Problems with parenting from a distance

I would just remind people reading this on blogger, that I am not going to be cross-posting here much longer.  My new address is over here and if you leave a comment, that is where they will be responded to.

With a great deal of excitement, I am trying to finish up as much of my classwork as I can and get everything ready to go pick up the boys this weekend.  I will only have them for a week and unfortunately it is the week that ends the summer semester, but that is just how it goes.  I have to honestly say though, that I am really not looking forward to having a rather complicated discussion with eldest.

This is not because the conversation is overly intimidating.  While it is a little bit, that doesn't bother me, especially as I have a pretty solid grasp on how such a conversation should go.  What is less than thrilling about it, is that the timing is off.  Eldest has recently been having a lot of emotional difficulties lately - has actually been having them for a while, but more recently they have become rather more frequent and have been coming at a point where he is more cognizant of them.

Unfortunately, he is also very confused by them.  Take a discussion we had a couple weeks ago:

Me:  How are you doing today?

Eldest: I'm having a bad day papa.

Me: Are you feeling sick?

Eldest: No, I don't think I feel sick.

Me:  Did you get in trouble this morning?

Eldest: No, I'm just really upset right now.

Me: What are you upset about?

Eldest:  Nothing really, I'm just upset.

Me: Are you angry upset, or sad upset?

Eldest: I forgot.

Me: Are you feeling better now then?

Eldest: No, I'm still really upset, I just don't remember if I'm mad or sad.

That was pretty much that discussion, because he had to get ready to do something with momma and youngest.  And it was most definitely not a satisfactory discussion.  Even had we been able to continue, it is really hard to discuss emotions over the phone like that.  It's hard enough with adults who, for example, might call a crisis hotline.  It is really hard when the person you are talking to is eight years old.  It's hard for him, because he needs that responsive body language and because he's talking to his dad, it is a lot easier if there is physical contact.  And it is hard for me, because without seeing his responsive body language, I am entirely dependent on his words to break it down.  Definitely not the ideal.

Of course the other problem, is that he doesn't want to spend what time he has talking to me, talking about being upset.  He wants to hear how I am doing, how school is going and what I am working on.  He wants to tell me about what he is doing, or just did, or what new and exciting invention he really wants to make.  He wants me to read to him or tell him a story about when I was an eight year old - or a story about when he was a baby.  He wants me to explain something to him, that he is wondering about - wishing, if looking it up is necessary, that he could snuggle up to me and look it up with me.

The problem with having this conversation this next week, is that it is unlikely to happen when he is actually feeling upset.  He is barely able to contain his excitement when we talk on the phone at this point.  He is very unlikely to have any significant episodes of being upset, at least not early in the week.  And later, when he is feeling upset, knowing he will have to go back to TN before very long, he is not going to have any confusion about sad or mad.  When there is a palpable, concrete reason for him to be upset, he has no problem distinguishing - mainly because context makes it pretty clear.  So that won't help us in the context of having this discussion.

That is the crux of the problem.  These are conversations that really need to happen in the moment.  It is a lot like punishing a child for misbehavior, several hours after they misbehave.  It is pretty ineffectual and takes a lot of work to make it work.  Even then there are no guarantees.  About the only thing that I have going for me here, is that eldest has been talking about this issue with his therapist.  So we will have at least something to work from, tenuous as that will be.  But any which way we look at it, it is not going to be easy to deal with.  While I am no stranger to having complicated and difficult discussions with eldest, until he was taken 600 miles away, I was always able to deal with complicated discussions at, or close to the time they were relevant. 

This is important and it is coming at a time when I am not in the best form for dealing with it.  As eldest has grown, he has been inexorably moving away from being quite the momma's boy he once was, to increasingly looking to me for certain types of support.  That isn't to say that he is ignoring his mother altogether, just that he seems to be thinking that a lot of problems should be dealt with by me.  While I doubt he will ever be focused on gender the way most boys were when I was growing up, he has definitely become increasingly aware of it - and increasingly focused on me for emotional support and for understanding his emotions.

Ironically, I have been dealing with a severe bout of depression (when overall, life is actually pretty fucking good) and a new medication and don't have the best grasp on my own emotional content at the moment.  But that doesn't matter in the scheme of things, because kids can't wait for their parents to be ready to help them face their problems.  They need us when they need us - and that is that.  That is also probably why we fuck up so often, we don't have the luxury of waiting until we've got it all figured out, or we're feeling up to the task.  Thankfully, unless we really try, most kids are resilient enough to survive our fuckups and work it out in the end.

WTF Kids Toys!?!?

Why the hell is it that the only "boy" oriented easy bake bullshit is this crap? Why is it that this is referred to as "girl" gourmet? Keeping in mind that the baking pro on the box is a man, because of course there aren't any women who are professional bakers to endorse a "girl" toy. There are also these products, but they seem to be the limit of non-sexed baking toys.

Like boys have no desire to make nice, normal baked goods. Like women aren't professional fucking bakers.

Meanwhile, why the hell is my cantankerous two year old yelling at me, apparently wanting fish?

Transphobia and Homophobia: Communicating Fear as Hatred

And this would be my communications paper...Here it is formatted, with reference pages...

Defining Transphobia and Homophobia

Basic definitions for trans, and homophobias are really quite simple. Phobia comes from the Greek word “phobos,” meaning an intense fear of. In the field of modern psychology, phobias refer to an intense, abnormal or irrational fear of something (Stedman's, 2009). So transphobia refers to an intense, irrational fear of trangendered people, while homophobia refers to an intense, irrational fear of homosexual people. It is especially important to note that these fears are irrational. Transphobia and homophobia do not describe someone who is afraid of transpersons or homosexual persons because they were somehow victimized by a person or people who fit one of those categories.

It is also important to define the impact of transphobia and homophobia. At their worse, transphobia and homophobia lead to violent confrontations and even murder. Short of the very worse, transphobia and homophobia can lend themselves to feelings of isolation, anger, depression and self-loathing (Gordon & Meyer, 2007; Hill & Willoughby, 2005). At the extreme, these feelings are responsible for a significantly higher rates of suicide among LGT1 people (Hill & Willoughby, 2005).

A Fear of Differences
A primary motivator for transphobia and homophobia, is basic xenophobia, or fear of people who are different from oneself (Gordon & Meyer, 2007; Hill & Willoughby, 2005). The more significant the perceived differences, the more intense the phobic expression can become. It could be as simple as choosing not to engage in an interpersonal relationship with someone, or as intense as lashing out in violence against the person with the perceived differences. Quite often, the more intense forms of phobic expression require the phobic person to dehumanize the target of their phobic expression based on the substance of the perceived difference. They will ignore everything else that defines a person, focusing entirely on that one factor.

The xenophobia factor alone, is particularly intense with regards to sexuality, gender expression and religion. These tend to be less about superiority, fostering a more passionate response to the differences alone. With regards to gender expression and sexuality, men tend to have a much more aggressive, impassioned response than women (Nagoshi et al., 2008). While women with authoritarian or fundamentalist religious tendencies tend to have a negative response to homosexuality and transgenderism, they do not tend to feel the same threat to their own identity that men seem to experience.

Fear of Introspection or Transference
Men generally seem to find the mere existence of people who do not fit within a relatively strict gender construct a threat to their own gender and even sexual identity (Patel et al., 1995). Far more than women, men seem to consider the gender and sexual identities of others, especially other men or male borns2, in the context of their own lives. They engage in a sort of transference that forces them to perceive the sexual identities of other men and sometimes women, as a clear and definite threat to their own personal identity. Women do not seem as prone to this type of identity threat, likely due to a general tendency towards empathy. Rather than perceiving transgendered women borns as a threat, they are far more likely to perceive their gender identity as a betrayal (Nagoshi et al., 2008).

Men are not always guilty of this response, any more than women are always immune to it. This tendency is generally more prevalent with men, because of the nature of men to avoid addressing their feelings or psychological well being (Levant & McMillan, 2005; Fischer & Good, 1997). Because men tend to be less capable and even afraid to address their feelings and mental health, being forced to consider gender and sexuality from a non-traditional archetypal perspective often garners an aggressive response.

Measuring Transphobia and Homophobia

Because of the nature of transphobic and homophobic expressions and their impact on transgendered people and homosexual people, it is important to try to understand not just what trans and homophobia is, but also how strong these tendencies can be and how they can manifest. It is very easy to define what these phobic expressions are and where they come from. It is not as easy to define the real world impact of these expressions. To understand that impact and attempt to change the negative consequences of transphobic and homophobic expressions, it is necessary to measure and even categorize transphobic and homophobic responses.


Types of trans and homo phobic expression
There are two major types of phobic expressions. These actually relate to the treatment of all outgroups3 and are basic categories of measurement (Gordon & Meyer, 2007). There is the more overtly bigoted and even hostile phobic expressions who are identified simply as overt transphobes, and/or homophobes. Then there are people who engage in latent phobic expression. These expressions are almost entirely unconscious, engaged in by people who do not consider themselves phobic or bigoted. An example would be expressing surprise at being exposed to a homosexual male who tends to express themselves in a traditionally masculine fashion. Another would be referring to a transgendered person by their birth sex, even after they have asked that you not do so. Or simply treating a gay or transgendered friend a little differently than you would treat other friends, based on their sexual or gender identity (Wentling, 2007).

Depth of Phobic Tendencies
The depth of phobic tendencies is a little more complicated. The more overt bigotry ultimately tends to be more superficial. Overt bigotry is generally based entirely in xenophobic tendencies. While it is difficult to change those attitudes, regular exposure to people who have that trait that is so feared will generally slowly change that attitude. The problem lies with the latent bigotry and phobic tendencies. These tend to be very deep seated and as they are unconscious, those who have them are usually entirely unaware that they even have them (Hill & Willoughby, 2005).

Latent phobic expressions have a fundamental basis in cultural and social conditioning. Rather than being based so firmly in a traditional fear response, they are vestigial reactions to people who have factors that traditionally garner a specific response socially. Because the basis for the response is shaped by social conditioning, rather than conscious fear and prejudice, it is harder for people to even be aware of their phobic expressions. It is also harder for people to understand that the simple fact that these expressions are the result of social conditioning, does not mean they are any less bigoted for their lack of conscious expression (Wentling, 2007; Lindsey, 2005; Hill & Willoughby, 2005). They most certainly are. Latent phobic expressions are no less hostile and no less damaging for reflecting social and cultural norms. The easy use of such expressions reflects both the privilege and sense of social superiority of the speaker. When someone expresses surprise, for example, at being exposed to a homosexual male who doesn't fit the effeminate stereotypical gay man, they are essentially expressing the belief that being a homosexual is all that defines a gay person. That somehow homosexuals are not defined by all of the innumerable labels that define every person, that their sexual identity is the only label that means anything.

Ending Transphobia and Homophobia: Deconstructing Gender

Transphobia and homophobia are largely based in archetypal social gender constructs (Lindsey, 2005; Nagoshi et al., 2008). The stronger any person, man or women, identifies to traditional gender constructs, the more likely they are to have transphobic and homophobic tendencies and the more intense they will be (Gordon & Meyer, 2007; Nagoshi et al., 2008). The blatant gender nonconformity of transgenderede persons and the perceived gender nonconformity of homosexuals are perceived as a threat and/or a betrayal of the traditional gender norms. Gender norms that are so important to, intrinsically a part of some people that the mere existence of people who fall outside those roles, is perceived as a threat to their identity.

Even people who do not fit firmly within traditional gender constructs are nonetheless shaped by those constructs (Berger, Levant and McMillan, 2005; Nagoshi et al, 2008). Those constructs are a fundamental aspect of culture and society. Because of this, they are also a fundamental part of individuals within culture and society, even perversely, transgendered and homosexual people. The decisions people make and the way that they treat others are fundamentally grounded in a patriarchal worldview, driven by traditional gender constructs (Berger, Levant & McMillan, 2005; Wentling, 2007).

The abuses these gender constructs perpetuate are not only foisted upon transgendered people and homosexual people either. Traditional gender constructs are also damaging to men and women who live within their confines (Berger, Levant & McMillan, 2005; Tremblay & L'heureux, 2005). They are inherently abusive, due to their natural inclination for staying strictly within specific confines.

The solution for these problems is obviously to deconstruct gender stereotypes. This is not to suggest that men should not follow traditional masculine gender roles and women should not follow traditional feminine gender roles. Rather, it means that society as a whole learns to accept people who do not fit within those confines. It means accepting that there is nothing inherent to being a man or being a women. It means deciding that an individual should not choose a course of action based on their sex, but rather base those decisions on what they want as an individual.

Following this course, it would seem impossible for transphobic and homophobic behaviors to be sustained. The additional benefits would likely be a similar lessening of misogynistic and sexist behaviors, as well as improved mental and emotional health for men. Strict gender conformity does not seem to provide any benefit, while it seems to sustain a lot of destructive and unhealthy behaviors and tendencies. Deconstructing gender seems an obvious solution.


1Lesbians, Gays and Trangendered persons

2Male borns and women borns implies someone who was born male or female but who later chooses to identify as either the opposite sex, or as neither male nor female.

3Outgroups are people who are in some sort of minority, whether it be based on ethnicity, skin color, national origin, religion or any other cultural trait. Outgroups are inherently social constructs.

Gender Binaries, Trinaries and the problem of labels...

With literally uncounted thousands of identifiers, why is gender identity given such a prominent place amongst our labels? I am rapidly reaching the place where I am ready to treat my gender the way I do my sexuality - just refusing to identify any which way. On every gender inventory I have taken, I am androgynous, tending towards feminine.

I tend towards a more archetypal male expression of self - but then I was totally socialized with what was almost hyper-masculine role models. I am the ready hand in a crisis, unafraid if a situation requires violence. I am very physical - coming towards a year in school and I still have callouses on my hands. I am typically ignorant of my emotions a lot of the time.

Yet here I am, perfectly capable of filling the momma role, the sensitive lover, the empathetic, nurturing friend. I listen, because I am genuinely interested in what you have to say. I wrap my arms around people in need of compassion without fear or embarrassment. I am extremely introspective and my ignorance of emotions, is mostly founded in my fundamental projection bias, my assumption that most people probably feel like this and it is perfectly normal - i.e. depression is not normal, so that couldn't be something I experience.

So what am I? More importantly, what does it matter? I am not averse to ideas such as genderqueer - alternatives to this supposed gender binary. If pegged, I wouldn't even be averse to identifying as such. Sometimes I am even likely to identify as male, just as sometimes the context of a conversation indicates that I should identify as straight.

To be clear, I am not confused about my gender. I am not considering gender labeling because I am insecure about who and what I am. In reality, this is something I have been thinking about a lot for quite some time, because there are a lot of people who are confused and insecure about it. And there are people who are degraded and stigmatized because of their gender issues, whether they are experiencing gender disphoria, are transgendered, intersexed, androgynous or just happen to characteristically fall more into the realm of the gender that is not their sex.

Then there are people who think the whole discussion is stupid. Who think if you have a penis you're just a guy and if you sport a uterus instead, then you're just a woman. For whom it really is just that simple and the rest is just a load of complete and utter shit. It is because of this group of people, that I am increasingly fucking tired of this need to label.

The notion that this need to preserve one's gender identity is so very intense, that the mere existence of people who don't fit into this male/female dichotomy is a threat to their own gender identity is a sign that we have some very significant problems to overcome. I am all for people exploring or not exploring these concepts, as it suits their desire and comfort levels. But the point at which their desire to avoid any and every perceived threat to their gender and sexual identities interferes with and stigmatizes who and what other people are, I start to get more than a little angry about it.

While the choices I have made in life have certainly influenced who and what I am, I did not choose to have characteristically ambiguous gender traits. I didn't choose to have a general sexual preference for women. I didn't choose to empathize the way I do, listen the way I do, brute my way through discomfort the way I do or take on most of the myriad traits, or labels that make DuWayne Brayton, DuWayne Brayton. I am the sum of my genetics, environment and to some degree the choices I have made.

So are every one of us. Every fucking one.

So what exactly is the threat that my gender identity or the gender identity of anyone else, to the gender identity of anybody else? What threat does one of my labels, pose to one of yours? I am more than a little angry about this, because that perceived threat is used to stigmatize, marginalize and even oppress whole groups of people for characteristics that they cannot control.

So I am not straight, not a man. I am not my sexuality and I am not my sex. I am not even my gender. I am a human person who is sexually attracted to other human people and who shares a lot of characteristics with a lot of other human people. If that makes you uncomfortable, if that makes you feel threatened, please refrain from blaming me. I am not the one of us who has a problem with who they are. It might, however, be a good idea if you sat down to consider exactly why I make you uncomfortable or threatened. It would be a really good idea to think about why that same sex couple, being affectionate in public like any other couple makes you uncomfortable or threatened. It would probably do you a world of good to consider why that women down the block, the one with the addams apple who occasionally still gets that five o'clock shadow makes you feel uncomfortable or threatened.

Because our problem isn't who and what we are. Our problem is you and your destructive fucking stigmas and abuse.

Privilege and The Importance of Discomfort

There are certain discussions that make me really uncomfortable. Not always, but often enough. I am really uncomfortable, for example, when race/gender/sexuality/ethnicity - pretty much any identity discussions hit on something that I should feel kind of guilty about. I also get very uncomfortable when discussions about behaviors and choices start to force me to think about behaviors and choices that I am not happy about in my own life - when the discussion hits close enough to the mark that I start making associations. Sometimes it gets really uncomfortable - like lose sleep over it, feel like shit about it uncomfortable.

That's the best time, because the worse it feels, the more you are growing and making positive, fundamental changes.

We don't change our thinking or behaviors when we are all cozy and comfy. We don't have any impetus when things seem rosy, so we get complacent. It isn't until we are uncomfortable that changes we need to make can happen. The problem with this, is that all too often we decide to just blame what or whoever exposed us to the discomfort and attempt to banish them or at least get them to shut up and stop making us uncomfortable. Like we really want our token brown/gay/trans/ethnic minority friend around to make us feel hip and progressive - we just wish they would talk and act more like us and quit trying to make us understand their perspective. It is sooo uncomfortable when they do that...

The problem is, by and large they do. They want to - you know - work and have friends and all that, so they do shut up and just pretend it's ok. They often actually feel guilty for our fucking guilt! I want you to think about that for a moment - one of the many things that privilege means, is that minorities actually feel guilty for our fucking guilt, so we don't have to be uncomfortable enough to do something about it. Talk about fucking privilege - we make them feel guilty about our guilt that wells up when they talk about their discomfort. Here's a tip - the feelings of the disenfranchised are valid. They have a right to feel that way, even if you didn't intend something you said that was offensive to be offensive.

I have been trying to write this post for sometime now, but keep getting blocked by my anger about one of the most egregious points of contention; I have the privilege of writing this post without much concern for retribution. I don't really need to worry overmuch about how people who will have an impact on my career - my future might feel about me for saying this. I am not going to get labeled an angry brown/gay/trans person for saying this. Sure, some folks may argue with me about this, but in the end I sport beige skin and rather than a uterus, I have a cock - and I am engaged in a heteronormative relationship.

So it's all good, because I am in baby!!! I'm part of the club.

But if, for example, my totally brilliant and super hot girlfriend decided to write openly about this under her real name, it could well have an adverse affect on her future. Folks might decide that they really don't want to hire an angry brown women. At the very least, she will be told that her feelings aren't valid. Hell, that whole thread is chocked full of people who just can't believe that people who really don't like to be referred to as "the brown person" have valid feelings on the matter.

The message I am getting there is; "Your discussion about things that make you uncomfortable is making me uncomfortable - I sometimes say things like that and hearing how it makes you feel is making me feel vaguely uneasy and bad about myself. And of course, my feelings are far more valid than yours, so please just shut the fuck up and let me get on with feeling good about being a decent person."

Shut the fuck up, you whiny little asshole. Seriously. Shut the fuck up and consider why you feel uncomfortable. Hell, just think about that discomfort and consider that rather than shutting people down for making you feel that way, you can actually change your behavior and respect the feelings of others. Because the last time I checked, my GF can't change the color of her skin (and I would be really bummed if she could and did - she is totally hot). Isis can't change the experience she had growing up. That token queer friend of yours can't do anything to change how he internalized all the times he was separated out by his sexuality.

You however, can accept and embrace your discomfort, allow it to foster change in your life so you can quit being a fucking asshole and making others feel bad about things that they cannot change.

BDSM, Discomfort and Learning

Stephanie points to a post at Vagina Dentata that in turn points to a post at another blog I rather like (though rarely make it over to read), Spanked, not Silenced. I am not really going to discuss the post at SnS, which you should really go read anyways. Suffice to say that I am appalled and would like to encourage any of my readers who is a gamer to avoid EA games and to possibly write them and tell them why you think they fucking suck ass. I have done so, but as a total non-gamer, it is a rather pointless gesture...

What I would love to get into here, is Naomi's very interesting reaction to Pandora's post. You would do well to stop now, open her post in another tab and comeback after you read what she has to say about it.

Now I’ve read a couple of blogs by sexually submissive feminists (such as the very good Girl With a One Track Mind) and it’s something I’m really trying to get my head around. It seems counter-intuitive to me because my instinct is to encourage women to be powerful and assertive against a historical backdrop of oppression. But this blogger dresses up in chool uniforms and other costumes, and is spanked, dominated, tied-up and sexually submissive.

Assuming you have read her post, you will understand that she addresses her discomfort - a discomfort that I would argue is really quite healthy. I think we need to be uncomfortable when we are challenged. Not because it is fun, but because working through that discomfort is always a good teacher.

What I don't think that Naomi really addresses to a strong degree, is that women being powerful and assertive while also being sexually submissive are not mutually exclusive. First of all, submissive does not equal powerless. To the contrary, subs have very strict control over their situation (there are extremists who forgo safeties, but they are exceptional in BDSM and usually are men). They have an equal say in the rules before the fact and they have absolute control over the situation. I would even go as far as to say that subs actually have rather more control than your average sexual partner. The rules are generally very firmly established beforehand in a way that few casual couplings would even think about and in a way that few enough established couples ever really discuss. For most couples the preferences of their partners are learned as they go and often enough there are things that never really get established.

What is definitely unfeminist, is a feminist telling another woman how to have sex and what she can and can’t get her kicks out of. I want my feminism to include, for example, those women who have a gendered analysis of the world, they campaign for women’s rights, they challenge people’s everyday sexism and yet they're also down with consensual arse-slapping.

Sexuality is way too easy a target for some people. Growing up in U.S. culture makes it really easy for folks to have a visceral reaction to kink that doesn't happen to be their kink. The thing that a thoughtful person has to keep in mind, is that one's sexuality is not generally reflective of their identity outside the context of sex. I have all sorts of fetishes - though I am pretty vanilla for the most part. The thing is, my kink really isn't relevant outside the context of my sex life and sometimes discussions about sex. That someone might happen to like to be spanked, smacked around, disparaged horribly or otherwise abused, does not make them somehow less of a man or women. It just happens to be something that gets them off and probably also has some psychotherapeutic value.

If you are still having some difficulty wrapping your head around the idea that women who are sexually submissive, can also be strong feminist voices, consider the following questions. Would you ever even think about questioning the right of a women to call herself a feminist, simply because she is a heterosexual? Or because she prefers other women? How about because is just totally nuts over her sex toy collection? Can she be a feminist if she just really doesn't like sex at all, alone or with a partner? How about if she really likes sex in the great outdoors? I think that there are very few people indeed, who would argue that anything on that list could preclude a women from being a feminist and those who would are fringe loons. So why then would you consider it unfeminist for a women to have a sexual preference for being dominated?

The counter argument is: these women are perpetuating rape myths, they’re playing out their own internalised misogyny and they are making it harder for other women who are fighting against patriarchy. I simply do not think that this is true.

In this specific context, I cannot give a large enough and resounding enough call of BullShit! Not to Naomi's response, but to the expressed sentiment. What makes it harder for other women is paternalistic maternalistic busybodies, who want to tell everyone what to do and how to act. How exactly is this any different than any other misogynist telling women how they should be acting and where their place is? How is this any different than the extra scrutiny that still happens in many workplaces, because the work is being produced by a women? This is an example of becoming the object of contention, to fight the object of contention. "We'll never get anywhere, if we act like that" just puts us right back where we started.

Moreover, this is a major sticky issue with identity politics across the board. Blaming a member of the out group, for being a bad representative of that group. Or even worse, being a member of the outgroup and judging every single thing you do, in terms of the implications as a representative of that group. This is not to say there may not be contexts in which this position is valid. But it is absolutely absurd to act like any one person can be held responsible for how they make that group look. I'm a caucasian male. Is anybody going to seriously claim that when I was a rather extreme substance abuser, that my substance abuse reflected poorly on white dudes? Is anybody going to say with a straight face, that my rather extreme philandering when I was a tad younger makes beige guys look bad?

Oh wait, there are very similar pressures exerted on men too. There are people who would claim that I have reflected poorly on other men - maybe not because of the philandering, that is after all, an archetypal masculine ideal. And I am sure that the substance abuse wouldn't be a problem - at least if I would just shut the fuck up about my addiction issues already. But I have committed some cardinal sins of man. I have questioned and probed into social conceptions of gender. I have no problem whatever, telling my male friends that I love them, if the situation call for such intimate validations. I am not the least squicked out about homosexuality - I have even experimented myself. And I have been known to wear clothes that usually only women wear - like skirts and stuff.

There are several other flavors of folks who would judge men, in relation to my personal actions. Or who would just be horrified that I do things that reflect poorly on them. I think I will just wander to the other end of the spectrum. Guys who are horrified that I would be the least bit critical of women - especially self styled feminists. It is, after all, none of my fucking business. Men who are horrified by the idea that I regularly hold doors for women (and other men often enough) or that I quite often will open the passenger door for my lovely girlfriend. Men who whimper at the notion that I have on occasion, been a bit of a pugilist. How could I be such an insensitive and brutish bastard?

So fuck all, I guess that it actually does count if you're a white male. Just not quite the same way it does if you happen to be sporting a uterus. And not even close to the same way it does if you are the member of an out group, say non-beige, queer, a damned foreigner...

Naomi has a lot more to talk about, so if you haven't stopped over there, do it NOW!!!!

On Strip-searches in Schools: What About Boys? And other questions...

I think a great many of us are aware that SCOTUS ruled the other day, on a case involving the strip search of an eighth grade girl, by school faculty.  As Ed put it, it is indeed a partial victory for sanity, given that the majority opinion explicitly stated that such a search might have been reasonable had the faculty suspected that she had illicit drugs on her person, rather than the Advil they were looking for.  Several people have weighed in on the ruling, including Greg Laden, who's blog is so very often a starting point for very interesting conversations.  So I don't feel all that compelled to throw much into the legal discussion, except to say that I strongly feel faculty should not be performing strip searches - ever.  If there is a reasonable assumption that a child has contraband secreted in their underwear, the school should call the police in to deal with it - period.  If the police don't believe there is adequate reason to search, then the search should not happen.

But I do want to weigh in on a discussion that got started over on Greg's thread - namely the question of how outraged we might be if it were a boy who was strip searched instead.  I am not at all fond of the commenter who got that ball rolling - he and I have butted heads way to harshly for that.  But he raises a very important question and one that is indicative of far more than just the implications of strip searches. 

I am going to go into a great deal more detail on this, when I don't have three tests between now and Tuesday that I really need to study for.  However, I would like to refer you to my paper on masculine social gender constructs and help-seeking in men.  And I would also pose the question to you:

How would you feel about this situation if it had been a boy who was strip searched, instead of a girl?  Would you feel any different about it?  If so, why?  And please try to be objective in your thinking and honest with yourself.  Moreover, if you are comfortable doing so, drop your answers in comments or an email.  And on this post only, I am willing to accept completely anonymous comments, because I want to know what you really think.  I figure that some people might not want to be associated with their real feelings on this and I will respect that.

And while I am asking questions, I would also be interested to hear from some skeptics who were raised without religion. Stemming from an earlier discussion about cannabis, I am inclined to think that there is some tendency amongst those who never went in for particularly pervasive forms of magical thinking, to discount their skeptical nature when it comes to certain topics they hold dear - or dare I say, sacred. The lovely Juniper and I were discussing this the other night and it occurred to me that it might be a very good topic to write about. So if you were raised a free-thinker, or at least without Faith, these are for you.

Do you believe that you are pretty much immune to magical thinking - that you have some innate ability to think rationally about anything and everything? (discounting inherently arational notions, like love) Do you feel that you don't really have to be careful about how you approach topics that you may have strong personal feelings about? Do you ever find yourself questioning the evidence for something, not because you have seen more compelling evidence to the contrary, but because you don't like the conclusions implied by the evidence you discount?

Again, please be as objective and honest as possible. And again, feel free to email me answers or leave them anon. Any emails I receive about this will remain confidential.

Who Are You? I'm _____ and _____'s papa.

I have a facebook profile, like many people do. And like many other people (I imagine) I use it very sporadically. I don't like to really use it for much more than reconnecting with people I spent several years with, ambling from classroom to classroom. I like to occasionally post something there that identifies the adult me, but for the most part my profile just gets neglected.

I also do something I've noticed a lot of the people I spent those many formative years do. I don't have a profile picture that readily identifies what I look like today. Not because I'm particularly unattractive (though I am definitely not the pretty boy I was in school), but because there are two aspects of my adult identity that are not only much cuter than I, they are also far more important to me, than showing off my own mug.

I really love it when my old comrades in education tell me how damned cute my boys are and how amazed they are that I actually reproduced. Or at least that I reproduced outside the context of a broken condom type accident. Some would be blown away that I managed monogamy - not for months, but for years. I really love the fact that there are several others who ambled those halls with me, who were given similar probabilities for reproducing, who also proudly feature their children in their profile picture.

While my children haven't subsumed my entire identity, they have certainly added to it. And what they have added to who I am, is the most important part of who adult DuWayne is. And should my boys make the choices that lead that way, someday I expect that the addition of grandpapa will share a similarly important addition to the identity of DuWayne.

It's not infrequent, that I am identified as "Eldest's papa." Much rarer, because he's still very small, I am also identified as "Youngest's papa." And you know something? I am no less DuWayne for being identified otherwise. In fact, I would go as far as saying that I'm much more DuWayne for being identified as my children's papa. I am proud to wear the mantle of papa, proud to be my children's dad.

I am proud to have my children prominently featured in my facebook profile picture. Sure I'm there - those of my readers who have become my facebook friend can attest. But they can also attest that you can't really see my face, because I'm crawling after youngest, while eldest is riding on my back.

Yesterday I was directed by Drugmonkey, to a post on this topic, written by Sheril Kershenbaum. A certain Katie Roiphe (I am not linking to her article, because I suspect that CPP's comment is dead on) seems to think that posting pictures of one's children as one's profile picture is horribly antithetical to feminism. At least it is if you happen to have carried said child inside your uterus for nine months - she really doesn't mention us papas and dads who do the same thing. Presumably if we do it, it really doesn't hurt feminism. Katie seems to think that women posting pictures of their kids instead of themselves, implies that their identity is thus subsumed by archetypal female social gender constructs. She doesn't actually use those terms, but that is certainly the implication.

Drugmonkey maintains that more men should do this, to normalize this kind of behavior and make it more reasonable for everyone to do it without gender bias entering the equation. The concern he raises about this approach is valid - i.e. that it will just be a way for us men types to look more progressive, but I think it falls short of the depth of the problem...

While I am the last person to say that men shouldn't be a strong part of tearing down gender disparity, I believe that the approach described by DM is problematic, because it presupposes that only if more men do this, is it going to be reasonable for women to do it as well. The implication is rather antithetical to feminism.

There should be absolutely nothing wrong with us men types saying loud and clear - with our actions and if asked about it, with our words; it's ok for men to do things that fall under the purview of traditional femininity. Women shouldn't stop doing things that would seemingly promote gender bias - choosing not to do something because one is afraid of looking too feminine, is far more antithetical to feminism, than making the choices you make because you want to. Rather, men should take action and do things that we want to do - even if they're "feminine" things to do.

Deconstructing gender means not making choices based on gender. This is just as true when it means women focusing on careers, men staying home with the kids, as it is when it means women wearing make-up and men going hunting. Deciding not to do something because it would seemingly reinforce archetypal gender constructs, is no different than choosing to do something you would rather not do, simply to maintain archetypal gender constructs.

Basing any decision on gender constructs, is absolutely antithetical to deconstructing gender and ending gender disparity.

Women, Men and Gender (updated)

I am actually working on a much longer post about gender disparity, gender constructs and modern feminism, but that post is shaping up to be something akin to a research paper and will take a while. In the mean time there have been some interesting discussions going on besides the one in which I was recently engaged (as well as some discussion right here ). If you want to wander even further back, you can follow the links that I didn't - I wandered into the discussion over at Zuska's blog - the one about reading materials for proto-feminist men. This post in turn, linked to CPP's guest post at Dr. Isis' blog - the one that is a handy dandy guide for men commenting on feminist blogs.

To ensure clarity, I really like CPP . Through our interactions on the intertubes, I have come to consider him a friend and occasionally dispenser of good advice. I don't always agree with him, but we definitely share some pretty fundamental attitudes/personality traits. I have an immense respect for him, because not only does he write a great deal about things that are very relevant to the decisions I am making about the path my education and ultimately my career will take, he also goes off on excellent rants complete with expletives.

I make this clarification because as much as I adore CPP, this guide he wrote made me vomit in my mouth a little, a couple of times. This is not to say that everything in his guide is wrong - most of his points are quite reasonable. Ultimately, it's not so much that the one's that I found so distasteful are wrong that bothers me - it's actually the fact that his guide is pretty accurate when it comes to discussing gender issues on many forums that makes me queasy. It is also why I don't get involved in a lot of discussions on feminist forums.

And just to be absolutely clear, there are many discussions where it is absolutely inappropriate to go and push the ideas I am going to discuss here. For example, the Letters to our Daughters project is all about the women. The context is important, when it comes to discussing gender disparity...

(2) If you are using the words "men", "boys", "fathers", or "sons", you are almost certainly fucking up.

(3) If you are using the words "should" or "useful", you are almost certainly fucking up.

(15) Women will get along just fine without your input. If you are entertaining and funny, they might tolerate your presence.

The problem with this, is that gender disparity isn't just about the women. First and most critically, gender disparity is an issue that involves women and men. Men are part of the problem and by necessity, men are also an important part of the solution. And ignoring the negative impacts of gender disparity on men, ignores a significant part of the gender disparity puzzle. Both sexes fall victim to gender disparity - recognizing this doesn't mean that we ignore the impact of gender disparity on women - it doesn't signal yet another exertion of male privilege. What it does is foster the understanding that men have a personal stake in fighting gender disparity.

Men, boys, fathers and sons are part of the gender disparity problem. We are dealing with social gender constructs that have millenia of momentum driving them into the twenty-first century. Awareness of a huge part of the problem does not, unfortunately, lend itself to resolution. It is no simple task to wind your way through the manifestations of gender constructs that are inherently abusive, while maintaining a sense of gender identity - changing behaviors that have been reinforced since we were first capable of discerning rudimentary language.

Many feminists (though certainly not all) seem to feel that the only place for men in the discussion of gender disparity is as an active listener who will go forth and do what he's told, spreading the gender dogma that said feminist happens to be disseminating. We are just supposed to behave a certain way and pressure other men to behave that way as well. This works well enough when we're talking about men who actually care to listen - some of us even change our behavior, in an attempt to avoid perpetuating gender disparity. But we are a finite group of men (and women for that matter) and this is not a solution that lends itself to changing the society in which we live. To functionally change our society, we need to go much deeper. The heart of the problem is our social gender constructs and they aren't just going to go away because a few of us change superficial behaviors. We should, or more to the point, must root into the heart of archetypal social male gender constructs and work on changing the fundamentals, instead of focusing on the superficial.

When it comes to deconstructing male gender constructs, men are a critical part of the equation. There is only so much that women can contribute to fundamental changes in what it means to be a man and fostering that change across the strata of our society. That is not to say they have nothing to contribute - they do and should make those contributions. But changing the masculine is going to be largely the purview of men. Likewise, men also have something to contribute to the same discussion on the feminine side of the equation. What women do, who they are affect men, just as what men are and what they do affect women.

(Update)
To be totally clear, I am not suggesting that feminist blogs should all be or always be open forums for discussing solutions to gender disparity. I recognize that they are also often safe places for women to unload. Believe me, I recognize the importance of safe spaces and have absolutely no desire to see them over-run by assholes or derailed into something different...

We are all harmed by and responsible for perpetuating gender disparity. It's time to stop pretending that gender disparity is a women's issue that only women can stop. We are all, every single damned one of us, an inherent part of the solution...

Misogyny, Misandry and What Lies Beneath

DuWayne has been very, very bad. We're talking horribly evile and possibly even stoopid. Recently, I had the gall to use the term misogyny, while totally failing to counterpoint it with accusations of misandry after being attacked with an apparent attempt at misandrist rhetoric. Worse, it was then noted that in all my posts about gender, I have only mentioned misogyny once and never mention misandry. Apparently it didn't matter that the time I posted about misogyny, it was to chastise someone who made a flagrantly bullshit accusation of misogyny. No, what matters is that I have completely ignored misandry.

Evile I tell you, I am totally evile...

Or am I?

There is a reason that I haven't really discussed misogyny and misandry. While I definitely do not approve of either, I am far more interested in writing about the roots of misogyny and misandry. Rather than focusing on specific incidents of M&M, I want to focus on why I think these are persistent problems in society and the evidence that suggests that I'm correct in my perception of the underlying problems. And while there are plenty of folks discussing specific incidents of M or M, there aren't so many discussing how to deal with the root causes.

While I am not one to shy from illustrative anecdotes, I tend to be a rather abstract thinker. I am more interested in the why than I am in the specific whats. The why is important, because until we understand the why, we can't deal with the whats and ultimately we'll just be stuck in a reactionary mode that will never accomplish anything.

But I think there are some very important points to be made about M&M. Accusations of M or M tend to fly way too freely. Like many other sorts of accusations, the overuse of M&M has gotten to the point that both words, especially misogyny, have been rendered virtually meaningless. Like the post I wrote about misogyny - accusing someone who is criticizing someone else of misogyny, simply because the person being criticized happens to be a women is absolutely absurd on it's face. Likewise, taking the lying gameplaying insult at Greg's blog and assuming that it exemplifies misandry is absurd. It was a personal insult leveled at me and men who share some similarities with me - it was far from a generalized statement of man hating.

These should be very powerful words, yet like many powerful words they are rapidly becoming useless. When I was a child, bigot was a word of similar power and while it is still a relatively nasty word, one can't assume that a person being accused of bigotry has said or done really horrible things. It has gotten to the point where we just use too many damned power words in inappropriate places. We just destroy the potency that such words should have and render them useless when it is appropriate. And I say we because unfortunately, I am occasionally guilty of it as well.

What's really rather ironic, is that I didn't really think that the original post that fostered this discussion (warning: there are rather nasty trolls on this thread, do not read scroll down that thread if you have bloodpressure problems) was showing something that is inherently misogynistic. Rather, the very old childrens book pictured perpetuates gender roles that lend themselves to misogyny and destructive gender role conflicts. That book and the bullshit it perpetuated is definitely worthy of discussion and I plan on writing about it at some point. But even that is not worthy of accusations of misogyny. Rather, it is worthy of fostering a discussion of what lies beneath misogynistic attitudes and ultimately misandrist attitudes that were fostered in the backlash of the social gender constructs that book fosters.

But even beyond the discussion of M&M, it would really behoove us to quit acting like complete and utter fucking morons and use power words sparingly, so that they can retain their power.

Mood Disorders in Men: My New Paper

For the full document, including cover, abstract, references and appendix, click here. The following is the body of the paper.

Mood Disorders in Men 3

Mood Disorders in Men:

Gender Constructs and Diagnostic/Treatment Failures

There is no question that women are diagnosed with affective mood disorders at much higher rates than men. Granted the absolute rates of depression in women are a source of contention, but multiple studies show that women are diagnosed with major depression and dysthemia at rates double those of men. A great deal of study has gone into investigating the reasons for this, from biology to oppression and other social conditions, even certain personality factors. Yet the causes of these higher rates of depression and mood disorders have continued to elude researchers (Blehar & Oren, 1997, p.2). It is not unreasonable to assume, based on these findings, that there simply must be something unique to women, causing this disparity.

Very few psychologists and fewer researchers have considered the idea that rather than being a women's issue, this disparity might just be a men's issue. It would seem rather difficult to figure out just what's fueling this disparity, without looking at why men aren't diagnosed with depression at nearly the rates women are. It would be incredibly hard to find the causal relationship that explains higher rates of depression in women, if the base assumptions driving that research are mistaken in the first place. But given the disparate focus of most gender studies on women and women's issues, it's unsurprising that this seemingly obvious avenue of investigation is mostly lost in the mix.

The Gender Gap Fallacy

The sentiments expressed by Drs. Blehar and Oren are very consistent with the assumptions of mainstream, modern psychology and women's studies. In their 2003 paper, The Depression Gender Gap, Ronald Immerman and Wade Mackey actually claim that there is a consistent evolutionary history at work in these higher rates of depression in women. Because they found that the median ratio of depression between men and women, in several countries was close to 2:1, they claim this is just a part

Mood Disorders in Men 4

of what it means to be human. Yet when we look at their own table, we see that while the figures do come to that median, the ratio is far from consistent.

Figure 1. Site of survey and female to male ratio of prevalence of depression across nations and communities. Note that three communities listed are expatriate communities in the UK. Note. From Immerman, R. S., & Mackey, W. C. (2003, February). The depression gender gap: a view through a biocultural filter. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 129(1), 5-35. Retrieved March 8^th, 2009 from the Michigan E-Library, http://mel.org/

Avoiding the obvious logical fallacies that drive the entire notion of evolutionary psychology that Immerman and Mackey dive into, there remains the important question of how men fit into this equation. Because the underlying assumption that women experience depression at such significantly higher rates than men, is called into question by Berger, Levant, McMillan, Kelleher and Sellers (2005), finding that “ men who score higher on measures of gender role conflict and traditional masculinity

Mood Disorders in Men 5

ideology tend to have more negative attitudes toward psychological help seeking.” This is probably due the higher rates of alexythima (difficulty experiencing, thinking about and expressing emotions) in men with high rates of gender role conflict (A. R. Fischer & Good, 1997). When the population of comparison, in this case men, are unlikely to seek help for or even recognize that they have a problem, they are also unlikely to be diagnosed with affective mood disorders. While these papers don't indicate rates of depression in men, they certainly call into question the disparity in the rates of depression between women and men.

The Problem of Help Seeking and Diagnosis

More disturbing than the tangential impact these papers have on the question of gender disparity and mood disorders, are the implications for men and help seeking. The evidence indicates that there is a substantial segment of the population that has serious problems even recognizing they might have psychological problems, much less seeking help. The problem is further complicated by generalized diagnostic criteria which are predicated on the understanding that the patient can identify and describe their various emotional states. Without compensating for undiagnosed alexythima, or gender conflict induced emotional disassociation, patients with potentially serious mood disorders will inevitably be misdiagnosed, undiagnosed or the severity of the diagnosis may be seriously understated.

Mariola Magovcevic and Michael E. Addis , of Clark University have taken the initial steps in the development of a masculine depressive index (appendix) to help diagnose depression in men who tend to adhere closely to masculine norms (2008). The methodology is a significant improvement over that of previous studies because the subjects were screened in for a recent (last three months) depressogenic events, but the authors are also very clear about the limitations of this study. There is a great deal more work to be done to develop a coherent and comprehensive diagnostic criteria for depression in men and this study didn't look at any other affective mood disorders.

Mood Disorders in Men 6

The obvious isn't always so obvious and therein lies a great deal of trouble when it comes to dealing with the problems of encouraging help seeking, improving diagnostic criteria and treatment protocols – this is very new territory. While traditionally the ratio of depression from men to women has been assumed to be about 2:1, the ratio of bipolar diagnosis, for example, has been fairly even ( Blehar & Oren, 1997, p.2). The implications of higher rates of unipolar depression in men than previously thought, would imply that the rates of bipolar disorder are also higher than previously thought. Yet none of the articles cited in this paper and few of the articles read while preparing to write this paper discuss the possibility of higher rates of any affective disorders besides depression.

The Gender Gap in Gender Studies

Though there have been several solid studies that have indicated these higher rates of depression in men, there has been very little popular discussion of the findings. The assumption that women experience significantly higher rates of depression than men is still a fundamental premise of most women's studies programs. Not because the studies indicating otherwise are flawed, or because they are being willfully ignored. Rather, they just haven't been noticed. This really shouldn't come as any surprise to those involved in gender studies, especially men's studies. While virtually every college with a psychology department has a women's studies program, there are very few that have a specific men's studies program and there are no graduate men's studies programs in the U.S. An exhaustive web search for men's studies texts, yields less than a dozen academic journals. In contrast, a cursory web search turns up more than fifty core women's studies journals.

The most important implication of this evidence is the critical need for more focus on men's studies for the sake of the mental health of a large segment of society. But there is a secondary implication here. The findings discussed here have significant relevance to the study of depression in women. First, it provides evidence that the disparity in diagnosis is considerably different than

Mood Disorders in Men 7

traditionally considered. Second, this research points to the importance of gender specific diagnostic and treatment models for depression and other affective mood disorders. It also makes a reasonable argument for investigating whether gender specific approaches might be appropriate for other neurological issues.

Men's Studies and Society

There is a broader social implication to the studies discussed here. Archetypal male gender constructs and gender role conflicts are just as abusive to men, as they often are to women. They foster emotional repression, health care problems, obsession with achievement and power, problems with sexual and affectionate behaviors, and homophobia. GRCs often create an outright fear of anything that could be mistaken as feminine in nature ( Magovcevic & Addis, 2008, p118; Blazina, Settle & Eddins, 2008, p70). Aside from the impact of archetypal male gender constructs and GRCs on the mental health and wellbeing of some men, there is also the impact on the rest of society to consider.

Yet while there are a great number of women studying female gender constructs and developing methods for women to transcend archetypal female gender constructs, very few men are studying masculine gender constructs. There are unfortunately, more women involved in men's studies than there are men. This is not to speak poorly of the women who are working in the fields of men's studies or to disparage their work. It ultimately speaks poorly of men for not stepping up and dealing with problems of masculinity and men.

The same gender conflicts that drive many men to emotional disassociation are probably largely responsible for this gender gap in men's studies. It is important to recognize that the underlying archetypal male gender constructs are a continuum, not a dichotomy (Tremblay & L'Heureux, 2005, p56). Even though most men avoid the extremes of GRCs, most men still fall somewhere along that spectrum and experience to some degree many of the problems discussed above. This means that while

Mood Disorders in Men 8

the manifestation may not be as extreme as those discussed above, they are often prohibitive nonetheless.

Deconstructing Gender

Women's studies are very important and the focus of gender studies on women's studies is understandable – most of the people involved in gender studies are women. But it is important to recognize that the lack of focus on men's studies affects women and even impacts feminine gender constructs and the socialization of women. The ramifications of masculine gender constructs have a profound affect on everyone, as do gender constructs across the spectrum. From the health and mental wellbeing of men, to the impact of GRCs and even the average masculine norms on society as a whole. The time has long since passed for an increased focus on male gender constructs that goes beyond looking at whats wrong and focuses on how to make it right.

Damned Misogynist Bastards!!!

Or not so much...

I think it's pretty obvious to anyone who reads my blog or catches my comments here and there, that I am a pretty big fan of Dr. Isis. I like her blog for a number of reasons, first and foremost being: I'm a dad. I like the cutesy stories about rocking smart kids being, well, cute. I also like stories about parents being, well, good parents who are proud of their children.

I also really like her blog, because she discusses the balance between being a mother and the domestic chores that entails, and her career - a career that is pretty demanding. I can relate to a lot of what she discusses because I'm a single dad who is balancing a demanding new schedule of studying, with the domestic demands of being a parent - the parent to my kids, when I have them.

And I really like her blog because it is often a forum for discussing social gender roles. A topic that is rather near to my heart.

When I wrote this post, little more than a month ago, I failed to really explain why this was such a big deal to me. I'm a born and raised midwestern boy. In the midwest, boys just don't step out of the archetypal male gender constructs. It's not as bad now, but when I first put on a skirt in the mid-nineties, it was pretty radical. Especially given that I'm not into playing with other boys. So when this happened to me and I liked it so much, it was really kind of confusing - especially given that I had met my first transgendered person not all that long before it happened. As stupid as this might sound, it just hadn't occurred to me that a guy could wear "women's" clothing and still be a guy.

I have some very strong opinions about gender and gender constructs. I use the same language to discuss these issues as a lot of feminists use. In part because I am a feminist and in part, because this language (in modern usage) has largely developed in women's and subsequently gender studies programs. I pretty firmly believe that a lot of these last vestiges of actual misogyny in our society are a result of the lack of focus on men's studies. I really want to see that change, so I spend a lot of my time talking about it. And this is not just online, I talk about it here in the outside world too. I wear skirts on occasion, because of the conversation doing so fosters (and because I love skirts and look pretty hot in them).

But often times, when I start using the language appropriate to gender discussions, I turn a fair number of people off. And not because they're misogynists or even disagree with anything I have to say. They are turned off because they have had shitty experiences with people who use that same sort of language, who also seem to believe that any and every criticism of them is misogyny.

I am all for calling misogyny when I see it. I am even for calling people on making unintended misogynistic statements. Such as:

"Damn, women are just stupid." or "Here, let me change that tire for you - I'm sure you'd rather not get dirty."

The first is pretty blatant misogyny. The second is misogyny by implication, the intention is not inherently misogynistic, but the effect and implication most certainly is. And for the former, I am all about letting loose my inner asshole. For the latter, I would be inclined to politely take them to the side and have a little talk. But this:

I don't know. There seems to be a limited overlap between what she writes about and my interests and her general tone rubs me the wrong way (reminds me of too many people I've known), but I'm willing to give it another shot. A few suggested starter posts?

or this:

I've had a similar response to it. I found it grating, even though I wanted to like it.

or even this:

Nice to know I'm not completely alone here.
her blog came across to me as:
"I was washing [the shit off my baby's] beautiful little bottom and he got a little erection, then he did a wee all down my front, and I thought to myself 'This is it, this is what life is all about'."
Some of us have other priorities.

Are not misogyny at all. They are legitimate criticisms that explain why those individuals didn't care for Isis' blog. Accusing the people who have those opinions of misogyny, is not any different than religionists who refuse to discuss any criticism of their faith, because that's their faith and off limits. The fact that there are people out there who criticize me and the things that I happen to talk about, does not make them man hating misandrists. It just means they don't like what I have to say about something. OTOH, if the criticism of me was basically, "DuWayne's friggin stoopid because he has a penis instead of a uterus!" that would qualify as misandry.

The problem that I have with this off the cuff, bullshit use of the word misogynist is twofold. Most importantly, it makes the word entirely meaningless. When anything and everything that criticizes any feminist is magically considered misogyny, effectively calling out actual misogyny becomes pretty much impossible. The other problem I have with it, is that it associates me to that kind of bullshit, when I am using the language of gender issues. I have shit to do, trying to make my community a better place, an easier place for people to live and be, regardless of gender or where they fit in gender constructs. Assholes who cry misogyny at the drop of the mildest critique, make that much harder for me to do.

Dammit!!!

So this is my topic proposal as it stands, sans preliminary bibliography. Unfortunately, I think that JLK is spot on about narrowing the focus even more. I have to keep reminding myself that I should stick well inside the parameters of the assignment. I have a lot of other things to deal with right now, making a huge production of this paper is really just a distraction.

Male Depression and the problem of feeling. Archetypal male social gender constructs are abusive to men and by extension, society as a whole. They create in men a certain inability to adequately recognize and express their feelings, most notably depression. This fosters a psychological environment that makes it difficult to diagnose and treat depression and other mental problems. It also fosters an environment in which men are less capable of adequately expressing their feelings in interpersonal relationships, which can feed back into feelings of depression and isolation.

Does biology dictate archetypal social gender constructs, or are they entirely social constructs by nature? / What is biology's role in said gender constructs?
Do/How do the archetypal male social gender constructs effect the ability of men to recognize and functionally deal with depression and other feelings?
Assuming that there is some biological contribution involved, how much of the problem of men and depression/feelings is biological imperative, as apposed to social imperative? / Can this even be discerned?
Can deconstructing/reconstructing male social gender constructs foster positive changes that will help solve the problems of depression and feeling?

The eighty-eight years since women achieved the right to vote in the United States have seen a great deal of progress in the realm of women's rights and equality. The forty-five years since Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique was published have seen an explosion of women's studies that has led directly to the development of non-archetypal female gender constructs. These periods have also given rise to significant changes in social views of gender in relation to sex, sexuality and sexual orientation. It has opened the doors of acceptance of people who don't fit into archetypal gender or sexual constructs. The overall effect of these movements has been the creation of an environment that is far more equitable to women, transgendered people and non-heterosexuals. Yet for all of this progress, there still persists an underlying social misogyny.

In all of this progress, there has been a distinct lack of progress or focus on a large segment of society: heterosexual men. While heterosexual men have been told that they need to accept the new gender constructs of others, no significant changes have been made to archetypal male gender constructs. Yet the very nature of archetypal male gender constructs are in many ways, fundamentally at odds with the changing face of gender in society.

I have chosen depression and the problem of feeling as a focus for this paper, because I believe that this is the heart of the failure of archetypal male gender constructs. While this topic only tangentially relates to the underlying conflict of archetypal male gender constructs and post-modern society, I believe that it is the most important place to begin a fundamental reworking of hetero male gender constructs. The idea that men are autonomous of their emotions is the very core of the archetypal masculine paradigm. It is also the most abusive aspect of that paradigm, both to society and the men who attempt to exist within that ideal.

The fallacy of emotional autonomy leads men to suppress feelings that are natural and uncontrollable. People cannot help what they feel, they can only control their expression of those feelings or suppress their experience of those feelings. Males are taught at a very early age to bury their experience of feelings and emotions, until they come to no longer recognize any feelings or emotions excepting the very extremes. This often lends itself to an escalation of feelings that persist until they either become extreme enough to be noticed, or they cause a psychotic break. At best, this suppression causes isolation and alienation, an environment in which men have a difficult time honestly expressing their feelings for the loved ones most close to them.

Depression is a particularly solid focus. There is more research to draw conclusions from and there is a solid body of work on depression as a whole, from which to draw comparisons. While it was previously thought that women have a significantly higher incidence of depression than men, research is finding that men experience and express depression differently, not necessarily less frequently.

Men Are Like Onions...

...There are layers.

So I am working diligently on my topic proposal for my next paper. The general topic is gender issues and men's studies. The specific topic is working out to be a sight more complicated. I have between six and twelve pages, double spaced. Currently, my thesis statement is looking a little daunting for the page restrictions. And I don't think that going to nine or ten point font is going to help any. Not to mention it might get me in trouble - wasn't a problem for my intro paper, but my instructor is wise to my tricks...

Male Depression and the problem of feeling. Archetypal male social gender constructs are abusive to men. They create in men a certain inability to adequately recognize and express their feelings, most notably depression. Further, the results of these social gender constructs are directly responsible for the lingering endemic problem of largely unconscious misogyny.

And the worse part? I have to fit a graph or table in this somewhere. Thankfully, I can probably get away with making that small. But I think I'm probably going to have to amend my thesis statement to narrow the focus. The thing that sucks, is that the part I reasonably should trim, is the whole reason I got interested in writing this damned paper in the first place. And it leaves me with little to persuade anyone of - because I don't think the notion that male social gender constructs are abusive to men is all that controversial - least ways I should hope it isn't.

Deconstructing Social Gender Constructs.....

*Or, as was pointed out to me, I was just being oversensitive due to issues that are entirely unrelated to the thread mentioned below. Not the time-out needed part - the anti-feminist accusations I was reading into some of the comments, that do not in fact exist. Because I do believe in owning my stupidity, I am not going to remove that bit. The rest of the post is valid and topical to ongoing discussions.

See the inspiration for this post here - be warned, this link is to scientists and other very bright people acting like bloody obnoxious little children who need a time-out. Included in the attached thread are people who are attacking the totally hot Dr. Isis, for actually being a shoe-loving domestic and laboratory goddess. This is, supposedly, anti-feminist

Give me a break.

See this post (if you haven't) and come back - this current discussion will still be here.

We are who we are and there is nothing wrong with that. It is not in any way counterintuitive to actually fall into certain archetypal social gender stereotypes, while trying at the same time, to deconstruct those stereotypes as actual social gender constructs. Indeed, what is counterintuitive is denying ourselves and who we are, in the name of said deconstructions. Who the hell is going to want to actually accept such deconstructions if it means pretending to be something or someone we're not?

Deconstructing archetypal social gender constructs is all about the meaning we put into who we are and what we do. My love for hunting, power tools and such doesn't define my gender, any more than my love of skirts and tendency to be very sensitive to feelings, mine and others, defines my gender. Deconstructing social gender constructs does not mean we need to defy those constructs, it means we need to deny their ability to define gender. It really is that simple.

Social Gender Roles, Feminism and Men

To develop a solid focus for my next paper, I am reading Terrance Real's book I Don't Want to Talk About it. I will definitely delve into the book itself in a later post, probably after I finish the actual paper. For the moment though, I want to delve into where exactly I'm trying to go with this paper - which will be eight to twelve pages in APA format. On page twenty-three he delves into the heart of where I am going.

For decades, feminist researchers and scholars have detailed the degree of coercion brought to bear against girls' full development, and the sometimes devastating effects of the loss of their most complete, authentic selves. It is time to understand the reciprocal process as it occurs in the lives of boys and men.

I will take this a bit further and assert that this study that Terrence is calling for is as important to women's studies and modern feminism, as it is to men. It is not nearly enough for feminists to tell us what we are doing wrong, how we are oppressing women. It must be understood that in any discussion of gender issues, all sides of the equation need to be addressed. The solutions to many of the issues facing women and modern feminism, are inexorably tied to solving the problems of male gender constructs.

Dr. Isis recently posted the letter of a male reader here. And this is an important discussion. While I take serious issue with the writer's use of the phrase "reverse discrimination," this is a semantic issue - important to be sure, but not fatal to his underlying point. The issue of discrimination against men based on social gender constructs, is just another facet of the issue of discrimination against women based on the same social gender constructs. The male gender doesn't exist in a vacuum, separate from the female gender - the social constructs are intertwined, they interact with and impact each other in very complex ways. Simplistic dichotomies cannot and never will be able to address the fundamental problems inherent to both male and female social gender constructs as they exist in society today.

On all fronts changes are being made and progress is being made, but that progress is dramatically stunted by the fact that nearly all of the focus is on studying women and female gender constructs. There are probably no more than a handful of colleges in the United States, or anywhere in the western world, that do not have a women's studies program. In contrast, there are probably no more than a handful of colleges that have men's studies programs. While there are general gender studies programs, those are generally focused on women's studies, transgender studies and queer theory, with little emphasis placed on men's studies.

I am very glad that JLK recommended Terrence's book. I am also most grateful to her for fostering the gender discussions. It has definitely made for some interesting lines of thought. I Don't Want to Talk About It is an intense read thus far. Terrence is a very compelling wordsmith, on top of having truly awesome insight into the issues of male depression and the underlying gender constructs that allow it to remain largely hidden, even from the men who suffer it.

So on top of some repair work with my first addiction paper, I now need to work out a basic thesis and set of research questions for my next paper. I actually have a pretty solid preliminary bibliography already, I just need to develop the actual topic proposal. If I can, I want to get finished with the abstract and outline during this week of spring break. We'll see what happens...

Male Gender: Ripping People Out of Their Comfort Zones

Addendum; Focusing on the memories of this experience was a rather intense experience and things became rather convoluted at the end. Writing at two in the morning probably contributed. So I have cleaned up the end of the post.

Ok. I just couldn't really fit this into a comment. JLK has been writing a series on gender, that will encompass several parts. She's on men, chapter three now and my response to this in particular, is a very good introduction to how DuWayne became interested in gender issues. The whole sub-series on men (part one) has been fantastic and fostered some really interesting discussions. I feel kind of bad dragging my butt back here, but I realized that one, I had more than can reasonably be shoved into a comment on someone else's blog and two, it really does describe my first awareness of gender, outside the context of physiology.

Be forewarned, this post is a very frank discussion of sexuality and contains rather graphic descriptives.

But manhood is not something that, once reached, is permanent. It can be taken away at any point - through the loss of a job or income, lack of a significant other (or one who leaves), loss of hair, sexual impotence or infertility, expressing emotion in public. and myriad other things. A "real man" is always in control of himself, his family, and his emotions. A "real man" doesn't have those problems.

More...The first time I wore a skirt, I was bumming about, having just come back into town after a year on the road. I was hanging out with a bi-women, who was definitely inclined towards the "prefers girls" end of the spectrum. Having since met the other three men she had ever been with at that point since, I was struck by the fact that we were all rather pretty boys. So I'm hanging out with this women, Kaylee (she was "less than" thirty, I was nineteen) about thirty hours after I wandered into town and she was washing all my clothes (I had been in the woods for a week or so before I took four days to hitch home - basically on a whim). We were hanging out in her living room naked, after she had spent a good forty minutes scrubbing off the road grime in the shower. She lived very close to the coffee shop and we were both really in the mood for a coffee, but of course my clothes were all in the laundry. She got this almost menacing grin on her face and said she could probably find something for me to put on (keeping in mind I was a sight bigger than she). She ran upstairs for a few minutes and came back down with clothes on, carrying a fucking hippie shirt and a bright yellow, long and light hippie skirt - also wearing a massive, shit-eating grin.

I shrugged, put it on and was forever hooked. It was the most comfortable thing I had ever worn. And when we strutted into the coffee shop, there wasn't a single person in the place that failed to look. At least half the people there knew me and many of them weren't even subtle about their disbelief (more than the skirt, most of them hadn't seen me in over a year). To make matters more shocking, one of my closest friends ran up and gave me a hug, lifting me off the ground in the process. Then, a spur of the moment thing, he kissed me full on the lips - even slipped some tongue. We all sat down, Kaylee sitting close and doing naughty things under the table, when she whispered in my ear that I was causing her to get a lot of dirty looks from some of the women around us. Long story short, when we headed back to her place, a couple of girls went with us, along with my rather voraciously welcoming friend Chris. Fun was had by all.

Now seeing a guy in a skirt walk into a coffee shop with a hot woman and get kissed by a guy friend, was fairly shocking in Kalamazoo, MI, midwest U.S. in 1995 - don't get me wrong. But to explain the extreme of that shock to many who witnessed it, I have to backtrack by several years.

I was such a boy growing up.

I loved playing with toy guns, watching westerns, reading adventure novels - I was bent on the idea of becoming a bounty hunter/private detective until I was eight. With severe ADHD, I had the impulse control of shark in bloody water. I was a boys boy. Because of the attention of a couple of awesome men in my life, I learned to become intimate with nature. I learned about the plants and bugs that would keep me alive if necessary. I also learned to read tracks. I managed my first kill at eleven, taking a 'coon out of a tree with my fucking BB gun, dogs finishing it for me. I carried a buck knife with me everywhere, when I wasn't in school (sometimes when I was). And as most of my friends were the "losers," because they made the most loyal friends, I was extremely introverted and utterly clueless to the notion I was pretty hot - I had to kick some ass on occasion. I did not like people picking on my friends.

I bought my first shotgun when I was twelve, after making top score in marksmanship and weapon safety in the hunter's safety course. I bagged my first buck that winter. After tracking it for an hour and slitting it's throat with my knife - tears in my eyes, I decided to never concern myself with the fucking trophy head again. I never had to track a deer I shot again - if I couldn't get a clean kill, I didn't shoot.

And then there was sex. After I became dejected by the intense hypocrisy of my church, other concerns really got me.

Thinking there was something wrong with me, when all the guys were bragging about sexing their gals, I started sexing some of their gals - though mostly girls I met at the college library, researching for debate (that was my "sport," along with solo and ensemble). I developed a reputation as the goto guy for first timers. (girls who really didn't like me, would recommend me to their virgin friends - like me or not, I was rather fond of them:) I was decidedly not into relationships (probably why some of the girls really didn't like me), preferring to stay open and free to play with a variety of girls. And while I was generally pretty low key about my adventures, the girls weren't always - excepting the ones who had BF's.

So now you have some grasp of why DuWayne walking into the coffee shop wearing a skirt and being kissed by a boy was extra-especially shocking. I didn't exactly have a reputation for being effeminate. Rather the opposite, according to some old school friend/acquaintances, for some I was one of the measures they used for their own masculinity - an ideal as it were. And most of my friends knew that I had been gone for over a year, hitchhiking around the U.S.

What the Fuck!?!

About a month to six weeks after the infamous yellow skirt, kissing boy incident (I have friends who still bring it up) I was on a whole lot of acid, having a more sensual, than sexual encounter with a few friends, when it suddenly clicked. I was a fucking outlaw. I had broken sacred, fundamental rules of masculinity and worse, social labeling.

I won't lie and say that I didn't derive a great deal of pleasure from the shock value. I most certainly did. I was (and in some ways am) a radical. But for the most part I liked wearing these skirts because they were really comfortable. Also, I had discovered that if the person you're with is also wearing a skirt and no unders, you can easily get away with public sex, as long as no one gets too loud. I hadn't begun to consider the social implications of a man's man like myself breaking the conventions I was breaking. Mostly I just figured it kind of fucked with the older folks (most anyone over thirty) and close minded neanderthals.

Suddenly, as I was laying there, my head against the breasts of one friend, my fingers tracing the contours of another friend's torso, it blasted me like trainwreck (this was not an uncommon occurrence when I was on lots of LSD). I am a man. Yet I was doing things that men just don't do. And I wasn't being sneaky about it, hiding in my bedroom (not that I had a bedroom, or a home per say). I wasn't ashamed and really and truly didn't give a fuck what anyone else thought about it. My masculinity wasn't defined by the clothes I wore, my compassion and empathy or my exceedingly rare, but cold rage and even more rarely expressed ability for righteous, unflinching violence. My sexuality wasn't defined by the pleasure I took from the bodies of many girls and a few women, nor was it defined by my complete comfort with the notion of sucking the cock of another boy who might be a part of a particular sexual encounter.

My manhood was not defined by my cock and lack of uterus, nor by any social conditioning.

My manhood is simply - me. My sexuality is mine and mine alone.

This experience set the foundation for the first interaction I had with a male born women. While it was certainly a new concept for me, it was easy to extrapolate my own experience with gender identity onto that of someone else.