The More Things Change

From Menletter October 2002

By Tim Baehr

The more things change, the more they stay the same?

I ran across a Web posting from Shepherd Bliss, whom I'd never heard of but who is one of the early leaders in the men's movement. In a 1987 article, "Revisioning Masculinity" (read it here: http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC16/Bliss.htm ), he lists the six major issues for men:

1. The father-son connection

2. Male friendships

3. Men's health

4. Male modes of intimacy

5. Male modes of feeling

6. The male body

I look at this list and Bliss's commentary and wonder if we've come very far in 15 years. I was at first a bit depressed. Why are some of these things still problems (men's health in particular)? How long can we gnaw at the same psychic and sociological bones? But I had a second and third thought. Second: These are perennial issues. Not only is our inner work an ongoing process, the outer societal stuff is as bad or worse than ever. Third: I may have made some progress in all six areas, but I've been working at it for a while. A couple generations of younger men still have a lot of exploring to do.

There was another, later article -- an interview with Bliss from 1995 (read it here: http://www.vix.com/menmag/blissiv.htm ). In the interview, Bliss seeks to redefine what "mythopoetic" means and calls into question the limiting archetypes of warrior, king, fool, and magician. He casts down some early icons of the men's movement: Bly, Hillman, Meade, Moore, Farrell, and others. Bliss thinks the future lies in smaller, quieter men's groups, in getting involved in ecology, in seeking out men of color for our wisdom councils. He also talks about the damage done by feminist men who are angry at men and anti-feminist men who are angry at women (when, perhaps, men and women should be allies).

How does this jibe with his earlier article? There's a lot to think about in these two articles.

What is your vision of a "men's movement"? Should it be a movement, or are we better off continuing an internal exploration? Are we better off in small groups, or do we need large crowds to create a "critical mass" (and for what)? Will our sons have the same father issues that we did with our fathers? Can we, or our sons, make peace with women, or at least actively seek out women who want "real" men (I didn't say "real men"; there's a subtle difference)? Can men and women create relationships that don't objectify each other?