Jackson Free Press

It seems to consist of a bunch of guys looking at what men are already stereotyped as being, as wanting, as desiring, and then trying to figure out how to more fully live into those expectations. It would be sort of like if the Black Power movement looked at slavery for a model, or if NOW organized itself around the archetypal figure of June Cleaver, or if the fraternity in Revenge of the Nerds never actually met in person. But whatever makes y'all happy.

The bigger problem, for me, is that many intelligent, liberal-minded men who pride themselves on being male feminists also get sucked into the men's movement, and find themselves adopting some pretty chauvinistic beliefs without (I assume) meaning to. So as a public service, here are eight things I wish you hairy-chested, club-wielding hunks of manhood would bear in mind as you move forward in this screamingly dull new, uhm, arena:

1. We don't need any more warriors. It's 2005. Every time I read a book on manhood, it's warrior this and warrior that. Be a KITCHEN "warrior" and make dinner! Be a FATHERLY "warrior" and spend time with your kids! Uh, that's great. Really great. Except that warriors, by definition, KILL PEOPLE. Their job is to assemble en masse and slaughter each other on the battlefield. That's what they do. Now, I know that violence is a traditional masculine virtue; otherwise there would be no point to watching pro wrestling--but if that's not your career goal, then whatever it is you plan on doing in life is more likely to be derailed than helped by any warrior comparisons you make. Heck, soldiers spend much more time doing irrigation, dam-building, food assistance, and so on than they do shooting people. We don't really need warriors anymore. It's time to scrap that archetype and find a better one. And I think we can; I don't believe that men will become obsolete in a nonviolent society, which is basically what you folks imply when you say that all men are warriors.

2. Don't be so patronizing. It's nice that you think "women" are emotionally stronger and more mature and really more intelligent and so on than us men, but it has been my experience that women, by and large, do not want to be thought of as superior to men. They want to be thought of as human beings. And besides, every last one of the standard-issue male compliments to womanhood is backhanded. "You're a more nurturing race" really means "There's a reason why you were left at home to take care of the babies for 50,000 years," and "You're more emotionally mature" means "We're more intellectually mature." It's almost always a trade-off--and even when it isn't, all you're doing is drawing new boxes that you expect some women to live in. Truth is that some women don't WANT to be "emotionally" superior; some women want to earn degrees and put on suits and go out and live the lives that only men have been historically permitted to live, and when you throw these stupid labels at them, you're doing the same thing that men have always done to women: You're telling them what to do with their lives.

3. Take Joseph Campbell with a grain of salt. I'm looking at you, Robert Bly. Campbell had some great things to say, but he was just one guy, and he had his limitations. ESPECIALLY with regards to gender, where he faced the insurmountable problem of trying to build a beautiful, egalitarian system out of millennia-old myths that were, by and large, patriarchal and misogynistic.

4. Don't tell other men what they "really" want. Everybody's different, so you may as well admit that you have no earthly IDEA what men, in general, want. I am not from Mars, and women are not from Venus. To quote Gloria Steinem: "Men are from Earth. Women are from Earth. Deal with it." We are each extremely complex products of five billion years of evolution, more distinctive than snowflakes. This ties into point #2: Don't you dare imply that women make inferior athletes, or inferior police officers, or that men make inferior counselors, or inferior parents. You can cite the evidence of history until you're pink in the face, but male chauvinists have been writing and making that history for millennia now. We have never tried an egalitarian society that respects people as individuals, and I think that would be a pretty swell idea. So don't treat your little boy like a freak because he doesn't want to play with firetrucks, or your little girl like a freak because she does want to play with firetrucks. We are individuals.

5. Distance yourself from the Archie Bunker types. You know, if I were part of the men's movement and I called myself a male feminist, I would want to make damned sure that nobody confused me with people like Harvey Mansfield. But instead I see a united front made up of people who sound very chauvinistic, and people who sound very enlightened, and all they have in common is that they "promote men." It's like they're all from the same fraternity or something.

6. If you're going to use phallic metaphors, stop acting like they're novel. I mean, enough already. This isn't like The Vagina Monologues, which discussed an actual taboo subject; phallic imagery is everywhere, and has been for as far back as we can document. Which brings me to my other point...

7. You are not the women's movement. Stop co-opting feminist causes. Yes, violence against men by their wives is a problem, and male victims should come forward; but violence against women by their husbands is a much BIGGER problem, so the cause is much more urgent. When people like David Duke rant on about black-on-white racism as if it's the main social problem in this country, we rightly laugh at them. We recognize that they're trying to neutralize the more serious and historically significant problem of white-on-black racism. But when men do the same thing about male causes, then for some reason we take them seriously. Let's stop that. Which brings me to my final point...

8. Men are still the oppressors. We do not need a men's rights movement. For all of recorded human history--and probably all or most of unrecorded human history--men have ruled the roost and women have been oppressed. I'm not saying that turnabout is fair play, but men still out-earn women. Men still have much better career prospects than women. Men still have more opportunities for social advancement than women. On most of the planet, women are explicitly second-class citizens; in the United States, they are only implicitly so. We have a long way to go before women are even treated fairly in our culture, so we certainly don't need an organized men's movement to make up for feminist "excesses." Come on, people; we couldn't even pass the Equal Rights Amendment. You are not an oppressed social class, and you probably never will be--because if we ever get past the more serious and live problem of discrimination against women, then it will be because we've learned the lessons of the past.

Now, I'm all for treating men fairly in custody settlements, for not demonizing men, for making sure that men get an equal shot at becoming teachers and whatnot, even for occasionally appointing a man to head up a women's studies department. But I am not for "men's rights" any more than I am for "white rights." It's stupid. Men already have all the rights. Now it's time to share.

Previous Comments

ID

103642

Comment

*whew* I was getting tired of being labeled "Emotionally Immature" by the "Men's Movement". Seriously, has this so-called Movement produced anything but a complete mockery of Iron John? You read all that stuff and think that someone is seriously pulling a joke on you.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2005-11-13T22:44:40-06:00

ID

103643

Comment

If I, like you, believed that we are the product of 5 billion years of evolution, I would argue that men are dominant and have all the rights, power, etc, because of Darwin. It is simply survival of the fittest, might makes right, rule of the jungle. And if I am no more than an animal who developed speech and opposable thumbs, why should I behave any differently. You are clearly a VERY intelligent man, but often your posts make me sad. I will say this. I have changed my way of thinking on some subjects due to points you have made. I will still say that you and I desire to reach the same destination on many subjects (though we are diametrically oppposed on others), we just disagree on how to get there.

Author

brandon

Date

2005-11-15T11:17:48-06:00

ID

103644

Comment

brandon, since when did an understanding of evolution preclude the existence of God? Since when did a moral and ethical belief system become dependant upon a rejection of evolution?

Author

kate

Date

2005-11-15T16:02:29-06:00

ID

103645

Comment

In his artical '8 simple rules' Tom Head seems less than enthusiastic about the 'mens movement'. Half the world thinks about sexism, Tom is brave enough to write about it. . . I have to wonder, tho, when he writes, "when people like David Duke rant on about black-on-white racism. . . we recognize they are trying to neutralize the more serious and historically significant problem of white-on-black racism" . . .and when he writes, "I am not for men's rights any more than I am for white rights" . . . when he makes these statements. . . I have to wonder if this is almost some kind of advertisement for the Klan or something. Actually, his artical does have kind of a familiar tone. . . Going on about, "don't say this and don't do that" it kind of reminds me of things ladies will advise men to do- and not do- if you're trying to pick one up. . . Perhaps this artical should be renamed '8 simple things to profess in order to score with dames in the office'

Author

ozzyman

Date

2005-11-15T22:16:03-06:00

ID

103646

Comment

Hi, Brandon. Thanks for the kind words. Actually, your point reminds me of a wonderful quote from Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene, which I cite often: Before beginning on my argument itself, I want to explain briefly what sort of an argument it is, and what sort of an argument it is not, If we were told that a man had lived a long and prosperous life in the world of Chicago gangsters, we would be entitled to make some guesses as to the sort of man he was, We might expect that he would have qualities such as toughness, a quick trigger finger, and the ability to attract loyal friends. These would not be infallible deductions, but you can make some inferences about a man's character if you know something about the conditions in which he has survived and prospered. The argument of this book is that we, and all other animals, are machines created by our genes. Like successful Chicago gangsters, our genes have survived, in some cases for millions of years, in a highly competitive world. This entitles us to expect certain qualities in our genes. I shall argue that a predominant quality to be expected in a successful gene is ruthless selfishness. This gene selfishness will usually give rise to selfishness in individual behavior. However, as we shall see, there are special circumstances in which a gene can achieve its own selfish goals best by fostering a limited form of altruism at the level of individual animals. 'Special' and 'limited' are important words in the last sentence. Much as we might wish to believe otherwise, universal love and the welfare of the species as a whole are concepts that simply do not make evolutionary sense. This brings me to the first point I want to make about what this book is not. I am not advocating a morality based on evolution. I am saying how things have evolved. I am not saying how we humans morally ought to behave. I stress this, because I know I am in danger of being misunderstood ... My own feeling is that a human society based simply on the gene's law of universal ruthless selfishness would be a very nasty society in which to live. But unfortunately, however much we may deplore something, it does not stop it being true. This book is mainly intended to be interesting, but if you would extract a moral from it, read it as a warning. Be warned that if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly towards a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature. Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish. Let us understand what our own selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have the chance to upset their designs, something that no other species has ever aspired to. To put it another way: Most religious worldviews, most notably Roman Catholicism, teach that what is natural is also good. I would argue that what is natural is quite often evil, and that what is unnatural is often good. It is the most natural thing in the world to take whatever we want, leaving the weak and helpless to fend for themselves. The most unnatural thing in the world? To pick up our crosses and walk. But I should stress that there is one concept that, properly emphasized, unifies the religious and secular Darwinian worldviews vis-a-vis the violent selfishness of our natures. It is the concept of original sin. I think we inherit some very undesirable traits through natural selection; orthodox Christians think that we inherit those traits through the Fall. In the final analysis, I'm not sure it matters much which explanation we embrace as long as we acknowledge that there is evil within our natures, and commit ourselves to overcoming it. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-11-15T22:36:29-06:00

ID

103647

Comment

Kate, you've also made a good point. But I will say this much for Brandon: That while it's very easy to reconcile the concept of God's existence with evolution by natural selection, I have personally found it impossible to completely reconcile the concept of God as creator with evolution by natural selection. If I buy into Darwinian evolution, I can't say that we are fearfully and wonderfully made; I have to acknowledge that the process was much colder, and more practical, than that. I know that some very intelligent folks have been able to hold both ideas, but I've never been able to. For his part, Dawkins says that evolutionary theory is completely incompatible with belief in God of any kind. I think Dawkins occasionally tends towards the overdramatic. ozzyman, I like you. You're funny. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-11-15T22:36:41-06:00

ID

103648

Comment

Per the religious debate over origins... It's not where we came from we should be debating, but what's going to happen to us in the future. The past is over.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2005-11-23T16:00:31-06:00

ID

103649

Comment

Tom I also have to weigh in here on a few of your points, mainly because I have encountered very different models of warriorship in cultures where the measurement is wisdom, and embodiment, and compassion, and integration, rather than brute strength. Naturally, I agree with you that we don't need any more warriors in 2005, if we are referring to the brute-strength/largely-unconscious/largely-nonintegrated warrior, but this particular imbalanced model is not what is cultivated in other societies who ALSO have a particular notion or image of the warrior. From the Shuar people of the Amazon (whose warriors equate warriorship with "mothering" and protecting the jungle from encroaching petroleum companies) to Zapatista warriors down in Central America who are, daily, forming more and more of an organized indigenous resistance to government manipulations, we find a very different sense of what it means to be a warrior in what I call "earth cultures." In the Tibetan tradition, the word pawo (warrior) refers to an empowered individual (man or woman) who is manifesting an enlightened presence in their life, and is fiercely dedicated to promoting this quality in society. As someone who has been taken through certain initiations in shamanic societies (sometimes kicking and screaming!), and as someone who has been able to cultivate, more and more, some sense of a non-violent spirit through certain martial arts (Aikido, jujitsu), I actually think we need MORE warriors in 2005....but those who are genuinely dedicated to life in all its forms. "The ultimate warrior protects the world."--Chogyam Trungpa I do understand what you're talking about with the Men's Movement, but I've also come to see it as evidence that *some* men are thirsting deeply for the kind of truly empowering initiatory experiences that men in indigenous societies experience -- which places one into a position of allegiance with other men-as-brothers, with women-as-sisters, with nature as worthy of reverence and protection. Though the Men's Movement is largely a disjointed attempt to mainfest that kind of initiatory spirit....and some of it can be laughable....I think beneath the outward form of it there is a genuine longing. Somewhat related, but perhaps off topic a bit too, here is an interesting article in What Is Enlightenment magazine, that asks the question why there aren't more women involved in the integral movement of which Ken Wilber is at the helm of: Where Are The Women? chronos

Author

whateveryouwant

Date

2005-11-29T10:58:02-06:00

ID

103650

Comment

Oh, I was going to add some thoughts about Joseph Campbell, but it's probably a mute point. He's one noggin' with one stream of ideas, much like Jung, Steiner, or Arnold Mindell. I'm agreeing with you, in essence. We need to take everyone with a grain of salt, but most especially ourselves.

Author

whateveryouwant

Date

2005-11-29T11:00:16-06:00

ID

103651

Comment

chronos, this is such good stuff that I'm going to respond to it even though I'm a pint low tonight. Pardon the bullet points, but it's the only way I can think of right now to keep my writing on track without wandering off into a rambling mess: - Other societies have a notion of something that we call a warrior, but I think it's important to realize that none of these cultures speak English as a native language. The term warrior is derived from war; it is war-rior, one who makes war. So when one is a spiritual warrior, for instance, one is making war against one's own negative nature. All of this ties into the masculine idea of violence, in much the same way that someone who overcomes a cocaine addiction might say s/he "kicked cocaine's ass." And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, but it's a way of thinking, I believe, that ties very much into masculine imagery, masculine values, masculine vices. This is not to say that there is never a time for war, or never a just war. But there is never a time for warriors as such, I don't think. Even soldiers, here again, are not just warriors. -- It's much like a reversal of the term jihad, which refers only to a struggle, and has taken on a role in our culture (and others) where it is primarily thought of in terms of war of some kind or another. -- Contemporary exceptions aside, the warrior-woman has primarily been a myth. There is of course the wild woman (I think you share my love of Clarissa Pinkola Estes' work), but not the idea of violent conquest. There are exceptions, but very few. Even the nonviolent pawo was always a man, until fairly recently. (That's one of my beefs with some of the ways in which Tibetan culture has been embraced by progressives; it's very patriarchal in many respects, and folks don't see that.) - I think there is definitely a place for the men's movement and men's studies, and the stuff I posted above was intended to be more cautionary than anything else. - Agreed on taking ourselves with a grain of salt! -- And agreed that Joseph Campbell is well worth reading. He would have been the first to object, though, to all the hagiography surrounding him in certain depth psychology circles. [continued]

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-11-30T22:26:53-06:00

ID

103652

Comment

- A good friend of mine, well-versed in depth psychology, once told me that she didn't like Ken Wilber because he seemed "arrogant." I read his stuff and got the same idea, though I would have used the words "abstract" and "final." The trouble with Ken Wilber's philosophy, I think, is that it is in its own way very cerebral and very fundamentalist at the same time--a closed system with little room left over for personal expression. It attempts to explain everything with a period or exclamation point, as if he were speaking with authority, with a sense of hierarchy, hierarchy being an intrinsically patriarchal idea. This is not to say that those who adopt his philosophy share those values, or even that Wilber himself does (on the contrary, I know that he's one of the most committed feminists operating in depth psychology today); just that this is a vibe that I think his work sends. So in many cases I find myself independently coming to a conclusion that I later realize Wilber came to first, but where I hadn't recognized it for what it was because of the systematic way in which he presented it. Wilber is a scientist by nature, and I think he tends to take a hard science approach to his metaphysics. Lots of flat, certain answers to unanswerable questions, so that even when he's right in terms of human nature, it can feel overbearing. I think men are more likely to accept that way of communicating, on a whole, than women are. -- And Wilber is indeed brilliant. But sometimes he comes across like that really opinionated friend everybody has who Tells You How It Is if he gets a little liquor in him. This comes from p. 405 of SES, for example: Nothing shows more clearly that the Great Holarchy of Being was not a product of the medieval mind than the fact that, by the middle of the eighteenth century, although virtually every single aspect of the mythic-bound Scholastic religion had been derisively rejected by the philosophers of the Enlightenment, virtually every single one of them embraced the Great Holarchy. It quite obviously, to them, had nothing to do with mythic religion or the medieval mind at all, or it would have been as thorougly and as quickly abandoned. I count three logical fallacies in this paragraph, but the more crucial issue for me is that he has a very mechanical view of philosophy, very scientific, very clear-cut, very final. This gives his books the air of death, for lack of a better term, because of the barrage of conclusive statements. They make me tired. In some ways I feel that he communicates like a sort of Jungian version of Ayn Rand, whose following is also primarily male. The fact that he's a genius, that his understanding of the universe is as compelling as anybody's, is overshadowed by his style of communicating, his style of argumentation, and his tendency to close gaps that would be best left open. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-11-30T22:26:59-06:00

ID

103653

Comment

Tom I've hung out with Ken. I like him as a person. Like everyone, he has his moments, both brilliant and fueled by unseen shadow stuff. As a theoritician, I find a lot of faults in his leanings, predominantly that he places various spiritual traditions along a hierarchical scale, with indigenous societies (and shamans) at the bottom of that scale, and Buddhist masters at the top of that scale. Having experienced 'things' with teachers and learning situations all up and down his hierarchical tree, and knowing that he hasn't delved into certain sections of this theoritical tree, I think he's missing something and, yes, potentially making some arrogant statements. And, yes. Agreed about warrior (English) vs. indigenous terms, such as samurai (servant). You are also correct in your assumptions about pawo mostly being women, but there are some rather fierce tales of female warriors in the Tibetan society, and Celtic culture has a number of examples of both female warriors (as in war-makers), as well as awakened/spiritual/enlightened warriors, who were also women. The English language does seem to have a limitation in this regard. Chogyam Trungpa decided upon the use of the word warrior with the prefix enlightened" for the mere fact that he wanted to convey some sense of what you're talking about in terms of fierce focus, fierce training, fierce intent....Additionally, he would sometimes use the term bodhisattva-warrior as a play on terms as well....The bodhisattva, as I'm sure you are well aware, would be that man or woman who has taken a vow to work toward the alleviation of suffering of all sentient beings (or as a friend of mine says, the alleviation of suffering in all messy situations). I think, too, of Acala, short for Acalanatha, known as Fudo Myoo-o in Japan, who is a wrathful dharma king figure, who holds a sword in one hand and a rope in the other. The sword is to slay ignorance. The rope is to bind demons. And Fudo has this very potent and intense countenance about him...standing in the flames of unrestrained, unconscious passions and obsessions, he bears a grimmacing face with large fangs. Some Christians who first encountered statues of Fudo Myoo-o took him to be a devil, and yet a Shingon priest once told a Christian, "No, no. He is a protector. He is a fierce reminder of the kind of focus we need. You must have the power of a devil to destroy a devil." Back to Ken Wilber....I find the work of Stanislav Grof much more palatable. In my eyes HE is really more the "Father of Transpersonal Psychology," but where Ken stops at the ink drying on the page of theory, Stan gets right down on the floor with people in very, very intense breathwork sessions (which I used to facilitate) and guides people into and through their fears precisely in service of liberation, clarity, healing, and empowerment. Put another way, Ken is a philosopher. I like him as a person, but he doesn't get any dirt under his fingernails. Stan, and those initiated into his work, are more akin to what we're talking about here as "spiritual warriors" or "psychological samurai." Okay. I ramble. Deep Peace

Author

whateveryouwant

Date

2005-12-01T16:59:54-06:00

ID

103654

Comment

Hi, dude. As I write this, I realize that for all my love of not using warrior imagery, know whose statue I've got sitting on top of my desk? Manjushri, sword in hand, representing the warrior-philosopher. You make some good points about warriordom. Maybe what I should have said is not so much that we don't need warriors in 2005, but rather that being a warrior should not be linked so closely with masculine spirituality. That the kind of warrior you're talking about here is something that either gender can really be, and not something that men alone should aspire to. When it is, I think that's when it plays to distinctively male, and distinctively violent, ways of thinking. I've also been a defender of the wrathful bodhisattvas. And Kali--people misunderstand Kali all the time. Now there's a good example of a feminine warrior-symbol--and a distinctively feminine warrior-symbol, not just a man with boobs. Have I mentioned how very cool it is to be having this discussion with a Naropa grad who lives in Jackson friggin' Mississippi? I was just telling a friend the other day that there are enough spirituality writers in town that we really could have a coffee klatsch going, like the romance and mystery and children's writers do. Re Ken Wilber: I agree with your assessment here as well. And I would go a step further and say that if he were to get his hands dirty, his writing would probably benefit tremendously. He just feels too comfortable to me, like he's doing a crossword puzzle or something. The big questions are exciting, sexy, dangerous, transformative. In Space, Time, and Deity, Samuel Alexander makes the philosophical distinction between the contemplated and the enjoyed. I think Wilber's philosophy is all contemplation and no enjoyment. It is beautiful but hollow. Women, who are generally allowed to express pain and vulnerability, can see this hollowness, I think, more often than men can. But I have a lot of respect for Wilber both as a writer and a human being, and as tedious as I find his work to sometimes be, I also find it to be very thought-provoking. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-12-02T20:28:31-06:00

ID

103655

Comment

To conclude, Tom. Check out a book called The Craft of the Warrior, by Robert Spencer. He makes some excellent points on this whole subject. Be well. F

Author

whateveryouwant

Date

2005-12-06T15:28:00-06:00