Our sons, our brothers, our guys: part one of a three-part review of Michael Kimmel’s new book

This is the first of a three-part review of Michael Kimmel’s new book.

I order a lot of books (which I then pass on or recycle dutifully), but I’ve awaited no book in 2008 more eagerly than Michael Kimmel’s brand new Guyland: The Perilous World where Boys Become Men. As anyone even remotely connected to the gender studies field knows, the last half-decade has seen an explosion of alarm over the “boy crisis”. Pundits and physicians, mostly on the political right, have written anxious and angry jeremiads about how, thanks to feminism and other innovations, our sons are ignored, stifled, shamed, and alienated. The astonishing rise in autism and ADHD diagnoses among boys, and the increasing demographic domination of women among the college-educated, are regularly cited as evidence that the system is failing our young men.

Of course, concern for young people is not a zero-sum game. Success and opportunities for young women has not come, and indeed never need come, at the expense of their brothers. Much of the “boy crisis” (or its counterpart, the risible notion of a “War Against Men” recently promoted in a lamentable bestseller) is manufactured as a vehicle to push a tired anti-feminist agenda. But the fact that the problem with boys is often oversold (in order to market books to anxious parents and indignant right-wingers) doesn’t mean that growing up male in American society today is particularly easy. Young men today must navigate through a confusing and contradictory series of messages about their identity, their purpose, and their relationship to others. There is a real problem, and those of us who care about young men cannot let our exasperation at the flagrant misdiagnosis of its cause distract us from working on a solution.

This is why Michael Kimmel’s new book is so welcome. Kimmel (professor of sociology at SUNY Stony Brook) is perhaps the leading American scholar on the subject of men and masculinity. Indeed, it would not be a stretch to say that the growing field of “Men and Masculinity Studies” owes more to Michael Kimmel than to anyone else. His indispensable primer, Manhood in America, is now in its second edition. (I use it in my men’s studies course.)

Guyland focuses in on young men in one crucial decade: the years between 16 and 26. For the book, Kimmel interviewed more than four hundred men who fell into that age range, from a wide variety of economic and cultural backgrounds. (He notes how easy it is for academics to focus their research on their own students, who tend to be predominantly middle and upper-middle class. Kimmel assiduously seeks out young men who aren’t the sort to be found in selective four-year colleges, as well as those who are.) His conclusions, as a result of these extensive interviews and his own decades of work on masculinity, are sweeping, profound, and immensely important.

Kimmel, blessedly, skewers those who suggest that the “boy crisis” is in some way a consequence of feminist advances in education and elsewhere.

The idea that feminist reforms have led to the decline of boyhood is both educationally unsound and politically unstable. It creates a false opposition between girls and boys, assuming that the educational reforms undertaken to enhance girls’ educational opportunities have actually hindered boys’ educational development. But these reforms…actually enable larger numbers of students to get a better education, boys as well as girls. Further, ‘gender stereotypes, particularly those related to education’, hurt both girls and boys, and so challenging those stereotypes and expressing less tolerance for school violence and bullying, and increased attention to violence at home, actually enables both girls and boys to feel safer at school. (Emphasis in the original.)

What then of the evidence that girls are starting to surpass boys in terms of academic achievement, not only in the humanities but increasingly in maths and science? Kimmel makes the case that this is a less a result of anti-boy prejudice and more a consequence of the disastrous attempt on the part of many young men to live up to what he calls the “Boy Code” (more on that later). Continue reading

Eight weeks out, and coping with “poll anxiety”

I’m looking forward to posting tomorrow what I suspect will be a lengthy review of Michael Kimmel’s new book, Guyland. I’ll be re-reading sections of it tonight before blogging about it — but let me advise those of you in the vicinity of a bookstore or in possession of an Amazon gift certificate to pick up a copy for yourself at once.

This morning, I’m thinking about politics. One of my mentees came to see me yesterday. Nineteen years old, “Rolo” is active in politics and is volunteering much of his time with the Democratic Party and the Obama campaign. He was an “early adopter” of Obama; when Rolo was first my student a year ago, he already sported a button. He’s as active a young progressive as I know, and we’ve had some good discussions about politics.

Like so many folks from across the political spectrum, Rolo is obsessed with Real Clear Politics and its constantly-updated polling data. The results of the post-convention polls for the GOP show a substantial “Palin bounce” that has put John McCain ahead of Barack Obama by anywhere from 2-10 points in the national polls. Individual swing states remain too close to call. And while Rolo knows perfectly well that post-convention bounces rarely last more than a fortnight, he’s gripped by the sudden fear that the Democrats might end up doing what even a youngster such as he knows they have done so often: snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Others know a lot more about the ebb and flow of polls and politics than I. Rolo was coming to chat less out of hope that I would give him some particular insight (he has a favorite poli sci professor for that), and more for the sake of having someone with whom to process his anxiety. And I know that Rolo isn’t alone; a great many of my progressive friends seem to be filled with a sense of foreboding as they contemplate the very real possibility that John McCain might well defeat Barack Obama, despite all the economic and historical indicators that ought to augur Democratic victory. Continue reading

Being passionately interested without arousing interest: more on crushes, flirtation, and safety

It’s one of those very hectic mornings.

I’m tired of discussing Sarah Palin and the merits of the other various candidates for president. (I might feel rejuvenated within 48 hours — it’s entirely plausible I’ll be right back to bloggin’ about politics again soon).

The BBC reports a study this morning: Declaring Love Boosts Sex Appeal.

Telling someone you fancy ‘I really like you’ could make him or her find you more attractive, research suggests.

Making eye contact and smiling have a similar effect, says Aberdeen University psychologist Dr Ben Jones.

His study, involving 230 men and women, found such social cues – which signal how much others fancy you – play a crucial role in attraction.

In other words, people are apparently much more likely to be attracted to you if they think that you find them attractive. I’m no psychologist, but it seems to make good sense. We all have our inner narcissist, after all — many of us will naturally be drawn to people whom we think see in us what we long desperately to be seen.

I’m thinking about this in terms of my own work as a youth worker, college professor, and mentor. One of the things it took me a long time to learn was how closely connected flirting behavior and straightforward active listening are in our culture. I suppose it’s a lesson that every therapist learns early on — clients often fall in love with their shrinks because they are so overwhelmed by the experience of having someone listening so attentively and with such evident interest. In our culture, one of the simplest ways to flirt and signal sexual interest is to listen attentively, making eye contact and offering encouraging cues (like little nods or smiles). Good mentoring and youth work involves using similar techniques.

Students get crushes on me less often than they used to, thanks to two things: one, I’m getting older, and two, I’m much more conscientious these days about carefully distinguishing between sexual intent on the one hand and enthusiastic interest in their lives and work on the other. I also work hard to make sure that the “safe, married, even vaguely asexual” vibe gets projected hard. Continue reading

Wimmerata and the Hubert Schwyzer Quartet

If you’re going to be in the Santa Barbara area tomorrow, there’s a concert honoring my father and raising money for the Westmont College quartet that will bear Dad’s name. Actually, two concerts: “fiddling” Americana from 4-6PM and a classical concert from 7:00PM on. $25 dollars at the door; the concert is at Santa Barbara’s Trinity Episcopal Church.

John McCain, pagan Roman: on the saving power of patriotism, and a most extraordinary speech

As my readers know, I’m a registered Republican (albeit a very liberal one, in the Lincoln Chaffee/Olympia Snowe/Millicent Fenwick/Pete McCloskey mold). I supported John McCain in the primary with no intention of voting for him in the general, because (despite the fact that he would prove the toughest candidate for a Democrat to beat) I wanted to support the Republican least beholden to the “movement conservatives” who have done so much to damage both the party of Lincoln and the nation.

Let me say again, for the fortieth time, I’m voting for Obama. McCain is Greener than most Republicans, but not Green enough — and the environment is my top issue. McCain’s track record on equal pay for women and on reproductive rights is also lamentable. I share some of his economic views, mind you, and my liberal internationalist streak (the one that competes with my inner Anabaptist) likes a willingness to use force to protect the vulnerable. But in the end, I’m voting for Obama-Biden. The selection of the ultra-conservative Sarah Palin certainly did nothing to move me towards voting John McCain twice in the same year.

But I enjoyed McCain’s speech last night immensely. I found it moving, even as he trod down a path that is familiar to all of us. And what I found fascinating about him is his extraordinary insistence on “country first”. McCain comes across as an essentially secular person (which is a bit of a relief, frankly, compared to some in his party). If asked to order their priorities, I’d imagine your typical GOP conventioneer would offer 1. God, 2. Family, 3. Country. McCain seems to reverse that trinity.

I teared up at this:

But after I turned down their offer (that of his North Vietnamese captors to release him early), they worked me over harder than they ever had before — for a long time — and they broke me.

When they brought me back to my cell, I was hurt and ashamed, and I didn’t know how I could face my fellow prisoners. The good man in the cell next door to me — my friend, Bob Craner — saved me. Through taps on a wall, he told me I had fought as hard as I could. No man can always stand alone. And then he told me to get back up and fight again for my country and for the men I had the honor to serve with, because every day they fought for me. (Cheers, applause.)

I fell in love with my country when I was a prisoner in someone else’s. I loved it not just for the many comforts of life here; I loved it for its decency, for its faith in the wisdom, justice and goodness of its people.

I loved it because it was not just a place, but an idea, a cause worth fighting for. I was never the same again. I wasn’t my own man anymore, I was my country’s. (Extended cheers and applause.)

I’m not running for president because I think I’m blessed with such personal greatness that history has anointed me to save our country in its hour of need. (Cheers, applause.) My country saved me. My country saved me, and I cannot forget it. And I will fight for her for as long as I draw breath, so help me God.

Bold emphasis is mine.

I don’t share McCain’s views. Indeed, as a progressive evangelical, I find them in some sense appalling. God is invoked only to enable McCain to do what he feels is the highest calling, fighting for the nation state that he sees as the source of his salvation. Am I the only one seeing something vaguely pagan in all this? More specifically, last night McCain was more Roman than Christian in his elevation of patria to the highest allegiance of all. And to use the language of salvation repeatedly, and to ascribe that salvation not to God but to country, was absolutely extraordinary. And yet, it was moving and compelling in its own way.

It’s common to tell “lost but now am found” stories. Lots of us tell stories about being broken, and then saved. I tell mine. George W. Bush told his. But when most Christians tell our stories of falls from grace, of being laid low by hubris or addiction, we describe a conversion experience that was brought about by God. McCain’s was brought about by the patria. America, not Jesus, saved John McCain. And that’s an experience with which very few in either party can identify.

McCain’s patriotism is, in the end, basically secular. The Christian right’s patriotism isn’t. McCain wants to fight for America because he loves it more viscerally than anything else; Christian conservatives want to transform the state to bring it more closely into alliance with one particular set of biblical principles. I think that that disconnect is one reason among many for the greater appeal of a more straightforward right-winger like Sarah Palin, and for the continued discomfort so many in the hardline conservative movement feel with the latter day Cato the Elder whom they have nominated.

Friday Random Ten: longing for autumn edition

After a couple of months away, the FRT returns. I’m very fond of all of these songs, though how #8 snuck on here, I’m not sure. It’s no doubt one of my wife’s favorites, as it’s not something I ever downloaded.

1. “Another Country”, Tift Merritt
2. “At My Window”, Townes Van Zandt
3. “Wreck of the Day”, Anna Nalick
4. “Both Sides Now”, Joni Mitchell
5. “1952 Vincent Black Lightning”, Del McCoury Band
6. “So Begins the Task”, Stephen Stills
7. “Forever in Blue Jeans”, Neil Diamond
8. “Give a Little Bit”, Goo Goo Dolls
9. “Goodbye”, Steve Earle
10. “Enough to Go By”, Vienna Teng

Bonus Track: “Heaven Tonight”, Hole

Third anniversary reflections

Today, my wife and I mark our third wedding anniversary.

I’ve been thinking about marriage and politics these last couple of days, as the nation’s attention has turned to old “Mommy War” arguments as well as debates about family values.

And I’m thinking about the implication, made more by the right than by the left, that those who hold a liberal worldview are less likely to have strong marriages rooted in supportive communities. While everyone acknowledges that successful heterosexual marriages are found across the political spectrum (occasionally, with each partner in the marriage at a very different place on that spectrum), we tend towards a cultural assumption that those who hold conservative views seek out more community and familial support for their marriages.

Here’s one thing I’ve learned after three divorces and four marriages. It not only takes a village to raise a child, it takes a village to sustain a marriage. That doesn’t mean that those who want to have successful marriages need to submit to the guidance of a particular religious leader; indeed, the “village” doesn’t need to have anything to do with an organized faith community or an extended kinship network. But having a community filled with people who want to support you as a couple, even a small community held together by a hobby rather than by shared religious faith, seems to do wonders for strengthening a marriage. My wife and I are blessed today to have friends who not only hope fervently that we will “work” as a couple, they hold us each accountable for how we grow and treat each other. We chose this network of friends, mind you — if it had been imposed, we would not have the same willingness to listen to the wisdom and challenges of those around us.

Another thing I’ve learned: monogamous marriage is one vehicle for personal transformation, but certainly not the only one. One of the many reasons why I threw myself so enthusiastically into my first set of marriages (despite being woefully unready for the challenges thereof) was because I was convinced that there was something uniquely powerful about the marital union. Somehow, after the vows were said and the documents signed, some strange sort of chemical reaction would begin that would not only bring about deep contentment for both parties, but would actually serve to change each person in the marriage for the better. In my early post-conversion days, I waxed rhapsodically about marriage as the “refining fire” that better than anything else healed the soul of both past trauma and self-centered sinfulness. I said embarrassing things like “Only in a long-term monogamous relationship can people really grow.” Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Comments problems

Somehow, the default comment approval option keeps getting turned off. WordPress gremlins are trying to silence my readers. I’ll try and stay on top of it today and keep things open.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged