Lust doesn’t cancel out empathy: thoughts on an all-male sexuality workshop

This post originally appeared in September 2009

I’m heading back to New York City after a couple of days in Providence. The weather, so humid yesterday, has turned wonderfully brisk and autumnal. I think of my native state, sweltering and drought-ridden and smoke-filled, and feel — almost — guilty that I’m not there with the millions of other suffering Californians. Home on Tuesday.

Brown University’s first annual “Consent Day” was a great success, not least because of the immensely popular t-shirts (a photo here) designed by Catherine McCarthy, the student who led the organizing team for the event and who first contacted me about coming to speak. The front of the shirt is visible in the photo, the reverse includes the reminder “Consent is active, enthusiastic, and freely given.”

I gave a workshop entitled “Sex, Consent, Enthusiasm, and Stoplights: Rethinking the Language of Yes and No.” The basic thesis is familiar from this post, but I also touched on the “all men are dogs” (myth of male weakness) ethos which undergirds so much of the way we socialize modern males (and socialize women to think about them). I also brought in what my women’s studies students know as the “upside-down triangle”, which I wrote about in this post.

There was some good give and take, and some very thoughtful questions from a mixed audience of Brown students.

In the second part of the workshop, we held a male-only discussion group. It is, of course, important to do anti-rape work with both men and women. When doing survivors workshops, it’s obviously beneficial to have women-only spaces. (And yes, men can also be survivors of sexual assault, though usually at the hands of other men rather than women — which may make all-male space more problematic, but that’s another topic for ‘nother post.) But in dealing with issues around sexual consent, the topic on yesterday’s table, single-sex space can also offer an opportunity for a higher degree of safety. And I was eager to meet with at least a few of the young men who had been through the workshop to hear their thoughts and feelings.

As our hour together Thursday evening bore out, many young men (certainly all of those who, gay and straight alike, participated in our closed discussion) are frustrated by the absence of a discourse of healthy male sexuality. This was a self-selecting group; these were guys who had volunteered to participate in Consent Day activities and who identified themselves as sympathetic to feminist goals. Several were already involved in peer counseling or in campus progressive politics. They were energized and excited by the discussion about enthusiasm and consent; there were no rape apologists to be found. But the real hunger that many of them articulated very well (not surprising for Brown University students) was a hunger for some kind of validation of their sexuality as good, healthy, okay.

“I know all the things not to do”, one guy said; “I work really hard at being a good ally. But I sometimes feel that in order to be a good ally, I have to pretend that I’m asexual; my fear is that women won’t trust me as a friend if I show any sign of sexual desire.” This lad hastened to add that he wasn’t sexually interested in most of his female friends; what he’d like to be able to do is talk about his sexual feelings (as some of those friends talk with him about theirs) without losing their trust. Several of the other men in the room nodded in agreement. We talked at length about the familiar but still-powerful compartmentalization phenomenon, one in which “good guys”, those who strive to do justice with their lives and with their bodies, live a separate, secretive sexual life (usually involving pornography) that seems, at least to the guys themselves, to be something profoundly shameful.

Timothy Beneke’s Men on Rape is now out of print, but one of the many memorable lines within that invaluable text is this: “I’m not aware of any common English phrases that allow one to express sexual desire in a way that acknowledges both lust and humanity.” Beneke captured a truth about our idiom, but he also captured a truth about the way in which we see male sexuality in our culture. For a host of excellent reasons, rooted in countless painful anecdotes and our own collective witness, many of us — perhaps most of us — have a difficult time believing that heterosexual desire doesn’t invariably compromise a man’s capacity for empathy. We men can’t want sex, our culture tells us, and while still seeing the people we want to have sex with as they really are. “A hard dick has no conscience”, we say with resignation or cynical bravado. But as is so often the case, our language in this instance doesn’t so much reflect an immutable reality as it creates and maintains a distorted understanding of our nature and our potential. Continue reading

“First, Last, and Security Deposit”: Financial Freedom and the Courage to Say No

From July 2009.

This summer session in my women’s history course, I’ve been more conscientious than usual about suggesting proactive solutions for young feminists to use as they navigate their way through a difficult and misogynistic world. I’ve got a compendium of tips, all of which ought to be collected into a single blog post at some point. But one suggestion I’ve made repeatedly, and which I’ve seen proven useful again and again, is that young people of both sexes (but especially young women) set aside money for themselves.

It comes from something I heard years ago from a feminist colleague of mine. She remarked, apropos of nothing that I can remember, “You know what freedom is? Freedom is having first, last, and a security deposit.” (Most landlords require a first month’s payment and a last month’s payment in advance before renting an apartment; most require a security deposit, often equal to another month’s rent.) For young people living in unhappy home situations with repressive parents, or for women in abusive relationships, the ability to leave and begin a different life is tied to access to money. Feminists rightly celebrate the importance of “choice” and “autonomy”, but we must always acknowledge that it is far easier to exercise these two fundamental goods when one has resources over which one has direct control.

This is not a new point, of course; Virginia Woolf said as much in her indispensable “A Room of One’s Own.” Some years, I’ve given my students excerpts from Woolf to read; many identify all too well with the famous point about Shakespeare’s sister. But whether they read it in Woolf or hear it from a professor or pick it up from their friends, it’s vital — particularly for those from families with few resources — that women start putting aside money that will be theirs and theirs alone. Perhaps, yes, money with which to rent a room of one’s own; perhaps money with which to buy a car. Perhaps money with which to take a life-changing trip abroad. The freedom to become who one was called to be is considerably easier with money of one’s own.

This all sounds obvious, of course. But for many of my students, setting aside even small bits of money is very difficult. The “pleasing woman discourse” is pervasive, and it makes it all too easy for whatever amounts of spare cash are accumulated to be offered to the invariably needy and demanding multitudes that surround far too many young women. In some families, young women are expected to contribute to their parents’ rent and to the grocery money; for many of my working-class students, particularly in the current Great Recession, living at home is as much about helping their family survive as it is about remaining under the control of overly-watchful parents.

But hard-earned money (most of my students work) doesn’t just go for rent and gas and food. Friends and relatives always seem to need an extra $20 here, an extra $50 there. Cousins need bailing out of jail; brothers need help paying the deductible to repair a car. Grandma’s birthday is coming up, and the family wants to get her something special — and yet when the time comes to cough up cash to buy the gift, brother Billy has spent his and Dad decided it was more important to upgrade the big-screen TV in the family room. And so the dutiful daughter pays a disproportionate share. Little sister needs a quinceanera dress. A friend is getting married (too young, you think, but hey, she’s in love) and has asked you to be in the wedding; you’ll buy a dress you’ll only wear once along with a host of other related expenses. The dreams of what one might do with money of one’s own run right into the incessant, unwearying expectations of a culture that demands that women share everything that they have. Continue reading

King John’s Christmas

I don’t put up poetry every Thursday as I did from 2004 until this summer. (They’re all archived here.) But every December I’ve been blogging I’ve put up this AA Milne classic. My mother recited it to me annually throughout my childhood. And though Heloise is a little young to understand it, she will hear its rhythms tomorrow night.

A Merry Christmas and a light-filled Hanukkah to all.

King John’s Christmas


King John was not a good man
He had his little ways.
And sometimes no one spoke to him
For days and days and days.
And men who came across him,
When walking in the town,
Gave him a supercilious stare,
Or passed with noses in the air
And bad King John stood dumbly there,
Blushing beneath his crown.

King John was not a good man,
And no good friends had he.
He stayed in every afternoon…
But no one came to tea.
And, round about December,
The cards upon his shelf
Which wished him lots of Christmas cheer,
And fortune in the coming year,
Were never from his near and dear,
But only from himself.

King John was not a good man,
Yet had his hopes and fears.
They’d given him no present now
For years and years and years.
But every year at Christmas,
While minstrels stood about,
Collecting tribute from the young
For all the songs they might have sung,
He stole away upstairs and hung
A hopeful stocking out.

King John was not a good man,
He lived his live aloof;
Alone he thought a message out
While climbing up the roof.
He wrote it down and propped it
Against the chimney stack:
“TO ALL AND SUNDRY – NEAR AND FAR -
F. Christmas in particular.”
And signed it not “Johannes R.”
But very humbly, “Jack.”

“I want some crackers,
And I want some candy;
I think a box of chocolates
Would come in handy;
I don’t mind oranges,
I do like nuts!
And I SHOULD like a pocket-knife
That really cuts.
And, oh! Father Christmas, if you love me at all,
Bring me a big, red, india-rubber ball!”

King John was not a good man.
He wrote this message out,
And gat him to this room again,
Descending by the spout.
And all that night he lay there,
A prey to hopes and fears.
“I think that’s him a-coming now!”
(Anxiety bedewed his brow.)
“He’ll bring one present, anyhow;
The first I had for years.”

“Forget about the crackers,
And forget the candy;
I’m sure a box of chocolates
Would never come in handy;
I don’t like oranges,
I don’t want nuts,
And I HAVE got a pocket-knife
That almost cuts.
But, oh! Father christmas, if you love me at all,
Bring me a big, red, india-rubber ball!”

King John was not a good man,
Next morning when the sun
Rose up to tell a waiting world
That Christmas had begun,
And people seized their stockings,
And opened them with glee,
And crackers, toys and games appeared,
And lips with sticky sweets were smeared,
King John said grimly: “As I feared,
Nothing again for me!”

“I did want crackers,
And I did want candy;
I know a box of chocolates
Would come in handy;
I do love oranges,
I did want nuts!
I haven’t got a pocket-knife -
Not one that cuts.
And, oh! if Father Christmas, had loved me at all,
He would have brought a big, red,
india-rubber ball!”

King John stood by the window,
And frowned to see below
The happy bands of boys and girls
All playing in the snow.
A while he stood there watching,
And envying them all …
When through the window big and red
There hurtled by his royal head,
And bounced and fell upon the bed,
An india-rubber ball!

And oh Father Christmas,
My blessings on you fall
For bringing him a big, red,
India-rubber ball!

Clarisse Thorn on Change and Accountability

I’ve managed to get myself into two separate internet controversies this past week. In a very thoughtful post at Role/Reboot, Clarisse Thorn responds to the one that didn’t involve the Good Men Project. Here’s On Change and Accountability.

Excerpt:

Have you thought about these questions in your own life? I don’t mean abstractly, as an intellectual exercise. Concretely, and with intention. What would you do if, tomorrow, you found out that your best friend was a rapist? Your lover? What would you do if your sibling came to you to confess a terrible crime? To request absolution? To request accountability?

These questions are not just applicable to an individual like Hugo. They’re applicable to all of us, in all kinds of situations. And I think it’s wise for us to give them some thought before they come up … because in the heat of the moment, we can be overwhelmed by questions we could have thought our way around if we addressed them beforehand.

Do you believe people can change? And if you do believe it, then how would you help someone change?

I’m very grateful for Clarisse, and am sorry that she (and Jill Filipovic of Feministe) have endured so much calumny on my behalf this week.

Meanwhile,some folks think I’m the Ginsu Knife Set of Wrongness in Human Form. Some people’s answer to Clarisse’s first and penultimate questions is a clear and simple “no.”

“Onward”: a final note on leaving the Good Men Project

It has been an exhausting week.

It may seem disingenuous to say this now, but I was genuinely surprised by the response to my resignation from Good Men Project. I didn’t intend for it to be terribly well-publicized; I figured that bowing out while everyone was in the midst of holiday frenzy would mean the story (such as it was) would get lost.

Lisa Hickey, the Good Men Project Magazine publisher wrote a lengthy response to my resignation today. In it, she focuses on the core values of the site and its founder, Tom Matlack — and shares her perspective on what led to my resignation. She writes that she takes “100-percent responsibility for the fact that Hugo resigned”, which seems a bit unfair to both Tom and to me. I made the decision to resign and she accepted it at once. It was clear, by that point, that this was the best for all concerned.

Resignations (or firings) happen all the time in print and online journalism. They happen for a host of issues, but not infrequently over issues of politics and philosophy. That’s normal. The first time it happened, many years ago, I resigned from the writing staff of Christians for Biblical Equality. I shared CBE’s passion for egalitarian faith, but didn’t share their view that genital sexuality should only be expressed in heterosexual marriage. I chose to step aside as my continued presence on that staff would be interpreted as support for CBE’s stance on sex. I had a lovely email exchange with the head of the organization, and that was that. (This was before Twitter and Facebook allowed for extensive publicizing of resignations). The point is simple: these sorts of public disagreements which end in resignation or termination are common and even healthy.

I had reservations from the start about Good Men Project (as some of my early criticisms of the site will attest, see here and here). I also found much about the site to be exciting, and was happy to join. I certainly didn’t expect everyone to march in lock-step agreement, and was encouraged by the willingness of both Tom and Lisa to tolerate discussion and disagreement. Lisa backed me to the hilt time and again. I was — and remain — publicly grateful for that support.

But then came the events of the past week, which don’t need extensive rehashing. And after my post was published and then taken down within minutes, I had no choice as I see it but to offer my resignation. The alacrity with which it was accepted suggests it was not entirely unwelcome.

If that seems rash, let me add that in a brief email exchange prior to my resignation, Tom wrote “I would suggest you confine your GMP posts to first person pieces. If you want to talk about your lesbian wife or your potential child that is fine, but not gender theory.” I have no problem writing about my past (though it does tend to get me in trouble), but I don’t aspire to be a third-rate serial memoirist. I teach gender studies; Tom was, as I read it, telling me I couldn’t write about the things about which I am most passionate.

According to Lisa, Tom’s reaction to my resignation was one word: “onward.” I read those words, and under my breath uttered a quiet “amen, brother.” And I wish Tom Matlack, Lisa Hickey, and the entire GMP team nothing but the best.

Let me finish by saying that I struggle to be, as Lisa says, a feminist to my core. Not because of some slavish devotion to women, or some strange pathology of self-loathing, or because it’s a groovy way to pick up chicks. I am a feminist because I see feminism as an extraordinary vehicle for human liberation for women… and men. I wrote about that in 2007, and I’ll end this post with a quote. Perhaps it will explain both why I joined GMP, and why I needed to leave this week.

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

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

Why I Resigned from The Good Men Project

Last night, I resigned from the Good Men Project. I am no longer an editor nor a contributing writer to the site.

Last week, founder Tom Matlack wrote several pieces which were highly critical of feminism. A series of highly publicized Twitter exchanges took place with a number of well-known progressive women. Tom seemed to harden his position, complaining of being attacked and pelted by angry feminists. I wrote a response, but for the first time since joining the GMP staff in January 2011, publisher Lisa Hickey refused to run my column.

I am a most imperfect feminist. But feminism and gender justice are central to my writing and my work. It was not ethically possible for me to remain silent while the site with which I am now best associated took an increasingly anti-feminist stance. To be fair, it wasn’t tenable for that site to have one of its editors and staff writers be so publicly at odds with and critical of its founder. The only viable option was to step down. I tendered my resignation last night, and Lisa Hickey accepted it this morning.

I will continue to write for Jezebel and to explore other possibilities. In the meantime, I wish the Good Men Project great success.

The piece that Tom and Lisa would not run is below the fold. Continue reading

My Precious Girl, Not My Frail One: On Daughters and Hook-Up Culture

I’m reposting this piece from February 2009 in response to my dialogue with Neely Steinberg at Good Men Project, and to her friend Susan Walsh. I wrote it when Heloise was two weeks old.

I’m on a fairly steep learning curve as a first-time father. Having changed fewer than five diapers in my life before a fortnight ago, I’m an increasingly efficient middle-of-the-night cleaner and re-coverer of baby behinds. I consider myself nearly an expert on working with teenagers, but this infant business is new stuff to me. Our beautiful daughter is teaching me a great many things.

Last week, I was changing her “onesie”, and was quite tentative about it, not wanting to bend or pull her little arms too briskly. My mother-in-law, who has been immensely helpful, came to my aid: “She won’t break, Hugo”, she said; “babies are less fragile than you think.” It was a reassuring thing to hear, though I’m still a bit frightened to pull too fiercely on any part of my daughter’s frame.

But my mother-in-law’s words reminded me of an essential feminist point: women don’t break as easily as we imagine. On Friday, I posted a rebuke to the sorry Zoe Lewis op-ed in the London Times which suggested that feminism led women astray with promises of independence, fulfillment, and satisfying relationships all at once. Part of the discourse anti-feminists like Lewis push isn’t just about feminism, however; they also peddle the notion that the bewombed are particularly easy to break. At 36, less than halfway through an normal lifespan for a woman in the Western world, Lewis is convinced that feminism has “ruined her life.” She’s wrong about feminism, of course, but she’s also wrong about something more fundamental: that women are easily ruined “for life” by either their own poor choices or their early capitulation to certain cultural messages.

In a post about how my students responded to Jessica Valenti’s Full Frontal Feminism (a piece that played a small part in one of the many internecine wars to which the feminist blogosphere is lamentably prone), I noted that some of the most enthusiastic responses I received were to the author’s brief but memorable defense of making mistakes. Jessica wrote:

I’ve had more than a couple of embarrassing moments in my life and sexual history, but isn’t that what makes us who we are? Do we really have to be on point and thinking politics all the time? Sometimes doing silly, disempowering, sexually vapid things when you’re young is just part of getting to the good stuff.

I’ve had several excellent class discussions about this section of FFF since.

Thinking about Jessica Valenti’s book and about changing my daughter’s onesies reminds me of an essential truth: we tell a great lie to young women when we issue dire warnings to them about sex, men and other choices if we accompany our warning with the phrase “you might ruin your life.” I often ask the young women whom I teach and with whom I work how often they’ve heard “Don’t do x, or you’ll ruin your life.” Most raise their hands. Far fewer of the young men to whom I pose the same question respond affirmatively. Even now, with almost a decade of the 21st century under our belts, our culture still clings to destructive myths of female fragility. Girls born as recently as the Clinton Administration are taught that adolescence and young adulthood consists of a series of pitfalls to be avoided, and that one false step could mean a lifetime of heartbreak and regret. Do the wrong thing, this discourse suggests, and you’ll end up (for the literary minded) like Dickens’ Miss Havisham (possibly with the same fiery demise.) Continue reading

Part two of my interview with Clarisse Thorn

Part Two of the interview that Clarisse Thorn did with me is up at Role/Reboot. Part One is here. In this second part, we talk consistent-life ethic feminism and what male feminists can do. It concludes:

The world is rightly suspicious of men. Not because we’re bad or defective, and not because we’re any less capable of compassion and love than women. It’s because we’ve hidden the fullness of our humanity behind the “tough guise” of the rules of manhood. We’ve got to live more open lives, more honest lives, less resentment-filled lives. And we’ve got to start pulling our own emotional weight.

I see more and more guys doing just that. It has me very excited.

I’m very grateful to Clarisse for such provocative and interesting questions.

Torrid Steps Up and an interview by Clarisse Thorn

My latest post at Healthy is the New Skinny looks at a recent kerfuffle involving the Facebook page for Torrid, a well-known plus-size clothing line for young women. See Stop the Haterade: Torrid Steps Up. Excerpt:

…we also know that those of us who (like Torrid) are committed to the idea that beauty and health happen across a spectrum of sizes have a special responsibility to our readers, fans, and customers. We’re in the business of creating compelling “counter-images” that push back against the narrow standards of beauty perpetuated by the mainstream fashion industry. When people get a chance to meet our HNS Model Ambassadors, or look at an image like Katie Halchishick’s Barbie photo, they often have strong reactions.

Because it’s still rare to see images of plus-size beauty and style, some of those reactions are instinctively negative. So many of us have been trained for so long to be relentlessly critical of women’s bodies! And while it’s certainly true that “haters are always gonna hate”, it’s also true that girls whose bodies deviate from what’s become the contemporary ideal are especially vulnerable to that “haterade.” That means that those of us who market to — or do outreach on behalf of — those women have a special responsibility to take a zero-tolerance policy with the kind of comments that appeared on Torrid’s fan page. That’s not being patronizing. It’s basic human decency.

And Clarisse Thorn, the new Sex and Relationships editor at Role/Reboot (and a wonderful interlocutor who spoke to my students a few years ago) asks me some hard questions in the first of a two-part interview: Sex, Drugs, and Feminism.

Male Violence, Male Guilt, Male Potential, and a Hump Day Shoutout

I’m very honored to have been chosen as a Hump Day Hero by some great folks doing great work: the Center for Sexual Pleasure and Health. There’s a little interview.

A sobering new report is out from the CDC on sexual violence: I weigh in here.

Over the last three years, we’ve seen some exciting new research that challenges the idea that young men are sex-crazed cavemen; I summarize some of it at Jezebel: Guys Aren’t Always Thinking with Their Dicks.

And it’s “male guilt week” at Good Men Project. My offering is here: In Rape Culture, All Men are Guilty Until Proven Innocent.

Thanks for clicking through!