Computer problems, spammers, swamped with work

The mostly negative response to my post on Real Manhood has not been surprising. What has been frustrating is that I haven't been able to read any of these responses until this morning.! Friday afternoon, I crashed my home computer in a fit of technological ineptitude. (Specifically, I shut off the power in the middle of a system restore. Whole operating system gone). Thus, I won't be near a computer except on school days. Sigh. Less time for blogging, emailing, and all that.

I was also besieged by a spammer this morning, by far the worst attack since I started blogging. Hundreds of ads for Cialis in the comments section; can it be mere coincidence that I am attacked by those selling pills for erectile dysfunction after all these posts on manhood? I've blocked the rascal, and let's hope things quiet down.

I do intend to respond more on the whole notion of manhood. Despite the repeated insistence that I am not blaming women for men's plight, nor that real manhood requires the denigration of women, some folks have found misogyny, stupidity, and Jungian dreaminess in my post below. (The comments over at Alas, A Blog have been quite, uh, enlightening.) Stentor at Debitage has also taken me to task.

Joe Perez, with whom I clearly have areas of both agreement and disagreement, has come to my defense on this issue here. I liked this bit:

Moreover, Barry's assertion that all gender hierarchies imply that girls and women rank low is ridiculous. Perhaps that's true of all gender hierarchies Barry has ever conceived of (that is, dominator hierarchies), but not healthy hierarchies, wherein masculine modes of being (agency) and feminine modes (communion) are viewed on a par, integral parts of a universal balance. I would add as a gay man that the topic of healthy versus pathological masculinity is an especially important one for gay men, as our own developmental task requires the development of positive esteem as same-sex oriented and as men.

What's needed, of course, isn't an attack on positive conceptions of masculinity because they're mean, nasty, hierarchies. What's needed is theories that articulate healthy hierarchies that do justice to the complex nature of human development. Hugo points in that direction by claiming that man and boy are the appropriate hierarchy, not man and woman. I think that's a step in the right direction, though of course the topic is very complex and all these blogs (including this post) are just skimming the surface.

Barry, of course, is Ampersand at Alas, A Blog.

I'm also absolutely swamped with work this week. I will post something more thoughtful soon. I promise. In the meantime, make sure and visit my new,small, photo section for a collection of Matilde pics!

Comments

[Ampersand]

I'm awfully sorry to hear about your computer going ppphfft!, Hugo. That really sucks. I hope you didn't lose too much that can't be replaced.

As for Jon's comment, I was less impressed than you were (not a surprise!). Jon made up something I never said - "all hierarchies are bad" - and then based his whole argument on the fictional words he put into my mouth.

I never attacked "positive conceptions of masculinity because they're mean, nasty, hierarchies." I attacked the concept of "real manhood" because "when boys are told they aren't 'real men,' they learn to hate themselves; and meanwhile, other boys who are desperate to remain 'real men' will do almost anything to defend their manhood." But it's easier to make up a straw man about "mean, nasty hierarchies" than it is to respond to what I actually wrote.

When I was a child, I was beaten up frequently; I was a social pariah; on those days that nobody hit or kicked me, I spent my time fearing the next attack; and I learned to hate myself so much that I'd stand in front of a mirror berating myself for not being a regular boy and occasionally punching myself. All of that happened primarily becuase I was seen as insufficiently manly; the other kids, with their hatred, taught me to hate myself.

In retrospect, I realize that the other kids (well, mostly other boys) weren't acting from a position of security. On the contrary, they were acting from a position of deep insecurity; they struck out at me because I represented a threat to them. "Be a real man or you'll end up like Barry!" was the implicit message they were taught; and if they shunned me and (occasionally) beat me, it was because they had to do that to maintain their position in the "real manhood" hierarchy.

I think childhoods like mine are unavoidable so long as boys are brought up to believe that their masculinity is vulnerable and must be achieved or earned, rather than it being something that comes automatically. Insecurity about "am I a real man" is a natural by-product of a culture that distinguishes between "real" men and other men; and that insecurity will inevitably lead to violence (mental and physical) against those males deemed not "real" men. Or, in your terms, not deemed warriers.

* * *

I'm also against the idea of gender hierarchy because it (in my view) inevitably reifies sexism, but that aspect has already been well-discussed, in the responses on your blog, on mine and on MouseWords. (I am genuinely sorry for how unkind many of the comment-writers on "Alas" are, but I also think many of them have a point. In particular, I encourage you to read Charles Seaton's posts with an open mind.)

I hope your computer problems end up being short-lived and of little consequence... Good luck!

[Stentor]

I wouldn't call my post taking you to task, although as I said to Joe Perez in my comments, I should be more careful about universalizing my own experience. It's just that the mytho-poetic perspective you bring does not resonate at all with my own life.