Black History Month: Dressing for the life you want

Grant Harris, owner of Image Granted in Washington, D.C.

For the second Black History Month post, I am in conversation with Grant Harris, owner & Chief Style Consultant at Image Granted, a Washington, D.C.-based image consulting company dedicated to solving the complex image, style, and fashion issues of today’s professional man. Grant has featured in The Wall Street Journal, TIME Magazine, Men’s Health, The Chicago Tribune, The Washington Post, CNN, and others.

LM: My first post for Black History Month 2013 put the focus on Hip-Hop as a form of blackface, perpetuating the negative black stereotype and the violent, sag-ass Hip-Hop culture. The costume, huge t-shirts, baseball hats, and low-slung baggy pants are based on farce, and an unstable and unsafe way to dress. Essentially, I see this costume as a rock tied around the neck, a uniform keeping young men stagnant and blind to any other reality. Can you comment on this, Grant?

GH: Many black men think of a suit and tie when they hear the word “uniform”, but there are many uniforms that African-American men can wear to present themselves as a competent part of society and to positively influence those around them – military-influenced uniforms, uniforms of higher education, medicine, aviation and others all have positive connotations for black men, but there is a deficit of modern black male role models for today’s youth to look up to.

Black History Month focuses on yesteryear and the men who helped shaped the present, but it rarely if ever focuses on men in the present helping to shape the future. Young black males with no direction or guidance end up with few choices, and turn to the streets, athletics, or music. Popular media rarely focuses on the positive black male, but instead shines the light on rappers, athletes, and entertainment moguls as if these lives are normal and customary.

There are other uniforms which degrade and decline the image of the black male in society.  The uniform of XXL t-shirts, sagging pants, sneakers, snap back hats and gold chains only displaces the positivity afforded to those before us.  Most of the African-American men wearing these “uniforms” have no idea of the culture from whence they came.

Sagging pants comes from prison where inmates aren’t allowed to wear belts due to the potential of violence, and therefore are left with sagging pants.  Wearing baggy clothes makes it easier to conceal weapons.  The uniform of gang members, prison inmates, ex-convicts and the like are detrimental not only to unsupported inner city youth, but to the overall growth of young African-American males in the U.S. impacting their ability to make a difference on an international level.

LM: I used to volunteer with an agency that pulled wardrobes together for people entering the workforce, and every month, I dressed at-risk youth from Eva’s Phoenix, a wonderful organization that helps street kids get their lives together, in clothes appropriate for job interviews.

One day, I worked with a young African-Canadian man who arrived in baggy clothes and no idea what he should wear. We found a good-fitting suit for him, some shirts, shoes, and I taught him to tie a tie. He had never seen himself look like this before, and he was stunned.

“I look exactly like Jay-Z,” he said, eyes wide.

I really felt blessed to give this young man a different perspective of himself which hopefully opened his imagination to where he could be, and make him realize that he didn’t have to exist in the life he currently lived.

Grant, are there any organizations in the U.S. that help youth turn their lives around with clothing and presentation?

GH: There are organizations around the world helping to improve the lives of men and women through their appearance and presentation.  The goal of these organizations is not to supply the masses with fast fashion, but instead to equip them with the necessary basics that will build a foundation for the future.  In Washington, D.C., there are several non-profit organizations that provide presentation services:

MenzFit An educational non–profit organization ensuring long–term gainful employment and financial fitness to low–income men with little formal education. Clients receive professional interview clothing, career development and financial literacy services.

Martha’s Table  Martha’s Table deals with the immediate effects of poverty and finds long-term solutions with education, nutrition and family support services. At the core of Martha’s Table family support services is a clothing operation where everyone can shop together and choose how they will present and express themselves to the world.

Strive DC STRIVE DC was established in August 1999 to combat unemployment in Washington, DC, and fill the void of effective programs seeking to accomplish this.  Although independently funded and governed, STRIVE DC is one of a network of centers modeled after the acclaimed East Harlem, New York STRIVE employment program, established in 1984.

LM: What is your best style advice for young, at-risk African-American men?

GH: All African-American men are at risk.  Not only because of hostile surroundings or because they come from broken homes.  Black males are at risk of becoming no more than the status quo, or even worse, becoming an average statistic.

At-risk doesn’t always mean gang violence, and drugs.  It also means that black men are at risk at losing their place in society.  Black men are no longer the minority in the US, and we do not earn as many privileges as we have in the past.  We are at risk of becoming obsolete not just from black-on-black crime, but by the threat of upper class America becoming the only class.

The best way to keep pace with progress is to dress, not for the life you have, but for the life you want.

Further reading: Please pull up your pants.

Black History Month: Another side of Hip-Hop

Click me.

Negative stereotypes of Blacks are a staple of Black music videos that glorify gangsterism. In Rap music and videos, the minstrel-show plantation has been born again as the “hood.” While the setting has changed from an idyllic plantation to the mean streets of urban America, the process is the same: a black culture is being marketed for profit, with black performers portraying negative stereotypes. Performers claim that they represent authentic black America, while critics decry the glorification of ugly caricatures and its effects on Black youth.

-Black-face.com

I’ve had some things on my mind lately, Black History Month (BHM), and a lecture I attended a few weeks ago, by masculinities author and sociologist, Michael Kimmel. By fortunate chance, I recently came across  The Black Man Can, an initiative to actively promote a positive black male image by Brandon Frame, who has helped immensely with this year’s BHM articles.

I read a couple of posts on Brandon’s site that really grabbed my interest: Is Commercial Hip-Hop the New Blackface? by Sharif Rasheed, who suggests Hip-Hop culture as a caricature of African-American youth, and the fabrication and absorption of the Hip-Hop stereotype in black youth culture in When Posing Goes Wrong: Ricky Rozay is not about that life. 

Now, as a white, Canadian woman of European descent with a love for Sam Cooke, but no understanding of Soulja Boy let alone Jay-Z, I was gobsmacked at what I read in Rasheed’s article: “Commercial Hip-Hop has become the blueprint for the streets for many of today’s youth. The lyrics tell them what to wear, how to talk, what to like and dislike. These ignorant lyricists are the slave masters that abuse young minds by whipping the oppression into them and hanging the glorification right on them.”

Glen Palmer, of The Gentlemen’s Standard, a site for distinctive men of colour, does not believe that the younger generation understands blackface, let alone black American history.

“The blackface concept still remains,” he says,“artists play to the lowest, stereotypical denominator and project an imagery that mainstream, white America believes people of color to be. The stereotypes have changed a little, as “bling” has been introduced into the equation, but the foundation is still there. Ignorant. Hyper-sexualized. Violent.”

It is alarming that young black men allow themselves to be molded into an antiquated stereotype via Hip-Hop, as is their frenzy to prove their manhood – the brand of masculinity devised by white, Judeo-Christian men.

Masculinity

In Michael Kimmel’s lecture, he explains the traditional pillars of manhood that originated in the mid-20^th century that has left millions of men unable to feel, positively express themselves, and be genuine.

1. “No sissy stuff.” In western patriarchal culture, anything associated with the feminine is a sign of weakness (an apparent cardinal sin). In Hip-Hop, rap artists often call each other out and accuse each other of weakness in their rhymes, using offensive language like “bitch nigga”,  keeping rivalries and feuds alive, and feeding the aggression that hip hop demands.
2. “Be a big wheel.” Wealth, power, and status equals money, ice (bling), and sex in Hip-Hop culture – the spoils of white patriarchy.
3. “Be a sturdy oak. Be reliable in a crisis/become an unfeeling inanimate object”. Glen suggested I watch Hip Hop: Beyond Beats and Rhymes, an excellent documentary by Byron Hurt. Hurt discusses the projected hardness in Hip-Hop that is ego-driven and encourages men to assert themselves. This  hardness “denies men their own frailty”, and exposes their masculine insecurities, camouflaged by violence, dominance, misogyny, and homophobia.
4. “Give ‘em hell.”  Be daring, be aggressive, be violent. The projected Hip-Hop image encourages men to threaten and kill each other, abuse women, and endanger and intimidate those around them.

The way Hip-Hop has nestled into these dated (and very unnatural) masculine expectations is startling, but as Brandon says, young black men “lack positive self-identity or  positive identity development, and look for it in other forms like commercial Hip-Hop music. The images created by these artists is merely for entertainment but Black Boys do not see it that way. They see these images as reality…a reality they want to live and embody.”

Little white lies

The scariest concept around all of this stuff is that the Hip-Hop image is false.

The caricature of the rough, tough, dangerous gangsta rapper is projected by profit-generating record labels, run by white men in suits who decide who gets signed, and who they can peddle the blackface image to (largely young white men – 70% of Hip-Hop is consumed by this group).

In When Posing Goes Wrong: Ricky Rozay is not about that life, the author outs rap artist, Rick Ross, about the lies he’s been living. Black youth hears music about drug dealing, though many of them “have never even sold candy”, toting guns and murdering, though “a good number of us have never even fired a gun and for sure never killed anyone.

“Our youth listen to these lyrics from these beloved entertainers and take it as gospel. Many take the glorified side of street life as reality and they do not see the dangerous reality until it is too late.”

A new code of masculinity

In researching and writing for this post,  I’ve processed a lot of information and believe I have witnessed the ultimate in insult – the diminishing of human potential. We desperately need a new, healthy, positive definition of masculinity for young men and boys that promotes among other things, self-respect and respect for others.

What is and was needed is a vision of masculinity where self-esteem and self-love of one’s unique being forms the basis of identity. Cultures of domination attack self-esteem, replacing it with a notion that we derive our sense of being from dominion over another. Patriarchal masculinity teaches men that their sense of self and identity, their reason for being, resides in their capacity to dominate others.

- bell hooks, African-American feminist

Reinventing after divorce

Ted, before

The first time I met him, Ted wore disheveled biking clothes and his eyes were bloodshot from laser surgery a few weeks before. He sat hunched over his coffee cup, eyes averted, arms occasionally crossed over his chest. He seemed absent somehow.

Soon off the top of our conversation, he talked about his failed marriage and his imminent divorce. He said he numbed out and lost 20 pounds of muscle after his wife told him about her affair.

Ted was a wounded man but he was ready to change. He just didn’t know how.

As a men’s image consultant, I make it my job to transform men into their genuine selves – not the men that society demands. I believe that all men are wonderful, but many have been influenced by outside forces that want to control and mold him into who they think he should be.

To me, this is abusive to men and their true nature that should be nurtured and celebrated.

Ted’s story

After Ted hired me, I got to know him through an in-depth questionnaire so I could understand his character, his life, and how he sees the world; what he likes to do, what he reads, who he listens to, and what kind of art he likes.

Ted, after

Failed relationships with women tend to put the fear in men, and Ted said at the beginning of our first session that I was the only person on earth who knew this much about him, and he was a little nervous about that. I assured his emotional safety and dove into the character of this interesting man. I began to understand what a handy and creative guy he is – Ted can take a brick chimney apart with his bare hands and he loves Steve McQueen movies.

“Simply by meeting with Leah and talking about the good things we both wanted for me was, in and of itself, a change,” Ted explains, “My many negative thoughts were replaced by hopeful, positive ones. We spoke about the past but never dwelled on it – our immediate focus was on making a positive change in the near future.”

Our bodies tell the truth even when we choose not to. Ted’s body language told the story of his battered emotions and fragile ego. I gave him my observations.

Females are born with the ability to read faces and respond to eye contact. Since Ted intended to get past his bad relationship and meet more women, I assigned homework to work on his gaze to come across as sincere and present, asking for updates every week. After a few weeks of conscious eye contact, Ted said that he felt “so much more powerful” in his interactions with women, and they responded well to him.

When we moved into the physical part of process, we worked on body consciousness, body proportions, lifestyle assessment, and colour analysis that cleared his skin, brought his eyes into focus, and turned up his handsome. We were ready to build a new, efficient, and flattering wardrobe to give Ted fewer pieces to fuss over, more outfits to wear, and a new way to express himself.

“After getting out there in my new wardrobe, I’m happy about every  decision I made. I’ve never received so many unprovoked compliments from people before,” Ted says,”I think guys in similar situations can have a similar experience in the image program, but they have to want change and be entirely open to it.”

The short end of the emotional stick

I looked for ways to further support Ted on his journey and was at once horrified but not surprised to see that there is a small amount of support for divorced dads and a comparatively miniscule amount of support for divorced men without children, like Ted.

This seems to say that if the man isn’t supporting other lives, he’s useless.

The lack of emotional support translates into a familiar and unjust message of men being expected to suck up all of the pain associated with divorce and carry on as if nothing happened.

A social attitude like this is a catalyst for drug and alcohol abuse, depression, and in some cases, suicide. This casts a terrible shadow on our society and from my perspective, is an example of sexism and emotional violence against men.

I found a therapist in Toronto who specializes in divorce. Bernie Golden is a counsellor/psychotherapist and family mediator. He also facilitates a Separation and Divorce Self-Help Group.

Bernie recognizes the social need to support men in their struggles “because men hurt and they deserve to have that hurt acknowledged; men should have an accessible and effective network of supports, and if they don’t, this can have a significant negative impact on a person’s emotional and physical health.”

He too acknowledges the societal problems that arise when people’s struggles are not recognized or supported, saying that when emotional difficulties are ignored, we are all diminished and we all suffer from this neglect.

“My clients often express their frustration over the lack of support for men,” he says, “I hear my client’s frustration when they reach out for individual support from friends and family; when they reach for support from non-profits, organized groups, and professionals, and I hear about the frustration around not feeling supported or understood from a larger societal perspective.  Many men perceive and are faced with a societal indifference to providing them with the emotional support that they need.”

Men in Toronto can get in touch with Bernie at 416-951-1288 or through berniegolden.com.

Services

Society is (very) slowly noticing the difficulties that divorced men face.

Google anything about divorced men and you’ll find mostly legal and financial websites, some more bitter than others, to support men during their most difficult times. It is truly shocking how few services there are for the divorced man.

I knew there had to be more, so I kept searching.

I found a wonderful specialized interior design service that reworks space for people in states of transition, namely divorced men.

Deirdre Dyment, of the Deirdre Dyment Design Group in Toronto, helps to create beautiful, happy homes for clients after life-changing events.

“There’s much more involved in leaving the matrimonial home than packing a suitcase and signing a lease,” her website says, “I want to create an environment that will inspire and get the individual that has moved excited about the next chapter of their life.”

Now we’re getting somewhere.

I came across a women’s dating movement in the UK that has its sights set on divorced men.

The PUMAs – women on the hunt for Previously Married and Attractive men, see divorced men as having greater relationship experience, with “the likelihood they will be more sensitive to their partner’s needs, and that they have demonstrated serious commitment in the past,” says this Daily Mail story.

Though this is focused in Britain, I’m quite sure there are PUMAs prowling  the North American continent as well, gents. After reading the news story, I can absolutely see why smart women would want a man experienced with relationships and with women.

Things are slowly changing for divorced men, but we have a long way to go.

Ted is on a new road now. He’s had a fun summer, feeling better about himself,  juggling women that seem to have come out of the woodwork, and taking a new pride in himself.

“While the whole ordeal may seem a bit overwhelming, I think it’s well worth it for men to invest a few dollars more in themselves,” Ted says in support of his broken brothers, “I went through the image process and I feel comfortable and confident and much more like the man I actually am, not the man my divorce made me feel like.”

MAO-A: The “warrior” gene

 

DNA fingerprint

In the early 1990s, geneticist Dr. Han Brunner studied a Dutch family whose male relatives were prone to violence. He discovered that the MAO-A gene, a gene crucial to managing anger, was inactive in the male relations.

The MAO-A gene controls the production of monoamine oxidases (MAOs) enzymes that break down neurotransmitters, serotonin, dopamine, and adrenalin, and are capable of affecting mood.  The MAO-A gene acts as a mop to clean up the serotonin, bringing us back to normal. A mutation in this gene, as seen in the males in the Dutch family, cannot control serotonin levels, and this results in violent behaviour.

The MAO-A gene is present in all of us, carried on the X chromosome, giving women two copies and men one. The second copy in women is believed to result in increased happiness, but the one copy in men has very different results.

The genetic mutation is surprisingly common – 1 in 3 men carry a shortened, less active version of the gene, considered as the cause of anti-social behaviour in Caucasian men if they suffered childhood abuse, and responsible for violent behaviour in some males.

“Warrior gene”

In 1993 when the gene was first studied by Dr. Brunner, the MAO-A mutation and it’s related behaviours became known as the “criminal gene”.

“That was picked up by the media to be called a “criminal gene,” and even the senior author on the paper publicly stated… that it was ridiculous to call it that,” explains Jonathan Beckwith, professor of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics at Harvard Medical School.

“When the media presents these findings in a dramatic way, there are at least hints from the scientists themselves that it should be taken that way. That’s not always the case, though sometimes scientists who produce the work become quite dismayed at its interpretation by the media,” he says. (Source.)

Time passed. The “criminal gene” became the “aggression gene”, and in 2004, through misquotes and miscommunications, the genetic mutation got a new title, the “warrior gene”.

The name derived from testing a very small sample of Maori men from New Zealand, a tribe with a history of warfare.  Unfortunately, the press got a hold of it and the Maoris became known as genetically predisposed to violence and criminal acts, but there is no direct evidence to support this. (See this article from the New Zealand Medical Journal for more information.)

The choice of the term “warrior gene” has huge implications because “warrior” conjures a strongman who can stoically protect and provide for his people. It seems to me that naming a genetic mutation associated with violent behaviour after an appealing masculine archetype is to glorify it. And this can be dangerous.

Born to Rage

National Geographic produced a documentary in 2010 about the “warrior gene”, hosted by Henry Rollins, front man for the American punk band, Black Flag. Henry believes he carries the “warrior gene” because his anger is always simmering just below the surface.

The doc focuses on men from diverse backgrounds and their genetic makeup, testing to see who carries the mutated MAO-A gene. Bikers, Buddhist monks, ex-gang members, mixed martial arts (MMA) athletes, and a Navy Seal participated in the program.

Some of the guys self-identified as warriors and expected to carry the mutation, even boasted about it. A flash of disappointment crossed their faces when they heard the news that they’re genes are normal.

The bikers’ DNA results were split right down the middle – the quiet ones carried the shortened gene. One described himself as “battling a demon”, another “in constant anger”, like Henry.

Shortened gene carriers from violent backgrounds often turn violent themselves, as seen in the two ex-gang members, initiated into gang life at the age of 10, and becoming two of the most feared “enforcers” in Los Angeles.

However, violence is not always the outcome of this combination. The Buddhist monks, all from violent or difficult backgrounds carry the mutation, but dedicate their lives to peace and enlightenment.

All MMA fighters, men in their 20s, expected to carry the gene because they are in top physical condition and know how to fight. Through their training, these are fighters are in physical and emotional control of themselves, and do not fly into the sudden “warrior gene” rage. None of them carried  the shortened gene.

A MAO-A gene  mutation isn’t always associated with violence – the Navy Seal, a man from supportive parents and a good education carried the shortened gene. He channels his internal aggression into a productive use as a successful entrepreneur. He maintains that he overcame the negative effects of the shortened gene through his military training, where he learned to “control the fuse and the anger”.

Henry’s parents divorced when he was young and I understand that his mom’s boyfriend beat him and mentally abused him. Kids beat him up in the school yard. He described himself as a “nervous kid” until the day he snapped and became what he feared. Almost 50 at the time of filming, Henry says he’s still aggressive.

Find out Henry’s DNA results in the 45 minute documentary.

Implications

MAO-A is only one of thousands of genes expressed in the brain with the potential to affect behavior.The MAO-A gene is not an explanation for violence, but it does move us closer to understanding what drives violence in some men, and further understanding of the gene will tailor rehabilitation programs to individuals.

It will also alter the law.

A really interesting paper from the National Judicial College of Australia examines the MAO-A gene as evidence in sentencing. The author states that there is not enough scientific understanding of the gene for it to play a part in criminal proceedings, and warns about the moral issues of testing all males for the gene mutation and the possibility of racial profiling because of a man’s ethnic heritage.

The argument over using genetic determinism as a legal defense continues to rage (this paper focuses on genetic determinism and the law). Through our understanding of the MAO-A gene, we will come to understand ourselves better, but we must be careful not to treat the violence associated with the mutation as an excuse, and shirk off responsibility for our actions.

Violence is a choice.

Men on caffeine

Now that I’ve reduced my caffeine intake, I actively seek out decaffeinated coffee and I’m finding it rather difficult, at least in Toronto, to get a decaf after 11 am. This makes me wonder why the powers that be are making decaf hard to come by, but then I decided that it’s actually about creating addiction which affects the bottom line, apparently more important than the health of society at large. But that’s another story.

Caffeine gets mixed medical reviews: I’ve read that it lowers the risk of diabetes and Parkinson’s disease, drops the risk of colon cancer by 20%, and two cups a day cuts the risk of developing gallstones in half. Caffeine is a stimulant that speeds digestion and temporarily increases our mental processes.

However, caffeine also increases the likelihood of panic attacks, can cause excessive sweating in some people, and can keep us awake when we need to sleep. (Read more here.) Caffeine is dehydrating due to its diuretic properties making us urinate more often, and this may accelerate the skin’s aging process. wrinkling us prematurely.

But everyone will react to caffeine differently. “Some people experience greater mental clarity, alertness and productivity after a cup of coffee. Other people become jittery, anxious, or depressed when they drink coffee,” according to healthguidance.org.

Knowing this, and knowing how different the male and female brains are, I wondered if the chemistry of caffeine affects men and women differently. Turns out it does.

Men and caffeine

Caffeine affects the workings of testosterone in men, in some cases, increasing it. But hold on, fellas – drinking excess cups of coffee will not turn you into the Incredible Hulk or increase the quality and volume of your semen, but studies show that taking caffeine before a workout increases testosterone. To say the least, this is a complicated issue and more research is needed to land on anything conclusive.

What studies are showing however, is the effect of caffeine on men’s cognitive abilities, and the findings are not good. At the University of Bristol, a 2010 study measured the role of caffeine in stressful situations affecting performance in men and women. Pairs of each gender were given caffeine and a time limit to complete puzzles.

The results, published in Journal of Applied Social Psychology, showed that pairs of women drinking caffeinated coffee completed puzzles “100 seconds faster than those who took decaf coffee, while men on caffeine completed the puzzles 20 seconds slower than those on the decaffeinated. Men drinking caffeinated coffee were “greatly impaired” in the memory tasks.” (Read more here.)

The researchers pointed out that offering bottomless cups of coffee at male-dominated meetings may not be a good idea, because in some men, caffeine can increase aggression, and “men might even unintentionally sabotage the partnerships forged to solve stressful issues.”

Bob Sutton, professor of management science at Standford, boils down the studies findings to this: “If you are running a meeting and it is attended by all women, give them caffeinated drinks, but if it is all men, or perhaps a blend of men and women, given them the decaf if you want cooperation and better performance.”

Famous caffeine addicts

In research for this post, I noted something very interesting that suggested caffeine as a gateway drug: “Any individual who consumes large amounts of caffeine is at greater risk of becoming a smoker and of drinking alcoholic beverages to excess.”

Excessive use of nicotine and caffeine sounds familiar, especially if you’re Frank Zappa.

Billy James, in his book, Necessity Is…:The Early Years of Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention, explains that during the 1960s, Frank Zappa’s band was often associated with the psychedelic scene because of the type of weird music they played.

If the Mothers were taking drugs, James says, Zappa “probably wasn’t aware of it and most certainly wasn’t joining them – preferring caffeine and nicotine to anything stronger. Clearly, with a mind as intelligent and creative as his was, he was in no need of hallucinogenic assistance. Ever the consummate professional Zappa had no time for the sloppiness that indulgence in drink and drugs brought out in musicians.”

Was Zappa testy with his band because of the effects of caffeine? Modern scientific research certainly suggests this – caffeine is a mild stimulant, known to slow cerebral blood flow by 27% according to one study I read, also causing anxiety, increased heart rate, and increased aggression. Like a low dose of speed, I suppose.

Another famous coffee addict, Honore de Balzac, an influential 19th century playwright and writer, drank impossible amounts of coffee and would stay up for days drinking and writing.

In his essay, The Pleasures and Pains of Coffee, Balzac writes, “The state coffee puts one in when it is drunk on an empty stomach under these magisterial conditions produces a kind of animation that looks like anger: one’s voice rises, one’s gestures suggest unhealthy impatience: one wants everything to proceed with the speed of ideas; one becomes brusque, ill-tempered about nothing.”

Caffeine in large amounts on an empty stomach wreaks havoc on the system, which I can attest to – I’ve recently broken the habit of drinking two pots of  black tea for breakfast – this affected the lining of my stomach, caused a little pain, hiccups, burping, and nausea – though it may have made Balzac proud, I don’t recommend it.

…coffee falls into your stomach, a sack whose velvety interior is lined with tapestries of suckers and papillae. The coffee finds nothing else in the sack, and so it attacks these delicate and voluptuous linings; it acts like a food and demands digestive juices; it wrings and twists the stomach for these juices, appealing as a pythoness appeals to her god; it brutalizes these beautiful stomach linings as a wagon master abuses ponies; the plexus becomes inflamed; sparks shoot all the way up to the brain.

-Honore de Balzac

When it comes to caffeine, gents, in the form of coffee, tea, cola, or chocolate, moderation is the best advice. Try to be aware of the way caffeine affects you and decide for yourself if having more is going to be beneficial to your brain, your bowels, and your nerves. Also think about your nightly rest – caffeine after 2 pm is said to affect your sleep because it takes some time to dissolve in the body and blocks andensine, the chemical that causes drowsiness by slowing down nerve cell activity.

The 6′ rule

Actor and wrestler, Andre the Giant, stood at 7'4.

Last week, Davy Jones’ sudden death prompted a post about his life as an entertainer, and his life as a short man. Today, the focus is on tall men – their cultural psychology, how women feel about them, and medical problems they can face.

I know a lot of women like tall men. Our society has a thing about tall men being somehow better than shorter men but it is completely unproven. We have attachments to the notion that bigger is better but there is no correlation between a person’s height and their abilities or IQ.

Social anthropologists say women want mates who can provide and protect, and I’ve watched interviews with women who like tall men because they say, tall men give a feeling of protection (though I’m not sure why they would need protection in our relatively safe modern-day western world).

As I said last week, I am a small woman and I prefer short men because among other things, I’m concerned with proportion. Why would I want to cart around a step-ladder for the times that I want to kiss my tall boyfriend, and similarly, how could a tall guy feel on equal footing to his tiny girlfriend when she only comes up to his armpit? I’ve heard some men say “the height difference doesn’t matter when you’re horizontal”. Perhaps not, but how much of your relationship do you plan to spend lying down?

Once bitten, twice shy

I have been on a lot of dates in my life and I have learned a lot of things. Several years ago on a dating website, I was in contact with a handsome man who seemed interesting. I looked at his stats and saw his height. “Yeah right, no one is 6’11,” I said, assuming a typo, and decided to meet him.

To my absolute astonishment, he was 6’11. It was the most bizarre date I’ve ever been on, even outside of the 21″ height difference. He was odd, he was large, and he got aggressive. In the end, I had to use all the strength in my body to fight him off. Though he was almost 2 feet taller than me and double my weight, I managed to get away unscathed.

From that potentially harmful experience, I created a rule that prevents me from dating men over 6′, keeping me feeling safe from harm. Even if the giant is the most lovely, gentle creature, even if I’m accused of heightism, even if people tell me I’m being unfair, the size difference is just too imposing. I shock some tall men when I tell them they’re too tall for me – I know most of them haven’t heard such a remark before, but I hold my ground out of pure self-preservation. I don’t want to get into another compromising situation and I hope they understand my position.

Now, 6’11 is unusually tall, and the average height of Canadian men is 5’8, but men standing 6′ tall are rated the most attractive to women and are said to be the most reproductively successful. Social anthropologists say that in evolutionary terms, tall men and petite women are favoured and can afford to be more selective in their romantic partners.

Health problems

It’s no secret that taller men attract more women and earn more money, but shorter men live longer and enjoy better health. We don’t often think about height as a threat to our health, but taller people are susceptible to Marfan Syndrome – the stretching and consequent weakening of connective tissue in organs, bones, and ligaments, also associated with lung and eye problems. Being a tall man over 50 increases the risk for prostate cancer too.

Some teenage boys grow so long and lanky that they feel awkward and self-conscious and try to make themselves less noticeable by slouching. If this carries into adulthood, repetitive strain injuries can result, made worse by living in a world designed for smaller people – desks, beds, doorways, cars, planes, etc.

In 1983, John Gillis, psychology professor at Fredericton’s St. Thomas University, wrote Too Tall, Too Small, describing height extremes and associated behaviours – the Napoleonic Complex, plaguing short men who behave aggressively due to their lack of height, and the Friendly Giant Syndrome affecting some tall people with what Gillis calls an overcompensation for being physically dominant – tall people trying to be as nice as possible and sitting at every opportunity.

Some giants don’t want to dominate the situation with their stature and as Gillis says, many very tall people have gentle dispositions, but this can go too far in the opposite direction and the tall individual can lack assertiveness to the point of being a doormat. (Read the Ottawa Citizen article about Gillis’ book.)

Our culture still sees the world from a masculine perspective – through testosterone goggles where everything is larger, but bigger is not necessarily better. In Blink, Malcolm Gladwell discusses the height issue by asking, “Have you ever wondered why so many mediocre people find their way into positions of authority? It’s because when it comes to even the most important positions, our selection decisions are a good deal less rational than we think. We see a tall person and we swoon.”

I think as a culture, we are taught to see taller men as somehow better than short but being too small or too tall can have serious effects on a man’s confidence. I’m not sure that I would say tall men are any more confident than short men; I think it’s up to the individual. I see smaller men shrinking in too-big clothes and tall men with terrible posture trying to blend in with the shorter majority as often as I see well-dressed men of all heights with their heads held high.

No matter what your size, gents, it’s all in the way you carry yourself which is a product of how you feel about yourself. You have the choice to walk tall or to shrivel, and the rest of us will respond to what we see.

Davy Jones

This week, we lost one of the good ones. Davy Jones, the former singer of The Monkees died at the age of 66 of a massive heart attack. He leaves behind a lifetime of talent, loads of laughs, and a million broken teenage hearts.

Davy was born in Manchester, England and began his career on the much-loved series, Coronation Street, then took the part of the Artful Dodger in the London West End production of Oliver! which brought him fully into the entertainment fold (he was nominated for a Tony award for his role in the New York production). He appeared on the same Ed Sullivan Show as the Beatles in 1964, you know, their first US television appearance where masses of hysterical teenaged girls drowned them out.

“I watched the Beatles from the side of the stage, I saw the girls going crazy, and I said to myself, this is it, I want a piece of that,” Jones said of the evening.

In 1966, Jones auditioned for a new series that followed the adventures of The Monkees, a music group trying to break into the rock and roll world. The Monkees were really the first corporate pop group, a fabricated American version of The Beatles, made complete by Davy Jones, the clever, handsome Brit. The group had some very catchy music, often written by the best songwriters of the period: Tommy Boyce, Bobby Hart, Carole King, Gerry Goffin, Neil Diamond, and the group’s own Michael Nesmith, and the series won two Emmy Awards in 1967 for Outstanding Comedy Series and Outstanding Directorial Achievement in Comedy (James Frawley).

I watched re-runs of The Monkees TV show when I was a kid and I inherited my one-time Davy Jones-crazed aunt Betsy’s Monkee records, so I have my own happy memories of Davy and his gang of wacky band mates. Betsy, like millions of pubescent girls worldwide, went mad for Davy, plastering his pin-up face on their bedroom walls and dreaming that she was actually the one he was singing about when he crooned, “I’ll be true to you, yes I will”.

I got hate letters from girls all over America because I wouldn’t go to the prom with them.
-Davy Jones

He sang heart-felt ballads and he could shake a mean maraca; he was the kind of fella any girl would fall for – deep brown saucer eyes, thick dark hair, a beautiful face, a sharp wit, and a charming British accent. Davy was just as sweet, just as cute, and caused just as much teenage hysteria as our modern adolescent heart-throb, Justin Bieber. These two share another commonality – their stature. Standing a compact 5’5, Justin is only 3″ taller than Davy was.

Davy was so small that he sometimes served as a prop on The Monkees series.

Short

“I’ve always thought if all the show business success hadn’t happened, I’d have been a world champion jockey. It’s in my blood,” Davy said in 1996.

In Davy’s case, his small stature helped him become an accomplished horseman, though most people might argue that taller is better. In a publication I used to do before I started this blog, I devoted one issue to men’s height. Through my research, I developed a theory about why the western world has a hate on for small men, and I think that Britain’s George III is responsible. When the French army, led by Napoleon Bonaparte, threatened England, caricatures of the French leader being small and weak in comparison to the larger, stronger British monarch began to appear in newspapers, colouring society’s view of short men. The truth is that Napoleon stood at a very average 5’6 for the time, while George stood somewhere around 5’11, and he saw this as a point of ridicule. Short men have been in the dog house ever since (source).

For the record, there is no correlation between height and intelligence; short men are just as able and just as intelligent as tall men, but because we have been socially conditioned perhaps by George III’s political posturing, things aren’t so great for short guys.

I learned  more about the short man’s plight in the survey I did for the height issue, finding that of the men surveyed, those under 5’7 reported height discrimination. Short men complained of problems buying clothes, feeling overlooked, and being socially perceived as being “less than” a taller man. It’s understood that shorter men suffer in life, work, and love, making less money than taller men and working extra hard to attract women. (Read this blog about dating short men by a short man.)

I had a conversation about height with a 5’7 foot male friend the other night who uses internet dating sites. He complained about the profiles on these sites being full of women who insist on meeting tall men only, making my shorter friend feel bad and “rejected”.

Seeing as though our culture neglects short men already, I can see why a short man might be hurt by a height exclusion, so, in support of my small brothers, I’m going to make an admission: I am 5’2, I prefer short men, and I have height restrictions when it comes to dating too. Nothing personal, but the closer a guy is to 6′, the less attractive he is to me as a romantic partner. When I used dating sites and saw an interesting face, I’d check his height and if he was too tall, I passed. It’s a proportion thing for me. I know that I am not alone when I say that I cannot think of anything more attractive than a compact, self-assured man. Believe me, fellas, contrary to popular belief, there are a lot of women who dig short guys. (Read this blog about dating short men by a woman who likes smaller men.)

Davy Jones was one of the first men who made being short sexy, passing the torch to short men like Tom Cruise, Prince, Jason Priestly, and Elijah Wood who have all been very successful in their careers and in their romantic lives. With three wives, four children, and an entertainment career spanning over 50 years, little Davy did pretty well for himself. He didn’t suffer from “short man’s syndrome”, walking around with a chip on his shoulder or shivering in insecurity over his small stature; Davy didn’t have anything to prove, he just enjoyed himself and believed in himself, and it’s that confidence that makes a short guy shine.

Thanks Davy.

My life with the fellas

It’s Christmas week and we’re all preparing for holiday time – which I want to be a part of too – so for the second last post of 2011, I’m going to refrain from getting heavy into research and instead bring you a little personal history. Why? Because people often ask me why I work with men only and this seems like a good time to share.

That's me in the middle.

Childhood

I was brought up with boys, namely, my two boy cousins, one of which was born 5 days before I was (we just had our birthdays over the last week). My cousins influenced me greatly, and when my younger brother came along, I was surrounded by boys, playing “boy” games, playing with “boy” toys, talking about “boy” things. I always had more boy friends than girl friends (still true). Consequently, this influenced my way of thinking and understanding,  and I went out of my way to be accepted by boys and try to fit in with them, and I suppose this is where my interest in males in general began.

Clothing

I can’t explain why, but I have always been fascinated with men’s clothing. During my late teens, I started understanding my build and found that men’s pants fit me better than women’s pants did (being 5’2 in the 80s, when women’s pants were high-waisted, was a recipe for disaster – pant waists went half-way up my back which made me look ridiculous).  With a simple alteration to take in the waist, I found that men’s trousers were a much better fit, giving a roomier thigh and a better fit in the rise because I am short-waisted (“rise” is the measurement from crotch to the top of the waistband). I also liked the deep pockets. I really came to appreciate the simplicity and fit of men’s clothing by wearing men’s garments.

Back in those days, I guess I was an artsy kid who stuck her nose in philosophy books and listened to the original “alternative” music that was mostly British and definitely underground. I shopped at second hand stores that had a lot of clothing from the 1960s and loved to wear men’s sport coats from that era (with the sleeves rolled up of course).

In 1986, I graduated from high school and rented a tuxedo to wear to my graduation. I made a gold sleeveless top to go under the jacket and found a black matte satin shoe with pointed toes and a low heel. Most of the girls in my class wore puffy, ruffled satin dresses to the grad – many in white for some reason. I loved my outfit, the substantial feeling of the tail coat, the smooth look of the cummerbund, and the ease of the trousers.

The same year, I got a job in the men’s department at a prominent Canadian department store. This is where I learned a tremendous amount about men’s clothing, textiles, and care of fabrics (I wonder if anyone invests in training for their staff like this anymore). I was fascinated by the items in the “men’s furnishings” department – tie clips, hankies, socks, ties, Arrow dress shirts, underwear, and robes, much more so than the women’s stuff on the upper floors.

It took a long time, but eventually I got to wearing more women’s clothing than men’s and by the late 1990s/early 2000s, I got quite girly about it. Now that I work exclusively with men, I’m veering back to my love of menswear  and having suits made at men’s tailors. I love the comfort and the ease of men’s clothing, and often wear shirts and ties with suits and heels to work.

Curious

One of the things that drives me is that I’m curious. Curious about most things, but not all things – math and hockey are the immediate examples that come to my mind. I did a Bachelor of Fine Arts degree in Theatre design (costume) and started doing a double major in psychology until I hit the point when I would have to take a statistics class, and I was terrified of this idea. (Now I wish I had taken that class so I could understand the statistical information in the research I look at.)

The psychology classes really opened my eyes and helped me understand the social aspect of humans. Social psychology plays a large role in the masculine research I do, explaining the influence of nurture and how it affects us. This has helped me understand the ways in which men have existed in the past, how they exist in the present, the issues that face them, how society expects them to deal with these issues, and the consequences of social imposition.

The last time I took a science class was in grade 10, which I failed and had to re-take in summer school. Other than that, I just passed my natural science class in university (I took geology for some reason), and once I got through that, I abandoned the subject for several years. Now I find myself driven to understand WHY, and I look to science, social and natural, for answers (it’s much easier to digest now that I want to understand it and can choose the way it is presented to me). Since my favourite topic is the masculine condition, I like to read about neurology and endocrinology to understand how my favourite subjects operate in the world. Looking at men from scientific and social angles helps me understand them, communicate with them, and ultimately, helps me help them.

ACT

Another thing about me is that I’m not afraid. I like to do things that have never been done before. Becoming the first woman in Canada to specialize in men’s image is certainly among my trailblazing efforts and I’m quite proud of this.

I am also proud of the work that I have done with the AIDS Committee of Toronto (ACT) , where I volunteered for several years. I had a very dear friend in the 1990s who was HIV+ and a client at ACT who introduced me to volunteer work.  I loved the experience and dove deeply into volunteering, learning about HIV and AIDS, the stigma around the illness, and the issues that gay men face. I was the first “volunteer extraordinaire” recognized by ACT in 2002, and was the first woman in the history of the agency to volunteer for gay men’s outreach program, where I helped to mold the program, trained outreach volunteers, facilitated workshops, and spent 5 years out on the front lines handing out condom and lube packages at gay bars in they gay ghetto of Toronto.

It was here that I learned something about myself. During my time in outreach, I constantly engaged men about safer sex and social issues, and I was a good listener. On so many shifts, I was humbled by men opening up to me and pouring out their feelings and experiences because, I decided, they had no one else to talk to. Evidently, this didn’t happen to any of the other volunteers in the outreach program and I understood that I had something that could help people.

One of the best things I learned at ACT was about judgement, or what it is to judge and why we shouldn’t. I learned that as humans, we judge; it’s natural to us. If we didn’t judge, we probably wouldn’t have made it this far (as in, is the ice on the river solid enough to hold my weight, or is this week old milk safe to drink?). We have to be able to estimate how things will effect us, to form an opinion based on what we perceive, and move from there. So this type of judgement is fine, but acting upon our judgements of other people without fully understanding them is not.

ACT taught me that it is impossible to know everything about other people – the mental, emotional, and physical condition they might be in, where they come from, what experiences they have shaped them, etc., and without this information, our brain fills in the missing bits with assumptions that we so seldomly check out to get a better understanding of that person. For example, if someone rushes by and bumps into you on the subway platform, we might automatically swear at that person because of the way they have affected us without knowing why they rushed by without saying “sorry”. For all we know, that person could be on the way to the hospital to see their best friend who was just in a car accident, or perhaps they are ill and need their medicine, and this is affecting them in some way. The point is, we don’t know why that person bumped into us and we can’t possibly know why until we ask them, but we don’t often take the time to find out, relying instead on our preconceived notions that are often incorrect. Understanding this, I always like to give people the benefit of the doubt. It certainly makes things better for everyone.

Empathy, non-judgement, a history with menswear, and a strong masculine influence has helped shape my career and has fed my fascination with men, their clothing, and their condition; I am absorbed and rivited by you fellas. But now it’s time to rest – onto the holidays!

Christie Blatchford: Born in the 50s

You may have heard about the sensation writer Christie Blatchford caused in her recent National Post piece, “Toronto, City of Sissies“ over the last week. It is a strong opinion piece that has drawn much ire from many people, especially – and obviously – those that live in Toronto.

Ms Blatchford writes that men and boys need to “toughen up” and take on an antiquated gender role, destined to die by the next generation. Her article seems to look at the world through the eyes of the controlling class that was in place during her youth – the days when uptight white men controlled everything from religious views to industry to social practices, and of course, women and women’s sexuality.

It was a time when women, who competently operated everything when men were away at war, were expected to settle into the gender role of the happy, obedient housewife and mother, when the men, returning from the war brave and stoic, got back into the driver’s seat and took over with military sharpness.

The post WWII period was a time of rebuilding countries and social systems, when men and women were segregated into gender roles in order to regenerate the population. Even clothing reflected this – Christian Dior’s “New Look” of the late 1940s sculpted women into hourglass figures, and according to my costume professor in university, symbolized the regeneration properties of women – the rounded puffy skirts of Dior’s line represented and exaggerated women’s hips, thus drawing men to them and thus begetting an increased population – hello baby boom generation.

It seems to me that Ms Blatchford chooses to remain living in an old school world where women were thought of as girls  and both sexes lived under strict gender expectations, and they were not allowed to cross the line. As the 50s mentality dictated, acting anything remotely feminine was a boy’s ultimate sin (for reasons that I still can’t put my finger on).

Ms Blatchford proclaims she is tired of men being in touch with their feminine sides because they have lost their handle on masculinity. She is “mortified and appalled” at the sight of school-aged boys greeting each other with hugs, instead of having a switchblade rumble, I guess.

Humans showing their humanity evidently makes Ms Blatchford uncomfortable, so please stop it, you’re causing the black and white gender lines to blur!

Behaviour expectation is about controlling the masses so the masses conform to the wishes of the ruling class. The most effective way to control people is to keep them in fear – fear of punishment, fear of ex-communication, fear of pain, fear of shame, and so on. Fear is a very potent behaviour modifier. We are controlled by threats of fear and consequences communicated to us in various ways, one of them being language.

“Toronto, City of Sissies”

Each generation has its own language that defines it and every generation has its own arsenal of derogatory language to keep people in line with the ways of the ruling class and generally keep them feeling bad about themselves. Queer, stupid, fag, lezbo, dork, geek, and fairy are the ones my Gen X friends and I remember, for example. None of them are cool; all of them hurt.

In keeping with her era, Ms Blatchford chooses “sissy” as her insulting term. “Sissy” (American, 1840-50) is one of those generational terms that we don’t hear much these days, but it has several meanings. It started out as a term of endearment towards one’s sister, or a diminutive of Cecelia, Frances, or Priscilla, but turned to something derogatory to describe an effeminate man, a man who does not conform to the traditional masculine role, a man who is interested in feminine pastimes or clothing, a man who is afraid, or a man who cries. “Sissy” is used in subversive sexual cultures involving erotic humiliation and bondage. Interestingly, the term sissyphobia is thought to be a combination of prejudice of women and homosexual males.

Knowing this, “Toronto, City of Sissies” seems rather an odd title because Ms Blatchford practically falls over herself  gushing about how much she loves gay men (…”as a downtowner, I live surrounded by gay men, who, like most women, I adore as a group”).

So if this is true, how is it that Ms Blatchford, a solid representative for the generation that demanded strong, silent men’s men, betrays her 50s mentality not just liking but adoring gay men? Surely gay men are sissies too, Ms Blatchford!

Violence as communication

I agree with Blatchford when she says, “the onus for stopping bullies lies not with the people being bullied, but with those who see it happen.” However, I don’t agree with her idea that “taking the bully out for a short pounding” is a solution.

“This has been true for centuries,” she insists, “and it is still true, and it works equally well in the locker room, the office, a bar, and on the factory floor or street.”

Pain, like fear, is another good motivator. A punch in the chops (or “assault” as it’s known nowadays) is a good way to get someone to see your way. Corporal punishment kept people in line during these darker days of modern masculinity when men and boys were not allowed to talk about their feelings (only girls do that!); they talked with their fists instead, in the hopes of teaching wordless lessons, symbolic of the ridiculous masculine stoicism of the generation.

What I think Ms Blatchford overlooks here is that “short poundings” don’t do well helping people understand why they’re getting pounded, and I expect that arbitrary poundings are painful, possibly maiming, and surely confusing, producing anger and/or depression in the pounded. Doesn’t she know how this works? Hasn’t she read Bukowski’s Ham On Rye? Humans are reasonable when they’re treated reasonably,  I find.

Action!

In her generational wisdom, Christie Blatchford understands the way boys and men are “supposed” to be. She offers us “a few reminders of the way it was once upon a time and really always should be,” recommending that boys engage in  ”killing”, “whacking”, “shooting”, “kissing”, “farting” (on cue, no less), and “making the sound of a train in a tunnel” (hello Dr. Freud). ”Hugging is not” on this list.

I’m just plain sick of hugs, giving and getting, from just about anyone, but particularly man-to-man hugs.

Not sure why this bothers her, or why she’s letting it get to her. She could simply turn her head away from the sight of a man expressing his warmth, fellowship, and affection to his friends.

Ms Blatchford says, “I know men have feelings too. I just don’t need to know much more than that.” This makes me think of emotionally immature males who are squeamish hearing about the inner workings of the female reproductive system – they just don’t want to know about it.

The people of Toronto have got into a bit of an uproar about Blatchford’s article, so much so that someone started a Facebook group, Christie Blatchford Needs A Hug. One member wrote, “…our whole society could definitely use more hugs. Affection makes us stronger, isolation only weakens society.”

In response to Blatchford’s “Sissies” article, Jeff Perera, of The Good Man Project, wrote The Invisible Gun of Manhood, saying,

Every one of us was meant to embrace our whole, full humanity. Yet, enforced ideas of what being a man is leaves every boy and man wrestling to suppress themselves. We are raised to value an unattainable standard and devalue anything “less than,” which is any aspect of our humanity labelled “feminine.”

Men are left feeling that they are not given permission (from others or from our own self) to discover our handcuffed array of emotions. Denying or being forced to deny sides of our selves, we are the walking dead, numb and emotionally illiterate. This leaves us numb to the very fact of the gun pressing on our soul. The sound of the resulting trauma inflected on the world is muted by a silencer, but the impact resonates like an endless echo of gunfire on women and men worldwide.

I’m not getting too excited about the Blatchford article because it originates from a place of obsolete thinking, and the world has changed too much to return to such a rigid existence. Toronto, next time you see Christie Blatchford walking her bull terrier around Rosedale, stop, embrace her, tell her you love her, and bring her up to speed about the modern world. Tell her about the internet and digital communication, about newly discovered species and advances in medicine, and don’t forget to break the news that Elvis Presley died 35 years ago.

Douche-bagging

A douche is a body cavity irrigation system, not a stupid person.

As an observer of masculinity and society at large, I take notice of different words and terms that come in and out of fashion and vary in popularity. “Douche bag” is one of these terms that I hear often and I’m not sure that I’m clear on it, so I asked some people I know to give me other names for douche bag so that I can understand it.

“Jerk, boor, fool, wanker, tool, motherf#@%er, dick, *sshole, *sswipe, and Jack*ss”, they told me. Esquire calls “douche bag”  ”a troublemaker without brains, a narcissist without charm, a breeder of ill will and contempt…”. Okay, I think I’ve got it.

But what I don’t understand is how an inanimate object, an object used to administer a vaginal (or sometimes a nasal) wash, came to be a way to describe and insult a fellow such as this. I guess I’m of the literal sort and I find the term “douche bag” a rather bizarre insult for anyone, but especially men who have nothing to do with vaginal rinses.

Do people who use the term “douche bag” actually know what they’re saying? 

If you’re French, “douche” means shower.

Dictionary.com explains a douche as “a jet or current of water, sometimes with a dissolved medicating or cleansing agent, applied to a body part, organ, or cavity, for medicinal or hygienic purposes.”

The Urban Dictionary says that a douche is “a word to describe a person who is a waste of oxygen; an idiot; an individual who is very brainless in some way or another, thus comparing them to the cleansing product for vaginas.“ Thus comparing them to the vaginal cleansing product? I don’t see how a person would make a connection between being brainless and the cleaning of a woman’s box. I guess if you’re brainless/stupid, you’ve could have the IQ of any old inanimate object, but why a douche bag? Why not an enema bag or Neti pot; an acorn, a shoe, or a pad of paper for that matter?

I’m curious about how this term began as something benign and turned into a face-slapping insult. Linguists may consider “douche bag” as a pejorative, a semantic change whereby a word acquires unfavourable connotations. Such as the case for “douche bag”. I found a good site explaining “douche bag is an olde tyme insult, much like “trollop” or “dingbat.” The Oxford English Dictionary says the word was first printed in the 1930s and was popularized in the 1950s as a term of contempt towards women.

Another blog went a little deeper and found a stronger proof of the term used in a pejorative sense and perhaps locating the first usage of “douche bag“, back in 1951 in the novel,  From Here to Eternity:

“The trouble with you, Pete,” the voice that did not seem to come with him but from that cigarette said savagely, “is that you can’t see further than that douchebag nose of yours.”

(I’m trying to imagine what the voice meant by describing the nose as “douchebag”…)

The  San Francisco Weekly that says the use of  ”douche bag” goes back to 1967, “when “douchebag” was a popular epithet for “an unattractive coed”; it has since morphed into a general term of disparagement, esp. for an unattractive or boring person.”

No matter how much reading I do, I still can’t seem to find the magic moment when “douche bag” became a popular term in the 2000s for pompous jerks, so I’m going to let it remain a mystery, unless anyone out there thinks they have an answer – if so, please share it with us in the comments.

Now, onto other things.

Vagina, a self-cleaning organ

Men, if you haven’t realized it by now, the vagina is an amazing organ. Among other things, the vagina is like a self-cleaning oven: it cleans itself and flushes away bacteria and residual menstrual blood with its own fluid and it doesn’t need any outside help.

Douching rinses away the natural vaginal discharge and is not recommended. The medical world agrees that douching is not a good idea because it messes with a woman’s natural ph balance, it can introduce bacteria into the cavity, and can put women at risk for infection. If a pregnant woman douches, she increases the risk of preterm delivery, according to Medscape.com.

I suppose douches exist because the makers of douches like  Massengill and Summer’s Eve decided that they could make money from yet another product that we don’t really need. Or the makers of commercial douches decided that a woman’s natural scent was offensive and decided to turn society against it. If you don‘t have a squeaky-clean vag, you‘re just not fresh and you‘re not socially acceptable!

I have never used a douche; I don’t like the idea. I’m not comfortable with shooting acidic vinegar and water into a body cavity, nor am I into spraying an orifice with water mixed with artificial scent – ooh, the sting! Research shows that some douches contain octoxynol-9 – a spermicide, potential breast carcinogen, and according to the Natural Skincare Authority, a substance that can “instigate immune system response that can include itching, burning, scaling, hives, and blistering of the skin.” A woman can just as easily take a shower and let her natural powers clean her insides – a nicer alternative, non?

If there is a foul smell about the vagina, it could be an indication that there is an infection and douching to “freshen up”/cover the smell may make things a lot worse. A strong scent from down below may indicate that a woman’s flora is compromised and she might want to visit her doctor. Nature is good at giving us cues.

Douche bag or bottle?

Hundreds of years ago, a douche would be administered through a carved bone syringe-looking thing with a flat end with holes in it to plunge the liquid through, and during the early 20th century, a rubber bag was used to hold the douching fluid. Nowadays, a douche is not administed through a bag at all, it’s used with a squeezable plastic bottle, but for some reason, “douche bottle” never caught on…

From boy to man

I hear all of the time from women that they’re glad they’re not men. I’m often saying that I think it would suck to be a man because of all of the social pressures and expectations we have of men, and the constant stress to prove themselves as men.

Womanhood comes naturally to us through our bodies that can create, feed, and nurture babies. Womanhood is never questioned and no one ever doubted it. It just is.

Manhood seems to be more of a challenge. Men and boys need to prove their masculinity to themselves and the world constantly and consistently, and the stress, I imagine, must be so hard to bear. Our culture is lousy with guys trying to prove themselves  - we are endlessly bombarded with the glorified tales and deeds of men in movies, books, and on TV, and idealized versions of men in sports and video games.

Women are also under pressure but in a different way: one could say that we feel pressure to look a certain way while men are pressured to perform a certain way. Example: catalogues – we see women holding gifts or resting their gentle hands on the shoulders of fellow long underwear models – I’m here to be seen, behold me - while men are always in action, “catching” a football, “chopping” wood – even in their y-fronts!

Of course, I’m talking about straight men. I don’t think that open gay men are expected to prove their manhood because their identity falls under a different jurisdiction. Gay men live under very different cultural rules than straight men do, and have other things going on, but once out of the closet, no one ever asked them to prove their manhood, because the need to prove it isn’t in their culture.

What I want to bring to light this week is what boys have to go through on their way to become men, including the rejection of the feminine and the rites and rituals that a boy must endure as he pieces his masculinity together. For this topic, I’m going to be quoting a lot from Manhood in the Making: Cultural Concepts of Masculinity by anthropologist, David D. Gilmore, who studied cultures from all over the world and found a strong underlying understanding among males is to reject anything remotely resembling the feminine.

Strap yourselves in, it’s going to a bizarre and cringe-inducing ride that may make you squirm.

Rites of Passage

Quoted in Gilmore, French anthropologist, Arnold van Gennep’s 1908 work, The Rites of Passage, explains the theme of passage as the change in status and identity as the boy “dies” and is “reborn” a man, each stage accompanied by appropriate symbolism:

1. Separation: The boy severs relations with childhood, often literally, by renouncing the mother or being forcefully taken away from her.

2. Transition. He is sent away to a new place in the bush or is otherwise isolated while in limbo – a status where he is neither boy nor man.

3. Incorporation. He emerges as a man.

The first stage, being taken away from one’s mother is meant to remove the boy’s dependency on the mother because this is largely understood to mean weakness, and weakness is not tolerated well in the world of men. If you’re weak, you’re a sissy, not unlike a girl (horrors!), and you may get your ass kicked. In some cultures like Spain and Morocco,  ”a man must gain full and total independence from women as a necessary criterion of manhood,” according to Gilmore.

This independence begins with the separation from this “source of weakness” and can take many forms, breaking the psychic tie between sons and mothers. For instance, sociologist, Michael Kimmel recognizes the act of baptism as “[t]he old “feminized self” born of a woman is destroyed, and the priest, always a man, brings the new self to life. In a sense, then, the male priest has given birth to the new man. The mother may have given birth, but the child does not become a member of the community until the priest confers that status. Women are pushed aside, and men appropriate reproductive power.”

Kimmel denies any empirical evidence suggesting that boys who stay close to their mothers “become any less capable of manhood than those who reject her in a wrenching separation.”

He says there is good evidence suggesting that the separation from one’s mother has negative consequences for women in his future, where he learns to distrust them and seals himself off from ever showing his true vulnerability and neediness.

“He becomes a man alright – a cold, hard, unfeeling one.”

Rite or torture?

Once the separation has taken place, boys in different parts of the world may be subjected to cruel and brutal rituals to symbolically shed the feminine so that they are “wiped clean of their female contaminants – so that their masculinity may develop.” (Gilbert H. Herdt)

While in New Guinea, Gilmore observed and worked with ethnic groups where boys “were subjected to numerous tests and brutal hazing, some of which involve either physical beating or painful bloodletting – nosebleeds resulting from bamboo canes forced down the esophagus inducing painful vomiting. The boys are also flailed violently with sticks, switches, or bristly objects until their skin is “opened up” and the blood flows.”

Gilmore says that the point of the bleeding is “specifically to remove the mother’s blood and milk and other “polluting” feminine influences from the boy’s body, because these maternal influences inhibit masculinization and therefore adult role play performance.”

Herdt notes that the rites teach the boys to ignore the flow of their own blood and show a stoic resolve. These experiences are said to “explicitly” prepare them fo the life of manly endurance that awaits them.

Bleeding is just one form of this cleansing ritual. Gilmore’s tribe in New Guinea also partakes of ritual fellatio:

“Men cannot help noticing how the child is “too dependent” on the mother and the breast. Apparently, the aggregate response is to wean the boys on their own penises.”

To instill responsibility, independence, and manly strength, the Gisu tribe of Uganda have boys undergo “stressful rites of transition to manhood, including painful bloodletting and circumcision,” and to show pain – even the slightest flinch – will result in ostracization and ridicule.

The young Gisu initiate must stand perfectly still, without the slightest movement, while first his foreskin is ripped open and then the subcutaneous flesh is slowly stripped from around the glans of the penis… the elders describe the degree of pain as “fierce”, “bitter”, and “terrifying”.

The Gisu believe that this terrible ordeal will awaken a fierceness in a boy that makes him fearless, “for he has already experienced the worst pain life has to offer,” Gilmore says.

He sees compelling evidence linking masculine ideology to social and natural environments: “The harsher the environment and the scarcer the resources, the more manhood is stressed as inspiration and goal… it indicates a systematic relationship in which gender ideology reflects the material conditions of life.”

Conditions in central Africa are quite different than in western countries, and without guidance and perhaps without ritual, Michael Kimmel sees young men limping towards manhood in North America, without guidance from their elders, and without rites and rituals to mark their passage.

“Most guys actually do become men – eventually,” Kimmel says, “They may try to convince themselves that they are proving their manhood by torturing each other through initiation, drinking themselves into unconsciousness, watching porn, blowing away virtual enemies, and hooking up with every willing – or sometimes unwilling – woman they meet. But that’s not the way it happens. Most guys just drift into manhood.”

I find it upsetting to think that we as a species are so out of balance that we put men through so much so that they live up to our ideal of what we think a man is. Putting boys through torture in order to become “men” is inhumane and ridiculous. Perhaps if men embraced their Anima, or feminine side, as suggested by Carl Jung, instead of fighting with it, we would be more balanced and less brutal. The journey to manhood is an unnatural construct, and it’s important that we know that we have a choice in how we treat boys and men. Maybe it’s time for reevaluation.

In the end, I still don’t know why displaying one’s feminine side is so bad. I think that when it comes to toughness, women’s bodies are naturally more durable and resilient than men’s bodies, given our monthly menstruation or what I imagine to be the intense pain of childbirth. Mums, like any other mother in the animal world, are often more fierce and courageous than males because they have carried and given birth, and must protect their brood in the world. We don’t actually get any training for this; our toughness is natural.

Comedienne, Betty White, sums up this topic beautifully: ”Why do people say “Grow some balls?” Balls are weak and sensitive! If you really wanna get tough, grow a vagina! Those things take a pounding!”