A note about friendship, privilege, Glenn

The comments below this morning's posts have drifted on to my remark that despite our significant differences, I very much like men's rights/father's rights advocate Glenn Sacks.  I've been on his radio show twice (click here and here).  More recently, he and I have discussed working together.  Sasafrass, in a comment below the morning post, expressed bewilderment that Glenn and I could be good friends in the face of his rhetoric and his views.

I was raised to get along with everybody.  I come from a family where conservative Republicans and Communists were expected to share the Thanksgiving dinner table.  (This is not an exaggeration.  My great-uncle was the late political philosopher Stanley Moore, who was fired from Reed College for being a Communist in the dark days of the 1950s.  A true gentleman and a fine Golden Bear, he was a huge influence on my life until his death in 1997.  I can remember seeing him laughing and playing in the swimming pool with the same sort of folks who thought he -- and every other Red --deserved to be fired, or worse.)  My grandmother and grandfather cancelled out each other's vote in every election of their married life; he was a staunch liberal Democrat, she a moderate conservative Republican.  I'm told that in 1948, when Truman nipped Dewey in that famous upset, that there were a few brief tense moments around their Piedmont home as my grandfather rejoiced, but for the most part, they enjoyed their often serious disagreements.

I grew up hearing stories about my uncle Stanley's time in the Party.  I grew up with cousins who had become born-again Reformed Calvinists of the strict TULIP variety.  I grew up listening to impassioned arguments over nuclear war, abortion, the death penalty, and the virtues and defects of socialism.   We were all -- every one of us -- encouraged to hold strong views and argue for them.  But we were also told that our views, no matter deeply held, were just that -- views, and that we should always be able to distinguish between disagreeing and being disagreeable.  During summers growing up on my family's ranch, I learned first hand that people I loved and respected, who taught me to ride and played with me in the pool, often held very different opinions than my mother and father.  And I learned from my parents that it's not only possible, but indeed necessary to love and be in close relationship with those whose beliefs about justice, God, economics, and the meaning of life are radically different from one's own.  One could call someone's ideas "insane and naive" in one breath, and in the next breath tell them, with absolute sincerity, "I love you, could you please pass the salt?"

It wasn't until I was in high school, and first dabbling in political activism, that I ran into people who didn't think it possible to be friends and lovers across ideological lines.  I met people who had ended relationships and stopped speaking to cousins because of fallings-out over Ronald Reagan, abortion rights, or membership in the Sierra Club.  I was saddened and unnerved, because it drove home to me that my childhood understanding of politics, friendship, and family was not universally shared.

When I took my first women's studies courses, I began to wonder if my family's attitude towards politics wasn't based on privilege.  Maybe we could afford to compartmentalize our politics easily because the issues discussed were rarely matters of life and death to folks like us in places like Carmel and Piedmont and the rolling hills northeast of San Jose.  (But though they might not have been life or death, they weren't inconsequential; my uncle Stanley's firing from Reed had driven that point home!)  When I was at Cal, I had very few good male friends, but a couple of those I did have were conservative members of very conservative fraternities.  When I mentioned these guys in a study session one day, one of my classmates from a women's studies course suggested that I was only "playing" at being a feminist, because a real feminist wouldn't be friends with men whose views on women were so reactionary.  I protested to her that one could like people in spite of their views on any subject, and she said, "Yeah, Hugo, that's because their views don't really affect you."

I've often wondered if my insistence on civility (a standard that I too often fail to meet) isn't a function of the fact that to a certain extent, none of the issues I blog about are life and death for me.  I wonder too if my family's relative prosperity and insularity weren't critical factors in allowing us such a tolerant ethos.    Perhaps so, but that is not the same thing as saying that real activists can't be real friends with their very real opponents.  My reading of Scripture tells me that Jesus calls all of us to love our enemies, and perhaps even to befriend and break bread with those with whom we disagree.

Are there any limits to this?  Could I be friends with a white supremacist?  I haven't had the chance to find out.  I certainly would not allow an acquaintance or colleague with such views to express them unchallenged.  But is it always true that objectionable views thoroughly saturate a person to the extent that they become unpleasant to be around?  I'm not at all sure. 

Bottom line:  I've come down hard on my friend Glenn before.  I'll do so again.  But does the fact that he's a troglodyte with profoundly objectionable views on men and women mean that he can't also be a helluva guy?  I'll buy him lunch anytime, and we'll have a good laugh together before returning to the fray.

Comments

[Q Grrl]

I agree with all points in your third to last paragraph, even if they are in question form. I have a friend whom I've known for years from the local pool hall. He is openly racist, sexist, homophobic, boorish, and all other unseemly -ishes that might exist. However he is a friend. I'm not sure I can explain why or how, but despite my disgust with his views, he falls into the friend category.

That said, I do think that ideological lines are usually deal-breakers for me -- some issues that I have lived through have been life or death and it has been more of an issue of where my energies lie. Can I maintain a friendship with someone who taxes the limits of my political and personal energies? Why would a friend add a burden onto my already complicated life (primarily I'm thinking of being lesbian and having come out in the mid-80's)? Do I have the patience to teach those closest to me about acceptence and compassion, or do I build a network of people around me who already do this and therefore build me up as I try to create political and social change? Is it inherently selfish of me to not want to have to educate or even just tolerate my friends for their viewpoints? Or is it self-protective?

Christ spoke openly of loving your neighbors and even your enemies as yourself. Yet in addition to this, he was not hesitant to level direct and heavy social criticism at those who harmed the greater social fabric/good. To only interpret Christ's words on a surface level creates a rather naive and childish view of the world (which I'm not ascribing to you Hugo). Christ wishes for us to accept the flaws in others as we accept the flaws within ourselves. He wants us to genuflect on our own shortcomings when he admonishes us to love our enemies -- if he had simply wanted us to love without thought/critique/self-reflection, he would simply have said "love they neighbors, damnit!"

That being said, how does a modern person ballence politics and friendships? How does your friendship with Glenn affect your friendships with others who might not understand your ability to transcend the peculiarities of your political conflicts? Are you responsible to both sets of friends, and if so, where do those lines intersect?

For me, and I suppose some of the more "strident" feminists, we have unfortunately learned to be wary of even nice guys -- as friendship often becomes a sell-out once the chips are down. I cannot befriend many people who can't, as a fundamental issue, accept me as fully human -- be that because of my gender or because of my sexuality. If I perceive that you have the ability to forgoe the friendship to make choices that harm me socially and civily, then the lack of mutuality in the friendship becomes most apparent. For me, especially as a feminist, I cannot tolerate hierarchies in friendships, whether the friend is male or female. If you cannot support me, the chances that you fall into the category of friend are slim. Does this mean I don't care about you? No. I don't know who to attribute the quote to, but I read this in the current edition of Shambala Sun: "I don't have to like you to care about you." It might not be as edifying as Christs words, but it works more accurately for me in the modern world.

[sophonisba]

But is it always true that objectionable views thoroughly saturate a person to the extent that they become unpleasant to be around?

What's this got to do with whether or not you ought to befriend them? There's a sense in your post that befriending bigots is about tolerance, about being a good person. But it's clearly (as the quoted question shows) about your own pleasure and comfort, not theirs. What's it got to do with morals, when your decisions are based on how pleasant a friendship is for you?

The question is not, how can you betray feminist principles. The question is, what pleasure is there for you, and why, in a friendship with a man who has contempt for women?[1] Don't dress it up in "tolerance" - you're "tolerating" the status your masculinity gives you as his equal. I'm sure this is rewarding, but it is not brave, or hard. It is also not a tolerance that women are allowed the chance to exhibit, so treating it as a virtue is what you might call problematic.

But if you don't mind sending the message that whatever women's issues come up, at the end of the day the men will get together, have a beer, and laugh at it all, great. I'm curious (and prepared for the answer to be yes) - would you buy lunch for Amy Richards and have a good laugh with her, before returning to the fray? Your screed about her is still up on the sidebar for new readers, so I assume your feelings there have not changed.

[1]This is not specifically about Glenn Sacks, about whom I know nothing much.

[sparklegirl]

I cannot befriend many people who can't, as a fundamental issue, accept me as fully human -- be that because of my gender or because of my sexuality.

Well said, Q Grrl.

[Hugo]

I would be delighted to have lunch with Amy Richards.

The screed is up there, largely because it is evidence of the degree to which I am still a grossly imperfect work-in-progress, a man of ever-evolving views. It's nice to document where one was "at" at given moments.

[Sassafras]

Interesting post, Hugo. I appreciate your sincerity. Honestly, though, I think you've missed the point. This isn't about tolerating different viewpoints. We almost all do that -- I have Republican and fundy Christian relatives, and we all manage to continue to love each other.

No, this is about associating with someone who thinks you are an inferior being. You were going in the right direction when you said "I've often wondered if my insistence on civility isn't a function of the fact that to a certain extent, none of the issues I blog about are life and death for me." And a little later you wondered aloud if you could be friends with a white supremacist. But even that's not going far enough: to get the full effect you would need to somehow become black, and then see if you could be friends with a white supremacist.

Could you?

I'm sure you could be polite; I'm sure you could maintain a civil relationship if necessary. I could, too. But could you like the person?

[djw]

I've never viewed friendship as a choice, at least not in the traditional sense. Reflecting on those I'd call a friend, I can't recall a moment where I made the choice to "befriend" them. I suppose it was a series of small choices, but that's not how I experience the phenomenology of friendship. Unlike jobs or romantic relationships, friendships just seem to happen. I suppose ending one could be a deliberate choice and I'm fortunate I've never had a good reason to consider doing it. The betrayal would have to be fearsome, though, as I don't really feel like I could choose to not be friends with my friends either. Who I end up being friends with tells me things about myself I couldn't figure out otherwise, and it gives me a greater sense of being in the world, so to speak, than a carefully selected roster of those who have all the qualities necessary to be my friend.

All this is to say that while I imagine I'd have a hard time enjoying the company of someone who writes and speaks the kind of creepy misogyny we get from Mr. Sacks, I couldn't reasonbly ask Hugo or anyone else to rationally defend it, as I don't see who our friends are as the product of rational choices, or even moral ones.

[Hugo]

Sassafras, you're right -- I'll never know what it's like to be black. (My wife is of African-Colombian descent, so the issue does hit a bit closer to home than it otherwise might).

As a profeminist, should I eschew friendships with those who might see women as "lesser beings" (something I don't think Glenn does, though his rhetoric doesn't help)? I'd rather stay in relationship with them, gently and firmly trying to lead them over to the light... Perhaps that's a function of male privilege, but I see little purpose in renouncing it.

[Hugo]

DJW, may I say "amen" to your note about friendship. It's an eloquent summary of exactly how I feel.

[sophonisba]

Hugo - I'm glad to hear it. I'd gathered from some of your recent posts that your opinions on abortion had been shifting, and that your more general positions may be different now, but the Richards piece is aimed personally, and it's the only thing you've ever written that I find sickening. I respect your intention to document your changing views and not hide past flaws, but if you have changed your mind, maybe you could eventually add a notation to that effect at the end of that post? New people will still take it as a position statement, as it is.

Sassafras - and even if he could, he wouldn't get the chance, because a white supremacist wouldn't offer him respectful friendship in that situation. The most he could hope for would be condescension and affectionate 'pet' status. The sort of thing women get from anti-feminists, in other words.

[Sassafras]

No, I'm not saying you should avoid people like Glenn as policy. I'm not saying you "should" do anything. I was just genuinely surprised, and kind of bewildered, by your affection for the guy. You can argue the pros and cons of liberated men befriending troglodytes (not a discussion I'll get into), but what's going on here is that you like Glenn. That's weird to me. But maybe it's just because you ARE a man, and so his misogny is not a personal affront to you. Which of course is just human nature. We're all like that to some extent. We tolerate people's bigotry more easily when it's not directed at us!

[Hugo]

I'll update the Richards piece.

[sophonisba]

Thanks. (Your civility must be contagious!)

[stanton]

What a great consideration of friendship this is. I appreciate all of the viewpoints expressed here - and djw, I really loved your insights. I would sound a note of caution to those who would impute beliefs to others and judge them (and their worthiness of respect and friendship) accordingly. Get to know them a bit before you decide that they believe something that they never said, but you think they simply MUST believe. Such assumptions are, IME, rarely correct. (If you knew Glann Sacks, you would also know that he doesn't hate women.)

[Stephen]

" All I can think of is three heartbeats becoming one and I shudder and shudder."

sophonisba, it reads as one of his most cogent and candid pieces -- after which the thinking got muddled with self-recrimination.

Stephen

[olivia]

What exactly do you mean by "helluva guy"? And what do you mean by "friend"?

[Mr. Bad]

Q Grrl, your missive moved me and touched on a topic that I've thought about for several years now. The relevant section to wit: "I cannot befriend many people who can't, as a fundamental issue, accept me as fully human -- be that because of my gender or because of my sexuality. If I perceive that you have the ability to forgoe the friendship to make choices that harm me socially and civily, then the lack of mutuality in the friendship becomes most apparent. For me, especially as a feminist, I cannot tolerate hierarchies in friendships, whether the friend is male or female. If you cannot support me, the chances that you fall into the category of friend are slim."

As a socially-liberal MRA, I can very much relate to this. While I want to support women, homosexuals (FYI, my sister is a lesbian), feminists, et. al., I've found that on principle I cannot. The reason is quite simple, and you've laid out the fundamental reason why: (quoting you) "If I perceive that you have the ability to forgoe the friendship to make choices that harm me socially and civily, then the lack of mutuality in the friendship becomes most apparent." Because women, homosexuals and feminists in general support affirmative action - which is "make(ing a) choice(s) that harms me socially and civily" - I cannot in good conscience support any causes important to feminists, women and/or homsexuals. I've said if before, but it bears repeating: Alliances are not one-way streets, they're mutual.

And given that obvious definition, the simple matter is, women, homosexuals, and especially feminists are not my allies, and apparently have no intention of being so. So unless and until feminists, women and homosexuals join me in my fight to eliminate institutional discrimination against me (i.e., affirmative action), there is no way that I will ever be able to support any of their causes. I may not actively work against those groups the way they have against me (i.e., by actively supporting affirmative action), but I certainly won't be lifting a finger to help them.

And in this regard you and I are much more alike than different.

[Hugo]

Olivia:

"Helluva guy" = A decent human being whose company I enjoy; a worthy combatant in the gender wars.

"Friend" = Someone I trust personally, and someone who serves as a witness to my journey as I serve as witness to his.

[misogynist]

Misogynist: A man who hates women as much as women hate one another.
H. L. Mencken

i think i can tolerate this word being used till the end of time now

[olivia]

I think "helluva guy" is loaded with old-boy connotations. To me, it means a lot more than "decent person" or "worthy combatant". It's something men say about each other to affirm their membership in the male group and demonstrate that that commonality is more important than whatever else they might differ about. It's something a woman can never be. It's also very casual and that interferes with the sense of seriousness you're trying to convey.

Maybe if you just ask yourself, would you still be their friend if they held those same opinions about a group of which you are necessarily a member? (By "necessarily" I mean a group you are stuck in, rather than a group such as feminists that people can choose to join or not join.)

[Hugo]

Well, I've been friends with a Holocaust denier (not the same as white supremacists), and both of my paternal great-grandmothers died in the Shoah, so I suppose that's one example, Olivia.

I don't belong to all-male clubs of any kind. But I have no problem using the "hail fellow, well met" discourse (lots of back-slapping) with men -- of course it's based on male privilege, but it gives me an "in" in order to do important work.

[olivia]

But when you refer to him as a "helluva guy", it seems to me that what you're saying is that your common man-ness is more important to you than whatever may divide you and Glenn. That's what "helluva guy" means, in my interpretation. If you mean he's a decent person whose company you enjoy, why not just say that and skip the loaded language?

Would you be friends with Glenn if he believed all these things about "people named Hugo" instead of "women"? I think that is the essential question.

[Kendra]

Oh, my. And I suppose you'd think my membership in women's groups is equally invalid?

[Caitriona]

I think "helluva guy" is loaded with old-boy connotations. To me, it means a lot more than "decent person" or "worthy combatant". It's something men say about each other to affirm their membership in the male group and demonstrate that that commonality is more important than whatever else they might differ about. It's something a woman can never be. It's also very casual and that interferes with the sense of seriousness you're trying to convey.

Old boy connotations? hmmm... or perhaps connotations of a previous generation, one that many try to distance themselves from?

But you *are* right about one thing. Women can't fit the "helluva guy" descriptor. We get the "helluva gal" descriptor instead. Or at least a few of us do, from a few of those "helluva guys."

[BritGirlSF]

Sassafrass hit on the most salient point. One can be friends with people whom one disagrees with (I'm an atheist, almost militantly so, and yet throughout my life have had friends who are Catholic, Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish, and so on). One cannot be friends with those who think that one is less than fully human. Glen Sacks clearly does not think that women are fully human. Perhaps it's easy for you to be friends with him because he does think that YOU are fully human, since you're a man. I would say that your choosing to continue that friendship is a betrayal of principle though. How can you be a feminist if you hang out with people who think that women are lesser beings? And more importantly, as sophonisba asked, what are you getting out of it? You've written a lot about your conflicted relationships with other men - maybe your friendship with Glen is due to a desire to be "one of the boys", to be loved and valued by other men? There's nothing wrong with that desire, but there is something wrong with enabling hateful misogynists, particularly if you view yourself as pro-feminist. It would be like me calling myself an environmentalist and then taking a job with Dow Chemical. On some level the fact that you maintain a friendship with the guy does send a message that you don't think his views are that bad, really, or how would you be able to stand to be around him? Also, I think you're kidding yourself if you think that you can persuade him to change. Human beings are stubborn creatures.
Honestly, it does make me wonder what could possibly be going on in your head. It is indeed easy to tolerate views that are not directly threatening to you, but at what cost to your basic principles do you tolerate them? Racists are in no way a direct threat to me, since I'm white, but I still wouldn't want to have lunch with one. I avoid anti-Semites as if they were carrying Ebola, although they're no threat to me either, because I simply cannot imagine how I could view someone as a friend when they are pursuing an ideology which is fundamentally repulsive to me. I'm puzzled as to why Sacks' ideology is not similarly repulsive to you.

[jaketk]

mrbad: While I want to support women, homosexuals (FYI, my sister is a lesbian), feminists, et. al., I've found that on principle I cannot. The reason is quite simple, and you've laid out the fundamental reason why: (quoting you) "If I perceive that you have the ability to forgoe the friendship to make choices that harm me socially and civily, then the lack of mutuality in the friendship becomes most apparent." Because women, homosexuals and feminists in general support affirmative action - which is "make(ing a) choice(s) that harms me socially and civily" - I cannot in good conscience support any causes important to feminists, women and/or homsexuals. I've said if before, but it bears repeating: Alliances are not one-way streets, they're mutual.

i'm going to have to nitpick this a little. i don't think she was speaking specifically of helping or aiding someone, of which you have no obligation to do, but of befriending a person. in terms of friendship, it is more than just an alliance. their is personal support, a sort of intimacy between two people, or a group of people, that usually surpasses most political and societal disagreements.

the generalizations you made seem, to me, to be more about supporting certain politics, not another person, so i think you missed the point, just a little.

britgirlsf: One cannot be friends with those who think that one is less than fully human.

i could not agree with this more. political disagreements can be worked around, but once a person clearly suggestions that you are less of a person--inferior, sub-human, primal, animalistic--there honestly is no room for any sort of friendship. however, one should at least wait and see what a person's views are before jumping to conclusions about what the person thinks. of course, once they reveal how little they think of certain groups of people, it is entirely reasonable not to befriend that person. it is for that reason that i do not have feminist friends, and do not asscoiate often with feminists past what is necessary for my job. there is little point in being around those who think me less than a person.