Happy Birthday Evan!

Today was Evan's fifth birthday. Now I have a five year old. It sounds crazy to say it, but it's true. He's going to be going to kindergarten this year -- I can't say that without feeling both immense pride and trepidation.

Notice the strategy of grouping the candles. He certainly understands how to stack the odds in his favor.

This is the very first time he has ever put together a Lego set by himself. I had to leave the room because I just couldn't keep my big mouth from offering advice that he simply didn't need. Fortunately, Caren was there with the camera to document the process. He is very proud of this car. Also, you can't see it in these pictures, but he let his sister help open his presents.

It's the Red Ranger, need I say more? Yes? He's the Red Ranger from Power Rangers: Mystic Forces, because he has a cape. If he didn't have a cape, he'd be the Red Ranger from Power Rangers: Space Police Division. Yes, I know these things now*.

Happy birthday, Evan. I love you.

____________
* Actually, I thought it was "Special Police Division," but Caren has corrected me. Should I be ashamed or relieved?

With friends like these, who needs enemas?

Exhibit A. This Reuters article about a group of pedophiles in the Netherlands who are forming their own political party. I wish I had the energy to be outraged, but frankly I'm having trouble getting worked up over it. I'm quite disgusted with, you know, pedophiles. But insofar as a group of people I strongly disagree with forming their own political party goes, I'm finding it hard to care much when we can be pretty darn sure their group is going to be too small to make any significant difference. I mean, seriously, let's see where they get running on a platform of pedophilia. If anything, I would expect the outrage that will inevitably ensue to hurt the pedophiles.

So what does make me mad? Enter...

Exhibit B. This quote from the same article:

The Netherlands, which already has liberal policies on soft drugs, prostitution and gay marriage, was shocked by the plan.

Pardon me while I do a double take. Since when have liberals ever been supporters of sexual assault? In what world does gay marriage have anything to do with legalized prostitution?

Let's be clear. This isn't an opinion piece. This article is presented as an though it were an informative piece about an odd political party in the Netherlands. Unwary readers will be under the impression that it is unbiased. But make no mistake, this is a conservative piece. "Soft on drugs," indeed. You make it sound like that's a bad thing.

Where's the so-called liberal media when we need it?

Men in feminism: A followup

Punkass Marc disagrees with my last post that takes the position that men can claim the title of feminist. He lists several reasons. First, he thinks that men, accustomed to male privilege as we are, have such a strong desire to dominate any debate we enter that it is only natural for us to insist on being included in every group, including feminists. Second, he feels that by claiming full membership status, we are also implicitly claiming the right to serve in a leadership position in the feminist movement. Marc thinks it would be better if we called ourselves "pro-feminists," or perhaps "feminist supporters," so that we can indicate our support for the movement without also implying that we are qualified to lead it.

Regarding Marc's first point, I think it's true that men are used to dominating the debates we enter*. Insofar as we should be aware of it, I agree with him. No good can come from shutting out valuable participants in any conversation, and that goes double when it comes to men dominating a discussion about feminism -- a movement in which men's participation simply isn't as important as women's. However, I disagree that a man calling himself a feminist is automatically dominating the debate or making feminism about men. Calling oneself a feminist is dominating the debate, but calling oneself a "pro-feminist" isn't? Frankly, I don't see the difference. When it comes to turning a discussion about feminism into a discussion about ourselves, the labels we choose for ourselves and each other aren't nearly as important as how we behave when actually engaging in discussion or debate. As a precautionary note, Marc's point is well taken. But as a reason not to call oneself a feminist, I think it falls flat.

Marc's second problem with men calling themselves feminists is that by claiming the label, we would be claiming full status as feminists, and thus implicitly claiming the right to lead the movement. This strikes me as an odd argument. By registering in the Democratic party, do I thereby implicitly claim the right to lead it, too? I would say no, but even if your answer is yes, what does that really mean? I can't become a leader of the Democratic Party without a whole lot of other Democrats deciding that it seems like a good idea to follow me. Likewise, any man who is under the mistaken impression that he is going to take over the feminist movement by fiat is in for a rude awakening. Leaders derive their power to lead from the people they are leading. In my experience, clueless men who attempt to explain to feminists how feminism should work are quickly set straight. The idea that any man would be able to assume a leadership role that he hasn't earned is not only insulting to the autonomy of feminists, it also isn't borne out by experience.

Both of these arguments strike me as being somewhat anti-feminist. They both share the hidden premise that feminists just won't know how to handle men who are bold enough to call themselves feminists.

In addition, I'm not especially fond of the terms Marc puts forward as alternatives. The first time I heard someone call himself a "pro-feminist," what I heard was "I myself do not agree with the tenants of feminism enough to claim the label, but I support the gist of what they're trying to do." I suspect that this is how most people unfamiliar with the inner workings of the feminist movement would interpret the term, too. The only way most people will ever know that a "pro-feminist" or "feminist supporter" is the same thing as a feminist, only male, is if they end up in the movement. But as I said in my first post, what you call yourself doesn't matter to me nearly as much as how your words and actions support feminism.

On that score, from the little I know about Marc, he strikes me as a good ally.

* I am well aware of the irony of seeing two feminist/pro-feminist men trade trackbacks about what constitutes dominating the feminist debate.

Men in feminism

I've had the seeds for this post in my head for a long time now. It wasn't until The Nut suggested I write about it that I actually got serious about it. The topic is Men in Feminism, and you'd think that as a man who identifies as a feminist, this would be an easy thing to write about. Unfortunately, that isn't the case. Partly that's because any time a man writes about such feminist topics as the very definition of feminism, well, it's a narrow tightrope to walk. But it's also because the very act of addressing this topic seems to give voice to the idea that there is some question as to what men's role in feminism should be, and that seems a little ridiculous to me.

So let's get that out of the way up front. Do men have a role in feminism? Absolutely. Can men be feminists? I think so, and I consider myself to be one. Whether you agree with the former depends on what you believe the goals of feminism are. Whether you agree with the latter depends on what definition of feminism you are working with.

As for myself, I define feminism as a subset of humanism. Among other things, humanists believe that pursuit of happiness, freedom, and progress (including cultural, economic, and ethical progress) is the highest goal of all people. Feminism is the ongoing struggle against sexism in our culture. As a humanist, I believe it is my obligation and responsibility to also consider myself a feminist. Men's role in feminism, then, is largely the same as women's: we must identify sexism wherever we see it, and do whatever we can to eliminate it.

Ultimately, regardless of whether you are a man or woman, whether you identify yourself as a feminist is a lot less important to me than whether your words and actions support the goals of feminism, by which I mean helping women overcome the oppression of sexism. That's why Chris Clarke's statement that he is not a feminist doesn't bother me as much as it might. Before he disavows the label, he explains in detail exactly where he stands on various issues relating to sexism. As far as I can tell, if Chris were a woman, he would consider himself a feminist. But to him, feminism is a liberation movement. Because he's a man, he explains, that label isn't his to claim. I'm happy to accept Chris's support for the cause.

But I have to admit, although Chris's statement doesn't bother me as much as it could, it does bother me. It reminds me common disclaimer used to start so many sentences, "I'm not a feminist, but..." In fact, most of his essay could easily be rewritten to use that form. Chris explains his reasons for it, and I have no reason to doubt that he is sincere. And yet, I can't help but think of the different context in which I usually hear that phrase. Most of the time when a person starts a sentence with such a disclaimer, they go on to express a feminist idea. So why is the disclaimer necessary? Because "feminism" is seen as a dirty word by many in our society, including both men and women.

It's an odd thing, that. Feminism has been so successful that most people wouldn't dare to be caught being overtly and unapologetically sexist. It is only because it is so important to express feminist ideals that the "I'm not a feminist but" disclaimer is so common. And yet, its existence also reveals that it is widely unpopular to be labeled as a feminist. The very fact that the phrase is so common says a lot about how far we have to go in fighting sexism. It's one thing to be seen as overtly sexist, but it's another thing entirely to be seen as an active supporter of women's rights. When otherwise stellar supporters of feminism like Chris decline to call themselves feminists, I fear it only gives one more excuse to the men who routinely make it clear that they certainly don't wish to be known as supporters of feminism.

Of course, it's not like Chris just made up this idea that men can't be feminists. Unfortunately, there are plenty of feminist women around who agree. I'm probably lucky to have had my first contact with real feminists be Amanda, Bitch Ph.D., and Lauren when she was blogging at Feministe. These feminist bloggers didn't have any problem with Ampersand calling himself a feminist, which helped me realize that at least some feminists have no problem including men in their ranks. As to the ones that do, I'm perfectly comfortable agreeing to disagree. Still, when it's all said and done, it seems to me that by claiming men can't be feminists, the only thing that is accomplished is to waste a lot of energy arguing semantics. Assuming that we share the common goal of promoting equality of the sexes, it seems like a pretty silly thing to artificially divide an otherwise united group of people.

I said earlier that men's role in feminism is largely the same as women's. I believe that this is true on a large scale. But there are also many things that feminist men are uniquely positioned to do. One of those things is to actively speak out against the rape culture in our society. When men are talking amongst themselves about a rape, it is almost always the case that the character of the victim is questioned. This usually includes some combination of the details of what she was wearing, where she was at when she was raped, who she was with, and her sexual history. But none of these issues are relevant. The only thing that determines whether a woman was raped is whether the woman consented to sex. By speaking up against those conversations when we have the chance, we men can combat the idea that rape is a woman's fault and a woman's problem. Rape is crime almost exclusively committed by men. Only by speaking out can we begin to foster an environment that holds men accountable for their actions.

Update: Punkass Marc disagrees. You can read my response to his post here.

Monogamy and the Naturalistic Fallacy

The Nut pointed me to this article on monogamy at Generative Transformation. In a lot of ways, Brandon Peele's blog reminds me of my own. Brandon's blog is a chronicle of his personal growth. I often think of Shades Of Grey in the same way, though when I write my posts, it is never with that purpose in mind. I consider myself a liberal, and so does Brandon. And apparently we write about the same subjects -- I've written in favor of nonmonogamous relationships here and here. While I really like Brandon's introspective nature and willingness to question the status quo, there are more than a few things wrong with his post on monogamy.

He starts by asking the question: What is the point of having strong urges, such as an "instinct to mate with virtually every female I see," if he is not to indulge them? It's already apparent from his phrasing that his exploration of this question and its related issues will be deeply entrenched in the Naturalistic Fallacy. Of course, Brandon believes in the existence of a higher power, so perhaps that shouldn't come as much of a surprise. It is very difficult to reconcile the belief that things are the way they are because that's how it is supposed to be with the observation that many people are hurt by the "natural order."

To answer Brandon's question, there is no point. Evolution, in the biological sense, does not have a purpose. True, if humans didn't have a biological instinct to mate, the species wouldn't propagate, but don't make the mistake of thinking that because we exist there must be a greater reason for it. Evolution is not directed. Just as there is no "Natural Law" stating that creating homo sapiens was the purpose of evolution, there is no law of nature dictating that a person should or should not indulge in his desire to have sex. It is fallacious to look toward one's biology for answers about one's morality.

Brandon also wants to know why having sex with multiple partners is incompatible with the norms of our society. This is a question that I am sympathetic to. In the past I've been an advocate of normalizing nonmonogamous relationships. My position isn't that I want monogamous relationship to disappear from our society, it's that I want to get rid of the assumption that every committed relationship must be monogamous. However, Brandon attacks the problem through the lense of naturalism.

My questions is, is marriage/monogamy natural? Is it a convenience of modern society put in place to counter streets full of bastards and orphans and provide for a stable, predictable and submissive populace? Is it an evolutionary imperative?

And again:

Men, much moreso than women it appears, are easily taken beneath deck to operate from their limbic or reptilian brain, not their neocortex or complex human brain. The limbic system is often called the reptilian brain because it first appeared in evolution in reptiles and is responsible for our emotional drives, especially relating fear and sex instincts.

You can probably see where this is going:

So what can we do? Is marriage as an institution doomed? We don’t have to do anything and no it’s not doomed. But feel free to join me in telling the world to fuck off with respect to how it thinks we should and shouldn't act. Let us obey only ourselves, our inner compass, our inner warrior. As men we need only keep in mind these things:

1. Hold our spouse's best interest in our hearts, aka Golden Rule. It would suck to have another dude put his dick in your wife. Guess what? She feels the same way.

...

This is all fine and good, but what about those marriage vows? Women are nuts for vows. Most men can't even remember them. We hate to give up our autonomy - to listen to anyone tell us what and what not to do once, much less let someone set the vision for the rest of our lives in this manner.

I don't understand why we need all these rules. It's not like they don't get broken everyday. Why set something up for failure? Why can't we just align intentions? Just agree to work towards a common vision for the world, your family, your marriage, etc. and see which actions, including infidelity fall within this vision.

...

Isn't a marriage about trust? Isn't trust the foundation of love? If there is trust, then there need not be a covenant. The desire to anchor and tie oneself down to an ascribed way of being is not an action of love, rather fear, the need for security.

These quotes certainly don't do anything to quell my suspicion that this entire discussion is a complicated way to rationalize cheating on one's spouse. Part of the problem, again, is a heavy reliance on the Naturalistic Fallacy. Brandon sees that we have a society that is structured around monogamy and assumes that because that's the way things are, that's how they should be. But he also sees that men in our society claim the right to play the field, and once again assumes that because that's how it is, that's how it should be. When he's being honest with himself, he knows that monogamy isn't the optimal situation for him. So the question is how to reconcile his observations with his beliefs. And he does it by blaming women for his problems.

To be fair, he doesn't actually blame women so much as the way women are. Women, according to Brandon, are naturally more interested in long term commitments than men are, it's part of their biology. But regardless of how you justify it, the net effect is the same: Brandon believes that he is being held back by womanly vows. He thinks we men should learn to be more manly by listening to our "inner warrior." We shouldn't feel it necessary to be bound by our promises, because that's against the natural order. But women should be bound by a different set of rules entirely, because "it would suck to have another dude put his dick in your wife," and anyway, they aren't built the same as us. Under the system that Brandon seems to be advocating, it's okay for men to be jealous when their partners sleep with other men, because men own their women's sexuality. But only because women want to be owned.

Creating different sets of rules for different classes of people is the classic recipe for oppression. And as Amanda recently pointed out, the Naturalistic Fallacy is a favored tool of oppressors everywhere. Brandon needs to get out more. Men aren't the only one who want the freedom of having multiple partners. The sooner our society stops oppressing women while simultaneously pretending that it is only natural that we should do so, the sooner there will be more women comfortable with admitting that they would like to have sex with multiple partners.

But the other thing about Brandon's post that makes me feel like he is rationalizing cheating is that, well, he pretty much says so himself: "Just agree to work towards a common vision for the world, your family, your marriage, etc. and see which actions, including infidelity fall within this vision." Far from condemning lying to one's spouse, he says that honesty in relationships can be optional. That's something I just can't get behind, and at times Brandon seems to agree: "Isn't a marriage about trust? Isn't trust the foundation of love?"

Of course, if you want trust, you certainly wouldn't condone lying to your spouse, which is what infidelity is.

Brandon ends his article with this:

To be in love is to be free. Are you free in your love?

After his admission that he would not like it if another man slept with his girlfriend, I must admit that this ending perplexes me. He wants the freedom to have sex with whomever he wants without granting the same freedom to his partners. It seems to me that if his girlfriend were to ask the same question, she would answer in the negative.

Excuses masquerading as an explanation, and an announcement of sorts

Yes, until my weak offering at lunch, I hadn't posted since, um, the beginning of April. Inconceivable*!

My thanks go out to Orange, E., and Feral Mom for letting me know I'm missed. Thanks also to The Nut, who has continued to give me ideas to blog about even in the face of my extended absence, and who says I shouldn't feel the need to apologize. Well, I do, so here it is: I'm sorry I haven't been writing.

But to the excuses!

1. I moved. That's right! I live in a new apartment now in the appropriate part of town for my children to attend Crestridge Elementary. Huge thanks to my father-in-law, Dennis, without whom I never would have managed to move in just one weekend. The fact is we weren't planning on being completely moved until this weekend. We had planned on moving boxes and smaller items last weekend, and moving the heavy stuff this weekend. But as you can probably imagine, the whole "hey wanna use your three day weekend to help me move" line wasn't too popular with the relatives. So when Dennis let us know he was bringing his trailer up, we jumped at the opportunity. Trust me, it's much better this way.
   
   
2. I've been busy. Yes, that sounds like a pretty lame excuse. However, it is in actuality a pretty lame segue into my announcement. You see, I've been working on a project. Please indulge me while I tell you about it.

You know how sometimes you'll link to a news story, and after a few days it disappears? Yahoo News comes to mind. The stories at Yahoo stick around for two weeks, then they are deleted. If you link to them (as I frequently would, if they didn't disappear), eventually your blog's archive is full of dead links. Which makes your blog's archives considerably less useful.

Enter Long Lasting Links**, my project for the last few months. My site allows you to create an account and begin archiving URLs. When you archive a URL, it doesn't download every link on the page. It only saves a copy of all the same files that your web browser needs to display the site. Once a URL has been archived, you get a permanent link to that page in the archive. Unless you decide to delete a link, it won't ever go away.

I think this site will have many uses. Blogging is what I had in mind when I came up with the idea, but I think I'll be surprised to see how it gets used.

So that's what I've been up to. I know, I know, that doesn't mean I can't throw a blog post up every once in awhile. Mea culpa.


* "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

** I know, that link doesn't work yet. I just spent the last hour on the phone with GoDaddy.com trying to get my domain up and running. You want some advice? Don't register your domains at GoDaddy.com. They don't know basic DNS concepts, and for a registrar, that's unacceptable. At this point, I'm going to punt on getting it set up and try to get it fixed tomorrow. But I want to go ahead and make the announcement anyway. I'll let you know when there is more to see.

A weak offering after weeks of silence

One could argue that is has been months, really. I'm going to make the obligatory excuses-masquerading-as-an-explanation later tonight, but for now, I'll beg my readers for mercy with some topical humor:



Oh, the irony! And from the very people who would see English become our national language, no less...