Sorry I'm Late Today

I've been rushing around for massive snowfall, part two.

Please accept this performance video as penance.

Contrary to Some Voices, Masculinity is Not Under Attack

I write this post in response to a handful of Super Bowl commercials that I write this post in response to two or three Super Bowl commercials that aired last night. The implication in each of them, to some degree or another, was that masculinity was under attack, the ravages of femininity were destroying machismo, or that marriage was an emasculating process that turned male virility into weak-kneed passivity. These views are nothing new, but when they are emphasized so heavily, the general implication is quite clear. Some must believe that men are losing control of the game and being transformed into, if not women, some hybrid form which is itself a cheap imitation to the rough and tough masculinity of the past. Knee-jerk responses neglect to understand that in the process of achieving equality for everyone, masculinity will change in direct proportion to the way femininity has changed. The truth is that nothing is being lost and everything is being gained, but some confuse the cause of reform with tragic destruction of the tried-and-true.

If I didn't know better, I might buy into these wrong-headed assertions myself. However, I happen to recognize that while an older incarnation of masculinity might have been less compelled towards public displays of sensitivity or equal deference to relationship partners, this kind of supposed supreme self-reliance also meant that men were often incapable of sharing vulnerability and thus expressing the fullest range of human expression. Problems best talked out and shared with others were frequently kept inside, often disguised or numbed away by alcohol or other drugs. I suppose having had a grandfather who likely struggled with bipolar himself, one who, I might add, never really ever came to terms with what he considered a shameful weakness, does makes me understand his struggle without rushing to judgment as some might do. I don't romanticize the masculinity of another age. I pity it. To me it is supremely limiting and heavily stunted. Why anyone would wish to reinforce masculinity in such rigid, lonely terms is beyond me.

When we talk about a Patriarchal society, we mean a societal framework designed by (usually white) men for other (usually white) men. The scope of Patriarchy is vast and at times so invasive and omnipresent that one has a difficult time adequately stating its fullest impact upon all. Feminist voices for years have taken much time pointing out Patriarchy's shortcomings, especially how it callously disenfranchised women by forcing them to play by the parameters and rules of a system for which they were often ill-suited. Their criticism, which is quite valid, states that if men were capable of designing such a fantastic system, why then does it produce so many unresolved problems? More recently, Feminists have fought for the inclusion and incorporation of people of color, LGBTs, and other minority voices into the discussion. It is my opinion, based on what I have observed, that any system which does not take into account multiple points of view and the unique concerns of a wide swath of people across the board will always remain imperfect and inequal. The deepest irony of all is that the Paternalistic system as it exists now works for the well-heeled, powerful, and well-connected at the expense of almost everyone else imaginable, so many men now terrified at its supposed demise are the very same who are ground underfoot by it.

The radical Feminists of a generation prior envisioned a superior, alternate system designed by women, but the failing in that point of view is that by being just as exclusionary as their male brethren, they managed to perpetuate only a brand new spin on the same problems. Though I am a man, I do not find any discomfort whatsoever in spaces dominated by women, because unlike some of my same gender, I do not see gender equality as a zero sum game. Inherent in each of those Super Bowl commercials was that belief---that in surrendering to the desires of women, they would be losing their masculinity and freedom in the process. My hope is that other men will come to understand, as I have, that everyone's liberation depends on maximum participation by everyone. This includes participation in spaces, circles, and movements not often populated by white men, or, for that matter, men at all. Still, so long as the way things have always been finds itself threatened, the same old appeals to some standard of masculine purity will be invoked. The paradoxically unifying feature of gender inequality is that both male and female gender roles are defined as the pursuit of a kind of perfect balance that is beyond the grasp of everyone, regardless of gender identification. Still, it is invoked frequently to chide or to lecture people to get back in line, else some kind of anarchic chaos result from it.

We know where we're headed, and we also know that every age presents its own challenges and its own problems. It is easier to declare a war and invoke a moral panic than to calmly examine the reality of the situation before us. Whether it's sexting or some perceived attack on masculine strength and independence, we ought to expect the same sorts of attacks until the end. Names change, context differs, the sales pitch is modified slightly, but in the end, it's really no different. The goal is to plan for the inevitable, hope for the best, and make sure to never relinquish control of the framing. Reform and the need for reform of any sort and in any context is ceaseless. Let us cogently articulate our reservations, discuss our strategies, put them into action, and then wait for the next volley from the other side. In the meantime, I fight alongside my sisters as well as my brothers and do so happily and with great purpose.

All Apologies

Now that the impact of the snow has subsided a little, I have crucial errands to run like buying more groceries. This will likely impede if not prevent me from posting today, so please pardon. I'm trying to get back into my daily routine. What really concerns me is that we're now predicted to get anywhere from 3-6 additional inches on top of what we have already received tomorrow night into Wednesday, making a messy situation even messier.

Quote of the Week

I'm a riddle in nine syllables.
An elephant, a ponderous house,
A melon strolling on two tendrils.
O red fruit, ivory, fine timbers!
This loaf's big with its yeasty rising.
Money's new-minted in this fat purse.
I'm a means, a stage, a cow in calf.
I've eaten a bag of green apples,
Boarded the train there's no getting off.

-Sylvia Plath. "Metaphors".

Snow Pictures!

Keeping Expectations of Leadership in Check

It is a truism that leaders are few and followers are numerous. This is itself an inequality that we don't often contemplate, nor feel any compulsion to amend by direct action. No flurry of blog postings or activist group with a message statement to convey has ever proposed that we ought to consider revising this important discrepancy. This may be because the gap itself is likely a construct of biology, for whatever reason. One wishes perhaps the numbers would be a bit more balanced, certainly not flip-flopped, since if most of us were leaders, we'd never get anything accomplished. In that regard, herding cats might be putting it lightly. Still, as it stands, for whatever reason, those who lead hold minority status and as such they often easily manage to attract followers to their causes and private bandwagon. It is another paradox of human behavior that while most minorities find reduced numbers much to their detriment, those who lead find the fact that they are relatively few in number much to their benefit.

We always seem to return to the example of the Great Man or Great Woman, the almost superhuman being who through his or her personal skill fixes all outstanding problems and provides mass unity. We should really know better than to expect that one single person could save us from ourselves, but to some extent, it isn't surprising why can so easily opt for this belief. Two thousand plus years of a Christ-centered framework leads us to expect that a Messiah will rescue us, whether we acknowledge it consciously or not. This is true whether we're Christian, Jewish, or not a person of faith at all. I myself recognize that I'm still waiting for Jesus to return, and would gladly fall at his feet to offer my assistance if I knew for certain he had returned. If the Second Coming arrived, some would doubt to the very end, some would desire proof, and some would resist altogether purely for their own reasons. Many, however, would breathe a sigh of relief, and quickly fall in line behind him.

Recent developments with political leaders have showed what happens when power corrupts, temptation leads to bad decisions, or disappointment sets in when high hopes are not realized. There is certainly enough fault to spread around if we seek to assign blame. However, that is not exactly my intent with this post. Nor am I seeking to absolve those who let their own shortcomings destroy the good will and good stead they formerly held. With power, charisma, and charm comes temptation of all kinds--monetary gain and sexual gratification only but two of them. I seek to bring light, in part, to the fact that those in leadership roles who court the adoration of the crowds, instantly reap all the benefits and all of the drawbacks in the process. If I, for example, stand up before an attentive audience and impress them with the cogency of my arguments, the eloquence of my rhetoric, or otherwise strike a nerve, I can expect to receive compliments, flirtatious glances or conversation, and an instant kind of immediate attention and personal favor with those who until a moment before were complete strangers. Everyone wants to be my friend, at least for that moment.

A close associate is fond of advancing a particular theory concerning this phenomenon. His example concerns the immediacy of live music, but it works well in this context, too. As he puts it, the reason we find it so easy to be attracted to to musicians, in particular, is that we see our own best qualities reflected in whomever is singing or playing. A powerful emotional intimacy is present in that moment that perhaps speaks more to us and our condition than to those on stage. This concept may wash over political leaders as well, particularly when on the stump, particularly when their personal charisma renders them something close to celebrity. They inspire so much in us: adoration, trust, envy, hope, desire, and so on. That we would entrust them so willingly with all of these in the blink of an eye makes me wonder how anyone who stands out in front can survive for long, with or without the benefit of handlers. It takes a tremendously strong person to not succumb to distraction, properly handle the stress, stay on message, and not get waylaid by a thousand wild goose chases. It is precisely our demands upon which they must conform and though they never are allowed to forget, this doesn't mean that they're always in the easiest position to respond. We expect much in return for our trust and our affections and the conditions of the transaction are both numerous and exacting.

So long as we expect perfection from our leaders, we can never see them for their gloriously flawed humanity and never forgive them for their frailties. We sometimes treat these figures as though they were our lover, one which always must say the right thing at the right time and halfway read our minds. Assuming they were the keeper of our heart, we would then need to concede that we would need to love them not just for their best qualities, but also for their worst. We can easily be dismayed, demoralized, and distressed at the behavior and conduct of those we idolize, certainly, but forgiveness is a concept ultimately foreign to us far too often. If it arrives, it arrives late, if ever at all, and it is yielded grudgingly. How often have I "forgiven" someone by mentioning, "Well, I'll forgive you this once, but you better not do it again, or I'll never speak to you again".

This ought not excuse mediocrity, philandering, or a distressing turn towards hypocrisy, but it might better explain a bit better some of the hypocrisies buried within our minds. We often say we'd never want to be a celebrity, a politician, or anyone with the same degree of constant media exposure and with it a fishbowl work environment, but many of us would also jump at the chance if it were available to us someday. I'm not so much advancing a notion that we ought to Leave People in the Public Eye Alone™ but that we need to look within ourselves and examine why we thrust so much of our entire selves, dreams, and aspirations towards whomever might have ability, courage, or God-given talents of oratory and authenticity. They certainly use our faith in them for their own benefit, as is part of the beast, and hopefully never forget the potency of the dreams of thousands upon thousands. If this truly were a relationship rather than a social contract, there would be disturbingly equal proportions of sadism and masochism present.

As it stands now, this compact is a curious kind of two-step, whereby we give all of ourselves to whomever represents us formally, with the requisite number of strings attached that we put in place in an effort that ensure that our personal wish list is followed without in order and without flaw. As for those who would lead or stand out from the pack, raising the bar high, be it in music, entertainment, or politics sets a huge precedent in place and some can rise to the challenge by hitting another home run out of the park, though many fall short. It would seem, then, that the responsibility to keep things in proper proportion is everyone's. We may not be able to close the gap regarding the number of those who lead versus those who follow, but we can make strides toward adopting a much more feasible strategy, one that would lead to fewer headaches and fewer feelings of betrayal. To me, forgiveness could be a solution. And by this I don't mean forgiveness for selfish reasons like the ability to successfully cross off another item on a voluminous to-do list, but forgiveness out of a realization that doing so would encourage true healing. True healing leads to group health. If Jesus does return someday, he would expect nothing less.

Saturday Song

This Saturday song was actually posted Friday, being that the impeding huge snowstorm might impede my ability to put it up here in time or at all.

While I'm Rushing About, A Poem

Hello Readers,

I've had to adjust my life around the arrival of the giant snowstorm predicted to begin here somewhere between late morning and mid-afternoon, so I don't really have time for a full post. What I will leave you with, however, is a poem I wrote about a year ago. It is both one of my favorites and has been well-received when read it aloud in front of an audience. Long-time regular readers please pardon the redundancy, though you may notice I added a few subtle flourishes here and there.

Those who live in the DC area will best pick up on the subtleties, but in fairness everyone who rides public transportation on a regular basis will hopefully see the humor. To read this poem literally would be to miss its fullest intent. The point is not to mock the disabled or afflicted, but rather to highlight the attitudes we form out of our own discomfort with unfamiliar company and with it our instantaneous emotional responses, which are rarely tolerant.
_________________

bad company
usually comes in
the form of men

with ornate and
highly visible forearm
tattoos

invariably sacrilegious

leering vacantly
mouths open

identical to the way
you're afraid you look

while (you can't
quite help yourself)

gazing across
the seats at the latest
attractive stranger

they hunch forward
head bowed
elbows resting heavily

on knees (observing the
posture alone
might
nearly be
confused as prayer)

talking incoherently
out of the
sides of their mouths

making
women nervous enough
to clutch their purses

reassuringly tighter
to them

while shifting their bodies
on the seat
two inches closer to a

poster advertising
the merits of a
social service agency

or recently held marathon
intended to cure
a childhood disease

one could (I suppose)
stare back
but it would have no
effect whatsoever

all bad company understands
is the evils of
institutionalized food

and the acquisition of
loose change

have no fear

soon they'll leave
ambling out at the most
unlikely stop imaginable

forcing one
to think up a new game

Is Bi-Partisanship Good for the Voting Public?

As proposed while still a candidate, President Obama's version of bipartisanship envisioned a kind of Utopian ideal where reaching across the aisle would be a frequent gesture, not just an occasional product of odd bedfellows. My own interpretation of the concept is not nearly so pie-in-the-sky as much as it is practical in theory. Of course, I never expect to see it implemented because legislators hardly ever do anything practical these days, in theory or not. My modest proposal would seek to level the playing field between parties, particularly on a state-by-state basis, since even though running up the score might be satisfying to some, everyone at heart loves a close game. True party parity would certainly strike fear into the lovers of the status quo and the current office holders themselves, but the past several months have proven to me that many of the current batch of bumbling idiots are long past their shelf life and need to be thrown out altogether.

Though a handful of so-called purple states exist in this country, most states give primary allegiance to either one party or the other. As we know, the South is usually reliably GOP by default and the Northeast usually Democratic. I recognize that due to recent electoral decisions we know that this is not always the case, but taking into account the whole picture, this statement is largely accurate. The battles we fight with each other these days are partially a result of how we have dug in, trench warfare style, facing across an literally invisible, but still nonetheless highly perceptible partition. Purple states are certainly more prevalent now than at any other time before in our history, but their development is relatively slow and since government is indebted most strongly to historical precedent, particular when one observes the tortured and convoluted congressional and state districting schemes, the blue state/red state divide is still very much with us. Indeed, I cannot for the life of me envision a point where it will give way to something else altogether, though I would certainly rejoice if it were.

When any region or state calcifies around a particular party allegiance, competition for available seats is minimal and new blood rarely gets the chance to serve the people. In both red and blue states, running for elective office often requires one to wait for an existing Representative or Senator to die, whether they be in the State legislature or the U.S. Congress. While I of course recognize that my allegiance to the Democratic party is paramount in my affections, I also know that true democracy rarely makes any headway with de facto lifetime appointments of any legislative body. That sort of arrangement is for something else altogether and if we are to preserve the checks and balances of our Founders, we would be wise to start here. The bipartisanship I strive for would be something close to equality between each state party in representation, redistricting, and in funds. Even putting one of these proposals into effect would make a difference. To be sure, I don't deceive myself. This would face stiff opposition from all sides and even if it were seriously considered, likely not much would come of it. Still, we need to at least contemplate resolutions like this, even if they may not be workable in reality because they are the only way we're going to be able to begin to get the system to work for us, not against us from here on out.

One of the many ironies is that one would think that Republicans would embrace this plan, since it falls in line with their pro-private sector, pro-capitalist ideal. In a pure, unadulterated capitalist system, competition and innovation is essential to the success of the market and the economy. What's good for the goose must surely be good for the gander. Surely the GOP couldn't find much objectionable in this, my most modest proposal. Even so, many entrenched GOP movers and shakers would counter this suggestion by substituting term limits instead. To me, however, term limits would be a poor substitute and be far from effective, which is why I have always opposed them outright. If one never changes the political landscape of a state or a region, all term limits would really do is hand the baton off to another person of the same stripes and ideological identification. In that case it would merely be the latest example of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss".

If we really could manage something close to legislative and party parity, then it would be much easier to hold the feet of politicians to the fire. Certainly they would have to worry more about losing their seat and undeniably they would need to pay closer attention to constituent needs, but I don't think either of those outcomes are a bad thing. As it stands now, we have a still-majority, veteran Democratic caucus in the Senate who seem quite content to place its own needs and priorities above those of the average American citizen. If every Representative or Senator, regardless of party, recognized that unless Congress or any state legislative body produced clear cut legislative success that they were likely to no longer have a seat, then I daresay we probably would see some real reforms for a change. If members of both parties had to fear being booted out on not just or or two but every election cycle, we wouldn't see a constant tit-for-tat between Republicans and Democrats, nor any of these exasperating back and forth power swaps whereby the party in power obtains majority status purely by capitalizing on the mistakes of the opposite party, not by actually doing anything to win control based on merit. A drawback in this system would be that it would be easier for competent elected representatives to be swept out based on the irrational demands of an angry electorate, one much like the Tea Party members prevalent now, but much of life is some combination of luck and chance and why should politics be any different?

If we are a massively diverse plurality society of differing and competing points of view, I see more, not less gridlock and more demoralizing legislative defeats in our future. Arguably a lack of across-the-board equality in so many different areas is responsible for everything from crime to bigotry. We have underscored and articulated the problem time and time again and have gotten no further to really going after the real causes. Doing so would require unselfishness and sacrifice, of course, two qualities that are always in short supply. But what I do know is that we can't keep doing the same thing we've always done and expect a different result. I do believe in the power of reform, but I do also recognize how change often is a product of desperation and last-ditch-effort; I don't want things to get that bad before we really act. I'm not sure how much more dysfunctional our government needs to get before we adopt new strategies that will return power to the hands of an informed citizenry. The system failed us, certainly, but we are supposed to be the ones whose active hand in the proceedings puts us and everyone back on course. How we do it is not nearly as important as when we do it. I hope that day is soon.

Real Contentment Never Has to Settle for Good Enough

Being that we are growing closer and closer to Valentine's Day, the supposedly most romantic (or depressing) of all holidays, I'd like to branch out a bit and take on a different topic than the norm today. NPR commentator Lori Gottlieb has just released a book entitled Marry Him: The Case for Settling for Mr. Good Enough. In it, Gottlieb insists that a generation of contradictory messages and empowering commandments largely advanced by Feminism have prevented women from choosing a more-than-adequate husband when the opportunity presents itself. Instead, as Gottlieb suggests, such pronouncements have encouraged women to hold out for the perfect mate. Liesl Schillinger's review of the book in The Daily Beast summarizes and echoes my own response to a very incendiary text.

The way she sees it, as she explains in a chapter called, “How Feminism F****d Up My Love Life,” a generation of women (or should I say ‘girls’?) who ought to have been taught—like their great-grandmothers and like women in Taliban-era Afghanistan—to be demure in deportment and modest in aspiration, were tricked by the women’s movement into “ego-tripping themselves out of romantic connection.” That’s right girls: If you’re unwillingly unwed, blame it on mom and Title IX for duping you into educating, respecting and supporting yourselves. She intends this book, she writes, as a blood-chilling cautionary tale, “like those graphic anti-drunk driving public service announcements that show people crashing into poles and getting killed.”

Even I, as a man, take issue with many of Gottlieb's conclusions and rather glib pronouncements because they seem to reflect personal experience more than abject truth. A variety of factors besides luck, personality, and presentation determine our success at the often-infuriating dating game. Gottlieb's analysis never takes into account rudimentary and simplistic variables that cast doubt as to the veracity of her entire work as a whole. Of all of the areas she neglects to take into account, that which comes to mind first is location.

In Washington, DC, my adopted home, one gratefully finds a vast amount of young adults like me in their twenties and thirties. A disproportionate share of them are female, which means that the competition for available men can be fairly fierce, if not deeply frustrating at times. A 2006 Washington Post article confirms this.

The U.S. government has confirmed what we single women in Washington have known for some time -- there are no single men in the District. Or, more precisely, not enough single men in the District.

According to the Census Bureau's recently released 2005 American Community Survey, the District has the lowest -- read, worst -- ratio of single men to single women in the nation. For every 100 single women in Washington, there are only 93.4 men. That's just over nine-tenths of a man for every woman. Now, if you've been single for as long as I have in this town, nine-tenths of a man is starting to sound pretty good.

Further compounding this struggle is that the stereotypical Washingtonian male is heavily Type A, married to his job, bereft of an actual personality outside of his occupation, and inclined to frequently take his work home with him, both literally and figuratively. Speaking purely from my own experiences, my girlfriend jokes that she had to import me from elsewhere, since many prior experiences finding a suitable relationship partner had been dismal. I wasn't aware of how common the problem was until, while at dinner one night, each of her female friends seated around the table mentioned they'd had the same exact problem. If we're to take Gottlieb at face value, then these women ought to put the blame at the feet of Feminism or at the dissolution of the traditional ways of courting.

This inequality in gender distribution also reflects the percentage of married couples in the DC Metro area.

According to a recent Pew Research study, the District of Columbia has the lowest marriage rate in the country. Only 23 percent of women and 28 percent of men and in D.C. are married, compared to 48 and 52 percent nationwide. The rates in D.C. are so low that they lie entirely off the Pew map’s color key. The closest states to D.C.’s numbers are Rhode Island, where 43 percent of women are married, and Alaska, where 47 percent of men are married.

Why aren’t D.C. residents getting hitched?

The Pew poll offers up one possibly related figure: residents of D.C. get married significantly later in life than do the residents of the 50 states. In D.C., the median age at first marriage is 30 for women and 32 for men. In contrast, the median age for a first marriage in the state of Idaho is 24 for women and 25 for men.

In the suburban, middle class, predominantly white city in Alabama where I grew up, most in my age range got married either in their early twenties or at least by their mid-twenties. When it came time for my tenth high school reunion this past August, I noticed by a quick survey of the Facebook page thoughtfully created for the event that roughly 60%-70% of my class had already gotten married. Of those, based on my own research, it appeared that 40% of my female classmates had given birth to at least one child. To say that I didn't quite fit in to the prevailing demographics would be putting it exceedingly lightly.

To return to Schillinger's analysis,

A woman doesn’t always find it easy to persevere in a tepid affair once it’s actual, not notional. And a man doesn’t have to be handsome to bolt—or to take umbrage at the suspicion that he’s being “settled” for. Perhaps in the future, in an over-perfected, suspense-less, Gattaca universe, men will come with LED displays on their foreheads that read: “I mean business” or “I’m deliberately wasting your time,” or, “Actually, I’m gay,” or “I’ll marry you, but we’ll loathe each other and I’ll leave you for a 20-year old when you’re 37.” Until that day comes, one wonders how Gottlieb can be so emphatic in her pronouncements, so blistering in her blame of single women for being entitled and picky in their 20s, and “desperate but picky” thereafter.

I wouldn't at all encourage anyone, male or female, gay or straight (or somewhere in between), cisgender or transgender, to find much helpful or worthy of emulation in the traditional strategies regarding marriage and/or settling down that are prevalent in the region of my birth. Had I been born in the rural South rather than the city South, most people in my high school class would be married by now and many would probably have had at least one child well before the age of thirty. I've often been a proponent of waiting and using extreme caution before jumping into marriage or parenthood---both require a tremendous amount of patience, maturity, and energy. As such, I take tremendous offense to Gottlieb's bitter hypothesis, since I doubt she'd be any happier with three kids, a mortgage, and a lingering sense of doubt that she'd tossed aside the freedom of adulthood for the supposed contentment of marriage and motherhood. Between the fear of spinsterhood and the fear of being forced into a role of great responsibility at too early an age rests the reality. Life promises us nothing but the chance to roll the dice or play a hand at the table. Both sides of the coin, be it a lifetime of cats as companions or PTA meetings and dirty diapers are not necessarily the only two expected outcomes from which women can choose.

Schillinger concludes,

There’s such a thing as luck, and there’s such a thing as love. Sometimes the two forces combine, sometimes, they don’t. If luck and love had combined for Gottlieb, today she might be a housewife in Teaneck with an SUV of her own, two kids and a mortgage, and she would not have had the need or the time to have built her fabulous career, or to have written this whining, corrosive, capricious book. Now there’s a happy ending. But for anyone who dares order millions of people she doesn’t know to sell out their dreams, regret their accomplishments, fear their futures and “Marry him,” whoever he is, I have two words: You first.

Though I, as a man don't quite feel the same societal compulsion to marry, I will mention in all seriousness that I always craved the stability and the solid grounding of, if not marriage, certainly a long-term relationship. Though I am nearly thirty, I spent most of my twenties being ahead of the learning curve, and my expectations were always severely tempered by prior relationship partners who wanted only to have fun and to not entertain anything particularly serious. Now, finally, what I want and have wanted for a while is more in line with others my age, but in saying this, I would never make the assumption that every presumably heterosexual woman in her early thirties and beyond who isn't married is desperate to find a husband and start a family. This is certainly true with some, but not all. Not even close. Believing what Gottlieb has to say means that we must take her overblown postulates and acerbic suppositions at face value without expanding them beyond a very narrow sample of the population.

No successful movement is instantly realized upon enactment. Establishing greater equality for women at times looks a little raggedy and uneven because change doesn't happen overnight. Like Gottlieb, it is easy to confuse states of transition with proof of their ultimate dysfunction. It doesn't take a leap of faith to trust that gender equality is inevitable, but it does take an open mind and with it quite a bit of patience to recognize that no unfinished work in progress will find its way onto the walls of an art gallery as an unquestioned masterpiece. This same kind of buyer's remorse I see from time to time in books like Gottlieb's, each of which reflects the same basic frustration and fear that irrefutable results for generations worth of effort are never going to manifest themselves and that these sorts of struggles have created more problems than solutions. Again, I counter that true contentment lies within the self, not necessarily within the parameters of any movement. Each of us has more control over ourselves than over any progressive construct of seeking cultural evolution. Look within the movement as a whole if you want to know where to leave your mark, but look within yourself if you want to find a relationship partner. Never confuse the two.