Beyond Masculinity

Michael Faris has an essay in a new anthology, and there was at least one little bit that I could relate to:

It wasn't that I wasn't attracted to women. I was and still am. To this day, I can't figure out why I didn't want to talk about women the way I heard other men talking about women... I wonder sometimes if it was because I saw women as so much more human than men. Women expressed themselves, they talked more, they had feelings, and they demeaned other people less — in general, at least. Men, on the other hand, treat each other like crap. Worse yet, I saw them treat themselves like crap. They never expressed themselves and kept their emotions all inside, except maybe for anger.

That has become more true of me over time, I think. Certainly my relationship with masculinity has become a lot more complex than it used to be.

[OSU] In Which a Poor Student Is Forced to Defend Ignorance as Education

Again from the Baro, this wonderful letter to the editor:

SEXtravaganza

I am not intolerant. What people do in the privacy of their homes is not my business. However, what people push in my face and spend my money on is my business.

Student Health Services has chosen to sponsor a "SEXtravaganza" event, with 10 different events, only one of which deals with abstinence. Furthermore, they have advertised extensively on campus and even on Facebook.

Has what little money I have been used to support a "Masturbation Workshop" and "Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity of Gingerbread Persons & Baking Workshop?"

...

Jared Hageman

student, pre-communication

OK. He's upset, and believe it or not, I understand that. But there are some real winners buried in this letter (click the link to read the whole thing). Let's look at a few of them:

"I cannot even read the Barometer anymore without being confronted with pictures of people learning how to use condoms or finding expert opinions on how to perform better in bed."

Translation: I really don't like to be exposed to anything that a) might make me uncomfortable or b) might be useful.

Welcome to the world, Jared. It's big and scary and full of things you may not like. Amazingly, this is true for all of us. I, for example, do not like the fact that Bush sits in the Oval Office. Does this mean if I complain he'll go away? Sadly, no. On the plus side, however - and this is key - we do not have to internalize and believe everything we are exposed to. We (and that includes Jared) have amazing ability to consider an idea and then not support it.

There's at least one more thing worth noting in the letter:

"I simply want to be able to get an education without "getting an education." These are the moral values I have chosen..."

Way to imply that a) you have a right to remain ignorant and b) ignorance is actually education! Good job!

Jared, I'm sorry you are being made uncomfortable by all this talk of masturbation and condoms. If you had only given the entirety of the OSU community a list of things that you don't want to be exposed to upon your arrival, I'm sure we could have hidden all the naughty bits for the next four years.

After all, nothing's more important than your comfort. Of course your Special Snowflake status is more important than everyone else on campus.

No one besides straight white dudes ooze this much privilege.

[Sex and Gender] Is This Subversive?

Found over at Feministing....



The comments at Feministing do a good job taking apart the ad campaign, but I think this ad could be put to good use fighting sexism.

Something along the lines of "Would you shame him if he came home looking like this?"

How about "Did he just commit himself to a future of diapers, or does that just apply to her?"

Eh, the second one's a little blunt, but you get the point.

I'm too tired to be posting....

"Male-Bashing" on TV from PopMatters

Some time back I ran across or was otherwise directed to (I can't really remember anymore) this article on male-bashing on television from PopMatters, an "international magazine of cultural criticism."

I was pretty skeptical before I started reading the 2003 article, as 'male-bashing' is almost always a synonym for 'bemoaning the loss of male power'.

While it turned out to be in the same vein, it was a little less transparently patriarchal than that.

The central claim of the article:

Welcome to the new comic image of men on tv: incompetence at its worst. Where television used to feature wise and wonderful fathers and husbands, today's comedies and ads often feature bumbling husbands and inept, uninvolved fathers.

...

While most television dramas tend to avoid gender stereotypes, as these undermine "realism," comic portrayals of men have become increasingly negative. The trend is so noticeable that it has been criticized by men's rights groups and some television critics.

OK, so maybe I was being charitable when I said it wasn't transparently patriarchal.
"Men's rights groups" are almost always men who are angry about their perceived loss of power and who see power as a zero-sum game in which female gain = male loss. Males interested in genuine equality tend to end up like Robert Jensen: working against masculinity itself.

Anyway, the obvious question to ask here is why - as in why have comic portrayals of men become 'increasingly negative'? (I am actually skeptical that they've become increasingly negative, but I have neither the the time nor inclination to check that claim out.)

Sadly, the article fails to answer the question - and this is as close as it gets:

"Some feminists might argue that, for decades, women on tv looked mindless, and that turnabout is fair play."

"Some feminists?" Can you say logical fallacy?

Not to mention the fact that this is entirely circumstantial... and isn't even really a reason for the supposed change. Instead, it's a potshot at feminism is general by way of claiming that "some [unnamed] feminists" might like to see men portrayed as buffoons.

So what? Some men might like to see other men portrayed as buffoons too - which is just as plausible if not more so, since, last time I checked, men still control the entertainment industry.

I'm willing to grant the author of the article the benefit of the doubt and suppose he would agree that it's still a problem if men are producing shows that make men look like idiots. But if that's the case, then we've got to throw the silly men vs. women paradigm out the window, and I highly doubt the author is ready to do that.

Furthermore, I'd be willing to bet that a majority of feminists disagree with sitcoms as much or more than this poor guy does; after all, no one wins (especially straight women) when the role models for men are frackin' Kevin James and Ray Romano.

Verdict: This is a piece of whiny fluff that attempts to blame women for something women, as a class, have no control over. Mayhap the author should start thinking about why focus groups of men like male characters who are idiots. The answer to that question is far more telling anyway.

For the record, I can't stop thinking about Knocked Up or Superbad in relation to this article. Or Will Ferrell.

Jon Armstrong on Dooce and Mental Health

For readers of Dooce, I highly recommend this post by Blurbomat author and Dooce husband Jon Armstrong. He write about his wife's battle with depression and how they both have learned to deal with it.

This bit comes across as having been learned the hard way:

To the people out there who denigrate mental health awareness and treatment, I say this: You aren’t helping. You are making it worse. Stop being an arrogant know-it-all. You aren’t right. You are wrong. If someone tells you they need help, your opinion means less than that of professionals. Stop being ignorant. Stop being obstinate. Stop insisting that your loved one, partner, child or co-worker “get over it”. They won’t get over it until you let it go and encourage them to seek help. There are many different approaches and ways to treat mental diseases and conditions. The first step is letting go. You could probably use some time talking it out yourself.

I cannot stress enough how correct I think Jon is. I've seen plenty of people suggest (both politely and not-so-politely) that someone just "get over it" when it's screamingly obvious that there's something very real that needs to be worked through.

Sadly, some of those times have been at work - and for me, that means teachers and students.

Update: I'm going to be even more specific; I see this happen with teachers who also happen to be coaches, or those with a military background. And while I think it comes from a place of wanting students to be self-sufficient and take responsibility for their own well-being, that makes it no less damaging or dangerous - it's certainly not a good way to go about achieving those goals.

An Anecdote about Editors and Technology

From a reader who wishes to remain anonymous:

The last journalism conference I went to was at PSU and it was for editors only. One of the workshops was on journalism and technology, and there was a guy from a Redmond, Wash. paper who was leading it and told his audience that his newspaper's entertainment guide now had its own MySpace page and it was getting a lot of comments, critiques, blah, blah, and that it was really reaching the younger audiences.

A balding, middle aged guy shot his hand up: "What's myspace?"

Every balding, middle-aged male editor (yes it's a stereotype but it was a true one at this conference!) shared the same question. This was less than two years ago.

It's going to take a new generation to make switch to technology-based journalism. And that's... going to take awhile.

Sidebar: That conference WAS odd though because the stereotypical "editor" was there and when I walked in it felt like... I was a complete outsider, or the person that should've been getting them their coffee. One of those things you'll never forget.

This reminds me of the new comment system instituted at the Albany Democrat-Herald, Lebanon Express, and Corvallis Gazette-Times: It would have been neat in 2002. Too bad it's almost 2008.

This conversation started as a result of this post.

ENDA Passes US House (now what?)

Americablog has a good summary (though I should note that I disagree with Aravosis' position on the inclusion of transgendered folks).

The LCSD School Board and the Book

The more I think about it, the less I think the collaborative book discussion thing is going to work. Disclaimer: I think it's a great idea, but my undergraduate training was all about reading something and then talking about it with others who had read the same thing, so Sprenger's idea is right up my alley.

LT's post about the pre-meeting discussion, which is sort of funny and not really all that surprising, is part of my evidence.

Here's the thing: I doubt Rick, Josh, or Chris have ever done anything remotely like this before.

And what are they being asked to do, exactly?

Have a book club meeting - and more than that, have a book club meeting in which they, as LT noted, discuss the ways in which they communicate as individuals and board members. In front of people.

Put that way, I'm not surprised it didn't work, at least as according to LT's description.

I'm almost embarrassed to admit that I didn't see this coming.

None of the three (Chris, Josh, Rick) strike me as anything but your average, off-the-shelf male (with Rick being the Lebanon version, ha-ha) when it comes to gender socialization; as such, they've all been socialized not to share their feelings in public (for that matter, the idea of the book club has long been perceived as feminine in American culture - see the reaction from 'the right' when it came out that Barack Obama was using a book club as a campaign tactic; the reaction, for the record, was to call him a sissy). Furthermore, like many males they've most likely never been asked to be introspective about their communications styles. And finally, and I think this is probably only true of Rick (but maybe Josh) they have no real interest in the book since their true interest is in power, and not in overseeing an improving school district.

At the least, I think it was a bad idea to hold the discussion in public. I'm guessing it would be illegal under Oregon public meetings law to, say, hold the discussion during the day on a weekend at someone's house, but still - one would think they could find a way to create a better environment for this than the dais. An executive session sounds unfair and unwieldy for this, but it might be the only realistic way to get some privacy - which seems necessary for the creation of a safe environment.

On the other hand, I doubt the six of them - the board plus Jim Robinson - would happily coexist (much less consider it a safe environment!) in a private setting for long. I suspect the public pressure to behave at least semi-professionally is one reason things are as civil as they are.

In any case, I am not surprised to hear that the discussion was less than a resounding success. I almost wonder if Sprenger made the offer in good faith, or if she used - and is using - it as a bludgeon to illustrate what jerks and/or how incompetent she thinks Josh and Rick are. I mean, it's not hard to predict that they weren't really going to buy in, and asking in public (though public meetings laws could have required that) is one way to make them look like buffoons.

Oh well. In either case, I'll volunteer right now to try and facilitate any kind of discussion between the five board members and the superintendent. I might be in over my head, but I think that those folks have absolutely got to find a way to be honest without the usual consequences of anger and rancor. Things. Will. Not. Get. Better. Until. This. Happens.

Men's Rights Activists

From what I've seen, a generally obnoxious group of folks. Jeff at Shakesville runs down some things about MRAs:

What is an MRA?

He's a Men's Rights Activist, part of the broader Men's Rights Movement. He--

Wait, wait. "Men's Rights Movement?"

Yes.

...

You brought up abortion--I'm guessing the MRAs aren't exactly pro-choice, are they?

They're pro-choice for men. They think, by and large, that abortion is fine, if it gets them out of fatherhood when they want to, and they think, by and large, that abortion is evil if it keeps them from being fathers when they want to. They're big fans of spousal notification laws, and as you can see by the "Choice for Men" rhetoric, they're also big fans of having the legal system help them manipulate women into terminating pregnancies that they would otherwise carry to term.

It's kind of funny and kind of sad, but a useful primer nonetheless.

Hilarity

Via Feministing, this review... oh, hell. It's just really, really funny. Do go read the whole thing (for I am sorely tempted to excerpt it all; instead, I have excerpted what is possibly the worst part):

Now, when the president of Hollywood (let's call him Louis B. Mayer) heard Susan B. Anthony's idea, he leaned back in his chair and cracked his knuckles. "$$$$$$$$$," he said to no one in particular, "$$$$ $$$$$$$$ $$ $$$$$$." And lo, the mother-man genre of cinema was born.