Monthly Archives: June 2009

The faithful remnant rises: a moment of opportunity for progressive Republicans?

Posted on by

In February, I put up a post called The quixotic faithful remnant: on being a happy liberal Republican in which I explained my commitment to the tiny but still potentially relevant left-wing of the Grand Old Party. Lately, I’ve encountered a number of fellow progressive Republicans through social networking sites like Facebook. As the battle rages on for the heart and soul of the Republican Party, the widespread assumption is that the struggle is primarily between those on the center-right and those on the far right. But this ignores the reality that there remain — particularly on the West Coast and in the Northeast — a large number of socially liberal, environmentally concerned, fiscally responsible folk who continue to identify with the GOP.

The fact is that on a great many issues, particularly around the environment, gay rights, and reproductive health, large contingents of the Democratic majority in Congress are well to the right of center. Indeed, until Arlen Specter rather cravenly switched parties this spring, Pennsylvania had the distinction of having as its two senators a pro-choice Republican (Specter) and a pro-life Democrat (Bob Casey, Jr.) While it would be a stretch to call Sen. Specter a feminist (we remember his shameful behavior during the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas hearings), his record on reproductive rights as a Republican was substantially better than his Democratic counterpart. We see the same thing in the House: Shelley Capito, a fine moderate Republican congresswoman from West Virginia is well to the left of her Democratic counterpart from Ohio, Marcy Kaptur, on virtually all reproductive rights issues. Put simply, the Democrats became a majority party once again by actively recruiting socially conservative but economically populist candidates to run in swing states. (Think Heath Shuler, Jon Tester, Jim Webb, the aforementioned Casey, and so on.) From the standpoint of those who see women’s right to choose as a central issue, this is immensely troubling.

And what of President Obama himself? I continue to have reasonably high regard for him, but am more than a little disappointed by some of his decisions in the three critical areas of women’s rights, gay and lesbian inclusion, and environmental protection. And it occurs to me that progressive Republicans can make a case for criticizing the president by challenging him from his left. Below the fold are three issues where prominent Republicans are to the president’s left. Continue reading →

Feminism, fatherhood, and enduring male privilege

Posted on by

This post by Jessica at Feministing, responding to this risible Neil Lyndon piece in the Daily Mail has revived many of the familiar arguments about feminism, the men’s rights movement, and gender essentialism. It’s all part of a response to the latest flurry of op-ed pieces (far too numerous to which to link) suggesting that feminism has proved a failure, largely because so many women today (especially middle-class American and European women, presumably those most likely to have benefitted from the movement) report being exhausted, overworked, anxious and, well, unhappy.

If you follow the feminist blogosphere, this topic has been debated over and over again in one form or another since the earliest BBS discussions of the mid-1990s. I’m not interested in rehashing the arguments, though the latest round of anti-feminist bromides seem unusually poorly constructed. Most are guilty of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy: if women are anxious or frustrated or unhappy after the coming of the first three waves of feminism, then they are anxious and unhappy because of the first three waves of feminism. One might as well make the same argument about the arrival of the cell phone, electrolysis, or the designated hitter rule. Repeat after me, class: correlation is not causation.

What made me want to write today was the comment thread below the Feministing piece, a thread in which a number of classic MRA (men’s rights activist) arguments were raised. The basic thesis: feminism has created a world hostile to men (at least in the industrialized West). Feminists have co-opted judicial, political, and educational institutions in order to advance what the MRAs call a “victim ideology”. Men and boys are alternately harangued and ignored, viewed by the feminist elite as either dim-witted oafs or dangerously calculating and predatory. Men are dying earlier and committing suicide more frequently because of their alienation from these woman-centered institutions, say the MRAs; the legions of young men hooked on pot or porn or Playstation (or all three) are the inevitable result of their cultural and social emasculation at the hands of a shrill and craven matriarchy. Or so say the MRAs.

So let me say this in defense of feminism, not only from the perspective of someone who makes his living in no small part by teaching it, but from the perspective of a new father: my relationship with my infant daughter is, in a very real way, made possible by the critical work feminists did to reframe traditional gender roles. It is thanks to the gains of the feminist movement that I was encouraged and expected to go through every aspect of the pregnancy and birthing process with my wife. It is thanks to the cultural shift initiatied by feminists and male allies that I was able to take the time away from work to be there for my wife (a right alas not yet universal). It is thanks to the feminist movement that a generation of committed and dedicated fathers has emerged, fathers who actively practice co-parenting with the mothers of their children. Though men neither get pregnant nor breastfeed, these biological inadequacies are no impediment to developing the capacity to nurture, something I am living out as best I can every day. Continue reading →

Assorted daddy thoughts

Posted on by

My wife, daughter, mother-in-law and I spent a very happy weekend in New York. We saw family and friends and kept ourselves very busy. I didn’t start visiting Manhattan regularly until a decade or so ago — and now, increasingly, I see it as somewhere I could live. (My dear wife would embrace that idea very eagerly.) The pace at which things happen is indeed satisfactory, and the fear of boredom is allayed in so many countless ways by that marvelous city.

It was the baby’s first long plane ride, and if I do say so myself she and her carers acquitted themselves splendidly. I now consider myself an old hand at wrangling strollers down jet ways and changing diapers in the lavatory in the midst of not-inconsiderable turbulence. My wife and I arranged our meals to be served separately, so that one could hold Heloise while the other ate. And oh, the blessing of a happy baby whose delicate ears are untroubled by landings and takeoffs. Heloise barely cried at all, and spent most of her waking time charming the FAs and her fellow passengers. (We are lucky parents, we know.)

I’ve got a post or two about feminist co-parenting (from the limited perspective, of course, of a first-time papa to a not-quite five-month old) in the hopper. For now, let me say simply how much I love being a father. There is nothing singular about this experience I’m having; many of my readers have had it or are having it, some many times over. But my goodness, what an extraordinary delight this girl is! And how extraordinary too to discover in myself reservoirs of patience and energy that I had no idea existed, reservoirs that might have gone untapped had my wife and I not had this little girl. Continue reading →

Of wise WASPs and wise Latinas: some thoughts on Sotomayor

Posted on by

I’ve been meaning to write about Sonia Sotomayor for weeks now, and have received two requests to do so.

As virtually everyone paying attention to the news knows, Sotomayor has been nominated by the president to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by the retirerement of Justice David Souter. The confirmation process is revving up. And Judge Sotomayor is taking particular criticism for her oft-repeated remark that a “wise Latina” would often reach a better conclusion than “a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” The right has cried “racism”, and the National Review has lampooned Sotomayor’s Latina wisdom with a particularly unfortunate and bizarre cover.

There are nine judges on the US Supreme Court for a reason. (That number fluctuated a bit in the early years of the Republic.) One rather obvious, if unstated, rationale for having nine is that it is just about the right number to ensure that vigorous debate can take place amongst the justices. The presumption is that debate is necessary because no single judge, no matter how erudite and insightful, can arrive at the best conclusion on his or her own. The right outcome is arrived at communally, through dialogue and argument. And each justice brings to that argument his or her law clerks, his or her legal training, his or her philosophical orientation — and his or her life experience. The greater the diversity of life experience and perspective among the nine, therefore, the greater the chance that the most just outcomes will be reached.

I live and teach and work as a white man. A very particular kind of white man, too. My father was a European war refugee, my mother from an archetypally WASPy American family with roots on this continent stretching back to the mid-17th century. (I’ve written about those roots here and here). My skin color, my family history, my education, and my class shaped my world view; they helped make me who I am. So too did my own life experiences. I’ve been formed by privilege, yes — but I’ve also struggled with addiction and been hospitalized against my will many times. I’ve tasted a very particular kind of despair. I’m a more compassionate man as a result. One could say that — and on some issues I would say — that “a wise sober alcoholic with years of recovery” has a better perspective on some issues than someone who hasn’t had to walk down that particular road. And if there’s a court case dealing with issues of addiction, it might be helpful to have a recovering addict in the conversation. Continue reading →

Blood, birth, and eros: against the myth of the frail male

Posted on by

The latest entry in the “men today have it so hard” sweepstakes is this Jonathan Last piece that ran in the June 4 Wall Street Journal: Present at the Creation. Remarking on the excellent new Judith Leavitt book Make Room for Daddy: The Journey from Waiting Room to Birthing Room, Last wonders if our contemporary cultural insistence that men be present when the mothers of their children give birth is such a good idea.

Explaining how the dinosaurs once rationalized keeping men in the Stork Club (the waiting room for expectant fathers), Ms. Leavitt quotes one doctor’s argument from the mid-1960s: “As the charm of woman is in her mystery, it is inconceivable that a wife will maintain her sexual prestige after her husband witnessed the expulsion of a baby — a negligee will never hide this apparition.” Another doctor concluded: “On the whole, it is not a show to watch.”

We all laugh at how benighted such views are. (Even if there is, just possibly, some truth in them.) Yet today it is socially acceptable to father a child without marrying the mother or to divorce her later on if mother and father actually do bother to get hitched. And at the same time there is zero tolerance for a husband who says: “No thanks, I’ll be in the waiting room with cigars.” Ms. Leavitt’s fascinating history suggests that childbirth is just one more area where our narcissism has swamped our seriousness.

One’s head hurts.

Last strains to connect the increased expectation that Dads will be present with an increasing divorce rate (never mind that the divorce rate has been in decline throughout the admittedly brief 21st century). If there’s a need for a case study for correlation without even a whiff of causation, this WSJ piece might be a good place to start. One is left to wonder if Last actually believes that men are more inclined to divorce their wives after witnessing birth; perhaps he imagines that the delicate masculine sensibility is so easily overwhelmed by the sight of the “bloody show” that future marital relations are inexorably damaged as a consequence.

This, in other words, is just another bit of popular sexual “wisdom” from the purity peddlers and the chastity crowd. Last implies that men’s sexual desire for their spouses (or the mothers of their children to whom they are not wed) is contingent upon denial about the bloody reality of how life comes into this world. Women, of course, can be expected to endure childbirth — despite the pain and turmoil inherent in the process — and then turn around and long to do again with their men the very act that ended up putting them through the whole traumatic (albeit, presumably, rewarding) experience in the first place. Women’s libidinousness, in other words, isn’t allowed to be contingent upon some carefully enforced ignorance about bodily functions. Instead of marveling that so many modern women are willing to give birth more than once, to make love with their husbands with the memory of what lovemaking can lead to still embedded in the consciousness, Last worries about the poor lads whose fragile sensibilities might be permanently scarred at the sight, sounds, and smells of a delivery room. This is the myth of male weakness writ large indeed. Continue reading →

Why can’t guys mentor women?

Posted on by

Not a lot of time for a post this morning, but a reader sent this post from Double Ex along and it piqued my interest: Why Can’t Guys Mentor Women? Dayo Olopade asks:

We’ve all heard reports that Americans lag behind in the hard sciences generally—but less reported is the fact that women rarely take on the quant-heavy jobs that do exist, or that tenured female science and engineering faculty are almost nonexistent…. can’t we also blame men in these disciplines who are less willing to mentor young women? Perhaps they are just not that into helping women along; or fearful that accusations of impropriety might fly. But in male-heavy fields, what’s wrong with dudes lending a hand?

It’s a good question, and I’ve touched on it before (I have a few posts on mentoring). I’ll repeat what I wrote in April 2008:

I understand that in this current climate, many men in academia or corporate leadership are reluctant to mentor young women. Feminists can say, over and over again, that the risk of a false charge of sexual harassment is infinitely lower than the men’s rights activists imagine, but our reassurances don’t seem to have much impact on some guys. Of course, if fear of litigation does act as a deterrrant to harassers, lechers, and boors, so much the better. But those of us who have experience and wisdom to share must be willing to do so, even if that means quieting our own anxieties. We must be willing, of course, to be honest with ourselves about our own motives as “senior” men mentoring young women. But, if we’ve done our work as adults, we’ll be able to work closely with a mentee, a student, or an employee without fear of having our sexual desire emerge without warning. And if we’re willing to set good boundaries, and make those boundaries verbally explicit, then we can do the vital work of raising up the next generation in our chosen fields.

In the end, all of us who have achieved some degree of success have a moral obligation to help those who wish to follow in our footsteps. And we must be willing to offer that help irrespective of the race or sex of the one who needs our mentoring. That means courage, that means clarity, and it means making and sticking to some world-class, kick-ass boundaries.

Obviously, I mentor young people of both sexes. And yes, I’m a gender studies professor who spends a great deal of time thinking about and writing about boundaries. But I’m not the only safe and responsible man, not by a long shot. And increasingly, one thing I see as my job is to encourage other safe and responsible men, my peers in academia and elsewhere, to “step up” and be willing to do what Olopade and others make clear is so necessary.

Perhaps a workshop, or a podcast, on how to be a good male mentor would be something for me to work on in my abundant and expansive free time.

No more civil marriages at All Saints

Posted on by

I’ve had my differences with my former Episcopal parish, All Saints Pasadena. I served briefly on its vestry in 2001-2002, and was a volunteer youth minister and confirmation class teacher there from 2000-2007. My third wife and I were married in 2001 by an All Saints priest (now dean of the cathedral in San Diego), the dear Scott Richardson. The place has alternately inspired and exasperated me, as the many posts in the All Saints archive reveal.

But there is much to love about the church, and much to admire about its rector, the Rev. Ed Bacon. And this week, Ed and the Vestry to which I once belonged have made me very proud. This week, the Vestry passed a resolution making it clear that effective immediately, priests of the church will no longer sign marriage certificates. Same-sex and other-sex couples can continue to have their weddings celebrated; the priests will continue to join two willing people in matrimony. But since marriage certificates are now, thanks to Proposition 8, only issued to other-sexed couples, the church has decided to withhold its imprimatur on any civil marriages until justice and equality are restored. Here’s an excerpt from the resolution (PDF file linked):

WHEREAS, the institution of civil marriage in the State of California is, as a result of
Proposition 8 and the Court’s decision, a constitutionally-mandated instrument of
discrimination, which furthers injustice and denies same-sex couples the fundamental
dignities to which each human being is entitled…

WHEREAS, our active participation in the discriminatory system of civil marriage is
inconsistent with Jesus’ call to strive for justice and peace among all people and respect
the dignity of every human being; and

WHEREAS, All Saints Church is called to make the sacrament of marriage equally
available to all couples, regardless of their sexual orientation;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Rector, Wardens and Vestry do declare
that the sacramental right of marriage is available to all couples, but that the clergy of All
Saints Church will not sign civil marriage certificates so long as the right to marry is
denied to same-sex couples.

Were I still on the Vestry, I’d have happily voted for it. Good on All Saints.

Misquoted spectacularly: UPDATED

Posted on by

In an online-only article in my campus newspaper, there’s a rather whopping misquote:

Hugo Schwyzer, advisor to the feminist club, joined the crowd surrounding the table. The event was a counter-act to the anti-abortion display on campus on May 18, he said. Schwyzer added that the feminist club is trying to provide a lot of helpful and useful information.

“Abstinence works. We want to educate young people about sexuality; educate them to understand their bodies in a complete and healthy way,” he said

I’ve been stunned before by how my words were used by journalists — but this surely takes the proverbial cake. I had given the reporter a three-minute primer on everything that was wrong with abstinence-only education… and this was the result.

Jeepers. This is why I like email-only interviews. The paper has been contacted, and a correction is promised soon.

UPDATE: No correction, but the absurd sentence has been deleted. Good journalistic ethics mandate notice that a correction was made on the website, but we’ll let it slide.

Of iron, copper, and fighting fair: some thoughts on men and conflict in romantic relationships

Posted on by

I was talking to a friend of mine the other day; she and her boyfriend of several months are “taking a break” from their relationship. He’s in his early thirties, she’s in her late twenties; in different ways, each carries the “baggage” of family, faith, and previous lovers.

The fella — I’ll call him “Gordy” — is a bit overwhelmed by the gal, “Calliope.” Gordy, apparently, does something that I very much remember doing in relationships when I was younger: retreat in the face of intense emotion, particularly in the face of a woman’s anger. Many young — and not-so-young — men feel overwhelmed by what seem to be the superior verbal and emotional skills of female romantic partners. When a man has grown up learning not to display feelings, or to talk about them, he may end up feeling a bit as if he’s a first-year French student suddenly plunged into a conversation with fluent native speakers. He hasn’t got — or he feels he hasn’t got — the vocabulary with which to keep up. This isn’t because of testosterone, of course, or some inherent aspect of the human brain; it’s the hangover from growing up with the “guy code”. And the guy code, followed rigidly, leads to a kind of learned emotional helplessness.

I’ve been over this ground before in the three posts in the male transformation series. The three posts from the autumn of 2007 explain aspects of the problem — and the solution — in considerably more detail. But what I want to focus on today is Gordy’s need to “take a break” from the relationship, and the reasons that seem to undergird it. It’s entirely possible, of course, that “wanting a break” is code for “I really am tired of this relationship, and want to get out for good, but lack the courage to say so directly.” But from what I can tell, there’s something else at work. Gordy doesn’t want out; he has fallen in love with Calliope and wants to be with her. He also finds her — the complete package of Calliope-ness — to be more than a little overwhelming. He’s not calling an end so much as he seems to be calling for a time-out.

Let me say again (though my MRA critics don’t hear this) that I don’t think women are always blameless when heterosexual relationships go south. Women have their own lessons to learn — and in the case of sexist acculturation, it might be more apt to say that they have their own lessons to unlearn. But I write much more often about what men can and ought to do because, well, I’m a man. I’ve lived 42 years in a male body, and while I don’t pretend to be a professional relationship expert, I’ve lived a bit — and thought a lot — about the ways in which culturally constructed masculinity undermines our collective happiness and our ability to function intimately with other human beings. And so I focus more on what men can do, respecting the reality that women have had plenty of experience being told how to behave by the males in their lives. Continue reading →