|
|
|
FATHER, BEHOLD THY SON THE HITE REPORT Byline: SHERE HITE Sons crave their fathers' approval but often find an emotional chasm between them, writes SHERE HITE in her new book, The Hite Report on the Family, based on more than 3,000 responses to her questionnaire. The Herald continues its exclusive extracts. PARTICIPATING in sport is one of the few ways fathers and sons spend time together. According to my research, it seems that by bonding together against the opposing "team" or "dangerous animal", men achieve the maximum emotional contact that they are able to have under the male "family system". Here, they are allowed to feel excitement together (but not directly towards each other); sharing emotions in a "team" makes emotional sharing "legitimate", since the emotions are directed (ostensibly) at something other than each other. Thus, the two have an emotional interchange, an emotional climax, that is sanctioned by the society because it is channelled through a third party. This is also what makes the watching of sport together such an important activity for boys and men. Through sport viewing, men are seeing "the game", their game, and learning about men in groups. The appropriate etiquette to use with other men is crucially important for men in their business and work lives, as well as their social relationships with other men. Lack of emotion (except for outbursts of anger), and "staying in control" while still "showing power", are the watchwords. So large parts of "male psychology" are learnt through sport. It is an intense and essential part of the genderising process, learning the proper way of behaving, the correct mode of comportment, in the World of Men. As we have seen, there is no masculinity for a boy without bonding with the male group. The alternative is to be a heroic loner, a rebel. Examples of this are the hero of the film Shane in the 1950s, or James Dean, or even the Marlboro Man or Moses on the Mount. But most of these "rebels" are the mirror images of the authority figure of the father; they are the son, Oedipus, fighting his father. Joseph and Jesus are the two basic archetypes of masculinity in the family. In most men's psyches, there is no recognition of other roles to be played, no grappling with the world outside the symbolism of the son's struggle with the father: all ethical battles take place within this inner circle. Relationships with women are in another sphere and do not have the same rules. The father defines everything, as does the heavenly archetype of the Father, who is the only one the son must "fear". This can lead to a very cold, painful and alienated emotional state. Boys describe enormous distance in their relationships with their father, and also a feeling of longing, trying to reach the father emotionally. Yet most men, according to my research, look to women when they need someone to talk to and for real emotional support: most married men in my research say it is their wives who are their best friends. However, women do not say this about their husbands. One man describes his private feelings, including quasi-sexual fantasies of longings for his father: "During adolescence I had erotic fantasies of being caressed and approved by my father. I was well into my 20s before I began to work on these feelings "What I realised was that I had very powerful urges for love and confirmation to flow between us. It makes sense to me, now, that my needs for approval expressed themselves in sexual ways because I wanted some reinforcement for puberty's confusions. I haven't felt sexual desire for my mother because we are very close, and we know how much we love each other." Some men today are in fact engaged in a debate about their tradition and power. They no longer believe that male dominance is a matter of biological inevitability or superiority, but a historical circumstance that should be changed. (They believe) that current definitions of masculinity hurt not only women but also themselves. How far has this discussion come? Are "femininity" and dolls OK for boys now? As OK as they are for girls? No. There is a strong movement now to "return to traditional values"; that is, to "protect the family". This does not mean, as it would sound, keeping the world safe for loving values. Rather, it means maintaining the traditional family hierarchy: women in the home and subservient, and men "in power", but impoverished emotionally. This reactionary backlash movement, or "counter-reformation", is re-imposing an authoritarian system in the name of religion, opposing the movement to democratise the family, to bring justice to the relationships within families and between men and women. ----------------------------- Publication: Sydney Morning Herald - Publication date: 2-3-1994 - Edition: Late - Page no: 13 - Section: News and Features - Sub section: Agenda |
| Copyright
2005, Hite Research International All rignts reserved. |