Awkward loss in the blog family

USS Carl Vinson and Carrier Battle Group - photo by US NAVY

Hear Me Roar's big brother blog, the Photo Fermata, passed away.  I pulled the plug on it last week and it is currently lying in state for viewers.  I will probably bury it in a few months once final arrangements are made.

With the passing of that two-year old behemoth, this blog is in an awkward place.  I created  HMR to be an add-on blog to PF.  This place is a repository of my studies into masculinity and male culture.  For a naval metaphor, PF was the aircraft carrier and HMR is a small corvette supporting the battle group.  It has a small, but important role in the whole fleet.  You would never send a corvette into a theatre alone, where as you can do that with a carrier, if needed.

So, what does this mean for HMR?  HMR is going to be docked for a bit and will occasionally go out on test runs in the waters of masculinity, masculism, mens' health and rights, but will not replace or substitute the breadth and depth of multiple topics that PF offered.

The main reason I ended PF was my inability to be me at it.  I put up my intimate information, my art, and my thoughts, yet I could not put my name on it and take true ownership of it.  The same goes for this blog, BUT this space is just a small adjunct containing my rants and thoughts and acts as a sounding board or diary.  It is not supposed to be my portfolio or public exhibition of my creations (even though I put a few of my own photos).

So, farewell big brother.  Your shoes are impossible to fill, and to be honest, not my job.

The wingman

Valya - 010611

The wingman is supposed to have your back, talk you up, and help you get introduced in a positive way.  Every time I had a wingman, it failed.  I am a lousy one as well.  After seeing the video below, I agree with the Dos Equis  man.  You should man enough to be yourself.

Masculinity - the inverse of feminity?

On Duty

A man’s evolution can only happen when he begins to cultivate a true sense of masculinity that is related to who he is as an individual. Reinventing the masculine identity is not making yourself more feminine; rather, it is striving to become you.  Viewing yourself in an inverse relationship with femininity will not change a thing. [Emphasis Mine] Alec A @ http://thefbomb.org/2010/10/redefining-masculinity/

I really dislike generalizations and stereotypes.  Most of us recognize generalizations paint too wide a picture and inhibit understanding of the individual or group being generalized.  While, once in a while, they are handy as a basic survival tool, we get trapped in them.  One of the traps is the us/them, right wrong aspects of them.  Generalizations often assume opposites are the truth and nothing can exist in the middle.

"Men are the opposite of women." 
"Men are from Mars... " 
"All that guys want is sex." 
"She must be part guy because of how she goes for sex."* 
"Unless it is a competition, men wont care." 

Men are not entirely the opposite of women.  We are all multi-dimensional universes with each direction having its own spectrum of behavior.  Many of these dimensions have nothing to do with gender.  It is our place on each dimension spectrum that defines who we are.  As a man, some of those are gender based and they make me who I am.  I am not the opposite of women, nor the same.  I am Karl and I am the man I am and there are none exactly like me.
 
* A woman told me this about her friend and colleague who is married, has an open relationship, and told her she has made out with a few colleagues.  

X Why? - Why do men jump up to touch things?

*"X Why?" is a new feature at HMR.  It will be a reoccurring column on why men do things.   These answers can range from actions, behaviors, desires, beliefs, and needs.  Most of these answers will come from half-assed, or better, research, specialists, the writer's opinion, and hopefully a little humor (but not afraid to tackle the serious ones as well).  HMR encourages readers to contribute questions and answers to the age-old question - Why do men...?

Today's question - Why do men have to jump up and touch signs, awnings, and other high up objects while walking down the sidewalk?

Very good question.  I do it.  My 75 year old dad does it.  My friend Jim is really good at it.  I have a few theories on this vertical need.

1.  To see if he can do it.   That is probably the best reason.  Guys need to test themselves regularly in physical and mental ways.  These experiments test to check ability, improvement, maintenance, or decline in performances in this skill.  It may be some evolutionary trait we can't suppress because we never know when we may need to jump up and get something out of survival needs.  I have used this ability many times to rescue helium balloons from going into ceiling fans.

2.  To impress friends, family and love interests.  I remember when I discovered I was able to lift heavier things than my dad and my brother, run faster than my friends, and reach higher store awnings than most people.  Being 6'4" really helps with the last one.  My friend Jim, at 5'10" has a higher vertical jump than me, but I can still reach higher up the awning.  As for impressing love interests, what lover doesn't appreciate a guy who can reach "way up there".  If he is good at that, then he must be really good at...

3.  To experience the object.  Babies need to stick things in their mouths to understand them.  Men have to touch them.  This need to touch things includes needing to jump way up and touch the object, even if only for a brief moment.  I truly appreciate the beauty of a store awning by feeling its canvas texture, temperature, and density as my hand slaps it for a brief moment.  I can even tell you what color it is by doing that.   Why do you think men love to caress those they love?

Women, I encourage you to try and do this the next time you walk down the street and see something up there, jump up and touch it.  You may discover the beauty of this simple act.  You will also greatly confuse any men watching you.  Gender transgressions are great for the psyche.

*The title comes from the genetic chromosomes that determine male physical gender, XY.  (Women have XX chromosomes to identify physical gender.)  The chromosomes got their name by their shapes.

Who gets past the feminist bouncers?

Hear Me Roar (HMR) focuses on men, masculinity, masculism, and the role, identity, rights, and perception of men in society.  This focus on the masculine gender is fine, but HMR must also take time to look at feminism and the role, identity, rights, and perception of women in society.

Recently resigned Alaska gov Sarah Palin publicly proclaimed her feminism.  Many in the political world wondered what that meant.  Can someone as conservative as Palin be a feminist?

This question of who gets to self-proclaim as feminist was posed to a number of feminist writers and theorists at Slate.com.  The responses are interesting.  Some agree that Palin can claim the identity, others argue against it for various reasons.  The first argument against is that while Palin is a product of feminism, she has done nothing to promote feminist causes.  The second draws an even harder line in the sand, Palin's hard pro-life/anti-choice/anti-abortion stand absolutely keeps her out of the group.  I highly recommend you read the article. 

So, what is HMR's stand on a feminist litmus test?  Undecided.  HMR has concerns about exclusive clubs that openly discriminate, even to those sympathetic to the group's causes but with differing ideas or backgrounds.  On the other hand, no group should allow someone in who will actively and purposefully damage the group and the cause.  My questions for any group are:

• How do you handle differing opinions from group members?  
• Do you listen to them, but do nothing about them?  
• Do you placate or cave in to them?  
• Do you toss them out of the group?
• Which individuals or groups are definitely persona non grata?

As for Palin's desire to take on the identity of feminist - check her motives.   HMR believes she intends to mock, damage, belittle, and reduce the importance of the movement.  The feminist movement is in a mine field with this one.  If they accept her, how do they control her?  If they refute her, how will the group's identity change after rejecting a woman of power from membership?  Good luck.

On a side note, HMR supports the core feminist values and causes.  As with all groups, fringe interests arise that test support both within and outside of the group.  That is worth many more blog posts.

Interesting Twists in Statistics.

Aren't we all the standard deviation?

INTRODUCTION
I work in a scientific field.  Statistics are the text that make up the scientific bible.  It tells us in numbers, shared definitions, charts, and other agreed methods, the meaning (if any) of the questions we asked.  The data is the data.  It is as good as the planning and set up of collecting, processing and interpreting it.  If the study design is faulty, the data will be too.  If the study design is robust, the data will be too.  The key point to remember with stats, don't believe the numbers until you fully understand them.


In the hands of statisticians, scientists, mathematicians and other experienced statistics users, the data can be used and explored with the hope of truth and accuracy.  Once that data escapes to people with agendas, it can be spun and give stories that are exaggerations or lies.  My interest in this comes from two recent interactions with "stats."  The first is in relationship to violent crime and the second to the amount of orgasms women have during anal sex (the two stats were not presented as related and are from completely different discussions.) 


PART 1

I was talking to someone from the old country, Montana.  They had heard some statistic stating more rapes and murders occur in California and New York than all other states.  I instantly felt my statistical shenanigans hackles rise.  I asked where they got this number.  From a conservative talk show host implicating that the blue states have more crime.  I then asked how did they report the numbers.  Did they give specific data?  The shared data was total numbers of murders and rapes for each state.   That right there triggered the full stat shenanigans alarm.

I asked the Montanan:
How many people live in the US?  It is estimated around 310,000,000.
How many people live in California and New York? ~37,000,000 and ~19,500,000 = 56,500,000
After doing some math  56.5M / 310M X 100 = 18.2% of all Americans live in California or New York.  That means almost 1 in 5 Americans live in one of those two states.  For California alone, 1 in 8 Americans are Californian.
I then had to ask, wouldn't that mean about 1/5 of all murders and rapes in the USA occur in either of those states?  That one stumped the Montanan for a moment and they reluctantly agreed.

After the chat ended I had to look up some data.  I went to the FBI crime statistics website that breaks down crime types for each state.  I looked at the 2009 numbers for both Montana and California.

California - 1,972 murders, 8713 forcible rapes reported
Montana - 28 murders, 294 forcible rapes reported. Total Montana Population ~975,000

I ran the numbers and determined the incidence rates for both states per 100,000 people.

In California there were 5.3 murders and 240 reported rapes per 100,000 citizens in 2009.
In Montana there were 2.8 murders and 300 reported rapes per 100,000 citizens in 2009.   

If you look at that data, California had almost twice as many murders as Montana per 100,000 people.  Montana had 20% more reported rapes than California per 100,000 people.  Even with that data, it is hard to make assumptions as to why the crime rates varied between the two states so much.  We can theorize on it and do more studies to test the theories, but those numbers alone only tell us the totals, not the causes.  We can also argue about the validity of the totals reported.  The number of murders is a pretty objective number since it is based on the total number of bodies found that were the result of murder.  Ever since rape statistics have been collected, statisticians have known the actual number of rapes compared to the number reported are way off.  That nugget right there can throw speculations out the window.  We could look into estimates of under reporting of rape for each state and ask why so few rape victims file reports.  There are so many questions for criminologists, psychologists, and sociologists to explore.

PART 2

I was visiting one of my favorite websites, Slate.com.  I read the following headline, The Ass Man Cometh: Experimentation, orgasms, and the rise of anal sex. written by William Saletan and was drawn into the article.  The article reports results from a recent national survey published in the latest issue of the Journal of Sexual Medicine.


As the Slate article states, the survey ...

... clarifies the prevalence of gay sex, teenage intercourse, and oral gratification. But the big story is the increase in anal sex reported by women—and its possible connection to female orgasms.

In the article, the survey found a increases in the number of women in all age groups who report having anal sex ever and in the past year over the numbers reported in 1992.  The shocking news came from comparing the amount of women who achieved orgasm through various methods.

Among women who had vaginal sex in their last encounter, the percentage who said they reached orgasm was 65. Among those who received oral sex, it was 81. But among those who had anal sex, it was 94. Anal sex outscored cunnilingus.

Is there some new erogenous zone being discovered through anal sex with women?  How can this be?  What would Freud think since he believed clitoral stimulated orgasms were "immature" and inferior to vaginal stimulated orgasms?


Saletan postulated on this and suggested an interesting possibility.

Here's my guess. Look carefully at Table 4, Pages 355-6. Only 6 percent of women who had anal sex in their last encounter did so in isolation. Eighty-six percent also had vaginal sex. Seventy-two percent also received oral sex. Thirty-one percent also had partnered masturbation. And the more sex acts a woman engaged in during the encounter, the more likely she was to report orgasm. These other activities are what gave the women their orgasms. The anal sex just came along for the ride.

So why did the inclusion of anal sex bump the orgasm figure up to 94 percent? It didn't. The causality runs the other way. Women who were getting what they wanted were more likely to indulge their partners' wishes. It wasn't the anal sex that caused the orgasms. It was the orgasms that caused the anal sex.

CONCLUSION

Both of these statistical examples illustrate the power and dangers of statistics.  Like drugs, porn, and other things that are used for various purposes, they are neither good or bad.  It is the use, purpose, and end results that can make them good or bad.  Whether we use overly simplified crime stats for political gain or over-generalized sex stats to try and convince someone into trying anal sex, the temptation to corrupt the data through message manipulation and selected number sampling is great.  Do not believe statistics until you fully understand what and how they measured the desired questions.


POSTLUDE
What does this have to do with masculinity?  As with all statistics, the temptation to create sweeping generalizations are great.  When it deals with details on sex, sexual practices, and other sexual points of interest, it affects us all.  We need to know the truth about data before we take the interpretations from them as truth.  Sometimes the interpretations are lies and need to be debated and debunked.  Other times, they are a pleasant or painful truth we need to face.  Either way, don't swallow the kool-aid until you have read all the ingredients.


On a lighter second note - As a sexual male, it is titillating to read this stuff and figure out where I fit into the data. I am ahead of the curve for some parts and behind on others.  Time to have fun.

Stud vs. Creep vs. Slut: The challenges of being a sexual male in our age.

I read a great editorial at Alternet.org titled, Why Do We Demonize Men Who are Honest about Their Sexual Needs? by Clarisse Thorn  It is one feminist's view on the dangerous corner men are being put into that is full of double standards and unwarranted limitations.  It is the first blatantly open writing I have read from a feminist that explains many of the challenges the modern sexual male faces.  Please read her article before reading the rest of this post.

So how can a man express his sexual needs without being tarred as a creep? After all, the point of promoting sex-positive attitudes is for everyone to be able to be open about their needs and desires, right? [Emphasis mine]

First, I know most of all sexual crimes are perpetrated by men.
Second, I acknowledge the male gaze heavily dominates our pop culture.
Third, I acknowledge and respect the continued struggle for equality and respect of women.

With those disclaimers out there, I have to now share a rant.  As a middle-aged, upper middle-class, heterosexual white male, I am in a group that is easy to dislike, disparage, and disenfranchise.  Much of this comes from the sins of my forefathers who did the same to almost all other groups.  With that historical baggage, many distrust the motives, intentions, and value of what I offer.  This is especially true when discussing sexual desires, needs, and attractions.  If I say I prefer tall, skinny, blond bombshells with pert tushes and big breasts (not actually my preference)*, I can be labeled as a racist, misogynist who perpetuates the dangerous stereotypical ideal that encourages eating disorders and the oppression of alternative looks.   If I share nothing about my preferences I never get what I seek and am accused of not sharing my feelings.  If I share my desires, I am judged on them.

Preferences are things we prefer.  They may be narrow or broad.  They may limit our experiences or make them overly abundant.  I made up a term and call myself a "terravore".  That means I only eat food that comes from above water.  That preference limits me, but it is what I prefer.  I don't like dramatic musicals like Phantom of the Opera.  I prefer musical comedies.  I prefer the music of Dire Straits to the solo works of Mark Knopfler.  If I say I prefer* short, dark-haired Latina women, I am not saying I want to harm all other women and oppress them.  It is just my personal taste and preference in what I find attractive and desirable.  I do not judge poorly others who have different preferences than mine, to each their own.

The pressure put on men to be initiators, yet avoid seeming creepy or aggressive leads to an unpleasant double bind. After all, the same gross cultural pressures that make women into objects force men into instigators; how many women do you know who proposed to their husbands?

It is tough to be an alpha male in our culture, especially in regards to sex and desire. If a man takes the lead, he is an oppressor.  If he doesn't, he is a wimp and is disregarded.

We feminists often say that men's promiscuity is lauded while women's is stigmatized, and one point of this argument is purely linguistic: "stud" is a complimentary word for a promiscuous man, while "slut" is a hurtful word for a promiscuous woman.


The stud vs. slut dichotomy is worth discussing, but it has one flaw: it entirely ignores the word "creep," whose function appears to be restricting male sexuality to a limited, contradictory set of behaviors. [Emphasis mine]

So how can a man express his sexual needs without being tarred as a creep? After all, the point of promoting sex-positive attitudes is for everyone to be able to be open about their needs and desires, right?

As I have mentioned before, I am not my forefathers.  I am not trying to repress your sexuality.  How can I express mine if it is seen as wrong and "creepy"?  The actual content of my desires may be creepy, but the act of expressing it shouldn't be.

Men are under so much pressure to get busy all the time that even when they're having sex, their own pleasure may be less central than meeting the stereotype of how dudes are supposed to get laid. For some men, the stereotypes do kinda represent their desires; for some, the stereotypes don't work at all.

That is the double standard.  There are stereotypes of men that do not apply to all men.  If my desires do not fit into the stereotypical guy's desires, I am labeled as a creep.  Being labeled a "creep" is far worse than a "stud",  "Lothario", "womanizer", etc.  Creeps are in the same group, or a notch above pedophiles in popular culture.  As Thorn writes, " Men are supposed to be insatiable only within those bounds. Men who step outside them -- for example, heterosexual men who are attracted to curvier women, or who like being pegged with a dildo in the butt -- are either mocked or viewed with anxious suspicion."  If women, homosexuals, and other non heterosexual males can explore different sexual avenues of pleasure openly, why can't heterosexual males?

Like most people, men want sex, and that's not a bad thing. Like everyone, men deserve to feel as though their sexuality is hot, awesome, delicious, valuable, and can be pleasurable for all parties in a consensual situation. Just as women shouldn't have to feel exploited when they have consensual sex, men shouldn't have to feel like they're exploiting someone when they have consensual sex. Just as more and more space is being made for forthright discussion of female sexuality, more and more space should be made for forthright discussion of male sexuality.

It's also incumbent upon us to honor each others' boundaries. But this is not a question of limiting or repressing male sexuality, and it shouldn't be framed that way. It should be framed entirely as a question of consent, communication and respect.

AMEN

* I will not share my preferences in beauty and attraction.  It evolves and I don't want to be pinned down.  Being a male, even that declaration makes me sound like an opportunist who wants what ever tickles my momentary fancy.  That is actually far from the truth.

Getting your ass kicked

Every fuckin’ beatin’ I’m grateful for. Every fuckin’ one of them. Get all the trust beat outta you. And you know what the fuckin’ world is.- Al Swearengen Deadwood (played by Ian McShane)

Have you ever been in the losing end of a fight?  Have you ever been punched in the face?  I don't approve of fighting for useless reasons, but I do believe it is both an unavoidable and important rite of passage in a man's life, similar to losing a parent.

I wrote a bit about my fighting history over at The Photo Fermata.  You can read the full account here.  
In the post about when I had to be on the losing side of fights.

My first memories of fighting violence are from the early 70's. I was in preschool- kindergarten. My dad worked for the Bureau of Indian Affairs as an engineer on irrigation systems. We were living in Lower Brule, South Dakota on an Indian reservation during the same time the American Indian Movement (AIM) was flaring up at the neighboring Pine Ridge Indian Reservation at Wounded Knee. Being the white kids of a government employee during this time was not easy. I am not going to write about the politics and the different sides of the issues. At four years old, my only side was keeping from getting beat up, and that was it.

On a regular basis, my brother and I were cornered and forced to fight or take a beating from a classmate or two. My brother is five years older than me. I learned a hard lesson. If I won the fight, I had to fight my opponents older brother or sister. At one point I had to learn when to take the beating over winning the fight. My brother had the same problems. He would jump in and protect me if I was way over-matched, but he had his own back to watch.

I learned a few things from taking a beating and getting punched in the face, the gut, and the balls.  The fear of these hits are in ways worse than the actual hit.  Before getting hit the first time, I feared I would break apart into pieces like glass.  After the hit, the kick, the punch, I learned that it hurt like hell, but I could still fight back and win.  I also learned that I would heal over time.  I learned who to fear, when to fear and when to give up.

I really wish some hard lessons in life weren't so hard, but unfortunately bad shit happens in life.  We fight, we hurt each other, we lose family members, and we eventually lose ourselves.

Below is a fight scene from Deadwood between Swearengen (Ian McShane) and Sheriff Bollock (Timothy Olymphant).  While it is very graphic, it shows how most fights end with both sides really hurting.  The makers of Deadwood were the best at showing the pummeling, bludgeoning, deep trauma of physical fights.  After watching one, you don't want to be in it.  The fight ends with both sides having secret weapons, a knife and a boy.

Be Big - Greed and Success

"Greed is good." Promotional photo from the movie Wallstreet

"Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms—greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge—has marked the upward surge of mankind." - Gordon Gekko - Wallstreet

During this economic super recession, depression... what ever the hell it is, I am reflecting on the greed that got us into this mess.  Many still want the old life and forget that our greed is what got us into this mess.  The big investment bankers still deny they were the engine that brought this on.  We still feel greed and need as our primary source of self worth.  How does this play into the definition of the modern man?  For me, it actually goes to the most basic instinct of men, to survive and do better.  The challenge for the modern man is to determine what true success is.  Is it just having the most  awesome stuff?




The commercial with Anthony Hopkins was made in the mid-2000's when big was everything.  It reminds me of the character Gorden Gekko's speech on greed from the movie Wall Street.  Both sum up our motivations then... and now.




I was caught up in that mentality.  I wanted more, more, more.  I have a garage full of stuff that I uselessly accumulated over those years because I felt it reflected my success.  I am currently going through the stuff to figure out what to do with it.  Some of it I do enjoy, but most are gathering dust.  What lessons can I learn from the stuff I bought?

Most of the stuff I bought I used once or twice and then set aside.  The flash and wonder of it wore off fast.  I have a really cool tent that I knew would make camping perfect.  I used it once and haven't since.  There are many other things like that.  The idea of them was better than the actual product.  I got seduced ( or suckered) by the allure of what that product could do for me. 

Some of the stuff I used quite a bit on special projects or interests, for example all the tools I bought while restoring my truck and all the darkroom equipment I used back when I shot black and white film.  That stuff is gathering dust, but I enjoyed their use when I needed them.

The last bits of stuff are things I use constantly and really enjoy.  My digital camera, the new iMac, my cross country skis.  These are things that truly bring me joy to have.  So, what makes these things different than the other stuff listed above, especially the things that I only used once and forgot about?

It all comes down to the intent of my purchase.  The stuff I got that is gathering the most dust came from my need to show my success.  I wanted those things as status symbols, not what they were actually to be used for.  Once I found that I didn't really like tennis, the expensive tennis racket that was the best on the court was useless.  Why didn't I get a cheap one and learn on it first?  I wanted people to see I was serious about tennis and I had the best equipment for it.

The camera was something I didn't buy because everyone else had one and I needed it as a status symbol.  I bought it to make art, not just art, but MY art. The same is true for my iMac.  I got the cross country skis because I've done that since childhood and it is one of the simplest pleasures I know.  It brings me peace.

As a man (and probably as a human) I want success.  I want recognition.  I want people to say, "Wow Karl, that is really something special."  What I have learned from sorting out all my stuff is that I need to change what success is.  It no longer is, "Wow Karl, that tennis racket is something special."  I don't want to be remembered as having a special toy.  I want to people to say, "Wow Karl, that photo is important, beautiful (insert adjective of choice here)."  I want what I do to be what I am judged by, not what I have.

With all that grandiose, self-actualized bull shit I just wrote out there, I have to add one caveat that I have to throw into the mix.  In a hundred years, there will be all new people.  None of them are going to remember or care who I was.  After recognizing that, true success for me then is not what I own, but that I enjoy doing right now and get the most meaning from.   I hope more men realize that by having a cool toy, they are not cooler.  It is the enjoyment and purpose for the toy that makes it worth anything.