Contempt #1
In a previous post, I said : Passive acceptance of continuing and overt misogyny in society and culture. Whining that the girls aren't as nice to us now, after years of 'liberation' for which we did precious little. We men who enjoy our privilege and fail to join with our sisters feel their contempt and it makes us sad and uncomfortable. The cadres of men who belong in these categories have one more thing to understand.
Contempt #2
This is what it is to have another Subject in culture come into its own, alienated. This feeling that you are being seen, thought about, liked or not, that you might have a job to do and you don't know what it will take and that you are failing at it; this feeling is translated by most people as contempt. And, it is.
The feeling aimed at you, Contempted Men, might have been exasperation or impatience or even sympathy and solidarity. But because you got through the first and second and third waves of feminism without ever seriously examining your own role, even your passive role, in the social hamstringing of women, well, because you did not get our backs, we find you lacking.
We published the books, we formed the organizations, we taught the classes, wrote the songs, made the movies -- and you didn't join in.
So, yeah, at this point, the fact that you still want us to gaze appreciatively at your oblivious ego is contemptible.
If you want to look at women, or at pop culture an not feel that contempt, then stop being a contemptible guy and you won't see the world that way and you won't feel so rejected. If the shoe does not fit, you can't wear it.
Learn, join, get your solidarity on, question your privilege.
Inside the feminist movement, we have these kinds of conversations between white women and our privilege and women of color. Feminists of color often look at white white feminists, who should be their allies, with contempt born of betrayal and impatience. We often don't think past our white middle class world, and given the books and classes and songs and movies women of color have produced to teach us about our blindness and our blithe innocence, they have every right to feel that contempt.
Grown ups don't complain that other people don't like them. They find out why other people don't like them, and do something about it. Get a conversation going between the Subjects in culture, and join us in our desire for a world made richer for all of us, and you will feel something new : that appreciative gaze you so want.
Friday, August 31, 2012
Saturday, August 11, 2012
A Gaze Returned
*Note Bene: This post will contain some, I hope a minimal amount of, theory-speak. Take the word "gaze" for example. In theory-speak, it means what it means (a sustained observation, a manner of looking), but it is understood at both a personal level (I gazed at ________ in wonder) and at a more cultural level (the male or masculine gaze). At this level, a gaze is also the interpretation that one (dominant, powerful) part of the world makes of another (subordinate, powerless) part of the world. So, the male gaze is shorthand for the historical collection of judgements that a male culture has made and does make about women. Similarly, the white gaze re: people of color; or the straight gaze re: LGBTQ people, and so on. A gaze is associated with agency, legitimacy, power, with a body of knowledge (or superstitious bullshit, depending on your education and political persuasion).
Now, the thing is that straight, white, male gazes are not the only gazes zooming around the world and interpreting stuff or people. The American gaze is not the only way of looking at the world, and hosts of other gazes regard and interpret America. See how the wor(l)d works? Good. There is a female or feminine gaze, for instance. In the case of this essay, that feminine gaze is also coded as white and straight for reasons that will be made clear in just a sec.
Circulating among some feminist women on Facebook is a recent post a Jezebel critiquing an essay in Esquire (hence the white and straight--and well educated and privileged--context in which we are working here). It's a sharp and funny and ruthless critique of an essay that doesn't make a lot of rational sense but that expresses an unexamined and not terribly focused sense of dread or anxiety or anger on the part of (at least some) hip and upwardly ambitious white men. The worry is that women view them with contempt, that the feminine is gazing at them with an angry kind of disappointment. The essay coincides with some recent main-stream media discussions about the familial and cultural implications of women in many families earning more than their husbands, more women getting advanced degrees than men, etc.
This trend does indicate a change at the root, of the very pattern of our culture--eventually, maybe. It also means that women, as a general class, are achieving a gaze. Men and the masculine elements of our culture are not at all used to being gazed in this way, they're not used to sharing cultural or social power (one element of subjectivity) with feminine kinds of people. Not surprisingly, some women are not or are no longer impressed with what they see.
Now, partly this is because there is a real, and radical, shift going on and men and the masculine in our culture are slowly redefining themselves and being redefined by other forces. That passive voice there, being redefined, which indicates men/the masculine as an object in the way that women/the feminine have been for centuries, millennia, this is new to men and understandably uncomfortable.
In the theory-speak of radical feminism: the masculine is now in the unenviable position of having to critique and investigate its own subjectivity, and likely change it--a lot. The Masculine has to take itself as its own object and, with the inflection of the feminine gaze, do a lot of self-referential work. Sort of like going through a 12-step program for getting over the bad parts of the masculine subject position, rewiring one's gender reflexes. It. Is. Hard. To. Do.
I would like to take my response to Stephen Marche's essay in another direction, and respond not his particular writing performance (or the editorial standards at Esquire, WTF?), but to the creeping malaise he wants to diagnose, but actually cure.
The way that Marche worries about this contempt is a worry from the masculine side, of course. It thinks about the sources of feminine contempt as being those that men in our culture would expect, would have for each other. Not being well educated, not earning more than the next guy, not being good in bed or choosing a relationship other men find questionable or dissatisfying. That is, real stuff. Real stuff that really happens because, as West at Jezebel put its, people are complicated. People being complicated is not part of the world view, the gaze, of the masculine. People are surfaces and outward actions and pretty easy to know and judge (objectify) in the traditional masculine gestalt (superstitious bullshit).
Now, I think there probably is a good deal of feminine contempt panoramically surrounding the masculine. In the present circumstance, I would expect so. I just don't think it's about what Marche thinks it's about. Here's what it's about:
It's about policy, its about culture and daily life, it about the "stand up" men in our lives not getting our backs.
In the last year, we have seen state after state come after women's general health care and reproductive choice. That's what it means when clinics close, when states and feds want to defund Planned Parenthood. It means lots of women (and kids, and men) won't get even basic health care. It means that our lives and our families are at risk. We have seen hosts of women protesting these reversals of public policy.
More obviously, the attacks on contraception mandates in the Affordable Health Care act are a central nervous system twitch from the old guard of masculinity that cannot abide the idea of women, or men, having sex for fun or love, or any purpose other than procreation. This after we have been doing just that for two generations. This after spending billions of dollars to create Viagra so that Baby Boomer men can keep having sex for fun. And when we watch these defenders of tradition, we can see how seethingly angry they have been all this time. In the symbol of Sandra Fluke, we have all been called sluts (again) because we have and like to act on our sexual energies. And again, our own private sexuality has been the public subject of rather unkind male fantasies and a desire to consume our sexuality as fair exchange for contraceptive medication. Women know all too well this kind of sexual extortion. And we have seen women protesting and responding to these attacks on our sovereign personhood, and we have seen precious few men at our sides.
I will spare us a discussion of rape culture, the rape jokes that about on Facebook, the recent blow-up over Jason Tosh, and all of that, street harassment, and so forth. It will just take too damn long. But, I will say that all of that is a sign of just how badly the masculine and its gaze want to hang to their position as The Boss. Rape culture goes hand in glove with recent policy reversals made by cultural conservatives in state and federal legislatures. We do not see lots of men telling other men to cut this shit out and change their attitude. A few, but not a lot.
This all has a very real impact on women. We feel the male gaze too, and we feel its anger and its danger, the threat in it, the deep-seething desire to get us girls back under control. We also know that our culture and our economy have changed so much that this mean desire is totally impossible to satisfy, so we have to live within that threatening panoramic male gaze.We remember what has been done to us before, the stones, the fires, the beatings. We know that these stones and beatings and fires are, right now, raining down on and destroying the lives and bodies of our sisters around the globe. We really do know what you are capable of.
And we know that you (many, most of you) are not standing with us, are not holding up placards, are not raising a ruckus, are not getting arrested with us. You do not have our backs. (Now, some of you do--you're home with the kids while we're at the demonstration, or you are at the demonstration, gods bless you.) The men who feel the way Marche does are the men who are not with us, who don't quite love us, who are not at the demonstrations and have not done the hard work of critiquing their own relationships with masculinity and with women in this new world. And so, yeah, we hold you in contempt.
No shit.
The tension running underneath Marche's essay and responses to it is the same tension in the apocryphal story about a professor who asked the men and women in class what they most feared from each other. The men said they most feared women laughing at them. The women said they most feared men killing them.
I can live through a bit of chagrin.
And that, well that is why a particular cadre of men might be sensing some contempt in the female gaze right about now. But, I tell you, that gaze can also shower you with admiration and gratitude and love and desire. All depends on what you do next. On whether you have the courage to question your subject position and get our backs. Because just being a boy and breathing does not suffice anymore.
Now, the thing is that straight, white, male gazes are not the only gazes zooming around the world and interpreting stuff or people. The American gaze is not the only way of looking at the world, and hosts of other gazes regard and interpret America. See how the wor(l)d works? Good. There is a female or feminine gaze, for instance. In the case of this essay, that feminine gaze is also coded as white and straight for reasons that will be made clear in just a sec.
Circulating among some feminist women on Facebook is a recent post a Jezebel critiquing an essay in Esquire (hence the white and straight--and well educated and privileged--context in which we are working here). It's a sharp and funny and ruthless critique of an essay that doesn't make a lot of rational sense but that expresses an unexamined and not terribly focused sense of dread or anxiety or anger on the part of (at least some) hip and upwardly ambitious white men. The worry is that women view them with contempt, that the feminine is gazing at them with an angry kind of disappointment. The essay coincides with some recent main-stream media discussions about the familial and cultural implications of women in many families earning more than their husbands, more women getting advanced degrees than men, etc.
This trend does indicate a change at the root, of the very pattern of our culture--eventually, maybe. It also means that women, as a general class, are achieving a gaze. Men and the masculine elements of our culture are not at all used to being gazed in this way, they're not used to sharing cultural or social power (one element of subjectivity) with feminine kinds of people. Not surprisingly, some women are not or are no longer impressed with what they see.
Now, partly this is because there is a real, and radical, shift going on and men and the masculine in our culture are slowly redefining themselves and being redefined by other forces. That passive voice there, being redefined, which indicates men/the masculine as an object in the way that women/the feminine have been for centuries, millennia, this is new to men and understandably uncomfortable.
In the theory-speak of radical feminism: the masculine is now in the unenviable position of having to critique and investigate its own subjectivity, and likely change it--a lot. The Masculine has to take itself as its own object and, with the inflection of the feminine gaze, do a lot of self-referential work. Sort of like going through a 12-step program for getting over the bad parts of the masculine subject position, rewiring one's gender reflexes. It. Is. Hard. To. Do.
I would like to take my response to Stephen Marche's essay in another direction, and respond not his particular writing performance (or the editorial standards at Esquire, WTF?), but to the creeping malaise he wants to diagnose, but actually cure.
The way that Marche worries about this contempt is a worry from the masculine side, of course. It thinks about the sources of feminine contempt as being those that men in our culture would expect, would have for each other. Not being well educated, not earning more than the next guy, not being good in bed or choosing a relationship other men find questionable or dissatisfying. That is, real stuff. Real stuff that really happens because, as West at Jezebel put its, people are complicated. People being complicated is not part of the world view, the gaze, of the masculine. People are surfaces and outward actions and pretty easy to know and judge (objectify) in the traditional masculine gestalt (superstitious bullshit).
Now, I think there probably is a good deal of feminine contempt panoramically surrounding the masculine. In the present circumstance, I would expect so. I just don't think it's about what Marche thinks it's about. Here's what it's about:
It's about policy, its about culture and daily life, it about the "stand up" men in our lives not getting our backs.
In the last year, we have seen state after state come after women's general health care and reproductive choice. That's what it means when clinics close, when states and feds want to defund Planned Parenthood. It means lots of women (and kids, and men) won't get even basic health care. It means that our lives and our families are at risk. We have seen hosts of women protesting these reversals of public policy.
More obviously, the attacks on contraception mandates in the Affordable Health Care act are a central nervous system twitch from the old guard of masculinity that cannot abide the idea of women, or men, having sex for fun or love, or any purpose other than procreation. This after we have been doing just that for two generations. This after spending billions of dollars to create Viagra so that Baby Boomer men can keep having sex for fun. And when we watch these defenders of tradition, we can see how seethingly angry they have been all this time. In the symbol of Sandra Fluke, we have all been called sluts (again) because we have and like to act on our sexual energies. And again, our own private sexuality has been the public subject of rather unkind male fantasies and a desire to consume our sexuality as fair exchange for contraceptive medication. Women know all too well this kind of sexual extortion. And we have seen women protesting and responding to these attacks on our sovereign personhood, and we have seen precious few men at our sides.
I will spare us a discussion of rape culture, the rape jokes that about on Facebook, the recent blow-up over Jason Tosh, and all of that, street harassment, and so forth. It will just take too damn long. But, I will say that all of that is a sign of just how badly the masculine and its gaze want to hang to their position as The Boss. Rape culture goes hand in glove with recent policy reversals made by cultural conservatives in state and federal legislatures. We do not see lots of men telling other men to cut this shit out and change their attitude. A few, but not a lot.
This all has a very real impact on women. We feel the male gaze too, and we feel its anger and its danger, the threat in it, the deep-seething desire to get us girls back under control. We also know that our culture and our economy have changed so much that this mean desire is totally impossible to satisfy, so we have to live within that threatening panoramic male gaze.We remember what has been done to us before, the stones, the fires, the beatings. We know that these stones and beatings and fires are, right now, raining down on and destroying the lives and bodies of our sisters around the globe. We really do know what you are capable of.
And we know that you (many, most of you) are not standing with us, are not holding up placards, are not raising a ruckus, are not getting arrested with us. You do not have our backs. (Now, some of you do--you're home with the kids while we're at the demonstration, or you are at the demonstration, gods bless you.) The men who feel the way Marche does are the men who are not with us, who don't quite love us, who are not at the demonstrations and have not done the hard work of critiquing their own relationships with masculinity and with women in this new world. And so, yeah, we hold you in contempt.
No shit.
The tension running underneath Marche's essay and responses to it is the same tension in the apocryphal story about a professor who asked the men and women in class what they most feared from each other. The men said they most feared women laughing at them. The women said they most feared men killing them.
I can live through a bit of chagrin.
And that, well that is why a particular cadre of men might be sensing some contempt in the female gaze right about now. But, I tell you, that gaze can also shower you with admiration and gratitude and love and desire. All depends on what you do next. On whether you have the courage to question your subject position and get our backs. Because just being a boy and breathing does not suffice anymore.
Saturday, July 28, 2012
Cleaning Out My Pocket
Yeah, I know. Like my father, I'm apt to squirrel things away. Two of my favorite caches: pens (crystal bics especially) and things to read. Pocket (the google app) is a dangerous thing. I can just store-it-for-later. It's time to clean. Here's some of the 23 pages of lint:
Women, buried with high honor, in Greece (!), on Mount Ida (the birthplace of Zeus). Apparently there's something about the ancient Greeks that we need to learn.
A complaint against our middle brow, bourgeois, lack of artistic adventure.
The fabulous, but largely ignored, intercultural work of one of my besties, Alison Scott-Baumann.
A feminist dust-up, with smartness.
Aggressively queer blogging.
The Philosophers Magazine, often interesting, and not ridden with academese.
Michael Ondaatje's homepage. ???
Elizabeth Hatmaker's book of poems. (A schoolmate and poetic genius).
The Dalai Lama's webcast page .
A book review of some conceptual poetry that I once enjoyed.
Military contractors, problematic.
The Facebook page of a band I should remember to catch.
A great photograph from NASA.
That should do ya for now.
Women, buried with high honor, in Greece (!), on Mount Ida (the birthplace of Zeus). Apparently there's something about the ancient Greeks that we need to learn.
A complaint against our middle brow, bourgeois, lack of artistic adventure.
The fabulous, but largely ignored, intercultural work of one of my besties, Alison Scott-Baumann.
A feminist dust-up, with smartness.
Aggressively queer blogging.
The Philosophers Magazine, often interesting, and not ridden with academese.
Michael Ondaatje's homepage. ???
Elizabeth Hatmaker's book of poems. (A schoolmate and poetic genius).
The Dalai Lama's webcast page .
A book review of some conceptual poetry that I once enjoyed.
Military contractors, problematic.
The Facebook page of a band I should remember to catch.
A great photograph from NASA.
That should do ya for now.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
My Bill Maher/ACLU/Rush Limbaugh Problem
Long ago, Bill Maher said something I didn't like, but had a hard time disagreeing with. It does take a certain kind of courage, an evil kind, a world-hating kind of courage to commit the attacks of 9-11. Courage, the commitment of soul and body to a clearly dangerous or life-ending action, can be bent to many purposes. Destroying thousands of people, and running toward and into those towers both took courage. One act was evil, one act was saintly.
I didn't want Maher kicked off the air.* I do want Limbaugh kicked off the air. For me, there's a difference that neither the ACLU nor Maher want to see.
Maher spoke his truth, and the truth. Courage is not a straightforwardly good thing. It's a quality of action, and even bad actions can take courage.
I mean, he's right. I really does not take courage to sit in a control station in the US and guide a drone in Pakistan. It's just doesn't. It might be an honorable thing to do, but it does not take guts to do it.
Limbaugh chose a rhetorical angle for ratings. That's his job. And he went one too far this time. His consistent references to feminists as feminazis are political, and annoying, but fair. Even clever. Calling a woman he's never met (and that's all I'm going to say about what he said) a slut, for three days, is personal attack, slander, and astonishing bad manners.
Now, what they have in common. Both of these media hosts committed acts of bad manners for which they were/are censured (not censored -- please note) by the public. Media broadcasts happen in a communal space, and one in which more than a host's target audience is listening. And if they hear you say FUCK around their kids, those other listeners are likely to tell you to watch your mouth. If they have any courage at all.
Because as a media host, answering to the public to which you speak, is, in fact, part of your job. Media hasn't been a one way messaging tool for a very, very long time now.
The fact of it is that birth control pills, which are used for all kinds of serious medical conditions as well, cost about $360 a year.** If you're in graduate school and have painful ovarian cysts, it would be really awesome if your insurance company would pony up for that co-pay. On a grad school budget, $360 is a lot of money. If you're on any financial razor's edge, that is money you have to think hard about spending. And, even if you just want to fuck-for-fun, that is way less of a burden to an insurance company's bottom line than the cost of pre-natal care, delivery, and the health care of that kid. If I were an insurance company CEO, I would be delighted with this particular mandate, which is why you haven't heard diddly from the insurance lobby about this burdensome mandate, fewer babies means more profit --- but I digress.
The ACLU might have said that Limbaugh gets to say what he wants, but the gov'ment is not going after Limbaugh, and the gov'ment did not go after Maher. The community did and is. And now, we have the tools to do that very, very loudly. We're all media hosts.
And like all communities, sometimes this community of media hosts will get it right, and sometimes we will get it wrong.
What's happening to Limbaugh is that he stuck his cigar into the wrong controversy at the wrong time. Women, it turns out, really don't want governments, or men, or insurance companies, or churches telling us what we can and can't have in terms of health care, or when and whom to fuck, or when and why to have children. We don't want our doctors to have the right to LIE TO US if they think that lie might prevent us of having an abortion (in both Arizona and Kansas, so far). It turns out this is really a bridge too far. And we said so. We brought the pressure. We exercised our moral agency. Like adults. We don't want to live in a climate of fear. One of the motives of feminism is that women are really tired of having to fear men. It gets in the way of loving them.
Now, did that action take courage? Have we, any of us, gone up to Limbaugh and personally told him what an unconscionable asshat we think he is? I haven't. I did publicly put my name on several petitions. I'm on the record. But that's all.
But those differences aren't helping me with the problem here. The problem here is that Maher wants Limbaugh on the air for first amendment reasons, and I LOVE the first amendment. Love it. The problem is that when a fellow citizen, or a whole bunch of us at once, tells someone that they should watch their mouths -- that's not a first amendment infraction. It's speech, it's an expression (in this case) of a community standard, and it can have real effects on real people in real and lasting ways.
So there's my answer to my problem.
Maher should not have been kicked off the air because he just hurt some people's feelings, at a time when they were really easy to hurt. The problem they had with Maher wasn't the solid logic of his statement, it was that he didn't seem to be sad and hurt enough, he didn't seem as freaked out as most of us were. Maher didn't say what we wanted to hear. And to that we should have put on our big-people pants and argued back. I mean, Maher can get up on his logical high horse sometimes and forget that he's also pushing (or intend to) emotional buttons.***
Limbaugh stuck his cigar into a matter that attacks women's health, sides with people who want us to live in fear of them, who want us not to trust our doctor's, to have sex only for procreation. (In which case, who is going to use all that Viagra???) They really want to hurt us for adhering to their religious or moral principles and beliefs. You can tell because these laws have hugely negative effects on us physically, emotionally, and financially. Limbaugh is adding to climate of fear for women, and he's doing it not because he believes in any thing, but just for the cash.
And that too is not courage.
_________________________
UPDATE: The Arizona law would make it possible for any employer to FIRE a woman for using birth control, even if she paid it for it herself, against the employer's moral objections. Yes, folks, your boss could be in charge of your private life. And this is where all this is going. Control of women is one of the goals here. And that's just bonus points, just gravy, just lagniappe. The real goal here is to kill the Affordable Care Law.
That your personal life, or your own moral values or religious beliefs would be subject to the objections of the CEO of your corporation, and that your use of pills or condoms would be subject to inspection, I suppose, by your manager -- that is just sprinkles on the cupcake.
_________________________
* Yes, I was one of those un-American's who knew that there was more historical context to those attacks than simply a bunch of psychotic and hell-bent America haters deciding it was time to destroy us. Though, there are and were a bunch of psychotic and hell-bent America haters and I have no problem with hunting them. Though, I think drones and big footprint ops are the wrong way to do the hunting.
** If you don't know how birth control pills work, you might ask your state legislature or school board why that information was not in your abstinence only sex education course. Hint: they do not work like Viagra (which is covered for co-pays).
*** His show actually has a pedagogical goal, and that is to teach people to separate emotional responses from logical conclusions. His schtick is pretty intense, actually, because he's doing exactly, and strictly, what Socrates and Plato wanted us to learn about thinking logically.****
**** Problem is these are matters of moral reasoning, and that's a little fuzzier and more emotional than just straight up logic -- which is what hurt about Maher's courage argument. Most Americans were in no kind of shape for a coldly logical argument that week.
I didn't want Maher kicked off the air.* I do want Limbaugh kicked off the air. For me, there's a difference that neither the ACLU nor Maher want to see.
Maher spoke his truth, and the truth. Courage is not a straightforwardly good thing. It's a quality of action, and even bad actions can take courage.
I mean, he's right. I really does not take courage to sit in a control station in the US and guide a drone in Pakistan. It's just doesn't. It might be an honorable thing to do, but it does not take guts to do it.
Limbaugh chose a rhetorical angle for ratings. That's his job. And he went one too far this time. His consistent references to feminists as feminazis are political, and annoying, but fair. Even clever. Calling a woman he's never met (and that's all I'm going to say about what he said) a slut, for three days, is personal attack, slander, and astonishing bad manners.
Now, what they have in common. Both of these media hosts committed acts of bad manners for which they were/are censured (not censored -- please note) by the public. Media broadcasts happen in a communal space, and one in which more than a host's target audience is listening. And if they hear you say FUCK around their kids, those other listeners are likely to tell you to watch your mouth. If they have any courage at all.
Because as a media host, answering to the public to which you speak, is, in fact, part of your job. Media hasn't been a one way messaging tool for a very, very long time now.
The fact of it is that birth control pills, which are used for all kinds of serious medical conditions as well, cost about $360 a year.** If you're in graduate school and have painful ovarian cysts, it would be really awesome if your insurance company would pony up for that co-pay. On a grad school budget, $360 is a lot of money. If you're on any financial razor's edge, that is money you have to think hard about spending. And, even if you just want to fuck-for-fun, that is way less of a burden to an insurance company's bottom line than the cost of pre-natal care, delivery, and the health care of that kid. If I were an insurance company CEO, I would be delighted with this particular mandate, which is why you haven't heard diddly from the insurance lobby about this burdensome mandate, fewer babies means more profit --- but I digress.
The ACLU might have said that Limbaugh gets to say what he wants, but the gov'ment is not going after Limbaugh, and the gov'ment did not go after Maher. The community did and is. And now, we have the tools to do that very, very loudly. We're all media hosts.
And like all communities, sometimes this community of media hosts will get it right, and sometimes we will get it wrong.
What's happening to Limbaugh is that he stuck his cigar into the wrong controversy at the wrong time. Women, it turns out, really don't want governments, or men, or insurance companies, or churches telling us what we can and can't have in terms of health care, or when and whom to fuck, or when and why to have children. We don't want our doctors to have the right to LIE TO US if they think that lie might prevent us of having an abortion (in both Arizona and Kansas, so far). It turns out this is really a bridge too far. And we said so. We brought the pressure. We exercised our moral agency. Like adults. We don't want to live in a climate of fear. One of the motives of feminism is that women are really tired of having to fear men. It gets in the way of loving them.
Now, did that action take courage? Have we, any of us, gone up to Limbaugh and personally told him what an unconscionable asshat we think he is? I haven't. I did publicly put my name on several petitions. I'm on the record. But that's all.
But those differences aren't helping me with the problem here. The problem here is that Maher wants Limbaugh on the air for first amendment reasons, and I LOVE the first amendment. Love it. The problem is that when a fellow citizen, or a whole bunch of us at once, tells someone that they should watch their mouths -- that's not a first amendment infraction. It's speech, it's an expression (in this case) of a community standard, and it can have real effects on real people in real and lasting ways.
So there's my answer to my problem.
Maher should not have been kicked off the air because he just hurt some people's feelings, at a time when they were really easy to hurt. The problem they had with Maher wasn't the solid logic of his statement, it was that he didn't seem to be sad and hurt enough, he didn't seem as freaked out as most of us were. Maher didn't say what we wanted to hear. And to that we should have put on our big-people pants and argued back. I mean, Maher can get up on his logical high horse sometimes and forget that he's also pushing (or intend to) emotional buttons.***
Limbaugh stuck his cigar into a matter that attacks women's health, sides with people who want us to live in fear of them, who want us not to trust our doctor's, to have sex only for procreation. (In which case, who is going to use all that Viagra???) They really want to hurt us for adhering to their religious or moral principles and beliefs. You can tell because these laws have hugely negative effects on us physically, emotionally, and financially. Limbaugh is adding to climate of fear for women, and he's doing it not because he believes in any thing, but just for the cash.
And that too is not courage.
_________________________
UPDATE: The Arizona law would make it possible for any employer to FIRE a woman for using birth control, even if she paid it for it herself, against the employer's moral objections. Yes, folks, your boss could be in charge of your private life. And this is where all this is going. Control of women is one of the goals here. And that's just bonus points, just gravy, just lagniappe. The real goal here is to kill the Affordable Care Law.
That your personal life, or your own moral values or religious beliefs would be subject to the objections of the CEO of your corporation, and that your use of pills or condoms would be subject to inspection, I suppose, by your manager -- that is just sprinkles on the cupcake.
_________________________
* Yes, I was one of those un-American's who knew that there was more historical context to those attacks than simply a bunch of psychotic and hell-bent America haters deciding it was time to destroy us. Though, there are and were a bunch of psychotic and hell-bent America haters and I have no problem with hunting them. Though, I think drones and big footprint ops are the wrong way to do the hunting.
** If you don't know how birth control pills work, you might ask your state legislature or school board why that information was not in your abstinence only sex education course. Hint: they do not work like Viagra (which is covered for co-pays).
*** His show actually has a pedagogical goal, and that is to teach people to separate emotional responses from logical conclusions. His schtick is pretty intense, actually, because he's doing exactly, and strictly, what Socrates and Plato wanted us to learn about thinking logically.****
**** Problem is these are matters of moral reasoning, and that's a little fuzzier and more emotional than just straight up logic -- which is what hurt about Maher's courage argument. Most Americans were in no kind of shape for a coldly logical argument that week.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Before Europe: Or Life BE
Many events before I arrived in the city of Papa as a member of the 1% relative to Papa's average incomes, I jumped ship. After years of mucking away at a job at an educational corporation, I broke down and realized that I needed to go write my books. This was a near impossibility at the job. So, I stopped being a responsible adult and risked, well, all of it.
I made a cliched move back home, to live my parents. And there I had a rare chance to live as an adult with the adults who shaped me and to watch their post-child-raising lives up close. My parents have a good marriage, by any standard; and like all good marriages that last more than 40 years, theirs is complicated and private and it's meant to stay that way. Papa and I were sitting the barn talking. The barn is where the real talking happens with my dad. He's all set up with a fridge, a TV, a work bench, saw horses, blow torch, massive tool box, shop vac, the whole kit. He rebuilds cars in his retirement. I do a lot of cleaning small parts of engines when I'm there. And talking. I wasn't home a week when he said, "While you live here, you will do no marriage counseling."
He's fond of pronouncements.
That are not always followed.
At least not to the letter. Because I did do some mom-counseling. I realize this is a loop hole, but it seemed necessary. Here I am with my two best friends on the planet, and in the course of respecting them, their world, and our relationship, I couldn't follow the letter the law. Friends tell friends the truth, sometimes the hard truth.
I learned that there are basically two kinds of long marriages. There's the happy but melancholic marriage, the one my parents have, in which they do wonderful things for each other and are fabulous companions. The big Christmas present this year from Mamma to Papa was a warmly lined flannel shirt to replace the "Deliverance" shirt dad had been wearing for y e a r s and y e a r s and which was getting to ratty looking even for him. Problem, these shirt-coats had fallen out of fashion. Mamma hunted high and low, and bang!, found it. This shirt had become a symbol, a symbol of my father's rebellion against all formalities he deemed unnecessary (there are many, mostly to do with dress and hair cuts), and my mother's desire to appear in public from time to time with a smartly dressed man. Mom still believes in a number of formalities, so ok. Papa bought Mamma a massage table. This too is a symbol, in this case of the basic underlying intimacy and contentment they have and that has always held them together. But, let's say, Pops is taking it to a new level. The melancholic element though is this:
They have the same fight, in slight variations, on a nearly seasonal cycle.
Hence the mom-counseling. Papa wouldn't discuss it with me. And he told me it's not that he thought I would not have good advice, or that I would take sides. He thought that it's just not my business. And it's not. Until Mamma says, "I want some advice about your dad."
Now, I will not tell you the substance of the fight. That's clearly not mine to tell. What I will say is that this fight is the one place, the one, where they both failed, over and over again. It was the one place/issue/thing about which neither of them could ever learn to be generous. It was the one matter about which they both wanted the other person to change and the other person could or would not change. No way, no how. What this means is that every few months, for a week or so, they're both pissy and defensive and mad at each other for The Same Thing Again.
This got on my nerves. But I learned a thing. I learned that to have the other kind of good marriage, the one that bears less of the odor of melancholy, what we need is to learn a generosity that has no limit. The change they both needed sums up this way: one wanted total acceptance and other wanted more order. I know why and where those needs come from in my parents, but that's none of your business. What's important is that this is a tough nut to crack, so I understand how this conflict became a theme, a refrain. Neither wanted or wants something that would damage the other, so the two desires are perfectly fine--they just don't match. This where the generosity comes into play, that long lived love is a thing humans do in order to chafe off parts of our selves that we don't really need, or don't need all the time. And that's where the generosity would come it, that's what would smooth the chafe.
I think. I'm going to have to live a good while longer to find out.
I made a cliched move back home, to live my parents. And there I had a rare chance to live as an adult with the adults who shaped me and to watch their post-child-raising lives up close. My parents have a good marriage, by any standard; and like all good marriages that last more than 40 years, theirs is complicated and private and it's meant to stay that way. Papa and I were sitting the barn talking. The barn is where the real talking happens with my dad. He's all set up with a fridge, a TV, a work bench, saw horses, blow torch, massive tool box, shop vac, the whole kit. He rebuilds cars in his retirement. I do a lot of cleaning small parts of engines when I'm there. And talking. I wasn't home a week when he said, "While you live here, you will do no marriage counseling."
He's fond of pronouncements.
That are not always followed.
At least not to the letter. Because I did do some mom-counseling. I realize this is a loop hole, but it seemed necessary. Here I am with my two best friends on the planet, and in the course of respecting them, their world, and our relationship, I couldn't follow the letter the law. Friends tell friends the truth, sometimes the hard truth.
I learned that there are basically two kinds of long marriages. There's the happy but melancholic marriage, the one my parents have, in which they do wonderful things for each other and are fabulous companions. The big Christmas present this year from Mamma to Papa was a warmly lined flannel shirt to replace the "Deliverance" shirt dad had been wearing for y e a r s and y e a r s and which was getting to ratty looking even for him. Problem, these shirt-coats had fallen out of fashion. Mamma hunted high and low, and bang!, found it. This shirt had become a symbol, a symbol of my father's rebellion against all formalities he deemed unnecessary (there are many, mostly to do with dress and hair cuts), and my mother's desire to appear in public from time to time with a smartly dressed man. Mom still believes in a number of formalities, so ok. Papa bought Mamma a massage table. This too is a symbol, in this case of the basic underlying intimacy and contentment they have and that has always held them together. But, let's say, Pops is taking it to a new level. The melancholic element though is this:
They have the same fight, in slight variations, on a nearly seasonal cycle.
Hence the mom-counseling. Papa wouldn't discuss it with me. And he told me it's not that he thought I would not have good advice, or that I would take sides. He thought that it's just not my business. And it's not. Until Mamma says, "I want some advice about your dad."
Now, I will not tell you the substance of the fight. That's clearly not mine to tell. What I will say is that this fight is the one place, the one, where they both failed, over and over again. It was the one place/issue/thing about which neither of them could ever learn to be generous. It was the one matter about which they both wanted the other person to change and the other person could or would not change. No way, no how. What this means is that every few months, for a week or so, they're both pissy and defensive and mad at each other for The Same Thing Again.
This got on my nerves. But I learned a thing. I learned that to have the other kind of good marriage, the one that bears less of the odor of melancholy, what we need is to learn a generosity that has no limit. The change they both needed sums up this way: one wanted total acceptance and other wanted more order. I know why and where those needs come from in my parents, but that's none of your business. What's important is that this is a tough nut to crack, so I understand how this conflict became a theme, a refrain. Neither wanted or wants something that would damage the other, so the two desires are perfectly fine--they just don't match. This where the generosity comes into play, that long lived love is a thing humans do in order to chafe off parts of our selves that we don't really need, or don't need all the time. And that's where the generosity would come it, that's what would smooth the chafe.
I think. I'm going to have to live a good while longer to find out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)