More on smiling and being tougher on men

This will be longish.

I confess I have been quite surprised (albeit pleased) by the intense debate taking place in the comments section below Friday's post on men, women, and smiling. Astarte at Utopian Hell and Amanda at Mousewords have both taken up the topic at their places; go here and here and here. Others have weighed in at length in the comment section; the vast majority of those stopping by have been women. (I keep meaning to post about phrases like "weigh in" and "throw one's weight around" and "carrying a lot of weight" in our anorexic-celebrating culture. Another time).

Anyhow, I think the discussion has been absolutely terrific, and I am quite grateful. On the question of whether it is "safe" for women to smile at men they don't know, I'm not prepared to offer anything like a definitive answer. As has been made clear in the comments section, friendliness appears differently to different people based upon their age, culture, background and personal experiences. In our society, each woman will have to assess her own comfort level and make choices accordingly.

I've been told several times that I'm "harder" on men on this blog than I am on women. I don't think that's true on every issue, but I am certain that it is around issues relating to gender and sexuality. No, it's not political correctness on my part (though I am one of those old guard liberal types who still thinks of "being PC" as a term of approbation rather than opprobrium). Nor is it an old-fashioned WASPY gentlemanliness coming through. No, I'm "harder" on men for one single solitary reason:

Men aren't hard enough on each other.

Even in the blogosphere, it seems that men are more likely to display "gender solidarity" with each other when it comes to issues of sexuality and male behavior. We live in a culture that discourages men from critiquing other men's choices and actions -- and at the same time, we live in a culture where young girls and grown women are encouraged to analyze, dissect, and frequently criticize their sisters. When a young man walks into my classroom wearing a sexy outfit, to pick an obvious example, I don't have boys whispering to each other "Who does he think he is?" (Admittedly, what I'm saying here tends to be truer for heterosexual men). I see the "lack of sisterhood" doing tremendous damage to women's lives, even as I see a "cult of homosocial silence" protecting men.

Men can be ruthless to each other when it comes to questions of effeminacy and masculinity. But few men indeed will stand up to a sexist brother and say, "dude, the way you talk about women ain't cool." When listening to a male friend recount a one-night stand where alcohol played a part in decision making, few guys will say, "Are you sure she consented? Are you sure you didn't rape her?" Obviously, I'm dealing in generalities here -- but while exceptions are always welcome and even noteworthy, generalities are useful in telling us how a significant majority of young men think, act, and live.

The point is this: men have to hold each other accountable. Until we've "cleaned our own house", we have no right to give direction to our sisters. Do women have specks in their eyes? Damn right. But we can't point out the dimensions of those specks until we deal with the massive logs protruding from our corneas. (I know, mixing phallic and biblical imagery isn't cool, but I did it anyway.) In practical terms, that means I have no right to say to a woman "Smile!" until I have done everything in my power to make it physically and emotionally safe for her to do so. (I'm not sure that even then, I'd have that right.) A tall order? Not at all.

I don't think of women as precious little angels who have been the victims of nasty bad men. I don't have women up on a pedestal. Women can be cruel, petty, jealous; they can be strong, decisive, lustful and aggressive; they can be intellectual, philosophical, and above all, self-sufficient. I'm quite aware that my sisters are, to put it plainly, people. I know plenty of women who have done truly cruel and unfair things to the men in their lives. But I know damned well that what men have done to women in the past and in the present, individually and collectively, has been far worse.

It is not enough for men to say: "But I'm not a rapist, so I'm not part of the problem." Many men, especially in high school and college, live in "rape culture." For example, staying silent while your male friends get women drunk at a party in the hopes of reducing their inhibitions makes you complicit in date rape, brother. That may seem harsh, but the fact is that the most important thing men can do to change the culture is to continue to challenge each other. We do a great job of challenging each other athletically, economically, and professionally. We must do that in terms of how we interact with women.

It is axiomatic that young men respond well to challenges set for them by older men. (Watch what countless boys in high school do to please their coaches; watch what Marine recruits do for their drill sergeants.) We've got to start doing that around gender issues! (One local high school cross-country coach I know as a running buddy is very good at doing that with his boys. He teaches them about aerobic efficiency and respecting women at the same time. But he's the exception, sad to say.) So when a younger guy expresses to me his frustration at women who won't smile at him, I first affirm his frustration, and then gently ask him if he is doing everything he can to make the world safer for women to smile. I ask him to examine not only his own attitudes and behaviors, but those of his friends as well.

Obviously, there are men's organizations that do this kind of "challenging" very well. Let me finish this post by plugging the folks at Men Can Stop Rape. In January 2002, I went through one of their three-day trainings with men's activists from all over the country. It was an incredible experience, and if you ever find yourself able to spend a weekend in D.C. (where they are based), I recommend the experience highly.

So I'll say it one more time: I'm not hard on men because I am filled with self-loathing. I'm not hard on men because I'm getting back at the bullies from grade school. I'm not hard on men because I'm gay, or because this male pro-feminist guise is a slick way to pick up women. I'm hard on men because I believe that men can, individually and collectively, radically transform the way they view and treat women. Men need to be encouraged to do this work by other men, not just their mothers and their sisters. They need to see other men living out lives of justice. They need to see men who are neither patriarchs or predators, but who are nonetheless strong, reliable, and profoundly masculine. And they need men like that to hold them accountable.

Comments

[joe]

I don’t think my monitor will handle another trip through the window. However, I think I do understand where you are coming from—which would make some men angry. Speaking as a man, I would not care for being critiqued either as an individual or collectively (regarding gender) by a feminist. Let me explain, Hugo, you embrace feminism—which is fine with me, I place no value judgment on that. What seeps to the surface of this post and others like it, is the persona of a female feminist lecturing men (sensitive men may not recognize this). I imagine those willing to read such posts narrows to fellow male feminists and female feminists (which by the way, seems to be the same as those who affirm your stance via comments). I think it is poor taste to make an excuse for why men deserve the better amount of chastisement, and at the same time minimize or push aside the faults of women. I think it is safe to say, women would prefer to be chastised about their sexuality (related to dress, appearances i.e. smiles, behavior) by another women, then say a man—and probably never, by a male chauvinist. Not to say the opponent of male chauvinism is feminism, but you still haven’t told me what the counterpart of feminism is. Who are your intended listeners? Do you need fellow male feminist to concur? Do feminist and women not already understand your point? If you are really reaching out to men, THEN SPEAK AS A MAN TO MEN. Then I personally would never mind if you never mentioned the faults of women. I would also like to mention, that if I were a man in your male gender class and read this blog, I would wonder!

[Aurora]

Excellent.

It saddens me that today's society seems to have misinterpreted a lot of this, giving many men the impression that in order to please women, they have to be emasculated. Nothing could be further from the truth, at least from where I stand.

Being responsible and respectful of others, men and women alike, does not mean being less masculine. This response really deserves a post of its own on my own site when I'm able to scrape together the time to do it.

[Hugo]

How, Joe, do you suggest I speak "as a man to men" on the blog?

What about my tone is so offensive to men? I recognize that men may be put off by this, but how would you suggest I phrase it differently to be more appealing?

I'm not just asking rhetorically; I really want to know. IF your argument is with my tone and not with my message, how can I alter the former? If it's with the message, then I'm sorry, I'm not going to change it because it disturbs my brothers.

Again, Joe, I love men. I love them for who they are, and for I know they can be.

[joe]

I would prefer to say the approach, verses tone-it is not the message.

[Amanda]

Joe, I know you mean well, but in all honesty what do you mean by "man to men"? Because from my perspective, and I may be off, it sounds like you expect Hugo's tone to be significantly different when talking to men rather than women, who I assume you think are the intended audience. But as I can attest, few bloggers really write to "intended" audiences, so I would think that this is just how he feels.

Anyway, I am going to go out on a limb here and say that the man to man talk thing seems sexist to me--you seem like you're saying that you find Hugo's tone condescending, and you feel that he should address men in more "adult" tones.

[Hugo]

I still need help, joe! What about my tone is it? Is it my professorial side coming through? Trust me, I don't speak to kids the way I write on the blog...

[mythago]

and at the same time minimize or push aside the faults of women

Actually, Hugo made a very big point of noting that he is in no was beatifying women (individually or collectively). If you missed that part, I don't think you paid much attention past "Hey! Hugo's saying men do bad things!" and getting your boxer-briefs in a knot.

[Jeff JP]

When listening to a male friend recount a one-night stand where alcohol played a part in decision making, few guys will say, "Are you sure she consented? Are you sure you didn't rape her?"

Why in the universe should they when women make so very many false accusations of rape? For an introduction to the problem of false accusations, see the following article by Marc Angelucci and Glenn Sacks:

http://www.glennsacks.com/research_shows_false.htm

Why is it that men are to be held accountable for the effects of their drinking, yet women are not? Sorry, my man, but I don't buy that for a minute.

You say, "I'm not hard on men because I am filled with self-loathing."

With all due respect, I just don't believe that. The very fact that you use terms like "predators" and the incredibly overused, misused, and abused "patriarchs" suggests to me that there's really something else going on here.

Furthermore, the gaggle of feminist groupies who hang out here is also telling. Sorry, pal, but I just do not believe it.

Unlike Joe, I have more of a problem with your message. I gave you an example above. In this thread, you said, "If it's with the message, then I'm sorry, I'm not going to change it because it disturbs my brothers." Thus, there isn't much to discuss.

If you want to be a feminist, fine. That's your right. However, feminism has by and large been discredited as an anti-male hate movement, so don't be so surprised when men don't warm up to that.

Jeff

[DJW]

Jeff JP's post is demonstrative of how far feminism has to go. The comparison to anti-racism is instructive. If Hugo focused on racial issues the way he does on gender issues (here, in the classroom, in life), how many people would he encounter who think he doesn't "really" mean that stuff, and he must have some alterior motive or pathology that drives him to say such strange things?

[Hugo]

Jeff, other than by a right-wing talk radio host or two, by whom has the feminist movement been discredited?

I am part of the men's movement, my friend. I'm a card-carrying member of NOMAS -- do you regard all of us as timid, self-hating men desperate to please women?

As far as drinking goes, the law in most states is clear: alcohol impairs consent, and consent is required by law. A drunk woman or man cannot give consent. Men have an obligation to honor that -- regardless of how women behave. Fortunately, we have sensible laws.

[Hugo]

Oh, and DJW -- thanks.

[Jeff JP]

As far as drinking goes, the law in most states is clear: alcohol impairs consent, and consent is required by law. A drunk woman or man cannot give consent. Men have an obligation to honor that -- regardless of how women behave. Fortunately, we have sensible laws.

And you will blame only men. Heaven forbid we ask women to conduct themselves as responsible adults.

As far as who has discredited feminism? Lots of people and groups. Warren Farrell, Christina Hoff Sommers, Wendy McElroy, the Men's Activism News Network, the Independent Women's Forum, the National Coalition of Free Men, and many other organizations listed at Men's News Daily, to name a few.

http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/secondaries/linklist.htm

Finally, with respect to the race issue, consider how many of you would tolerate the kind of statements about African-Americans, Hispanics, or Asians that feminist harpies routinely make about men. Consider the hateful invective that these two "professors" post in their misandric rant.

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2004/09/separate-harms-of-reckless-sex.html

If you substitute "African-American" or "Hispanic" for "men" in numerous places in Ayers' and Baker's manifesto of hate speech, perhaps you'll get the point.

The simple fact is, based on what I have seen here, you don't demand the same responsible behavior from women that you demand from men. That's condescending to women because it's effectively treating them like children. It's unfair to men because you're demanding that we hold ourselves to higher standards.

So much for your feminism being about "equality."

Men have gotten wise to the double standards and the disingenuous gamesmanship. We're not tolerating it anymore.

Jeff

[Hugo]

Uh, Jeff, around here we like to say "gamespersonship." Thanks.

[Ampersand]

I believe the correct term is "gamesperchildship."

[Ampersand]

Sorry, I couldn't resist. :-)

Jeff wrote: If you substitute "African-American" or "Hispanic" for "men" in numerous places in Ayers' and Baker's manifesto of hate speech, perhaps you'll get the point.

Well, a piece that implicitly implied that rapists as a class are almost all African-American would be racist, because that's not true. A significant number of rapists come from all races.

In contrast, it IS true that - although not all men are rapists - virtually all rapists are men. A discussion of men that implies that all rapists are male isn't sexist, it's just accurate.

[Hugo]

Thanks, Amp; good point. (Is this the time to point out, Jeff, that Amp is a man?)

Still, you've got my dander up. Time to take on my ol' buddy Warren Farrell and the rest of the men's rights movement. Post on the subject coming soon.

[Amanda]

Um, you are accountable for ALL crimes you commit under the influence of alcohol. Why should rape be the exception? You run over someone when you're drunk and you go to jail LONGER.

I swear, some people really seem to think being raped is the real crime, not raping. What are you trying to say when you say this? "She was drunk, so she raped him, your honor, because she knew that men are physically incapable of restraining themselves from mauling incapacitated women." And WE'RE the man-haters? For god's sake, men are humans with functioning brains, not snarling animals.

[Annamaria]

Taking my cue from Amanda's post, in what other crime is the intoxication of the victim used to mitigate the guilt of the perpetrator? If I murder a drunk, does her/his drunkeness excuse my behavior? Would any decent society blame the murder victim for not "conducting themselves as responsible adults"?

[Jeff JP]

Um, you are accountable for ALL crimes you commit under the influence of alcohol. Why should rape be the exception? You run over someone when you're drunk and you go to jail LONGER.

And therein lies the anti-male sexism! If both parties are under the influence of alcohol, why should criminal charges be brought against only the man? Hmmm.

[La Lubu]

"Heaven forbid, we ask women to conduct themselves as responsible adults."

Jeff JP, surely you have read somewhere about the common practice of drugging women through offering them a drink? Ketamine, Rohypnol, and other drugs are put into a woman's drink, she passes out fairly quickly, guy does whatever he wants with her unconscious body. The guy feels pretty confident about this scheme, because there will be plenty of witnesses around to say how drunk and/or stoned the woman was; therefore, she is morally deficient and "deserved it". Some of these crimes are being punished, but it is difficult to do so because these drugs don't stay in the body long. Many rape victims feel shame because of the "god knows we can't ask women to be responsible" attitude. If every man who saw or heard another man do something like this stood up to it, by preventing him, shaming him, calling the police, testifying in court, etc., etc., then this wouldn't happen so often. That's the responsibility Hugo is talking about---breaking the wall of silence.

And don't say these are isolated incidents; most college campuses (and many high schools) present information to women on protecting themselves from this practice.

It's not a new thing; back in my parent's day, they had terms for it too.

[zuzu]

Just to address the smiling thing again:

In practical terms, that means I have no right to say to a woman "Smile!" until I have done everything in my power to make it physically and emotionally safe for her to do so. (I'm not sure that even then, I'd have that right.)

Really, you have no right to tell anyone, man or woman, to smile just because YOU want them to.

Feel free to try to inspire a smile by smiling. But don't be upset when it's not returned. After all, the person you're trying to inspire is under no obligation to entertain you. Furthermore, that person bears no responsibility for making you feel good about yourself.

IOW, if you get a guy complaining that women don't smile at him, tell him to accept it and move along. He might encounter someone who smiles back, he might not. That's the way life works.

[ema]

And therein lies the anti-male sexism! If both parties are under the influence of alcohol, why should criminal charges be brought against only the man? Hmmm.

Jeff JP,

So if we're both drunk, and I operate on you, we're both guilty, and I should expect criminal charges to be brought against you.

[ginmar]

Warren Farrell, Christina Hoff Sommers, Wendy McElroy,

yeah, those are all such unimpeachable sources.

[Amanda]

I still don't get why holding down a woman and forcing her to have sex with you is excusable if you're drunk. I don't see how anyone thinks this is acceptable. If you got drunk and decided to take your friend's wallet out of his pants pocket, you'd still get in trouble. What's the issue here?

[Amanda]

And just for those who think that anti-rape laws are some kind of persecution of women against men, I would say that you still go to jail for raping a man. We have a case right now in Austin of a bunch of men getting drunk at a gay bar, going home with a man they met there and sexually assaulting him while denigrating him for being gay. They are being charged with sexual assault. How is that anti-male--a man was the victim in this case.