Greg Hampikian Thinks Men Are Becoming Obsolete (NY Times Op-Ed)

In his Op-Ed from Friday's New York Times, Greg Hampikian presents some reasonable science about the role of men and our increasing ability to replace some of our functions - which leads him to the unreasonable conclusion that men are now reliant on their entertainment value for any relevance. Thanks to Tom Armstrong for the link.

Hampikian is an idiot.

Warren Farrell has shown that "of the 25 professions ranked the lowest [in the US], 24 of them are 85-100 per cent male. That's things like roofer, welder, garbage collector, sewer maintenance – jobs with very little security, little pay and few people want them." If we don't need men, does that mean women want these jobs?

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2010), men account for 92% of on-the-job deaths. What jobs are producing those deaths? They are in primarily male dominated jobs (1995), such as logging, fishers, truck drivers, farm workers, construction, structural metal workers, taxi drivers, and airplane pilots. Are these jobs that women want to assume?

More important than the labor issue is the socialization issue (2007).

• There is considerable evidence that mothers who live with her male partner experience less externalizing behavioral problems (aggression, antisocial behavior, defiance, noncompliance, poor impulse control). 
• Active and regular interaction with the child by the father offers a range of positive outcomes, although it seems that no specific type of engagement is more beneficial than another. 
• Father engagement seems to have differential effects on desirable outcomes by reducing the frequency of behavioral problems in boys and psychological problems in young women, and enhancing cognitive development, while decreasing delinquency and economic disadvantage in low socio-economic status families.

I would argue that it need not be the birth father when that is not a good option. Having a male figure in the home (or as a frequent and consistent presence) who is engaged and supportive is the essential element (in my opinion - and there are some studies that support this). 

I could go on and a few pages, but this will suffice - there are many, many posts on this blog that refute the nonsense Hampikian is spouting.

Men, Who Needs Them?

By GREG HAMPIKIAN
Published: August 24, 2012

Boise, Idaho 

MAMMALS are named after their defining characteristic, the glands capable of sustaining a life for years after birth — glands that are functional only in the female. And yet while the term “mammal” is based on an objective analysis of shared traits, the genus name for human beings, Homo, reflects an 18th-century masculine bias in science. 

That bias, however, is becoming harder to sustain, as men become less relevant to both reproduction and parenting. Women aren’t just becoming men’s equals. It’s increasingly clear that “mankind” itself is a gross misnomer: an uninterrupted, intimate and essential maternal connection defines our species.

The central behaviors of mammals revolve around how we bear and raise our young, and humans are the parenting champions of the class. In the United States, for nearly 20 percent of our life span we are considered the legal responsibility of our parents. 

With expanding reproductive choices, we can expect to see more women choose to reproduce without men entirely. Fortunately, the data for children raised by only females is encouraging. As the Princeton sociologist Sara S. McLanahan has shown, poverty is what hurts children, not the number or gender of parents. 

That’s good, since women are both necessary and sufficient for reproduction, and men are neither. From the production of the first cell (egg) to the development of the fetus and the birth and breast-feeding of the child, fathers can be absent. They can be at work, at home, in prison or at war, living or dead. 

Think about your own history. Your life as an egg actually started in your mother’s developing ovary, before she was born; you were wrapped in your mother’s fetal body as it developed within your grandmother. 

After the two of you left Grandma’s womb, you enjoyed the protection of your mother’s prepubescent ovary. Then, sometime between 12 and 50 years after the two of you left your grandmother, you burst forth and were sucked by her fimbriae into the fallopian tube. You glided along the oviduct, surviving happily on the stored nutrients and genetic messages that Mom packed for you. 

Then, at some point, your father spent a few minutes close by, but then left. A little while later, you encountered some very odd tiny cells that he had shed. They did not merge with you, or give you any cell membranes or nutrients — just an infinitesimally small packet of DNA, less than one-millionth of your mass. 

Over the next nine months, you stole minerals from your mother’s bones and oxygen from her blood, and you received all your nutrition, energy and immune protection from her. By the time you were born your mother had contributed six to eight pounds of your weight. Then as a parting gift, she swathed you in billions of bacteria from her birth canal and groin that continue to protect your skin, digestive system and general health. In contrast, your father’s 3.3 picograms of DNA comes out to less than one pound of male contribution since the beginning of Homo sapiens 107 billion babies ago.

And while birth seems like a separation, for us mammals it’s just a new form of attachment to our female parent. If your mother breast-fed you, as our species has done for nearly our entire existence, then you suckled from her all your water, protein, sugar, fats and even immune protection. She sampled your diseases by holding you close and kissing you, just as your father might have done; but unlike your father, she responded to your infections by making antibodies that she passed to you in breast milk.

I don’t dismiss the years I put in as a doting father, or my year at home as a house husband with two young kids. And I credit my own father as the more influential parent in my life. Fathers are of great benefit. But that is a far cry from “necessary and sufficient” for reproduction. 

If a woman wants to have a baby without a man, she just needs to secure sperm (fresh or frozen) from a donor (living or dead). The only technology the self-impregnating woman needs is a straw or turkey baster, and the basic technique hasn’t changed much since Talmudic scholars debated the religious implications of insemination without sex in the fifth century. If all the men on earth died tonight, the species could continue on frozen sperm. If the women disappear, it’s extinction. 

Ultimately the question is, does “mankind” really need men? With human cloning technology just around the corner and enough frozen sperm in the world to already populate many generations, perhaps we should perform a cost-benefit analysis. 

It’s true that men have traditionally been the breadwinners. But women have been a majority of college graduates since the 1980s, and their numbers are growing. It’s also true that men have, on average, a bit more muscle mass than women. But in the age of ubiquitous weapons, the one with the better firepower (and knowledge of the law) triumphs. 

Meanwhile women live longer, are healthier and are far less likely to commit a violent offense. If men were cars, who would buy the model that doesn’t last as long, is given to lethal incidents and ends up impounded more often? 

Recently, the geneticist J. Craig Venter showed that the entire genetic material of an organism can be synthesized by a machine and then put into what he called an “artificial cell.” This was actually a bit of press-release hyperbole: Mr. Venter started with a fully functional cell, then swapped out its DNA. In doing so, he unwittingly demonstrated that the female component of sexual reproduction, the egg cell, cannot be manufactured, but the male can. 

When I explained this to a female colleague and asked her if she thought that there was yet anything irreplaceable about men, she answered, “They’re entertaining.” 

Gentlemen, let’s hope that’s enough. 

Greg Hampikian is a professor of biology and criminal justice at Boise State University and the director of the Idaho Innocence Project.

Laurie Penny - How Should We Talk to Men about Sexism?

From The Independent (UK), this is an interesting exchange between a male and a female - both bloggers and both self-described feminists - on men and sexism. With that dumbass Missouri Congressman, Todd Akin, who is running for the Senate, making news with his fantasy-based models of reproductive biology (which is a more ignorant form of his unrepentant sexism), this is a relevant topic.

Hell, if guys like him get control of this country (and Paul Ryan is one of them), sexism will be the least our worries . . . it will be all-out war on women (and the men who think women and men should have rights, pay, and responsibilities across the board)..

But I digress . . . .

I think the most revealing thing for me in reading this is identifying just how much sexism shapes my behavior - rather, the fear of being seen as sexist or that my words/actions will be viewed as a form of sexism. Martin mentions changing his route while walking to avoid following a woman down an alley - I've done that, too. And more simply, I have NOT said things for fear of it being taken wrong.

For example, as most readers here know, I am a personal trainer (as well as a psychotherapist), so I spend a lot of time in gyms. I notice when someone, male or female, has made body composition improvements, but if it's a woman and I do not know her very well, I will not say anything (although I will have the impulse to say, "You look great - you must be proud of the changes you are making!"). My fear is that she probably will take my comment as another dumb jock (or old man, if she is young) trying to hit on her while she is working out.

There are probably a million little ways that sexism (as an assumption about men - guilty until proven innocent) shapes my reality - and I had not really thought about that before reading this exchange. However, while feminism can be useful in helping men understand female experience, I don't really see it as the answer to sexism (which is where this article concludes).

How should we talk to men about sexism?

 
By Laurie Penny
Monday, 23 July 2012


 

Laurie Penny and Martin Robbins are both writers, both feminists and both happened to be sitting alone at their computers on a Friday night when the question of ‘how to talk to men about sexism without scaring them off?’ came up on Twitter. Reasoning that the best way to encourage conversation is to start one, they did.

Martin: It’s tough being a male feminist, albeit far less tough than being a female one. Some women argue that, as a man, I shouldn’t be allowed to use the term to describe myself. There are men who say that I only support feminism to get laid.  But the biggest problem I have persuading other men is one word: ‘patriarchy’. I’ve read the manual, I understand what patriarchy is, completely accept that it exists; but as a word it’s a disaster. It frames feminism in opposition to men, and it fails to capture that men too are victims of status quo. Feminists are fighting a centuries-old system of power that benefits nobody but the elite. If they win everyone benefits, and in an ideal world working- and middle-class men would be natural allies in the fight – one of the many reasons the “men’s rights” movement are so tragic. My frustration is that not enough people are getting this message across to them.

Laurie: What you’re talking about is structural violence, and the difficulty people have in understanding that there’s more to sexism than individual men doing individually nasty things to individual woman. In a world where we’re encouraged to see ourselves purely as atomised individuals with no relationship to any sort of broader social context, that’s a tough distinction to make. Ironically, structural violence is just what the word ‘patriarchy’ attempts to describe – but I think one reason men jerk away from the description ‘patriarchy’ is that it’s assumed to imply that you, individual man, have a lot of power, when you don’t.

Martin: Yes, exactly.

Laurie: The trouble is that patriarchy as a structure of violence is set up to produce precisely that reaction. It’s set up to make individual men feel guilty, ashamed and resentful at their place in a system of brutal hierarchy. Feminism is fighting a system of privilege in which class and gender work together so that only a small group of mostly-men – patriarchs – actually have power. Some of these patriarchs now wear skirt-suits, but that doesn’t make the whole thing much better. But let’s get back to that feeling of mistrust around ‘patriarchy’. Why does it hurt to be told you have gender privilege? By the way, let’s stay aware that we’re two internet-based middle-class British white kids talking about this!

Martin: Well, for me when I first encountered feminists using the term, I didn’t feel very privileged, personally. And that’s exacerbated if you’re a middle-class woman (or man) and you’re explaining to a checkout worker at the Co-op that he has privilege, you’re going to get looked at a bit funny. In terms of language it’s almost designed to frame things in terms of men vs. women, where the men are the villains, even if that’s not the intent. So naturally a first instinct is to go on the defensive.

Laurie: Okay. I think it’s important to recognise that privilege isn’t the same as power – and also to acknowledge the effect of shame here. Most if not all men think of themselves as basically decent blokes. They don’t want to be complicit in a system of gendered violence.

Martin: There’s a reflected shame too. It’s not pleasant knowing that women feel vulnerable because of the behaviour of a – substantial – minority of my gender.

Laurie: And that really does suck! It sucks that because of the behaviour of, as you say, a substantial minority of your gender, if we were strangers you couldn’t come up and introduce yourself to me on the Tube without my feeling a bit threatened – just for example.

Martin: Exactly. I’m six foot two, big build, I will literally change my route to avoid, for example, following a woman up an alley.

Laurie: Seriously?

Martin: Absolutely. Or hang back at least, or try and walk past quickly so I’m ahead of them. I do the same with elderly people too. Or basically, anyone I think might be freaked out by a big guy following them up an alley!

Laurie: The thing is that, considerate though that is, it doesn’t actually help much in the long term – because the people we really need to worry about are never going to hang back. But if we can’t talk about structures of violence for fear of putting men on the defensive, then, what can we do? Is there actually any way of talking about feminism that doesn’t make men defensive, and should that be the aim?

Martin: Well, I think there’s a question that’s rarely asked or tackled seriously, and that’s how does patriarchy affect men.

Laurie: That’s true. Feminists often repeat the mantra that it does without properly devoting time to explaining why. I guess some of us feel like we’ve enough of our own problems to sort out, and rightly so. A lot of blokes ask me ‘why do you talk about feminism? Surely it’s about equality! If you said ‘equalism’ then we’d listen!’ But it’s about so much more than equality…

Martin: If you take rape, we’re – rightly – bombarded with statistics on the prevalence of rape, convictions, etc. What I see less discussion of is why so many men are raised to rape in the first place. There’s a very similar discussion to be had around suicide, the biggest killer of my demographic. Why do so many men come out at 18 ill-equipped to deal with civilised society around them?

Laurie: I’ve just read Hanna Rosin’s ‘The End of Men,’ in which she seems to echo a very familiar argument that men are somehow falling behind, not properly equipped or evolved for modern life, whilst women are racing ahead. And it’s absolutely true that a lot of our ideals of masculinity are still based around a social model which largely doesn’t exist anymore, if it ever did: of decently-paid, stable work, industrial jobs – but it doesn’t necessarily follow that life is getting commensurately better for women.

Martin: Well, again I think there’s a danger of framing this as men vs. women in that kind of discussion.

Laurie: And that’s what a lot of people seem keen to do. Phrasing the whole thing as a giant set of scales where there’s a fixed amount of power and the more women have the less men have is absurd, but it’s convincing. It’s an argument that undermines class consciousness. Actually patriarchy isn’t disappearing at all – it’s simply being concentrated amongst fewer and fewer people.

Martin: This is where I think ‘male privilege’, while accurate, can be a distraction – because the privilege really in modern society is that men are held back maybe 10% while women are held back more. Nobody is ‘winning’ any contest aside from a shrinking elite at the top of the pyramid who have an uncanny knack of getting the proles to fight among themselves.

Laurie: So I think this is our point of contention. I don’t think talking about male privilege distracts from class, because the two are related. Capitalism is a system built on the subjugation of women, and that’s still what it runs on. The nature of labour and its distribution are changing, and unfortunately our concept of masculinity is, has always been, so keyed into winning at capitalism or within its confines that if a man doesn’t – as is happening more and more right now – he feels de-gendered, unmanned, unable to cope. That’s always been the case. It’s why unemployment has always been such a huge mental health risk for men. And it’s also why times of high unemployment tend to see an increase in male-on-female domestic violence: gender is a way of dividing and distracting people from their own class condition, but nobody can fully understand class today unless they understand gender and power and how they interact.  I’m trying to think of a word that works better than patriarchy and I just can’t. Personally I love men, but I loathe patriarchs. Margaret Thatcher was a patriarch; you’re not.

Martin: Well, yes and no. I think branding is an issue, but I do struggle with a better word for it. On the other hand, maybe we’re too obsessed with the right word. Maybe just explaining to people how the existing system is fucking them over is a better way to go. Everyone can relate to that.

Laurie: There’s something so grating about being told that men would take feminists seriously if only we’d be nicer about it, make them feel safe and important and not threatened.

Martin: It also removes from men the responsibility to educate themselves and be aware of their surroundings and place in society.

Laurie: So when blokes I like do sexist things, half of me wants to yell and rage and the other half of me wants to sit them down and make them a cup of tea and quietly, calmly explain where they’re going wrong.

Martin: But then that’s an education I think a lot of people could benefit from, it’s something that should be taught in schools.

Laurie: A lot of vile sexist – and homophobic, and racist – behaviour gets learned in schools and goes unchecked, and by the time people leave they have to un-learn it all.

Martin: Completely unchecked, and it’s not just the obvious stuff, by the time you’re 18 as a man you’ve been taught to define yourself by certain values. How hard you are, never crying, and so on. The male suicide rate is linked to jobs, but there’s also a horrible loneliness about being a man in your twenties. You’re not allowed to say you’re lonely and vulnerable; it’s hard to make close friends unless you keep them from university.

Laurie: Oh. Do you think it’s like that for everyone?

Martin: Nothing’s ever like that for everyone, but I think it’s like it for a lot of men. I think generally men without families don’t have the same support structures women do, on average.

Laurie: I’d eyebrow-raise at that, but then I hang out around a lot of touchy-feely, pinko-socialist queers who talk a lot about building communities, so forgive my ignorance. It does seem like it could be lonely, being a bloke.

Martin: And I think that’s a function of how we’re raised. Look at male role models in popular culture – they tend to be lone wolves or alpha males in a group. Loneliness can be hard to define. You can be surrounded by people and be alone. The NHS have some good research on men my age, one of the biggest problems is not being able to discuss their feelings, and an inability to seek help.

Laurie: Yes, although it wasn’t always like that. Again, the model of masculinity changes according to what success and power is supposed to look like. Sixty years ago it was being the head of a household, an important role in your organisation or company or union, a pillar of your community. Now success for men is far more likely to mean lonely entrepreneurism. Seeking help is seen as weak.

Martin: Batman wouldn’t seek help.

Laurie: Batman doesn’t need to seek help, he has a butler.

Martin: And a billion dollars.

Laurie: And an enormous tower with his name on it.

Martin: Yes. No issues there at all.

Laurie: But seriously, what about sex?

Martin: Well, I don’t know you that well.

Laurie: Hah. Seriously, sex is a huge sticking point when it comes to talking to men about sexism. Unfortunately, there are still a significant proportion of men and women whose only real intimate contact with the opposite sex is through dating, and through fucking. So, the misunderstanding, hurt and heartbreak that come with that often color men’s understanding of women, and vice versa – the romantic-industrial complex encourages heterosexual people, particularly men, to see every member of the opposite sex as potentially interchangeable – ‘all women are cruel’; ‘all men are bastards’.

Martin: Well sex and control/power are inextricably bound. If you’re brought up to believe you’re James Bond, and then women refuse to sleep with you, that doesn’t compute very easily. So then you have men who basically resent the power they believe women hold over them, which is dangerous. Look at how people are brought up with this. It’s no fucking wonder that the rates of sexual assault are where they are. On the one hand you have women who are told sexuality is the most important thing they can have/wield. On the other, men raised to cede control to their penises and told their value is measured in their ability to dominate their surroundings.

Laurie: I’ve had men tell me that actually it’s women who have all the power, because they have the power of sexual refusal. Women are also informed that this is the only power we have or are expected to want – and ironically, of course, when we do say ‘no’ we’re rarely believed. Sexual refusal is the battleground, and if that’s women’s main power, it’s a shit power to have – particularly as it mainly works for young, hot women. For a lot of men, though, it seems like ‘women who I want to have sex with’ are the only ones admitted into the category ‘woman’ in the first place. Sexual refusal as a limited, contingent form of control is double bullshit for women and girls, because it means that if we actually happen to like sex and seek it out, as most of us would were we free to do so, we’re judged harshly for it. We like to think we live in a hugely sexually free culture, but we don’t. We don’t.

Martin: Well, that’s another point I wanted to hit. With men’s magazines, say, we’ve developed this weird lad culture that’s almost grown up in opposite to feminism – except it’s counter-productive and infantilising. And in a weird way a lot of examples of ‘rape culture’ – Brendan O’Neil’s “how can I help wolf-whistling at women” for example – are immensely infantilising. It’s like being told you’re a dribbling animal, so weak-willed that you’re guided by your penis. This weird clique of writers at magazines gradually fading out of fashion have an almost hysterical need to define what is and isn’t allowed to be sexy, and it seems not to bear much relationship to what people choose in real life. I remember, growing up,  a lot of pressure on finding the right type of woman attractive – namely FHM’s sexiest 100 women, which as an exercise is like asking all humanity what their favourite foods are and then blending all the results into a sort of bland gruel.

Laurie: I like that. Ever thought about writing for a living?

Martin: Not sure there’s any money in it!

Laurie: Point.

Martin: But seriously, we talk about the objectification of women – on the flip side of that there’s a generation of men being told “these are the women you’re allowed to objectify.” Though I’m not claiming equivalency there in terms of harm done!

Laurie: So what you’re saying is that men are socialised to feel bad if they don’t participate in a culture that hurts and objectifies women?

Martin: Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. They reach adulthood in the 21st century, equipped with a 20th century education. I can’t think of a men’s magazine that covers these issues. I can’t even think of a columnist that covers these issues. In fact when I wrote about the FHM list being insulting to men I think I may have been about the first male journalist to ever do so. Ask me to name outspoken feminist male writers and by golly gosh I’d struggle without spending an evening on Google. Feminism can be a daunting area for men. Feminism has its own language, codes, like any cliquey area of writing. I’m keenly aware of blundering in as a man and saying stupid things, it put me off writing about it for a long time until I had the confidence. I was nervous about this chat. I’m keenly aware that you could probably make mincemeat of me on this topic.

Laurie: Unfortunately, it is true that there’s a small but serious risk of getting painfully jumped on if you get something wrong, particularly with the internet.

Martin: You almost need a sort of training arena where you can say stupid things to feminists and not get shot down in public. When I was struggling to understand patriarchy, I found feminist blogs unhelpful. I was asking questions I now realise were a bit stupid, but out of naivety rather than anything else.

Laurie: I’ve thought about this a lot and unfortunately, I do think female feminists are going to have to be a bit more forgiving and generous in our corrections from time to time, if we can do that without diluting the message – firm but fair. Which of course sucks balls, because we’ve spent our lives being told to be forgiving and generous and make men feel better.

Martin: Well, it’s a balance, because while I agree with that, men also need to…er…man up, and accept that we all have a responsibility to educate ourselves. We do need male feminists, but it’s hard to know where to start, especially as a writer.  Plus, feminism shouldn’t be just for women. I’ve had feminists tell me I’m not allowed to call myself a feminist, and I hate that.

Laurie: Feminists who treat feminism as a special club that only they get to decide membership of can bog off.

Martin: Why are more men not talking about this? Where are the spaces where men can stand up and say – actually, this is fucked up? I wish feminism was seen as a discipline in which we discussed men’s issues as much as women’s.

Laurie: We need some more outspoken male feminists. Maybe you should be one. I’ll train you, we can be like Pai Mei and Beatrix. I’m Pai Mei.

[Insert elaborate training montage where Martin is made to climb an enormous mountain of privilege-comprehension, dodge the tar-pits of in-fighting and finally destroy Rick Santorum in hand-to-hand combat armed only with a copy of The Dialectic of Sex ]

Martin: *gasps* I…I know feminism.

Laurie: Now you’re ready.

LL Cool J Breaks Burglar's Jaw, Detains Thief Until Police Arrive

LL Cool J is a big man, and it appears he's also badass enough to protect his home and family without a gun. According to stories all over the web today, LL Cool J beat the crap out a man who had broken into his San Fernando Valley home last night. The unnamed suspect was still receiving treatment for a broken nose and broken jaw as the story hit the press.

From Huffington Post:

When LL Cool J was surprised by an intruder who had tripped the alarm system at his Studio City home in Los Angeles home around 1 a.m. this morning, he decided the fend off the man himself.

At over 6 feet tall and a hulking 200-pounds plus (of pure muscle, we're guessing), it was no surprise he was able to overcome the burglar and detain him until police could arrive.

The Associated Press reports that police responded to a call to 9-1-1 from a girl who said her father was holding a man who had broken into the home.

When police got to the scene, they found the perpetrator with minor bruises and LL Cool J unharmed. The man reportedly did not take anything but was still arrested on suspicion of burglary, said law enforcement officials.

A spokesperson for the L.A. police originally said that the call came from a home on Blairwood Drive, a street on which LL Cool J's real name, "James Smith," is listed as a resident. It was later confirmed to TMZ that it was indeed the home of the rapper-turned actor.

“As a father, husband and citizen, [LL Cool J] is committed to keeping his family safe and is cooperating with authorities on this private matter," said the spokesperson in a statement to the Daily News.

Very cool - a man who is a musician, an actor, a family man, and can kick ass and take names when necessary.

Cool J told Men's Health Magazine in 2006 that his workout program includes "free-weight bodybuilding exercises, plyometrics, fighters' moves, calisthenics, and endurance training, all designed to build muscle while burning fat." Among the fun things he does are 100 meter sprints, running hills in a weighted vest, and mixes of old school bodybuilding with high-intensity cardio - all done with his trainer, Scooter Honig.

I've always admired Cool J even while not being a rap/hip-hop fan. He chose his own path in the industry - not gangsta and not political - and fused rap/hip-hop with pop music appeal. He has been incredibly successful and has also been labeled a sell-out by some factions of the rap community.

He responded to the worst of it, in 1990, with Mama Said Knock You Out (see below), a huge hit and his hardest music to that point - the best-selling record in his career.

More importantly, he has been married to the same woman since 1995, and they have four children (oldest is 22, youngest is 11). It's rare to see anyone in the music or acting stay married that long, maybe more so for man coming out of the rap community.

On the page devoted to him at AskMen.com, he is quoted:

"Keeping it real ain't about carrying a gun or smoking blunts. It's about being true to yourself and those around you." 

He has been active in politics, supporting both Republican and Democratic candidates - based not on their political party, but on what they do for the community. His support of NY Governor George Pataki (R) grew out of meeting him at an assisted-living project fund-raiser in Cool J's old neighborhood (where his grandparents raised him following his parents' divorce when he was 4 years old).

He has also been active in helping youth, according to Rolling Stone:

He taped a radio commercial for a "Stay in School" literacy campaign and founded the Camp Cool J Foundation and Youth Enterprises, a program for urban youth.

Here is the video for Mama Said Knock You Out, which we can now take a bit more literally.

Journal of Men, Masculinities and Spirituality, Vol. 6, No. 2 (June 2012)

The new issue of Journal of Men, Masculinities and Spirituality, edited by Joseph Gelfer, is now up online and is open access. Table of contents is below.

Volume 6, Number 2: Table of Contents

Published: June 2012

Editorial:

• Joseph Gelfer, Mythopoetic Spirituality and Authenticity: A Travelogue (pp. 53-55)

Articles:

• John Farrell Kelly, Entering Water: Sea Lion Shamanism (pp. 56-76)
• Kevin J. Burke, A Space Apart: Kairos and Masculine Possibility in Retreats of Adolescents (pp. 77-93)
• Brandy Schillace, A Man’s Soul and a Fish’s Scale: Sex, Size and Spirit in Moby Dick (pp. 94-105)

Reviews:

• Stephen Hunt, Review of Stefan Horlacher (ed.), Constructions of Masculinity in British Literature from the Middle Ages to the Present (pp. 106-108)
• Sean Brady, Caroline Magennis and Raymond Mullen (eds.), Irish Masculinities: Reflections on Literature and Culture (pp. 109-111)
• Ilya Merlin, Mary Ruth Marotte, Paige Martin Reynolds, and Ralph James Savarese (eds.), Papa PhD: Essays on Fatherhood by Men in the Academy (pp. 112-113)
• Björn Krondorfer, Review of Martina Läubli and Sabrina Sahli (eds.), Männlichkeiten Denken: Aktuelle Perspektiven der kulturwissenschaftlichen Masculinity Studies [Thinking Masculinities: Current Cultural Studies Perspectives on Masculinity Studies] (pp. 114-116)

 

Download Vol. 6 No. 2 (455 KB PDF)
Kindle edition

Charles Bukowski was a mediocre poet and fiction writer. His work was brutally honest and it chronicled, sometimes in excruciating detail, the life he actually lived - painful, wounded, drunken, and more than a little outside the lines. The result body of work sells more books than Jack Kerouac and Ken Kesey.

Open Culture marked his birthday last week with the best biography I have seen about his life.

There is nothing great or exceptional about Bukowski - other than his willingness to lay bare his life on the page. How many of us would be willing to be that raw, that open about our weaknesses and failures? How many of us can turn those dark places into something many people see as art?

Bukowski: Born Into This — The Definitive Documentary on the Hard-Living American Poet (2003)

August 15th, 2012

Neglected to mark the occasion of poet and novelist Charles Bukowski‘s birthday yesterday? Then observe it today with a viewing of the documentary Bukowski: Born Into This. The most in-depth exploration of Bukowski’s life yet committed to film, the movie “is valuable because it provides a face and a voice to go with the work,” wrote Roger Ebert in 2004. “Ten years have passed since Bukowski’s death, and he seems likely to last, if not forever, then longer than many of his contemporaries. He outsells Kerouac and Kesey, and his poems, it almost goes with saying, outsell any other modern poet on the shelf.” A wide range of Bukowski enthusiasts both expected and unexpected appear onscreen: Sean Penn, Tom Waits, Harry Dean Stanton, Black Sparrow Press publisher John Martin, filmmaker Taylor Hackford (director of the earlier documentary titled simply Bukowski), and Bono, to name but a few. “Excerpts are skillfully woven with the reminiscences of former drinking buddies, fellow writers and Bukowski’s second wife, Linda, the keeper of the flame, whom he married in 1985,” wrote Stephen Holden in the New York Times. “Without straining, the film makes a strong case for Bukowski as a major American poet whose work was a slashing rebuke to polite academic formalism.”

Some might contrarily consider Bukowski’s writing glorified wallowing, a mere profane exultation of the low life, but Born Into This reveals that the man wrote as he lived and lived as he wrote, omitting neither great embarrassment nor minor triumph. Holden mentions that Bukowski, “a pariah in high school, suffered from severe acne vulgaris, which covered his face with running sores that left his skin deeply pitted. He recalls standing miserably in the dark outside his senior prom, too humiliated to show himself,” and that for all his work dealing with late-life sexual prowess, “he was a virgin until he was 24, the same age at which his first story was published. His description of sexual initiation with an obese woman whom he wrongly accused of stealing his wallet is a spectacularly unpromising beginning to the prolific sexual activity (described in his novel “Women”) that flowered after fame brought admirers.” Ebert asks the obvious question: “How much was legend, how much was pose, how much was real?”  Then he answers it: “I think it was all real, and the documentary suggests as much. There were no shields separating the real Bukowski, the public Bukowski and the autobiographical hero of his work. They were all the same man. Maybe that’s why his work remains so immediate and affecting: The wounded man is the man who writes, and the wounds he writes about are his own.”

You can find Born Into This listed in the Documentaries section of our collection of 500 Free Movies Online, or purchase your own copy on Amazon here.

Related content:

• Charles Bukowski: Depression and Three Days in Bed Can Restore Your Creative Juices (NSFW)
• The Last (Faxed) Poem of Charles Bukowski
• Tom Waits Reads Charles Bukowski
• Bono Reads Two Poems by Charles Bukowski, “Laureate of American Lowlife”
• Charles Bukowski Reads His Poem “The Secret of My Endurance”

~ Colin Marshall hosts and produces Notebook on Cities and Culture. Follow him on Twitter at @colinmarshall.

The Effects of Early Exposure to Sexual Material

The human brain is not designed to deal with issues of sex and sexuality until the body hits puberty, and even then we are far too emotionally immature (at least in our culture) to handle sexuality respectfully and responsibly. But with the incredible quantity and availability of internet porn, children are being exposed to sexuality far earlier than is healthy developmentally.

We know that early sexualization through incest and molestation changes how a child relates to others and how the child understands their value as a person. These kids (not all of them, of course) often define their relational worth in terms of sexuality, leading to all kinds of issues.

Early exposure to porn is not likely to produce such extreme outcomes, but it tends - according to some studies - to generate earlier sexual activity than in those who do not view porn. It also creates very unrealistic expectations for what sex is like and, among boys, for how women relate sexually. Hint: It's not like it is in the porn clips.

I would never advocate banning porn, but I would definitely advocate that parents be more actively involved in teaching their children about sex and sexuality - don't leave it up to the schools, the church, or the older kids on the playground. Take responsibility for teaching your children about this sensitive issue.

This article is from Psychology Today's blog section - by Carolyn C. Ross, M.D., M.P.H. on her Real Healing blog.

Overexposed and Under-Prepared: The Effects of Early Exposure to Sexual Content

Is the Internet impacting sexual development? 

 

 

Published on August 13, 2012 by Carolyn C. Ross, M.D., M.P.H. in Real Healing

“They grow up so fast,” parents often lament. Today, children are being sexualized earlier and earlier, in part because they are exposed to sexual material in movies, television, music and other media earlier than ever. With widespread access to the Internet, curious teens may accidentally or intentionally be exposed to millions of pages of material that is uncensored, sexually explicit, often inaccurate and potentially harmful.

So what? If kids don’t understand it, how can they be affected by it? Even if young children can’t understand sex or its role in relationships, the images they see can leave a lasting impression. It’s a basic premise of marketing that what we watch, read and direct our attention toward influences our behavior. And, as any marketer knows, sex sells. That’s why we see products and services that have nothing to do with sex being marketed in increasingly sexualized ways.

Children as young as 8 and 9 are coming across sexually explicit material on the Internet and in other media. Although research is just beginning to assess the potential damage, there is reason to believe that early exposure to sexual content may have the following undesirable effects:

Early Sex. Research has long established that teens who watch movies or listen to music that glamorizes drinking, drug use or violence tend to engage in those behaviors themselves. A 2012 study shows that movies influence teens’ sexual attitudes and behaviors as well. The study, published in Psychological Science, found that the more teens were exposed to sexual content in movies, the earlier they started having sex and the likelier they were to have casual, unprotected sex.

In another study, boys who were exposed to sexually explicit media were three times more likely to engage in oral sex and intercourse two years after exposure than non-exposed boys. Young girls exposed to sexual content in the media were twice as likely to engage in oral sex and one and a half times more likely to have intercourse. Research also shows that teens who listened to music with degrading sexual references were more likely to have sex than those who had less exposure.

Why are teens more likely to have sex after being exposed to sexual content in the media? Just as we read specific books and show educational movies to our children in hopes that they learn lessons from the characters, the media provides a type of sex education to young people. Media messages normalize early sexual experimentation and portray sex as casual, unprotected and consequence-free, encouraging sexual activity long before children are emotionally, socially or intellectually ready.

High-Risk Sex. The earlier a child is exposed to sexual content and begins having sex, the likelier they are to engage in high-risk sex. Research shows that children who have sex by age 13 are more likely to have multiple sexual partners, engage in frequent intercourse, have unprotected sex and use drugs or alcohol before sex. In a study by researcher Dr. Jennings Bryant, more than 66 percent of boys and 40 percent of girls reported wanting to try some of the sexual behaviors they saw in the media (and by high school, many had done so), which increases the risk of sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies.

Sex, Love and Relationship Addictions. Not every child who is exposed to sexual content will struggle with a mental health disorder, but research shows that early exposure to pornography is a risk factor for sex addictions and other intimacy disorders. In one study of 932 sex addicts, 90 percent of men and 77 percent of women reported that pornography was a factor in their addiction. With the widespread availability of explicit material on the Internet, these problems are becoming more prevalent and are surfacing at younger ages.

Sexual Violence. According to some studies, early exposure (by age 14) to pornography and other explicit material may increase the risk of a child becoming a victim of sexual violence or acting out sexually against another child. For some people, habitual use of pornography may prompt a desire for more violent or deviant material, including depictions of rape, torture or humiliation. If people seek to act out what they see, they may be more likely to commit sexual assault, rape or child molestation.

Preserving Our Children’s Youth

Early exposure to sexual content in the media may have a profound impact on children’s values, attitudes and behaviors toward sex and relationships. Unfortunately, media portrayals do not always reflect the message parents want to send. Here are a few ways that you as a parent can ensure your message is heard:

• Know what your children are watching, playing and listening to and take advantage of teachable moments to discuss any inappropriate content or behaviors with them.
• Set and enforce limits around screen time.
• Make use of Internet filters and parental controls.
• Share your family’s values and expectations regarding sex and relationships.
• Talk to your child about media representations of sex, relationships and gender roles and teach them to question the accuracy and intent of the messages they receive.
• Model healthy, respectful relationships and self-worth.

For most families, banning media from the home isn’t a realistic option. After all, most 8- to 18-year-olds devote an average of seven and a half hours to media in a typical day, according to a 2009 study by the Kaiser Family Foundation, and more than half of that content contains sexual images or references. The goal isn’t to avoid the issue, but to approach it head-on so that your children learn about sex and relationships from their most trusted source: you.

From Men's Journal, an interview with one of my favorite writer/directors, Aaron Sorkin. He was writer and creator of The West Wing and Sports Night, writer of The American President (which is where the idea for The West Wing came from), and writer of The Social Network, among many other credits.

The Last Word: Aaron Sorkin

By Sean Woods  Aug 2012

The 'Newsroom' creator on writing, regret, and the one thing that lives up to the hype. 

Getty Images

What advice would you give to younger you?
 

To try to enjoy things a little more and not be so nervous about everything. I would give a lot of advice because I've made a lot of mistakes. Certainly I'd tell myself not to try drugs. Once you do that, you're going to change the trajectory of your life in a terrible way.

Don't drugs help the creative process, at least for a time?
 

Yeah. If we're going to have a really honest conversation about this, drugs haven't hurt my record collection any. My big fear when I quit drugs was that I wouldn't be able to write anymore. Because if you're a writer and you're on a roll – and I was on a roll when I was high – you don't want to change anything about the way you work. But I'm 11 years clean now, and I've been much more productive in those 11 years than I was in the 11 years prior. But even if I hadn't been, it wouldn't have been worth it.

What motivates you?
 

My biggest motivation is that I love writing. And I love putting on a show. Also, fear of failure is a huge motivation. About a year and a half ago, I won the Oscar, and I walked off stage and was taken through a labyrinth of press rooms, and I don't think five minutes had gone by before I thought to myself, "Oh, shit...I have to do this every time now, or it's a failure."

What's the best way to end a relationship?
 

I've had to end a few. I have a fantastic divorce. Julia, my ex-wife, and I split up when our daughter Roxy was only five months old, so her parents living apart is the only life she's ever known. We don't pass her back and forth, there's no schedule. We often do things as a family. We take vacations together, we go out to dinner together. We hang out together. I consider myself extremely lucky that I have this kind of divorce. So whatever we did is the way to do it.

How has being a dad changed you?
 

Being a father is the only thing that lives up to the hype. When I'm with my daughter – when we're doing homework together or hanging out watching a movie or kicking a soccer ball around or doing any of the things that we do – that's the only time that I feel like I'm doing what I'm supposed to be doing. When I'm with Roxy, it's a great relief to no longer be the most important thing in my life.

How does a man know when someone is bullshitting him?
 

Here's the problem: When someone's bullshitting you, they're usually telling you something you want to hear, so you don't want it to be bullshit, and so you haven't turned on your bullshit detector. Which is why, when you can find people who are honest with you, you should stay close to them.

What's the one thing every man should experience before he dies?

Well, love, for sure, and a steak at Peter Luger's.

How should a man grow old?

The trick is that it's pretty easy to get angry at youth because you're so envious of it. They've got so much more of their life left. They've got more energy than you do, the world is kind of calibrated toward them. Skip that. It's not going to do any good.

What do Americans not understand about Hollywood?

You know, it always kind of cracks me up when the Right feels that Hollywood is anti-America. No industry has come closer to creating the illusion of that America than Hollywood has. We're the ones who created the idea of pioneering the West with John Wayne. We're the ones who created the image of a nuclear American family where everybody's happy. We did all that. You have the image of America that you have because we invented it and put it on a screen.

How should a man handle regret?

Oh, gosh, regret is the worst. There's a lot of things in my life that I regret, but if I could find a way to draw a line from that thing to my daughter, and say, "If it hadn't been for that stupid thing, I never would've done this stupid thing, which led me to this good thing, which led me to Roxy." Then I feel great. Then I don't care.