GENDER 2 - written by Ken & posted on the O&I Board in Spring 1988

I'm sorry that it has taken me so long to get this out. I've been very busy and troubled these last few weeks and spending time on this 'sacred cow' of an issue, that in some ways has just gotten me into more trouble, often did not have much appeal. I don't think the issue is a dead horse yet, and perhaps it will never be since it obviously directly and greatly affects all of our lives.

Just what is the issue? To me it is that separating men and women to work on their oppression isn't necessarily the best solution. I tried to show in my paper how one gender based groups at Twin Oaks, while often being formed with the cause of easing that gender's own oppression, inadvertently sometimes add to the other gender's oppression. Why? Because this is a closed environment and not all resources here are shared in as egalitarian a manner as we might at first think.

But rather than go into this again, I'd like to clear up some misinterpretations I have been seeing in the comments about my paper.

Nowhere in my paper did I ask "to be taken care of" by women or "to be the center of their attention". Why are so many people responding as if I did? I asked mostly for "understanding", and by that I mean "respect not pity" and "empathy not sympathy".

It is true that I asked for "help". But I asked for this from other men as well as from women. And I stated "this support can come just in the understanding of the situation".

Nowhere in my paper did I call for or ask for an end to women-only space and activities. I wrote: "I understand that . . . women are not going to stop having their own activities". I simply said "I wish this community would be more supportive of group intimacy without regards to gender". As Ross wrote - No one is asking women to "lay aside their efforts to re-educate themselves in order to again take care of men". I am asking for women to "at least realize that you are holding an often controlling share in a valuable resource (intimacy)". I don't think my thoughts in the paper should be threatening to anyone. I most appreciated hearing from people that the paper is 'thought provoking'. That's what I meant it to be. That's why I called it 'Gender MIND BENDERS'.

So I don't understand where some people come from referring to my paper as "women-bashing". I am not attacking anyone. I'm asking people to consider the thoughts and questions that I pose. The most I'm asking for in terms of specific action is for people not to keep supporting double standards and for "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." And I would like to be shown where are these intimacy resources that are supposedly "there for the taking".

Todd writes "I think it's unfair to demand that someone stop and help us do something we're perfectly capable of doing ourselves". Again, I'm not demanding anything. And Todd, if we as men are so capable (of achieving intimacy) ourselves, then why are you finding so much of yours with women - and for yourself state that "I find it hard to reach out to men", and "there are very few men I enjoy being around for very long".

There are several women's groups here. Jim is trying to get one men's group going after many months without any. I haven't gone to this group yet (although I intend to). I have been part of men's groups here before and co-sponsored with Alexis the last men's only activity (a cookout). However, I haven't gotten much out of men's groups before. And here's why - because as I said in my paper men in general are novices in "trying to construct our own self-image as worthy givers and receivers of love and affection (intimacy)". And I have been hurt in men's groups before - having been told that my struggle to understand my emotions and display them honestly and openly was not what others wanted in the group. And for the most part the men in men's groups are there because they're not in a romantic relationship. And that's what is mostly talked about. When I'm trying to celebrate myself as a man and as a person, completely fine and lovable by myself, I don't want to be part of a group where what we mostly talk about is how we wish we were in a relationship with a woman or that our current relationship were going better.

I have heard from some women that it's too bad that this is how things are for men, but that women had to fight hard to bring their groups together and to turn accepting their oppression into celebrating themselves. I'm told that I can follow the example of this, and start bringing men together in self-celebration. Men in general here are way behind women in this respect. No man has said to me that my paper helped him understand his oppression better. It seems as if most men don't even recognize that they are being oppressed by being dependent on sexual and romantic relationships for their intimacy and by not being open to as much intimacy with other men as women find with each other.

This is a very hard environment to build intimacy among men. I'm not interested in swimming against this tide. I'm not into being a pioneer, or a martyr, or suffering. I'm not interested in accepting being lonely. As Ross writes: "it's so soul-scarring and it's so unnecessary". I'm alive here and now. I want a more intimate environment here and now. My paper was an attempt to promote more thinking about how to do that and an understanding of the current situation.

My paper was written for men as well as women. I appreciate the complements I got for my paper from men and their letting me know that what I had written had struck a chord in them. But I am disappointed more men did not put this down 'for the record' in writing on my paper. Apparently, many men here are afraid to comment publicly in support (I did get one comment in my mailbox from a man expressing this) - or I guess they are just not interested. And I suppose much of this disinterest is because many of these men are already getting their intimacy needs met in relationships.

Relationships also tie up intimacy resources. I addressed this in my paper writing that "it seems a contradiction to me that there are such enormous advantages of being in a romantic relationship here when a community is supposed to be built on group togetherness and support". I see romantic relationships the same way I see women-only activities. I don't expect or even want either to stop, but I think it's too bad that the 'structure' of this community supports them so much - at least in comparison to community support of integrated group activities.

I stand by my analogies. Learning construction and intimacy are similar. One learns confidence as well as skills in both. Women needed to learn that they could. Men need to learn that they can. If you disagree, I suggest you re-read my paper. I put it out there as clearly as I could.

I am not ignoring ways in which women are oppressed. I recognize that women need some space of their own to work on the oppression they have learned on the outside. But I wish as much as possible this taking of space would be made on the basis of attitude and not gender.

We have all been oppressed. Didn't we all come to Twin Oaks seeking a less oppressive and more supportive environment? Let's work on building and maintaining that environment for everyone here. An environment that equally distributes what we have among men and women, among young and old, among members with children and those without, among activists and those who are not, etcetera!

Thanks for reading this and especially for thinking about it. I'm glad to see the support group for men and women happening. It's a good start. I don't know what necessarily is the next best step to take. But good solutions are preceded by good thinking. I wanted some good thinking done on this issue, and that's why I put the paper out.