Archive for the 'Patriarchy Hurts Men Too' Category

Anti-Feminist Attacks Man For Crying “Like A Girl”

Posted by Ampersand | March 17th, 2008

Brett Favre, who I infer is a football player of some accomplishment, cried when announcing his retirement. And anti-feminist radio host Laura Ingraham commented:

“All these years, and I didn’t know there was a woman quarterback in the NFL,” said Ingraham to start her Friday show that aired on replay on Monday at 2:00 a.m. on Newsradio 620 WTMJ.

“Brett Favre…we’re watching this in the studio, obviously retiring from the NFL, great quarterback, handsome 38-year-old man, he gets up there and he does this press conference that was frankly one of the most embarrassing things I have ever seen.

“That’s a great message for young boys. ‘Get up there and act like a girl and start blubbering like a baby.”

When I first heard about this, I thought it was a disgusting example of anti-male sexism. But on reading her actual words, what’s striking about it is how perfectly Ingraham merges anti-male and anti-female sexism; note how she uses the terms “woman” and “girl” as insults.

As Jill says, what an asshole.

Fragile Masculinity and Murder

Posted by Ampersand | February 25th, 2008

From a post I wrote several years ago:

From early boyhood, men are taught that their masculinity must be protected above all else, or else it will be lost. Men who have lost their masculinity are objects of contempt, derision and violent abuse, and have lost the right to be loved or respected by their fellow men and by their fathers.

Boys are also taught that masculinity is fragile and high-maintenance; you work to get it and to retain it, and the slightest slip can cause it to be altogether lost. You can slip instantly, with no transition, from the most popular boy in the room to the butt of everyone’s jokes: all it takes is a moment’s lapse in which you say or do anything that can be interpreted as feminine.

This is essential: Masculinity is fragile. The man who has lost his masculinity is, in the eyes of male culture, less than nothing, worse than dead. Therefore, force in defense of masculinity - like beating up a boy who accuses you of being a faggot - can feel to boys and men like self-defense.

I was reminded of that post while reading a news story about Brandon McInerney , a 14 year old boy who murdered his openly gay and gender-anticonformist classmate Larry King:

In the days before the shooting, Brandon was hanging out around Silver Strand with his friends, doing what they always did: sitting on the jetty, hanging around the taco stand.

Brandon’s friend Lauren said the rumors about Larry “hitting on” Brandon were heating up. Kids were joking that Brandon must be gay if Larry was acting that way toward him. […]

Brandon joined the Young Marines — the Marine Corps’ equivalent of a JROTC program — several years ago and became a leader in the group, which disbanded last summer. […] His hours in a martial arts studio helped trim his physique into a lean, muscular one.

I’m not saying this alone drove McInerney to murder — it’s almost certainly significant that McInerney’s family life was disfunctional and one or both of his parents were abusers. And it’s possible that McInerney is just essentially a bad person in some way. Nonetheless, I doubt this murder would have happened if McInerney’s friends hadn’t been teasing McInerney by calling his masculinity into question, making McInerney feel that he had to do anything — anything at all — to defend his masculine image. (His hobbies — Young Marines and martial arts — imply that masculinity is important to McInerney.)

From Holly at Feministe:

Seriously, when you think about this kind of situation in all its disturbing dimensions and possibilities, which is more likely? That one of the school bullies decides to take it a step beyond name-calling and shoving, pulls out a gun, and shoots this kid? Or that the killer felt personally threatened for some reason, to the point of bringing a gun into a middle school classroom and shooting someone in the head, first thing in the morning? With the few details that have emerged, it’s impossible to say.

But I fear the worst — and the worst would not just be that some homophobic asshole killed a child. There’s an even worse worst: that a child is dead, and the other child who pulled the trigger did so because he couldn’t deal with his own feelings. And now that second child will be tried as an adult, and another life destroyed.

From the NY Times story:

The gunman, identified by the police as Brandon McInerney, “is just as much a victim as Lawrence,” said Masen Davis, executive director of the Transgender Law Center. “He’s a victim of homophobia and hate.”

McInerney is being charged as an adult and, if convicted, faces a minimum of 53 years in prison (25 for the murder, 25 for the gun, 3 for the hate crime). The Transgender Law Center is opposing trying McInerney as an adult.

I agree with the TLC. Nonetheless, typing this entry, I kept on having to correct my wording to refer to King in the past tense, and McInerney in the present tense. I feel terrible about McInerney being tried as an adult, and I agree with Masen Davis that McInerney is a victim (although “just as much a victim as Lawrence” is going too far for me). But still.. it’s so fucking unfair that King is the one of them having to be in the past tense.

Intersectionality In Action: Driving While Black & Trans & Male

Posted by Ampersand | February 4th, 2008

Via Fetch Me My Axe, this interesting article in Colorlines Magazine:

Trans people of color are finding that they have an extremely different relationship to gender transition than white people. London Dexter Ward, an LAPD cop who transitioned in 2004, sums it up this way: a white person who transitions to a male body “just became a man.” By contrast, he says, “I became a Black man. I became the enemy. “

In short, people of color know that racism works differently for men and women, and transgender people like Mitchell and Ward are getting to experience this from both sides of the gender equation. […]

Louis Mitchell expected a lot of change when he began taking injections of hormones eight years ago to transition from a female body to a male one. He anticipated that he’d grow a beard, which he eventually did and enjoys now. He knew his voice would deepen and that his relationship with his partner, family and friends would change in subtle and, he hoped, good ways, all of which happened.

What he had not counted on was changing the way he drove.
Within months of starting male hormones, “I got pulled over 300 percent more than I had in the previous 23 years of driving, almost immediately. It was astounding,” says Mitchell, who is Black and transitioned while living in the San Francisco area and now resides in Springfield, Massachusetts.

Targeted for “driving while Black” was not new to Mitchell, who is 46 years old. For example, a few years before transitioning, he had been questioned by a cop for simply sitting in his own car late at night. But “he didn’t really sweat me too much once he came up to the car and divined that I was female,” Mitchell recalls.

Now in a Black male body, however, Mitchell has been pulled aside for small infractions. When he and his wife moved from California to the East Coast, Mitchell refused to let her drive on the cross-country trip. “She drives too fast,” he says, chuckling and adding, “I didn’t want to get pulled over. It took me a little bit longer [to drive cross country] ‘cause I had to drive like a Black man. I can’t be going 90 miles an hour down the highway. If I’m going 56, I need to be concerned.” As more people of color transition, Mitchell’s experience is becoming an increasingly common one…

My Daughter’s Vagina, Part 10

Posted by Richard Jeffrey Newman | December 22nd, 2007

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9

Update: I have decided to take the text of this post down until I have a chance to revise and repost it. The comments I have received–and thank you to all who have posted them–have convinced me that, as I said in comment #19, my words are both conjuring things I do not intend and failing to make distinctions that I do intend, and this weakness in the writing means that what I want to say, the questions I want to ask and explore are not only not getting across, but are being misrepresented. It’s not so much that I think the revision will change the mind of anybody who has posted a critical comment, but that, at least, the criticism will be directed at what I actually mean to say, not the unintended implications of my having said it not as well as I should have. Hopefully, I will have that revision up within the next week or so.

My Daughter’s Vagina, Part 9

Posted by Richard Jeffrey Newman | December 16th, 2007

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8

It’s funny how memory works. When I wrote before that I could not identify at all with Walter’s fantasy about fucking a woman to death, I was referring to my own inability to imagine myself into, to imagine into myself, whatever went on inside him that resulted in his fantasy. I glossed over completely a sexual experience I had when I was an undergraduate that, while not resembling Walter’s imagined experience in the least, should nonetheless have come immediately to mind. 

I’ll call her Vanessa. We knew each other from I-don’t-remember-which class but I do remember that it was on the pretext of talking about this class that we stepped away from the crowd into an out-of-the-way corner of her dorm lobby, which was where the party was being held. We were both drunk, both relatively new to the college—I as a first semester sophomore; she as a returning older student—and it was she who pointed the corner out, nudging me ahead of her so that I was standing against one wall, while she stood in front of me, leaning against the other wall with her arm, a pose no doubt very familiar to any woman who has had a man come on to her by trying to cordon her off.

I wish I could remember what she said while we stood there, because instead of talking about the class we had in common, she started feeding me such stereotypically male lines that even through the fog my drinking had pulled down around my mind–I was not wasted, but I’d drunk enough that I was happily and absurdly illogical in my thinking and talking–I was amused at how gender-role reversed the situation appeared to be. Then we were making out. In my memory there is no transition, no clear picture of who made the first move, though if you asked me to lay odds, I’d say they were in favor of her having been the one to get things started. Not only had I never been the one to make the first move–this happened not long after my encounter with Maria–but I recall thinking to myself that I was not all that interested in Vanessa physically, except for the fact that she was almost as tall as I was, and once we started kissing, I enjoyed very much being able to do so without bending down.

 

Read the rest of this entry »

My Daughter’s Vagina, Part 8

Posted by Richard Jeffrey Newman | December 14th, 2007

I have been home, laid up with a severe case of gout, and so I have had the time to work on this more than in the recent past. I have been gratified, really gratified, by the responses. Thank you.

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7

What first attracted me to Maria was the way she had no reservations about saying she didn’t like Walt Whitman’s poetry, even though our freshman-year literature professor had made Walt Whitman’s work central to the course. When I told her one day as we were walking out of class that I admired her honesty, she smiled, said something about how most literature professors had more hot air in them than substance and walked off to wherever she had to go next. A few days later, when I saw her sitting in front of the library, the hello I stopped to say grew into an hour-long chat, and after that, for the next two months or so, we met a couple of times per week at a table in the back corner of the Rainy Night House Cafe, where we sat for hours drinking tea, eating bagels and talking. One afternoon, just as we were getting up to leave, Maria said she’d been given a bottle of good wine as a gift, and she asked if I’d like to come to her room that evening to help her drink it. I said I would.

She was already a couple of glasses ahead of me when I arrived, and while I played catch-up our talk turned to a subject I was surprised to realize we’d never before discussed, love and relationships. We circled the question of our own budding involvement warily, letting it drop in and out of the conversation, each of us waiting for the other to risk saying, or doing, something first. Then Maria asked me, “Richard, do you like your body?”

“Yes,” I answered, more because I couldn’t imagine saying no than because I’d ever really thought about it. “Why?”

She got down from her chair and sat cross-legged on the floor in front of me. “No, I mean do you really like your body?”

“Yes,” I said again, but before I could ask her how she felt about hers, she leaned forward and asked her question even more emphatically, “You know, are you truly satisfied with every part of your body?”

A small edge of anger sharpened my voice, “What are you talking about?”

Maria smiled to herself, put her hand warmly on my knee and said, “Well, do you think you, you know, measure up?”

Finally, I understood, and I felt a little foolish for not having caught on sooner, but it had never occurred to me that a woman might actually ask this question. I had, as I imagine most young men do at one time or another, taken a ruler to my penis to see how big it was; and I would be lying if I said I did not think about how I might compare to other men or wonder if what I had heard about the relationship between penis size and sexual prowess and attractiveness to women were true; but so far the only girlfriend who’d ever seen me completely naked had been Jennifer, and while she had told me a story about a guy she’d been with whose penis had been so small that she laughed when she saw it, something she deeply regretted, she had never said anything to me about how big, or small, I was.

So Maria’s question, once I understood what it meant, not only took me by surprise; it also confused me. Looking back, I can smile thinking that perhaps the question was an honest one that she had asked at precisely the wrong moment. At the time, however, what I felt was a shift in the subtext of what was happening between us from the mutuality of friendship and what might come next to the adversarial stance of performer and critic. Anything I said–yes, no, maybe, let’s find out–felt like it would be a picking up of the gauntlet she’d thrown down, which I wasn’t interested in doing. On the other hand, to say nothing felt like it would be to lose my chance to be with her, and I really wanted to be with her, so I decided to buy time by turning the tables. “I don’t know. Do you measure up?”

Maria’s face changed immediately. The gently mocking expression with which she’d been waiting for my response vanished, and she searched my face with eyes that were suddenly sad and deeply suspicious. She kept her hand on my knee until she found, or didn’t find, what she was looking for, and then, so softly that I almost couldn’t hear her, she said, “Sometimes.”

Maria got up and went back to her chair. We talked a while longer, trying to recapture the easy banter from earlier in the evening, but we couldn’t. Maria was suddenly unable to look me in the eye, and when I finally stood up to leave, all she did was wave a silent good-bye from where she was sitting. We saw each other on campus a few times after that, but never said more than hello, and Maria had only once to turn and walk the other way as I approached for me to understand that she didn’t want to talk to me again.

When I went home at the end of the semester, I asked the only woman I could think to ask about what had happened between Maria and myself, my mother. This may seem strange to some people, but I’ve always been able to talk with my mother about sex, and I figured I could count on her to give me a straight answer. I was wrong.

“The size of a man’s ego,” my mother told me after I had finished my story, “can be measured by the size of his penis.” To illustrate her point, she related a story about a man who tried to pick her up in a bar she’d gone to with her friends. At first, she refused him politely, but as he grew more and more insistent, she grew more and more annoyed until, finally, having had enough, loudly, so that all the people around them could hear, she offered him the following challenge. If he had a “baseball bat” between his legs, she’d be his for the night. If he didn’t, he should just leave her alone. The man protested that he’d “never had any complaints,” but my mother slapped her palm on the bar and told him that if he had what it would take to have her, she wanted to see it right then and there. If he didn’t…enough said.

Needless to say, the man walked away.

“Only small men,” my mother’s one suggested that this was her final word on the subject, “say that size doesn’t matter.”

I don’t remember anything else about that conversation, except that I understood her story to have been a cautionary tale, her point being that I should not become like the man in the bar. How precisely that point related to my failed evening with Maria was unclear, nor, at least as far as I remember, did my mother do anything to try to make it clear. Now, of course, I can see both in my mother’s story itself, and in the fact that she thought it was an appropriate answer to my question about what had happened with Maria, her own anger at men, and I know enough about my mother’s life to know that this anger is justified, more than justified in fact. I did not know this back then, however; nor did I know it five or so year earlier, when I was sixteen, and she and I were sitting after dinner, either Passover or Thanksgiving, at the dining room table in my grandmother’s apartment and I am telling her about the one and only time I remember my father trying to talk to me about sex, which had happened earlier that day.

We were walking from the restaurant where he’d taken me for lunch to the subway where I would catch the train to my grandmother’s. He put his arm around my shoulder, leaned his head in towards mine and asked, “Do you have a girlfriend?”

I told him no, which was a lie.

“Well,” he responded, “you will soon, and once you start dating, you’re going to run into situations you won’t know how to handle.” He moved a few steps ahead, turned to face me, searched my eyes to make sure I knew what he was talking about. “I just want you to know you can call me.”

“I know,” I said, and the look of relief on his face as he quickly changed the subject to how I was doing in school made me want to laugh out loud. There was no way he could’ve known that I’d already lost my virginity, but knowing that he didn’t know–even though my first experience of intercourse had not been at all a positive one–and realizing how easy it had been to deceive him, made me feel superior, and it was this feeling of superiority that I brought to the table when I told my mother the story. I did not have a good relationship with my father at the time. In fact, I saw him as something of a buffoon, and laughing at his buffoonery–my mother shared this image of him–was one of the ways she and I bonded. This time, however, instead of engendering mutual laughter at my father’s ineptitude, my story opened up a divide between me and my mother that I had never felt before.

“Next time,” my mother was laughing–but the smile on her face was a thin line of contempt, and when she leans forward to tap the polished nail of her right index finger in rhythmic emphasis on the wooden surface of the dining room table, her eyes smolder–”Next time, tell your father you don’t have such problems. Tell him you wear a steel jockstrap. Besides, what does he think he’s going to teach you anyway. You probably know more than he does already.” She laughs again, and I laugh with her, though I am laughing more because I think she expects it than because I think what she’s just said is really funny. Something in her tone, something in the meaning of what she said, made me very uneasy, though I could not name what it was.

///

Fast forward about fifteen years or so. I am in my early thirties and sitting with my father in a very fancy steakhouse in New York’s financial district. It’s the first time we’ve seen each other since my brother’s funeral about ten year earlier, and we are seeing each other only because I have sought my father out. I want answers to questions I have had for a very long time about my parents, about myself, about why my father never tried to get in touch with me and more. We talk for a very long time, and I learn a lot that I did not know, but two pieces of what I learned are especially relevant here. First, I learned that my parents got married because my mother was pregnant with me. My father said that he approached her with the idea of getting an abortion, but she said no. I don’t know why she said no, but this was 1961, before Roe v. Wade, and so it may have been simply that she was afraid of the risks involved in getting an illegal abortion. Whatever her reasons, she and my father decided, once abortion had been ruled out, to get married. They didn’t really love each other, and so, especially knowing them as I do now, I did not find it at all surprising when my father told me that my mother decided she wanted a divorce just a couple of years after I was born.

The second thing I learned came in response to my asking why my father thought my mother was still so angry at him, even though they had been divorced for nearly thirty years. I once tried to ask my mother the same question. This is the conversation we had, as I recorded it in my journal later that day. In response to my asking why she was still so angry at my father, my mother said, “I’m not angry at him.”

“What do you mean?”

“Well, I think I’m more angry at myself.”

“Why?”

“For talking myself into marrying him in the first place.”

“Why did you marry him?”

“I though I was in love.”

“You thought?”

“Well, I convinced myself…”

“And?”

“And that’s why I married him.”

“Why’d you get divorced?”

“He bothered me.”

“He bothered you?”

“He annoyed me.”

“In what way?”

“He couldn’t hold up his end of a conversation.”

“What do you mean?”

“He always talked in circles.”

“What do you mean?”

“Well, he would talk about the same thing over and over again, constantly repeating himself, circling back over the same idea like a vulture waiting to descend on a carcass. Then you’d point him in another direction, and he’d do the same thing with that topic. It was infuriating.”

“What kind of a father was he?” It was a question I’d never asked before.

“I don’t think he was much of a father at all, either before or after the divorce.”

“Okay, but what kind of a father was he?”

My mother paused to think, “Well, he did change your diapers; I have to give him that. And he played with you guys—”

I reminded her that I’d seen the pictures of him feeding me and suggest that, at least as a father, it didn’t sound like he was too bad.

“But I was always the disciplinarian,” she told me, pausing again and sighing, “I guess I just didn’t have much respect for him.”

When I ask my father the same question, he tells me about how, not long after he’d moved out of our apartment–which is ironically just a couple of blocks from where I live now–but before their divorce was final, he called my mother to ask if he could come over and talk, to see if they could work things out. She said okay, but once he got there, everything went wrong. He would not go into the details of what happened, though. All he would say was, “Something happened that shouldn’t have happened.” Even when I pressed him to tell me what he meant, all he would do was repeat those words. “Something happened that shouldn’t have happened.” Then, almost as an afterthought, he added, “And, you know, Richard, your mother was the kind of woman who could goad a guy into it.”

Clearly, in other words, whether it was rape or some other form of assault, my father did some sort of violence to my mother. When he told me that, a lot of things began to fall into place, not only her comment about the steel jockstrap, with its allusion to the idea of a chastity belt, but other things my mother used to say to me as well.

If you look quickly at a picture of my father when he was younger, and if you didn’t already know you were looking at him, you might think you were looking at me. We look that much alike, and the resemblance made my mother very uncomfortable. “Grow your beard,” she started telling me almost as soon as hair appeared on my face, “You remind me too much of your father.” Even when I was well into my late twenties and early thirties, my mother sometimes has difficulty with my clean-shaven appearance. Once she even threatened—her tone was joking of course—to exclude me from a family portrait she was planning unless I grew my beard back. I didn’t; the portrait never materialized.

Now, I of course don’t know if the portrait really never materialized because I didn’t grow my beard back, but it is in my memory a telling coincidence that represents the stance my mother, as a parent and as a woman, took towards me, as a child and as a man (or a boy becoming a man), throughout most of the early years of my life: She did not want me to grow up to be like my father, not only in terms of the character traits she found so objectionable in him, but in terms of my body as well. Once I hit puberty, I was, I was becoming, I would eventually be, physically, sexually, a man, a man who looked very much like his father. She did not want to face me across the gender gap my growing up would inevitably open up between us. A man was what I had no choice but to become, and yet a man was precisely what my mother did not want me to be.

My Daughter’s Vagina, Part 7

Posted by Richard Jeffrey Newman | December 13th, 2007

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6

The students in a remedial composition class I’m teaching during my second semester as a college professor are reading aloud and commenting on fables they’ve written over the weekend. The prose is awkward and ungrammatical, but I’m impressed with the imaginative effort some have made. There’s a modernized version of Little Red Riding Hood set in an upper class neighborhood with the most sought-after senior boy in the local high school taking the part of the wolf. There’s also a gender-reversed Sleeping Beauty in which Princess Charming turns out to be the homeless woman who sleeps in the park. I’m about to move on to the next part of the lesson when Walter, who’d announced when we began that he wasn’t going to read, asks if we’d like to hear his story. Yes, I say, of course.

At the center of Walter’s narrative, which takes place far in the future, is a very powerful drug lord whose organization has been infiltrated by a top female narcotics agent posing as a prostitute. When the dealer’s lover, who is also a prostitute in his stable, learns that the operation has been compromised, she tells him immediately. The dealer conceives a plan that uses his lover to expose the spy, who is then tortured slowly to death. To express his gratitude, the dealer takes his lover to be, giving her, in Walter’s words, “the literal fuck of her life, pounding away until she was no longer breathing.” The story ends with a description of the lavish funeral the dealer gives her.

When Walter finishes reading, he looks around the circle with a sarcastic and self-satisfied grin. The rest of the class is silent; no one except me is willing to meet his eyes, but I am hoping that one of his classmates will speak first, condemning what he’s written not in the voice of authority–which my voice inevitably will be–but in the voice of his peers. A minute passes in silence before it becomes clear that his fellow students don’t intend to respond, and so I call on a few students by name, male and female, to see if I can draw them out. The men all say the story is “sick,” while the women tell me they it’s not worth responding to. To me, though, a response feels absolutely necessary. Walter, like all the other students in the class, is just out of high school. I do not want to let pass what seems to me to be real teachable moment, and so I ask Walter if he really believes that fucking a woman to death could be an expression of gratitude.

“Absolutely,” he says, without a hint of irony in his voice. “For the woman it’s the ultimate fulfillment, and for the man it’s the ultimate proof.”

“Of what?” I ask him.

“Of manhood.” His tone indicates that he’s surprised I even have to ask. “Women would buy tickets and stand in line to be with a man powerful enough to fuck them like that.” He says these words with a conviction I at first can’t think how to counter, but then I wonder aloud if he would include his girlfriend or his future wife in that line of women.

“I’m not talking,” he says, “about doing this to someone I love. I’m talking about the pieces of trash you can pick up in the local bar, the sluts who give it away, the hookers who do it for money. Women who are asking for it.”

“Why do they deserve to be murdered?” I ask.

“They’re whores,” he responds. “No one cares about them.”

I take a different tack, asking him if he’s ever killed anything other than an insect. When he says no, I ask him if he realizes that he’s talking about using his own body, his penis specifically, as a murder weapon.

“Yes, I do,” he says.

So I ask if he makes a distinction between the sex he would have for pleasure–presumably with a woman he loves–and the power he says he would like to experience using sex to kill. Walter looks at me like I’m an idiot. “Power,” he says, “is pleasure.”

Class ends. As I’m putting my papers in my briefcase, Walter steps up to my desk. “Now that everyone else is gone,” he says, his voice full of conspiratorial camaraderie, “come on, be honest. Wouldn’t it be great to take some slut to a hotel and then meet your buddies later and tell them you killed her with your dick?”

“No,” is all I can think to say.

“Sure, okay, maybe now that you’re older and you can’t get it up like you used to, but when you were younger, when you were an undergraduate, wasn’t fucking something you did so you could share it with your buddies and impress them, and wouldn’t they have worshipped you if you told them you’d fucked someone to death?”

Since it’s even more clear now than it was during class that Walter is less interested in really engaging the ideas he is espousing than in “outing” me as “one of the boys,” I decide that monosyllabic answers are the best way to deal with him. “No,” I say again.

Walter waits a few seconds for me to say more. When I don’t, he mutters something under his breath of which I think I hear the words pathetic and excuse, and he walks out, and that’s the lest I see or hear of him until I get my final roster with a W for withdrawal next to his name.

///

The encounter I have just described took place more than fifteen years ago. In the several years immediately following my discussion with Walter, I often shared what he’d said with my friends and colleagues, male and female, and I always found it interesting that their responses fell, for the most part, along the same lines as my students’ responses did. On the one hand were those who dismissed Walter as “crazy,” whatever they meant by that term (and some suggested that he really ought to be institutionalized), and, on the other hand, there were those who saw him as not worth the energy it would to respond to him in the first place. The ease with which these responses were almost always given, however, always left me a little uncomfortable, because it seemed–and still seems–to me that each of those answers too easily dismisses the question of how Walter came to feel the way he did in favor of a very glib understanding of who he must be based on what he said. Yet it is precisely the question of how that haunted me most, and that I think continues to be something men don’t talk about enough, not because I think answering it lets Walter off the hook, but because the interior experience Walter claimed to have /desire of his own genitals, of my genitals too, as a weapon feels as inaccessible to me as the interior experience of biological femaleness.

///

One of the letters from Penthouse magazine–I think it was from the “Happy Hooker” column–that has stayed with me since I first read it when I was a teenager was written by a woman who claimed to be describing how she and a friend took revenge on a man who’d tried to rape the friend. The writer of the letter arranged to meet the man at a disco, invited him to her apartment, and seduced him into being tied spread-eagled to her bed. Then the woman’s friend, who’d been waiting in another room, came in, and the two women teased the man sexually until he was begging them for release. In response, the women took out a razor and shaving cream, telling him that if he ejaculated while they rubbed his penis, the would shave all the hair from his body. The letter went on to describe in great detail first the man’s pleading with them not to do it and then his efforts to keep himself from coming while the women took turns masturbating him. Finally, of course, he came, and the women shaved him, threatening to slice off his testicles if he didn’t lay still.

The woman’s letter describes a rape. She didn’t present it as anything else–except to make clear that it was motivated by revenge–and she never implied that the man enjoyed what she and her friend did to him. Nonetheless, my sexual imagination was drawn to the story. For months, for years afterward, I fantasized about women tying me to a bed and creating in my flesh an arousal so all-encompassing that I too would be willing to beg for release. Yet no matter how hard I tried to imagine a conclusion other than the one in the letter, I always ended up the victim of some version of the revenge the writer and her friend took. What I most identified with in this story, I think, what led me always away from the scenario I began with of trust in my imagined lovers and the pleasure they wanted to give me, was the man’s experience of having the pleasures of his body turned against him, for I knew I could be shamed in that way as well, that my body was always the potential source of my own defeat.

///

A similar theme is played out in an episode of the long-and-deservedly-defunct TV series She-Wolf of London. A very old man is brought into the hospital dying of unknown causes. The doctor on duty believes the old man is either senile or insane because he keeps insisting he is actually twenty-seven years old and that he was turned into an old man by a woman. As the doctor leaves, he orders a nurse to give the old man a sedative. Once the nurse and the old man are alone, however, she unzips her uniform to reveal black-lace lingerie, and the old man recognizes her as the woman who has aged him–one of what the viewers will later learn is a group of succubae who have opened an escort service in England’s capital city. As the old man looks on in helpless terror, the succubus begins to climb into his hospital bed, and, as she does so, she reminds him in the voice of a predator enjoying the powerlessness of its prey that all he has to do is not want her and he will be able to live. All he has to do is not have an erection and she will not be able to fuck him to death.

///

The story Walter wrote can be understood as a kind of pre-emptive strike against the fear of women expressed in this scene, as well as in my response to the Penthouse letter I described above. This understanding is not the same thing, however, as knowing how Walter and I–or at least I, since I cannot speak for Walter–came to feel this fear in the first place, and I’m focusing here on the question of how rather than why because it seems to me that why has already been answered, authoritatively and at length, by the women’s movement: Men fear the power of women’s freed, sexual and otherwise, because the power of women’s freedom, sexual and otherwise, represents the undoing of male dominant power and privilege, with the corresponding collapse of the myth of male invulnerability and the manhood men are expected to achieve in order to perpetuate that illusion.

Acknowledging this fear, obviously, is not the same thing as validating the culture of male dominance that produces it. At the same time, however, not to acknowledge the emotional validity to men of that culture’s existence is to miss what I think is a central question that has to be asked, that men have to ask of ourselves, if we want not to learn not to be afraid: When you consider that pain, humiliation and/or subjugation are almost always the consequences for a man who has failed in his manhood, is it any wonder that so many of us strive to use our bodies so that they can never be used against us?

///

A colleague with whom I used to have lunch on a regular basis would occasionally bring her three-year-old son along. Usually, John was a very animated little boy, asking questions, making a mess, and doing in general what three year old boys do to maintain themselves as the focus of attention. On this particular afternoon, however, John sat next to his mother in absolute silence. Both of his hands were bandaged because of a fall he’d taken earlier in the day, and he was still in pain, which made it difficult for him to hold the small pieces his mother cut for him from the pizza we’d just ordered for lunch. From time to time, when the look of frustration on her son’s face became especially acute, my friend would stop our conversation, pick up a small square of food and hold it to his mouth, not continuing with what she’d been saying until he’d chewed and swallowed the whole thing. When we were done, and John stood up so his mother could put his coat on, he held his engauzed palms out to her, silently asking for comfort. My friend squatted in front of her son and asked in a voice filled with empathy, “What’s the matter John? Does it hurt?” When John nodded his head, she stroked his cheek with her fingers and said, “I know sweetie, but you’re a man, right? You can take it.” John set his mouth in a firm, thin line, and he again moved his head up and down. Then his mother helped him slip his arms into the sleeves of his jacket, zipped him up and motioned to me that we were ready to leave.

As we walked out, I thought of all the countless times, and all the different painful and humiliating ways in which I was, in which John would be, in which boys routinely are, asked or told, implicitly or explicitly, by both men and women, boys and girls, “to take it.” I’m not being melodramatic here. I have no doubt that my friend said what she said without even thinking about it, and I don’t want to blow out of proportion this one clearly minor appeal to her son’s incipient manliness. The fact is, however, that she could’ve helped her son understand that we cannot always expect people to comfort us when we are in pain without putting his manhood at stake. Or, more to the point, she could have given him a hug without making any comment at all. (At the time this happened, I did not have a child; now that I do, well can I imagine that she might have been tired of a day’s worth of comforting him, and all she wanted was a little break.) That she did not, that even in a situation as insignificant as this one, John’s manhood became an issue, however small, indicates how deeply and unselfconsciously, perhaps even unwillingly, my friend valued the line separating the men from the boys.

Another example: A good friend told me that when her son was eleven she responded to his failing grades by explaining that when he got older he would have to support a family, just like his father, so he’d better start learning responsibility now. “All his boyish innocence,” she said, ” seemed to drain right out of him. Everything was homework, homework, homework. He doesn’t even play with his toys anymore. I wanted to improve his grades, not turn him into a little man.”

No doubt, and hopefully, as he realized just how far off the adulthood his mother had threatened him with really was, this boy eventually went back to being a kid just like any other kid. Indeed, my point here is not that these two interactions in and of themselves represent some permanent harm done to this boys, but rather that the interactions themselves represent only one small part of the manhood training boys receive and that each boy’s response, even in such relatively minor situations, corresponded perfectly to the manhood ideal: he sucked it up and showed that he could “take it.”

In Love, Sex, Death and the Making of the Male, Rosalind Miles points out that the old saying “boys will be boys” can be read not only as it usually is, a statement of resignation in the face of inevitability, but also as an imperative: Boys will be boys. The degree to which this second reading is the more accurate one becomes fully evident when you look at the consequences of not “being a boy.” Ask any man, and if he’s honest enough to tell you, he will have at least one story, and probably more than one, of how he was hurt when he was a child for not being aggressive enough, athletic enough, stoic enough, sexually objectifying of girls enough, sexually powerful enough, competitive enough, loyal enough to his buddies and so on. The hurt the man tells you about may have been physical, emotional or both; the particular story he tells you may involve something relatively minor, as in the cases of the two boys I just told you about, or something deeply serious and even life threatening, like my friend who was sexually assaulted and raped by boys he’d through were his friends just because he was the weakest and least masculine among them.

Yet despite the radical distance we usually assumes separates a victim/survivor from her or his victimizers, there is one aspect of his rape that my friend and those raped him have in common, that all boys and men in our culture have in common: their ideas of themselves as men–and my friend’s friend’s behavior was nothing if it was not about their ideas of themselves as men–are a direct a result of their confrontation with the violence and aggression considered to be the normal, natural and necessary context in which manhood is formed. None of us can escape this. We may choose to embrace the violence or reject it; we may find some way of accommodating ourselves to it, or we may devote our lives to eliminating it, but there is now way we can avoid confronting it. This confrontation takes place so pervasively throughout our lives–how do I respond to the posturing of the male student who is challenging me about nor accepting his late paper, or to the neighbor whose threatening body language belies the polite tone of his voice as he argues with me about who saw the parking spot first, or to my son’s insistence that he wants a “boy’s only’ birthday party–that the question of how or why boys come to value manhood so highly is dwarfed by the question Miles asks, “[H]ow do they avoid it?” (58)

In which I approve of a comparison between FGC and Male circumcision

Posted by Mandolin | December 4th, 2007

I said in my last post that I hate simplistic comparisons between female genital cutting and male circumcision. When carefully and well-informedly made, I think that a comparison along some axes can have some use.

This is the best comparison of the two procedures that I feel I’ve seen. You can find it here: www.fgmnetwork.org/intro/mgmfgm.html

It’s a table credited to Hanny Lightfoot-Klein that compares the procedures by picking up quotes from practitioners (some of the quotes may be fabricated, but as far as I can tell accurately reflect real attitudes).

For instance, the last two sets of quotes are:

On thoroughness:

Sudanese grandmother: “In some countries they only cut out the clitoris, but here we do it properly. We scrape our girls clean. If it is properly done, nothing is left, other than a scar. Everything has to be cut away.”

My own father, a physician, speaking of ritual circumcision inflicted upon my son: “It is a good thing that I was here to preside. He had quite a long foreskin. I made sure that we gave him a good tight circumcision.”

and:

On health ramifications:

35 year old Sudanese woman: “Yes, I have suffered from chronic pelvic infections and terrible pain for years now. You say that all if this is the result of my circumcision? But I was circumcised over 30 years ago! How can something that was done for me when I was four years old have anything to do with my health now?”

35 years old American male: “I have lost nearly all interest in sex. You might say that I’m becoming impotent. I don’t seem to have much sensation in my penis anymore, and it is becoming more and more difficult for me to reach orgasm. You say that this is the result of my circumcision? That doesn’t make any sense. I was circumcised 35 years ago, when I was a little boy. How can that affect me in any way now?”

The strength of this table is that it doesn’t need to elide the major differences between FGC and male circumcision. Those differences remain clear in the words of the practitioners. We know that it’s different to scrape away all external genitalia and to completely remove the foreskin, and those differences are right there in the table. But what the table does by putting the quotes in tension with each other is that it also shows, viscerally, the axes along which attitudes to the procedures *are* similar. Both the Sudanese grandmother and the physician strive for a clean, tight circumcision. Both the female and male victims of genital cutting have trouble relating their health problems to a normalized practice.

Over a broad spectrum of issues, I’m relatively anti-comparisons for political effect. Don’t call Bush Hitler — he’s evil in his own ways, thanks — and don’t call the oppression of Palestinians apartheid (I follow Friedman in this; call it its own thing, exile or nishul). Likewise, don’t say FGC and male circumcision are identical - like Hitler and Bush, both can be bad on their own.

This comparison is that rare beast that I do approve of. I feel comparisons are best when they work both accurately and at the gut. This table is written with a relatively light hand. By placing the words and attitudes of real people in tension with each other, Lightfoot-Klein allows the reader to see both realities and draw his or her own conclusions about the points on which they are comparable. There’s no need to create false equivalencies or to elide differences. Here, the differences are on the page and still the similarities sing — and they speak badly for those of us who live in a state with normalized infant male circumcision.

British Court Rules That One-Night-Stand Fathers Have No Rights

Posted by Ampersand | December 3rd, 2007

From the Daily Mail:

A woman who became pregnant after a one-night stand yesterday won the right to keep the existence of her baby a secret from its father.

In a landmark decision, three Appeal Court judges agreed that the 20-year-old single mother has “the ultimate veto” over whom should be told about the child, who is being put up for adoption.

Describing the case as “on any view extraordinary”, Lord Justice Thorpe ruled there was no justification for “breaking open the mother’s secret”.

And Lady Justice Arden said this was not a violation of the father’s rights to family life under the Human Rights Act because he had no rights to be violated.

The mother, who cannot be identified by order of the court, had kept her pregnancy hidden from her family, colleagues and the father.

She gave birth five months ago and left the baby girl, known only as E, in hospital shortly afterwards.

When she asked for the child to be put up for adoption, a county court ordered that her parents and the father should be told to give them the opportunity to apply to adopt.

But yesterday, the judges decided the father had no rights over the child, who is now in foster care, because “he was only a one-night stand”.

And they banned the local authority and guardian from taking any steps to identify him or telling him about his daughter.

What an appalling ruling.

I can imagine individual cases in which a court might justifiably rule to keep a born child secret from her father; for instance, if there was compelling evidence that an particular father, if informed, would be physically dangerous to the mother or the child. But from what’s said in this article, in this case there seems to be no justification for not informing the father and giving him the opportunity to raise his daughter.

This ruling contributes to sexism, by implicitly reinforcing the idea that men cannot be responsible for the upbringing of children. It also creates a short road to the conclusion that fathers of children conceived in one-night-stands shouldn’t have responsibilities to their offspring.

I hope this ruling doesn’t stand.

Two Common Arguments I Hate Regarding Male Circumcision

Posted by Mandolin | December 2nd, 2007

1) Arguments that create a simplistic equivalence between male and female circumcision — which are not the focus of today’s post, so much as:

2) Feminist allies (usually male) who feel the need to respond to the former by discussing how male circumcision is never problematic because *they* are circumcized and they have awesome feeling — really great, their penises are so sexy they can hardly stand it — and can satisfy partners like nobody’s business. Circumcision can’t be bad, because it would be untenable for bad things to be associated with *my* (or occasionally my partner’s) penis. I don’t want to hear about botched operations, and reduced sensation, and how there is no real medical data supporting the practice - LALALALALA! I CAN’T HEAR YOU! MY PENIS IS AWESOME!

Men’s Legitimate Complaints

Posted by Ampersand | October 16th, 2007

Amanda, considering if MRAs1 have any legitimate complaints, makes a few points I agree with. (Amanda was bouncing off this post at Shakesville, which — incredibly — has gotten over 1,000 comments.) Typically, I’m going to ignore points of agreement and instead concentrate on nit-picking. Amanda writes:

What about the draft? Only men get drafted.

It’s indicative of the intellectual emptiness of MRA thought that in order to show discrimination against men, they have to reach for a practice that hasn’t been activated in the U.S. since women weren’t allowed into the Ivy Leagues or to sit on juries in Texas. […]

But the draft issue is misguided for two reasons: One is that the need for and the practice of the draft are both results of the patriarchy’s tendency to war-monger and ill-informed notions about women’s weakness. The other reason is that the draft argument implies, quite wrongly, that men bear the most cost of war. In reality, the vast majority of war casualties are unarmed civilians, and they come in all ages and genders.

Certainly the US draft is an issue of only symbolic relevance today; but it’s nonetheless objectionable on its own sexist merits, without implying anything who bears most of the costs of war. (And if we don’t limit our view to the United States, military conscription is alive and well today).

Amanda is right that “the vast majority of war casualties are unarmed civilians.” But the Shakesville post she cites, which says “In the 20th century, 90 percent of all war deaths were unarmed women, children, and men,” is mistaken to suggest that’s been the case for the whole 20th century. The likely original source of that statistic is Patricia Hynes’ work.2 Hynes writes:

Civilian deaths as a percent of all deaths, direct and indirect, from war rose from between 60 and 67 percent in World War II to 90 percent in the 1990s (Renner, 1999; Garfield & Neugut, 2000), a trend that makes the enterprise of war increasingly unjust, when those who wage it are a diminishing fraction of those who suffer its consequences.

The few recent studies that have examined the death toll of war on females and males have concluded that equal numbers of civilian women and girls die of war-related injuries as civilian men and boys (Reza et. al, 2001; Murray et al., 2002). In 1990, one of the only years for which female civilian deaths were computed, an estimated 211,000 women and girls were killed in war (Reza et al., 2001). Many more, from 2-13 times more, are likely to have been injured (Murray et al., 2002). This data does not include the increased suicide and premature death that would directly result from the sexual torture, despair and destitution of women in conflict-ridden and armed societies.

I know that MRAs would have counter-arguments purporting to show that men are the overwhelming victims of war (and, indeed, of everything). That’s not an argument I want to be drawn into; I don’t know which sex is victimized “more” by war, and I don’t care. It’s pretty obvious that women, men and children are all victimized in great numbers by war.

[UPDATE: As I predicted, Daran at Feminist Critics has put up a post, arguing that Hynes’ research is unreliable. Assuming Daran’s factual claims are accurate I think Daran’s pretty persuasive on that point. My main point — which is that huge numbers of adults and children of both sexes are casualties of war — is not opposed by Daran, if I’m reading him correctly.]

But we don’t have to agree that “men bear the most cost of war” to notice that, just as there are particular war crimes that happen overwhelmingly to women (most obviously, rape), there are particular war crimes that happen overwhelmingly to men. In Gender and Genocide, Adam Jones compiles a great deal of evidence showing that groups of unarmed men — sometimes men and women both, but most often only men — are commonly rounded up and slaughtered during wartime, perhaps to prevent them from later resisting.

Kosovo, 1999. “Shortly before dawn on April 27, according to locals, a large contingent of Yugoslav army troops garrisoned in Junik started moving eastward through the valley, dragging men from their houses and pushing them into trucks. ‘Go to Albania!’ they screamed at the women before driving on to the next town with their prisoners. By the time they got to Meja they had collected as many as 300 men. The regular army took up positions around the town while the militia and paramilitaries went through the houses grabbing the last few villagers and shoving them out into the road. The men were surrounded by fields most of them had worked in their whole lives, and they could look up and see mountains they’d admired since they were children. Around noon the first group was led to the compost heap, gunned down, and burned under piles of cornhusks. A few minutes later a group of about 70 were forced to lie down in three neat rows and were machine-gunned in the back. The rest — about 35 men — were taken to a farmhouse along the Gjakove road, pushed into one of the rooms, and then shot through the windows at point-blank range. The militiamen who did this then stepped inside, finished them off with shots to the head, and burned the house down. They walked away singing.”

To be sure,3 in the overwhelming majority of cases the people doing the slaughtering — and the ruling class which made the decision to commit such atrocities against men — are themselves male. I don’t believe that makes it illegitimate for men’s rights activists to be concerned with atrocities against men, however.4

Back to Amanda’s post:

Well, that was a downer. What about how sitcoms make men like overgrown babies and buffoons?

[…] In order to make the argument work that male buffoonery on TV is based on an anti-male sentiment, then you have to assume that women in these shows and commercials are generally portrayed well. MRAs generally try to do this, saying women are held up as paragons of competence, and there’s something to this. But the larger story is that the standard buffoon husband/competent wife pair on TV comes with a thick dose of misogyny—the competent women are generally portrayed as humorless, fun-killing, finger-wagging prudish bores.

I agree, and I’d add — to quote a post of mine — that there’s a technical term for the “standard buffoon” in a TV comedy; this part is called “the Lead.”

As in the leading role, the central role, the funny role, the better role. What actor in the world, given the choice, would rather play Zeppo than Harpo? The smart, levelheaded, competent wife is the secondary part, which is why the shows aren’t named “Everybody Loves Debra” or “According to Cheryl” (or, for that matter, “I Love Ricky”).

Which sex gets to play the leads is a measure of which actors Hollywood is willing to give the juiciest roles and the highest salaries. The sexism in these sitcoms hurts both men and women, and that’s worth objecting to — but it’s not a sign of male disadvantage.

Again, back to Amanda’s post:

What about how men tend to die on the job more than women? Isn’t that unfair?

More hand-waving, especially from MRAs, who tend to be the first to decry efforts to fix the pay gap between men and women. Men die on the job more because men are more likely to have the blue collar jobs that put workers in danger—and therefore take home the larger paycheck than women of that socioeconomic class, who tend to have pink collar jobs that pay much less.

Surprisingly, MRAs tend to understate the scope of the workplace death problem in the USA, because they usually miss the larger problem; they focus on men killed in workplace accidents but overlook deaths caused by workplace-related disease, which are probably about 84% male. There are about 6,000 accidental workplace deaths in the US each year, and about 100,000 deaths due to workplace-caused diseases.

Amanda is wrong, however, to think that this discrepancy is strongly related to the pay gap. In general, the workers in the least safe jobs have very little recourse or power; is it any surprise that they also get lousy pay?

To once again quote myself, when the Bureau of Labor Statistics investigated job traits that are associated with wage premiums, they found that “Job attributes relating to … physically demanding or dangerous jobs… do not seem to affect wages.” Here’s a bar graph. As you can see, what pays most is specialized knowledge. The very tiniest bar, all the way over on the right, that’s actually slightly negative? That’s the “death and exposure” effect on wages.

So no, higher male deaths in the workplace aren’t connected to higher male wages. And the higher rate of workplace-related deaths is a legitimate concern for men’s rights activists.

* * *

Here’s where I agree with Amanda: I think the MRAs are, if anything, counterproductive. Most MRAs are focused first and foremost on attacking feminism, and helping men comes in second place (at best). But feminists aren’t the ones setting the draft laws, or starting wars, or casting TV shows, or running work sites.

Take the example of workplace-related deaths. The best public policy for reducing those deaths is to crack down on workers’ exposure to dangerous substances, to beef up OSHA, and to make it easier for workers to unionize. These steps, however, would be opposed by the large majority of MRAs, who are reflexively right-wing.

I long for a better men’s rights movement — one that substantively talks about the significant, systematic harm to men that occurs without seeking to blame feminism or to pretend that sexism against women doesn’t matter. One that could seriously address not only conscription, war, sexist media, and workplace deaths, but also bullying of weak boys, discrimination against gay men and transmen, forced labor, emotional alienation, the insanely high incarceration rate for black men, the uneven work/family divide that harms mothers and fathers, the problems of abused and raped men, and a host of other “men’s issues.”

But the men’s rights movement we have is, frankly, too often not just useless on these issues, but actually regressive. And feminism, by and large, can’t give these issues much attention; it has its hands full just trying to deal with monumental injustice against women.

  1. Men’s Rights Activists. (back)
  2. H. Pratricia Hynes, “On the Battlefield of Women’s Bodies; An Overview of the Harm of War to Women,” Women’s Studies International Forum 27 (2004) 431-445. Pdf link. (back)
  3. The phrase “to be sure” is copyright and trademark Hack Editorial Writers Of America. Used by permission. (back)
  4. You could argue that the idea of “oppression” requires there to be an oppressed class and an oppressor class, and that men — as the oppressor class — cannot be oppressed as men. I don’t agree with that; but even if I did agree, it would still be the case that men can suffer systematic harm without being the oppressed class, and it makes no sense to object to people objecting to such systematic harms. (back)

What Kinds Of Help Do Abused Men Need?

Posted by Ampersand | July 10th, 2007

[This post is a collection of comments I’ve read on “Alas” and on “Pandagon,” which I thought it would be worthwhile to gather together. The first section is a comment I wrote on this thread in 2005. The other comments quoted are individually credited and linked. –Amp]

Many Men’s Rights Advocates (MRAs) demand that existing Domestic Violence (DV) shelters do more to assist male victims. Most Domestic Violence (DV) shelters feel that they can’t take in men because they can’t both allow in men and provide for the security of their female clients.

Some DV shelters have hotel vouchers or other such programs to help battered men; some don’t. I really think that if the MRAs would approach DV shelters with a spirit of cooperation –”we’d like you to have a hotel voucher program to help battered men, and we have a source of fundraising to make it happen, so that helping battered men doesn’t mean taking resources away from battered women” — they’d get a better response.

However, most MRAs are belligerent towards DV shelters and the people who work there. Most DV shelters are already turning away battered women and making due with insufficient staff due to lack of resources; into that situation comes stumbling some MRA folks who know nothing about DV shelters, who say, in essence, “You lying feminist bitches owe us help, and we don’t give a damn what it costs your current clients.” Is it any surprise that no fruitful relationships have resulted?

Despite this, as I said, many DV shelters do have voucher programs to help the rare battered men who needs help — because contrary to MRA mythology, most feminists aren’t man-hating monsters. But that there is DV help for men available is no credit to MRAs. Nor has any MRA organization, that I know of, made a point of seeking out those DV shelters that do help men and helping them with fundraising or other needs.

Ironically, if the MRAs were right - if there were as great a need for battered men’s shelters as there is for battered women’s shelters - then it would be a viable idea for MRAs to build their own shelter network, modeled on the work that feminists did building DV shelters. Fortunately, however, men aren’t that bad off, and in most areas of the country men’s shelters would die out for a lack of men needing their services.

For that reason - and here I disagree with many other feminists — helping the few battered men who need shelter-style help will probably have to be something added on to what already existing DV agencies do (conditional on doing so in a way that doesn’t take resources away from female victims). There simply isn’t enough “business” for a separate men’s network to be viable, and it’s morally necessary to help the (relatively rare) male victims, just as it is to help female victims.

But it’s not fair to demand that DV shelters divert already insufficient resources from battered women. If MRAs want existing DV shelters to expand what they’re doing to help men, then they’ll have to start working with existing DV workers in a respectful, reasonable fashion, including working on establishing grants to allow existing DV shelters to voluntarily add on or expand help for men. And I haven’t seen any sign that MRAs are willing to do that. (For more on what MRAs aren’t doing — at least, not that I’m aware of — see this comment by Robert.)

* * *

I thought this discussion of help for abused men, from a comments on Pandagon, was interesting. First, a comment by Jesurgislac:

I agree that the lack of support for male victims of domestic violence is an issue. But it’s an issue best resolved by the folks complaining that there is no support for male victims of domestic violence turning to and setting up that support: helplines for men to call, appropriate support for men wanting to leave abusive partners. Because men tend to be in a very different financial/social position from women, whether men suffering from domestic violence are in same-sex or mixed-sex relationships, it’s unlikely that the same support provided for women would be at all appropriate — not to mention, that what’s needed is more support, not less.

To give an example: suppose a man in a heterosexual relationship finds that whenever his wife loses her temper, she punches him. Her blows are not life-threatening and never do worse than bruise. Talking to her about this gets him nowhere - she’s either angry or dismissive. He’s embarrassed to talk about it with anyone else he knows, because it just doesn’t fit his world view or anyone else’s he knows - women aren’t supposed to hurt their husbands. He thinks about divorce, but on the surface they’re happily married, and the thought of having to admit to a lawyer that he wants out because his wife leaves nasty bruises almost every week is just too humiliating. Besides, what would he tell the children? They see their mother hitting their father, but they have no idea it actually hurts him.

I wouldn’t say this man doesn’t deserve help: he does. But it would be inappropriate to offer him the same help as offered to a woman who’s being beaten by her husband: because he doesn’t need that kind of help. He needs help specifically tailored towards a man being abused in a hetero relationship….

Which was followed by this response from Paul:

Male privilege is also a powerful trap keeping men in abusive relationships. After all, how could a (mere) woman, who might not even be able to inflict lasting physical damage, be abusing a real man? Any man who considers himself abused must therefore be a wimp and a coward, and if he’d just suck it up everything would be fine. I think men have to figure out for themselves how to help other abused men, from consciousness-raising to the kinds of counseling and physical help that might be appropriate to dismantling the structures that make “traditional” relationships ripe for abuse. Right now we’re barely at the Masculine Mystique stage.

In 2005, in a comment that’s unfortunately no longer online, Bean wrote::

I have written before about DV shelters for men.

The shelter I currently work for was founded and started by feminists. We help women who are in need of confidential shelter due to domestic or sexual violence.

We don’t have any sort of “all men are evil” mentality. In fact, for many years our Children’s Program Coordinator was a man — he left recently to pursue his Master’s in Counseling, and we were all very, very sad to see him go. While many of the women were a bit startled (and a few were uncomfortable) with a man working there, for the most part it was an extremely positive experience, especially for the children who were able to have a healthy relationship with a man. While that particular man has left, we do still have a couple of men who volunteer there on a regular basis. They are great, and very much welcome.

However, we are able to do a much better screening/interviewing process for staff and volunteers than we are for residents. And, sadly, most abusers (men and women) are upset (to say the least) about losing control over their victims. They do everything in their power to find them. Abusers have been known to call the shelters looking for their victims, coming up with all sorts of stories (including claims of being police, family, and even victims, themselves). If we were to accept men, we would be greatly increasing the chances of allowing an abuser access to their victims and knowledge of where the confidential location is.

Also, staff and volunteers are not living at the shelter — which brings up a number of other issues.

Now, we do have times when a female resident is the victim of a female abuser — a partner, a family member, etc. There are also times that a male abuser could ask a female family member or friend to seek shelter in order to help him find his victim. And because of this, we have to take a lot of precautions when accepting women into the shelter, as well. Honestly, the vast majority of our residents have male abusers — so this isn’t as big of a concern. But it’s one we do take seriously. And women who are abusive to other residents (whether they knew them previously or not) are not allowed to stay at the shelter.

Allowing all men access to the shelter puts all of the residents, staff, and volunteers at risk, not just the victim of a particular abuser. The longer a shelter is in one location, the harder it is to maintain our confidentiality. We are at constant risk of abusers (past and present) of locating us and doing damage — to the shelter, our residents, and to ourselves. That’s why we have a number of safety precautions, one of which is not allowing men in as residents.

Now, some shelters take this further than others. Some shelters do not allow teen boys to stay at the shelter. The shelter I work at once had that policy, too — but we changed it several years ago. We now allow boys up through the age of 17 (so long as they are coming in with their mother). While I am extremely glad that we have this policy, and would have a hard time working at a shelter who didn’t allow this (knowing how many more women would have to be turned away), I have also seen the problems this can create. We have at times, for example, had teen boys (as children of the victim) who are older than some of our residents (for example, a 17-year-old boy with his mother and a 16-year-old teen mom). In addition, some of these teen boys look and act like men, and some are already exhibiting abusive behavior — this can be extremely intimidating to the women there. We deal with these cases on a case-by-case basis, doing whatever we feel will be best for the mom and the shelter.

When we have the funding for it, we will voucher a hotel room for a male victim. Of course, we have almost no funding, and have already had to shut down programs for women because of this. We have extremely limited staff and resources as it is.

In my time working for various DV agencies, I have had very, very few legitimate calls from men seeking help. And even then, most of them did not want to come to shelter, and actually were just calling to find resources specifically for male victims (and I referred them to a couple of those resources in our area — yes, they are there, although admittedly, there aren’t enough).

I just spoke to Bean; she wanted to add that one shelter in our area — Monika’s House in Washington County — provides shelter to battered men (as well as women). Bean’s current employer makes a conscious effort to use language in their materials that applies to male as well as female victims.

In a later comment in the same discussion, Silverside wrote:

In my opinion, the entire emergency shelter concept, as a concept, has its ups and downs. It’s good insofar as there is supportive staff right there at the location 24/7, and that it’s easier to conduct group support meetings. There is often better security for the inhabitants, through sometimes not. But I have often heard it said by shelter inhabitants (not to criticize the fine work that Bean and other shelter workers provide), that living in emergency shelter, like living in any emergency shelter, means losing your privacy, having to live by rules that often seem intruding and coldly institutional, and leaving the comforts and familiarity of your own home and belongings behind. Living with other people in crisis is not always conducive to your own mental health either. Sometimes I think there is something to be said for letting victims stay in their own homes and remove the abusers to another location. I have heard of victims returning home, partly because their children were doing so poorly in an unfamiliar environment, that they figured they might as well go back home and deal with the crap that’s familiar.

Frankly, if I were in crisis (think Katrina here), I’d much prefer a motel room where there’s peace and quiet than a noisy emergency shelter with other people’s traumatized kids running around. So I wouldn’t be so quick to buy into me-tooism. Vouchers are a very workable solution in areas where there is a small population in question, whether that’s in remote, very low-populated rural areas, or among specialized relatively small sub-populations of homeless persons, such as men, heterosexual or homosexual, who are rendered homeless and without resources, due to domestic violence.

It should be noted here, that abused women with resources -– better paying jobs, family resources, etc. — generally do choose other options other than emergency shelter. It is generally the solution of last resort. That’s one reason why men, who tend to have more money relative to women, would seldom choose to go into a shelter. You would not only have to have a male who was beaten by an intimate partner and afraid to stay in his home, but so devoid of resources (unemployed?) that he couldn’t go elsewhere. Apart from who hit who and how hard, the domination and control cycles that battered women experience also affects their ability to earn a living and be economically independent, something I have never seen claimed about abused men.

(In that discussion, Bean responded to Silverside, and in essence agreed with what Silverside wrote.)

I’m not making the comments feminist-only. Comments discussing the best ways to help abused men are welcome; comments about how eeeevvvvvvviilllll feminists are, either said explicitly or implied, are subject to being deleted without warning.

Why can’t the United States stop circumcising boys?

Posted by Ampersand | July 2nd, 2007

While looking for something else, I ran into Why can’t the United States stop circumcising boys?, an interesting essay by Robert Darby. Widespread male circumcision is a phenomenon that, in wealthy countries, has happened almost exclusively1 in English-speaking countries, and that has faded in every English-speaking country but the USA, where the majority of boys are still circumcised.

So why the American exceptionalism? Despite the title of Darby’s essay, he doesn’t provide a convincing answer, and some of the possibilities brought up seem unlikely to explain the distinction. (For example, I’m sure that the profit motive is important to circumcision — did you know that hospitals make huge profits selling cut-off foreskins?2 — but I don’t see any reason to expect that to be more the case in the US than in other countries).

Darby does suggest a legislative approach to reducing male circumcision, short of an outright ban, which is to stop having the government pay for it. In California, the circumcision rate plummeted once Medicaid coverage ended.

Two things annoyed me about Darby’s essay. First off, the seemingly obligatory passage3 , in any essay objecting to male circumcision, comparing the practice to female circumcision:

The claims of culture are taken very seriously in this age of globalization, but the problem with this particular claim is that it is applied inconsistently. First, there is discrimination based on gender. No matter how important circumcision of girls may be to the cultural/ethnic/religious groups that practise it, American opinion has determined that girls’ bodies are more important than tradition, and that any cutting of the female genitals is Female Genital Mutilation, now banned by law. Secondly, the cultural argument seems to be a one-way street. When faced by parents from circumcising cultures, doctors say they must respect their traditions and accede to their wishes, at least in relation to boys. But when it comes to non-circumcising cultures (the great majority) the argument is suddenly reversed: instead of enjoying automatic respect for their traditions, parents from non-circumcising cultures are pressured to conform to the American norm and to consent to have their sons circumcised, so that they will be “like other boys”.

A more likely explanation than gender-based discrimination is discrimination based on culture (otherwise known as xenophobia); of course we venerate our own cultural acts of child abuse even while correctly disliking the child abuse practiced by other cultures. It’s also the case that, bad as male circumcision is, FGM is in many ways worse; the implicit assumption that the two circumcisions are equivalent (and therefore there is no reason other than sexism that anyone might find FGM more objectionable) doesn’t hold water.

That said, regardless of what US circumcision practice is based on, the effect is a form of child abuse practiced nearly exclusively on boys, and that’s objectionable from a feminist point of view.

Darby also writes:

No matter how many statistics-laden articles get published in medical journals, circumcision cannot shake off the traces of its Victorian origins. It remains the last surviving example of a once respectable proposition that disease could be prevented by the pre-emptive removal of normal body parts which, though healthy, were thought to be a weak link in the body’s defences. In its heyday this medical breakthrough, described by Ann Dally as “fantasy surgery”, enjoyed wide esteem and included excisions of other supposed foci or portals of infection, such as the adenoids, tonsils, teeth, appendix and large intestine.

But circumcision is not “the last surviving” example of such a widespread practice in the US; weight loss surgery is skyrocketing in popularity, justified by unproven long-term preventative effects.

P.S. Also interesting: Darby’s review of the book Madhouse – about Henry Cotton, administrator of a New Jersey asylum, who for decades forcibly removed teeth and other body parts from unwilling patients “for their own good,” and was much admired for this practice.

Cotton was not just a fanatic applying the physicalist procedures of mainstream medicine to the new field of psychiatry, but the embodiment of a deep-seated trend in the medical profession itself: the assumption that if these wise experts think some sort of treatment or procedure is good for you, it is your duty to submit to it, and even that they are entitled–by virtue of their scientific understanding and promise of benefit–to force it on you, with or without informed consent. Throughout his career, Cotton insisted that he was at the forefront of scientific rationality and that his therapies must be enforced because they flowed inexorably, as a matter of mere logic, from the facts of disease as established by the science of which he was the anointed interpreter. He claimed that his approach was based on “scientific medicine,” the germ theory of disease, and “scientific evidence and proof.” His published articles are peppered with terms like “progressive medical men,” “indisputable facts,” “modern medical knowledge”; it hardly needs to be said that they were totally innocent of any ethical awareness.

  1. I say “almost exclusively” because I suspect circumcision of boys is widespread in Israel. (