My younger siblings be smarter than me is!

It feels like the first full day of summer. It’s hot, and soon I’ll be hitting the trails of the Arroyo for a morning run. I’ve switched sunscreens — I’m trying to get rid of all the parabens in my grooming products, and am trying to make sure everything I put on my body is vegan, never tested on animals, and without suspected carcinogens. So far, I really like Alba Botanica.

No doubt you’ve seen the story about the statistical probability that first-born sons will turn out a wee bit smarter than their younger siblings. Though I don’t consider myself feeble-minded, I can say with absolute certainty that this did not prove to be the case in my family.

Both my younger brother and I were tested in the mid-1970s with the old Stanford-Binet IQ test. I did very well, but my brother was off the charts, quite a few points above me. I was twelve when, pilfering my mother’s desk, I found the two papers with our relative results — it was a memorable but hardly crushing moment in my youth. (I was an incorrigible snoop from about age 8 to 13). Luckily (because sometimes it seems to be more attributable to grace or luck than to virtue), I’ve never been jealous of my brother’s first-rate mind, or of his accomplishments. I will note that he and my two younger sisters followed me to Berkeley; each sibling had a higher GPA than his or her predecessor. The Schwyzer family defies the results of this little study.

It was a blessing to grow up with parents who made each of their children feel special, unique, talented, bright, and loved. We all ended up at the same university, but we never – I can say this with certainty – felt competitive with one another. On this, the first anniversary of my father’s death, I am grateful for many things, not least for his unconditional acceptance of the paths his two sons and two daughters chose. He loved us radically equally, and we knew it, and our closeness today is in many ways a consequence of that.

Friday Random Ten: Thursday afternoon edition

I’m putting up the FRT half a day early; tomorrow is the first anniversary of my Dad’s death, and a Friday Random Ten doesn’t feel right. I may post about other things.

It is the last day of spring or the first day of summer, and in the midst of grief there is room for robust joy. The song titles suggest I’m in a, uh, frisky mood. #1 is a splendid Ryan Adams track, it’s a satisfying one to sing along to; Christian singer Derek Webb shows up twice here with two fine cuts he recorded for Itunes. That #9 and #10 should have the same theme makes me chuckle a bit. Julie Miller is Buddy’s wife, and a fabulous singer and songwriter in her own right, #4 is among my favorites of hers. When the Millers open for Emmylou Harris, as they often do, it’s sublime. #7 I sing out loud — even once on a car trip with my youth group kids. #3 is my favorite Joel song, and Rosie Thomas is a pretty cool folkie I’ve recently been introduced to. The bonus tracks weren’t picked at random — just two songs I played a lot this week on my Itunes as I graded papers.

1. “Come Pick Me Up”, Ryan Adams
2. “Nothing is Ever Enough”, Derek Webb
3. “Summer, Highland Falls”, Billy Joel
4. “Broken Things”, Julie Miller
5. “Cry Love”, John Hiatt
6. “Young Lust”, Pink Floyd
7. “I Touch Myself”, Divinyls
8. “Darkest Hour is Just Before Dawn”, Emmylou Harris
9. “Wedding Day”, Rosie Thomas
10. “Wedding Dress”, Derek Webb

Bonus Track One: “Dead Flowers”, Rolling Stones
Bonus Track Two: “Virginia, No One Can Warn You”, Tift Merritt

What’s in it for men?

One question that those of us who are male feminists are bound to get asked over and over again: “What’s there for men in feminism?” The Chief asks a version of that question below Monday’s post:

Hugo, particularly, loves to preach on how men CAN change. He’s weak on providing the reasons why we SHOULD. To put it crassly, what’s in it for us?

I suppose I could quote Aristotle to the effect that virtue is its own reward, but something tells me that wouldn’t go very far.

I do answer this question regularly, as I’m asked it semester in and semester out. As most any serious feminist will tell you, feminism is about reconfiguring the culture in order to create greater equality between men and women. For most feminists, it’s also about liberating both men and women from the chains of sexism and patriarchy. As countless men in the pro-feminist movement have pointed out, oppressing women doesn’t make most men nearly as happy as one might imagine. We make a huge mistake when we assume that to be complicit in injustice brings joy and fulfillment. Yes, the benefits of living in a sexist culture are there for most men — but most men are so accustomed to taking these benefits for granted that they derive little if any sense of satisfaction from their own privilege.

When I meet with young men, I hear the same lament over and over again: “Why won’t women trust me? Why won’t women smile at me? I”m not a predator, I’m just a nice guy. Why am I always guilty until proven innocent?” I’ve answered those questions before: read “Guilty until Proven Innocent” and “No Right to be Assumed Harmless”.

When men work to transform themselves, to become genuine egalitarians in the bedroom, the boardroom, and cleaning the bathroom, they make the world a better place for themselves as well as for the women with whom they interact. When men challenge other men’s catcalls, porn use, leering stares and rude comments, they work to eliminate the very things that cause so many women to be justifiably mistrustful of so many men. Many men’s rights activists (MRAs) decry the epidemic of t-shirts that say things like “Boys are mean, throw rocks at them” or simply “Boys lie.” I’m not fond of those shirts myself, and I don’t think they’re in the least bit funny. But I recognize that in addition to reflecting an adolescent desire for attention, they reflect a legitimate anger, a legitimate fear, a legitimate frustration on the part of many women with men.

Quite a few men I know would love to be trusted more. They’d love to have their friendly “hellos” returned; they’d like it if everyone, male or female made eye contact with them and returned their smiles. They’re depressed by the way so many women respond to them, with guarded distance. Some of them become angry at women, blaming the targets of sexism for not being more warm and open to those who might well hurt them further. But the wiser ones understand that creating a world where men are trusted, believed, and smiled at involves changing the basic rules of masculine behavior.

One of the cardinal rules of American maleness is “Don’t call another man on how he treats women.” Men co-sign each other’s bad behavior far too frequently; the end result is that the “nice guy” who doesn’t harass women is rightly lumped into the same group as the jerk who does. Boys, if you’re not actively part of the solution you are — at best — passively part of the problem. If you’re respectful, friendly, honest and thoughtul to women in your interactions with them, but you remain silent while your male friends and relations behave otherwise, then you’ve got no right to complain about women’s suspicion!

I’m tired of living in a world where a man who wants to work with small children is automatically presumed to be a pedophile; I’m tired of living in a world where folks worry that the embraces I give the boys and girls in my youth group have a perverse, ulterior motive. But simply pleading my innocence isn’t enough. The incidences of abuse, the incidences of betrayal, the incidences of profound irresponsibility on the part of men in positions of trust aren’t just anecdotal — they’re overwhelming. And the answer for those of us who are trustworthy and long to have others know it isn’t to blame other people for being suspicious. It’s to work doubly, triply hard to create an authentically feminist culture in which men hold each other accountable, in which bad male behavior is immediately called out by other men.

In his comment, The Chief compares men to wolves. Just as its not easy to make a carnivorous wolf into a herbivore, he doesn’t think it’s easy — or even desirable — for men to change their essential nature. (I’m not a great believer in anyone’s essential nature, and have written umpteen times of the ways in which biology is used to excuse passivity and defeatism in the face of sexual injustice.) But it’s true that a great many women do see men as being like wolves, and a great many men do behave in ways that give women reasons for thinking that lupine comparison is apt. The damage predatory male behavior does to women is obvious. But what’s less obvious is that the “lone wolf” of lore is a symbol of isolation. I know a lot of guys who’ve tried to be lone wolves, tried to live up to the masculine ideal of the strong, silent, sturdy oak. Most of them, as Thoreau pointed out, lead lives of quiet desperation. Most of them, especially as they age, cope with an alternating sense of numbness and profound pain.

A sexist culture leaves men cut off from their own pain. Years and years of hearing “boys don’t cry” leaves many men in their teens and twenties in a state of permanent numbness, with only anger and lust as identifiable emotions still flowing through them. Feminism — with its insistence that men are as entitled to emotional expression as women — liberates men from the awful standard of “lone wolf-hood”. It allows us to stop being ciphers and become human beings, complete and whole and kind and good. It allows us to balance our strength with our humanity.

I am a feminist because I see organized feminism as one of the great vehicles for social justice and personal transformation. I am a feminist because I want to see a world in which both men and women are free to become complete people. When we shut down women’s anger, women’s desire, women’s impetuousness — we create half-people. When we shut down men’s tenderness, men’s vulnerability, men’s empathy — we create half-people. Half people alternately long for a partner to complete them, and resent the hell out of those partners for being able to do for them what they could not do for themselves. It makes for a pretty miserable existence, characterized by the strange and odious way in which men and women simultaneously long for and loathe each other. That’s not nature, that’s a social construct that needs to be dismantled.

I’m a feminist because I want to create a world where men and women alike can realize their potential; I’m a feminist because I believe that our potential is not directed or confined by our chromosomes or our secondary sex organs. My penis and my Y chromosome do not destine me to be unreliable, predatory, and emotionally inarticulate. My wife’s uterus and her estrogen do not limit the horizons of her professional or athletic ambition. Feminism is, as we’ve all heard, the radical notion that women are people. But it’s also the radical notion that men are people too, complete human beings, with the same range of emotions and the same capacity for empathy and self-control as any woman.

Feminism frees men to become truly complete human beings. And there’s an amazing payoff in that.

Note: You don’t have to be a feminist to comment here, but misogynist broadsides and anti-feminist bromides — as well as personal attacks — are out.

Thursday Short Poem: Olds’ Topography

Time for another famous one, by my favorite poet of the body, Sharon Olds.

Topography

After we flew across the country we
got in bed, laid our bodies
delicately together, like maps laid
face to face, East to West, my
San Francisco against your New York, your
Fire Island against my Sonoma, my
New Orleans deep in your Texas, your Idaho
bright on my Great Lakes, my Kansas
burning against your Kansas your Kansas
burning against my Kansas, your Eastern
Standard Time pressing into my
Pacific Time, my Mountain Time
beating against your Central Time, your
sun rising swiftly from the right my
sun rising swiftly from the left your
moon rising slowly form the left my
moon rising slowly form the right until
all four bodies of the sky
burn above us, sealing us together,
all our cities twin cities,
all our states united, one
nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Rocky’s a female, and cops love her

So my wife took Rocky Shimon, our newest baby chinnie, to the vet’s today. To our moderate surprise, it turns out that Rocky is a girl, not a boy. (Trust me, sexing a chinchilla is notoriously difficult. To be really graphic, girl chinnies have big labia, boy chinnies have very small penises, and when they’re wriggling around and not sedated, holding them still to tell the difference is miserable for them and for you.)

The a/c in my wife’s Solara is out; we forgot to switch cars this morning so that Rocky could ride in airconditioned comfort. As a result, my wife drove home in the midday sun briskly, and rolled through a stopsign. Two cops pulled her over. She begged to be allowed to drive Rocky home quickly, and asked the police officers to follow her back to our house. Once Rocky was safely back in the cool, she promised would “take the ticket.” The cops looked at Rocky in her cage and fell — not surprisingly — in love. They offered to put the cage in their air-conditioned squad car, and my wife readily agreed.

By the time the small caravan arrived home, two of our local finest were head-over-heels. They came into the house and met all of Rocky’s siblings. They talked at length to my wife about our chinchilla charity; they each gave her $20 towards the work of the Matilde Mission.

And they warned her about rolling through stop signs, and didn’t write a ticket. I won’t name the city for which they work or give any more details about them, as I don’t want the very nice pair of officers to get in trouble. But Rocky, Gabby, Chihiro, Dudley, Joonko, Racheli, and Ninotchka join their mama and papa in expressing gratitude.

Oh the enchanting allure of chinchillas, to get donations (and a free ride in air-conditioned coolness) rather than a moving violation!

Please folks, no remarks about women getting out of traffic tickets easier than men. (One of the officers was a woman.) This was about the wonder-working power of chinchillas, not about my wife’s looks.

Photo Pride on Flickr

I got this email from someone named Ceceilia, asking me to pass along the word, and I’m happy to do so here.

I’m a student activist and frequent reader, wondering if you would be willing to spread the word about a really, really important (really easy!) fundraiser on Flickr for The Point Foundation, which provides scholarships to marginalized LGBT student leaders. I’m a Point Scholar myself, and you can read my bio on the website at www.thepointfoundation.com. This foundation has been a true lifesaver for me, and though their financial help is really easy to quantify, the emotional support and mentoring relationships they have given me are valuable beyond words.

In an effort to support scholarships–there are 94 of us now!–The Point Foundation has partnered with Yahoo’s Worldwide Pride 2007 on Flickr, and for every photo that is uploaded to the group’s photo pool, Yahoo will donate $1 and up to $25,000. Thus, I’m asking you to help spread the word!!!! Every dollar counts! And god only knows how many pride photos are on Flickr!!!

Photos don’t necessarily need to be of pride (especially if participants aren’t queer or didn’t go to pride), but they just need to be representative of people who are proud to be LGBT or are proud of LGBT people. Further instructions are posted below.

1. Go to The Point Foundation website
2. Click on the Worldwide Pride 2007 (Yahoo) link
3. Create a Yahoo ID if you do not have one
4. Join the Worldwide Pride 2007 photo pool
5. Upload your photos
6. Create multiple Yahoo IDs
7. Go back to step one, wash, rinse and repeat!
8. Celebrate Pride!

Up early

This summer, my Wednesday mornings are going to start around 4:15AM. My poor showing in my last two marathons was due to too little mileage; one thing I’ve learned over the years is the value of a mid-week middle distance run. If I do a long run (16-22 miles) on Sunday, and I do a middling run on Wednesdays (10-12 miles, perhaps picking up the pace a bit during it), then I’m going to be much better off come marathon time.

Of course, with the temperatures starting to climb, and an 8:00AM class, that means I have to run very, very early. Getting up early isn’t hard for me; going to bed at a reasonable hour often is. Since I was a small child, I’ve liked getting up early; I hate being in bed when it’s light outside. I’ve never been much of a night owl either; much to my wife’s dismay, if I really had my way in all things, I’d go to bed at ten every night and get up at 4:30 every morning. When I’m eating right and light, I can do fine on 6 hours of sleep. If I start eating a lot of sugar or other heavy things, then I find I need another hour or two to feel rested.

I hit the pavement this morning just before 5:00, running a loop that takes me over into Glendale (for the locals, I ran from my house to the Rose Bowl, up Lida, past Art Center and into Chevy Chase Estates before swinging down through LCF and home). In the hills, I saw lots and lots of rabbits; the best time to see the bunnies is always right at dawn. I worry about them — the hills are so dry this summer, and they, like all the other critters, have to get closer and closer to people’s lawns and pools and bird baths in order to find water. That means a whole new set of dangers. I worried a lot about a lot of animals this morning as I ran, but I comforted myself with the certainty that the God who watches over me watches over them as well.

It’s a long day of teaching ahead — I do about six hours of teaching a day during summer school, all lecture or discussion moderation; it’s hard to be “on” for that long day in and day out. Caffeine helps, and the sublime endorphin high of a solid 12-miler will see me through the morning.

No Magic Grading Machine

I’m done with the grading. Jeepers, I hate grading. We can’t give plus/minus modifications to final grades, so everyone ends up with a straight A,B,C,D, or F. (I give very few Ds, lots of Cs, a fair number of Bs, a few As and a few Fs.) Ranked in order of commonality, it’s C,B,A,F,D.

Particularly with the Bs and Cs, there are huge gaps. One student who gets a B just missed an A; another who gets a B barely avoided a C. If you wre to read their final papers, you would be bewildered as to how they could end up with the same grade. But with no plus/minus option, there you have it — a huge variation amongst folks with similar grades. That’s less true of the As, but for Bs and Cs, it’s a constant.

I had 322 finals or final papers to grade. No time for thoughtful comments, just a quick read-through, a grade, and then a brief period of wrestling over what final mark to give for the class. A few very kind students manage to earn the same grade on everything, and that makes the ultimate decision simple; there are not nearly enough of these consistent types to make my job easier.

I dream of a magic grading machine, operated by industrious chinchillas.

Another in the student crushes series: the “daddy crush” and the need for a mentor

I’ve written a few times about student crushes and their meaning, starting with this post that still gets loads and loads of hits from search engines. My basic thesis:

There’s an old axiom in pop psychology: we don’t just get crushes on people whom we want, we get crushes on people whom we want to be like! Students don’t get crushes on me because they want to go to bed with me or be my girlfriend or boyfriend; they get crushes on me because I’ve got a quality that they want to bring out in themselves. They’re externalizing all of their hopes for themselves. And rather than encourage the crush to feed my ego, my job is to turn the focus back on to the student, encouraging him or her to take their new-found curiosity or enthusiasm or passion and use it, run with it, indulge it, let it take them places!

One thing I’ve really started to notice in the last two or three years is an interesting, satisfying shift in the way that some of these crushes seem to play out. Something shifted in my relationships with my students right around the time I became old enough to be their father. The crushes that students got on me — and the way they made those crushes known — were qualitatively different when I was 30 than they are today at 40.

Leaving me out of it, I know that some student crushes on their teachers are explicitly sexual. But most really aren’t, even if they appear externally to be motivated by physical desire. Young people, you see, have a good vocabulary for sex. Romantic longing and sexual fantasy are part of the discourse of most college students. But we don’t have the same vocabulary for wanting a mentor, or even a father-figure. When a 20 year-old college student says of her professor, “I think he’s hot”, her friends may or may not agree — but they understand her frame of reference. They’ll likely take what she says at face value.

But what if that same gal told her friends “I really want him as a mentor”? It’s likely she’d be teased; “Yeah right, you want him as a mentor! Puhleeze! Can’t you be honest about it?” We live in a culture that insists on eroticizing our desire to be guided and cared for to such a degree that it is assumed that anyone who insists that his or her longing to be nurtured isn’t sexual at its core is, well, lying. As a result, we don’t have a way to let young people ask to be mentored, guided, even loved in a safe, non-sexual and yet intimate way.

Talking about sexual desire also sounds so much more adult than talking about a desire for a father figure. We live in a culture where many young people see lust as evidence of maturity. Saying about your teacher: “I want to do him” makes you sound grown up, aggressive, sophisticated, a “together woman.” Saying about that same person, “I want to spend time with him, he’s kind of like a Dad to me” may seem — to peers if not to the young woman saying it — like evidence of immaturity. “What, you’re still not over your father issues?” Too often, I think the vocabulary of erotic desire masks something else, something more tender and raw.

Over the years, I’ve noticed that some female students will flirt with me early on in visits to my office hours. It’s not particularly flattering, and it’s not evidence of my desirability. What I’m convinced it is is simple: so many of these young women, particularly first-generation college students, have been taught by their parents (or by bitter experience) that “men just want one thing.” If they want guidance and mentoring, if they want to be noticed for their ideas, they figure they have to get a male professor’s attention first by using their sexuality. They sometimes don’t trust their own inner worth enough to assume that they could get that attention without being flirtatious, and often they don’t believe that men — even older men in positions of authority — will really give them as much validation if they don’t wear certain kinds of clothing and behave in a certain way. Once a relationship is established that feels safe and entirely non-threatening, I notice the tendency to flirt usually goes away.

I’m opening myself up to several charges here: narcissism, for one, for assuming that so many folks do get crushes on me (regardless of the meaning of those crushes). Two, I’m being presumptuous about what young people, particularly young women, “really” want from me. I make no secret of my longing to be a father (seven chinchillas, an active avocation for youth ministry); maybe I’m just projecting my own need to be a Daddy onto my students. I’ve got a colleague who just assumes that all of his female students “want” him sexually; he preens like a rooster (though he’s old enough to retire with full benefits) and talks graphically and embarrassingly about his students’ dress. His ego needs tell him that legions of women thirty-five years his junior long to go to bed with him; is it not possible that my ego needs lie to me as well, telling me that a great many of these young people think of me as, if not a father figure exactly, at least a mentor? Perhaps I flatter myself as badly as my lecherous colleague.

But even if I do exaggerate the case, I think the “daddy crush” is more real than we know.

Some thoughts on marriage, socialization, libido and the vocabulary for one’s own inner terrain

It’s not uncommon to have a “gender divide” in discussions of feminism, sexuality, or marriage. Rarely, however, has the divide been as stark in my comments section as it is beneath my post last Thursday about men and “emotion work” in marriage.

One thing that tends to happen in these discussions is a revisiting of the nature/nurture argument. In particular, many men make the claim that women are simply hardwired to “do emotion work better.” They insinuate that it’s unreasonable for women (or their pro-feminist allies) to demand that men “behave like women” and learn to talk openly and freely about their feelings.

Of course, many of these same men express frustration with their girlfriends and wives about sex. When, say, a wife or girlfriend shows less interest in sex than her guy, or perhaps seems to have some reticence about acting out one of his fantasies, the same guy who insists that he is “naturally” less verbal than his female partner insists that she “work through her sexual issues”. It is a pop culture stereotype that men have higher sex drives than women and that women have a greater need for emotional connection, and like most stereotypes, it’s perhaps partly grounded in truth. But what I see happen a lot in the relationships and marriages I know is a kind of profound inconsistency on the part of the husband/boyfriend — when it comes to excusing his own unwillingness to do “emotional relationship maintenance”, he explains it away with biology; when it comes to his female partner’s “sexual inhibitions” (which may simply be an unwillingness to fulfill his needs whenever he feels them), he insists that this is something she “needs to work through.”

I am convinced to my core that both men and women have enormously powerful libidos. Sex drives may vary in intensity from person to person, but that variation has less to do with gender and far more to do with individual preference. Almost all of us have a capacity to delight in sexuality. Similarly, almost all of us have the ability to express ourselves verbally; we all have the capacity to accurately describe our inner emotional terrain. The problem is obvious: in our culture, we shame and shut down young women’s sexuality to the point that many have a hard time acknowledging that they have the capacity for eros. At the same time, we shame and shut down young men who are too freely expressive with their emotions.

“Slut” and “fag” are words that whip the two genders into line; the fear of being “dirty” leaves many young (and not so young) women profoundly disconnected from their own authentic sexuality. These young women may have a sense of themselves as objects of desire, but they all too often have been shamed out of their own sexual subjectivity. In almost exactly the same way, their boyfriends and brothers have been brutalized by the cult of contemporary American masculinity. The “fear of faggotry” not only causes young men to hide their tears, it eventually leads to a kind of emotional frigidity that leaves them profoundly disconnected.

All over America, there are heterosexual couples having sex. Far too often, a key issue in the sexual relationship is that the woman “doesn’t feel anything.” She wants to enjoy sex, she’s attracted to her guy, but somehow, things just don’t end up as exciting for her as they do for him. Sometimes, she fakes it, or she’s passive. She feels guilty, perhaps, or resentful. Often, she just feels frustrated and a little bit cheated.

And all over America, there are men and women trying to have a conversation. And the guy is trying (maybe) to connect emotionally with his wife or girlfriend. He wonders why the words seem to come so easily for her, why her tears flow more quickly than his. He loves her, but when he looks inside of himself, he isn’t sure what he sees. He wonders if he’s just shallow, or numb, or some sort of sociopath. Maybe he feels guilty. And maybe he feels a little frustrated at his own lack of emotional vocabulary; maybe he feels resentful at the woman in his life for “wanting so much emotional connection” all the time.

Look, I’m doing some whopping stereotyping. Relationship advice manuals do this all the time, of course. But the point I want to make is that we make a dreadful mistake in our culture when we assume that women will never be as randy as men, and that men will never be as emotionally intuitive as women. From early childhood, we shut down women’s sexuality and men’s emotional sensitivity; in school, peers use terms like “whore” and “queer” to reinforce the point that certain things (female sexuality, male sensitivity) are taboo. And we then launch a generation of young women who don’t know how to have an orgasm and a generation of young men who don’t know how to connect to their deepest, most authentic feelings. Worse, we assume that this is “just the way it is”, and we begin to believe in the lie of complementarianism, in which each spouse becomes chiefly responsible for one specific compartment of a shared life, a compartment in which the other is neither expected nor allowed.

I’m being a bit crass here, but I want to make this point clear. We need to do more to raise our young women to be comfortable with their sexuality, with their anger, with their appetites for food. We need to do more to raise our young men to express their pain, their hurt, their anxiety. We don’t need any more “people-pleasers” or “sturdy oaks.” I’ve been the sturdy oak married to a people-pleaser, and it’s nothing short of sheer hell — alienation, distance, misunderstanding, resentment. My job as a human being is to become as emotionally complete and multi-faceted as possible. It’s my wife’s job to do the same, and to a very great extent, we can each play the role of the other’s cheerleader in that process. But in the end, we are each fully responsible for our own completion.