men

Our very own Shira Tarrant (curator of “The Man Files” here at GWP) is on the advisory committee for this one, as is Michael Kimmel, whose work I utterly admire.  So I totally wanted to share:

Call for Presentations
THE 1st NATIONAL CONFERENCE FOR
CAMPUS-BASED MEN’S GENDER EQUALITY & ANTI-VIOLENCE GROUPS
November 6-7, 2009 / St. John’s University in Collegeville, Minnesota

What it is: Across the country, groups of male students are making their voices heard!  More and more men are finding the courage to say “no” to ideas of manhood and relations between the sexes that aren’t good for women and aren’t good for men as well.  They’re speaking out against date rape and violence against women.  They support gender equality.  Some work through residence life or student activities offices, others through women’s centers and counseling programs.  Some are campus branches of national organizations like MVP, White Ribbon, Men Can Stop Rape, 1 in 4, or V-Men.    These men face common problems: How to have an impact?  How to find positive ways to get their message to other campus men?  How to deal with backlash, to work in partnership with women’s groups, to recruit and sustain their groups?  For the first time, campus-based pro-feminist men’s groups from across the country are meeting together.  To share resources., trade their best ideas, discuss strategies, and simply find out what’s happening on other campuses.

For more details, including on costs and the members of the organizing & advisory committees, visit: www.michaelkaufman.com/campusmensconference

Today being the day our monthly “Man Files” column posts and all, I thought I’d share this round-up of links on, well, MEN. Or rather, men and masculinity. From a feminist perspective. Definitely check out:

Our very own Shira Tarrant’s “Guy Trouble” in the current issue of BITCH in which she asks are young men really in crisis or are these boys just done being boys?

Rebecca Traister of Salon and Emily Bazelon of Slate discuss the recession’s effect on gender and housework in a New York Times bloggingheads video called “Unemployed Husbands”

And Tony Dokoupil has a piece in this week’s Newsweek titled “Men Will Be Men” in which he blows by some of the more progressive changes in masculine behavior and concludes that men continue to define masculinity in market terms.

This month’s guest post to The Man Files comes at us from Jonathan Felix — college student, drummer, sports fan, and astute social critic. In Jonathan’s words, “Me and my dad sarcastically laugh at the sequence of commercials during ‘guy’ shows on TV: beer, burgers, military. Beer, cars, televisions, military …” Here Jonathan takes on Carl’s Jr. ads asking why they portray guys as kind of stupid.

Masculine, Jr.

In true corporate marketing fashion, Carl’s Jr. depicts demoralizing stereotypes of men and women in efforts to attract consumers.

The fast-food chain’s current commercial shows a beautiful skinny blonde girl wearing make-up and a nice blue dress. She enters her boyfriend’s apartment expecting a classy night out, and finds him on the couch playing video games. The couple talks about a steak dinner, and the guy implies they are going to Carl’s Jr. for their new steak sandwich. The motto after the commercial is that Carl’s Jr. is “How guys do fancy.”

This is NOT how I do fancy.

Commercials like this give good guys a bad reputation. Hey Carl’s Jr. — Listen up! A lot of us actually have our lives together and enjoy taking women out to nice places and good dinners.

Or what about the ad with the guy and the avocado? It makes men look like total barbaric meatheads, who can’t even use a spoon to eat an avocado, and we somehow need Carl’s Jr. to make guacamole for us because we’re too stupid to figure it out.

Now I happen to like Carl’s Jr. But for them to portray guys as that lazy and ignorant is offensive. I can only hope my peers would agree that we have to do better than a #4 Combo if we plan on making good boyfriends and future husbands.

These commercials project a message to the world that men are lame and losers and unable to appreciate even the smallest bit of romantic effort. Far too often our society depicts “real” men as barbarians who love sports and beer and total sexual dominance. And although plenty of men have some of these traits, pop culture insists on exploiting our more obtuse characteristics to sell their products.

These ads completely ignore a man’s intellectual or emotional capabilities. This hurts men who actually have their lives somewhat together. It perpetuates negative stereotypes and affects women’s future opinions about men, be they Prince Charmings or Ronald McDonalds.

Show Jonathan some love and welcome him to Girl With Pen by posting your comments here. Or reach him directly at johnnylbeach at yahoo.com. Until next month! -Shira

My latest Recessionwire.com column is now up. I’d love it if GWPenners once again would post comments over there to this one in particular, as I take on my fellow Recessionwire blogger “Joe the Trader” for some rather gender-stereotyped remarks (and a huge THANK YOU for all your awesome comments past!).

Joe’s column, “Out on the Street,” chronicles life after layoff for Wall Street guys.  In his latest, “Gendernomics”, Joe makes a number of great points (especially in comments!) but he also falls into the she-spends, she-nags vision of things that drives me nuts.  Ok, so maybe it drives me nuts in part because I’ve become a nagger. But mostly it drives me nuts because the underlying presumption Joe (who is now at home) and many men seem to make is that all the yucky housework tasks are a woman’s purview, even in couples where both partners work outside the home.

This recession is sure breathing new life into the ole laundry gap debate.  The eternal optimist in me hopes that this time, perhaps we’ll all get past merely arguing over the laundry.  Perhaps more men out of jobs–while their women continue to work–will ultimately result in a more equitable division of labor at home.  One can hope?!

So here’s my response to Joe:  “A Gentle Response to Joe the Trader”

Thanks in advance for comments, and I’ll see you over there!

Did you hear the one about how testosterone is to blame for the meltdown? Pretty good stuff, eh? The headline reads: “Male Hysteria and the Market Meltdown: Is testosterone to blame for the financial crisis? A growing body of evidence suggests an intriguing answer as neuroscience reshapes our understanding of economics.” IMHO, it is perhaps one of the most absurd of the reflections on what the economic meltdown tells us about men and masculinity today.

Wondering if there might not be a “third-wave feminist masculinity scholar” on the project, I talked to my Framingham State College colleague, Professor Ben Alberti. Ben is an anthropologist who usually studies gender in ancient cultures (he says “prehistoric guylands”). Here’s what he had to say:

BA: How the hell can testosterone cause a market meltdown? Saying it is about testosterone covers up the idea of calculated greed. There is a much larger system than the trading room dynamics that accounts for how our economy works—or fails. It is misdirection, like a magic trick.

GWP: But even if we can mock biological explanations, isn’t that calculated greed part of the culture that men live in, a part of the expectations for being a “good man”?

BA: Oh, rubbish. You are simply saying that if men aren’t a “victim of their biology” they are a “victim of their culture”—that’s the “crisis of masculinity” argument, and I don’t buy it.

GWP: There’s been some interesting reporting on how unemployment is stressful for men, but you’re saying that we can biologize masculinity—but we can also culturize it—and get to the same place?

BA: Yes. Men can be victims—and there are a lot of men suffering right now in this economic downturn–but not because of their being men. It isn’t about identity or role any more than it is about testosterone. This crisis is about economics, values, inequality.

GWP: But men are living in a world of changing expectations, and it can be hard to respond because they aren’t (yet) fully equipped to switch gears, right?

BA: Oh come on!

GWP: What?

BA: In masculinity research there’s the notion of the “man box.” The man box view shows us the cultural expectations that men are subject to and that shape their actions. As you can imagine, a “box” suggests it is really hard to get out. I’m saying there’s no f-ing box. It is all about choices. Not the crisis, but the response. There are constraints, for sure. That means circumstances will determine which resources you can draw on for being what kind of man. But don’t masculinize constraints…. When we talk about men, we need to talk about possibilities rather than expectations. We need to talk about actions—what we’re performing—rather than containers—like the box.

GWP: (We’re not supposed to pun about the box, right?) You’ve talked about masculinity as performance—but what does that give us?

BA: Here’s a cliché example, one I’m familiar with: asking directions. So from the point of view of the “man box,” I don’t want to stop and ask for directions because I’m a man. What I’m saying is that, really, I don’t stop and ask directions because I haven’t done it before.

GWP: It sounds like you are saying that the issue of where men are today—in terms of unemployment or in terms of ethical choices in the pursuit of their work or career—is a lot more tractable and a lot simpler than we make it out to be when we expect biology or culture or the man box to leave men in “a crisis of masculinity.” Is that it?

BA: Yes. Stop anticipating a conflict. Don’t anticipate the man box. I am saying when you do it—ask directions, change your approach to work, deal with this awful economic crisis, whatever it is–it becomes part of your repertoire. That’s how change happens.

-Virginia Rutter

A new Love in the Time of Layoff column of mine goes live over at Recessionwire.com today, and in the meantime, I wanted to share this post from another writer over there, Dan Colarusso, former managing editor of Conde Nast’s Portfolio.com until the end of 2008 and current managing editor of The Business Insider. Dan’s post is titled “Recession Recipes: Satisfaction Stew”. A taste:

You’ve been stripped of your big office, fat title, hot assistant and, most important, your paycheck. But being emasculated on the job doesn’t mean you can’t satisfy your significant other at home—with food.

On the Home Depot scale, cooking something impressive and tasty falls somewhere in between changing a light bulb and installing a new shower head—that is, pretty simple. Some quick rules for the new house husband, and a 20-minute recipe…

For the recipe, click here.

Naked women. What’s not to love, right?
Well…Let’s talk about Frank Cordelle.

Cordelle is a photographer with a long-running exhibit he calls The Century Project. It’s a collection of pics — nude girls and women ages birth through 100. (Get it? One hundred years of naked women = The Century Project.) The line-up for 2009 includes shows at the University of North Carolina, Wilmington, Rhodes College in Memphis, and the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, VA.

The pics are supposedly a celebration of the naked female body in a variety of shapes, sizes, races, and ages. Each photo comes with a little story about the featured female. Many of these “moving personal statements,” as Cordelle calls them, are first-person blurbs about overcoming abuse, eating disorders, etc.

Cordelle’s Mission Statement describes his exhibit as a project that “aims more generally to stimulate thought and discussion about subjects that are often taboo in our culture, or otherwise too personal, too painful.” An 8-year-old girl certainly has lots to tell us. But why does she have to do it in the nude?

Visual artist Karen Henninger comments, “if men REALLY got the issues, they would refrain — as in take a break — from female nudity. There is NO need for men to do female nudity — unless it SERVES them. It’s pretty much a mainstream art thing. Female nudity is acceptable and will get you attention. So much for art being a place of ‘creativity,’” Henninger says. Check out the Met. Or any other museum. As the Guerrilla Girls have noted for years, themes of female nudity melded with rape or sexual assault — regardless of how the art is intended — have been a constant theme in art history. Think Rubens’ Rape of Europa or Hayez’s Susannah at her Bath. Depicting women naked, vulnerable, or linked in some way to abuse has been “a constant way for women to be portrayed” in the art world Henninger comments.

But back to Cordelle.

The problem is not female nudity or female sexuality. The problem is that The Century Project uses naked female bodies, eating disorders, and abuse in ways that promote voyeuristic interest. While childhood nudity should be free and joyful, in our culture that’s a big challenge because girls are already hypersexualized at younger and younger ages. As a result we — as a culture — often don’t know how to see a naked female body (regardless of age) other than in sexualized terms. Is she available? Arousing? Sexually interesting? Or not?

I am anti-censorship. I’m a huge fan of feel-good sexual exploration and the freedom to accept our own bodies on our own terms.

The Century Project is not it.

It’s the same old-same old: girls’ and women’s naked bodies on display. I saw the exhibit and talked to the photographer. For the most part, the “moving personal statements” moved me to want to vomit. The exhibit visually exploited women and put their stories on display for no apparent productive end.

Check the photographer’s website and see what he has to say under the FAQ “Why Women?” I remain unconvinced that he gets the issues. Cordelle’s explanation for exhibiting naked female bodies reinforces assumptions about women as different and needing special attention or unique protection. There’s something really off about it. He puts girls and women on display while claiming concern for our well being. Really, Frank: Don’t.

And P.S., Therese Shechter (Trixie Films) has continued this convo over at the blog American Virgin. Drop by and take a look!

I’ve got the cover story over at The Big Money (Slate’s money mag) today! It’s posted here: Love and Layoffs | The Big Money. Your comments over there would be most welcome!

And a humongous shout out to Marco, who is so bravely allowing me to use him as Exhibit A these days, in print.

Meeting Notorious on the Big Screen

I’m happy to introduce Ebony Utley who contributes this kick-ass guest post to The Man Files. Ebony cleverly writes about her “date” with rap star B.I.G. — a posthumous movie night watching B.I.G. on the big screen in the recently released biopic, Notorious. What follows is Ebony’s sharp call about the demands and expectations of masculinity.

Me and B.I.G. just went out on our first date. I’d heard about him around the way, but he seemed like such a bad boy. I was content to watch him from my stoop.  Then some friends were like, “Girl, I heard he done changed. He told us to tell you to meet him at the Pike at eight for this movie.”  And thought, “If dude wanna take me out; he should take me some place where I can look him in the eye and see if he lyin’ when he talk.”

But you know, he’s B.I.G., so I went.

It wasn’t a typical movie date. He told me lots of stuff about his life.  It was juicy.  I was surprised at how open he was about his past. He had been a hustla, but got his money legal.  He loved his mama. He loved his kids. He admitted to being a playa, but he told me I was special. I knew stuff that nobody knew.  Said he’d had suicidal thoughts but now he was ready to live. I myself was mesmerized by his charisma and swagger.  I soaked up every second of his life.  Before we left the movie, he asked if he could be a friend of mine, and then just like that, he was gone.

I’m not going to lie. I miss B.I.G.  Who doesn’t?  But I’m trying to be real about the things he told me on our first and only date together.  I mean, it was still dark in that movie, and I couldn’t look him in the eye good.  What if he told all the ladies that they were special and knew things nobody knew?  He kept saying that he’d changed.  I’m hearing him say that he’d become a man.  I admired B.I.G., but what made him a man? He told me real men make money, have kids, and lots of women, get respect, and die too young.  Hmm.  Even the list is suspect.

B.I.G. made money, yes, but Diddy was in charge of his destiny. Without Diddy telling my girls to tell me to go see B.I.G. we would have never even hooked up.  I can’t imagine that B.I.G. didn’t love his kids, but they didn’t really know him; he didn’t seem to know them.  Sure, he was sometimes at peace with his women but what about the lies, the deception, and the manipulation?  Everybody was celebrating B.I.G. when they killed him. So much for respect. If this is what a man is, I’m glad that we decided to be just friends.

All I can say ladies is don’t let them hypnotize you.  No disrespect to the person who was the Notorious B.I.G., but those traditional celebrations of manhood as the fearless protector, provider, babymaker get old after a while.  Better to watch them from the stoop than get caught up in some mess.  If B.I.G. had tried something different, maybe he’d still be here, but his story is still powerful. I’m glad he shared it with me.  Gives me a point a reference for what else manhood should be—entrepreneurship, present fatherhood, honest, healthy relationships, and caution over reputation.  Thanks for the teaching moment. I’ve still got mad love for you, B.I.G.

Ebony A. Utley, Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor of Communication Studies at California State University, Long Beach and author of  The Gangsta’s God: The Quest for Respectability in Hip Hop (Praeger, forthcoming).

From “Why the Sting of Layoffs Can be Sharper for Men,” NYTimes Jan. 31, 2009:

As job losses reverberate across the economy, differences in “his” and “her” layoffs are beginning to take shape — revealing gender dynamics that may not have been as apparent when the Dow was at 14,000.

Dr. Louann Brizendine, author of “The Female Brain” and a psychiatrist at the University of California, San Francisco, says that women who lose their jobs “aren’t going to take as much of a self-esteem hit” as men. That is because the most potent form of positive social feedback for many men comes from within the hierarchy of the workplace. By contrast, she said, women may have “many sources of self-esteem — such as their relationships with other people — that are not exclusively embedded within their jobs.”

She said that over the past six months, her clinic has had an increase in the number of men seeking help for difficulties related to job loss.

Terrence Real, a family therapist and the founder of Real Relational Solutions in Arlington, Mass., said the difference in reactions could be explained by the idea of performance esteem.

“Everyone who has written about male psychology has acknowledged that men base their sense of self on the maxim that ‘I have worth because of what I do,’ ” Mr. Real said. The feeling is that “you are only as good as your last game or your last job,” he said.

In his practice over the past 12 months, Mr. Real says, he has seen a roughly 20 percent uptick in the number of men seeking help because of the economic downturn.

Interesting….More from me on all this to come.  (Check out Recessionwire.com, plug plug!)