Caught the second episode of Big Love last night. Since we no longer have a TV, we're dependent on the charity of friends. I don't know if I've said this before, but I think Big Love is pretty fucking great. There's something about Bill Hendrickson that looks familiar...Hmm. Wonder what it could be...
Meh, anyone who reads this blog knows me well. I don't come from a polygamous family, but Clan Coates was done different. My Dad has seven kids by four women--the seventh isn't pictured because my mother was actually carrying him at the time. I also count an eighth brother who was the child of my Dad's first wife. I count him because we also spent a lot of time around each other as kids, so much that he calls my father Dad (along with biological father, who raised him). I've taken to calling my family "complicated" in interviews, and while that probably sums it up well for outsiders, it always makes me cringe even as the words come out my mouth. Before I ventured into the wider world, before I left Baltimore, I never thought of my family as particularly complicated. They were just my family. And I loved them like other branches of the Mother (Father?) Tree.
Polygamy aside, there's a lot about the show that rings true. Like Bill, my Dad ran his own business and took great pride in this idea of building his own fiefdom here on earth. I don't know if Pops thought of it that way, but he had this "Booker T meets Malcolm meets Emerson" thing about independence and family. Unlike the Hendricksons, my father's kids were impressed into the family business from day one. Two of my brothers, one of my sisters, and my Dad's first wife still work there. I'm obviously not there, but nothing prepares you for the writing life like apprenticing in publishing.
Anyway there was a moment in this week's episode that really caught me. Don Embry (probably my favorite character on the show) is having a crisis of manhood. Two of his wives have left (understandably) and taken the kids. Embry is now in violation of "The Principle" and is being barred from seeing his children. He breaks down in front of Bill and tells him that he's failed as a man. Bill picks him up, makes him feel better, and tells him about their mission to establish something independent or self-sufficient so their families can prosper.
I really related to that scene on a personal level. I've never been sure how right this was, but my concept of manhood always revolved around children and similar notions of independence. I knew I wasn't going to have seven kids by four women, but I thought I'd have four kids by one. Heh, of course that was before I'd ever had any real adult experience with women. But still I think part of the reason why I was so happy to have Samori when I did (age 24) was that I thought "real men have families." It's a stupid thing to think, right? Like something out of the 1940s? Part of me shudders every time I say it. But it was religion for me.
I was watching Don break down, and thinking about how much of my identity is tied up in my partner and my son, so much so that if they left, I'm not sure who I would be. Knowing men who've gone through divorces, fathers who've lost their kids, I know that's not an uncommon feeling. The men sound like exiled kings, like monarchs dethroned. I'm sure there are women reading this thinking, "that's part of the problem." Maybe so. My point isn't that it's right for a man to feel like this about his family, but that it's a point of vulnerability for men that we don't hear enough about.
One of the consequences of feminism is not simply redefining roles for women--an unquestioned good--but redefining roles for men. I think that will be a good in the long-term too, but right now a lot of us are in this space of trying to figure out who we are and what we should be. Bill Hendrickson is a guy inventing manhood in this new world--all of his wives want to work, for instance. He comes from a community where the existing definitions were untenable and repulsive. And yet even as he constructs new definitions, he can't escape the root of the old, of the ancient and all its questions and conundrums. I'm a modern man, and the child of a 60s radical. And yet even as my Dad tried to remake himself, hoping not to repeat the mistakes of those who came before him, even as I try to remake myself, hoping not to repeat the mistakes of those who came before me, old magic is at work, and ancient identities, that we thought we'd shed, call us back home.
You should see a Coates family Christmas. Assembled are all these parts, which social workers would dismiss as stepbrothers, half-sisters, step-aunts, half-nephews etc. A great time is had by all. And yet every year the man who made it all possible, my Dad, is never there. He doesn't celebrate Christmas. He is busy reinvinting.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Thanks for the openness in your writing Ta- Nehisi. Great writing, connecting pop culture to personal stories and deep themes in our culture.
Don't watch Big Love, but totally understand the "complicated" family issue. About ten years before I was born, my mother was married and had my two brothers. After being divorced for a few years, she started dating my father and got pregnant with me, but they split up basically by the time I was born (though I remain relatively close to my father, for the fact that I now live in another state). Then, when I was about 4, my mom married my stepfather, who she is still with today. So, growing up, I had all these people who thought my stepfather was my father. Then they thought my brothers and I had the same father. By the time I explained it, people were generally confused (and no one ever seemed to understand the whole "my mother and father were never married" thing, though I was, admittedly, living in the suburbs).
Big Love rings true to me on so many levels as well, not because of the polygamy and the Mormonism, but the idea that dysfunctional families can function.
For my family, there was divorce, unhappiness, and dysfunction up the wazoo, but we love each other and we take care of each other. I can't say the same for my friends who come from more perfect nuclear families.
And I think that the Henricksons represent some real family values, the kind that have escaped a national stage that has been dominated by contrived evangelical notions of family perfection. But the Henricksons aren't perfect; they are all trying hard to do what is right. In this way, they represent to me the intersection of liberal and conservative ideas of family, and really the best of both worlds.
I thought Big Love started next week; I've been waiting impatiently. I'm so addicted to this show! Bill seems familiar to me because he's so vulnerable and it shows on his face.
Anyway I want to say that women too are constantly trying to figure out "who we are and what we want to be." My girlfriends who have kids and don't work feel guilty for not working and useless at times; my girlfriends who have kids and work feel guilty for not being at home; and girlfriends with no kids feel like they're not living the life that's expected of them. We talk about this kind of stuff ALL THE TIME. So, we can empathize with the idea of "ancient identities calling us back home." It's hard to decide for yourself, by yourself, what kind of life is right for you.
On point with the observation of the necessity for a shift in men's roles as a necessary corrolary to female empowerment. A difficult reality to grasp at times is the reality that change does not occur in a vacuum, and that a shift or change in one area of a social system necessarily causes change in other parts of the system. Too often folks overlook this.
TNC,
Thanks for a really great post. I really admire writers who can be so open and insightful. But one thing you said confused me. You said "my identity is tied up in my partner and my son so much so that if they left, I'm not sure who I would be." But there almost seemed to be a sense of regret or shame in it---as if that vunerability were a flaw.
In my book, those feelings don't make you a chauvinist. That's just love, isn't it? And from everything you've written about your partner and your son, you seem like one of those people who has the real thing. I hate to see you doubt yourself.
One of the consequences of feminism is not simply redefining roles for women--an unquestioned good--but redefining roles for men.
Not to bash feminism, but redefining roles for men is one area where feminists have dropped the ball. Cutting men loose from the traditional definitions of manhood is simultaneously liberating and disorienting and there seems to be an insistence that men figure out these new roles for themselves, but only within the parameters laid out by feminists. It's fine (actually better than fine, it's good) to insist that men consider women and women's perspectives in creating new definitions of manhood but there has to be dialog and honest consideration of men and their perspectives as well.
P.S. Super cute picture. Which one are you? Bottom left or bottom center?
"I thought "real men have families." It's a stupid thing to think, right?"
I don't know if real men have families, necessarily, but 1) if you don't have children, I don't think it's possible to be a complete person. You simply aren't using all of you. 2) real men do, however, if they have kids, take care of them and provide for them.
"Knowing men who've gone through divorces, fathers who've lost their kids, I know that's not an uncommon feeling. The men sound like exiled kings, like monarchs dethroned. I'm sure there are women reading this thinking, "that's part of the problem."
First, let's admit that in most states, the civil courts are HEAVILY stacked against the interests of the men. Some laws are outright hostile toward fathers. Second, just as a mental gymnastic, what if we're biologically wired to be that way? What if feeling like a dethroned monarch is hardwired into the ol' DNA? Just posing the question.
"One of the consequences of feminism is not simply redefining roles for women--an unquestioned good--but redefining roles for men"
It's not unquestioned at all. While there was some unimpeachable positives that came out of 2nd3rd wave feminism, this can not be mentioned without the very real damage they did to women who WANTED to be home with their children. Feminism is supposed to be about the right to choose your life. However, women who chose to stay at home and raise their children were called every name in the book and held as mentally ill, completely in thrall to their patriarchal tormentor.
As far as the effect on men, well, that's a mixed bag, isn't it? No way in hell are even a good chunk of American men the knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing, wife-beating-on-Superbowl-Sunday the more radical feminists would have everyone believe, but we are ALL affected by the fallout of those sentiments.
The hardcore '80s fashion on display here totally blows my mind. Please tell me some of those short shorts were corduroy. Or was that more of a California thing?
The hardcore '80s fashion on display here totally blows my mind. Please tell me some of those short shorts were corduroy. Or was that more of a California thing?
Definitely not. People were rocking those tiny ass, corduroy OP shorts all up and down the East coast. I never liked 'em, I was a Jams man myself.
I've spent the last few months discovering the joys of marriage to a longtime partner, and contemplating the meaning of the partnership we've formed. Having recently become hooked on Big Love, I appreciate the perspectives it offers on the diverse and sometimes conflicting meanings of commitment, love and family. The characters who exalt caring for the family as the most important virtue do stunning, beautiful, and/or deeply destructive things in the name of that virtue. Yet while the characters who aren't as enamored with the idea of family seem more free, they also seem alienated in a way that makes me feel sorry for them.
The writers have done an amazing job at creating an engaging drama that revolves around themes that are important to almost everyone. Don't get me wrong, I loved the Wire, but at times I had such a deep sense of disconnect from the characters that I became bored.
Wow. Thanks for this.
You know, on the outside, everything about my life is "alternative." I was raised by white hippie intellectuals; I'm a lesbian; my partner and I are white women raising a black son (and a white daughter); we live in a neighborhood that would scare most of our family and friends if we really told them what goes on here; I was raised as an athiest and practically a socialist.
All of that -- all of that "outsiderness" is central to who I am. I embrace it all lovingly, and credit it with having shaped me in really profound ways. Yet, yet ... my life now -- which to me does not feel at all like a contradiction, although to many on the outside, it is very confusing -- my life now could not be more "traditional." I am a full-time homemaker and mom; a convert to Christianity; I spend my days baking bread and hanging laundry and knitting, volunteering at church and school, growing vegetables and preserving food for the winter. I tried the career track -- the high power lawyer at the law firm, the community organizer in the ghetto, the high school English teacher -- none of it "fit" the way the vocation of homemaking does. Thank God I'm not a woman stuck in some 1950's nightmare (I just saw Revolutionary Road, oh my....), called to something else and trapped here. Thank God other women -- and men -- have choices now, both in terms of their vocations, and how to make family life work in light of their vocations. But for those of us who come full circle and find that the traditional roles -- fully embraced; chosen, not forced on us; and in the wider context of an interesting, "complicated" life -- I don't think there's anything to apologize about that.
TNC, if you find your identity revolves around your partner and child, if your family life is at the core of who you are; if that works for all of you; if that identity still leaves room for your partner to freely choose her vocation, for you to truly be partners, collaborators -- well, how could that possibly be part of the problem??? I think that's gorgeous. I also think, interestingly, that while you see that part of your identity as something typically masculine, as a marker of manhood, I see it as quite feminine, and lovely.
PS I love Big Love too, but because the idea of lots of kids is really appealing to me, and the idea of lots of moms to raise them, and lots of wives to get the housework done, just seem so *sensible*. ;-)
It's really instructive to watch you thinking through these issues, man. (And I also dig Big Love.) However, I will say that I think you are too apologetic for seeing your manhood tied up in your wife (sorry, partner) and child, in your own family. I agree that this isn't exclusively what makes a man, but if it makes you feel like a man, then what's wrong with it? Isn't raising and caring for a family one of the principle lifelong roles a man can play, one of the most deeply masculine undertakings he can take on? Perhaps you've internalized some of those 60's over-reactions (understandable though they were) to the stultifying cultural status quo; I don't see how the way you feel about manhood and family as a heterosexual family man in any way diminishes anyone else, like women for example.
My definition of adulthood: when you can depend on yourself, and when the people who have a good reason to be able to depend on you can do so as well.
Works for women as well as men, so it gets us away from a testosterone-based definition of manhood.
I can't claim to be original with this definition. I'm pretty sure it's a rewording of something the Earl of Baltimore said in It's What You Learn After You Know It All That Counts.
While reading The Beautiful Struggle recently, Ta-Nehisi, the complexities of of your family were less important to me than the way your father was determined to be there for the people who had reason to count on him, including all of his children. He was a stand-up guy. (And still is, I'm sure.)
Scott, I'm going to have to disagree on your point that men without children are not complete. For one, it's more than mildly insulting to men who choose to not have children and secondly, it's simply another version of the argument about childless women that has been made through the ages. I find people who choose to have children a bit confusing and it arms that you find the opposite just as confusing. How about we both keep those feelings from turning in to insults.
Such a great post. As a member of a functioning dysfunctional family it rings so true. You just make it work, its hard, seemingly impossible at times, but its love so you make it work.
There are members of my family who didn't make it out of grade school, my grandfather couldn't read, aunts and uncles blue collar workers all of them. So simple and in love with their life and what they've built. Proud of me because I was the first to graduate college, I'm a "professional" in the big city. Single, making moves, living the good life right?
That old magic is powerful stuff. Holding on to feminity while pushing through business and fighting back these feelings, these sudden pangs.
"It's hard to decide for yourself, by yourself, what kind of life is right for you." Tessa
So true.
@ Brendan
Curduory short shorts were everywhere in the 80s. The ideal was to get a pair OPs (Ocean Pacific), as they were THE summer brand (although Newport Blue gave 'em a run for their money; Jams, too, in the shorts department.).
On a more serious note:
"One of the consequences of feminism is not simply redefining roles for women--an unquestioned good--but redefining roles for men. I think that will be a good in the long-term too, but right now a lot of us are in this space of trying to figure out who we are and what we should be."
This makes me wonder, TNC, have you, or anyone out there reading this, read "Stiffed" by Susan Faludi? If so, how well does it address some of the issues you brought up in this post? Is it worth reading?
In other words I agree w/ Michael, Hill Rat and pretty much everybody else in applauding the way you feel about your family as a man. Also, I didn't mean anything by that 'wife' bit, at first I typed it automatically and then left it in, I guess to reveal my own orthodox thinking. You got a sweet life.
Let me try it this way:
Real Men take care of their families, but not all Real Men have families.
It isn't the having that makes you a man, it's the caring and providing that does it.
Lovely post. But oh man, what a cute picture. All those skinny little legs! The socks! The sly look on the boy in the lower right. Oh my god, I want to eat it up with peanut butter.
Great post.
Just to put this into historical perspective... it's not too far from the truth to say that serial monogamy has a long and distinguished history, it's just that mortality rates tended to make the Christmas guest list seem less 'awkward.'
However, I will say that I think you are too apologetic for seeing your manhood tied up in your wife (sorry, partner) and child, in your own family. I agree that this isn't exclusively what makes a man, but if it makes you feel like a man, then what's wrong with it? Isn't raising and caring for a family one of the principle lifelong roles a man can play, one of the most deeply masculine undertakings he can take on?
Beautifully said sv. My wife is a fairly prominent feminist scholar and I've struggled with trying to explain why being a man is so important to me in a feminist context. One of the things that she was finally able to connect to was that my definition of manhood and masculinity was and is very tied up in responsibility. Responsibility to yourself, your community, and (most important of all) your family. It was very important for me to separate "responsibility to" from "control of" in order to wave off the stink of paternalism.
As we seek to redefine roles for men and women it's essential that we define the terms we use clearly.
@Jordan
It's only an insult if you give it power to be so. It's in no way meant to be. I'm coming at it from the point of view of a man who swore he would never, ever have kids...mostly from an inconvenience angle. I'm merely contrasting that life (18-33 years old) with the last five in which I've started having kids. There are entire parts of my mind and body firing now, emotions I didn't even know I had, that weren't part of the picture at all back then.
"Not to bash feminism, but redefining roles for men is one area where feminists have dropped the ball. Cutting men loose from the traditional definitions of manhood is simultaneously liberating and disorienting and there seems to be an insistence that men figure out these new roles for themselves, but only within the parameters laid out by feminists."
This is too macro, and I think you're giving "feminists" too much power. Individual women don't live their lives and build relationships within the framework laid out by "feminists" and neither do most men I know. I would agree that a by-product of feminist movements is a new, disorienting role for men, but the same thing applies to women as well. To some degree, all of us must find our own way, and we must choose partners that have the same attitude/outlook on life.
I totally agree HillRat. I worry about raising sons for this reason. There are a lot of things that I don't like about traditional male socialization, but I also realize that boys need a definition of manhood that is not negatively defined (i.e. being a man is NOT about being a patriarch, is NOT about being dominant, etc.) .
Part of me wants to believe that you can simply raise children regardless of their sex to be good people who follow the self-identities that fit for them, and I do think there's truth to that, but one way or another boys and girls get socialized in terms of gender -- either the parent can be prepared to provide guidance on those questions or they can try to ignore it and pretend we live in a different kind of society than we do.
I also really appreciate Marta sharing her journey. And I agree with her. For some of us, family is central to who we are. That doesn't mean that we are repeating ancient compulsions without alteration. The truth is every reinvention carries inside it the tradition. The old and the new are not opposites. New ways are our answers to old ways and often carry whatever we need of tradition within them. I think that's okay.
I'm not one of these people who thinks there's no such thing as a dysfuntional family. There definitely is, but what makes a family dysfunctional is not what structural form it takes, but whether it works for the people involved or not.
A nuclear family with all the legal and religious bells and whistles that go along with normative "normalcy" in which the members are miserable and unsuccessful is dysfunctional. A Big Love situation in which the members are close, productive, and thriving is not. Simple.
We get into a lot of trouble and cause a lot of stress, heartache, (and yes, dysfunction) trying to fit everyone into boxes. Perhaps it's because I'm a social scientist, but I think we should be interested in what works for actual individuals rather than an ideological mythology.
"if you don't have children, I don't think it's possible to be a complete person."
Do you mean "you" or "I" here? Because, really, the possibility of becoming a complete person is entirely dependent on one's own definition of "complete".
@ Scott
"1) if you don't have children, I don't think it's possible to be a complete person. You simply aren't using all of you. "
Thats a pretty narrow idea of a person. If someone can't use their legs they must not be a complete person? If you don't meditate for many hours a day to deeply use all of your mind you must not be a person either.
It might be safer to say that YOU would not be a complete person without children.
Believe me I do quite fine without them.
This is too macro, and I think you're giving "feminists" too much power.
That's probably because I live with one! ;) Maybe my perspective is skewed because I know so many feminists who apply feminist thought and principles as a natural part of their lives. It's not that they never break with feminist orthodoxy, but it's always done very consciously and (usually) with quite a bit of labored deliberation.
I hear what you're saying about women being disoriented too and I agree that things are tough all over. Here's something I wrote a couple of months ago that gives some additional thoughts on where I'm at with feminism.
http://hillratdc.blogspot.com/2008/11/reluctant-feminist.html
Best,
HR
Not only a great post (made my Friday afternoon), but a great comment thread as well.
Both of which are examples of what makes this a great blog, if you'll excuse my fanboydom.
Thanks !
Hill Rat -
Thanks for linking to your blog post. I guess this is OT, but is that your little girl in hockey gear? I was on various first women's hockey teams in WI when I was in middle- and high-school, and I was thankful every single day that Title IX existed and we didn't ever actually have to use it.
@Tessa
Touche. That's what I meant to say.
@Gully
How do you know? Having children isn't like trying Tai food out to see if you like it or not.
I think Kev-Dog's got it right. Reproducing isn't central to manhood. If it were, neither the guy I call "Dad" (I'm adopted), nor my uncle (a Catholic priest) were real men. Under that definition, neither were George Washington or Jesus.
There are a lot of things that I don't like about traditional male socialization, but I also realize that boys need a definition of manhood that is not negatively defined (i.e. being a man is NOT about being a patriarch, is NOT about being dominant, etc.)
Believe it or not there's a lot of stuff about traditional male socialization that men don't like either. Coaches who's whole approach is to break down, demean, and humiliate young men into submission; Fathers who withhold affection from their sons trying to make them tough; constantly defending yourself from verbal attacks when you display the slightest hint of individuality in group settings. I could go on forever about the terrible way that men often treat each other.
I'm grateful to feminism for showing me that things don't have to be like that, but at the same time there is still some value to be found in many manhood rituals. Sometimes things that look like they might just be senior members of a group taking advantage of subordinate members actually serve a purpose. For example on my rugby team we make all rookies line the field before home games. Yes, there is an element of laziness among us older guys that put this in place. At the same time it's important for guys new to the sport to actually line a field and learn the dimensions, where do you buy paint for the field, where do we store our equipment, and everything that goes into running a team.
@KT
Indeed it is. I took her and one of her hockey playing cousins to a hockey supply store and she wanted to try on some gear.
Thanks deva. And this is beautifully said: "The truth is every reinvention carries inside it the tradition. The old and the new are not opposites. New ways are our answers to old ways and often carry whatever we need of tradition within them. I think that's okay."
I recently wrote a tribute to my dad on my blog, in which I note that in my life as a homemaker, broadly defined, I am actually following in his footsteps; that if my parents had been truly free of gender role expectations, there would have been a breadwinner and a homemaker in my family, it's just that my mom would have been the breadwinner, by dad the homemaker.
As I watch some of my straight women friends who are similarly called to homemaking, I think it's much harder for them to heed this call, because they have much more traditional gendered expectations within their marriages to struggle against. As a lesbian couple, our "marriage" (and I put that in quotes only because, 22 years in, we're still not legally married) does not come fraught with all of the baggage of tradition; we don't have to heave all of that off in quite the same ways. Paradoxically, I think, that leaves us free to embrace more traditional roles.
To whoever said he thinks we're not fully human without kids, because we're not using our whole selves: I couldn't disagree more. For me, homemaking and motherhood is a spiritual practice, and I think I know what you have experienced in fatherhood: an awakening of the soul, a stirring of something deep and profound that until you became a father, lay dormant. That is also my experience of motherhood. At the same time, I feel quite certain that had I not become a mother, there are other spiritual practices that could and would have stirred the same parts of my soul. I see that, for example, in monastic life. I see it, really, in people who are passionate and fully alive in all sorts of ways. For you, perhaps, that couldn't have happened without children. But for others, children are not actually the path to that richness and fullness (I would say this is even true for some completely smitten, devoted and loving mothers and fathers.)
Maybe I'm oversimplifying this, but having a great romantic love and having children are two of the great experiences in life. In a feminist or postfeminist world it seems striking to me that a man might be apologetic about defining himself by those experiences rather than work or worldly accomplishment. As someone who has failed at the first, there will always be a sense of failure (unless of course, things change at this late point in life), and as someone who fought tooth and nail to stay involved with my kids and have a terrific relationship with them, I take solace. While women have struggled for the right to have themselves defined as something more than wives, lovers, mothers, I think, but then I am a guy, that men acknowledging the importance of primary relationships in their lives, not so much in propriatary way, but in our core selfunderstanding, a healthy, even risky, adaptation to our current social interactions.
Wow...terrific post.
TNC, the fact that you're questioning your role is what makes the difference between you and the type of person who goes off the deep end(sadly, sometimes culminating in violence, as we've seen lately) after losing his/her 'castle'. Most people take the script because its outcome is supposed to be predictable as long as you play your part. How people deal with the betrayal they feel once the script doesn't turn out the way they expected is in my opinion really the difference between men and boys(or women and girls)...especially in relation to the way they treat any kids involved in the aftermath.
I feel a lot of sympathy for men, because it seems society would have them equate only material support with responsibility, but it's often the emotional support and warmth that's most needed. It's not that fathers shouldn't still play the role of breadwinner if they want...but they need to be able to use all the tools in the kit of manhood, including humanity itself(e.g. telling your kids that you're proud of them, taking time to teach your little girl how to change the oil in the car, etc.)
"And yet even as he constructs new definitions, he can't escape the root of the old, of the ancient and all its questions and conundrums. I'm modern man, and the child of a 60s radical. And yet even as my Dad tried to remake himself, hoping not to repeat the mistakes of those who came before him, even as I try to remake myself, hoping not to repeat the mistakes of those who came before me, old magic is at work, and ancient identities, that we thought we'd shed, call us back home."
on a side note this paragraph totally reminds me of the central theme of junot diaz's the brief and wonderous life of oscar wao.
great post tnc. i love big love and one thing that seems to be coming out a little bit more this season than previously is how plainly the characters are speaking about the afterlife and their mormonism. i think this is one of the fascinating things about this show - bill's desire both to create a sustainable working family here on earth but more importantly, so he says, for their everlasting lives beyond. and he says everything he does is for the family's spiritual journey but it's awesome to see how the show puts into contrast his earthly desires and his spiritual ones. any thoughts?
This is too macro, and I think you're giving "feminists" too much power. Individual women don't live their lives and build relationships within the framework laid out by "feminists" and neither do most men I know. I would agree that a by-product of feminist movements is a new, disorienting role for men, but the same thing applies to women as well. To some degree, all of us must find our own way, and we must choose partners that have the same attitude/outlook on life.
I think a lot of the 'redefining manhood and fatherhood' impulse came out of the freedom of no-fault and more common divorce, which wasn't entirely a 'feminist' issue. Many men decided to define 'fatherhood' as sending a check (when and if they even bothered doing that), and that led to a lot of bad things (see the anger in the Boomer threads if you don't believe me). I'm not sure how much of that can be laid at the feet of the feminists though; I think a lot of assholes (none of the commenters here!) used that as an excuse to be, well, assholes.
"much of my identity is tied up in my partner and my son, so much so that if they left, I'm not sure who I would be"
That hits home in so many ways, as does the 'exiled kings' analogy, but maybe exiled soldier comes closer. I had no idea, when my daughter was born this summer, just how much it would amp up my feelings of masculinity, but it did. At the same time, though, I don't feel 'in charge of' as much as 'responsible for', to build on another commenter's idea.
It's my job to keep the house working properly, to keep everyone safe, to keep the forces of chaos at bay, while still preparing my daughter for a world that won't pull its punches. To serve and protect, you might say.
Having been childless for 38 years, I'd agree that there are many ways other than parenting to get at the heart of life, and there are certainly plenty of folks with kids who still manage to skip blithely over the surface of things, but I can't deny that when I first held my daughter, I felt like I finally knew why I was here.
Bloody brilliant, man.
I too come from a family where all my brothers are half, and with ethnicity ranging from Chinese to Mexican. I'm also a newlywed and in the process of shoehorning my somewhat untraditional family with my wife's VERY traditional one. It is at times challenging to merge two different senses of family, but only when I over think it. I related to this read quite a bit. Thank you.
I find people who choose to have children a bit confusing and it arms that you find the opposite just as confusing
There's something to this, but the thing is that everyone who's had children has also been childless. Tautologically, people who haven't had children, haven't had children.
So it's not quite like two sets of people with different experiences talking past each other.
Being childless myself, I can't say how children enriches one's life, but since that's the sentiment that I hear from the vast majority of parents, I'm humble enough to acknowledge that it's probably true, given that they've been in my place, and I haven't been in theirs.
Dag son, whats up with the spoiler alert?!
I ain't seen it yet!!
Addendum. I'm the one in the red shirt. The youngest. Also, I'm not apologetic. This is me thinking out loud, so it may have more caveats then something you'd see in print. Consider these conversation-starters--not definitive declarations.
Some people here are blaming feminism for harming women who chose to stay at home and raise their children. Scott wrote that they "were called every name in the book," but really, was it mostly feminists doing that name-calling? I don't believe so. Feminists were fighting for equal pay for women who chose to or had to work, and for reproductive rights so that those women who chose to raise children could decide how many they wanted. Someone upthread mentioned Susan Faludi's books, and in "Backlash" she has great insights into this: how feminism was blamed for supposedly coercing women into roles they didn't want, when in actuality it was not feminists but anti-feminists.
And pointing the finger at feminists to say "you haven't fully addressed what men's new roles are going to be" just seems dismissive of feminism and doesn't seem helpful. If you see a need for that dialogue, join in and work with feminists to create it, but accept that one reason why feminists have mostly been concerned with women's issues so far is that most feminists have been women. A husband who never helps make dinner doesn't get to complain when his wife makes her own favorite meal and not his. Same thing.
The West African side of my family could relate to this post. I never really thought of them as "complicated" or "dysfunctional" though... they were always just family.
Not everyone has such a romantic picture or experience of parenthood:
http://www.asanet.org/cs/root/topnav/press/parenthood_does_not_make_people_happier
I think the biological imperative to reproduce makes us forget, deny, or overlook many of the pains of child bearing and rearing. To the extent that people go into it with a bit more reality I think they will have a better chance of coping with inevitable hardships. It's obvious that not all parents are 'completed' by children otherwise there wouldn't be any cases of abuse and neglect. I say it's better to paint it as a tough but potentially rewarding experience than to make it sound like a fairy-tale that so many like to pretend it is.
taking time to teach your little girl how to change the oil in the car
This. Parenthood is giving, but really it is sharing. (He said, as someone who aspires to the role.)
As a working definition of manhood (or womanhood) this fits the bill as well, and does not exclude the childless.
An aspect of manhood in the modern era consists of figuring out that sharing is correlated with, rather than synonymous with, providing in the material sense. (He intoned, as someone who is working on it).
I think the biological imperative to reproduce makes us forget, deny, or overlook many of the pains of child bearing and rearing.
Or a variation on that, in which fear and ignorance dictate that the truth is the only thing we never tell our kids about reproductive issues in general.
Until it's too late, so to speak.
The study you point to (and others like it) I think are consistent with what I hear from parents of my acquaintance, who describe childrearing as an often-miserable experience they would never in their wildest dreams give up.
That's not to say it's for everyone; quite the opposite. Far too many people grow up thinking that parenting is their mission in life.
I have concluded the only requirement for a family is that they treat children with love and care. Nothing else really matters and no family should be put down if they meet this requirement. That, however, does not mean betrothing young girls to older men.
"I'm the one in the red shirt."
It must have been hard for your mom to say no to those puppy dog eyes. Heart-melting, cheek-pinch inducing, off-the-charts adorable.
I dunno Tessa! My five year old son can strike *exactly* that pose, but I have no trouble saying "No" to the smart little schemer! But I do concur that the kid in the red shirt is quite the adorable one.
Honestly, I really don't find much redeeming about polygamy, either the fundamentalist Roman Grant kind or the suburban Bill Hendrickson one. Yeah, there is benefit is having help with housework but the cost of sharing the bed, time and energy of one husband divided among three (potentially four) wives is too high. The kids, especially the older ones, seem neglected to me. You rarely see Bill spend any time with them, especially the oldest daughter who is doing as much as she can to get away from that scene.
I wasn't moved when Don Embry started to cry considering his sexist directives last week about "breaking the filly" and "showing them who's the master", etc, although I could have been more moved if the actor cried a bit more effectively.
And finally, I think Bill's early life has made such a psychic imprint on him that all his efforts are aimed towards building his own type of compound where he can be head and prophet. It's ego dressed up in religion.
Having said that, I still cannot understand Barb's motivations for staying with this guy, considering he took advantage of her near-death experience with cancer to impose polygamy on her. I see why Nicki joined and same with ditzy Margene but Barb, I still don't see it. She had to sacrifice her beliefs, her mother, her sister, her LDS community, her friends and is on the verge of sacrificing her daughter's respect. What for?
There's a ton of people in my family whom I'm not related to by any blood relationship, my wife's family is the same, and I've never had any indication that this isn't true for pretty much everybody.
"Family" might as well be a synonym for "complicated." That's part of the reason we have something called "a family emergency", which basically means "I need time off work to deal with some shit that you cannot possibly believe how complicated it is."
And pointing the finger at feminists to say "you haven't fully addressed what men's new roles are going to be" just seems dismissive of feminism and doesn't seem helpful.
As the person who expressed that sentiment, I see it as quite the opposite. When I offer the critique that feminism hasn't addressed men's roles adequately I am opening up dialog with other feminists. I don't seek to exploit this oversight to question the validity of feminism or its value to me as a man, but rather I'm saying to feminists, "Cover your flank."
I'm down with feminism, but too much of what I've seen, read, and heard about men's roles in feminism boil down to the admonition to not be sexist. Stuff like the following is what you need to get more men on board.
http://dadsanddaughters.blogspot.com/2009/01/tips-for-dads-daughters-to-watch-super.html
My family isn't very complicated--just big.
But on the subject of complicated families, you ought to listen to the song "Merry Christmas from the Family" by Montgomery Gentry. Great song, and it captures it well.
@Hill Rat
I'd say it's not even as much about "getting men on board" as it is about having a completed philosophy. If feminism is a way of life and full of principles that are supposed to be accessible to moral actors of all kinds, then you've got to have positive proscriptions for those actors. As with any kind of behavioral conditioning it's much more effective to be able to affirm good behavior and not just punish bad behavior.
I do take Jessica's point that up until now, feminists have been too busy fighting for women's basic rights to obsess over how men are feeling, but movements grow and change in the same way that everything does (if it survives) and I don't think it's too much to ask of contemporary feminism to consider the ramifications of maleness as a positive category of being which might have some merit and require some re-thinking.
As I said before, as a woman and a feminist who's planning on children soon, I feel pretty certain that I can raise baddass girls, but I'm not as sure about boys. This is mostly because I don't feel I've thought enough or read enough or talked enough about what it means to be a man over and above and besides just being a human whereas, I have a pretty good idea of the flip side. Not only because I am female, but because I've thought about what that means to me.
My partner is some help with this, but he's less philosophically inclined than I and is convinced that I'm overthinking the whole issue. Of course, he probably has a point.
@Mike T -- Love the "serve and protect" line-- that's just what my husband would say!
@Jordan and Gully- The reason why parents act like having kids is a really big deal that you have to experience to understand is that having kids is a really big deal that you have to experience to understand.
I read a quote once that I thought described parenting exactly (but I don't remember the quote exactly!)
"To have a child - is to forever have your heart go walking outside your body."
Your heart can be crushed so easily as a parent, but at the same time, it no longer belongs to you. A large part of parenting is realizing that so much of life that mattered to you no longer does, and that what really does matter to you, you really have very little control over.
rb says: Or a variation on that, in which fear and ignorance dictate that the truth is the only thing we never tell our kids about reproductive issues in general.
Until it's too late, so to speak.
Right...this is exactly what I had in mind. Teenage girls with low self-esteem are prone to see a baby as a 'just-add-water' scheme for the entrance into adulthood, as a way of gaining acceptance, attention, or respect. For young men and women, we need to let them know that there are many possible paths to maturity, respect, and fulfillment, not just parenthood in the literal sense. They should not feel 'obligated' to have a child to feel 'normal' or to fit into society.
Sadly, many adults also fall into the same trap...baby makes instant-glue for troubled marriage, or for keeping up with the Jones or whatever. While I'm sure there are many wonderful, loving parents who don't fall into this pattern, there are also many who do. And their children suffer for it.
Oh man, thats pure distilled truth right there.
I'd say it's not even as much about "getting men on board" as it is about having a completed philosophy.
Indeed, but perhaps only men themselves can effectively provide the needed impetus and input within the feminist movement to address men's new roles. It's not unreasonable for feminists to ask that men take an active role in redefining those roles and as I type this post I find myself thinking, "Why am I asking feminists to define me and maleness?"
I feel pretty certain that I can raise baddass girls, but I'm not as sure about boys. This is mostly because I don't feel I've thought enough or read enough or talked enough about what it means to be a man over and above and besides just being a human whereas, I have a pretty good idea of the flip side. Not only because I am female, but because I've thought about what that means to me.
I have to thank my wife for keeping me straight on all of this, she really helped me understand what it was I needed to do to help my little girl and find some resources that spoke to me. If you're already considering what you can do to help any sons you may have before you're even pregnant, you're putting more thought into the issue than most people.
"Your heart can be crushed so easily as a parent, but at the same time, it no longer belongs to you. A large part of parenting is realizing that so much of life that mattered to you no longer does, and that what really does matter to you, you really have very little control over."
Oh, man. I've never heard a better, more concise reason not to have kids. Thanks!
(Just kidding!! Kind of!!)
To Deva--there are of course a whole raft ot things in parenting a child of the opposite gender, but a couple that come to mind are down to earth dialogues concerning respect and responsibility (and the connection of the two to affection) on one side and on the other, honest accessiblity as a person--demystify women for your sons. Listen to them and give them useful counsel.
But in the long run, it strikes me that it's most important to keep a beginner's mind (even when they grow up), and acknowledge to yourself that you (or they) can't be perfect and that you're going to blow it big time sometimes. The heart is an imperfect and not always logical organ, and there will be times that you have no other choice but to risk being wrong. Be willing to move on and adapt. Moms, dads, kids are individuals--there is no one size that fits all.
I honestly don't remember who told me this, but,
"Children do not bring you happiness. They bring you joy."
That's a very sublime description of what I think the parents here are trying to express. I remember hearing it before I was a father and not really understanding what it meant. It took about two seconds after the birth of my daughter to fully get it.
And yet every year the man who made it all possible, my Dad, is never there. He doesn't celebrate Christmas. He is busy reinvinting.
This troubles me. I am not a Catholic or even a believer, yet I accompany my wife any her family to Christmas mass every year. I don't use my lack of faith as an excuse to avoid my family. I'm thankful for every opportunity to share in their love and affection.
Karl,
Then your spiritual journey is complete, and you really have no reason to be troubled by other people's flaws. Your alright. What else matters?
wow. great post. great responses. heavy stuff for a friday... lebecka that quote will be used by me for a long time to come, your entire last paragraph.
I'm sorry if I have offended you. I hesitated to post my thoughts for that reason, but finally decided that you post about your family in order to get the feedback of others with different experiences. If your family's disfunction is so functional, why is it that you have not yet completed your spiritual journey? I'm genuinely curious and not trying to be snarky.
Deleted. Troll elsewhere.
My 18 year old son had to write a paper for a college psyche class on what defines one as an adult. He presented that it is when one is capable of taking care of/providing for another. So simple. A noble and natural aspiration, I think.
Ettie- in the field of youth development we(or they, I guess, now) talk about fully embracing responsibility for raising the next generation as a basic sign of adulthood.
Great post, Ta-Nehisi.
But reading this last part...
"You should see a Coates family Christmas. Assembled are all these parts, which social workers would dismiss as stepbrothers, half-sisters, step-aunts, half-nephews etc. A great time is had by all. And yet every year the man who made it all possible, my Dad, is never there. He doesn't celebrate Christmas. He is busy reinvinting."
...I couldn't help picturing Jerry Stiller yelling about Festivus in that Seinfeld episode. Maybe because you posted the video of those sneaker commercials, which reminded me of the ones with Jerry Stiller playing Vince Lombardi.
I think of Feminism as a vehicle to helping you choose who you want to be. It's the union or alliance that helps fair legislation get passed. But in the home, it's not about feminism, it's about individualism and fairness. At least that's how I frame the discussion for my boys, because I really don't want them focusing on men vs women. And fortunately we live in a community with a lot of variation (moms that work, moms at home, dads at home,gay families; extended families).
So I am trying to understand the problem, but honestly I don't get why masculinity or manhood needs a definition. Is that a self-persception issue or a social pressure issue? Is it not enough to be a full life partner who shares in the discussions of goals and values and is present and participating in their execution?
And how do you choose your goals and values? One thing that partnership has over marriage is that it is whatever you define it to be. Marriage, which is marketed to you since you were a baby, means different things to different people, but those differences are rarely discussed in any depth before the wedding. Marriage carries with it loads of meaning with regards to identity, property, rights and roles. But partnership is an ever evolving negotiation because you have to constantly reaffirm that it is worth staying together since there is no law saying you have to. So I think, actually, the problem is not that feminism has left men in limbo, I think it's that we continue to model our relationships on marriage as if it is some bedrock of understanding and then we falter when we realize that we had different ideas on what the marriage contract includes.
i totally get his dad being "missing". he has core values that he's declared important to him. his faith is within those core values and they keep him centered to his world. his joy i can imagine comes from knowing his family is together on christmas or any day and from knowing that he doesn't have to be present for them to be family. but he, i'm sure, is aware and takes comfort in knowing that his presence is always felt and shared. consequently his isn't "missing" at all. being from tc's father's time i share and admire lot of his values and don't much celebrate holidays like christmas and thanksgiving.
Thank you.
Your honesty is what keeps me looking forward to your blog every day.
A few thoughts on feminism...
I don't find your ideal of tying up manhood in children to be be bad in any way. Of course, the realization that you aren't the only one to make decisions about having them does make this tactic somewhat problematic if that was your main justification and support for being a man.
I say this because I think children, overall, tend to make us more human and actually make us adults. When I look around at my friends and acquaintances.. I can honestly say that those who have kids--at least those who take responsibility for them--have a depth to them that comes from acknowledging how more important sacrifice for your child is than mere self-fulfillment.
They are more real to me.. and I've always thought that kids made us more real...
Now.. with that in mind.. feminism has done some awesome stuff. Although it has often been caricatured and sometimes misused in ways that make it seem like it is anti-child.. what feminism has done is to give us all a better chance at being better parents, because both parents have to agree and make the conscious decision to become these more real and mature individuals.
In this way--no longer is your manhood tied up in the subtraction or negation of a woman's potential identity.. No longer is she, without choice, forced to be a mother--as beautiful as that role can be..
Now.. as a team--you and your partner can be mother and father--woman and man--and yes, some parts of your identity will be tied up in those roles.. but not at the expense of the other...
In any case.. I believe that if things go well over time--eventually the label of "feminist" will fade away--as we will all have equal power and then we can all just be humanists... that day is probably a ways into the future however..
PS--for transparency's sake. I have been raising three step-kids for the past nine years. My partner and I aren't yet married, although we plan on getting, what we refer to as, "legalized" this september. I, myself, would also like to have "my own" child with my partner, and perhaps we will.. but that is something that we will choose together..
Deleted. Try again.
Hill Rat (& everyone), thanks for your thoughtful responses. I think I came on sounding more critical than I should have in my first comment. Your comment about how you as a man can contribute to feminism and help redefine male roles is exactly what our culture needs more of.
What a beautiful piece, Mr. Coates.
I'm a big "Big Love" fan as well, but to me, the entire concept seems so foreign, which of course is one of the things that makes it so watchable!
To read your response to the show, in terms of your own family experience, is enlightening to say the least.
I have no doubt that having children has the potential to enrich many people's lives and make them more responsible. Like TNC describes it, for some it seems almost like a religious experience, an awakening of consciousness. And if that's you, then that's wonderful, beautiful. But what I object to is the notion that people who are responsible parents are somehow morally or ethically superior(via their particular type of sacrifice)to any person who either decides not to have children or who can't have children. Devotion, sacrifice, and commitment to improving others' lives can be done in a variety of ways.
Marisa-
Masculinity needs defining because the messages about masculinity are conflicting. Not just the conflict between physicality (masculinity defined in adolescence and competition)and emotional competence ("real man" as defined by women in this culture) but in the conflict that arises from gaining status in one area that causes you to lose status in another. Many young men cannot do well in school without a loss of status, which can create consequences form humiliation to danger of physical assault. If you express yourself emotionally, you are called "a chick" or "gay". Fail to express yourself? You are repressed, an emotionless jerk.
Because of the ambiguity, you end up with random, extreme, or simplistic expressions of masculinity that are unhealthy.
A clear model, and good mentors, towards rich masculinity are invaluable toward creating a more safe and stable society.
Wallyz,
I think the issue is that you need good examples of masculinity because there are so many crappy ones that you have to work against, not because a child needs to learn how to man. A child (without the negative images of masculity) that grows up understanding his strengths and his ability to be a source of strength for others will grow up to be a great man whether or not he has a mentor. That said, negative images abound and it may be close to impossible to shield your child from these influences. However, not to get all up to Jesus and everything, but Obama is a great example of manhood for any boy. He went up against the Old School Alpha Males (Bush and McCain) and won. He proved that a strong man chooses a strong partner and that brains and hardwork can actually beat manipulation and bluster.
I agree with you, Marisa, about the abundance of negative images. However, the thoguht that a boy can grow into a strong Man without a positive construction to build on goes against most developmental research. In fact, I can't conceive of that happening. There is always a scaffold- is it good or bad? Therein lies the question.
@Jessica - Thanks so much for your kind words.
@Marisa said: . . . not because a child needs to learn how to [sic] man.
I think most men would disagree with that statement. The absence of clear manhood rituals in our society leads to ambiguity about how and when a boy becomes a man. This ambiguity leaves boys who grow up in a home without a father (or in a home with a disengaged or negligent father) especially vulnerable to having their conception of manhood being shaped in an unhealthy way.
The most moral person I know had the same telephone number for 25 years (she finally went cellular a couple of years ago) and has had the same address for more than 30 years. She is my sister and she also had 5 fantastic kids by as many fathers. Go figure. I've tried.
The horrifying thing about Big Love of course is that the relationships are so gendered. Your father's first wife already had a son from a previous relationship, so clearly it is OK for women to have more than one partner in a lifetime in your world. "Complicated" families are great as long as women are allowed to have their own complicated partnerships, which I think points to the main distinction between Big Love and real world society. (Not that there aren't problems for women in real world society. . . .)
And every time I see the show I can't help thinking, oh Bill, you can't be so stupid as to not notice that with your system humans are going to run out of women here! Either bring back mass warfare and hunting to take care of the excess men or get with the program.
I didn't read all of these comments, but I wanted to add my voice to those thanking you for this post. The world might tell me that as a white gay dude with no interest in procreating that I'd have nothing in common with the world described in this kind of post, but the world would be wrong. I spent a lot of my 20s trying to figure out how to measure my worth after I threw away the stick the world expected me to measure myself by; this was especially hard because, when I started examining my own life, I realized my parents -- and their traditional values -- did such a good job somehow raising a man who was able to reject their path and still value himself. I wanted to do what they did without making any of the same choices. We're all just trying to make ourselves new surrounded by ancient songs we don't always realize we're hearing.
Thanks again.
Two things: I a HUGE Big Love fan. Lived in Utah for awhile, saw how closed off it is from the rest of the country...this show had me riveted from the jump.
Now, to get myself in trouble...
One of the consequences of feminism is not simply redefining roles for women--an unquestioned good--but redefining roles for men. I think that will be a good in the long-term too, but right now a lot of us are in this space of trying to figure out who we are and what we should be.
Since I was very young, I have always had a steady sense of whats fair. The idea that women (or minorities of any kind) should be considered equal in every respect was hard-wired in my brain. I had issues to work through in my own life, to be sure, but I never questioned the motivations or tactics employed by feminists.
That has changed, of late. I had the audacity to suggest that certain tactics and indeed certain arguments diminish the cause, and paid dearly for saying so. I caught hell for describing a woman's blog post as shrill, even though I do not attach gender to that word in any way. I've used the word to describe men as well. The argument is shrill, not the person.
The Favreau incident really rocked my world. The vitriol I received for suggesting that he did not necessarily set out to purposefully demean Hillary Clinton as a woman, but, rather, as a person, was horrifying. And, all of this was from women who know me, and have been to my home, witnessed how I interact with my wife and kids!
Women 20 years younger than me were insistent upon using this as a "teachable moment" for me, as if my perspective was just plain wrong.
Sorry to hijack this very thoughtful post. If I may offer one thing...if your world no longer included your partner and son, how you handled that might be the greatest measure of the kind of man you are.
Your mileage may vary. Loved the post.