GENDER MIND BENDERS - written by Ken & posted on the O&I Board in Spring 1988

I've thought about gender and society and the differences it makes for at Twin Oaks a lot. When Denis put up his paper, I felt like I didn't know where to begin. I also knew I had some comments to make that some people were not going to like. But I had a conversation with Cassie recently that perhaps was the catalyst for finally putting these thoughts to paper. Here goes. Please understand that my comments about men and women refer to them generally, and that unless I write otherwise, I'm referring to the situation here at Twin Oaks. I know that on the outside the discriminations against women out weigh those against men.

It is true that women are discriminated against by our society. For example, they are not encouraged to take on and learn mechanical jobs and skills. I see affirmative action being used here to make up for some of that with women only construction crews and until recently, a women only auto crew. (I only got on the crew because at the time only one woman applied (and she got on as well.)) Women are also on the farm crew, forestry equipment maintenance, rope crew, and ECW. I think it's also fair to say that women here are supported psychologically in their efforts to overcome the limiting thinking they have learned about themselves as women in the outside society.

Men in general have also learned limited thinking about themselves as men. We have not learned to emotionally supportive of other people or ourselves. But instead of the community lending support for overcoming this learned limiting thinking, we are told that we should already have our shit together. Women don't want to deal with our dependency, and don't have the patience for our lack of confidence in giving emotional support. We're told to take care of ourselves.

This seems unfair given the reaction I have seen to people like ex-member Will who did not want to work with inexperienced women in building Zhankoye. This was because he did not have the patience to deal with a woman's lack of confidence in learning carpentry skills and her dependency on him for guidance. Will got a lot of flak for this attitude.

I remember walking into the office one evening and encountering a member who was crying and upset after a phone call. I felt awkward, but I wanted to be of support. I was talking to her when another woman walked in and stepped between us to give her a hug. The attention of the woman who was upset immediately and completely switched from me to this woman. I felt very inadequate and left. The woman who intervened apologized later to me, but I was still left with the impression that I was not good at giving emotional support.

And it is not just overcoming my own inhibitions that is going to give me more confidence in this. There are also social taboos about it. Women who are friends of mine will make physical contact with me through a hug or a caress to show their affection. I will want to reciprocate and even initiate contact, but I am afraid of the perceived implications. I am afraid my affection will be seen as a sexual come-on or an act of dominance.

When a man here is getting to know a woman or becoming more intimate with her, his actions are much more suspect than if the gender roles are switched. I quickly learned as a new member that when a man was perceived as initiating intimacy with a woman visitor or a new member that would likely end up in either partner's bed, it was known as "wolfing". I have never heard this term used to describe a situation with the gender roles reversed, and it does happen here.

You would think then that if it was being 'put out' that wolfing was taboo - that men being aggressive and macho in initiating relationships or affairs was discouraged - that women would do more or most of the initiating and macho behavior would not be seen as attractive.

From what I have seen and heard, this is not the case. The double standard is also present here in men being encouraged verbally to be sensitive and expressive of emotions, but in reality, this sort of 'gentleness' in men does not seem to be sexually attractive.

"It's a funny time for women. We demand a certain sensitivity. We've made out outward attacks at machismo, right, in favor of the new sensitive male. But we're at the fledgling state of our liberty where we can't handle it. I think we ask men to be sensitive and equal, but deep down think it's unnatural. And we really want them to be stronger than us."

- Joni Mitchell (1979)

Men in general are too dependent on others for emotional support. This is an area we need to work on. But no one goes it alone. Women are not handed a hammer and saw and told to go build a building alone if they have never done construction before. It is true that if the woman 'tried hard enough', she could get the building built after a lot of mistakes and a lot of suffering. So at Twin Oaks we put the woman who is interested, but inexperienced at construction in an environment that is supportive to her learning to becoming more skilled and more independent as a construction worker.

Men also seek such a supportive environment. But the building we are trying to construct is our own self-image as worthy givers and receivers of love and affection. But I see men being told by women to go work on yourselves. When we want to be a part of women's only activities, we are told to go start your own group. We are told that it is important for women to have women's only groups and living spaces because women want to strengthen the bonds between themselves.

Two responses to this:

1) Haven't men said the same thing about having men's only activities like construction crews? Sometimes men do not want to work with women because they often break up the bonding they have formed with each other in the group. But in the name of equal opportunity at Twin Oaks, these men only crews have been criticized and broken up. Why didn't women just go form their own construction crews? Because at first men had a) all the resources (the money, tools, and labor credits for the job); and b) all or most of the needed skills. This has since changed.

2) But now men and their wanting to learn intimacy and be a part of 'intimacy crews' are in the same situation women were when they wanted to be on construction crews. Men are being told to go form their own intimacy crews. Women don't want to deal with our inexperience or the risk of men affecting the bonding and intimacy they have with each other. But men don't have access to the resources or skills that it takes. On top of this, a lot of men are not interested in becoming more intimate with each other.

Can you imagine trying to build a house this way?

Federal law has struck down the idea of "separate, but equal" in education. This is for two reasons: (1) the government knew racism and sexism are spawned by separatism; and (2) the government knew that black schools were not equal to what the white schools had to offer. Why was this? Because black schools did not have the resources (money, facilities) or the skills (qualified teachers) or the environment (motivated students) that the white schools did. The government did not think that a white university telling a black applicant to go form co's own university was fair. The black student just couldn't do it on co's own. But co could still blame coself for it. And this is just what the white university wanted. So they could remove themselves from any responsibility for the black person getting a poorer education.

At Twin Oaks, I as a man compared to a woman here am living in an intimacy ghetto. I would much rather be a woman here. I would then have access to women only activities (dances, sweats, teas, sleeping out, co-counseling, and just hanging out), women only space , and most of all - the intimacy skills and experience more women here than men have to offer each other. I am told, as the rich tell the poor of the ghetto, that all I have to do as a man is just pull myself up by my own bootstraps. We don't support this kind of thinking around economical opportunities on the outside or here. Why then should we support it here around intimacy opportunities? For as we have seen, the rich just get richer, and the poor just get poorer.

Just think about who are the lonely people here. Most of them are men. And as the rich disclaim any responsibility for helping the poor, so do the intimate side step the lonely. The rich blame the poor for being lazy. The intimate blame the lonely for not "working on yourself enough". The rich are more supportive of poor whites than poor blacks, because they see the poor white's economic situation as being due to something more about the environment, as opposed to the black's situation which the rich see as being due to something about the person. After all, the rich are white too. I see the same thing going on with men and women. Intimate women are more supportive of intimacy-poor women than intimacy-poor men. A woman's lack of confidence with being close to other people is frequently attributed to the repression she has grown up under as a woman. The man, however, is screwed up because of himself.

And isn't it interesting how Denis has been getting positive support from women in his paper by saying in effect ever so humbly - 'I'm screwed up, but I admit it. Won't you help me to see the light.' Rich whites love to hear the same thing from poor blacks.

And one of the reasons it has taken me so long to write this paper is that I know there are women out there who are going to think - 'Ken is just trying to lay a trip on us for his lack of self-confidence. Why doesn't he just face up to that it's due to something about him, and not the environment?' And this would allow you to go on with your present form of thinking. And you would just avoid getting closer with me all the more because of threatening questions I pose. This is not what I want. I want to be closer with people. But I can't do it all on my own. And I thought the main reason for community was to give us an environment that would encourage the supporting of each other.

This is not to discount the support that I have already received. I really appreciate people being intimate with me through a smile, a hello, or a hug. And I know sometimes I have been hard to deal with. A lot of this anger has come from refusing to accept that most of my lack of self-confidence is my fault while getting the message that it is from people.

And there are more women here than men who I admire for the work and role modeling they have done to make it easier for people to be more intimate. I have seen this in the form of co-counseling, facilitating, showing physical affection, being less judgmental of others, honesty, and much, much more!

At Twin Oaks, we have made great strides in making things egalitarian economically. However, we have made little progress in making things egalitarian socially. But why are they not egalitarian to begin with? Why do women hold more of the opportunities of intimacy here than men? Why have men consistently looked to women for intimacy?

I think these are the reasons:

1) Men attribute a lot more intimacy to sex than women do . It is seen as the greatest form of acceptance.

2) Women are more intimate or emotionally supportive than men. Women are more honest and open.

3) Men are born of women. We spend at least the first nine months of our lives in a situation that is as intimate as you can get. Nursing has been shown to be very important in bonding. There are no such bonding mechanisms between father and son.

4) Men are competitive and separate of each other. You do not seek intimacy with people who see it as a weakness in you, or as a weakness in them because of their own fears about homosexuality and facing their own isolation and inability to be intimate. I think this is a major reason why the Men's Group here has not met more regularly.

5) Ecetera

This does not mean these reasons are written in stone and this dependent relationship will not eventually wane and change for the better for both genders. But I think it is important that women and men here recognize that the way the sexes interact and the way to change this are not as simple as they might seem.

What I want to come out of this paper is the understanding that it is not so simple as to tell a man seeking intimacy to go work on yourself, or go form/join a men's group. Men have their own self-limiting thinking that they have learned in society to deal with. It is true that most of the work to overcome or work through these limiting self-images as men is going to have to come from ourselves individually. But like the novice construction worker, we need help as well from other men and from women. And this support can come just in the understanding of the situation.

This is a closed environment. There are only so many intimacy skills and resources to go around. When women hold the majority of these, it makes a difference to intimacy seeking men when there are women only activities and spaces. I understand that even in community, the individual is co's own first priority, and women are not going to stop having their own activities. But I want you to at least realize that you are holding a controlling share in a valuable resource. And men have had to give up many of our controlling shares in other resources (economic opportunities) in this community.

Please do not continue supporting double standards. Don't put men down for being dominant and then refer to gentle men as wimps. At Twin Oaks, women don't get labeled as wimps, and rarely as being too dominant. Don't think of a woman's lack of self-confidence as being a natural result of our society, but then view a man's as his own fault. Don't limit 'affirmative action' to economic opportunity differences. Apply it to social differences as well. Don't label men as 'wolves', if you're not going to judge women on 'wolfing' as well. Don't publicly decry machismo, but then privately be attracted to it. Don't apply 'separate but equal' just when it's suitable for your viewpoint. If you're going to support it for social one gender only groups, then don't be surprised to find economic and educational one gender only groups.

I wish this community would be more supportive of group intimacy without regards to gender. I wish we had more spaces built and designed for people to hang out in. I wish we had more structured activities. Obviously, austerity is not going to help this. But it seems a contradiction to me that there are such enormous advantages of being in a relationship here when a community is supposed to be built on group togetherness and support.

I welcome your comments. It's a complex issue and I haven't considered every angle. Thanks for reading through all this! It took longer to write - you know.