No, silly, not for Mel Gibson to be able to read our minds! This quote comes from the excellent Starhawk, and opens a hardcore segment in the upcoming Briarpatch Magazine March/April 2007 gender-themed issue:
Feminists long for men to heal. Those of us whose lives continue to be bound up with men want to see them become whole. We dream of a world full of men who could be passionate lovers, grounded in their own bodies, capable of profound loves and deep sorrows, strong allies of women, sensitive nurturers, fearless defenders of all people’s liberation, unbound by stifling conventions yet respectful of their own and others’ boundaries, serious without being humourless, stable without being dull, disciplined without being rigid, sweet without being spineless, proud without being insufferably egotistical, fierce without being violent, wild without being, well, assholes.”
- Starhawk, “A Men’s Movement I Can Trust”
10 comments
February 22, 2007 at 1:29 pm
stonehead
Phew! Don’t you think that’s over-complicating things? Or that it reads like a shopping list?
And how many of those do you cross off before deciding a man is a no-hoper? One strike and he’s out? Or perhaps three?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not in favour of male chauvinism in any form, whether unreformed “old” man or post-modern ironic lad, or any other permutation.
I just think drawing up lists – and especially worthy, pseudo academic ones – of what a man should be like puts too many hurdles between reality and the ideals.
It’s the same as the fashion industry. “Ideals” are laid down and women (and men) then become pressured to conform to the ideal, regardless of the personal and collective cost.
My suggestion? Distill it down to a simpler but much broader definition of what makes a man a man worth knowing and sharing time and space with.
One possibility that springs to my mind is the old Irish Fianna, a group of warriors who had to be both good in battle and at poetry while swearing themselves to the protection of the poor and the voiceless.
You can be a man with emotional burdens, you can be a tortured soul, you can know anger, fear and tragedy, but most importantly you also have balance and counterpoints to those.
That means you have received and can give unconditional love in its many forms, you have the courage and the freedom to express yourself, you can be a simple man but a complex soul because you know complexity arises from a multitude of simplicities, and most importantly you are prepared to sacrifice yourself for those who need you – regardless of who they are. (And that’s something the definition you quoted missed out.)
I’m not talking of the alpha male (who is almost always a bully and a jerk), but of the warrior poet. The man who is rough, ragged, knobbly and edgy on the exterior, but sensitive, compassionate and understanding on the inside.
Phew! I think I’ve caught the disease of verbosity myself.
Returning to my original point, if you seek the warrior poet in his broadest sense then you will have much more chance of meeting him than you will of meeting a man who fits all the points in Starhawk’s description.
As for me, I’m just a chunk of lumpy, grumpy old granite…
February 22, 2007 at 10:25 pm
goodgirlculture
You’re right, it does read a little list-y. And I love your articulation of the warrior poet. But I’m still a fan of the Starhawk. Here are a few more thoughts:
1. Starhawk’s “fearless defenders of all people’s liberation” seems not unrelated to your “prepared to sacrifice yourself for those who need you – regardless of who they are.” And certainly they are both good qualities in people regardless of gender.
2. My own reading of her “list” wasn’t so much “oooh, that sounds like the perfect man, how can I get me one of those” but rather “ooooooh, a culture where it’s possible for men to embrace their masculinity beyond patriarchy sounds like one that’s worth me working for!”
3. In defense of lists, I actually love making them. Not because I’m shopping for the perfect whatever, but because I find them a useful visioning tool. They can help distill what’s important. And of course, when we can clarify what’s important or appealing about a person (or gender?) outside ourselves, it usually points to the aspects of ourselves that deserve and require attention. (I mean, do I ever want to be serious without being humourless, and disciplined without being rigid!)
Thanks for the comment! n
February 23, 2007 at 6:52 am
arteesvida
It would be really interesting to see what she would consider to be the perfect woman in comparison. My husband probably matches up to the male standards more than I would any possible female ones!
February 23, 2007 at 12:19 pm
stonehead
I had noticed the list thing.
Personally, I lean more to creative chaos than organised thought. It seems to work most of the time, especially since I escaped the deadline driven media world I used to inhabit many moon ago.
February 23, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Nicodemus
Doesn’t it seem that in wanting to force men to act a certain way, you (the Royal “you”) are acting just as badly as those people who are being demonized? Isn’t that the whole point, that women were oppressed (i.e. forced to do certain things a certain way by people who didn’t have the right)? And now the suggested solution is to turn the tables right back around again?
Sometime in the past few decades, feminism turned from equal rights to MORE rights, from wanting equality in the genders to wanting to be the dominant gender.
February 24, 2007 at 12:17 am
goodgirlculture
Doesn’t it seem that in wanting to force men to act a certain way, you (the Royal “you”) are acting just as badly as those people who are being demonized?
Nope. It doesn’t seem that way at all. In a world where at least half of women have experienced physical or sexual violence, where girl children are forced onto the streets to work as prostitutes, and where indigenous women go missing and are murdered by the hundreds (and all this in Canada!), stating that the world should be different and asking men to be part of taking that responsibility does not constitute “acting badly”, or “demonizing” for that matter. If you are blind to the fact that women still experience inequality, then I suppose it’s natural to feel threatened when asked to open your eyes to the idea. But that doesn’t make it acceptable. Wake up.
February 24, 2007 at 10:46 am
Nicodemus
Thatr’s monumentally short-sighted on your part. Instead of looking at the world as a whole, you’re looking at one subset of people in specific areas and using that as some sweeping argument for a different entire subset of people. If you can’t see what’s wrong with your argument, then you’re not really thinking at all, you’re just being mad for the sake of being mad, or for some other personal reason.
Plus, what does forcing men to all act a specific way that you yourself want have ANYTHING to do with acts of violence? What does people not committing crimes have to do with altering personalities of all men everywhere? You’re really not making any specific point here, you’re just saying things that are vaguely related in an attempt to get people riled up for a cause that you, for whatever reason, are insisting on pushing.
I read somewhere that the human species is flawed in that both male and female want two completely separate things. Males have the desire to spread their seed shotgun-style throughout the world, while women want to nurture their children. They are vulnerable for 9 months (less really, but still vulnerable) during pregnancy and so they want a protector.
This causes men to then ALSO want to be less aggressive, as they were during their shotgunning approach, and want to be more defensive as instead to keep their mate.
The issue is, when choosing a mate to reproduce with, women go for the aggressive men, completing the circle of contradictions.
Point being, both men and women act two completely different ways at different times in their lives. It’s not a “I wish all men acted like…” or “All women are like…” kind of thing.
Anyway, you are truly the one who seems closed-minded. The problem is you are constantly probably told you have an open-minded opinion by others who share your opinion, because you all share an opinion that was unpopular decades ago.
My suggestion to you is to learn how to form coherent strings of arguments, instead of rambling arguments that sway from one extreme to the other with no semblance of connection.
February 25, 2007 at 10:42 am
makamkruka
Nicodemus: I think it’s pretty telling that you speak of the oppression of women in the past tense — “women /were/ oppressed” — which you define as being forced to do certain things by “people” (why not “men”? why not own up to the fact that men bear primary responsibilty for this oppression?).
If you can’t make the connections between the ongoing oppression of women (evidenced by the still-shockingly-high rates of domestic violence, rape, the fact that women continue to work harder than men for less money, etc. etc., not to mention the prevalence of violence — primarily male on female and male on male) on the one hand, and the entirely reasonable expectation that men can actually heal and deal with their sexism on the other, then “closed-minded” seems a pretty accurate description of the views you’ve put forth here.
February 25, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Getting clear the hard way « subverting overconsumption
[...] with remaining open to learning and criticism. One of the things I got called on this week was a quote I posted that I feel captures some of the qualities I most value and respect in the men in my life. [...]
March 3, 2007 at 11:01 am
Getting clear the hard way « good girl cultural productions
[...] with remaining open to learning and criticism. One of the things I got called on this week was a quote I posted that I feel captures some of the qualities I most value and respect in the men in my life. [...]