Men's history and one big fat mea culpa about abortion

From the introduction to Michael Kimmel's "Manhood in America" (temporarily out of print, darn it, but still in xeroxed form), used in my "Men and Masculinity" class:

The history of American manhood is many histories at once.... (it is) a history of fears, frustration, and failure. At the grandest social level and the most intimate realms of personal life, for individuals and institutions, American men have been haunted by fears that they are not powerful, strong, rich, or successful enough. And many of our actions, on both the public and the private stages, have been efforts to ward off these demons, to silence these fears... there have been certain patterns to these actions: American men try to control themselves; they project their fear on to others, and when feeling too pressured, they attempt an escape. (Bold emphasis is mine).

We'll be working with the theme of that paragraph today in class -- and all semester long.

I like Kimmel's analysis. Really, I think it's as good a summation of what bedevils American men as any I've read. (To be fair, there is much Kimmel says in praise of American manhood).

I just posted below that I wasn't going to say anything more about abortion. Well, let me amend that slightly. Just as I was typing out the quotation from Kimmel above, I began to think about how this male focus on control and projection plays a part in the abortion wars. It is almost axiomatic among contemporary feminists that the pro-life movement is interested in more than saving the unborn; many argue that the real agenda of most anti-abortion activists is to control women. Specifically, many feminists have argued that men are profoundly threatened by women's reproductive autonomy, an autonomy that is historically quite recent. Thus, argue mainstream pro-choice feminists, the pro-life movement reflects the male desire to restore things to an earlier order, when women were of necessity more vulnerable and dependent upon men. And if women are vulnerable and dependent, they are thus less threatening to the angst-ridden, status-obsessed males of which Kimmel writes.

I've spent a lot of time this past week on this blog and elsewhere saying "NO! I'm not like that! A desire to outlaw abortion is not the same as wishing to restore women to dependency! I want women to be independent and autonomous actors -- just not at the price of what I regard as innocent life." Basically, that's what I've been saying. And I've been getting frustrated because not many folks are buying it.

Perhaps it's because I haven't explained things well, but I don't think that's at the root of it. When I take a step back and quiet my own emotions, I look at my own syllabus for my course on masculinity and remind myself of what this country's history of misogyny and chauvinism has really been. Men (especially white men like me) have, over the course of some four centuries, taken their fears and anxieties about themselves and projected them on to others -- especially men of color, homosexuals, and all women. We have used reproductive policy not so much to protect tiny babies as to to limit the options for their mothers. (Look at any of the traditional arguments against legalizing contraception, used as late as the 1960s, and that becomes evident). Given that history -- a history that I know intellectually like the back of my hand -- how can I expect my voice as a man to be heard separate from that history?

I want to protect the unborn because I believe the unborn are as worthy of dignity and protection as any other human being. I oppose abortion for the same reasons that I cling to pacifism (even when it's hard, like after Beslan) and oppose the death penalty and euthanasia. By using phrases like "consistent life" and "seamless garment", I've tried to link my opposition to abortion to a panoply of other issues. But I realize today that I'm a fool if I think that I can expect my sisters with whom I am engaged in debate to see abortion as "just another issue of non-violence."

In this climate, a man who argues against abortion rights -- as I do -- does so in the context of centuries of history. I cannot reasonably expect folks to differentiate between my desire to protect the unborn and a legacy of controlling women's lives in the names of those very same unborn. I wish that it were otherwise. I wish that my arguments could be heard separate from my sex, separate from my upbringing, separate from my identity. But I'm just good enough of a historian to know better.

I remain committed to ending abortion. Small monthly contributions will continue to flow from my checking account to Feminists for Life. But as I reread Michael Kimmel this morning -- and reread some of the thoughtful, impassioned remarks here and at other blogs in response to my posts about abortion -- I've realized that now is not the time for the likes of me to speak on this issue. There are other battles to be fought.

In writing this week and last on abortion, I made the mistake of forgetting the very history I teach every semester. I am sorry to anyone I have offended by doing so, and I am humbled.

I'm also hungry, and ready for my morning snack.

Okay, now I've had my morning snack. And I wonder, given that I teach men's history and women's history, why did I come to the conclusion I did today as a result of reading Michael Kimmel, and not a woman? Or am I thinking too much?

Comments

[obeah]

So all the weight of arguing against abortion gets dumped on us women, I guess. *sigh*

I understand what you're saying, but frankly I'd mind a lot less if: a) the vociferous pro-choicers who claim that pro-life men shouldn't have a say were any more willing to listen to pro-life women or b) pro-choice men had to stay out of it too.

[Stephen]

"I cannot reasonably expect folks to differentiate between my desire to protect the unborn and a legacy of controlling women's lives in the names of those very same unborn."

I disagree Hugo. Your sensitivity is laudable but shouldn't preclude your ability to take a position. The primary purpose of any argument is to get at the truth, not to make those with whom you disagree "feel good" about you or praise your sensitivity.

More to the point, if we follow your train of thought, we end with the inability for any rational conversation whatsoever. Can only divorced people adress issues of divorce? Haven't you learned, grown, recieved insight from those who are very different from you in race, gender and background? The extreme of your position is a balkanization of beliefs which is death to public discourse.

[Jonathan Dresner]

Hugo,

You are also suffering from something very common in heated political and identity discourse, something I'm very familiar with from discussing Israeli issues. You have a consistent and reasoned approach by which you have come to certain conclusions. Unfortunately, there are a fair number of people out there who have come to very similar conclusions by very different paths, and in spite of presenting your views as, indeed, your views, you end up taking flak from people who conflate your position (which includes both your path and your conclusion; this is starting to sound like vector analysis, sorry) with the positions of others.

I would also suggest, if I may, that control was historically a male issue, but that with the success of the feminist second wave, it has also become, to some extent, a female issue. There is a huge gray area between autonomy and imposition.

[Stuart]

Two observations:

1) I suspect that what really happens is that many feminists tend to assume that no one could possibly believe that a fetus is a human life, and thus they imagine alternate motivations to impute to pro-lifers. But it's more an imaginative caricature than anything else. I am unaware of any evidence that the actual pro-life movement is motivated by anything other than what they say: Preserving human life.

2) Even so, if the caricature does have some truth to it, why allow the pro-life side to be represented by those who have ulterior motives? Isn't that all the more reason to let your voice be heard?

[wolfangel]

I imagine most people would like to end (the need for) abortion. The question is what the best way to do that is; making it illegal may or may not be.

Incidentally, it's not that you, as a man, cannot discuss abortion (in my opinion), but that you would like to remove *all* of the birth control options that women have. The idea that the pill causes abortions (defined as preventing implantation, here) isn't that well documented; it, in any case, is used for other reasons as well: are you against the pill if a woman has a family history of ovarian cancer? What methods of birth control that the woman has control over -- reversible ones -- do you accept?

[Hugo]

Stuart and Stephen:

I'm taking a break, not leaving forever! I need to think about how I want a man's voice to be heard in this debate, because this IS a unique debate. No other issue is so wrapped up in issues of autonomy and control and our own flesh. And when I hear the anger and the frustration of my sisters, I know that a history of oppression by folks who share my gender undergirds that rage.

I hope I'm not "copping out". But I need some time to reflect.

[obeah]

A history of male oppression undergirds the anger of pro-life feminist women, too. It is infuriating to me as a feminist to hear that women "need" abortion because they are poor, or because their partners abandon them and the children they helped create, or because workplaces and schools will not accomodate mothers.

We don't need abortion; we need justice!

[elizabeth]

I don't know, Hugo. One one hand I agree with you that abortion seems an issue of control to pro-choicers like me. It irks me when white male legislators stand around in a semi-circle signing a bill restraining the rights of women.

Then again, I don't see why you shouldn't opine on abortion. This is, after all, your blog, and you should feel free to post on whatever topic you please. I will admit that I have somewhat tired of reading the abortion posts here, but I don't think that because you are a man that you shouldn't be pro-life and believe it strongly.

Anyway. . . I am looking forward to more posts on gender roles/feminism/etc.

[joe]

Please, tell me the rules of using generalizations. White men have done what! Men of color, homosexuals, all women etc., there are plenty of generalizations about them that hold some truth, though they too are negative. The essence of this issue doesn’t hang on how men have or will in the future treat women. So to make negative generalizations about men only blurs and worsens the issue, again—even though they may be true.

For example, “men just want to control women by limiting women’s choices.” Is not the issue abortion? If so, what does a women’s choice or men’s control have to do with the issue. Women are not the sole species and it still takes a man and a woman to propagate. Conversely, men live among women and the intentions of either should not be to control the other.

Since abortion deals directly with propagation, hence society, both men and women are involved in a decision on the matter. So the question now arises why abortions should be legal or illegal. I am willing to throw out moral/ethical reasons if others are willing to throw out the ambiguity of choice. I am also willing to accept the right to choices if others are willing to reason a moral/ethical basis of their judgment. In-other-words, what are WE protecting, and I am not implying an embryo.

Is anyone else out there tired of the entitlement of rights arguments etc.? It seems boringly circular. Hello, Aristotle, what is the good life? Plato, what means the Republic? I do not know what the good life is, nor do I think the majority of people really think deeply enough about this issue and therefore should shut their mouth. So Hugo, if you are taking a break from these flotsam and jetsam arguments, do it—do it.

[Gary]

I do not buy the approach of shaming men that says, 'Oh, women have had it so awful because folks of my "gender" have been so awful throughout history. Oh it is so, so, sooooooo sad!'

Sorry, pal, but I don't buy it for a second. Throughout human history, there has been suffering for every man woman and child on this earth. No one has had an easy life.

As far as the argument about women's bodies goes, fine. If they want to say 'my body, my choice,' then they should be prepared to say 'my responsibility' if they want a child and the man doesn't.

I hope your men's course uses material from sites like the following ones:

http://www.menforjustice.com

http://www.mensactivism.org

Although I am getting the sense that it's more of a man-bashing, feed-the-students-a-lot-of-feminist-inspired-guilt program.

Gary

[Amanda]

Hugo, I know what you mean. I know that this is a sticky issue and men should have an opinion, but that they should of course doesn't preclude the need to listen to those who actually can get pregnant. :)
How do you manage to deal with these trolls like Gary--women don't get justice, huh, until all male suffering is alleviated first, then?

[Brandon]

I must say Hugo that I have rather selfish motives for supporting your decision not only to step back and think but also to come back and speak out. I come here to read your thoughts--the thoughts of an impassioned man--mostly because it sharpens me to spend time hearing both you and the bevy of other thoughtful commenters who frequent this place, and support or challenge your views.

Thoughtful discourse is a rare commodity. I would hope that we all, despite fierce disagreement, realize that though there is much value in answering questions, there is also much value in questioning answers, and growing intellectually because of the above process!

So, take a thoughtful time-out, but do come back on these issues...they're important but most importantly--they need you.

[PurrpleGrrl]

Hugo - Thanks for your very thoughtful post. It's good to see people bust out of the caricatures.

I don't think that you need to stop expressing your opinions because of that history...but I also think that the goal of preserving human life is much better served by providing more social services for people with children - affordable day care, good jobs, public transportation, etc. - than by criminalizing abortion.

Most women have abortions because they cannot fulfill the child's PRACTICAL needs...if there were more support throughout people's lives, we would see less abortions. (See European nations with low abortion rates and LOTS of social services).

It seems that pro-life activists too often believe that "The sanctity of life begins at conception - and ends at birth."

Hey Stuart - I think Hugo referred pretty clearly to the evidence that some pro-lifers DO have motives other than preserving human life.

In fact, I think that was the whole point of the post - ackowledging that the historical (not that I think these other motives are in the past - plenty still think like that today) weight of these other motives affects the perception if not the meaning male of the pro-life position.

[Hugo]

Thank you, everyone. I've got a lot to think about before I return to this subject. Don't worry, though, I'll be back on other topics, like it or not!

Gary -- trust me, I teach the "men's rights' movement". I know my Warren Farrell, brother.

But believe it or not, I don't just teach from a place of guilt.

Gosh, now I've got an idea for another post.

[mythago]

It's a pity so many of the comments blatantly misinterpreted your post.

[Gary]

How do you manage to deal with these trolls like Gary--women don't get justice, huh, until all male suffering is alleviated first, then?

Hugo, how do you manage to deal with trolls like Amanda? Lacking any argument, she likes to put words in others' mouths.

[Hugo]

Okay, kids, the next person to use the word "troll" (unless in reference to mythological characters) is banned.

[Adam Greenwood]

Oh, brother. Some things are worth taking a little heat for. Life is one of them. If you're not out there making the case that feminism and life are compatible, who will? You want to abandon the field to us conservatives? True compassion for your sisters is to try and get them to see the light, not shutting up to avoid hurting feelings. Blech.

[Adam Greenwood]

"I cannot reasonably expect folks to differentiate between my desire to protect the unborn and a legacy of controlling women's lives in the names of those very same unborn."

Why not? Are the women you know exceptionally stupid or governed by emotions? Heck, I'm a bad ol' patriarchal conservative and even I don't believe that.