Responses to my post about pro-feminist men and Antonio Villaraigosa’s infidelities have been, well, lukewarm. At her place, Sassy worries that by suggesting that the mayor treats women in his life as disposable, I’m reinforcing an anti-feminist sense of victimhood. She also writes:
Part of feminism for me though is recognizing that women have the ability to make the best choices for themselves, that includes making the choice to stay or leave a man with a wandering eye. I know very little about his wife, but I can assure you that some of those tears she has cried has been from the assumption of others that he treated her as “disposable” and what others must think of her…
No doubt, but those of who work as male feminists have an obligation to do more than counsel women to make “the best choices” when faced with infidelity. There’s a strain in many of the responses to my post that suggests that bad male behavior is to be expected, and feminism should focus itself solely on giving women tools with which to respond to that behavior. That’s fine, and I do share an interest in giving women those tools — but I’m also convinced that those of us who call ourselves male feminists ought to be doing more to challenge men to transform their sexual behavior. Feminism is surely about more than empowering women; it surely is also (in part but not in whole) about holding men accountable and setting new standards for what is acceptable.
In the comments below my post, Catty writes:
I do think this hand-wringing is counterproductive and sets people up for failure.
In this day and age, Roosevelt or Kennedy would have neeeever gotten elected.
I understand the exasperation many folks have with the media’s incessant prying into the sexual lives of public figures. I hear the FDR and JFK line a lot, too; some people clearly yearn for an era in which great men were free to be great in public and have their quiet, discreet, unreported fun. Catty seems to believe, as many now believe, that there is no connection between public justice and private virtue; they believe that a man can simultaneously betray marriage vows and be desperately loyal to other, loftier principles. In other words, they believe that many people — perhaps great men in particular — can live their lives in compartments.
My faith informs my feminism, and vice versa. Though I acknowledge that philanderers have made great leaders in the past, that’s due less to their personal success at compartmentalization and more to God’s remarkable habit of “writing straight with crooked lines.” At the end of the day, my faith tells me we will all fall short of the mark; we are all works in progress; we are all going to sin in one way or another. But acknowledging that sin is part and parcel of the human condition is very different from turning a blind eye to it. Recognizing that humans are often frail is very different from accepting private betrayals as inevitable. And understanding that we all make mistakes doesn’t mean that we ought to continue to enable the making of them.
JFK and FDR were notoriously unfaithful; the Marilyn Monroe and Lucy Mercer stories (among others) are well-known. But these two men grew up in an era where men were expected and encouraged to live their lives in compartments. They were taught that it was permissable to be one way in public, and radically different in private. They were also raised in a culture where wives accepted their husbands’ infidelity as inevitable, asking only that their philandering spouses be discreet. The male-dominated press, filled with journalists who may also have had girlfriends on the side, conspired with the JFKs and the FDRs and others to keep everyone’s sexual behavior out of the public eye.
A feminist society is one in which we raise both young men and young women to treat each other with dignity, with kindness, with radical honesty. Feminism is not merely about liberating women to behave as badly as men have traditionally been allowed to behave; feminism is perhaps also about asking men to live up to the same moral standards that women have historically been required to meet. Of course, that’s a position grounded firmly in both faith and feminism rather than the latter alone. Secular proponents of women’s equality do not all share the conviction that the best advocates of public justice are also those who practice authentic private virtue.
In this country, the right-wing emphasizes private morality and often ignores the requirement to provide justice through public institutions. The left does the opposite. The right doesn’t see the communal responsibility (expressed through state institutions) to provide for the health and welfare of the vulnerable. The left doesn’t see much point in encouraging monogamy as a solution to social problems. The right sees the “family” as the solution to all problems, while the left almost completely discounts it. That’s a broad generalization, but it’s not all that far off the mark. Both left and right often fail to see that we need a combination of strong, accessible public institutions and strong, kind, morally accountable citizens to build a just society.
From a feminist standpoint, I prefer Bill Clinton to George W. Bush. The former’s track record on women’s rights globally, while far from perfect, was much better than his successor’s. On the other hand, not even his worst enemies have accused W. of any sexual impropriety since his conversion experience more than two decades ago. Clinton’s personal life was characterized by recklessness bordering (if the stories be half true) on abuse: Bush’s private life is above reproach — but his public actions have been firmly anti-feminist. But I refuse to accept a false choice between being led by a man of private virtue and public misogyny on the one hand and being led by a man who embraces egalitarian principles in the open but fumbles disgracefully with young women half his age in a hallway off the Oval Office on the other. Public justice matters; private virtue matters.
It is only unreasonable to demand both when we buy into the notion that men are fundamentally weak. We often wrongly assume that “great men” naturally have great sexual appetites that cannot possibly be met within the confines of a marriage to one woman. Their energy and their commitment to the greater good require that they have a little “down time” in the arms and beds of a variety of young women (or young men). We insist that it’s both unfair and unrealistic to demand that these men honor all of their commitments — as long as they are good servants to the public, it’s none of our business whether or not they are lousy husbands.
Every man, howver, who holds a position of power (be he president or professor) is instantly a role model to younger people, especially to younger men. We do take cues, and rightly so, from our leaders about what is acceptable and permissable. A teacher, a youth minister, a cabinet secretary, a monarch, a president — they are watched and studied by the young. The young want to know if those who guide them and provide for them are matching their public language and their private lives. When they see hypocrisy, when they see a profound disconnect, when they see that even the most admired of men cheat — they learn not to expect too much from men, or from themselves.
Had they been raised in a different era and held to a higher standard, I have no doubt that FDR and JFK could have both been successful politicians and faithful husbands. Had they been raised in a culture that taught men to speak and act when they are alone with their buddies the same way they speak and act around their sisters and wives, they might well have turned out to be even better leaders than they did. While feminists ought to care more about a politician’s ideas than about his or her private sexual behavior, it is not unreasonable or overly idealistic to ask for decency in every aspect of a leader’s life. Our sons and daughters need to see men who can treat women as equals in the boardroom — and at the same time, keep their commitments in the bedroom.
It’s not too much to ask, it’s not too much to demand. And I am demanding it less for myself than for the young people who so desperately need to know that radical, authentic integrity is possible. I’m not asking for perfection, but I am asking for an end, once and for all, for to compartmentalization.
Clinton’s personal life was characterized by recklessness bordering (if the stories be half true) on abuse: Bush’s private life is above reproach — but his public actions have been firmly anti-feminist.
Hugo, that’s a pretty low bar you’re setting, if “above reproach” means merely being faithful, that we know of. Clinton supports his wife’s career, gives her real respect in public, and there’s little doubt that he thinks she’s brilliant. Bush pays the token lip service to respecting his wife, but with that nudge and wink that men give about that. Laura Bush’s life has always been at the whim of her husband’s career. The Bush family notoriously is cold to her. Rumor has it that Bush married her as a “piss off” to his mother, who forbade him to marry the woman he really loved, because she was Jewish. So he married a proper WASP that he knew his mother didn’t like. Laura Bush was reportedly happy in Texas and did not want to move to D.C., and I doubt there was compromise where he scratched her back if she did this for him. The idea that the Bushes have a more moral, feminist marriage than the Clintons strains credulity. I say hold men to a higher standard, sure, but respect is about more than just keeping it in your pants.
I can’t argue with holding men to a higher standard of behavior, but there are so many men(MRA’s) that still romanticize the notion that a good husband is a non-violent faithful one, which imo is just as backwards. Neither do I necessarily support women behaving as “badly” as men, but that our relationships skills have not adapted to progressive thinking as much as we would like to see. Ideally people would wait to marry until they were older, know themselves well, have established their identity and considered what was most important to them in a partner. I suspect until then we will see infidelities from both men and women.
Amanda, I admit that my knowledge of the Bush marriage is limited and vague — fidelity is not, by any means the same as feminism, and I don’t mean to imply faithful automatically means “good.”
Sassy, I agree we haven’t yet adapted our relationship skills to our thinking — and that’s where we can agree that more work is vitally needed!
Hugo:
What an earnest, well-meaning, and profoundly misguided fellow you are.
Perhaps you should start by reading Jung, on the differences between the “male principle” and the “female principle”, and about why they are complementary and equally essential to the development of our civilization. Or even look at that radical feminist lesbian Camille Paglia, who also does not want to merely turn men into women as you do.
Stop sucking up to your constituency, Hugo, and attempting to ingratiate yourself by being more “radical” than the most rabid female feminist. Get a life.
David
David’s comment, folks is an example of a Category Three slur against male feminists.
Category One: All male feminists are gay, or not real men.
Category Two: All male feminists are wolves in sheep’s clothing, seeking to get laid by playing the role of Sensitive New Age Guy.
Category Three: All male feminists are filled with self-loathing and anxious for women’s approval; they hope to get more of the latter by wallowing in the former.
I’ve faced those slurs for years, buddy (some folks accuse me of all three at once, which is a neat trick). Ain’t gonna work.
But I appreciate that you find me earnest.
As someone who works around politics, your point is very well taken, although there’s just so much complexity around this issue that I don’t know where to begin. There’s a goodly number of people who run for office because they crave external validation, and a certain number of them will see sexual conquests as another source of external validation. And there’s always a willing supply of potential conquests who see sleeping with an elected official as a source of external validation, so the entire sick cycle keeps going on and on. I suppose I see it less as a feminist issue and more as a way that some people get their dose of validation (temporary as it may be.)
Your comments also take me back to my political philosophy classes and Plato’s notion of philosopher-leaders with strong moral foundations who establish a basis for a moral and just society. I also recall my political philosophy professor saying it was a far better thing for Jack Kennedy to have a girlfriend du jour and run the country well, than for Dick Nixon to be faithful to his wife and screw over the governing process.
But it never hurts to make your demands for “radical, authentic integrity.” A few people with that attitude can make a real difference. (I am not utterly jaded.)
May I ask why Clinton’s “feminism,” or lack thereof, is assessed only with respect to his relationship with his wife, and in the context of his marriage? The way that he and his aides/publicists have treated the various “other” women in his life suggests a rather archaic notion of feminism, in which only the woman with whom one is in a licit relationship deserves respect (or did Clinton think Monica would get a big chuckle out of Blumenthal’s “stalker” lie?).
Hugo, that’s not really directed at you, but at Amanda, who seems to suggest that Clinton’s personal stance toward feminism is entirely encompassed by his treatment of/relationship with Hillary Clinton.
I enjoyed this post very much, especially this passage, which — despite the necessary generalities — is essentially correct:
“In this country, the right-wing emphasizes private morality and often ignores the requirement to provide justice through public institutions. The left does the opposite. The right doesn’t see the communal responsibility (expressed through state institutions) to provide for the health and welfare of the vulnerable. The left doesn’t see much point in encouraging monogamy as a solution to social problems. The right sees the “family†as the solution to all problems, while the left almost completely discounts it. That’s a broad generalization, but it’s not all that far off the mark. Both left and right often fail to see that we need a combination of strong, accessible public institutions and strong, kind, morally accountable citizens to build a just society.”
As someone who is basically “conservative,” I would quibble with the notion that the right doesn’t see the communal responsibility to provide for the health and welfare of the vulnerable (see studies of patterns of charitable giving among conservatives and liberals). I think perhaps many on the right disagree with the idea that — in most instances — our communal responsibilities are best and most effectively expressed through state institutions.
But thanks for a thoughtful post.
Hold it right there. Why on earth do you think the left ignores private morality and neglects the importance of families? If you’re going to toss around allegations like that you’ll have to back them up a little better.
Z, the secular left is sometimes deeply reluctant to acknowledge the role of the family — it’s by omission rather than commission, of course — it’s what isn’t said rather than what is said. Too often, the left doesn’t consider “private sexual morality” to be a legitimate political issue.
The religious right sees adultery and homosexuality as equal sins, drawing on Paul’s sin lists from the New Testament. Those of us who stand up for gays and lesbians and their right to wed are aware of how closely the right ties together all sexual sin — and as a consequence, we end up reluctant to condemn private behavior of any kind, for fear of having the topic turn from infidelity to homosexuality. The left has ceded the language of morality to the far right, which has been a huge mistake. We can embrace our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters while we openly declare adultery to be fundamentally wrong.
The breaking of a vow is very different from any other form of sexual misconduct, because it indicates a direct contradiction between a public commitment (marriages are public events and of public record) and private behavior. And we have the right to challenge men and women alike to match their private behavior to the vows they made.
Who are these mysterious people on the left who hold these views? Name some names.
Z, the secular left is sometimes deeply reluctant to acknowledge the role of the family
Oh. Wow.
So, there’s no debate on what the role of “the” family is, then. The only question is whether we do or don’t acknowledge it. That’s a neat trick.
Too often, the left doesn’t consider “private sexual morality†to be a legitimate political issue.
Because when you look at who’s concerned with fighting the trivialization of acquaintance rape and outlawing sexual harassment, you don’t see a lot of leftists.
What?
The left has ceded the language of morality to the far right, which has been a huge mistake.
All the leftists I know and read are quite vocal about the profoundly immoral nature of marriage bans, sexual assault, and bigotry, to name but a few familial issues. The only way this bears any relation to reality is if you’re hung up on leftists sometimes saying “unethical” instead of “immoral,” which seems like a pretty petty point to me and which rightists also often do.
Check out this letter, z, from a woman I much admire, to whom I have contributed money, and whom I once introduced at a campus event — Sheila Kuehl, the first open lesbian elected to statewide office in California:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/letters/la-le-wednesday20.6jun20,1,470503.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
She writes (re: Villaraigosa):
Leave the guy alone and give us some news, political analysis and fact. How about returning to journalism?
That’s one example, and you can find plenty more. Sheila’s standing up for a friend, and I appreciate that, but when you’re sleeping with a reporter who covers your mayoralty, that is news, and it is journalism to cover it, and it is the public’s right to know how well public figures live out their commitments.
Sophonisba, I’ve been pretty vocal in my opposition to sexual harassment. But adultery causes significant social harm, doesn’t it? Sexual harassment renders public spaces unsafe for women; adultery renders private spaces unsafe. Why can’t we speak out against both, not necessarily by rendering the latter illegal, but by acknowledging that creating a just society is about encouraging justice in every sphere of life, both public and private?
And yes, it would be good if we on the left would lose our discomfort with talk of “morality”. But that wish may be a consequence of my desire to fuse faith, feminism, and progressive politics.
I read the Kuehl letter more as critiquing the way the coverage was handled, not the issue itself. She said the article was unsubstantiated and therefore not newsworthy. And one state senator, especially one from California, does not constitute “the left.” If you’re going to toss around that kind of broad accusation, you’ll have to do better.
I think you’re reading your own biases into adultery. Plenty of people just don’t have the same view of acceptable sexual behavior that you do, and it doesn’t make them immoral or unconcerned with family. People might quite reasonably think affairs are what make it possible for couples to stay together for the kids, or something. Don’t read immorality or disregard into a substantive disagreement about the content of moral views.
Z,
Is the point of your second paragraph that it’s not that people on the left are uncomfortable talking about morality; it’s just that they don’t necessarily view adultery as immoral? I’m not sure that that really helps your case. What about you, though? Do *you* consider adultery to be immoral?
Anyway, your second passage seems to me to exhibit precisely the discomfort with speaking about morality — especially as regards what we think of as the “private sphere” — that Hugo was describing.
The point I was trying to make is that people might disagree with Hugo about the extent and manner in which adultery is harmful, but that doesn’t make them unconcerned with private morality or family. It means they hold a different view about private morality and family. That’s different from not caring.
It seems to me that “the left” thinks the best option is to stay out of the morality business, because of the political situation, and I don’t think that’s an unprincipled decision. It’s a pragmatic choice to maximize political effectiveness for the sake of other goals.
The core problem is that Hugo is conflating “public condemnation of adultery” with “concern about private morality” which is wrong because private morality is a much bigger category than adultery.
Z,
But don’t you think it’s disingenuous to say one is “staying out of the morality business?” How can one take *any* position with regard to public policy and law and claim that one is staying out of the morality business? All questions of law and public policy ultimately involve questions of morality — of good and bad, right and wrong. When some on the left, therefore, accuse some on the right of trying to “impose” their morality on others, the implication is that it’s fundamentally wrong to impose morality on others. But that’s what law is — the imposition of morality on the whole of society, regardless of each individual’s private views on the matter. True, some laws are far less controversial than others, but to reject the idea that law and public policy are inescapably intertwined with morality — to suggest that one’s politics require that one stay out of the “morality business” –strikes me as just wrong.
Yeah, ok, I guess that was a poor turn of phrase. What I was trying to say is that their decision to take a particular course (in this case, the course of not saying much) doesn’t necessarily indicate a lack of concern for morality. It just means that they think that’s the best and most moral course of action for a given political situation, picking one’s battles and all that. There’s a real choice in how we expend political capital, and while it isn’t necessarily zero-sum, it isn’t infinite either, and alienating voters with lefty morality talk can have real consequences for other political priorities that have equally strong moral claims. Hugo is mistaking a tactical withdrawal for a lack of concern.
On the other hand, not even his worst enemies have accused W. of any sexual impropriety since his conversion experience more than two decades ago.
You haven’t been reading the Bush enemies. I’ve seen a number of insinuations that Condi is more than just his Secretary of State.
Er, haven’t been reading the *right* Bush enemies.
And to the extent, Z, I’ve mistaken “a tactical withdrawal for a lack of concern”, I may indeed be in the wrong. I would suggest a tactical re-entry into the discussion would be just the ticket.
The right wants to control the definition of family as a way of bringing back the power base to a male-dominated center. They criticize the unmarried couple, the single parent (but blame mainly the females), the gay parents, etc. They criticize any coupling that isn’t dominant dad, submissive mom and kids born without the use of any contraception. The left says that it’s not the shape of the family that’s important, but the whether it’s working out for the family unit. The right says that the shape determines the function, period- and anything divergent of the ideal shape is an abomination. The fact that you’re buying into the right’s framing of the family is somewhat disappointing.
I don’t believe that there is or isn’t a connection between private and public virtue. I’m saying that the public virtue is the obligation, first and foremost, that is owed to me as a citizen from a politician. Villaraigosa does not owe it to me to stay married, not stay married, not have an affair, have an affair, or ANY of those things. That is not what he owes me as a public official. I believe that being a government official is a JOB. I believe that imperfect people (i.e. you and me and everyone else) has the capacity to do our JOBS and do them well, despite whatever failings we may have that may be unacceptable to others. I believe that yes, people can make mistakes or bad judgement in their private lives and still be a brilliant employee.
If people want to fall into vapors over his marriage falling apart, they’re free to do so. The mentality you’ve exuded here infers that Villaraigosa’s duty to his constituents is the same as his duty to his wife. It’s not, not even close. The bottom line is that the MOST IMPORTANT aspect of his duty as a public official gets ignored in this type of conversation.
There is an advantage for those in political careers to have a certain palatable image to the constituents. The more we can get away from people’s private lives and focus on their JOB- we can get a lot more issues addressed. I think we miss out on a lot of great public servants by pushing this family man/woman as the ideal.
Catty,
I understand the urge to construct strawmen; many people on the right do it, too. Heck, *I* do it sometimes. I’m sure there are some people who fit your caricature of the Right. I’m on “the right,” though, and, last I looked, neither I nor any of my nefarious ilk espoused the program you outline in your first paragraph.
You claim that those on the left care about whether a particular shape of family is “working out” for the family unit. It’s a glaring fact, however, that one particular family shape is *not* working out for the family unit — single-parent (ususally single mother) families in which the parents are divorced or have never been married. Single parenthood or “fatherlessness” is closely related to a host of terrible outcomes for children (lots of soical science research bears out this claim). The reason that most people on the right talk about this is not to “blame” single mothers, but to discuss ways to combat this problem. Talking about the problem is not, it seems to me, a concession to right-wing moralizing, but simply an acknowledgement that something is wrong and needs to be addressed. People can have good faith agreements about *how* to address the problem, but to pretend it doesn’t exist seems incompatible with the compassion and tolerance you’d like to claim for those on the left.
This is off, topic, so this is all I’ll say…
Cutting off social services, educational funding, contraception access and reproductive choice actually encourage single motherhood, yet I generally see the right more vested in such activities. The right can talk about how to “address” the problem of single motherhood all they want, but it’s pointless to talk to people that would be enraged at single mothers and at the same time, encourage or force women into single motherhood against their choice through denial of programs and access.
Also, a lot of “problems” with single parent families have to do with issues of poverty and lack of participation (financial, time, emotional, etc) of the non-custodial parent than the fact that it’s rooted in the structure of the single parent family. Many single parent homes also don’t remain that way permanently, as parents remarry.
“… encourage or force women into single motherhood against their choice through denial of programs and access.”
———
Did these evil right-wingers also get her pregnant? They must really be smooth talkers.
JG: Only if you believe that ‘choosing to have sex’ is equal to ‘choosing to become a single mother’.
JG,
By cutting off access to birth control, sex ed and other reproductive choices, yes- they are responsible indirectly for enacting policy that encourages single motherhood.
Just the ticket for what purpose? I think it’s a really dumb idea. Adultery is just not as important as the other issues on the left’s agenda, and talking about it wouldn’t be effective anyway. What of the left’s agenda would you strike from the list to make room for adultery? Health care? Poverty? And what would you say to the people who really needed whatever change was displaced by adultery? It’s easy to be all moral about these things when you’re affluent. And don’t pretend we don’t have to make these choices. We all have to pick our battles, and our political capital is finite, as is our time in any given political cycle.
The right has tainted the idea of sexual morality with their patriarchy and hypocrisy, to the extent that any talk about it is just not credible, and it’s impossible to bring it up without being drowned out by their side. So there’s just nothing to be gained here.
Gosh, I really regret placing that one paragraph in here about the right and the left; this was a post about men and our expectations more than about politics, and I foolishly derailed my own thread. Must be all the cold medicine.
Did these evil right-wingers also get her pregnant? They must really be smooth talkers.
Sure seem to be, given the adulterous habits of various prominent evil right-wingers, some of whom have fathered children outside of marriage. (And to be fair to the guys, there seem to be an awful lot of divorced or single-mother evil right-wingers. But, you know: That’s Different.)
As for the troll above, I am always baffled at guys who think that behaving honorably and keeping your word are things that should be optional, and if anyone says otherwise they are trying to castrate you, turn you into a woman (which is a fate worse than death!), etc. etc.
I am always baffled at guys who think that behaving honorably and keeping your word are things that should be optional, and if anyone says otherwise they are trying to castrate you, turn you into a woman (which is a fate worse than death!), etc. etc.
Like “forsaking all others?”
And imagine – people think that if you can’t keep such promises in the little things, and to those whom you profess to love more than yourself, they question your commitment to the big things, and to people who you really don’t know personally.
The nerve of some people.
Why do you assume Mayor Villaraigosa is solely at fault here? The implication from the tone of your blog article is that the women involved in this are passive agents.
It takes two to tango. Given the historical (and present) high levels of female infidelity , your allusion to “holding men accountable” without making mention of women is sexist in the extreme.
Parson Jim, we do hold women accountable. We place figurative scarlet letters on them much more quickly than we do men. Read your Hawthorne.
people think that if you can’t keep such promises in the little things, and to those whom you profess to love more than yourself, they question your commitment to the big things, and to people who you really don’t know personally
They might even, if you can believe it, cast aspersions on your responsibility and self-control. Wacky, I know.
Since when is sexual assault on the “border” of abuse?! The cases we know to be true border on abuse; the ones we have little reason to doubt (Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones) are way over the line.
On what planet has President Bush exhibited anything that can remotely be described as misogyny? Do you think he appointed Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court just to make a snarky point that all women are as unqualified for the position as Miers herself probably was? Or are you intentionally blurring the line between “anti-feminist” and “anti-woman?” Here’s a hint: by most polls a majority of women self-describe as anti-feminist. The smart money says they aren’t anti-woman.
Put differently: equating “anti-feminist” with “misogynist” makes no more (or less) sense than equating “anti-MRA” with “misandrist,” for precisely the same reason.
Hugo, while I may agree with your general point about a double standard for sexual infidelity/adultery, I have to object to your suggestion that Hawthorne — or more particularly, The Scarlet Letter — is concerned either with presenting or decrying that double standard. The only reason that Reverend Dimmesdale isn’t wearing a figurative or literal scarlet letter is because Hester Prynne has refused to reveal the identity of her partner in sin. The puritans in that novel may be joyless, loveless, and misanthropic, but they are not (except for Dimmesdale) hypocrites or even misogynists.
And to be fair as well, Kate, Hawthorne totally misrepresented the Puritans, who were more likely to hold men to account than women.
I do think most feminist analysis of Scarlet Letter does see it as making a point about hypocrisy and the sexual double standard. But to go there would be some fairly significant thread drift.
Oh, I don’t know, Hugo – what about Antonio’s thang? Sure, I see her suspended, but this discourse is about him wearing a scarlet A. Surely she was a free, willing, and active participant in this. Much talk is made abouit how it is appropriate for her to be suspended for sleeping with someone she is supposed to be covering – and ethics issue – but hey, sleeping with a sister’s husband? That’s stabbing a fellow woman in the back.
We’re not talking about Puritans and Hawthorne, here, Hugo. We’re talking about Mayor Villaraigosa, his wife and his girlfriend. They are all adults, and possess both agency and free will.
For some reason, though, Mr. Villaraigosa seems to be the only party of the three to whom you ascribe those characteristics, and it seems like you do so simply because he is a man.
I don’t get why Villagairosa’s wife would be culpable in this matter at all. Villagairosa and his girl friend, sure. But the wife? Since when is being cheated on a sin?
Maybe she cheated and we didn’t hear about it. Maybe they agreed to lead separate lives.
Maybe she was intolerable to live with and he finally gave up and yielded to temptation. Maybe his girlfriend tried her hardest to get him away from his wife and finally succeeded.
I didn’t mean to imply she is at fault in anyway, but, hell, if his mistress has been writing stories on him for all this time, I really wouldn’t go with what I read in the media about this.
This isn’t 1927, it’s 2007, and women and men both should be treated as adults with free will of their own, and Hugo doesn’t seem to appreciate that fact.
Parson Jim, I’m writing about men here — about the ways in which we excuse bad male behavior, the ways in which we continue to see sexual impropriety as an acceptable component of a successful man’s overall persona. As I’ve said 10,000 times before, I’m a man writing about holding men accountable — that’s my professional and paraprofessional work. Other folks elsewhere can turn to the question of women’s culpability. That’s not my bailiwick.
Ironically, you’re exhibiting bad male behavior by assuming the women in this situation are passive agents in this situation. This issue involves a man and two women – don’t the women deserve mention as actors in this drama as well?
From your writing one would assume they have as much to do with this matter as pieces of furniture, and to the contrary, they are integral players in this situation. To ignore them is to render them invisible simply because they are women, and by doing that you do them a grave disservice.
On the contrary, Parson Jim, that would only be true if my subject were infidelity. That’s not the topic here, as you can tell from the title of my post — I’m talking about the way in which we view men, power, sexuality, and compartmentalization.
Infidelity involves many things besides issues of male entitlement. It’s not denying that those issues exist to say that here, in this space, I’m going to focus on one aspect of the problem.
One of the cleverest tricks of the misogynists is to pretend that they are actually strong supporters of women; they often do this — and I’m not sure you, Parson Jim, are a misogynist, but others who use your rhetoric are — by suggesting that it is feminists who are too quick to infantilize women and devalue their agency.
I didn’t mean to imply she is at fault in anyway
Oh, of course you did. That’s why you used the plural ‘women’ and then suggested that maybe his wife cheated too. All we know for sure is that Villaraigosa admits to infidelity.
Hugo, why don’t you read Sassy’s account of the issue, the one you cite at the start of the article.
“Perhaps my biggest problem with Hugo’s post is that it seems dated, at least in our culture in regard to marriage/power structures. Assigning women the victim default removes agency as well as personhood, I mean his wife was the one to file for divorce right? The Clintons seem to be a more current adaption of modern marriage; she clearly had the resources to leave and certainly had reasons to stay, regardless she was still a victim in many people’s eyes. As feminists, our relationships are usually on display as the experiment that will never work. I think it is a mistake to judge that based on previous demarcations.”
I couldn’t agree with her more. She is absolutely on the mark. You said, “…I’m not sure you, Parson Jim, are a misogynist, others who use your rhetoric are — by suggesting that it is feminists who are too quick to infantilize women and devalue their agency.”
Is she a misogynist? By your reasoning, you imply she is.
Mythago, I mentioned everyone involved in this issue is a human being, with respective agency, those folks being a man and two women. Read that how you will. You said above, “All we know for sure is that Villaraigosa admits to infidelity.”
We don’t know the rest of the story, and it’s easy to jump to conclusions when your motivated by preconceptions and ideology rather than logic and reason. See the Duke lacrosse case for an example of where that leads you.
but, hell, if his mistress has been writing stories on him for all this time
Why the heck would his mistress be going out of her way to let his wife off the hook?
Sure, his wife could be an absolutely horrible wife, or unfaithful, or any manner of things. So could I. But in the absence of any actual evidence that I’m cheating on my husband or otherwise mistreating him, I expect people to give me the benefit of the doubt, and not imply that I’ve done him wrong. And I think a woman (or a man) is still entitled to that benefit of the doubt if cheated on.
It’s not as if there isn’t plenty of temptation for even happily married people with good enough spouses to cheat.
“One of the cleverest tricks of the misogynists is to pretend that they are actually strong supporters of women; they often do this — and I’m not sure you, Parson Jim, are a misogynist, but others who use your rhetoric are — by suggesting that it is feminists who are too quick to infantilize women and devalue their agency.”
——————-
I’m not so sure that it’s a “clever trick”. It’s pretty much reality. Either women are to be treated as children – unaware of what they are doing and always in need of guidance from men – or they are to be treated as adults with the accompanying responsibilities.
I just don’t see a whole lot of wiggle room there. People who aren’t good at holding two conflicting beliefs at the same time have trouble figuring out the situations in which women are supposed to be treated as adults (e.g. job hiring, voting etc.) and situations in which they are supposed to be treated as children (in civil or criminal court, e.g. Mary Winkler, family law etc.).
It really does get confusing, Hugo.
We don’t know the rest of the story, and it’s easy to jump to conclusions when your motivated by preconceptions and ideology rather than logic and reason.
Then why are you jumping to conclusions? Seems pretty silly to me to mutter about how maybe SHE had an affair unless you’re, y’know, motivated by preconceptions and ideology rather than logic and reason.
To paraphrase JG, surely you aren’t infantilizing men or buying into the sexist assumption that men are ruled by their hormones and can’t say no to their own dicks?
I’m saying there is no information about the women involved in any of the press reports about this story.
From the offensive language in the last sentence from your post above, I see you have already arrived at conclusions of your own.
AM: “Bush pays the token lip service to respecting his wife, but with that nudge and wink that men give about that.”
You must have really good eyes, Amanda. I seemed to have missed both the nudge and the wink.
Catty: “They criticize any coupling that isn’t dominant dad, submissive mom and kids born without the use of any contraception.”
Many couples elect, for a variety of reasons, not to use contraceptives. Are you, in turn, criticizing them, and assuming that all of them believe in dominant dads and submissive moms?
We’ll never know who’s at fault here. PERIOD. We just know that from what’s been reported, Villaraigosa has been unfaithful to his wife for some time. There’s no need to speculate about the details of a marriage that we’ll never know.
That’s my whole point- focusing on the private lives of public officials tend to devolve into speculative and intrusive territory, rather than the focus of the man and his obligation to the public. I have RARELY seen anything productive come out of this type of dialog. It turns into a blame/defense party that goes every which way. Actually, what bothers me more about this situation was that he was having an affair with a reporter that was writing about him. To me, that’s more troublesome because that could get into hampering with his public obligation. The issue of his infidelity is not my business.
Parson, why even bring up the Duke case? Are you trying to needle and incite others? I’m just sayin’. There’s no comparison. I think the most productive thing to do is to admit that we have no idea about what went on in their marriage, it’s their private problem that they’d probably would rather deal with privately than have the community speculate and blame- which is what people are doing here.
“We don’t know the rest of the story, and it’s easy to jump to conclusions when your motivated by preconceptions and ideology rather than logic and reason. See the Duke lacrosse case for an example of where that leads you.”
Read that first sentence copied above – that’s why I brought it up.
Oh, and don’t forget to mention Mirthala Salinas here, if you’re just going to bring up details about Mayor Villaraigosa. The press has also reported her relationships in the past with Fabian Nunez and Alex Padilla. Surely that points to a pattern of significant behavior as much as Villaraigosa’s own behavior does.
Your point about his mistress being the reporter who was covering him is well put. It also speaks to a journalist conflict of interest that certainly affects Salinas’ credibility.
Again, not to mention her past indiscretions seems oddly antifeminist, as though she were only a passive player in this drama. JG’s post above speaks to the point very eloquently.
That would be a pattern of having a thing for politicians, and of not paying too much attention to her news agency’s official policy about romantic entanglements and conflict of interest, as far as I can tell, not a pattern of sleeping with married men (Padilla is single, and Nunez was reportedly divorced at the time she was seeing him). But, hey, have at Salinas, as far as I’m concerned; it’s Corinne Villaraigosa I’m defending. I think that speculating that she might have cheated on her husband, and referencing the Duke rape case to imply that we might all be misled about her wifely virtue, are both low blows, and that she should be left alone, and her privacy, such as it still is, respected.
I haven’t speculated regarding Corina Villaraigosa in anyway. I just pointed out that: (1) the inside story of their marriage is incomplete, we don’t know the whole picture, and (2) to focus on Mayor Villaraigosa alone is sexist, as it renders both women involved in this drama invisible.
Maybe their marriage was dead for a long time. Maybe not. Who knows – the whole picture is unclear.
Focusing solely on the men in this situation while ignoring a complete picture from all parties, including the women involved, leads to catastrophies akin to the initial response to the Duke lacrosse case.
I don’t quite understand the point of this post. If the claim being made by the post is that “Adultery is blameworthy and we should make sure to wag our fingers publicly at the mayor of LA,” then I suppose I might be convinced if the following things were true:
1) An expectation of fidelity was and is a part of the marriage. Notice that the public contract aspect of marriage gets you nowhere, we don’t and shouldn’t make fidelity a part of marriage. Infidelity is wrong only if it is breaking a promise, but even that probably isn’t a sufficient condition.
2) Finger-wagging will work to prevent people from acting culpably in the future.
1 may be true and 2 probably isn’t. The real problem here is the claim “private virtue matters” is vague. Matters how? In what way? How should we express that it matters?
For if the post is claiming that, qua voter and citizen, I should care about political infidelity, then that seems to be just obviously false. People have a right to privacy, which means they have the right to do what they want (even immoral things) in private as long as they don’t impede anyone else’s freedom or harm them.
When it comes to public reason and the public sphere, all I should care about are public matters of justice. When choosing two candidates? Is there any amount of private infidelity that would make you choose the candidate that will enact worse policies as a matter of public justice? The answer is no. Francois Mitterand can screw his mistress and sell the sex tape to Paris Hilton, and I will still vote for him over Thatcher, Reagan, or Bush.
The post is utterly vacuous. Unless we are told what “mattering” involves, it seems that the only plausible ways to read the post are such that the claims made are either trivially true or obviously false.
Patrick, you erect a false dichotomy: choose between the adulterous progressive and the faithful troglodyte. Hey, I voted for Bill Clinton a time or two; I understand and agree with the point that public justice matters. I’m arguing for something that goes beyond that — I’m arguing that progressives (and conservatives) ought to demand candidates who don’t compartmentalize. We ought to demand it of ourselves too — and there’s nothing trivial about insisting that we are all capable of meeting our public and private commitments with equal zeal.
Hugo said: “Feminism is surely about more than empowering women; it surely is also (in part but not in whole) about holding men accountable and setting new standards for what is acceptable.”
And in the end, empowering and privileging women – even moreso than they already are – via ‘changing’ men.
Face it Hugo, feminism is about women, not men. Nothing more, nothing less.
Mr. Bad, for the 37th time in three years, these threads are not the place to take issue with feminism.
Hugo, I’m simply pointing out that your hackneyed riff of “holding men accountable and setting new standards for what is acceptable” is ultimately for the benefit of women, not men. So Ok, we’re not talking about feminism per se here (wink, wink).
As others have said, where’s the accountability for the woman who knowingly had an affair with a married man? Last I checked adultery was a no-no. I’m not the only one who sees this excusing and apologizing for reprehensible behavior as infantalizing and patronizing to women, but in your system of, well, ‘beliefs’ (wink, wink) apparently only men are adults and thus can be held responsible for their behavior.
Mr. Bad, I suspect that, like myself, Hugo considers living a more virtuous life to be beneficial to both oneself and one’s community. If you remember your Aristotle, virtue are those habits which constitute and contribute to living a genuinely happy life.
We live in a society where `sexual virtue’ generally only seems to apply to women, and then is identified with repressing one’s sexuality. This is certainly the case in the world of teenagers and traditional college students. Hugo wants a richer, less Just Say No-based account of sexual virtue, and he wants to encourage both women and men to follow its path. It’s a liberatory goal, not one of pushing men down so women can get what they want.
Noumena, thank you — that’s a very eloquent summary of precisely what I want.
Noumena said: “We live in a society where `sexual virtue’ generally only seems to apply to women, and then is identified with repressing one’s sexuality. This is certainly the case in the world of teenagers and traditional college students.”
That hasn’t been true in our society since the 70s, especially on college campuses. In fact, on the modern college campus it’s precisely the opposite – men are the ones whose sexuality is repressed to the point of oppression. The Duke Lacrosse rape hoax is but one extreme example of a pandemic state of affairs vis-a-vis pathologizing male sexuality. The absurd code at Antioch college addressing sexual relations is another; that one was put in effect in the late ’80s. I hear that Antioch is closing down – perhaps their Draconion treatment of men vis-a-vis sexuality is why.
Folks like you and Hugo seem to be living in the past. Why?
Wait–isn’t the past where all the Good Feminists Who Had a Point Vis-a-Vis Sexism lived?
Hugo, when will you learn?
Ultimately, I think a lot of the coverage and commentary surrounding the Duke Lacrosse rape debacle bought into exactly the same meta-narrative Hugo wants to criticise. From the very beginning, supporters of the Lacrosse team members focussed on the fact that the alleged victim was a sex worker, and that she hadn’t behaved `like a rape victim should’, meaning damaged and passive. I never heard anyone — even feminists — ask if any of the Lacrosse team members were acting `like rapists’, or whether it says anything about their attitude towards sex and women that they hired a sex worker in the first place.
We see related rhetoric talking about rape on college campuses in general: for their safety, young women have to stay away from certain parts of campus, certain frat houses or dorms, have to be careful at parties, shouldn’t go off alone with strangers, if they dress a certain way that means `they want it’, and so on. The practical ethics of sex come down to women having to take responsibility for not being coerced into sex.
I worked at Orientation/First-year move-in for two years back in college, and I’ve had friends who have done it at all the various schools with which I’ve been associated. `How to not get raped’ workshops are legion and often mandatory for new college students, but I’ve never heard of a `how not to become a rapist’ workshop, to say nothing of `having a healthy sex life at college on your own terms’.
I’ve never heard of a `how not to become a rapist’ workshop, to say nothing of `having a healthy sex life at college on your own terms’.
Well, Noumena, I’ve helped develop a couple of those for our older kids (esp. the boys) at All Saints Pasadena as they get ready to head off to college, but you’re dead on right that we need more.
Noumena, judging from your synopsis of the Duke LaCrosse rape hoax, I see that you don’t have a very good handle on it. I suggest you go to K.C. Johnson’s blog “Durham in Wonderland” and peruse his archives for the details on how the various players and groups acted and currently are behaving.
Re. your statement “We see related rhetoric talking about rape on college campuses in general: for their safety, young women have to stay away from certain parts of campus, certain frat houses or dorms, have to be careful at parties, shouldn’t go off alone with strangers, if they dress a certain way that means `they want it’, and so on.”
The fact of the matter is, men are far more likely to be victims of violent crime – on campus and elsewhere – than are women. Exactly like women, men must take responsibility and also “stay away from certain parts of campus, certain frat houses or dorms, have to be careful at parties, shouldn’t go off alone with strangers” if they want to avoid being victimized. Further, men must also avoid “dress(ing) a certain way that means” they have, e.g., money or anything else that a criminal might want. Further, re. societal pressures here’s no double standard with respect to taking responsibility for ones personal safety – that’s a myth. The double standard is found in how resources are allocated to address the health, well-being and safety of women on college campuses as compared to men. And the fact is, the health and well-being of women is given far more attention and resources than is the case for men.
What you discuss is not a gender issue, it’s a human issue. However, with a nod to Orwell, some people (i.e., women) are more equal than others according to those with a certain ideology (wink, wink), especially on college campuses where folks of that ideology are found in large numbers in the administration.
I hope you’re not giving “how not to be a rapist” workshops, Hugo. That’s akin to giving “how not to be a prostitute” classes to girls. Both implicate the target populations as being criminal/bad by default. Boys are not rapists. Your sexism and self-hatred are showing.
(Remainder of comment relating to Duke deleted).
Folks, the Duke lacrose stuff stops now. Total thread drift. Stay on topic.
Feminists often think of men as “acting like rapists”, Noumena. In addition to the wrongful and sexist response to certain highly visible rape cases that proved to be false accusations, see the recent child predator awareness campaign underway in Virginia or the BA policy of not having men sit next to unaccompanied minors during flights.
It’s sad that such sexism is so rampant in society today, and feminists remain silent or else are willing participants in campaigns to paint men (or boys) as rapists by default.
It must be hard to grow up as a young boy today – folks implying you are a rapist, psychologists and “counselors” trying to erase any maleness in you vis a vis competitiveness, aggression, etc., and all the while the helping professions are willing participants in trying to remake boys as traditional girls. Confusing and wrong.
Parson, you’re done in this thread.
Anti-feminist jeremiads don’t belong here — this is a forum for feminist-friendly voices only, something I’ve made clear for months. This is not a forum for debating the merits of feminism.
I know, your blog, your rules, but gee whiz. Is it your position that Noumena slandering three innocent boys as “rapists” is not thread drift but Parson Jim rebutting the slander, is? If not, how on earth can you justify leaving Noumena’s comment intact while editing out PJ’s rebuttal? Or was it the final straw when PJ pointed out the obvious distinction between potentially useful classes on how to avoid a criminal and truly insulting classes on how to avoid becoming one?
I’m beginning to wonder if your “feminist only” rule (which, given your response to PJ’s constructive criticism, appears to have devolved into a “my particular brand of feminism only” rule) is really just a tacit admission that you know your ideas are too weak to survive a vigorous debate. This seems to be a popular tactic among left of center bloggers, who see their blogs more as a forum for advocating a particular ideology, right or wrong. You routinely allow commenters to bash MRAs in threads, then criticize the MRAs for responding. TalkLeft allows known conservatives to comment only three times per thread – and the threads can be extremely long. dKos doesn’t allow even liberal icons to post if they dare to publicly entertain the idea of running against Democrat incumbents. Etc.
By contrast, I can count on one hand the number of commenters I’ve banned, and all were for grossly abusive behavior, none for being insufficiently “conservative-friendly” on any issue or overall. I don’t know of any right-wing bloggers who impose ideological restrictions on commenters, either. Most of us *want* a good debate, because we figure that if we’re right, we’d like to prove it, and if we’re wrong, we’d rather be shown to be wrong than to go through the rest of our lives believing the wrong thing. IOW, we’re more interested in actually being right than in convincing ourselves that we are. What are you trying to accomplish? Promotion of “feminist” ideas as an end in themselves, regardless of whether they do harm or good? What exactly?
I hope you’re not giving “how not to be a rapist†workshops, Hugo. That’s akin to giving “how not to be a prostitute†classes to girls.
Do you think only men rape and only women turn tricks? Interesting that you think “how not to be a rapist” classes are only relevant to men.
I am not debating the merits of feminism. I am reiterating the wrongheadedness of a “workshop” that implicates boys as being potential rapists just because they are male.
Parson, I meant what I said about you being gone from this thread. Any more comments here will be deleted irrespective of their merits.
The “how not to rape” workshop deals with how consent is negotiated, and how we learn to distinguish between silent acquiescence and genuine enthuisiasm. The former, we argue, is just a “no” in another form much of the time.
It’s not just for men, but having women learn how not to rape is almost akin to teaching men how to have a healthy pregnancy. (And no, you don’t get to refute that, my MRA boys. Take it up elsewhere.) Women do need workshops that address agency, that address their own often suppressed ability to voice their wants and desires, but those aren’t quite the same needs.
X, I think there is a time and a place for healthy and vigorous debate. But that’s not what my blog is about — I wanted to create a place that was safe from misogyny; in my classroom, I am comfortable moderating from a position of genuine objectiviity (or at least carefully feigned objectivity). But debates distract.
If this were a forum for Christians seeking to grow in their faith, would I be expected to tolerate regular attacks from atheists? Isn’t there something to be said for having a space for like-minded folks where you don’t have to constantly explain the basic premises of your shared convictions every danged thread?
Like it or not, that’s my foundation stone. Others are free to start their own blogs, as I started mine.
No, but there’s a reason for the distinction. Religions are supposed to be … well … religions. Secular ideologies are not; they either accomplish what they are supposed to accomplish or they don’t, and if they don’t, it’s in their adherents’ best interests to know about that. The fact that religions actively shun debate, evidence, etc. is one of the reasons we have a formal separation of church and state enshrined in the Constitution. We don’t have a constitutional separation of feminist ideology and state; if we did I’d be happy to leave well enough alone.
No, there isn’t. Valid convictions are not threatened by debate; in fact, they’re enhanced by it. Only invalid convictions are threatened by open debate. And why on earth would you want to help perpetuate those?
Open debate doesn’t threaten, XRLQ. It distracts, and that’s a crucial difference.
“It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it.”
“Those who never retract their opinions love themselves more than they love the truth.”
Joseph Joubert