Male Bag

Dear Dec,

As Chris Bunn's article "Are You Man Enough?" so aptly portrayed, being a man in the U.Va. greek-dominated social environment means being pressured by other men to accept a tolerance for abusive, violent behavior towards women -- behavior to which most human beings would be ashamed to admit were their identities known. The very existence of such vulgar and offensive songs, even as jokes, desensitizes men to the horrific consequences of rape, assault, and homophobic behavior toward the victims of these actions. Is this what we call a fraternity -- a brotherhood of insensitivity and hate?

We must ask ourselves, what can be done? How can we respond to a tradition of male disrespect towards females and therefore towards all human beings? How can women and men work to change a shameful tradition of immaturity and hate so ingrained in the fraternity culture?

NOW at U.Va. calls on women from all backgrounds -- ethnic, religious, and political -- to stand together in a spirit of sisterhood and empowerment against such violence and hate. Our sisterhood in the Women's Movement is not about promoting a culture of victimization by or hate toward anyone; it is about an open and supportive space for communicating with and listening to each other. It is about the affirmation and encouragement of every woman, and our belief in the value and the potential of every human being. The Women's Movement is not about being a feminist or a strong black or Hispanic woman or being in the National Organization for Women, or in any other group. The Movement is about women helping other women to find their voices in whatever venue is most comfortable and appropriate, speaking together against violence and injustice towards our sisters, and being empowered through our collective strength and solidarity. It's about promoting respect for ALL individuals and protecting the freedom and dignity of every woman from hurtful attitudes and labels, no matter what the source.

If the word feminist has come to signify racism, exclusivism, or other negative (and inaccurate) connotations, don't use that label to describe yourself. The fact will remain, regardless: in an environment where women's freedom and safety are so clearly endangered, every woman has a duty to be completely and unequivocally PRO-WOMAN. In our struggle for respect and freedom, the enemy is not the other group or ethnicity. It is NOT the fraternity, a social institution with enormous potential for positive solidarity among its brothers. Rather, the enemies in our struggle are ignorance and insensitivity, the lack of respect for fellow humans and their freedoms, and the fear and hate for what is unfamiliar. We must all fight these enemies together, every day.

NOW at U.Va. may not be the right group for everyone, and though feminist is a label we are proud to bear and hope to define through our positive actions in the community, that label may not be for you. But we challenge you women and men in your sororities or fraternities, your clubs, teams and organizations, your dorms and family groups, to bring to these groups an awareness that our humanity is not complete until we have all achieved a maturity that includes respecting all people and banishing from social acceptability the disrespect and abuse exhibited by offensive frat songs. Until we reclaim responsibility for all our actions, including redefining the culture and traditions of our university, we cannot claim even the honor of being called "human."

Michelle Morin
Secretary, NOW at U.Va.

Dear Dec,

Perhaps the most troublesome aspect of Chris Bunn's article "Are You Man Enough?" is that he fails to answer the question with which he begins his investigation: "What does it mean to be a man at U.Va.?" Instead of actually reporting what fraternity men said about themselves and their masculinity, he chooses to extrapolate ultimate meaning from the lyrics of two songs so as to reveal what he perceives as the inherent problems of the fraternity system. Almost equally worrisome is the fact that in order to research "socially-defined masculinity," Mr. Bunn interviewed only fraternity members, ignoring the other sixty percent of the male population of the University of Virginia. Finally, the author fails to qualify himself as a male student at U.Va. Is it really possible that Chris Bunn can make an objective argument on the male population of U.Va. when, in fact, he is a member of that group?

For one, it seems unfair that the only direct quotes coming from fraternity members are in response to the admittedly profane lyrics of the songs "Yo-Ho" and "The S & M Man." Mr. Bunn never mentioned actually posing his thesis question to the fraternity members he interviewed, instead relating that he interviewed members "about their 'secret' initiation rituals." Obviously, these rituals do take on a role of great importance to fraternity members, yet it is unfair to assert that these are all inherently alike, and worse to assume that fraternity ritual in general serves to "affirm violence within the context of sexuality." The author's conclusions about greek life and masculinity represent solely his interpretation of the lyrics of two songs. If his research were supported with actual data showing a heightened sexual aggressiveness in men after being initiated into a fraternity, that would lend support to the behavioral trends he attests. However, the argument that fraternity rituals demonstrate "the expectations of (this) institutionalized masculinity" is merely an interpolation, based on scant evidence, of what prejudices the author seems to possess.

In addition, the author's decision to interview members of "time-honored institutions" which "offer their own variation on the theme of masculinity" denies participants the objective representation and analysis of their testimony. The author identifies the students he interviewed as "25 fraternity members from 17 different fraternities." Rather than acknowledging the individual validity of the independent opinions of these 25, Mr. Bunn qualifies these persons first as fraternity members. In doing so, the manner in which he considered their opinions is perfectly clear: whatever was said to him was the opinion not of an individual person, but, more importantly, that of a fraternity member. He goes on to state that fraternities "demonstrate and accentuate qualities which they believe are essential for their members to exhibit." At the same time he discredits the individual importance of the opinions of fraternity members, he extends his negative conclusions to apply universally to every greek-letter fraternity member at U.Va. With specific regard to his analysis of the subconsciously violent and sexual nature of fraternity ritual, he is quick to turn around and apply his findings to all fraternity members, stating that "even though only 25 fraternity men were interviewed, these men reported that all members within their fraternities participated in these rituals on a regular basis and that participation was required for active membership." Ideally, when discussing the topic of masculinity at the University of Virginia, both fraternity members and male students who are not associated with fraternities would be interviewed objectively and independently, without regard to their associations one way or the other.

Despite the fact that he purposefully ignored the potential input of a large majority of the school's male population, and due in part to the fact that he makes such assertions as "socioeconomic data ... offer little illumination on the subject of socially-defined masculinity," Chris Bunn is ultimately unable to draw any sort of plausible conclusion whatsoever from the patterns he claims to have documented. Most importantly, however, what at first purported itself to be an exploration of the understanding of masculinity as it pertains to the University of Virginia ended up revealing its pointed nature and defamatory intent. Rather than presenting an objective study into the popular understanding of masculinity at U.Va., the author narrows his perspective to include only an easily criticized subpopulation and then insinuates that his biased conclusions hold true to this group as a whole.

Matthew Connell