THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Monday, November 28, 1994 TAG: 9411250395
SECTION: DAILY BREAK PAGE: E1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY PHILIP WALZER, STAFF WRITER
LENGTH: Long : 228 lines
THERE ARE SO MANY responsibilities and so many dangers.
You've got to be the one who goes off to war, the one who supports the family, the one who's always in control of his feelings.
You've got to be tough with men but soft with women - soft enough to make them think you can cry but not so soft as to actually cry and make them think you're a real wimp.
You've got to always make the first move in romance. But it you come on too strong, women will think you're a pig. If you're too weak, the other guys think you're a weasel.
Oh, it's rough being a man, especially in the '90s.
Between what your father told you 20 years ago and what women are telling you today, who knows what to do anymore?
``We really want sensitive, emotional, caring men on the one hand,'' said Gregg Eichenfield, a St. Paul, Minn., psychologist who counsels men, ``but we have always been socialized that if men show any weakness, they're not desirable.''
Not to worry. Men are men. They like to assert themselves and bull their way through problems. They're already crafting some solutions.
You've heard of the the civil rights movement? The women's movement? Welcome to the men's movement. Across the country, in fits and starts, men are linking up to improve their lives - as men.
Some are sensitive. Some are bitter. But they all think men's place in society has got to change.
They're getting together for ``warrior weekends,'' testosterone-drenched outings in the woods where they run around, chant and beat drums, sometimes wearing only loincloths.
They're getting together in lobbying groups to push for more generous custody rights in divorce hearings and more money to fight prostate cancer.
They're getting together in classrooms to talk about what their roles should be in dating and friendships, child care and the workplace.
Surprisingly, it has not yet risen to the level of a political cause. In Virginia, none of the three male Senate candidates added men's issues (except for infidelity) to his agenda.
But some campuses, particularly the University of Richmond, are slowly taking the lead with seminars and courses.
Last month, Richmond sponsored the fourth annual Men's Week, four days of sessions, led by Eichenfield, a red-bearded weightlifter, which allowed mostly guys to talk to other guys about guy stuff.
There was, for instance, one seminar for freshmen on male intimacy. Male intimacy? Some guys guffawed and shook their heads when they were first asked if they could be ``intimate'' with other guys. But some got the point that ``we don't have to be physical to be intimate,'' freshman Dan Bredbenner said.
Sex was the topic with a bunch of frat guys. Did you ever have bad sex? Eichenfield asked them. Stupid question! But sure enough, more than a couple of students owned up. He was too boozed up. He didn't really care for the girl.
That, too, is part of the problem for men - the fear of saying no. The message guys get is that ``a real man is always available for sexual response,'' Eichenfield said. ``It's unconscionable for traditional men to say, `Honey, I have a headache tonight.' ''
Turnout wasn't great. Several sessions had fewer than 10 students. Bad timing - it was midterm week. Plus, there's that other thing about guys that Eichenfield & Co. are trying to change: They just don't feel comfortable opening up about themselves.
``The hardest thing is that it's antithetical to traditional masculine roles to talk about masculinity,'' said Christopher Kilmartin, an assistant history professor at Mary Washington College who studies men's issues. ``Men are raised to be sure about themselves and unambivalent.''
Talk to men on the Richmond campus and, between the occasional pauses and monosyllabic answers, you'll find agreement: Whether they're the type of men Gloria Steinem would like to clone or the type that would ``ditto'' Rush Limbaugh, they know something is wrong with the American male today.
``It's normal for girls to talk, but not for guys,'' said Bredbenner, the freshman. ``A lot of times, when you could talk about stuff, it's awkward, and they'd just rather watch a football game.''
Freshman Steve Hopkins, who also attended the ``intimacy'' seminar, agreed: ``A lot of times, macho feelings get in the way. Especially in public, men are less likely to be as up front as they might with a girl.''
In the cafeteria, junior Jason Shelton laughed when asked if he was bothered by the stereotype that ``men always have to have sex.''
``I don't think too many guys are staying up late at night worrying about showing the sensitive side of themselves,'' he said.
He was worrying about something else. A professor of his recently joked that white males would have a heck of a time finding jobs. Shelton, who wasn't amused, said: ``We better wake up and realize they (women) have an advantage over us. Just because we're not in the minority doesn't mean there aren't going to be lots of obstacles facing us. There's reverse discrimination going on.''
Even the security system at the school is biased against males, freshman John Ewing said. Females get preference for the late-night cross-campus shuttle, and though it's almost impossible to get into female dorms, Ewing said, guys' dorms aren't hard to enter unannounced. ``It's like they think we don't need safety precautions,'' he said.
The consensus of male students, whether or not they attended the sessions, was that Men's Week was a good thing. ``The only classes they have are on women, women's rights, this and that,'' said Chris Diskin, a junior. ``They should treat men the same way.''
There'll be more next semester. Assistant Dean David Braverman, who organized Men's Week, will begin teaching a course in ``The Psychology of Men.'' Similar courses are offered every couple of years at other colleges, including Mary Washington and Old Dominion University.
Eichenfield has heard the grousing about these classes: Why men's studies? What's the point? Aren't all courses - psychology, history, political science - mostly about men anyway?
``To some extent,'' he said in one seminar, ``that's true. But what we have been studying has been written from the traditional male perspective. How many history books ever mention the Berrigan brothers,'' the priests jailed for their opposition to the Vietnam War? ``The perspective has always been the traditional view of military and political leaders and not acknowledging that there are alternatives.''
U.S. colleges offer more than 500 courses in men's studies, says Sam Femiano, a Massachusetts psychologist who is president of the American Men's Studies Association.
It's not a booming academic discipline, Eichenfeld said, partly because budgets are tight at most colleges and schools don't want to cut back on women's studies courses.
``Some of it is good and helpful, and some of it is destructive,'' said Deborah Green, coordinator of women's studies at the College of William and Mary. ``The idea that everyone is studying phenomena from a gendered perspective is a healthy thing. But there are some people who have used men's studies to reassert men's authority and reinforce destructive stereotypes,'' like the image of the ``castrating woman.''
The men's movement, born in the '80s in response to the women's movement, is as varied as the reactions from the Richmond men. Take circumcision, for example.
Men's advocates see it as everything from a vital ritual that bonds males to a bizarre savagery permitted by a society unconcerned with male suffering.
Their common ground is the belief that men must change their ways of thinking and acting.
Of the three camps, the one that has gained the most attention is led by Minnesota poet Robert Bly. With his mane of flowing gray hair and colorful brocaded vests, Bly has been profiled by Bill Moyers on PBS and by several magazines. He has helped propel and lead the ``warrior weekends,'' which are most popular in the Northwest.
Bly's book ``Iron John,'' published in 1990, is probably the best-known study of men's issues. In the book, Bly argues that men, eager to oblige the opposite sex, have grown too ``soft,'' that males hunger for deeper connections with older men.
Through mythology and history, he invokes the image of the ``wild and hairy man'' to prod men to recapture their masculine energy. He even waxes nostalgic about blood-letting initiations of adolescent boys performed by ancient tribes; there's no similar rite of passage in America today, he complains.
Eichenfield praises Bly for drawing the spotlight to men's issues and trying to establish rituals for men, but he says Bly's movement virtually excludes blacks and gays - a complaint that has ironically dogged the women's movement for many years.
Another complaint: Whooping it up in the woods might be fun for a weekend, but what's it going to change?
``It seems to me more a glorification of men; it doesn't really help men and women understand where we are,'' said Ann Lane, women's studies director at the University of Virginia.
Then there's the pro-feminist group, which is based in academia and guides the philosophy of most men's studies courses. They are strongly sympathetic to women's and gay rights and want to eliminate stereotypical sex roles, which they say have only hurt men.
The ``take-charge-and-get-the-job-done'' attitude of men is partly responsible for everything from premature ejaculation to men's suicide rate, which is much higher than women's, they say. They also say that men's reluctance to seek help - typified by the refusal to ask for directions when lost on the road - might contribute to their greater likelihood of developing mental problems or drifting into alcoholism.
Valerian Derlega, a psychology professor at ODU who occasionally teaches ``The Psychology of the American Male'' course, has found that men who discuss their problems are seen by other men and women as more unstable than men who don't. Women are considered more unstable if they don't unload.
Derlega says men's reluctance to touch other men is not shared worldwide. ``In North Africa and Asia, it's common for male friends to walk down the street holding hands,'' he said. ``They just think it's a way of expressing friendship for each other.''
His explanation: ``The definition of the masculine role in American society rests in part on homophobic attitudes: One of the things males aren't supposed to be like is anything resembling homosexuality. What that does is restrict the opportunity for males to be emotionally expressive to other males.''
Not to mention, it reduces the number of men taking men's studies courses. More than two-thirds of the students in Kilmartin's male-psychology classes at Mary Washington are female.
Then there are the men's rights advocates, demanding more attention to their suffering, their pain. Some are narrowly focused, striving to win more power in child custody disputes. Others are bitter at the world, especially at women, for the injustices they feel that men are silently suffering.
In ``The Myth of Male Power,'' published last year, psychologist Warren Farrell, once a board member of the National Organization for Women, rages about the across-the-board oppression of men: Why are there no battered men's shelters? Why doesn't anyone care about the rape of men in prisons? Why are men expected to fill the most dangerous jobs? Why aren't women drafted to fight in wars?
Listen to Rene DeMarco, who dropped his job running a hotel marketing firm in Washington this year to lead The Voice of Men group, which he says has about 7,000 members. He's just as angry.
``Everything we had seen in the media has been addressing issues important to militant feminists,'' said DeMarco, who lives in Arlington. ``We thought we ought to start speaking up as an organization.''
He's mad that hundreds of men are killed each year by their wives, but no one's worrying about female violence against men. He's mad that the crime bill, which The Voice of Men lobbied against, established a panel to study violence against women but not men. He's mad that the O.J. Simpson murder case has skewed the world even more against men.
``There was a tremendous amount of verbal abuse coming from both sides,'' he said of the Simpsons. ``. . . Men are abused both verbally and physically by females. Unfortunately, that is not considered important.''
Femiano, the head of the American Men's Studies Association, says DeMarco's line ``is not all loony, but it's probably unbalanced.'' Of the 1,296 people who were murdered by their spouses in 1992, about 30 percent were husbands, according to statistics from the U.S. Justice Department.
Kilmartin, the Mary Washington professor, is less charitable, dismissing the arguments as the last gasp of ``a bunch of white men trying to reassert their dominance without realizing the power and privilege they have enjoyed.''
Men's violence against women, Kilmartin said, is almost always more damaging than women's attacks on men. ``It is the single biggest women's health problem in the country,'' she said. ``More women have been hurt by violence than have been hurt by breast cancer and accidents combined.''
One thing is sure: Whether it's DeMarco or Kilmartin, the warriors or the feminists, they'll keep on fighting for what they think is right for their gender. After all, men don't back down easily. ILLUSTRATION: Color illustration by Sam Hundley
[man with tatoos]
KEYWORDS: MEN'S MOVEMENT by CNB