the final night of therapy, I walked my ex to her car after we were finished.  "I feel elated", she said, "giddy."  "I know", I replied, "me too."  We hugged tightly for what would be the last time, and just before saying goodbye, we thanked each other once again.  The thank you was for all the effort each had put into the marriage, but also all the honesty and forgiveness and grace we had each brought to the divorce experience.  I wept as I drove away that night, but I was not in agony; the tears were tears of incredible gratitude for the amazing experience that I had just completed.

As I prepare to get married again, I am filled with genuine confidence that my beloved and I will be able to challenge each other and help each other transform — all while making the marriage grow and survive…   

I am confident of this not only because of the tremendous depth of love I have for my fiancee, but because I feel that we each have a formidable "skill set" of spiritual and psychological tools that we can bring to the table.  In my case, I acquired those tools from many sources: from various spiritual communities, wise mentors and pastors, dear friends, and the grace of a loving God.  But I also acquired those tools through the immensely painful — and yet also immensely transformative –  experience of my three divorces.  When I stand with my bride-to-be not long from now, I will have thoughts of no one but her in my head.  She is my "now", and she is my "tomorrow", and Lord willing, will be my tomorrow for all the tomorrows to come.  But I am only truly ready to be hers because of all of my yesterdays, and all that they taught me.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

“Tell Your Boyfriend I Said Thanks”: some thoughts on women’s t-shirts, class, competition, and sisterhood.

This summer, at least on the PCC campus, I’m seeing a tremendous revival of the vulgar t-shirt.  Many of my students have the most extraordinarily hostile –and occasionally funny — messages across their chests.

What bothers me most, however, are the ones that play on traditional female rivalries and anxieties.  "Tell Your Boyfriend I Said Thanks" read one I saw in the hall yesterday; "Tell Your Boyfriend to Stop Calling Me" read one from last week (on a different young woman, mind.)  T-shirts like these — and there are others — trouble me more than the ones that read "All American Bitch" or "So Many Men, So Little Time".  Displays of sexual bravado like these may be somewhat embarrassing and juvenile, but they aren’t designed to do damage to other women.

If there is one consistent lament I hear from the women in my feminist studies classes, it’s about the presence of intense competition in their lives.  Not academic competition, but sexualized competition.  As has often been noted here on this blog and elsewhere, this competitiveness on an "attractiveness market" is more intense in a community college with primarily lower middle class and working class students.  To generalize enormously, the less privileged the background, the more intense the sense of competition among young women.  Far too many young ones grow up with a sense that their sexual desirability is a more marketable commodity than their intellectual accomplishments; this is all the more likely to be true in families where there isn’t a history of women going to college.  (If you don’t believe me, visit any American community college on a hot day — and then visit an elite university in the same weather.  You’ll see more mini-skirts and heels in five minutes at Pasadena City College than you will in five hours at Berkeley or Stanford.  That’s anecdotal, sure, but don’t take my word for it — try it yourself.)  The bottom line: class and sexual competitiveness among women are, to say the least, not unrelated!

I realize it’s problematic for a fortyish man from a relatively privileged background to "tut-tut" with annoyance at the realities of the "attractiveness market" on which so many (but by no means all) of my young female students compete.  But as I’ve said over and over again, at least part of living a feminist life is learning not to see other women as rivals.  You can’t be committed to women’s liberation and see other attractive women as one’s enemies.   One of the sad fruits of a sexist culture is the sense of isolation that many women have from one another.  Internalized misogyny and competitiveness do not rest easy with a belief that women ought to be seen as complete human beings.

It’s unlikely, of course, that any young woman is going to be directly threatened by the "Tell Your Boyfriend I Said Thanks" shirt.   But it’s also equally unlikely that the shirt is intended to be interpreted ironically, as a wry commentary on the state of women’s competitiveness and anxiety.  The shirt makes a claim about the wearer and her desirability — and it suggests that attractiveness is a zero-sum game for women.  The sexier girl gets attention from other girls’ boyfriends.   Fear about playing that game — and losing at it — is a major factor in the lives of many of the young women with whom I work.

I’ve had four entries up in recent weeks on modesty, women’s dress, and male self-control. Having insisted six ways to Sunday that lust is always the problem of the luster, I stopped short of saying that we ought not ever consider others when we dress ourselves.  And yes, if what another woman wears makes you feel jealous and insecure, that’s as much your problem as it is for a man who is aroused by the same display.  But I draw a distinction between the accidental and the intentional.  A woman who is perceived as beautiful will be envied — and perhaps even disliked — by a few of her female peers regardless of what she wears.  That’s not her fault.  But if she wears a "Tell Your Boyfriend I Said Thanks" shirt , she’s being quite deliberate about her desire to elevate her own status in a mildly shocking but deeply competitive manner.  For that she is responsible, as in a small but significant way, she’s choosing to be actively hostile towards other women.

Waving, not saluting: more on Floyd Landis, the flag, and serving two masters

My hits have skyrocketed today after "reddit.com" and the Tour de France blog linked to my post this morning about Floyd Landis and the national anthem.  A reader sent me a link to this photo of Landis riding on the Champs Elysees carrying the American flag, asking if this action doesn’t contradict my point this morning about Floyd’s Mennonite principles.

Actually, carrying the flag on a bicycle and refusing to place the hand over the heart during the national anthem are both quite consistent with Mennonite principles.   To be a Mennonite, classically, is to believe that citizenship in the Kingdom trumps national allegiances.   In practice, that means refusing to swear oaths of obedience to any temporal authority; it means refusing to salute flags or to genuflect before earthly kings.  But there’s an important difference between saluting or pledging allegiance to the flag on the one hand, and waving it on the other!

One can be a radical Christian (a phrase many Mennonites apply to themselves) and love America!  It is one thing to love America, another to pledge solemn allegiance to it.  To wave the flag can be an expression of affection for one’s native land, akin to waving the banner of one’s university or favorite football team.  (I once had a very large Cal banner that I waved with great enthusiasm.)  Floyd Landis may be a Mennonite, but America is the nation of his birth — there is nothing in Anabaptist theology that suggests he can’t be fond of, even proud of, his country. 

When Italian football fans the world over waved the red, white, and green after their World Cup triumph, they did so to celebrate a sports victory that made them proud.  They did not do so to express any particular loyalty to the modern nation-state known as Italy.  (Many Italian-Americans who madly waved that flag — and there were lots of ‘em in Los Angeles two weeks ago — probably have never heard of Romano Prodi, the current prime minister. They had no intention of promising loyalty to his government.) Theirs was a celebration of cultural pride, not a promise of fealty or patriotic commitment.  Without knowing his mind, but knowing his upbringing, I am fairly sure that Landis carried the Stars and Stripes around Paris in that spirit.

Though I have left the Mennonite Church, I retain the Anabaptist commitment to refuse to swear loyalty to nation-states.  (I am a dual national with a UK passport, but with all respect to Elizabeth Regina, I am not her majesty’s subject.  "No king but Jesus"…)  When the national anthem is played at sporting events (and I go to lots of sporting events) I stand respectfully.  I don’t draw attention to myself by remaining sitting — that would be ostentatious.  I don’t put my hand over my heart, however, and I don’t sing.  When they say the pledge of allegiance at faculty senate meetings, I stand with my hands clasped; my head lowered, my lips closed.   I try to be as inconspicuous as possible, not wishing to give offense, but unwilling to pledge allegiance to anything other than Christ my king.   Only once have I been quietly asked by a colleague about my stance, and I gave her a simple and respectful answer which she accepted.

I have a sincere affection for this, the land of my birth, and I honor the lawful authorities who wield temporal power within it.  This is a country of great physical beauty, filled with people for whom I have an easy and genuine affection.  I will give my taxes to Caesar, obey his traffic laws, even vote in his elections.   It is possible to be a Christian and an American, but it is not possible to swear fealty to both Christ and Caesar unless one believes that the demands of each are always congruent.   Knowing that they aren’t always compatible, I choose to pledge loyalty only to the one I intend not to betray should conflict arise.

Hot

It is very hot, and the heat seems to have melted my brain’s ability to remember anything blogworthy at the moment.  More soon.

In the meantime, off for coffee.  I’m a great believer in the old theory (no doubt utterly specious) that drinking hot drinks on hot days makes the body feel cooler.  Mind you, I don’t do this when I’m working out.   It’s lunchtime, it’s in the mid-90s, and I’m off to Starbucks for a Venti Drip of whatever they’ve got.  It will power me through my afternoon class, where we’ll be on 1920s feminism and the role of the automobile in transforming American sexual experience.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Floyd Landis, still a Mennonite?

Internet access on campus has been spotty this morning, so the first post of the day will be very brief indeed.

I’m a life-long Californian and a seventeen-year resident of Los Angeles County, and I’ve never before experienced heat and humidity like we had this weekend.  Yesterday, I went for my "long run" of the week at 6:00AM; at what is perhaps the coolest moment of the day, it was 79 degrees as I stepped out of my car to begin a jog up Brown Mountain.  Truly, deeply, profoundly unpleasant.  I note that my home town, Carmel, is one of the few spots in the nation that hasn’t hit 80 degrees once this summer.  I was very lucky as a child…

I made it home from my run in time to see the awards presentations following the Tour de France.  I am very pleased to see Floyd Landis win, not least because of his Mennonite background.  As I turned on the TV yesterday morning, I predicted that what Floyd Landis did during the national anthem (always played for the country of the Tour winner) would indicate the degree to which he still embraces his Mennonite heritage.

Mennonites, particularly traditional ones, don’t salute the flag or sing the national anthem.  Though much of the press coverage of Landis’ traditional upbringing has been interesting and accurate, I’m sorry that no one seems to mention that the Mennonites aren’t just conservative Christians.  In their commitment to voluntary simplicity, an abhorrence of all forms of violence (even in self-defense), and a disdain for displays of patriotism, Mennonites — like all Anabaptists — are radically different from what we tend to regard as the stereotypical American conservative Christian!  Many Mennonite schools don’t fly the US flag anywhere on campus — something that could hardly be said of most Reformed or Baptist private schools!

I was pleased to see that Floyd Landis stood respectfully, hands clasped in front of him during the American national anthem.  His posture was identical to that of the 2nd and 3rd place finishers, a Spaniard and a German.   71506227Click to enlarge.  Note that the American ambassador has his hand over his heart.

Lance Armstrong always put his hand over his heart during the national anthem (you can find such images easily on the web) after winning the Tour.

I may no longer worship in the Mennonite church (neither does Floyd), but I was pleased by what I was able to interpret from his stance yesterday.  Whatever he retains of his Anabaptist roots, he seems to remain committed to the principle that to be a Mennonite is to be a citizen of God’s Kingdom, not of an individual country.   His simple, respectful, humble refusal to engage in a patriotic ritual of pledging allegiance to but one corner of that Kingdom is admirable, and a sign perhaps that Landis is still, in some real sense, a true Mennonite.

Good on you, Floyd.

A brief mea culpa: the confession of a self-improvement junkie

It’s been a busy Friday, and I haven’t had much time at all to post.  I’m still thinking about modesty and responsibility, mind you, though I promise to be on to different topics next week. 

Despite the heat, I’m moving back into one of those phases of my life where I’m exercising more and paying more attention to my diet.  Whether it’s based on bad science or not, I’m doing well on the "eating for your blood type" regimen..  I feel stronger and leaner; I’ve cut most refined sugars and most white flour out of my diet.  I wasn’t eating meat to begin with, so that sacrifice is not significant.  But I am eating lots of beans and rice cakes and peanut butter and dried pineapple.  Fear not, my diet is more diverse than that — but those have recently become some of my staples.

I realize that one of the things that makes my blog tiresome to read is that I’m so obviously a self-improvement junkie. (I indeed do belong in Los Angeles!)  I’ve married a woman who happily shares my interest in ongoing transformation, and together, we get a lot done.  In a way, we’re distinctly immodest: we’re addicted to more!  Not more things, of course, but "more better". 

Yes, I’m deeply interested in being as physically healthy as I possibly can; I like following a healthy and even strict diet and working out daily.  I want to find my optimum level of fitness; I want my body to be as strong (and yes, as aesthetically pleasing) as possible.  But I’m also interested in becoming an ever-better teacher; I fiddle with syllabi and with lectures, always looking to see what can be done to improve my work.  I want to be a better husband; I am eager to become a more complete, caring, loving, partner and spouse to my wife.  I want to be a more effective community volunteer; I want to rescue more chinchillas, I want to reach more kids in my youth group.  I want to write books, and at long last, am close to starting on that process.  I want to make more money, and give more of it away.

I justify the amount of time I spend on improving my fitness by saying I work equally hard on teaching, my volunteering, and my marriage.  But does an increase in generosity in one area of one’s life justify an increased self-absorption in another?

When Christ came into my life, He came into the life of an addict.  Addiction, at its core, is about desire — and for as long as I can remember, I’ve had an abundance of that!  For things good and bad — drugs/women/faster marathon times/success/weight loss/greater spiritual awareness/greater opportunity to serve/what-have-you — my life from adolescence on has been about pushing for "more."  And that essential part of my nature hasn’t changed since I became a Christian.  I’ve switched addictions, mind you!  I’ve replaced self-destruction with self-improvement, and I confess that my commitment to the latter is almost as off-putting to some as the former!

It’s an old story, and my narrative is hardly a unique one.  But to friends, family, students, colleagues and strangers who read this blog regularly, let me take this opportunity to acknowledge that I can be an exhausting and exasperating man to be around, learn from, and read.  I’d say that I’m genuinely sorry, but I am not repentant about my fascination with stronger, farther, faster, better.  But I do sympathize with your annoyance.

I have a feeling that when, deo volente, we have children, lots of this will change.

Friday Random Ten: more proof of unhipness edition

#3 is my wife’s song, the other nine are mine.  #1 goes back to my childhood, growing up listening to my mother’s extensive folk music collection.  And how many of my readers know about Stiff Little Fingers, one of the great Irish punk bands from the same era as the very early U2?

1.  "Rock Island Line", The Weavers
2.  "Alternative Ulster", Stiff Little Fingers
3.  "Carefree Highway", Gordon Lightfoot
4.  "Let Me Go", Cake
5.  "Heaven Tonight", Hole
6.  "I Shall Be Released", The Band
7.  "Jailbreak", Thin Lizzy
8.  "Billy Morgan", Men They Couldn’t Hang
9.  "Jerusalem", Steve Earle
10.  "In My Hour of Darkness", Gram Parsons

Bonus Track: "Soleil en fleur", Soeur Sourire (that one’s for Douglas)

Let men learn to use the “will muscle”: some further thoughts on faith, sin, sex, and clothing

In the ongoing discussion about men, women, clothing, modesty and self-control, Camassia offers a fine contribution.  In the comments, a reader named Jose makes the case that while Christian men are responsible for controlling their lust, women do have an equivalent responsibility for what they wear and the reactions it may cause. Jose writes:

Improper or provocative attire is certainly a disruption and a distraction for which the tempter can and should be faulted. It can reach a point in which the priest or pastor should ask the tempter to leave the congregation.

I wrote in reply:

Jose, to dress provocatively with the intent of arousing lust is sinful, I’ll agree. But to dress without that desire, and then to become the object of lust from another, is not. If a woman wears what she finds comfortable, and ends up being the object of desire, she is entirely blameless. Now, IF the woman in front of me in church is consciously, actively, attempting to seduce the men in the pews around her, then of course she’s also at fault.

But that’s rarely the case, and we know it.

Jose came back:

There is intention and there is ignorance…. In spite of all the talk about increasing cultural sensitivity these days, too many people simply do not get it. They walk into a church with provocative dress and offer the unacceptable excuse that it was not their intention to provoke anyone. They imagine it’s the problem of the one provoked rather than the provocateur. As Chip Frontz says, both may have a problem, but it is the provocateur who incited it.

Now, if Jose comes over here, he’s welcome to provide a bible verse in support of what strikes me as an indefensible position. 

I do believe we are responsible for our intentions.  If I teach in tight, "sexy" clothing with the intention of distracting or arousing my students, I commit a sin as a Christian and an error as a teacher.  If a woman, putting together her outfit for church, says "I hope this causes Mr. Jones in the pew behind me to lust for me rather than his wife", then I’m happy to agree that she’s sinning.  As Christians, we ought not deliberately, consciously, and intentionally encourage sin in others.

I’m not trying to open the difficult theological question of whether ignorance is a sin.  But even if I grant that in some instances ignorance can be sinful, it is not "ignorance" for a woman to be unable to consider all of the possible ways in which a man might respond to her clothing.  She might be able to guess that wearing a bikini to church might not be appropriate, but what of Mr. Smith with his foot fetish, who will be transfixed by her feet in open-toed sandals? It’s absurd to accuse women of sinful ignorance for being unable to anticipate all of the possible reactions their sartorial choices may inspire!

To live in community is to recognize that the choices we make impact those around us.  We stop at red lights not because we want to, but because we acknowledge that others on the road have different agendas than our own and we need to honor them.   We all, Christian or not, ought to periodically stop and check our motives for most of the things we do!  I’m certainly all in favor of all of us becoming kinder, more thoughtful, and more responsible.

But there is a difference between taking into consideration the needs of others and taking responsibility for their reactions!   Perhaps we ought all to do the first, but not the second.  In the end, other adults are responsible for how they react to our dress and our bodies.  To say otherwise is to treat our brothers and sisters as infants.  To make women equally responsible for helping men avoid lust suggests that grown men are akin to children in need of guidance and protection from watchful mothers.  Telling women that "you ought to know what men will think when they see you in that" sends a disastrous message: women need to save men from themselves, because men lack the will, the self-control, and the maturity to avert their eyes and redirect their very thoughts.  Though many men have allowed their "self-control" to atrophy, the fact that the muscle is weak from disuse doesn’t mean it can’t be built back up. And if we insist that women do the spiritual "heavy lifting" for men by taking responsibility for men’s lusting, that "will muscle" will stay spindly and underdeveloped.

To borrow Jose’s language, to be a provocateur is a conscious and willful act. To allow oneself to be provoked is also, in the end, a conscious and willful act.   Deliberately attempting to provoke a married or otherwise committed person into lusting for you is, I think, genuine sin.  But dressing for comfort or for aesthetic enjoyment without the intent of seduction is not sin, regardless of how those who view you happen to respond. 

Putting the story before the student: a reply to Colonel Steve about teaching history

It’s quite early this Thursday morning, and I’m in the office early to ensure that I have time both to blog and to record the results of summer midterms before passing back blue books.  I’m also struggling with my old pair of glasses — I made a quick trip to the optician yesterday to get my relatively new pair repaired, and am wearing my old spare frames, which have a slightly different prescription.  As a result, I have a small headache with which to contend. 

I am following the remarkable ride of Floyd Landis this morning, and rooting hard for a man who is, at least at the moment, perhaps the world’s most famous living Mennonite.  Part of me still thinks of myself as a member of the Anabaptist family, after all.  Bring it home, brother Floyd!

In a comment below Monday’s post on grading, I wrote about my obligations in the classroom:

First and foremost, my obligation is to the subject itself. SECOND of all, my obligation is to my students. I got that order clear when I first started teaching. Every student "needs" an A for a scholarship, or to get into a better school, or to get a discount on their car insurance. If I take that into account, I ought to dispense As for basic competence and make my students and their parents happy. I’ll also end up giving them a false sense of their own abilities — and set them up for rude awakening farther down the line.

This intrigued my long-time commenter Col. Steve:

Hugo – I am curious about this line: "First and foremost, my obligation is to the subject itself. SECOND of all, my obligation is to my students. I got that order clear when I first started teaching." A few months ago you wrote:

"Somewhere, deep inside of me, is an omnipresent awareness that I’m serving something bigger. That something is partly the institution of the college; partly Clio, the muse of history; partly all of those who worked so hard to teach me; and, ultimately, God himself. It’s difficult for me to be more precise than that. All I know is that I’m almost always aware that my teaching is a form of service, and not merely to my students themselves."

I’m curious how "Clio" (or gender studies) became first. I would think (leaving God aside) your first obligation would be to the support the mission of PCC and California Community Colleges — The mission of Pasadena City College is successful student learning. I agree that mission does not mean necessarily pleasing the students/parents. What does an obligation to the subject actually mean?

I know I could probably find still more to say about men, women, lust, and modesty, but this morning I’d rather answer the colonel’s question.

When I’m teaching, I feel myself to be responsible to a variety of different "stakeholders."  For example, I have an obligation to the community college district in which I teach.  PCC’s mission statement, from which the colonel quotes, reads:

The mission of Pasadena City College is successful student learning. The College provides high-quality, academically rigorous instruction in a comprehensive transfer and vocational curriculum, as well as learning activities designed to improve the economic condition and quality of life of the diverse communities within the College service area.

Well, I don’t know if learning history is going to lead to a direct improvement in the economic conditions of struggling communities in the San Gabriel Valley.  I do know that I provide "academically rigorous" instruction as best I can.  More importantly, I am, like many historians, convinced that those who study history will have their "quality of life" improved.  That improvement may not be quantifiable; it may not involve a higher income or a larger house.  But those who study history, as your high school teachers said to you, will have a better understanding of the whys and  hows of the contemporary world.   Being able to put often chaotic and mysterious current events into context can be a source of real comfort, and that is surely part of what is meant by an enhanced "quality of life."

But I meant what I said on Monday: in some sense, my primary earthly loyalty (let’s leave God out of it for a second) is not to my students, to the college, or to my colleagues. It is to the subject I teach.  History is the record of the human past, the understanding of which is filtered by time and by bias.  We see earlier societies and events "through a glass darkly", but we can still see — and the chief job of the historian is to tell, as honestly and convincingly and effectively as he or she can — what it is that lies on the other side of that glass.   Our students might like the narratives to be a bit easier; they might like having to know fewer names and dates and details.    But while every good history professor wants to maximize student learning, the good historian’s first professional obligation is not to the student but to the story itself

Whether I’m lecturing about Susan B. Anthony or Marcus Aurelius, I feel a sense of personal obligation to these long-dead men and women.  What I say may well be all that many of my students ever hear about vitally important, fascinating figures from the human past.  I have a responsibility to help my students understand why these people were so important, but I have a similar, perhaps even greater responsibility to these great ones themselves.  It’s a feeling both narcissistic and quixotic (I plead guilty in advance to both), but I feel as if it is my grave and solemn duty to ensure that those who played such key roles in the past be remembered.

In a sense, I think a good historian functions more like a bard or a minstrel than a researcher or a mere instructor.  The good bard wants to tell a story well to excite and entertain and inspire his audience, but his primary concern is not with what his listeners hear but with how well he tells the story itself.  His first obligation is to the heroes of whom he sings.  And whether I’m talking about Margaret Sanger or Sargon of Akkad, Victoria Woodhull or Saladin the Magnificent, I don’t easily forget that I owe these men and women what is their due: the accurate retelling of their deeds and contributions, that for a while longer they may not be forgotten.

Thursday Short Poem: Wallace’s “Blessings”

In times like these — when I’m still coping with the grief surrounding my twin losses in June and I feel as if I’m wilting in the summer heat — it’s good to count blessings.  And even better to do so with wit.  Ronald Wallace does that for us this week; this one has made me smile for a long time, all the more so because I am dreadfully prone to the overused cliche.

Blessings

occur.
Some days I find myself
putting my foot in
the same stream twice;
leading a horse to water
and making him drink.

I have a clue.
I can see the forest
for the trees.

All around me people
are making silk purses
out of sows’ ears,

getting blood from turnips,
building Rome in a day.
There’s a business
like show business.
There’s something new
under the sun.

Some days misery
no longer loves company;
it puts itself out of its.
There’s rest for the weary.
There’s turning back.
There are guarantees.
I can be serious.
I can mean that.
You can quite
put your finger on it.

Some days I know
I am long for this world.
I can go home again.
And when I go
I can
take it with me.

And all God’s chillun said, "amen, Ron!"

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged