What the Hell Happened in Ohio?

For the most part, the data backs up the narrative that Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton due to the defection of white working-class voters from the Democratic Party. According to CNN exit polls, Clinton lost whites without college degrees (the proxy category for the white working-class) by a spectacular 29% to 66% margin. This represented a 19-point decline for the Democrats compared to eight years ago, when Obama only lost those voters 40% to 58% to John McCain. In particular, this collapse of support was staggering in the Rust Belt states that propelled Trump to an Electoral College victory: 37 points in Michigan, 33 in Wisconsin, 26 in Iowa, 20 in Ohio, and 17 in Pennsylvania. Had Clinton been able to maintain even a small portion of the support of these voters, she would have assuredly won the presidency.

With that being said, let’s focus on Ohio for a second. The three maps below provide some insight into why Trump won that state. The map on the left shows Trump’s performance (colored in orange) versus Gov. John Kasich (colored in red) during the Republican presidential primary. As you can see, Trump won the counties along the eastern and southern portions of the state, while Kasich won most of the rest en route to his only primary victory. This pattern of support for Trump in Ohio would reappear during the general election, as shown on the map in the middle. The darkest blue colors indicate the largest shifts in support toward the Republican Party from the 2012 to the 2016 election. These shifts toward Trump are also concentrated in the eastern and southern portions of the state. These areas are analogous to the Appalachian region of Ohio, shown on the map to the right. One could conclude from this that Trump was able to win Ohio because of the strong support he received from white working-class voters in the Appalachia region.

Such an analysis, however, fails to tell the whole story. Largely unnoticed in the post-election analysis is the stunning fact that Clinton also experienced a 24-point decline in support among whites with college degrees in Ohio, compared to Obama in 2008. What’s more, Ohio was the only state in which the decline in support was greater among college educated versus non-college educated whites. This is made even more stunning by the fact that Clinton’s support nationally among this voting bloc actually represented a 1-point improvement over Obama’s margin against McCain (45%-48% compared to 47%-51%).

So what exactly happened? The map below tells part of the story. The states in red are the states in which Democrats lost support among college-educated whites since 2008, while the states in blue are the ones where their support grew (CNN does not have exit poll data for the states in gray).  As you can see, there is a clear geographic split, with these voters in the South and West trending toward the Democrats and voters in the Midwest and Northeast peeling away. Ohio saw the most pronounced negative shift, followed by Missouri (17 points) and Florida (15 points). The greatest gains for the Democrats came in Utah (28 points) and Texas (18 points).

So it’s clear that the losses were part of a larger regional (though not national) trend. However, this still doesn’t explain why they were so pronounced in Ohio. Unfortunately, the exit polling provides little insight, and in fact only makes the situation even more muddled.

As it is, the exit polling reveals something rather counterintuitive about Trump’s support in Ohio. CNN asked Ohio voters whether or not they had a favorable opinion of Gov. Kasich. 50% did, while 40% did not. What is remarkable is that Clinton led 49%-46% among those who did, but trailed 35%-65% among those who did not. Extrapolating these numbers out, more than 57% of Clinton voters in Ohio had a favorable opinion of Kasich, compared to less than 48% of Trump voters. In other words, the Republican governor of Ohio was more popular among those who voted for the Democratic presidential nominee than the Republican one.

There was no secret that Gov. Kasich and President-elect Donald Trump have had an icy relationship at best. Kasich refused to endorse Trump after the primary, and did not even appear at the Republican National Convention held in his own state. On the surface, it would appear that Kasich’s supporters (especially in Ohio) were exactly the kind of voters who Hillary Clinton tried to court in the general election: moderate, suburban, college-educated whites who had no particular love for Trump. However, the exit polling shows that not only did Clinton fail to win over these voters, she actually lost many of them to Trump. He won by 20 points in the suburbs, whereas McCain lost there by a point.  Clinton won moderates by only 6 points, whereas Obama had won them by 23. Counter to the idea that Kasich supporters were drowned out by a surge in turnout of the white working-class, there was actually a greater percentage of college educated whites among the electorate in 2016 than in 2008 (37% vs 33%), and a smaller percentage of non-college whites (43% vs 50%). As we’ve seen, those college educated whites ended up voting en masse for Trump. In fact, based on the exit polling it appears that more non-college whites voted for Clinton than college educated whites.

As baffling as this all seems, it is clear that many Kasich and even Obama supporters voted for Trump. Regardless of class or education level, whites in Ohio saw Trump as the agent of change that Hillary Clinton could never be for them, and the same could be said for white voters all across the country. This in part also explains why so many white voters, particularly working-class whites, decided to vote for Bernie Sanders in state after state during the Democratic primary.

Perhaps the most fascinating revelation from all of this is that had Clinton simply maintained Democratic support among college educated white voters in the Midwest, as she did overall nationally, she would have won the election. There is no question that she would have won Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin (not to mention Florida), even in the face of the “revolt” of the white-working class. It even appears possible that she would have won Ohio. This all goes to show just how spectacular of a failure the Clinton campaign really was. The Democratic Party’s decision to portray themselves as the party of the status quo proved disastrous in the end.

Data Sources:

http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls/national/president

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=USP00p1

http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls/ohio/president

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=OHP00p1

Map Sources:

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2016&fips=39&f=0&off=0&elect=2

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/data.php?year=2016&fips=39&f=0&off=0&elect=0&def=swg&datatype=county

http://www.nantahala-farm.com/images4/Map-Appalachia-580.gif

http://www.270towin.com/

Read More

Out of the Shadows

One of the things I appreciated most about my experience at Burlington College was that, compared to other institutions, it was a space where one could discuss aspects of their lives that they otherwise would not or could not talk about. Students were given the opportunity to express themselves about everything from their stuggles with addiction and mental illness to their service in military combat. From my experience, this is not necessarily the norm in academia, where students are strongly discouraged from discussing their personal lives and instead pushed to objectively focus on the material at hand. 

As Bruce K. Alexander argues in The Globalisation of Addiction, we live in an increasingly dislocated world. The bonds between ourselves, our communities, and our society continue to fray. The effects of severe dislocation are dramatic, including addiction, mental illness, violence, and other destructive and anti-social behaviors. We simultaneously live in a society that promotes impersonality and invulnerability, whether it be in our schools, our workplaces, or even our relationships. We are conditioned to say "I'm fine" or "I'm okay" even when we're not, and to accept such responses even when we know they're not true. So even though we as individuals are stuggling with a multitude of issues, we have few outlets through which to express them and work through them. 

Even more unfortunately, men in particular are strongly discouraged from expressing feeling and emotion. Our culture's ideal man is one who is strong and stoic, able to withstand all that is thrown at him without batting an eye. To the extent that men are allowed to express any emotion, that emotion is anger. Destructive behaviors and risky activities often become the only "acceptable" outlets for the emotionally frustrated man.

Stigmatization is a huge problem when it comes to issues like addiction and mental health. They are often taboo topics that both individuals and organizations often don't know to handle when they encounter them, if they want to handle them at all. I have been personally affected by this, as my conditional acceptance into the AmeriCorps program was withdrawn after I self-reported having depression and anxiety. They claimed that they could not "accommodate" my conditions in light of the panic attack that I had had a few months prior. It is unfortunate to recognize that with all certainty I would be in California right now if not for my honest disclosure. 

It is also unfortunate that even now I feel reluctant to discuss my anxiety and depression, even with members of my own family. I have struggled with these issues for years without any open acknowledgement and without seeking treatment until recently. Part of it is my (false) belief that although I have these conditions somehow they are not as bad as what other people go through and therefore I have no right to say anything about them. Part of it is the fear that other people's perception of me will change once they realize that the seemingly calm, cool and collected young man they think they know is just as tightly-wound and insecure as the next person. Only in the aftermath of the AmeriCorps debacle have I begun to openly deal with these issues, by receiving counseling and becoming involved with an area support group. 

No longer will I allow myself to deal with this alone. I hope that we as a society can recognize that these issues exist, and that they need to be handled without the attachment of stigma or taboo. Everyone should be able to have spaces they can express these matters without feeling the need to be impersonal or invulnerable. Everyone should have access to the treatments and supports that they need to work through these issues. No longer can we allow them to remain hidden in the shadows as we have done for so long.

Read More

Why Men Need to Denounce Trump

Donald Trump represents exactly what is wrong with our notions of masculinity within this society. It is unfortunate to see so many men (and women) treating his behavior and words as excusable, acceptable, or even desirable. There should be nothing “normal” about a man who incites violence, engages in abusive tactics, and brags about sexually assaulting women. Yet there are many who see absolutely nothing wrong with this. This needs to change.

Many Trump supporters claim that they are backing him because he will revitalize the American economy, and that his offensive behaviors and sayings don’t matter. They couldn’t be more wrong, however. Like it or not, the President of the United States serves as the most visible public figure in the world. Aside from their official political duties, they also serve as a role model, particularly for the youth of this country and the rest of the world.

Imagine the impression that a Trump presidency would have on a boy growing up in America today. Hell, what impression has his candidacy already left? That it’s okay for men to objectify and assault women? That false bravado and machismo are desired qualities in a man? That the key to success is insulting everyone in your path and conning your way to the top?

The simple fact is that today’s youth have too few real positive role models to begin with. This dearth is especially glaring when it comes to role models for positive expressions of masculinity. Sure they exist, but too often their message is drowned out by those who are louder and more aggressive in promoting their hyper-masculine persona. Our culture, particularly the media, does a rather poor job of elevating those positive models and denouncing the negative ones.

Take, for instance, the culture of sports in this country. Athletes at all levels, whether they be amateurs, collegiates, or professionals, engage in activities that should not be considered acceptable by society: verbal insult, drunken celebrations, hazing, domestic abuse, sexual assault, and behaviors destructive of both self and others like drunk and drugged driving. In some cases, these activities are tolerated or even perpetuated (think rape culture). To the extent that officials attempt to discipline athletes, the worst penalties are assessed on those who threaten the “integrity of the game” (cheating, gambling, PED use). Those who assault, abuse, and injure are more often than not given a “second chance” and allowed to reenter their respective sports with little problem.

Sweeping these so-called “off the field” issues under the rug sends the wrong message to this country’s young men: the game and your career is always more important than the actual consequences of your actions. The primacy of the game can also be seen when leagues attempt to make their sports safer. Fans complain that the traditional game is being degraded and emasculated, weakening their entertainment value. Donald Trump himself has criticized the NFL’s new rules attempting to reduce concussions as making the league “softer”. In other words, violence and aggression are valued over safety and preventing player injuries.

The problems with sports are just a microcosm of the larger masculinity crisis that America faces today. Violent acts, gun crimes, and suicide are all committed at vastly higher rates by men than by women. Men regularly assault women (and other men) verbally, emotionally, physically and sexually, often with little to no repercussion. Men routinely engage in racist, sexist, homophobic, and transphobic behaviors, which not so coincidentally are leading forces behind Donald Trump’s campaign.

All of this needs to stop, but to do so we need to stop promoting the toxic forms of masculinity that produce them in the first place. We need to stop glamorizing violent, aggressive, and insulting behavior. We need to stop glorifying male sexual conquest and the objectification of women. We need to to stop portraying destructive behaviors as acceptable outlets for male emotional expression. And we need to denounce those like Donald Trump who represent these toxic ideals.

I am a man, and I am a feminist. I believe that these toxic forms of masculinity harm both women and men alike. Men need to finally both perceive and treat women as the equals that they are. We need to move past the idea that the paradigmatic relationship between a man and a woman is sexual one, and work to promote healthy platonic cross-sex relationships. Perhaps most importantly, we need to redefine what masculinity is, what it means to be a man. Until we do, the crisis we face today will only get worse. Let us turn Trump into a relic of the past, not a harbinger of things to come.

Read More

Musings on the Democratic Convention

This has been, unquestionably, a fantastic week for the Democratic Party. So far, their convention has been successful in helping to unify the party, provide a vision of the country, and make the case against Donald Trump. Monday night, of course, was about showcasing the progressive wing of the party, including speakers like Rep. Keith Ellison, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, and Sen. Bernie Sanders. Since that night, many efforts have been made to appeal to the Sanders supporters, including allowing for Bernie's name to be placed in nomination and for the full roll call vote to go forward. One of the most emotional moments of the convention was Tuesday when Larry Sanders cast his delegate vote for his younger brother. Last night, Barack Obama and even Tim Kaine made major shout-outs to the Sanders campaign. Although there are some on the left (including myself) who will still hold-out from supporting Sec. Clinton in November, overall the Party will walk out of this convention far more unified than when it began.

More impressively, the Democratic Party has provided a genuine vision of this country, something that I did not think they could do. Of course the party has been focused on policy, far more so than the Republicans, rolling out their ideas of expanding access to education and healthcare, taking action on gun control, and protecting the rights of women and minorities, among others. Yet the Party has gone much farther than that, portraying a hopeful, optimistic vision of the country, one that is strong because of, not in spite of, the diversity of its people and its ideas. This served as a sharp rebuke of the dystopian vision spun by Trump and the Republican Party last week in Cleveland.

Trump himself was thoroughly discredited last night, both by the scathing remarks of Obama, Biden and Bloomberg and by the plain decency of Tim Kaine in making his national debut. Trump was portrayed as a national disgrace, one who does share true American values, one who does not care about anyone but himself. He was cast as incompetent and mentally unfit for office, a task made even easier by Trump's own comments seemingly embracing Russian cyberattacks on the United States. If this country still votes for Trump after everything that was said yesterday, then we truly have lost our collective mind.

Yet despite all of this, although this convention has convinced me why Donald Trump cannot be President, and even almost convinced me as to why I should vote for the Democratic Party, it has not convinced me why I should vote for Hillary Clinton. With everything that has been said, by Michelle, by Bernie, by the President and Vice President, it just seems wrong that she will be the one taking the stage tonight to accept the nomination. The moment seems right for the Democratic Party (right for the country, frankly) to be standing up to the proto-fascism and white nationalism promoted by Donald Trump. Yet she just doesn't seem like the right person for the moment.

I have spent the past few days ruminating on the fact that Bernie Sanders and his supporters are and should be the true inheritors of the Obama legacy, that he represents the ideological future of the Democratic Party, and that he would have been the strongest candidate to take on Donald Trump. Bernie was not, and is not, perfect. But he was arguably the best candidate who has ever run for the nomination of either of the two major parties and who actually had a serious chance of winning. Just think of what could have happened had the party and the media given him a fair shot and not pronounced Hillary Clinton the presumptive nominee before the race even began. This could very well have been Bernie's week, not Hillary's.

Instead, we are left with a Democratic nominee who is arguably the most polarizing figure within the Party, and second only to Trump within this country. Instead, we are left with a Democratic nominee who believes that politics should operate from the top-down, not from the bottom-up. Instead, we are left with a Democratic nominee who is uniquely vulnerable to attacks on her integrity and her character from Donald Trump and the Republican Party, even if many if not most of those attacks are baseless. Think about how Trump would have had to go after Sanders. All he could have done was attack his policy ideas and ideology, which would only have put in further relief the insanity of Trump's own beliefs.

I cannot support Donald Trump for President. I do not feel that people should vote for him, as a vote for him is a vote for racism and bigotry, a vote for fear and cynicism. I do not buy the view of some on the left that this country can survive four years of Trump, that he won't be that bad. I feel that those who say that are speaking from a position of privilege, that perhaps they could make it but that others won't. I do not necessarily fear Trump's policies; I fear the forces of reaction that will be out in force if he is elected. I fear the targeting of blacks and Latinos and Muslims that will almost certainly take place, far worse than is already occurring.

Yet I also cannot vote for Hillary Clinton. Some will say that her domestic views are not that bad, that Sanders has forced the Democratic platform to the left. This is probably true, but let's also remember the fact that the Democratic Party will almost certainly be in the minority in the House of Representatives if she is elected. None of the policies that she is proposing are likely to be enacted anyways. If I am going to vote for a policy platform that is not going to happen, why shouldn't I just vote for the one I actually want, that of Jill Stein and the Green Party?

Ultimately, for me this election comes down to foreign policy, as it is in the roles of commander-in-chief and chief diplomat where most of the power of the Presidency is vested. Donald Trump is a walking international crisis, as yesterday showed. Yet I cannot objectively say that his foreign policy positions are actually any worse than those of Hillary Clinton. In fact, although there are a couple of elements of his policy I find myself in agreement with (if not the America First ideology behind them), I cannot identify a single facet of Hillary's for which I can say the same.

In some respects, I almost wish that I could bring myself to vote for the Democratic Party in November. But I can't, not with Hillary Clinton and everything that she's stood for sitting at the top of the ticket.

Read More

It's Over

In listening to the speakers last night at the Democratic National Convention, from the First Lady to Senator Sanders, I was reminded of the fact that the politics of hope on which this president rode into office has today been replaced by the politics of fear and cynicism. This week does not mark a celebratory moment, but rather serves as a notice that the politics of hope will die with the end of this campaign and of this presidency, regardless of the outcome of this election. Neither Clinton nor Trump serves as the rightful heir to the Obama legacy, to that one shining moment in Grant Park where it truly seemed like a new world was possible. The torch has been passed from the politics of "Yes We Can" to "I'm With Her" and "I Alone Can Fix It"; the sense of collective purpose has been lost. Although the ongoing movements for social change will persist, the climate in which they will do so has shifted from one of "we're in this together" to "us versus them".

I, like so many other young people, have been genuinely inspired by President Obama and Senator Sanders. It is the older generations who seem to be the ones infected by the all-too-common affliction of defeatism. Thus, for me this represents a lost moment for American politics. If 2008 was this generation's 1960, then 2016 is our 1968, with Clinton reprising the role of the ineluctable Humphrey and Trump simultaneously embodying both Nixon and Wallace. We live in a reality where the primary electoral asset of these two major party candidates is the unfavorability and unelectability of their opponent. This is not the politics we need in order to build on the legacy of this presidency, but unfortunately it may be the politics we deserve.

I vow to fight on, both in politics and in life, regardless of the obstacles that are thrown in my way. I vow to refuse to give in to fear. I vow to keep burning that torch of hope that was ignited eight long years ago.

Read More

On Masculinity: Why Men and Women Need to be Friends

Last night, I watched a very powerful documentary, The Mask You Live In, dealing with how our society defines masculinity and the impact this has on the boys and young men who grow up into it. I will admit, some elements of the film resonated a bit too close to home for me. For instance, the film discusses the pressure that boys are put under to exhibit athleticism. I remember being the unathletic kid in elementary school, the one who would probably rather go off and read a book than be forced to play kickball or dodgeball. Not surprisingly, I was usually the last boy picked for a team in gym class, often even behind many of the girls in the class.

Perhaps it was this lack of athleticism, and a general perceived lack of physical ability, that by the fourth grade led some of my male classmates to develop the idea that I was gay. It wasn’t true, of course, but I decided to play into it, acting or pretending like I was and at times doing so to creep out my friends. To some extent it was all in good fun, and it was something that passed quickly, but the memory of this still bothers me to this day.

The film also described how boys are taught from an early age that they should not express emotion, especially around other boys. I can say that this is true from personal experience. Growing up, through middle school and into high school, almost all of the friends that I had were guys. When we hung out together, however, we almost never talked about ourselves, how we were feeling, or anything that might be bothering us. Instead, we would play wiffle ball in the backyard or video games in the basement or stroll over to the park to play basketball. We talked about innocuous topics like sports or maybe even school; to talk about anything deeper would have been strange, and I don’t think was ever seriously considered.

When young men can only interact with other young men under this mask of masculinity, they are not given the appropriate outlet for their feelings, their emotions, their loneliness. The only real emotion they are allowed to express is anger. The consequence of this, of course, is destructive, even violent behavior. Men may try to cope with these issues through using drugs, consuming copious amounts of alcohol, and engaging in reckless and risky behavior. (These are activities that I saw more than my fair share of once I went off to college.) With unfortunate regularity, men commit sexual assault, domestic abuse, and even deadly acts like homicide and suicide; the most extreme cases may resort to mass murder.

As this documentary shows, media does little to curb this problem. Movies and television commonly depict male characters who exhibit aggressive and violent behavior. Video games allow young men to take on the role of these characters. Media, in other words, has normalized violence to such an extent that many if not most young men are almost completely desensitized to violence. They may believe, in fact, that violence is how men are supposed to deal with conflict; indeed, that it is the only possible way.

This fact was driven home for me a few years ago when I was working with summer school students who were on the verge of entering high school. The vast majority of these students were boys, many of whom lived in neighborhoods where gang activity was prevalent. (Young people, especially young men, often turn to gang life as a way of feeling a sense of belonging.) Even at a young age, these kids had learned what they could and could not wear, what they could and could not have on themselves, where they could and could not walk, and who they could and could not associate with. For them, it was a matter of everyday survival. Although my job was to teach them tools to use to resolve conflicts, I was forced to ask myself what I could possibly teach young people who’ve grown up in environments where the only way of dealing with conflict was through violence.

There is something else that boys and young men are taught that also has very grave effects on society: that they can’t be friends with girls. Think about the extent to which boys and girls are segregated from a very young age. I remember how in elementary school the girls and boys had to sit at separate lunch tables. In gym class the guys would be on one side playing basketball while the girls would be on the other side jumping rope or playing some other game. My main social activity outside of school was Cub Scouts (and later Boy Scouts), which was made up solely of other boys. As I mentioned above, even into high school virtually all of my friends were guys, a fact made even starker by the reality that I never had a girlfriend. It was not until probably my junior year of high school that I had friends who were girls, but even then these were not particularly close; we almost never hung out outside of school.

The fact is that most men simply do not know how to relate to women outside of a romantic or sexual context. This is for at least three reasons: men believe that they are in some way superior to women; men have been taught that they are inherently very different from women, with little common ground; and men have grown up learning to sexualize and objectify women. These points are the product of the forces of socialization (family, school, church, media, and peer groups), reinforced by gender segregation (both voluntary and enforced).

Think about it this way: only in the last 30 years or so has it been seriously considered that men and women could have relationships outside of a romantic/sexual context. Prior to recent decades, men rarely interacted with a non-familial woman unless he was courting her. Women were simply not present in the school, or the workplace, or the social circle. However, as this began to change, men reacted in the only way they apparently knew how: by making undesired sexual advances on their new female classmates and colleagues. The idea of having purely professional, collegial, or even friendly relationships with women was simply too foreign, and unfortunately little has changed in our culture in that regard. Perhaps this provides some guidance as to why there is still such a prevalence of sexual harassment and assault in the workplace, on college campuses, and in institutions like the US military and even the US Senate.

Society, especially through the media, has continued to sexualize women and objectify their bodies. So-called women’s professions like teaching, nursing, and secretarial work have been sexualized in the minds of men trying to rationalize a situation that to them otherwise lacks the appropriate context. Male-dominated subcultures (like professional football, video gaming, and the comic industry) have also hypersexualized females. Just look at the cheerleaders on the sideline of an NFL game, the models depicted in the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition, or the accentuated (and exposed) body parts on female video game and comic book characters.

Pornography is a large part of the problem too, as the documentary shows. A lot of porn portrays women as being either highly sexually aggressive or submissive toward men. When these images are present in the minds of young men, they go out into the world thinking that women are much more sexually aggressive or submissive than they actually are. Unfortunately, this gives birth to the idea that women are “asking for it”, that if they dress or act a certain way then they must want sex. A culture that constantly objectifies and sexualizes women creates a perception about their intentions that is almost universally completely and utterly false.

One of the most commonly held beliefs about men and women is that the idea of friendship between them is just a myth. If a man and a woman become friends, it is either because at least one of them wants romance or sex, or because at least one of them is not straight. However, this is simply not true (and again, I can vouch for this out of experience). As I’ve been getting at, this is the challenge:

Boys and girls form their own gender groups in elementary school. They learn their own ways of relating to each other. So when they do get together inspired by puberty, they see each other as dating partners because they’ve never really known each other as friends.

However, this is the reality (emphasis mine):

Platonic love does exist… “friendship attraction”, or a connection devoid of lust, is a bona fide type of bond that people experience. Distinguishing between romantic, sexual, and friendly feelings, however, can be exceedingly difficult. People don’t know what feelings are appropriate toward the opposite sex, unless they’re what our culture defines as appropriate. You know you love someone and enjoy them as a person, but not enough to date or marry them. What does this mean?

In other words, although it happens in practice, it is not yet culturally acceptable for a “regular guy” and a “regular girl” to be “just friends” because society has not come up with a label for it yet. The benefits, though, are enormous, especially for the male friend. “Close male-female friends are extremely emotionally supportive if they continuously examine their feelings, opinions and ideas. Males appreciate this because it tends not to be a part of their same-sex friendships”. Men who become friends with women thus are able to find the outlet to express their emotions that they had been previously lacking.

Growing up, I was always conscious of the fact that I wanted someone that I could talk to, that could support me emotionally and psychologically, that I could express my feelings to without judgment. I lacked that until I was well into college, and even then it has been difficult to escape the notions about being emotional that I have been ingrained with (I remember being told by my mother once that I was too emotional about things). To be honest, I don’t remember the last time I cried; now, even if I want to, I find it nearly physically impossible to do so. I still feel uncomfortable telling people when I’m feeling depressed, or anxious; it’s just not what I do, let alone what a guy does. I’m not supposed to burden other people with my problems. I’m supposed to suck it up and deal with it. In other words, I’m supposed to “be a man”.

I am grateful, though, to today have mentors and friends (almost all of whom are female) that are supportive of me. I’ve found that it has been in the presence of women, not men, that I have been given the opportunity and the space to voice my thoughts, to express my feelings, my anger, my frustration, and to seek guidance.

Yet it still feels weird, given what this culture has taught us. Is it strange for a guy to have women as his best friends? What do others think when they see me with a female friend? That we’re dating? And that if not, I must be gay? I don’t know, maybe I’m just too self-conscious, but I can just imagine that this is what people actually think.

To a certain extent, it pains me when my female friends tell me that I’m not like other guys, or that they wish other guys were like me. What that tells me is that other guys don’t know how to show respect to women. What that tells me is that other guys are too caught up in their own masculinity to be able to be sensitive or emotionally supportive toward women. What that tells me is that the only thing other guys can think about in relation to women is sex. This is what our culture and our society have done, and it makes me sick.

What we need to do, as a culture, as a society, is to stop promoting hypermasculinity as the standard of maleness, and to stop sexualizing and objectifying women. We need to stop normalizing violence in our media and in our communities, and to stop dehumanizing the victims of violence. We need to recognize that men and women are equals, that we are far more alike than we are apart. Perhaps above all, we need to promote and normalize positive images of the non-sexual, non-romantic, male-female relationship. Maybe then young men will start seeing women as classmates, colleagues, and friends in the way that they should.

Read More

My New Blog

I've decided to create a new blog for my non-sports-related posts. My sports blog can still be found at http://enlightenedfan.blogspot.com/.

Read More