First, about
drumming and poetry. We've been doing this for 20 years or so, on and off, by
my estimate. It seems to be a hallmark of the so-called "men's
movement," a source of closeness and fellowship as well as the target of outside
ridicule. Why still do it? Have we "outgrown" it? Here's what I
think: the heart-rhythms of the drums let spirit be expressed through the body.
The poetry allows us to express our deeper selves in a way that plain talking
sometimes fails. There's a love and connectedness that can carry over into our
other relationships; "going off with the guys to bang on drums" may
isolate us from the rest of the world for a few hours, but we often emerge
refreshed and ready to reconnect.
If you're too
far from the Boston area to join in our drumming circle, why not start one of
your own? There's nothing magical or secret about it (well, maybe magical).
E-mail me if you want some tips and suggestions.
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
Maculinity" (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?
Write me; I'll
share your answers and ruminations here in Menletter.
Copyright
notice
All original
materials are (c) Copyright 2002 by Tim Baehr. All rights reserved. All signed
materials are copyright by their respective authors.
Warranty
I am not
responsible for the contents of Web sites I list or recommend.
Personal
correspondence:
Tim Baehr
tbaehr@aol.com