Monthly Archives: November 2007

Saturday reprint: Courtly Love and Double Standards

Posted on by

It’s a long holiday weekend, and I won’t be back to regular posting until Tuesday morning. In the interim, here’s a repost of something I wrote back in March 2005:

The comments on this post from last week about accountability have shifted to the topic of bad male behavior, particularly the sort that takes place when no other fellow is around. Mythago recently wrote:

Chivalry has always been about good manners towards ‘ladies,’ not to women, period. It’s as true in the modern day as it was when The Art of Courtly Love was written.

She’s right about the Art of Courtly Love. Andreas Capellanus, who wrote that famous medieval tract, argued for immense patience in pursuing women of gentle birth. As for peasants:

“If you love a peasant woman, praise her and force her–peasants don’t respond to gentle wooing.”

So much for seeing all women as one’s sisters in Christ! Capellanus makes it clear that the pursuit of courtly love is likely to be immensely frustrating for a man — which is why peasant women make such a convenient outlet for pent-up sexual desire.

Mythago is right when she suggests that nine centuries after Capellanus wrote his tract, the attitudes within it survive. Many of the male commenters on my recent posts about responsibility and propriety have implied that good manners are essentially reciprocal. Their thesis? If a woman dresses appropriately, she is deserving of respect in return. If she doesn’t respect herself or her community, then she forfeits her right to be respected. In other words, “nice” girls, “demure” girls, have the right not to be objectified and openly lusted for; “bad” women (you know, the bra-less ones, the ones in short skirts), deserve the wolfish stares from their brothers and resentment from their sisters. Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized

Friday Random Ten: wriggling with joy for a three-day weekend

Posted on by

I’ll bet a Starbucks card or a PETA donation that none of my readers own each of the eleven artists here. I came to Rilo Kiley just within the past year, but most of these songs are old (or ageing) favorites. (I suppose #6 is the track that doesn’t fit.)

1. “Spectacular Views”, Rilo Kiley
2. “Your Life is Now”, John Mellencamp
3. “Martyrs and Thieves”, Jennifer Knapp
4. “The Weakness in Me”, Joan Armatrading
5. “The Wind and the Mountain”, Liz Phair
6. “Holy Diver”, Dio
7. “The Last Resort”, The Eagles
8. “Hurt Me Bad In a Real Good Way”, Patty Loveless
9. “Lie to Me”, Depeche Mode
10. “Better than You”, Terri Clark

Bonus Track: “Sunday Morning Coming Down”, Kris Kristofferson

Dobson versus Robertson, the Giuliani endorsement, and the split over the End Times — a brief post with a long title

Posted on by

Hugh Hewitt, the only right-wing radio talk-show host to whom I regularly listen, has an interesting post up about Pat Robertson’s surprise endorsement of Rudy Giuliani. Given that James Dobson — right up there with Robertson in terms of influence among conservative evangelicals — has stated categorically that he won’t support the pro-choice Rudy if he is the GOP nominee, Robertson’s announcement seemed surprising. Hugh Hewitt, an enthusiastic Mitt Romney supporter, is rather eager to make the case that the endorsement doesn’t matter much. (The Romney types really should be getting nervous, as their boy is still going nowhere in the national polls. I still think he’ll be the nominee, however, facing Clinton.)

I think there’s another reason Robertson picked Giuliani, and it has everything to do with how Pat interprets prophecy. Continue reading →

The lure of victim consciousness: more on marriage, disparate desire, and responsibility

Posted on by

Below Monday’s post on marriage and disparate desire, “Married Tom” writes:

There are two sides to the incompatible libido/unhappy sex life coin. I would argue that living with the expectation that most advances to your spouse will be met with a “not interested tonight, and since ‘I’ come before ‘us’ that is justifiable” can have equally “soul scarring” results. The sense of rejection, demoralization, and ultimately apathy that builds up over time from constant, predictable rejection is just as real and damaging as the bleak feeling that must come from being “pressured or nagged” into sex. Neither is good, yet you are implying that one is morally acceptable while the other is damning.

You are saying that regardless of whether the decision is mutual, you should learn to accept the situation and be happy with it. Many spouses do just that, I believe it is an example of the factors behind what Thoreau observed behind the “quiet desperation” in many men. Failing to see why the anxious spouse can’t just learn to “deal with it” is not particularly helpful–a strange mix of pragmatism and sanctimony.

Monday’s post was in response to a particularly asinine article. My point was that no one, married or not, is ever “entitled” to have sex with another human being. The “yes” of the wedding day is not a “yes” to every future sexual encounter with a spouse. Good sex is based not on duty but on desire — and when it comes to sex, most folks seem to find that duty makes desire disappear right quick. The author of the article suggested that lower-desire spouses ought to think of sex as one of the many tasks one undertakes to make a partner happy, like taking out the garbage or doing the dishes. I — and most of my commenters — vigorously reject that analogy. Taking out the garbage when one doesn’t want to leads to momentary resentment, while having sex you don’t want can be profoundly damaging to the spirit. Sex is not easily made analogous to any other household activity! Sophonisba makes this point well:

We are all aware that you have to do lots of things you don’t want to do, in life and in marriage. Every decent person does things they don’t want to do, every day–yes, even people who don’t put out on command.

Try stepping away from the easy, comforting “anything I don’t want to do” generalities for a second and put it in concrete terms. You’re not talking about having somebody do “something” or “anything” they don’t want to. You’re talking about having them have sex they don’t want to have. Not quite so vague and fluffy, when you look it in the face. Continue reading →

Thursday Short Poem and a note about madness: Sexton’s “Live”

Posted on by

Because Anne Sexton ended up taking her own life, this poem — with its brief, defiant rejection of suicide – is all the more poignant. Like most people who love poetry, I’ve connected with different poets at different times over the years, but there are only a handful whose complete body of work has always moved me. Robinson Jeffers is one, and Sexton another. I’ve never put this poem up for TSP before, largely because it’s so viscerally connected to a very dark time in my life. (It’s also a bit longer than what normally goes up, so it’s beneath the fold.)

I remember reading the collected works of Anne Sexton over and over again during a fourteen-day involuntary stay on the locked psych ward at what was then CPC Alhambra, a private facility a few miles from Pasadena. It was the summer of 1996, and I was near bottom, having only just survived yet another suicide attempt, this time by massive overdose of prescription drugs. In the hospital, I was heavily medicated, but I still found comfort in books: Robertson Davies’ “Deptford Trilogy” and an anthology of Sexton. If the staff had been more literarily inclined, they might have confiscated the latter text. I’m glad they didn’t, because I found much comfort in this difficult, breathtaking poem.

And often, that chaotic June and July, I said to myself “Even crazy, I’m nice as a chocolate bar.” I still say it sometimes now. But what really resonated for me in that summer were the last eight lines. And as it happened, in no small way thanks to Sexton, I made it through that dark time by discovering “I am not what I expected.” And in the end, I said “Live”. It still hurts me that Sexton, whose own madness so closely paralleled my own, didn’t end up saying the same in the end. Continue reading →

Prestige and student satisfaction: more on Ratemyprofessors

Posted on by

Emma sends a link to this article from today’s Guardian: Who’s the Hottest Teacher in the US? (Hint: it’s not me, darn it all.)

The piece is a very English reflection on Ratemyprofessors, a site about which I’ve had a bit to say in the past. (See the archive here, and my NPR interview here.) As I’ve said, my faith in RMP as a useful evaluation tool vanished after it became clear that anyone could rate themselves or their colleagues or their worst enemy or their parents. Being an enrolled student was not a requirement to rate, and that makes the whole site largely useless (which is why I haven’t followed it as eagerly as I once did.)

In any event, the Guardian piece makes a very good point, of the sort that might cheer those of us laboring in intellectual backwaters like my own Pasadena City College:

Obviously, as a conventional register of quality – whether of staff, scholarship, or courses – the MTV/RMP poll is less reliable than weather forecasting with seaweed. No statistician would see it as anything other than a joke. Sneering aside though, it does furnish food for thought. And uncomfortable thought.

What it reveals to me is that the level of student satisfaction is higher the lower you go down the prestige scale. That is, undergraduates at, say, Rhode Island College, or Stephen F. Austin University, feel they are getting a better deal than Yalies, Caltechers or Princetonians.

It could be the students in those less classy places are less demanding, or humbler. It could be the fees aren’t so vexatiously high in these less famous places, giving a better sense of value for money.

But the real reason, I suspect, is that those students are indeed getting a better classroom experience.

Bold emphasis mine.

Full Frontal Feminism: my students respond

Posted on by

This semester, I assigned Jessica Valenti’s Full Frontal Feminism. I reviewed the book back in May, and a few weeks later explained why I would be assigning it to my women’s history class this fall. Yesterday, we had our first in-class discussion about Full Frontal Feminism (FFF, or F3).

If you were reading in the feminist blogosphere last spring, you know that a major quarrel erupted over Jessica’s book. (Click on the third link in the paragraph above for more.) Indeed, some of the most embittered intra-feminist exchanges I’ve ever seen online took place in the responses to FFF, many of them revolving around the perceived “whiteness” of the book’s perspective. To say that the book “struck a nerve” would be to employ an overused cliche that underestimates the intensity of the debate that raged in the blogosphere in May 2007. All the more reason for me to be eager to collect student responses to Valenti’s brand-new offering.

I knew my students would be honest. This class in particular is quite vocal about what it likes and doesn’t. For the last few years, for example, I’ve assigned Flirting with Danger. It’s an immensely valuable study, but the turgid, social science-jargon-laden prose alienates quite a few of the folks in the class. Frankly, it’s a toss-up each semester as to whether or not to keep assigning it, and it may be that at last I dump it for next year. The point is, my students have — as a general rule — no problem telling me what they don’t like about my syllabus, and what they do. Continue reading →

Tuesday night search terms

Posted on by

Since last Thursday, these search queries have been used by folks to come to this blog:

hugo schwyzer sociopath (A surprising number of folks think that’s an accurate diagnosis, but I hope they want this post)

conflict with the pyramids egypt (I’ve never said anything nasty about the pyramids, and live in harmony with ‘em as far as I can tell. Doesn’t everyone?)

arminian pornstars (I’m sure they meant Armenian, but it’s just possible they’re lookin’ for well-endowed actors who reject predestination)

tampon hugo schwyzer (You want this post)

how do i find the clitoris (Yours or someone else’s? In either event, finding it is a good idea. Maybe read this? Or for actual advice, go here to the wonderful folks at Scarleteen)

storage academic diplomas (As I’ve said, it’s the best place for them)

ethics on advisor who is tempting students to take them in research (The syntax has so many possibilities)

shepherdize o.j. simpson Okay, I give. What the heck does that mean, and how did it lead someone here?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Evangelizing for the Animals

Posted on by

A happy story in the Los Angeles Times this morning: Evangelizing for the Animals.

On Wednesday, clergy from 20 faith traditions — including Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Pentecostal and Roman Catholic — will sign a statement declaring a moral duty to treat animals with respect. At a ceremony in Washington, they will call on all people of faith to stop wearing fur, reduce meat consumption, and buy only from farms with humane practices. The Best Friends Animal Society, which brought the group together, plans to recruit volunteers to bring that message into at least 2,000 congregations nationwide.

The evangelical community “is expanding its definition of values to include work on poverty and the environment. We hope to insert concern for animal welfare as well,” said Christine Gutleben, who directs the new “animals and religion” program at the Humane Society of the United States.

That program, funded at $400,000 a year, aims to persuade faith communities to take a series of small steps: offering a vegetarian entree at a fellowship meal, or insisting that the coffee cake set out on Sundays is made with free-range eggs.

The Humane Society is also seeking to enlist religious leaders in its political campaigns. In California, for instance, the group has been pushing a ballot measure to ban certain confinement systems for farm animals. Promotional ads show photos of hens in crowded cages and ask: “Is This Faithful Stewardship of God’s Creatures?”

I’m a member of the Christian Vegetarian Association, and they provide an excellent FAQ about issues of stewardship, dominion, and diet. I’m excited to see even some very conservative evangelicals (the Times article refers to Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University) becoming open to issues of conservation and justice for animals. While most traditional Christians are not willing to place animal life on par with human life, it is encouraging to see so many engaged in critical reflection about justice, compassion, and conservation. Real change often needs to happen incrementally, and evangelical openness to animal rights issues is an exciting first step.

My wife went from eating red meat to being completely vegan in the space of a weekend. Pun intended, she gave up a carnivorous lifestyle “cold-turkey.” I went more slowly, surrendering first red meat, then poultry, then fish, then dairy and eggs. (We’ve both felt terrific on our vegan diets, and my wife’s doctors assure her that she will be able to remain vegan throughout any future pregnancy and while nursing a future child.) Asking all Christians to consider veganism may be imposing too much too fast. Asking them to buy meat that has been raised and slaughtered humanely, asking them to include vegetarian and vegan options at social events, and asking church communities to reflect on good stewardship may be the best way to begin.

A helpful and little-known bible passage: Proverbs 12:10. Good people are good to their animals; the “good-hearted” bad people kick and abuse them. The Old Testament world had no concept of “pets” as we do; the animals referred to here are working animals, livestock. If you’re going to raise animals for slaughter, you are required to treate them with kindness. Making that biblically sound point is a vital part of the battle for the hearts, minds, and palates of Christians.

And the Times article contains a tidbit I didn’t know:

Before he became pope, Benedict XVI (then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) spoke against force-feeding geese to produce foie gras and packing hens so closely “that they become just caricatures of birds.”

Would that he had spoken on the matter ex cathedra. Perhaps soon.

Muffie Valentine Albert, 1917-2007

Posted on by

My cousin, Muffie Valentine Albert, died last Tuesday at age 89. (Obit is here.) She was a dear and loving presence all of my life (even if she was part of that small minority within the clan who went to Stanford rather than Cal.)

She was the last of her age cohort; with her passing, my mother’s generation is now the most senior in our large and extended family. There is no one left who belongs to the generation of my grandparents. She was the last member of my family who remembered her grandfather, who came to California as a boy after the Gold Rush. With Muffie gone, no one is left who knew that generation of pioneers — those who came around the Horn or in covered wagons, who remembered the Civil War well.

We’ll have much to say about Muffie — and about the great majority she’s gone to join — when we gather as a family this Thanksgiving at the Ranch her grandfather (my great-great grandfather) built a very long time ago.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged