My father died on October 7 of this year. I’m not in mourning for him. I grieved “my dad”—which he never was to me—many years ago, but I’ve been surprised at how angry and disillusioned I’ve been feeling and how paralyzing those feelings have been. Today, I was finally able to articulate why.

I did not speak to my father for about ten years after my brother died, from the time I was twenty-one-years-old till, when I was thirty-three or so, I went to see him because my wife and I had started talking about trying to conceive and there were questions I wanted answers to and things I wanted to resolve long before any children we had would be born.

So, one day about thirty years ago, I just showed up at my father’s office. He was, to say the least, elated to see me. We had a really good, really honest conversation, which felt to me like it might be the basis of a new relationship. This made me happy, I didn’t need “a dad” anymore, at least not in the way I would have had he been a dad to me when I was younger, but I very much wanted to have my father in my life, and I especially wanted any children my wife and I had to know their grandfather.

My father married his third wife when I was fifteen. What I learned when we went down to Georgia for his funeral was just how much he had become part of her family, how deeply they loved and valued him, and how fully he was able to be for them the kind of person he was never able to be for me. To put it more bluntly, and I’m glossing over a lot here, what I learned was just how thoroughly he had chosen them as his family over me—and I was pretty much the only biological family he had left.

What I realized today, though, was this: he had made this choice during the years we didn’t speak without making any effort at all to reconnect with me as his son. My anger and disillusionment, however, comes not from the choice itself. Given the circumstances of our lives—aside from the fact that we weren’t talking—I can understand why that choice made sense to him. In fact, I’m happy for him that he was able to become who he was for them. Rather, what makes me angry is how thoroughly he and his wife hid this fact from me, never once inviting me and my family into relationship with these people who had become his.

Realizing all this has made me see just how wrong every assumption was that I had made about what reconnecting with me had meant to him—how it held very little of the significance it had held for me—and understanding that has finally, fully clarified for me why the reconnection never really amounted to very much in the first place. There’s a great deal more to say, of course, but for now I am glad finally to have understood more fully why I’ve been feeling the way I have.

Bookshelf Juxtapositions #104

Bookshelf Juxtapositions #103

From the next newsletter I am working on:

It is a central tenet of unionism that an attack on one member or group of members is an attack on all. That’s why, after Brett Kavanaugh’s appointment to the Supreme Court in 2018, I wrote a statement as the secretary of my faculty union expressing solidarity with the people most immediately threatened by the overturning of Roe that Kavanaugh’s appointment foreshadowed: women and anyone else who could get pregnant. Some of our members—all of them men, as far as I know—threatened to leave the union after reading that statement, arguing that we had inappropriately politicized the organization. Since the only reason a union exists is to negotiate and protect its members’ contractual rights, regardless of where individual members’ views might fall on the political spectrum, those who objected to the statement argued that our union should not take a position on partisan political issues like abortion.

This neutrality, however, only looks neutral on the surface, eliding as it does the fact that when two people conceive a child, the position of the one who is pregnant and the position of the one who isn’t are fundamentally irreconcilable, and have been from the moment they agreed to have sex. To take the position my colleagues wanted the union to take, in other words, would have been be to ignore the material difference between entering and being entered during heterosexual intercourse; between the possibility and impossibility of getting pregnant as a result of that act; between, if conception does take place, having no choice but to live and by definition not having to live in a pregnant body; and between enduring the risks of pregnancy and being completely immune to those risks. It would be, in other words, for the union to abdicate its responsibility to advocate for the ability of the person who can get pregnant to determine the relationship between their personal and professional lives, something that they cannot do by definition if they have no control over what to do if they get pregnant.

Bookshelf Juxtapositions #102

Bookshelf Juxtapositions #101

“[Adultery] promises no new beginnings, no second chance for monogamy, for the “good marriage” this time, with the good wife and good husband in which no one is ever insecure, ever needy beyond the embrace of home, ever even intrigued; in which everyone is happy, while happiness wreaks its impossible demands. Yet adultery rarely brings absolute rupture. Most adulterers don’t leave home for wedded bliss with their lover. What adultery brings is something harder, a confrontation with the lie and, beyond the bric-a-brac of forbidden love, with plain old desire in a monogamy system in which sex is currency, withheld as punishment, doled out as reward, or sometimes just another thing on a To Do list that is already too long.

Of course, the lie is more comforting than its unmasking, and so the “other woman,” ghoul of married women’s fears, is a horned thing, symbol of failure, delusion, selfishness. The dark angel, she is as necessary to the totem of the ideal wife as the hellfire is to heaven. But is it reasonable, or just an article of faith in the marriage religion, that apostates must all be cynics or manipulators? A woman I know, single, 50-ish and by chance or design long involved with married men, answered the question this way:

“The fact is a lot of us are single and the longer we insist on that the smaller the pool becomes of single interesting men. Now, the boxes lined up conventionally for someone like me are celibacy, computer dating, husband-hunting, broken heart. No thank you. So I see these men, and let’s just say we engage in a free love. I don’t expect them to leave their wives. I want their interest and their care, intimately, mentally, and I offer them the same. They go home to their wives. I don’t know what they say or do about that, and it’s not my business. They love their wives, or need them, or need their families, or need the image of themselves that comes along with twenty-five years of marriage or whatever even if love is dead, and maybe it was never alive in the first place. Or maybe it’s good, but how much can it give? Life demands a lot, you know, and sometimes a person just needs to be weak. Or just needs, wants, a different kind of loving. We act as if comfort were evil—and curiosity, God forbid! For the time I’m with these men I know something deep and loving occurs. Apart from everything else, I am their intimate friend. We’re talking years here. The Dr. Phils of the world would say that I’m a fool. The gay men that I know get it completely. The women mostly I don’t discuss this with. It isn’t perfect, but nothing is. And I’d be lying to say I never want for more. In the pie-in-the-sky there’s always the ‘great love,’ the soul mate and comrade and lover combined. It’s a wish; it happens or it doesn’t, and, let’s face it, most of the time it doesn’t. But we live in a tyranny of the couple. Only single people understand this. And I guess what I resent most is the assumption that there is only way for love, and if you haven’t found it, or if your man ‘strays’ or if you are the one he’s ‘straying’ with, then you’ve failed. I don’t think these guys’ wives have failed any more than I think the men have or I have. The supposed experts on love can hawk all the stuff they want about commitment, denial, avoidance, and people can lap it up and repeat it back to their single friends and their children. But at the end of the day there’re still all these broken marriages, all these broken hearts, all these needs unmet. The rules for love everlasting are a bit like the rules for making it in the opportunity society, where really nothing is equal and nothing is fair.”

Maybe instead of asking whether marriage can be saved, we might think about how love is achieved, and not just couple-love, contract-love, but love in common too?

–JoAnn Wypijewski, “Can Marriage Be Saved,” The Nation, July 5 2004

“Modern masturbation is profane. It is not just something that putatively makes those who do it tired, crippled, mad, or blind but an act with serious ethical implications. It is that part of human sexual life where potentially unlimited pleasure meets social restraint; where habit and the promise of just-one-more-time struggle with the dictates of conscience and good sense; where fantasy silences, if only for a moment, the reality principle; and where the autonomous self escapes from the erotically barren here and now into a luxuriant world of its own creation. It hovers between abjection and fulfillment.”

***

“Masturbation is the sexuality of modernity and of the bourgeoisie who created it. It is the first truly democratic sexuality.”

–Thomas W. Laqueur, Solitary Sex: A Cultural History of Masturbation

Bookshelf Juxtapositions #100

“Grammar is no more than a logical organization for the presentation of thoughts and feelings. ‘Structure,’ [Wendell] Berry says, ‘is intelligibility.’ And, ‘A sentence is both the opportunity and limit of thought—what we have to think with, and what we have to think in. It is, moreover, a feelable thought, a thought that impresses its sense not just on our understanding, but on our hearing, our sense of rhythm and proportion. It is a pattern of felt sense.’

To permit our schools to neglect the study of grammar is to deny our children the opportunity to explore the limits of their own thoughts and feelings.”

–Sam Hamill, “Orthodox, Heterodox, Paradox” in A Poet’s Work

Subliminal erotic messaging. Two prints from the hotel room we stayed in this past weekend.

“I only desire one lover, yet I also desire infinite possibilities with this love.”

–Jenny Boully

“In our quieter moments, Natasha told me about the men who had taken her picture. She hadn’t minded any of it except that they couldn’t explain why they liked one thing over another. They had always known exactly how they wanted her to look, but none of them could give her a reason. Why did they prefer her leg raised this way and not that, why squatting from behind or holding her hand in a certain position? Some of the positions had been practically identical, yet they had insisted on them. The only explanation they offered was that it looked good or that it was sexy. And yet she never felt that way about men. She never cared how they looked or what side she was viewing them from.

—You don’t care how I look?

—You look how you look. If you bent over, it wouldn’t make any difference to me.

I bent over.

—That doesn’t make any difference?

—It looks stupid. But what if I bend over? Does it look stupid?

—No, it looks good.

—Why is that?

—It just does.

—You can’t explain it?

I thought it had to do with the forbidden. The attraction to the forbidden in the forbidden. The forbiddenest. But it still wasn’t much of an answer.”

–David Bezmogis, “Natasha” – (both characters are teenagers)

Esopus Creek, in Saugerties, NY, lit up Thanksgiving night.

Our Thanksgiving view!

Small Fundamental Essay

What many people fail to understand
about the art and science of mechanics
is that you may know perfectly what happens
under the hood of your car when you turn on
the ignition, and you may comprehend
to a nicety how the combination of pump
and pressure tank and heating coils produces
hot water when you turn the tap, and yet
the wonder never ceases. That this can be
–and is–is what bestirs the mind and heart.
Is this a faith? It never starts a war
nor rips a seam out of a living city,
it needs no ghastly hierophant hung up
dead on a cross to speak for us. But yes,
it is a faith. Faith in the miracle of the
possible, in the peaceful knowledge of what is true.

–Hayden Carruth

If the attack on reproductive rights is also an attack on women as workers, perhaps we should understand it as well as an attack on all workers and ask what we all would lose if the workplace were to return, for example, to the way it was during the era depicted in Mad Men.

“Circumcision, then, [according to the Midrash] completes a man and makes him ready for a theophany. Through the act of circumcision, one may stand in the presence of God. This merit is deserved not only because circumcision is a sign of the covenant, but also because men may meet God only as women. And circumcision makes them desirable women.”

–Howard Eilberg-Schwartz, God’s Phallus

“Circumcision has the distinction of making sure that a [Jewish] man is never naked of God’s commandments.”

–Howard Eilberg-Schwartz, God’s Phallus

My wife’s birthday orchid.

“To witness the moment when pain causes a reversion to the pre-language of cries and groans is to witness the destruction of language; but conversely, to be present when a person moves up out of that pre-language and projects the facts of sentience into speech is almost to have been permitted to be present at the birth of language itself.”

–Elaine Scarry, The Body In Pain

Bookshelf Juxtapositions #99

Bookshelf Juxtapositions #98

I search a face
for obstacles to genocide
I search beyond the dead
and
driven by imperfect visions
of the living
yes and no
I come and go
back to the eyes
of anyone
who talks to me

–June Jordan, from “Poem For A Young Poet,” in Kissing God Goodbye

“But I also survived, in the years after my rescue and well into adulthood, by using my sexuality to structure and confine the extensive psychological damage the years of abuse had inflicted on me. That is, I worked my way through the damage not only with my mind, but also with my body. How could it be otherwise when mind and body are one? Abuse is written on the body as well as on the soul. (Fortunately, so is the abundance of our common humanity; so is love. Who has never felt the offering of another person’s body as a gift of grace?) And however unfit for the parlor, such survival skills ought to be shared. The taboo against writing about one’s personal sexual experience cuts us off from valuable knowledge. In Making Love I share what I learned. You may or may not find the experience comfortable. ‘The loves of flint and iron’—Emerson again—‘are naturally a little rougher than those of the nightingale and the rose.'”

–Richard Rhodes, Making Love: An Erotic Odyssey