“The Lives of Men” will embrace the very basic principle that men are people, too, and as people they inevitably have complex issues on their minds. “The Lives of Men” also recognizes that it is typically considered unmasculine to talk about personal issues. Men, in their very commendable desire to be sources of solutions rather than problems, consider such behavior to be “complaining.”
Thus “The Lives of Men” understands that at first probably more women will listen to this show than men. But we also believe that the women who care about the happiness and fulfillment of the men in their lives, and indeed, necessarily, the happiness and fulfillment in their own lives, will gently encourage those men to listen and will assure them that there is a very great difference between talking about things that are on their minds, and complaining about them.
My name is Jack Kammer. I will be the host of this show not because I am an expert or authority on men ’ s issues, because I’m not, but very simply because I am a man. I am here representing the average intelligent human male.
I will have guests on this show, people who are experts and authorities and my function will consist primarily in asking questions. I will learn as you learn.
For this first show, however, we will have no guests. We will have no experts or authorities. This first show will be devoted to explaining the concepts and philosophies that will shape and guide “The Lives of Men.”
An early event in my life I can point to with greater clarity and definition occurred November 22nd, 1963 when I was in seventh grade. My teacher, upon learning that President Kennedy had died of the injuries we were praying for him to recover from, stood up behind her desk and with fire and — dare I call it hatred? — in her eyes, leaned forward and said, “Do you see what you boys grow up to be? Murderers’” I consider myself fortunate that I had the presence of mind to realize that the person whose death so enraged her had been a boy who did not, indeed, grow up to be a murderer. But, still, I can never forget her insinuation or the guilt and self-hatred she attempted to instill in me and my psychologically vulnerable adolescent boy classmates. Though that particular manifestation of anti-male prejudice was so blatant and implausible as to be ludicrous, it makes me wonder how many other corpuscles of guilt and self-hatred did my early teachers implant successfully, for whatever reason, whether they meant to or not, through subtleties I was unable to detect.
I do know for a fact, though, that I grew up through at least the fifth grade believing there were two kinds of boys: the kind who were active and athletic, and the kind who were “good.” It makes me a little sad — and, yes, a little angry — to think that I chose to be “good.”
More recently my interest in doing a show on men’s issues was sparked by hearing repeatedly from women friends that men are shallow and uncomplex, that men must be shallow and uncomplex because they never talk about anything meaningful — just money and sports and politics. The fact that men don’t talk may be true, but I knew from my own human intuition that the conclusion about men being shallow and uncomplex is patently false. We have already mentioned that men don’t talk because they don’t want to complain. We will devote an entire show, and parts of many other shows, to the destructive dynamic of that typically, supposedly masculine tendency. But it is worthy to note that the topics men feel are proper for them to discuss are money and sports and politics, almost as if somewhere it is written that a man’s place is anywhere but in the home — which would be regrettable because home, as we know, is where the heart is.
I also hope it can go without saying that this show will necessarily and rightly deal in generalizations.
There appears, however, to be a rift in the men’s movement dividing the movement into two basic camps. “The Lives of Men” will attempt to focus on what the two groups have in common, but I want to mention what it is that keeps them apart because I can use the point to illustrate that the men’s movement is not an adversary of the women’s movement. In fact, I hope to have Karen DeCrow, a former president of the National Organization for Women, as a guest. She has addressed the National Congress for Men and expressed her view that there can be no liberation for women without simultaneous liberation for men. I know the word ’liberation’ is very emotionally charged, but we will devote a lot of attention to taming it.
What divides the two camps in the men’s movement is how they perceive men’s relationships with women. Both factions would agree that men, as a class and as individuals, have done bad things to women. Only one faction, however, would ask that it be recognized that women, as a class and as individuals, have done bad things to men. On “The Lives of Men” we would ask everyone, both women and men, to listen to this show with open hearts and open minds to ponder whether they might in any way be contributing to the problems we will discuss or hindering their solutions.
But I want to emphasize that I will not allow this show to become a forum for finger-pointing. It is not important, in fact it is futile, like trying to figure out the chicken and the egg question, to discuss whether it’s women’s fault or men’s fault. It is nobody’s fault. It is everybody’s fault. We will discuss these issues not in terms of men being the culprits or women being the perpetrators, but rather in terms of their being the result of the culture. It is the culture which makes men and women expect each other to fulfill certain restrictive sex roles.
“The Lives of Men,” therefore, recognizes that because of the culture men have done and continue to do bad things to women. We will hold open the question of whether women, because of the culture, also do bad things to men.
As men’s issues become as well understood as women’s, we will be eager to explore their unfortunate interplay.
To give a rough example I said, “Think of it like the United States and Russia, two separate countries effectively controlling the earth. Now suppose the United States had all the oil, all the petroleum in the world. That puts us in a pretty solid position, right? Not necessarily,” I said. “Suppose Russia has all the matches. We need the Russians as much as they need us. So they’re afraid we’re going to cut off their oil, and we’re afraid they’re going to cut off our matches. So we begin to mistrust each other, to be suspicious and resentful and in some cases even hateful.
“Well,” I said, “that’s sort of how things have been between men and women. Men have had a monopoly on economic production — money, jobs, careers, promotions, being able to buy and sell. Women traditionally have been told to stay out of the economy. Economic production was the man’s monopoly.
“But women, on the other hand, have had a monopoly on lots of other good things like raising the kids, expressing their emotions, trusting their feelings, and living eight years longer. Men traditionally have been led to believe that they are clumsy, awkward and out of place when it comes to sentiment, intuition, nurturance, health, and some of the other best things in life that are free. So, since we both need what supposedly only the other can provide, we become suspicious, distrustful, resentful, even sometimes hateful.”
My niece is a wise young lady. She saw that the United States should start being allowed to make its own matches and Russia should start being allowed to drill for its own oil. She was able to draw the parallel to men and women.
Women should be encouraged to enter into economic production as far as they want, and men should be encouraged to ignite their own psychological warmth and share it with whomever they wish.
That, essentially, is the theme of “The Lives of Men.” It is about men learning to earn and claim their fair share of all the good things life has to offer — not just the ones that can be bought and sold.
Ms. Dowling very effectively describes how that type of thinking can be terribly detrimental to the self-esteem and happiness of women.
But as I read the book I wanted to say, “Yes, that’s true and it is terrible, but doesn’t anybody see that for every woman who is hoping to be Cinderella, there is a man out there beating his brains and his body trying to be Prince Charming — to be able to say, ’Hello, dear. I am the answer to your dreams and I know that part of your dreams include having lots and lots of money.’? It may be difficult and detrimental for women to wait for Prince Charming, but it is at least as difficult and detrimental for men to try to become Prince Charming.”
Women may have a Hidden Fear of Independence, but men have at least an equal fear and at least an equally Hidden Fear of Being Undependable.
Men are raised far too narrowly, I think we will have to admit, to become financially responsible — reliable, predictable, dependable providers — economic tools, one might say. I have heard and read some men demanding that they no longer be viewed as money machines.
Women are so pressured into being physically alluring and attractive that they have been known to resort to certain types of falsies. Some men I know have begun to joke openly about male falsies — stuffing their wallets full of borrowed cash or renting, for instance, a BMW for the evening. The unfortunate thing about falsies — both male and female — is that they have been known to be effective, but only for a night. Even real breasts and real wealth lose their importance as a relationship progresses and develops.
Ms. Dowling’s book speaks about how it is rewarding and fulfilling to have a job. In the ideal sense that is true, but in the cases of millions of men, having a job is at best draining and exhausting and at worst is droning and monotonous. They have their jobs not because the jobs fulfill their inner selves, but because the paycheck fulfills their obligation to produce and provide economically, it helps them in their unrelenting drive to try to be Prince Charming even though they know that no matter how hard they work they never can be. Some people think that is one of the reasons men die eight years younger than women. Men are fortunate to be loved by women who understand that.
I heard a popular song just the other day which said, “Why don’t you be a man about it?” That song, insofar as it insinuates that there is a particular set of appropriate feelings, behaviors and mannerisms which all men must follow, might as well have said, “Why don’t you be a soldier about it? And while you’re at it, private, you’ll take orders whether you like them or not.”
Who is it who gives the orders? The constructive answer, as we have seen, can only be “the culture.” Boot camp begins very early. The male child may be no more than two or three before he starts hearing “Big boys don’t cry.” And I am more than ready to admit that it is as often a man as a woman who serves as drill instructor for the culture. One of the worst things about basic training is that it never ends. It goes on to include all kinds of toughening exercises like the ones that say, “If you were really tough you wouldn’t let that cop talk to you like that,” and, “Strong men are always in control and even if they’re not they force themselves to pretend to be.” One of the latest drills we’ve heard is that real men don’t eat quiche. I am happy and proud to report that I haven’t eaten quiche since I was ordered not to. But I must admit that I do still enjoy egg and cheese pie.
It has not yet been very effectively explained how the primeval model is no longer applicable to men and how its lingering effects confuse them, too.
Men are still raised to be hunters — fierce and tough —when in fact agriculture, domestication of animals and industrialism have severely limited the need for those hunting traits to predominate.
The man’s primeval role of going off for days and days on wide-ranging hunting expeditions to track down and kill wild beasts and return with the meat, hide and tusks is today poorly translated into catching the bus at the corner, working an office or sales territory for eight hours, catching the bus back home again before dark and repeating that till Friday when, at last, the paychecks are handed out so that he can go home with his bounty and look forward to beginning it all again on Monday.
Yet the domestic traits of gentility and nurturance that would fit so well with our modern civilization are generally reserved to women and are regarded as unmanly. Is it any wonder that sometimes men seem as edgy and hostile as caged animals? Is it any wonder that they enjoy screaming at the TV during football games?
And is it any wonder that men sometimes find it difficult to settle into — or even contemplate — family life?
The slang expressions for being married — hitched, tied down and others which convey similar ideas of restriction — did not arise from nowhere.
Another alternative was to call the show “50/50.” I thought that might be an effective play off ABC’s “20/20,” but mostly I thought the idea of 50/50 succinctly conveyed the idea I mentioned earlier that the show would not be interested in pointing fingers and fixing blame, that the show would say simply that men and women should share the blame and share the credit 50/50. But I decided against that title because until there are as many shows about men’s issues as there are about women’s, I would be foolish to think this one should be called “50/50.”
We will look at the biological and psychological differences between women and men. But we will look at those differences to see how they can be regarded as strengths, not as sources of friction or cracks in the bond between us.
Men and women have far more in common than we have in disparity. But it is the differences on which we concentrate, like two old frigates sailing side by side staring into the muzzles of each other’s guns.
There is a precious cargo those two frigates are carrying, but it is not to be found in either ship. It is the future of the human species, it is human life itself, and we carry it between us.
It is not enriched by firing broadsides at each other. It is not enriched by staring in fear and trepidation, anger and mistrust, down each other’s muzzles.
Life is enriched by growth and movement. Thus we should be staring not across the narrow sea between us, but out over our horizons to the limitless stretches of ocean — of time — of life before us.
“The Lives of Men” will be devoted to keeping the masculine ship in shape for that voyage.
Maybe in a way I’m thinking of this show as a PR device for men. It seems to me that our morale as men is awfully low — sometimes I think we are sorrowfully depressed about ourselves and our roles. And I think it shows up in the state of the nation, and the world.
The reasons for our low morale are easy to see. We know we have problems, but we don’t know that it’s okay to talk about them. We know our lives are not as happy as we would reasonably like them to be, but we think that maybe it’s just our duty to suffer quietly and endure. We convince ourselves that we don’t mind working hard and suppressing our feelings and sacrificing our own happiness as long as we serve the happiness of those we love.
But those we love do not seem to be all that happy with us. And things do not seem to be going quite the way we would like. We are criticized when we work too hard, but we are told we should earn as much as we can. We are told it is our duty to fight and die for our country, but we are told we pay too much attention to “rough and mindless” sports. We are told to be sensitive and open, but we are ridiculed for being weak.
We look to the future for alternatives, but what do we see? We know that traditional concepts of manhood have limited our growth and happiness, but what concepts do we have to take their place? What heroes do we have to emulate? Old heroes like Hercules and the Lone Ranger just don’t seem to apply very well to life in the 1980s. Even recent heroes like John Wayne — with their toughness and stony-faced silence — seem more tragic than heroic.
Thoreau said that most men live lives of quiet desperation. Perhaps the more quietly desperate we become, the more we will cling defensively and reflexively to the old and familiar concepts and principles that guide our lives. Perhaps our morale will get worse and worse.
But perhaps on the other hand we will become as interested in our own happiness as we have always been told we must be in the happiness of others. Perhaps we will begin to listen and perhaps we will begin to hear our humanity deep down inside us saying, “Yes, you are a good human being. You have a right to pursue your own happiness, to live and grow and be as you wish.”
Perhaps “The Lives of Men” can facilitate the process. Perhaps as we begin the frightening first steps toward growth and change this show can offer some encouragement.
Perhaps our morale is about to improve.
Dr. John Money is the Director of Psychohormonal Research at Johns Hopkins Hospital. I will ask Dr. Money about the psychological differences between women and men —whether, for instance, brains can be thought of as either male or female. Dr. Money expressed to me something of a double bind in that one half-hour show could barely begin to scratch the surface of his special field of study, but that he was just too terribly busy to give me a fourteen semester course. I said I certainly understood and that I would make it clear to the audience that we would be getting only the most basic introduction to the question of whether and how men and women differ psychologically.
Thom Thompson is a family counselor whom you may know from his television shows. He suggested that he would like to discuss a topic he calls “The Nature of the Beast: Are Men Really the Way We Think They Are?”
We’ll be having Fred Hayward, Director of Men’s Rights, Incorporated in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Fred once so enraged the co-hostess of a local TV talk show in a major U.S. city by refusing to admit that the men’s issues about which he was speaking were insignificant that during a commercial he was asked to leave the show — which he did. The show was thereupon filled for the remainder with recipes.
Another guest will be Dr. Bernie Zilbergeld, a San Francisco psychologist who is touring the country to promote his new book called The Shrinking of America. Dr. Zilbergeld has broad experience in counseling men for sexual problems and has offered to talk with us about his first book — a well-respected work called Male Sexuality, A Guide to Sexual Fulfillment. One of the book’s major points is that men have been “duped” about sex.
Another guest will be Dr. Kenneth Solomon, a psychiatrist who has written widely on male gender conditioning and edited a collection of essays on counseling men, called Men In Transition.
Bill Thomas will be with us to tell us about his experiences in leading groups of men through the rigid binds that keep them from talking to each other as warm friends and human beings. Bill is co-author of a book called Working With Men’s Groups.
I will ask Gerry Evans, Director of the Men’s Resource Center in Philadelphia, to explain why some straight men have such violent reactions against homosexuality.
We’ll also have Dr. Herb Goldberg, author of The Hazards of Being Male, one of the first books to challenge the myth of masculine privilege.
And other authorities on men’s issues have told me they would like to appear on “The Lives of Men.” But I want to close by mentioning the person who will be with us first.
Richard Haddad is recognized by many as the founder of the men’s movement — or at least one segment of it. In 1976 he organized a group called Free Men in Columbia, Maryland. It is ironic that the Free Men chapter in Columbia is defunct but that there are chapters active today in eleven other cities. When I first asked Richard to do a show, he was reluctant. He said he was sort of fed up with media work, sort of burnt out. Only when I promised that he would not have to spend a half-hour defending himself and overcoming the typical interviewer’s standard skepticism that men even have any issues to talk about, and only when I promised that I would like him just to share his memoirs with us about starting Free Men back in 1976, did he agree to be on the show. Richard is also the lyricist for what might be called the first men’s movement protest song. His brother Bob Haddad wrote the music and recorded the private label 45 which we will play for you while Richard is here.
Surely in all the world there are few subjects more complex, more confusing, more fascinating and more emotionally charged than the one we will be exploring on “The Lives of Men.” We hope you will join us often.
This, then, is the first show. In a few seconds the announcer will tell you when to tune in for future programs on “The Lives of Men.”
I’m Jack Kammer. Thanks for listening.