One: The assumption that the emotional disconnectedness of men serves no purpose other than to reinforce patriarchy and the oppression of women is two-dimensional. It’s developed for a purpose, whether we like that purpose or not, though I can only speculate on what that purpose it is. The ability to kill is the first thing that comes to mind. The ability to ignore, deny, or disregard another’s right to self-preservation to wound, kill, or otherwise defeat them. This may or may not have always been the case—there may be vast differences among men who fight and kill, over time and in different cultures, in the degree of self-respect or respect of other (including and especially one’s enemy). And men have not necessarily engaged in warfare because they like to or want to, nor is it necessarily an outgrowth of a social system. War has occurred over throughout our existence as a species for a variety of reasons, many of which look a lot like simple—and very real—competition over resources. Many, of course (and probably most in the modern age), are much more political in nature.

Two: What is patriarchy, why does it exist, and what has brought it to power? This is an important question. If we believe that things are as they are for a reason (not a good or bad reason, just a reason) then we have to look into why patriarchy exists. Doing so will inevitably lead us to compassion and take us into the the origins of patriarchy—those forces in our world which have encouraged its development—which must be addressed or undone if the negative attributes of a patriarchal society are to be corrected. Patriarchy has developed as a generally effective means of social control, as warfare has developed as a generally effective means of problem solving—at least in the short-term, and more so in the past than in the modern world. I assume this based on its persistence. “Effective”, again, does not necessarily mean good, and is arguable, particularly as it applies in the modern world.

Three: “…patriarchy demands of all males that they engage in acts of psychic self-mutilation, that they kill off the emotional parts of themselves. If an individual is not successful in emotionally crippling himself, he can count on patriarchal men to enact rituals of power that will assault his self-esteem.” Why have men been asked to engage in these acts of psychic self-mutilation? The language here is terribly assuming, and could, theoretically, be rephrased: “psychic self-mutilation” might be “psychological re-ordering”, “killing off the emotional parts of themselves” might be “inoculating oneself against the hardships of life with which one must contend”, “emotionally crippling himself” might be “emotionally fortifying himself”. Do you see how these are matters of perspective?

If these are extreme reactions they are nonetheless adaptations, in that they have developed for a reason. And are they extreme? Are they outdated? Unnecessary? Do we live in a world in which security is a given? Certainly aggression appears to threaten our security at least as much as it preserves it. After all, aggression would not serve us if aggression did not exist among others. But in the meantime, understanding that aggression and the emotional crippling (or emotional fortification) of men exists for a reason, we might examine whether or not these adaptations serve us, and if not, how to adjust them properly, healthfully, and realistically.

I have worked with low-income inner-city youth at therapeutic rich-kid programs (per scholarships), and generally been left with the sense that what the program teaches applies is much less useful to them. They will go home and the “I Feel Statements”, the “Emotional Literacy”, the “Self-Discovery” may or may not serve them. It may work against them. The shock between an ideal (and idealized) way that one might live and the reality of their lives may be dislocating, may serve to further relegate therapy and such to the realms of an imaginary way of living, imagined chiefly by affluent white folks insulated from the hardships of the street, the competition and struggle for limited resources. Their situation is, of course, an outgrowth of ways in which patriarchy has ordered the world (as is their response), which is itself an outgrowth of that which the world has forced us to contend with (the world including human beings). Until our inner cities are safe places to live, in which resources are plentiful, opportunities abound, and there is not actual, factual competition to survive, is it realistic or even ethical to ask folks to adjust the aspects of their personalities that have developed in response to real hardship? It is natural for a young man in a tough environment to harden, and, though they may being “killing off the emotional parts of themselves” in some ways or from certain perspectives, they are doing so as a matter of self-preservation. In this context, it is not self-mutilation any more than a ram growing horns is self-mutilation. It is a defensive, useful adaptation.

It is important, too, to realize that these defensive adaptations developed not just to defend individuals, but to defend peoples, whole tribes and societies. Culture developed among men the psychic fortitude (or inurement) to fight and kill so that they might do so as necessary, against attack, first by beast, later (and mostly) by man. Aggression, even, developed out of defensive impulses—preemptive attack as a means of security, of assuring the upper hand. Does this mean that all these impulses still serve us, or are the most appropriate adaptations or responses? Certainly not. But they have existed for a long, long time, undoubtedly for a reason, and should not be ignored or dismissed.

Talking about Patriarchy doing this and that forfeits a necessary deeper analysis. Culture—which perpetuates patriarchy—is an adaptive response to real-world stimuli. Perhaps aspects of it—such as patriarchy—are outdated. Perhaps one can argue that Patriarchy has never served us nor been a useful adaptation. Keep in mind—and I hope this is clear—that I am putting all this out there from a very rudimentary basic needs and survival perspective, which, if you consider Maslow’s heirachy of needs, ranks first and must be secured before higher needs can be adequately addressed. If you bring in Buddhist ideals of non-violence, you are bringing religious philosophy into the picture. The Buddhist tradition, believing a person may undo bad karma through non-violence and thus be born higher next time around, side-steps the most difficult questions that human beings—which are animals concerned with their own well-being—face in times of genuine hardship, struggle, and danger.

The conversation about Love is crucial. The examination of men’s emotional configuration is equally crucial. But what appears to be the absence of Love may in fact be an obscured expression of it, buried under layers of cultural heritance, patriarchy, what have you, and as invisible, at times, to men as it is to women. Without this recognition, we focus our energies against the obvious and the visible while the mechanism continues to operate, unaffected. We risk facing off against the wizard, rather than the man behind the curtain.

The ideal response is to use the anger to target the cause of the problem but that requires a lot of self control.

Kuan Yin knows her shit, doesn’t she?

I did a nine days’ prayer to Kuan Yin, asking for peace. And on day seven I got a very clear, pointed answer: “I cannot give you peace because that is not what you want.” It had the kick of something inarguably true.

I thought about it, and realized that it *was* true. I didn’t want peace with that situation. It would have done me harm to come to peace with it. I wanted to be fairly and decently treated; if I couldn’t have that, I wanted out. So I quit. Some years later, I managed to forgive both myself and the other members for the experience, and, indeed, find some peace with it. But I was never going to do that while still in the situation.

I think that advice to be loving sometimes hits people who are in the same sort of place I was, where accommodation to the situation is just self-mutilation. We need to find a way to teach love in such situations that isn’t asking for accommodation to the intolerable, but also helps people who are stuck that way to avoid scarring themselves with bitterness and hate.

hmm, a story of not identifying with anger? For me it’s gonna be pretty small potatoes, since I’m no Buddha. But I’ve definitely had times when I’ve felt anger at someone, noted the emotion, recognized what the injustice was that was making me angry, and let the anger go before responding to the problem (or at least tried not to let it dictate my response). For example, I had a friend who was pretty sexist, and when we talked about feminism he gave me every trope in the book. I recognized what was going on, but decided to let the anger go and focus on how much I wanted him to be happy (and how feminist ideas could help him be happier). Over time, he’s become much more feminist, because I didn’t just blow him off or dismiss him. That’s a story, I guess.

As for humor, I think there’s a difference between humor in the service of saving your mental health in the face of an attack on your personhood, and humor in the service of humiliating or showing your superiority to your opponent. Snark can totally be a form of love, I think, when it’s used to help someone. You can tell the difference between good and bad snark by whether it makes you feel good, I think. There’s always an uneasiness if you’re mocking someone else to feel superior. If it’s loving, you just feel genuinely happy.

On the angry blog titles, I think people often substitute the word “anger” when they really mean “resistance”.

And yes, I think women and men try to hide their vulnerability, and in a way, that works. But eventually you’ll get found out, and then you’ll have to defend yourself, and then it’s a mess. Much better to be open about the vulnerability from the start, in my opinion. Nothing left to protect.

What these bloggers write is extremely valuable, and I’m not trying to single them out as “the angry ones,” or to suggest that everything they blog has a raw edge. And I get that reclaiming anger, the right to be human and angry at injustice, is especially important to us feminists, in various ways complicated by intersectional experiences.

Still, I do have these open questions about the roles of love and anger in high-profile feminist blogs.

Is it just me, or do we use a huge amount of snark and sarcasm?

What do we make of this?

Is it simply an effective writing device — deployed for entertainment value, and because humor can often cut through bullshit to the core of an issue? Or is it about seeming smarter, cleverer, wittier than the obtuse opponents? Clearly, it’s not a phenomenon limited to feminist blogs: lots of political sites, not to mention fashion, computer tech, etc., are heavy on the cutting banter. But does it have particular meaning on feminist sites? And how does love play into it?

Maybe I’m blowing the thing out of proportion, and I certainly don’t mean to attack anyone. But as someone who, in my own feminist blogging, has felt somehow pressured by a weird unspoken rule to snark whenever possible, I do wonder about the subtle differences between backbone and defensive posturing. What happens to love in the midst of snark culture? Can snark itself be a form of love? When and how?

Is it somehow related to the emotional self-mutilation among men that bell hooks talks about? Do we (non-men) compensate so much for the repression of female anger that we silence or sever the parts of ourselves that seem tender, vulnerable, or fragile? If so, is this simply a survival technique, in the sense that only by sounding like a man (no matter what gender you are) can you gain credibility?

Sorry this is rambling and kind of Cultural-Feminism-101…Thanks for putting up with me and my questions. :) I’d love to hear your thoughts. (And anyone else’s, of course!)

“I think it can get tricky to talk about getting rid of anger with oppressed people, who are routinely taught to suppress and repress anger so they can be controlled. Sort of like “selflessness” for women can be dangerously misinterpreted, given our cultural context… Very skillful means are needed sometimes.”

Boy, do I hear this. So often psychological oppression and the invisibility of privilege means saying to oppressed groups: “Quit complaining. Stop making something out of nothing. You’re just being hysterical/self-righteous/politically-correct/a downer.”

I think you’re absolutely right that the way to approach anger isn’t with frustration, like “I shouldn’t be angry; I’m such a schmuck for getting angry,” but instead with — yes — more love, and a view that the emotion has arisen to teach us something. Avoiding identifying with the emotion (like you say, “not thinking that it’s real and solid”) is tricky, though. Can you share an example in your experience where someone used skillful means in a feminist context to acknowledge anger, depression, resentment, etc. without “feeding” it? I do love a good story… :)

Like many Western Buddhists, I’m kind of a mess of lineages. Right now, I practice with a Korean Zen teacher who I love, but I took refuge with Gelugpa and once I’m somewhere where there is a Tibetan teacher, I will probably end up there instead of in a Zendo. But one never knows.

Personally, I’m still working on finding a middle path, as it were, between love and politics, as traditionally understood in my own middle-class American society (though at this point in my mind love and politics are essentially one and the same).

I also don’t see love and politics as separate. Not at all. I’ve definitely heard all the objections you’re talking about. My response is just to say that if someone thinks the ability to think clearly, avoid inaccurate projections, calmly manage time, avoid anger at fellow organizers, and let go of crippling stress are not useful for effective organizing, then yes, I suppose an hour a day is a waste of time!

Ultimately, what I’ve found is that the organizers I’ve worked with over long periods of time have seen that meditation has made me a bit easier to be around and no less radical. The objections drop away because the proof is in what you do.

[People think:] how could anyone see such harm and still talk about ‘loving’ the perpetrators? Aren’t irritation, exasperation, dismissal, anger, and rage warranted–if not appropriate–if not necessary responses to such atrocities?

As for loving perpetrators, I guess people equate loving someone with letting someone treat you like crap, or do any old destructive thing they want to. Those kinds of ideas run pretty deep in a patriarchal culture. This is exactly why we need to talk about love and what it really means!

I do think that anger has its usefulness, in a way. It tells you that something is hurting you, and that you don’t want to hurt. Maybe it points to an unfairness that is causing you pain. As long as you don’t start thinking the anger is all real and solid, it can tell you what’s going on. I think it can get tricky to talk about getting rid of anger with oppressed people, who are routinely taught to suppress and repress anger so they can be controlled. Sort of like “selflessness” for women can be dangerously misinterpreted, given our cultural context… Very skillful means are needed sometimes.

Thank you for your comment!

Metta :)

How wonderful that your Buddhist practice has brought up some of these thoughts. The same thing happened to me, and of course the path has influenced bell hooks, too. (What kind of lineage are you involved with, if you don’t mind my asking?) Buddhism, and many wisdom traditions that get to the heart of radical interconnectedness, actually fuse love and politics through the practice of ahimsa — non-harming. A.k.a. non-patriarchy, non-racism, non-war, non-greed, non-self-hatred, and on and on.

Personally, I’m still working on finding a middle path, as it were, between love and politics, as traditionally understood in my own middle-class American society (though at this point in my mind love and politics are essentially one and the same). Basically, people think we are selfish, lazy, unserious navel-gazers when we work on Love — work on expanding our own capacity to love all beings and situations. And I think this view stems from a couple of beliefs. Both have to do with scarcity.

On one hand, there’s the scarcity of allies. Politics (and many forms of feminism) is so often about struggle, fighting the enemy, becoming aggravated with the ignorance and evil of the oppressor, or of the systemic injustices…someone who suggests accepting and loving all beings (including rapists, war criminals, the most sexist of the sexist) seems at best naïve, and at worst like a traitor and an apologist. Unreliable as an ally, if only because someone who advocates such expansive love might be seen as incapable of relating to the deep pain and trauma inflicted on so many people in the world. How could anyone see such harm and still talk about ‘loving’ the perpetrators? Aren’t irritation, exasperation, dismissal, anger, and rage warranted–if not appropriate–if not necessary responses to such atrocities?

And secondly, there’s a perceived scarcity of time. So you’re going to spend an hour a day sitting on your ass meditating (or doing whatever practice you do to promote your own lovingness), while people (let’s say women) are starving and being raped and bombed and slaughtered? Wait — you’re going to spend more than an hour a day? What in God’s name is wrong with you? Can’t you see there’s real work to be done?

Does this sound familiar? :)

There’s a lot more on my mind but this is getting long. Mainly I just want to thank you for raising the issue here. As I’m sure you’ve found from your practice, far from being frivolous or simple, learning to Love without preference is pretty much the most difficult work a human being can undertake. Keep at it! For all our sakes.

with metta and gratitude,

katie