A Shrink for Men Interveiws Paul Elam of A Voice for Men

Dr Tara J. Palmatier, PsyD conducted an interesting interview a while back - posted at her blog, A Shrink for Men - with Paul Elam of A Voice for Men and also one of the editors of Men's News Daily (which will be ceasing publication soon).

Disclaimer: I have been critical of some of the stuff I have read at Men's News Daily and some of the other sites Elam mentions - he and I do not see eye-to-eye on many things. But the men's transformation movement is about men, plural, and that means plural visions and perspectives.

That said, here is the beginning of the interview:

Introduction to the Men’s Movement: Interview with Paul Elam of A Voice for Men

Last year, Paul Elam of A Voice for Men contacted me to ask if I would contribute to Men’s News Daily, a men’s movement website for which he is the editor. Intrigued, I read through the site and had some misgivings. There’s some material I agree with and some material that I found off-putting. Like any movement, men’s activism attracts different people with different ideologies and agendas. Primarily, I was put off by the extreme, neo-conservative beliefs and rhetoric of some of its members. Paul and I discussed my reservations, which he kindly addressed. He allayed my misgivings and I agreed to republish some of my material on MND.

I believe men and women need to organize and fight for fair legislation regarding domestic violence laws and divorce and custody legislation. Our system is sick and many people are stuck in sick workplaces and relationships that sap them of energy and the ability to make healthy decisions. When you’re in a sick system, you think, “this is just the way it is.” The dysfunctional system is so pervasive, many people don’t stop to think, “this isn’t how it should be and what can I do to change for the better.” A sick system programs you to tolerate abuse and injustice and tells you that there’s something wrong with you if you try to buck the system.

The post-feminist pendulum has swung too far to the other extreme. How is it just that a man can be forcibly removed from a home he paid for based on nothing more than an unsubstantiated claim of abuse? (Just do a search for ‘how do I get my husband out of the house.’) How is it just that one adult, by virtue of his sex, is financially responsible for another able-bodied adult just by virtue of her sex after the relationship ends and often for the rest of his lifetime? Even child support ends when a child becomes an adult. Why isn’t custody automatically presumed 50/50 in every state? Why aren’t women required to pay support for the 50% of the time the children are with their fathers (if the father is lucky enough to get 50/50 custody)? Why aren’t women prosecuted for making false abuse claims and violating court orders?

The present laws are unfair and they’re not going to change until the people who are the targets of this kind of injustice and the people who care about them organize, pitch in and fight to level the playing field. Both men and women need to join together to do this. To this end, I asked Paul if he would allow me to interview him to provide an introduction to the men’s movement and he very generously agreed:

1. Paul, in a nutshell, what is the men’s movement, men’s rights or men’s activism?

Actually, it takes two nutshells, because we are talking about two areas that have some overlap with each other. The first is father’s rights and some other agendas that involve legislation and actual rights as we know them. Clearly, with the bias against men in family courts, and things like false accusation of rape, domestic violence and sexual harassment we are talking about clear cut violations of constitutional rights and due process.

The rest, and I think equally important area, is what I prefer to call the men’s movement vs. calling it the men’s rights movement. This is a movement that is well underway that is challenging men to examine their roles as men in modern times, and supports them for making more realistic choices about what they expect of themselves, particularly in their relationships with women.

This is the part of the movement to which I think you, Dr. T., make a particularly valuable contribution. So much of our frustrations as men come from trying to satisfy some very unrealistic and unhealthy expectations from women. That can come up for sure when we encounter personality disordered women in relationships, but also in our dealings with women that we would call normal.

The fact is that the continued expectations for men to act according to old school gender roles for men are out of sync in a world where women’s roles have changed so significantly. In fact, I’d guess that many of the men you counsel were hobbled in dealing with borderline or narcissistic women, not just because those personalities are so good at manipulation, but because they are particularly adept at manipulating the pressures on men to “man up and take it.”

I think the men’s movement provides a lot of support to men for changing their expectations of themselves and certainly in placing some more realistic expectations on the women in their lives.

Read the whole interview.

Tags: Tara J. Palmatier, A Shrink for Men, Paul Elam, A Voice for Men, Men's News Daily, Men’s Movement, men's rights groups, men, masculinities, men's movements, culture, society

Should Women Embrace the "New Macho"?

The other day I took a look at a Newsweek article on the purported new challenges men are facing in the current cultural and economic climate. Here is another article from the same issue.

In this article, women argue that healthy masculinity is crucial to the interests of women. I agree.

Who Needs Men? We Do.

Let’s call a ceasefire on the “battle of the sexes”—the New Macho is good for women, too.

Matt Sayles / AP

Photos: From patriarcy to paternity leave, a timeline of American male ideals

Manhood USA: A Timeline of Male Ideals

If the stereotype of the macho man is the whiskey-drinking, womanizing Don Draper, then the popular perception of “feminist” is an angry, militant, man-hater—decrying the patriarchy while she burns her bra. It’s a cliché that, for decades now, has pitted the Marlboro Man against Rosie the Riveter, labeling women who rally behind men as antifeminist, and men who support women as weak, or worse. But even Gloria Steinem knew—back before women were even allowed to write at NEWSWEEK—that it was going to take both sides of the gender coin to achieve true parity. Testifying before Congress on behalf of the Equal Rights Amendment in 1970, Steinem proclaimed that one crucial aspect of women’s empowerment was “a return of fathers to their children.” “Women’s liberation,” Steinem declared, “is men’s liberation too.”

Forty years later, women are further along than we were in Steinem’s day—we’re tipping the scale at 51 percent of workers; we make up the majority of college graduates, M.A.s (and now even Ph.D.s), and we are the primary or co-breadwinners in most American households. But we still have trouble penetrating the highest echelons of the corporate world, and no matter how many hours we spend trying to close that gap, we remain burdened by domestic life. In 2010, there are still precious few stay-at-home dads; housework and child care are primarily still “women’s work.” And while we may have superpowered washing machines and delivery from Fresh Direct, we still do double the chores of the men we choose to live with.

Man Up!

• Why We Need to Reimagine Masculinity
• Ad Men: The Most Interesting Trend in the World
• Manhood USA: A Timeline of Male Ideals
• Why the New Macho is Good for Women
• For Black Men, Goal Remains the Same

All of this is why, even in 2010, we must take the advice of a feminist of yore: women still need men to prosper. We’re not talking about Mr. Cleaver bringing home the bacon—we need men so that we can excel at work, to level the playing field at home. We need them as dads, partners, and cheerleaders—from the classroom to the boardroom. So let’s retire the tired old “battle of the sexes” war cry—equality should never have been a zero-sum equation.

There are practical reasons why we should rally behind each other’s causes. If men are concerned about American prosperity, there’s a solution: women! Countless studies prove there’s a correlation between the number of women on corporate boards and achieving a better bottom line; McKinsey estimates that the United States could increase GDP by 9 percent if we achieved true equity at work. (At a time when economists worry we’re losing our economic edge, who wouldn’t be swayed by these arguments?)

The same goes for parental leave. It’s no coincidence that Iceland has the most generous paternity-leave program in the modern world—three months!—and also, the smallest wage gap. These things go hand in hand. And no, it wasn’t a raging man-hating feminist who pushed the legislation through—it was a male prime minister, who recognized that Icelanders of both genders would benefit, and not just in the short term. The reasoning? As more men take time off to care for their children, the burden of parenthood no longer falls on women alone. Ultimately, employers will stop looking at young, fertile women and thinking, why bother investing? We’ll all be equally worthy of investment.

In today’s economy, the industries that have long been female-dominated—teaching, nursing, and so on—are the ones that, in the coming years, will grow the most. Encouraging men to “man up,” as our colleagues put it—and enter these fields should be something we all push for. Because just as corporate boards benefit from diversity of thought, so does every workplace. Recent research from the London Business School suggests that productivity levels go up when men and women work in tandem—in part because gender parity counters the idea of group-think, and reduces the sprouting of like-minded groups that defend ideas that may be ill conceived.

Welcoming men to traditionally underpaid professions could also serve to boost average salaries in those fields, making them more competitive and better able to attract top-tier talent. It could also be a crucial step in closing the wage gap, which, of course, won’t help just women. As more women become the main breadwinners—we’re in a “mancession,” remember?—equal pay means more for everyone.

So let’s embrace the new macho, throw our weight behind men who want to make a change, and get back to the forgotten principles of the original women’s movement, which put men’s progress hand in hand with women’s. “The only way that we can resolve these issues is for both men and women to join together,” says historian Barbara Berg. “You can’t liberate only one half.”

Forty years ago, Gloria Steinem said that women’s liberation would also be men’s. Today, maybe it’s the opposite: that men’s liberation will be good for women.

Tags: men, masculinity, women, feminism, culture, Newsweek, Man Up!, New Macho, stereotypes, women's liberation, men's liberation, equality, families, relationships

Richard J. Loebl - Who’s in Charge – Understanding Men Today

This is the first in a series of posts by Richard J. Loebl at the GoodTherapy.org blog on men and where we are today in terms of our emotions, our relationships, and our behavior.

He's using a modified parts model here, focusing on just the inner child, inner teen, the critic, and the adult - this is fairly common in briefer forms of parts work. I don't like his diagram because it misrepresents the complexity of the relationships between parts, but it'll do.

What he calls the inner teenager here is more likely a manager part, or several manager parts, each with its own ways of protecting the inner child. The adult part is more likely the Self, or some variation on a mature, compassionate, non-reactive core identity. But I am picking nits - it's just that this is my area, and I prefer to see the model used correctly.

Who’s in Charge – Understanding Men Today

September 20th, 2010

By Richard J. Loebl, LSCW, PA, Men’s Issues Topic Expert Contributor

Click here to contact Richard and/or see his GoodTherapy.org Profile

**This is the first in a series of articles about men today – how we function emotionally, behaviorally, and in relationships**

Like most men today, I learned how to be a man from the fathers, grandfathers, brothers and uncles in my life. Like other baby boomers, I also learned about “ideal” manhood from the heroes of my time – John Wayne, James Bond, and others. In my early teens my values and beliefs were influenced by leaders who were larger than life, such as President Kennedy and Martin Luther King. In my late teens it was Bob Dylan, John Lennon, and others who shaped my beliefs and image. Then it took years of psychotherapy and personal development to find the real me – the real man inside.

I’ve worked with hundreds of men in various types of counseling, men’s groups, and personal growth workshops for over 30 years now. These men have taught me what I know about men today. They taught me how a man feels emotion, how they communicate, and how they deal with the demands of life. They also taught me how a man thinks about love, relationships, work, and play. These men have shared their struggles, their fears and frustrations, their self-doubt, and their victories, large and small.

As a result of these experiences, I developed a self-help model that helps men, and the women in their life, understand their feelings and patterns of behavior. It helps to answer questions such as: Why do men get so angry at times? Why do they procrastinate and avoid responsibility? Why do they refuse to ask for directions?

The Who’s In Charge? model describes our internal parts. For example, when I buy a large container of ice cream and bring it home, part of me wants to eat all of it the first night. Sometimes I do eat too much, and a different part is critical. Another part takes over when I plan smaller portions to enjoy the next few nights.

The internal parts in this model include an Inner Child, innocent, vulnerable, often dependent. My work with men helped me identify a unique part of this model, the Teenager, who wants independence and empowerment, but is often lost, angry or both. The Inner Critic is judgmental, blaming, and demanding. Fortunately, all of us have an Adult part – loving, responsible, and competent.

These parts often reveal themselves in relationships. In my men’s group, the guys often talk about their marital problems. Bob, age 43, says his marriage is like a roller coaster. He loves his wife and enjoys her company. Then she makes “demands” he finds unfair, or she complains about something (money, the chores he didn’t do). Bob says he reacts very quickly with intense anger. First he defends himself in an angry, defiant manner, and then he distances by avoiding her, shutting down, and not talking. The group members tell Bob that he sounds like a victim when he tells his story. They are understanding about his feelings of hurt and anger, and suggest that he take a less reactive position with her. They want him to stand up to her, but in a loving and responsible manner, and to take responsibility for his part in the relationship dance.

During this group session, Bob could see how his anger and avoidance covered up his feelings of shame and fear – that he’s not good enough for her, and she could leave. I asked him one of my Who’s In Charge? questions. I said “Bob, when you’re feeling this way – so hurt and full of shame – and you quickly resort to anger and blame, how old are you?” He thought for a moment and said “Mid-teens. Like 13 or 14”. I asked him what was going on when he was that age, and he told the group about how the kids at school picked on him, and he was afraid to tell his parents. His mother was critical, and his father, who was an alcoholic, but very successful in business, was verbally and physically abusive. Bob, at 14, acted out by avoiding the kids at school, by watching TV instead of doing homework, and he either kicked holes in the walls or sulked in his bedroom.

Bob was able to recognize the lost, angry Teen who reacts today when he feels blamed or attacked by his wife. He could connect with the Child inside who feels so hurt and ashamed – and how the Teen protects the Child by getting angry and defensive. Then his Critic takes over, either blaming his wife, or blaming himself for his immature behavior. The men in the group helped him to enable the Adult by being compassionate with himself, with his wife and her feelings and needs, and encouraging him to talk to her about his fears and what he needs from her emotionally.

In the past, we learned how to be men from our fathers and from idealized heroes, past and present. Today we have another choice – to learn from other men who have walked the path of personal growth and discovery. In future blog entries, I will share more stories about these courageous men of integrity.

©Copyright 2010 by By Richard J. Loebl, LSCW, PA. All Rights Reserved. Permission to publish granted to GoodTherapy.org. The following article was solely written and edited by the author named above. The views and opinions expressed are not necessarily shared by GoodTherapy.org. Questions or concerns about the following article can be directed to the author or posted as a comment to this blog entry. Click here to contact Richard and/or see his GoodTherapy.org Profile

Tags: Richard J. Loebl, Who’s in Charge, Understanding Men Today, GoodTherapy.org, emotions, relationships, behavior, psychology, men, masculinity, culture, therapy, parts, inner child, inner critic, subpersonalities, ideals, manhood

What Are men Looking for in a Mate?

I wonder if they really needed to do a study to figure this out - they could've just conducted a random sampling of men in an Austin bar on a Friday night and found the same results.

Study examines men's priorities when looking for mates

September 20, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- Men who are looking for short-term companionship are more interested in a woman's body than those looking for a long-term relationship, who focused on a woman's face, according to new research from psychologists at The University of Texas at Austin.

A woman's body generally provides cues about her state of fertility while her face gives insight into her long-term reproductive value, according to previous research. So the new findings suggest men seeking a short-term relationship have psychological adaptations to look for partners who are fertile and can produce offspring.

"Men's priorities shift depending on what they want in a mate, with facial features taking on more importance when a long-term relationship is the goal," says psychology graduate student Jaime Confer, who co-authored the research with graduate student Carin Perilloux and Professor David Buss. "Mating is central to the engine of natural selection. This research helps clarify people's preference."

Women showed no significant difference in their interest in faces or bodies when looking for short-term or long-term mates, according to the study published this month in the journal Evolution and Human Behavior.

Previous research has examined the qualities that make faces and bodies attractive, such as symmetry and waist-to-hip ratio. But this is the first study to experimentally analyze the relative importance of faces and bodies as whole components.

As part of the study, 375 college students were shown an image of another person, whose face and body was hidden, who was described as either a potential short-term or long-term mate. The participants had the option of looking at either head or body, but not both.

Twenty-five percent of men who were told to consider the mate as a long-term partner looked at their potential partner's body. In contrast, 51 percent of those who were told to consider her as a short-term partner chose to look her body.

Confer and her colleagues are considering follow-up research in which participants will be asked if they want to see the faces or bodies of potential rivals who may be stealing their mates. That could help reveal if men and women feel more threatened by a pretty face or a good body.

Provided by University of Texas at Austin (news : web)

Tags: men, women, relationships, sex, psychology, mate, selection, face, body, Evolution and Human Behavior, Jaime Confer, research, Carin Perilloux, Professor David Buss

What Does It Mean to "Man Up"?

Yesterday I posted an article from the new issues of Newsweek, which has Man Up! on the cover - Men's Lib - Why it’s time to reimagine masculinity at work and at home and added a little bit of commentary, but not much - yesterday was too busy.

Fortunately for me, someone at Forbes and at Media-ite posted their own commentaries, which make a great deal of sense, in part. Interestingly, both are by women.

From Dr. Lois Frankel at Forbes:

Now, those of us who have been paying any attention at all for the past few years know that savvy men no longer aspire to be the Marlboro Man, but rather someone like Barack Obama or Brad Pitt. In fact, when interviewed on the Today Show by Matt Lauer the authors pointed to both of them as good examples of men who have successfully embraced their roles not only as professionals and husbands, but also as involved fathers and people who want to make a difference in society.

In my book, See Jane Lead, I talk about “the feminization of leadership.” The truth of the matter is, macho men don’t make very effective leaders these days. The latest generation of arrivals in the workplace actually want leaders who are inclusive, listen, reward rather than punish, encourage rather than disparage — who, generally speaking, exhibit more stereotypically feminine characteristics. So, in this regard, rethinking masculinity is a must for survival.

But don’t be fooled. We’re still a society that doesn’t like men who act like women, nor women who act like men, yet there is a double standard. No one seems to be up in arms over suggesting men should embrace their feminine sides, but when I suggest women could be more assertive, direct, and competitive, it is spread across the ethers that I’m suggesting women “grow a pair” (see last week’s post on the Citi fiasco).

Yes there is a bit of a double standard there - and for men it's a double bind. Men are told to be more feminine in some respects, but they have been raised to fear showing feminine traits more than nearly anything else, experiencing it psychological on part with physical castration. They are caught between competing values systems, so they must either pick a side, or simply live with the anxiety of gender role strain.

I know how wrong that feeling is - and if you are reading this, I suspect you do as well. But that is how most men in America have been raised (that seems to be changing in the younger generations coming up now). Most men would rather be struck by lightning than be seen as feminine.

Over at Media-ite, Rachel Sklar deconstructs the argument of the Newsweek authors ("young male writers, Andrew Romano and Tony Dokoupil, both of whom are very good") with the own words. Damn, I hate when that happens.

Here are a few sections of her analysis:

• Oh, here it is, finally, at the end of the 7th paragraph: “Most guys, in fact, don’t even need rescuing—at least not yet. They’re still overrepresented in business and government, earn more on the dollar, open bigger movies, and clean fewer dishes.” So wait, if “most” men are still “overrepresented” everywhere, how are they “off the rails” and in need of getting “back on track?”
• I don’t mean to go through this line by line, but that said, the next line is: “But the gender wars aren’t a zero-sum game: when men lose, women and children lose, too.” Very very true. But flip it: When women win, men and children win too. (See this Lancet article about the Millennium Development Goals and the domino effects of potential global gender equity.) Also, if you take that to its logical conclusion, then there’s an implied argument against women taking jobs that were “traditionally” men. I’d just like to see a greater appreciation of context, and some examination of how gender parity in pay, status and opportunity is good for society and family. (I know. I’m such a diva!)

• Further down, we see this – as a plus, meant to reassure men that even if they do enter sissy professions like nursing and teaching, they’ll rise above: “While women in traditionally male professions suffer predictable forms of discrimination, men in women’s fields actually enjoy “structural advantages” that “tend to enhance their careers”—a kind of glass conveyor belt that carries them into the “more masculine” areas they perceive to be a better fit for their talents, according to a seminal 1992 study. They become gym teachers instead of English teachers; reference librarians instead of children’s librarians; ER nurses instead of pediatric nurses.” Okay (a) Men have it rough whyagain?; and (b) 1992 was the same year that Kriss Kross came out wearing baggy pants. Please update.

• Seriously, WHY IS THIS AT THE VERY BOTTOM OF THE ARTICLE? “[I]f the country achieved gender parity in the workplace—an optimal balance of fully employed men and women—the gross domestic product would grow by as much as 9 percent, according to a recent study by the World Economic Forum.” Honestly, that’s bordering on irresponsible. Return to that first, warning paragraph about how men have declined in the workforce and young women are earning more than their male peers. THAT is where this statistic belongs, right up top alongside them. Not at the very very afterthought-y bottom of the piece.
• Again, nowhere in the article does the term “gay” or “homosexual” appear. This article conceives of men, maleness, and “the New Macho” as an entirely heterosexual thing. That, too, is wildly irresponsible. My New Macho includes Neil Patrick Harris, thankyouverymuch. And then some.

Despite the snark, she makes good points - the article is more alarmist than a real issue where men are in trouble of becoming obsolete.

On the other hand, men are at a unique moment in our developmental history. The more urban and suburban we are, and the more we live on one coast or the other (as opposed to the Midwest/heartland rural America), the more likely we are to be facing and integrating (hopefully) the shift from hegemonic masculinity to relational masculinity.

Rather than alarmist articles, perhaps we might have a real discussion about men and gender roles - and why it is so hard for so many men to move into a more relational style of being a man, which is simply one of many options available to us.

Most of these articles are partially correct in that men are changing, and that we need to change - life conditions for many of us demand it - but we are not going extinct, we are not obsolete (good luck procreating without at least one of us), and we are not all the same, which may be the most important idea to get out - there are as many masculinities as there are men, as it should be.

Tags: men, media, gender roles, culture, change, masculinities, Man Up!, Newsweek, Forbes, Mediaite, Andrew Romano, Tony Dokoupi, Rachel Sklar, gender role strain, hegemonic masculinity, Lois Frankel, Men's Lib, relational masculinity, employment, gender parity

Men's Lib - Why it’s time to reimagine masculinity at work and at home

Newsweek is looking at men this week - they highlight the two basic responses we are seeing in the culture at large: returning to old models vs. looking at new options. This is a more balanced article than the recent one in The Atlantic - I love this quote from Michael Chabon: “The handy thing about being a father,” he later concludes, “is that the historic standard is so pitifully low.”

The bottom line, it seems to me, is that going back to old models - as Lionel Tiger and Harvey Mansfield advocate - is not going to work. Men have for most of their existence determined their value by their social role and utility (defined by their job or community standing). This is no longer valid.

On the other hand, finding self-worth entirely within is not going to work either. We are social beings and we are socially embedded - our roles will define us no matter what they are. So we need to adopt roles that are more suited to our life conditions - we need to be fathers, husbands, coaches, and so on, none of which are new - but for the first time they may be our primary roles, with work roles taking a back seat.

Men’s Lib

To survive in a hostile world, guys need to embrace girly jobs and dirty diapers. Why it’s time to reimagine masculinity at work and at home.

(Page 1 of 6)

Matt Sayles / AP

Photos: From patriarcy to paternity leave, a timeline of American male ideals

Manhood USA: A Timeline of Male Ideals

What’s the matter with men? For years, the media have delivered the direst of prognoses. Men are “in decline.” Guys are getting “stiffed.” The “war on boys” has begun. And so on. This summer, The Atlantic’s Hanna Rosin went so far as to declare that “The End of Men” is upon us.

There’s certainly some substance to these claims. As the U.S. economy has transitioned from brawn to brain over the past three decades, a growing number of women have gone off to work. Men’s share of the labor force has declined from 70 percent in 1945 to less than 50 percent today, and in the country’s biggest cities, young, single, childless women—that is, the next generation—earn 8 percent more than their male peers. Women have matched or overtaken men as a percentage of students in college and graduate school, while men have retained their lead in alcoholism, suicide, homelessness, violence, and criminality. Factor in the Great Recession, which has decimated male-heavy industries like construction and manufacturing, and it’s no wonder so many deadline anthropologists are down on men. But while the state of American manhood has inspired plenty of anxious trend pieces, few observers have bothered to address the obvious question: if men are going off the rails, how do they get back on track?

Man Up!

• Why We Need to Reimagine Masculinity
• Ad Men: The Most Interesting Trend in the World
• Manhood USA: A Timeline of Male Ideals
• Why the New Macho is Good for Women

Without an answer, some men have turned to old models and mores of manhood for salvation. Rutgers University anthropologist Lionel Tiger, for example, wants to reclaim “maleness as a force, as a phenomenon.” Harvard government professor Harvey Mansfield advocates action and aggression. And the term “retrosexual” has all but replaced “metrosexual” in the lifestyle sections of national magazines, which are full of stories about affluent urbanites wearing hunting garb, buying designer axes, and writing about the art of manliness on blogs with names like (ahem) the Art of Manliness. Throwback masculinity dominates other media as well, with The Dangerous Book for Boys (a work of dad-and-lad shtick) and Shop Class as Soulcraft (a cri de coeur for manual labor) topping reading lists, and television shows such as Dirty Jobs, Ax Men, and Deadliest Catch re-romanticizing soot-collared work. A rapper’s saggy jeans, a hunter’s concealed weapon, a suburbanite’s man cave, a hipster’s obsession with Don Draper: all might be seen as variations of the same coping mechanism. The impulse transcends race and class.

But suggesting that men should stick to some musty script of masculinity only perpetuates the problem. For starters, it encourages them to confront new challenges the same way they dealt with earlier upheavals: by blaming women, retreating into the woods, or burying their anxieties beneath machismo. And it does nothing to help them succeed in school, secure sustainable jobs, or be better fathers in an economy that’s rapidly outgrowing Marlboro Manliness.

The truth is, it’s not how men style themselves that will make them whole again—it’s what they do with their days. The riggers, welders, and boilermakers of generations past weren’t wearing overalls to feel like men, as Susan Faludi, the author of books on both sexes, has pointed out. Instead, “their sense of their own manhood flowed out of their utility in a society, not the other way around,” she writes. “Conceiving of masculinity as something to be”—a part to play—“turns manliness into [something] ornamental, and about as ‘masculine’ as fake eyelashes are inherently ‘feminine.’?”

Since the 1950s, the image of the American woman has gone through numerous makeovers. But masculine expectations remain the same—even as there are fewer opportunities to fulfill them. As a result, says Joan C. Williams, author of Reshaping the Work-Family Debate: Why Men and Class Matter, “men have a choice: either feel inadequate or get a lot more creative.” What’s required, then, is not a reconnection with the past but a liberation from it; not a revival of the old role but an expansion of it. The End of Men isn’t nigh, nor is macho dead. But its definition should be broadened to include both Mr. T and Mr. Mom. It’s time, in other words, for a New Macho: a reimagining of what men should be expected to do in the two realms, home and work, that have always determined their worth.

Of course, that’s easier said than done. American culture is competitive and conservative, and there are good reasons why inner-city fathers, hedge-fund honchos, and former GM plant managers aren’t taking several months off from work to care for their kids—or exploring new fields, like nursing, where few of today’s men dare to tread. Most guys, in fact, don’t even need rescuing—at least not yet. They’re still overrepresented in business and government, earn more on the dollar, open bigger movies, and clean fewer dishes.

But the gender wars aren’t a zero-sum game: when men lose, women and children lose, too. So as women assume positions once occupied exclusively by men, and the more “manly” sectors of the U.S. economy continue to shrink, a more capacious notion of manhood—the product of both new policies and new attitudes—is no longer a luxury. In fact, it may be exactly what’s needed to keep the American male, and America itself, competitive in the 21st century.

The home is a natural place to start. As the novelist Michael Chabon discovered on a trip to the grocery store with his son, society still expects very little from fathers. “You are such a good dad,” a woman told him as he waited in line to pay. “I can tell.” Exactly what she could tell was a mystery to Chabon, who recounts the story in his 2009 essay collection Manhood for Amateurs. But clearly no woman would earn kudos for toting her kids around the frozen-foods aisle. “The handy thing about being a father,” he later concludes, “is that the historic standard is so pitifully low.”

The modern standards aren’t much better. Despite apparent progress—young couples believe in coparenting and sharing the household chores—very little has actually changed. The average wife still does roughly double the housework of the average husband: the equivalent of two full workdays of additional chores each week. Even when the man is unemployed, the woman handles a majority of the domestic workload, and it’s the same story with child care. If both parents are working, women spend 400 percent more time with the kids. Meanwhile, the number of fatherless kids in America has nearly tripled since 1960, and the percentage of men who call themselves stay-at-home dads has stalled below 3 percent. The old roles, say sociologists, are hard to shake.

There’s growing evidence, however, that they can be expanded. Consider contemporary family life in Sweden. In the past, new parents split 390 days of paid leave however they liked—monthly, weekly, daily, and even hourly. Women used far more of it than men. But today, new fathers no longer rush back to work, leaving the mother to raise little Sven all by herself. The reason for the change? Smart public policy.

In 1995, Sweden passed a simple but revolutionary law: couples would lose one month of leave unless the father was the one who took it. A second use-it-or-lose-it month was added in 2002, and now more than 80 percent of Swedish fathers take four months off for the birth of a new child, up from 4 percent a decade ago. And a full 41 percent of companies now formally encourage fathers to go on parental leave, up from only 2 percent in 1993. Simply put, men are expected to work less and father more.

By altering the roles of the Swedish father and the Swedish worker, Sweden’s paternity-leave legislation has, in turn, rewritten the rules for Swedish men (and, by extension, women). “Swedish dads of my generation and younger have been raised to feel competent at child-rearing,” writes Slate’s Nathan Hegedus, an American who experienced the system firsthand. “They simply expect to do it, just as their wives and partners expect it of them.” If a man refuses time at home with the kids, he faces questions from friends, family, and, yes, other guys. Policy changes produced personal changes—and then, slowly but surely, society changed as well.

Around the world, similar shifts are already underway. In Germany, the percentage of new fathers who take a break has jumped sevenfold since the country passed its own Swedish-style law in 2007. In Japan, which recently offered dads more paid baby time, the government honors dedicated fathers by spotlighting “stars of ikumen,” or male child rearing. And with the passage of paid-leave laws in Britain (where Prime Minister David Cameron took several weeks off to care for his infant daughter) and Australia (which is hardly a dandified nation), the U.S. is now the only wealthy country that doesn’t bankroll a bonding period for either parent.

This could change sooner than you think. Recent polls show that majorities of Republicans (62 percent), Democrats (92 percent), and independents (71 percent) now support the idea of paid paternity leave.

Read the whole article.

Tags: men, masculinity, change, culture, work, family, Men's Lib, Newsweek, girly jobs, dirty diapers, employment, gender roles, patriarchy, child care, parenting, alcoholism, suicide, homelessness, violence, criminality

Thoughts Toward a Developmental Model of Masculine Identity, Part Nine: Multiplicity & Fluidity in Masculine Identity Development

This is part nine in an on-going explanation and exploration of masculine identity development.

[Part one looked at some racial identity models as a foundation for how to construct a gender identity model, part two looked at the existing literature of male development (and the lack of anything comprehensive), and part three looked at how attachment styles might impact masculine identity. Part four looked at horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism. Part five looked at development and nature. Part Six looks at modern, postmodern, and integral versions of masculinity. Part Seven looked at why it is so challenging to transcend the existing traditionalist masculine stereotype. Part eight introduced my preliminary multiplicity model.]

I begin this piece with the work of Chris Blazina, whose new book, edited along with David Shen-Miller, An International Psychology of Men: Theoretical Advances, Case Studies, and Clinical Innovations (The Routledge Series on Counseling and Psychotherapy with Boys and Men), features Blazina's essay, "Multiplicity and the Masculine Self." This is an excellent look at the nature and origin of masculine multiplicity.

There was one brief citation that set me off on a search for more information, as the next pieces of this idea began to come together in my head.

Szymanski and Carr (2008) found empirical support for the notion that a man's masculine self is a separate but related construct in his overall identity; furthermore, they found that overly restricted gender roles lead to psychic fragility. (Blazina, p. 105)

A little digging turned up the original article he was citing here, "The Roles of Gender Role Conflict and Internalized Heterosexism in Gay and Bisexual Men’s Psychological Distress: Testing Two Mediation Models," published in Psychology of Men & Masculinity (Vol. 9, No. 1, 40–54). Their article looks at, in part, the impact of internalizing the traditional male gender role (including heterosexism and sexism), as this quote shows:

Given conceptualizations of sexism and heterosexism as central constructs within traditional masculine gender role ideology (Kilianski, 2003; O’Neil et al., 1986), it seems likely that sexual minority men’s experiences of gender role conflict can lead to IH [internalized heterosexism] or negative feelings and attitudes about being a gay or bisexual man. Homosexuality and bisexuality violate the gender role norms of traditional masculinity, in part, because male homosexuality is often erroneously equated with femininity (O’Neil, 1981). Boys and men are often shamed, ridiculed, and called derogatory names referring to gay men if they express signs of personal vulnerability or deviate from these masculine gender role norms (Good, Thomson, & Brathwaite, 2005). Thus, sexual minority men as well as their heterosexual counterparts receive strong messages that it is not okay to be gay/bisexual and that being gay or bisexual means you are “not a real man.” (Szymanski & Carr, 2008, p. 41)

Some of these same issues apply to heterosexual and/or bisexual men who step outside the accepted socialized male gender role. Whether we are hetero-, bi-, or homosexual, to step outside of the traditional role is to transgress acceptable modes of being.

The support of this research citation is slightly circular, in that Blazina cites it to support his thesis, which they have cited to support a small part of their own findings:

The findings of our study also suggest that internalizing restrictive messages about manhood and negative messages about being gay/bisexual are likely to diminish one’s self-esteem. This provides empirical support for Blazina’s (2001) assertions that a man’s masculine self is separate but related to his overall sense of self, and that traditional gender role socialization leaves men with a sense of psychic fragileness due to the prescription of overly restricted gender roles and emotional disconnection. (p. 50)

OK, so I went back to Blazina's 2001 article, "Analytic psychology and gender role conflict: The development of the fragile masculine self" (Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training; 38, 50–59), to get to the source (seriously, this is only the beginning of my search).

Here is the main point of Blazina's article from 2001, which gets explored and expanded in his contribution to An International Psychology of Men:

In this model, the concept of the masculine self is explored. It is suggested that a man's masculine self is separate but related to his overall sense of self. The masculine self, just as the overall sense of self, is built upon developmental experiences such as emotional attunement that facilitate its growth. This model draws heavily upon analytic psychology, especially self-psychology as a model, in that young men can develop a cohesive sense of masculine self through self-object experiences that include merging with an idealized other, being mirrored by a significant other, and developing a sense of twinship. It is also suggested that just as the overall self can be fragmented through lack of good self-object experiences, so can the masculine self experience fragmentation in the same way. (p. 50)

In his new essay from the book, Blazina gives a detailed account of how the Self-Other-Masculinity-Schema (SOMS) get internalized (based on the idea of internalized objects from Object Relations and Self Psychology). He offers the following definition:

This model stresses how individuals internalize important experiences/people and then apply them to issues of masculinity. These exchanges result in the development of SOMS which: (1) are defined as intrapsychic structures developed from the self-other images; (2) consist of emotions and cognitions; and (3) form a template that has the potential for guiding behavior. (Blazina, 2010, p. 106)

After laying out some of the evidence for this perspective, he then demonstrates how the SOMS are enacted from the perspective of the self-image, which is separate from but related to masculine gender identity. Although I am in general agreement, I might revise the general mechanisms slightly in light of my own bias toward the various parts theories - ego states (Watkins & Watkins), subpersonalities (Stone & Stone), Internal Family Systems (Schwartz), or Dialogic Self Theory (Hermans).

In the primary parts models mentioned, when the self-system is vulnerable or threatened, a specific response is generated (pleasing, aggression, hiding, perfectionism, and so on, depending on the person and the situation), and when this response is re-enforced by repeated activation, it begins to act autonomously to prevent similar situations from arising again. At this point, the response becomes a part of subpersonality – or maybe a schema in some models – and get activated by the recurrence of the interpersonal or environmental trigger they were created to defend.

Likewise, the SOMS are an adaptation to environmental and interpersonal experiences - and like those other parts, the SOMS remain largely unconscious until triggered by interpersonal and/or environmental events.

The internalized aspects of masculine schema can be experienced in a way akin to Fairbairn's (1952) notion of internalized objects. SOMS, when activated, can bring old struggles back to life.

Further . . .

Reactivation of internalized masculine schema can occur in three ways: (1) activating SOMS from the perspective of the self-image; (2) activating SOMS from the perspective of the other-image; and (3) self-care from the perspective of either the self- or other-image. (p. 108)

Again, while being in general agreement, I would specifically say that the SOMS (there are multiple SOMS) are each associated with a more general experience in which we internalized rules around how to be masculine. These may have come from our fathers (most of them), from teachers and coaches, and from peers and/or their older brothers, as well as from media (TV, film, and so on).

Any similar experience in our lives adds weight and proximity (bringing it closer to the proximate sense of self) to the SOMS and increases the likelihood of our acting from the perspective.

For example, my father never showed an emotion other than anger (and the occasional laughter/happiness). He never cried. When I was very young, I fell down or something, and I remember my mother telling me, "Big boys don't cry," while I was all of three or four years old. Later, my peers repeated similar values, as did coaches, and so on. I'm sure this experience is familiar to many men of my generation or older. This is a SOMS, one in which I internalized the object of my father, my mother’s words, my coaches, and my friends.

In Jungian terminology, this SOMS is a complex of sorts, but it is also a "part" who tries (tried) to protect the integrity of the self in general, and my nascent masculine self in particular, by managing my emotions. In the Internal Family Systems model, this SOMS would be known as a manager, and all of the tears that were never expressed, all of the pain, sadness, or whatever other emotion that was never released, comprises an exiled self-part. Until the exile is unburdened, the manager will never give up its role of protecting that vulnerable part.

Multiplicity of the Situated Masculine Self

In a section of his paper called "The Many Masculine Me's" (p. 113-116), Blazina introduces the idea of multiplicity that I have already touch upon above. The number of SOMS internalized over a lifetime is staggering. Many gender theorists have recognized the multiplicity of masculinities at the cultural level, but we also must recognize their multiplicity within each man.

The psychological task is to sort through these multiple internalizations potentially resolving conflicts that may exist and honing them to serve his sense of relating to himself and others in a healthy way. Recently, those within the psychodynamic community, cognitive-developmentalists, and postmodernists have also taken more notice of the self and its multidimensional nature (Harter, 2001). We build upon these notions as it applies to the masculine self. (Blazina, 2010, p. 114)

Blazina goes on to give a summary of the (mostly) psychoanalytically based thinking on multiplicity of the self. It's a good summary, but I would also suggest looking into Schwartz (1995), Hermans, et al (1992), Georgaca (2001), and Stemplewska-Żakowicz, Walecka, and Gabińska (2006) for starters. The postmoderns, in whichever model they use, tend to have a better sense of multiplicity than some of the older theories trying to expand their understanding to include multiplicity.

In this vein, I highly recommend Kenneth Gergen's Relational Being: Beyond Self and Community (2009, Oxford University Press) - "The word "I" does not index an origin of action, but a relational achievement" (p. 133). To be fair, Gergen sometimes is a bit strident in his anti-individualism, more than I am comfortable with – it's not either/or, it's both/and – but he is swimming upstream against a tremendous bias favoring individualist explanations.

And this brings me to one of my primary arguments, one that is only expressed indirectly in Blazina's essay - we are multiple selves, and those selves are situational and embodied. I want to rely here on Ciaran Benson's Cultural Psychology of the Self (Routledge, 2001), in which he offers this definition:

In a sentence, cultural psychology examines how people, working together, using a vast range of tools, both physical and symbolic – tools which have been developed over time and which carry with them the intelligence that solved specific problems – make meaningful the world they find, make meaningful worlds and, in the course of doing all these things, construct themselves as types of person and self who inhabit these worlds. (p. 11)

After reading his book, and then going to some of his sources (Jerome Bruner, Rom Harre, George Lackoff, Antonio Damasio, William James, and many others), my own definition of the self, and of consciousness in general, is as follows: a body-mind embedded in temporal space, interpersonal space, cultural context, and physical environment.

[A note on the term "body-mind" is useful here: In my view, the "mind" is the brain and the rest of the body in multi-directional communication, including the central nervous system (brain and spinal cord), the peripheral nervous system, and the enteric nervous system (which is actually part of the peripheral nervous system, but deserves its own recognition).]

A recent article by May & Lieberman (2010) shows a more direct relationship between genetics and culture – suggesting that elements such as collectivism are related to genetic elements. Likewise, Sherman & Billing (1999) have shown that cultural preferences in taste (such as liking spices or consuming cow’s milk) are shaped by evolution and selection.

According to Gergen (2009) . . .

virtually all intelligible action is born, sustained, and/or extinguished within the ongoing process of relationship. From this standpoint there is no isolated self or fully private experience. Rather, we exist in a world of co-constitution. We are always already emerging from relationship; we cannot step out of relationship; even in our most private moments we are never alone.

This is the basic premise of social constructionism - and while it is certainly true that the self is at least in part socially constructed, it is even more true that gender roles are socialized and socially constructed.

In an older article, "Toward a Cultural Constructionist Psychology," Gergen (1997), along with Mary M. Gergen, proposed what they called cultural constructionist psychology, with the following foundations:

There is no one "theory of social construction," nor a set of prescribed "constructionist practices." However, while undergoing continuous debate, we can isolate a family of suppositions that has been uniquely generative in implication, and generally accepted by those calling themselves constructionists. These generative suppositions would include the following....

Following this statement, they provide the following guidelines, elaborating on each of these in at least a full paragraph:

• There are no transcendentally privileged accounts of what we take to exist.
• Whatever account we give of world or self finds its origins within relationships.
• Language primarily functions as social action, constitutive of one or more traditions.
• Discursively constituted traditions are both essential and perilous.
• Through communicative relations we can generate new orders of meaning from which new forms of action can emerge.

Finally, Gergen & Gergen make the following qualifications:

Constructionism, in our view, does not attempt to establish the last word, a position beyond which dialogue is impossible. Rather, for us constructionism functions as an invitation to possibilities, to exploration, to creation, and possibly to material conditions in which there is greater tolerance, and the coordination of peoples toward what they may see as a more humane and life sustaining world.

The social constructionist model encourages a reflexive posture - allowing us to take a perspective on our perspectives - a metatheoretical model.

Benson (2001) makes the following statement regarding the cultural foundations of a postmodern self:

The post-linguistic autobiographical self requires a framework based on the idea of negotiated meaning-making within a context of pre-existing meanings. In short, it invites a cultural psychological approach. (p. 18)

This is a still-emerging perspective in contemporary psychology, and there are many people who still reject or who cannot comprehend this perspective. Anything that remotely sounds like cultural relativism or postmodernism is rejected out of hand by some people, and even some psychologists.

However, social constructionism and its associate therapies, such as dialogical self therapy and narrative therapy to name just two, are gaining adherents and are becoming the subjects of more research.

For the purposes of a model of masculine identity development, it is necessary that we account for stages that exceed the current center of gravity of the culture at large. For that reason, and many others, I have embraced this model in my work on multiple masculinities as a factor of development.

A Detour into Developmental Theory

So far what has been presented is a multiplicity model of masculine identity as seen from a social constructionist perspective - i.e., we each contain many masculine selves that have been created as a result of our interpersonal and cultural experiences. For the majority of people, these selves and their perspectives (their unique way of viewing the world) remain mostly or completely unconscious.

According to Robert Kegan, perhaps the leading theorist in adult development, there are five basic orders of consciousness. Kegan's model is a constructive-developmental subject/object approach based in the work of Piaget, but making it more interactive than a strict structural model. Of primary importance is the subject/object split - this is the source of all personal transformation.

Self as subject is the 'I' of awareness, our proximate sense of self, an invisible entity with which our subjectivity is fused. Self as object is the 'me' of awareness, the distal sense of self, that which we can describe as an object of awareness (which generally puts it slightly behind the proximate self in its development). According to Kegan: "We have object; we are subject" (1994, p.32).

Self-transformation occurs when the subjective self becomes an object of awareness, necessitating the emergence of a new subjective self. These transformations, once we enter adulthood, are pretty rare (although they seem to be happening more as people engage in transformational practices), and they can be very disorienting.

The internal experience of developmental change can be distressing. Because it involves the loss of how I am composed, it can also be accompanied by a loss of composure. This is so because in surrendering the balance between self and other through which I have "known" the world, I may experiences this as a loss of myself, my fundamental relatedness to the world, and meaning itself. (Kegan, 1980, p. 374)

So, then, what are the five orders of consciousness? The following summaries lay out the basics of the stages (these are based on the summaries of Terry Patten and Karen Eriksen).

Kegan's First Order - This early stage in our lives is composed of perceptions and movement, very basic, non-reflective experience. This is prior to theory-of-mind (the awareness that others have an interior experience similar to one's own experience).

Kegan’s Second Order - The emergence of "durable categories" in the physical and social worlds, and more importantly, the theory of mind: The individual becomes aware its own experiences and can infer the experiences of others. The individual is able to organize experiences over time and maintain coherence. The person develops a "perspective" or point of view, understanding for the first time that not everyone sees the world as s/he does. They become aware of how others see them, and can also begin to develop empathy with some direction.

Those first stages are largely childhood stages. The next three are adult developmental stages, although only a tiny percentage are at 4, and even fewer are at 5. Most of us exist in the transition between 2/3, in 3, in the transition between 3/4, or in 4 - some are in 4/5 and less than 1% (and maybe only 1/10th of 1% or less) are in 5.

Kegan's Third Order - (Traditionalism) People at this stage can identify drives, emotions, and internal conflict. They possess insight and prioritize values and beliefs. They are capable of empathy and can sometimes put aside their own perspective to maintain a relationship. They no longer operate on impulse (although a "part" might) and can plan for the future.

On the other hand, relationships at this stage are not true intimacy, the sharing of two unique selves with openness - they are more inclined toward emotional fusion, a reliance on "twinship" that rejects or avoids differences (see David Schnarch's The Passionate Marriage).

The Third Order is sometimes referred to by Kegan as the socialized mind. In this sense, people will do things because it's the "right thing to do" even if it's not in their self-interest to do so. This is also known as the traditionalist stage because it's important to those operating in this space to maintain the way things have always been done, and to be critical of, or to downright reject change. The tendency is to adopt values and ideals from one's family without examining them as a good fit, or even as ethical.

As people move from 3 into 4 (3/4), Kegan describes the difference as similar to moving from driving an automatic to driving a stick-shift. We can say nothing about who is the better driver, but we can say that the stick-shift is a higher degree of complexity, and the drivers of stick-shifts can exert greater control over their vehicle.

Kegan's Fourth Order - (Modernism) This is also known as the Self Authorship stage, in which understanding of systems, greater autonomy, and "self-authorship" become options in people's lives. People begin to manipulate their multiple roles (parts) and the expectations that friends, family, and others hold for them. They generate their own frameworks for maintaining and organizing relationships. While a person at Third Order might struggle with being a good provider and being a good husband/father, a Fourth Order person might will seek the balance between work and family.

At this stage, people are less bound by their environment and less willing to accept values and beliefs without examining them. This is where the self-authorship idea comes from - we have more choices in our lives because we take more things/experiences/ideas as objects of awareness rather than being their subject.

Where Third Order has self-awareness and self-consciousness, Fourth Order has self-regulation, self-formation identity, autonomy, and individuation. With this comes multiple role consciousness.

Kegan's Fifth Order - (Postmodern/Integral) At this highest stage, people become the directors and creators of systems, they can think in terms of meta-system and see how systems fit together to form meaning - they become Self-Transcending. According to Kegan, a very small percentage of people reach this stage, and only in mid-life or later.

According to Terry Patten:

At the Fourth Order, a person can take a perspective on externally imposed values and expectations but cannot see how his own personal system for mediating among these is limited by historical, cultural, psychological, personal, and other forces. Such a perspective on the constructed nature of one’s meaning-making system is gained at the Fifth Order. Conceptual frameworks in this view embrace contradiction and paradox. Social relationships are characterized by an integration of self and other—that is, “any aspect of what I used to see as ‘my’ identity is in part defined by the contrast and relationship with what I used to see as ‘yours.’” (p. 6)

Internal deliberations become dialectical, and there is comfort with paradox, contradiction, and oppositeness both in oneself and in interpersonal and inter-institutional experience. Awareness is post-ideological, and what Ken Wilber might call post-metaphysical.

Most importantly, self and other are no longer experienced as binary, but are now experienced as interpenetrating, a kind of yin/yang image comes to mind for me.

Relating All of this to Male Identity

In part two of this series, I offered two existing models of masculine development, one specific to men and one more general in nature. What follows is that part of the previous post, for use as reference in terms of what I want to present here.

David A. Scott and Tracy L. Robinson offer a more complex model - The Key Model - based on racial identity models: "White Male Identity Development: The Key Model" (2001).

Type I : Noncontact - Status quo; denies racism; seeks power and privilege
Type II: Claustrophobic - Other races are “closing in” on him; disillusionment with the American dream; feels power and privilege are going to other races
Type III: Conscious Identity - Dissonance between existing belief system and reality
Type IV: Empirical - Questioning their role in racism and oppression and their struggle for unrealistic power from oppression
Type V: Optimal - Person understands how his struggle for power and privilege has caused racism and oppression Component Description (Scott & Robinson, 2001, p. 418)

There is much to like in this model - but it is limited to white, and as such, it focuses on race as an element of identity in a way that a more comprehensive model of masculinity would not. On the other hand, it follows in the tradition of the various racial development models, and it does so from the position of the dominant population (in terms of power and status), white males.

A more general model (Social Identity Development Theory, 1992) proposed by Rita Hardiman and Bailey W. Jackson, is based on the race models I mentioned in part one. What follows is my summary of their model.

It's important to note that agents are generally white, male, Christian, heterosexual, abled, middle class, and middle age; while targets are non-white, female, atheist or non-Christian, GLBT, disabled, poor and working class, and/or young or aged.

1. Naive/No social consciousness: Both agents and targets are essentially unconscious of their social role or status. They are egocentric, oblivious to others' needs or concerns. In the transition from naive to Acceptance, they become aware of differences between themselves and others. They discover that they are an agent or a target. Belief systems about one's in-group and various out-groups begin to develop.

2. Acceptance (passive and active): Internalization, either consciously or unconsciously, of the dominant culture's logic and values systems. Acceptance of cultural messages about agents and targets. Agents in passive acceptance have successfully internalized beliefs and behaviors and no longer require reinforcement. Agents in active acceptance still require direct instruction on why out-groups (targets) are inferior. Agents in the acceptance stage generally are not aware of their status as agents, and tend to believe, "This is just how things are done." Targets in passive acceptance are not aware that they have internalized the beliefs of the dominant culture about their supposed inferiority. There may be self-hate, and there may also be cognitive dissonance as their unconscious beliefs bump up against more positive messages from within their own in-group. Targets in active acceptance are more overt in their acceptance of derogatory images of their group. As an example, many black people oppose affirmative action or social programs because they believe people of color are unsuccessful due to their own laziness and pathology. Those leaving this stage have been exposed to the harm and damage these beliefs can produce for the target groups.

3. Resistance (passive and active): At this stage there is increased awareness of oppression and the harm it causes to both agents and targets. Agents in this stage begin to see their own group as oppressive and their worldview begins to shift. They will often begin to examine their own role in perpetuating the oppression. There is may be anger at this stage, and some will see themselves as an outsider in relation to their own previous in-group(s). Targets have begun to question the previously accepted truths about their group, and they begin to identify the oppressive premises that are part of the social fabric. As a result of anger, pain, hurt, and rage, they may develop an identity based on opposition to the agent group. In doing so, targets begin to regain some lost power. Both agents and targets can express these roles as active (requiring direction and education) or passive (internalized and unconscious).

4. Redefinition: The goal of this stage is to create an identity that is free from the hierarchical inferiority and superiority dynamic. Agents/men who create groups to examine their socialization and critically explore the definitions of masculinity they had previously accepted, seeking a more affirming model that is not based in oppression, are representative of this stage. Agents in this stage begin to develop pride in their identity and an acceptance of all groups as intrinsically valuable. Embracing diversity and relativism are essential. Targets focus more on their group and in defining it without the input of the agent group. Targets at this stage may prefer to avoid the agent group and spend time with their own in-group, mostly as a way to affirm their identity in positive ways. Support groups are one important tool, as is renaming to reframe the group identity. One example of renaming/reframing is to redefine being "disabled" as being "differently abled."

5. Internalization: At this point the task is to incorporate the progress made in the Redefinition stage into every facet of their lives. This is a context dependent stage (or fluid) in some ways, in that targets in particular may revisit earlier stages (especially redefinition) in some situations that are new or unfamiliar. Agents at this stage are aware of the past problems and want to create a better future, while simultaneously trying to integrate this new awareness into other areas of their lives. The new beliefs and behaviors are expressed spontaneously. Targets at this stage engage in a process of renegotiating social roles and contracts with others, asserting their new-found pride and identity outside of the safety of the in-group. Previously identified targets may now express sympathy with and for other targeted groups and work to help them begin their own process of identity formation. However, targets who are members or more than one group (ex: a Muslim, black lesbian) will still have work to do in other areas most times. (adapted from Hardiman & Jackson, 1997, p. 23-29)

This model comes closest to what I want to propose. In fact, Dr. Raúl Quiñones-Rosado has already used this model to deconstruct Warren Farrell's version of masculinity (as presented in a talk with Ken Wilber and, separately, with Corey W. deVos at Integral Life) in his recent article, A Developmental View of “Men’s Liberation” (February 27, 2010).

Quiñones-Rosado addresses Farrell's main agenda, which is to show how men have been victimized both by the messages about masculinity with which they have been raised and by the feminist movement and its efforts in the “Resistance” and “Redefinition” stages from above. He rightly suggests that Farrell is mining the Resistance stage for men - although Farrell also seems to be arguing for men to enter the Redefinition stage (although with a very resistant tone).

I am grateful to these authors for their pioneering work in this realm (and also to Michael J. Diamond for his work on masculinity from a psychoanalytic perspective).

What I am about to present is a model I sketched out on a piece of scratch paper during a break at work, but the ideas have been percolating for several months now. I doubt that this will be the final version, so please consider this an in-process working model.

Let's begin with a few definitions for those who are not versed in the terminology of gender studies.

Sex: This is the basic biological sexual identity at birth, male, female, or intersex (many possible variations). This is not a binary in terms of how it is experienced, while it may look that way from the outside.

Gender: Often used interchangeably with "sex," this term is more often, and correctly, associated with social constructions of sexual identity. Often generalized into "gender roles," although gender studies folks tend to make the distinction.

Gender Role: These are socio-cultural constructs referring to a set of psycho-social and behavioral norms considered appropriate for a given gender. My contention is that an individual often assumes a variety of gender roles that are situationally determined - a form of multiplicity.

Gender Identity: A person's relative sense of his or her own masculine or feminine identity, was first used in 1965 by John Money (Money, 1965). Also, "a person's Gender identity is the combination of one's outer sex, as represented by one's genitalia, and one's inner sex, i.e. the inner sense of being a male or a female" (Wikipedia). This is a psycho-social experience that may have little to do with one's biological sex.

Core Gender Identity: Robert Stoller (1968), a psychoanalytic theorist, wanted to distinguish differences between the psychological and biological dimensions of sex. He generated three qualities of one's core gender identity: "1) Biological and hormonal influences; 2) Sex assignment at birth; 3) Environmental and psychological influences with effects similar to imprinting" (Gelber, 2010). Essentially, the innermost experience of oneself as a male (or female), and this can be at odds with both biological sex, and outer sexual identity.

Clearly, this can be a confusing field for new-comers, and even among those who work in this field there can be significant disagreement about definitions.

So, with that foundation, here is my preliminary stage model of masculine development.

I want to be clear here, many men never consciously look at their gender identity in any serious way. They are biological men, and that is enough. Furthermore, some men will move a step or two, or more, along the development ladder, but can stop at any point, regress a stage or two, or progress a stage or two at any time. The cultural and psychological conditions of a man's life will dictate if or when this happens. Even more confusingly, each man will generally have different masculine selves for different situations, and those various selves can be at different stages of bio-psych-cultural development.

The rise of feminism and gay studies propelled the first exploration of masculinity studies. Now, thirty or forty years later, the same process is happening in a different way - women, the GLBT community, and cultural "others" are all working on understanding their identities separate from "hegemonic" masculinity - defining themselves rather than being defined by white, male, middle class, middle aged holders of power.

Finally, how these stages manifest will be different in an individualist society vs. a communal society (see part four). The (a) stages are temporary or permanent "dead ends," the system is closed at that point and unless new information or experience creates dissonance, the stage remains somewhat stable. The (b) stages are open systems, willing to accept new experience and/or information, and these men are still evolving as human beings.

No stage is static, of course, and men may regress or progress as situations change, although this is much less true of the (a) stages.

Stage 1: Pre-conscious or Non-differentiated. At this point there is no real awareness of one's gender roles or identity as an object of consciousness. It's fair to say one is embedded in their biological sex identity.

Stage 2: Sex Identity Awareness. "I am male, therefore I am a man." There is no consciousness of gender roles separate from sexual identity. Identity is boy vs. girl, man vs. woman, male vs. female. Because masculine identity is binary at this stage (which is seen as "normal"), bisexuality, homosexuality, or transgendered are often seen as other, as "abnormal." While these people are "seen," in a very limited way, their enactment of masculinity is not seen as part of a set of options. Feminism - radical or otherwise - is "evil" to men at this stage because it undermines "traditional family values."

This stage can be an end point for many people, especially those who endorse fundamentalist religion and/or come from rural homogenous communities. This stage is represented in Kegan’s 2^nd Order Consciousness, and many people (roughly 1/8 to 1/3, according to Patton) continue to make meaning from this perspective.

Stage 3: Primary Exposure. For the first time there is a conscious recognition that some men enact their masculinity in ways different than I do. Exposure comes from family members, community, culture, and media, to name a few sources. While the person may not embrace these roles, they are seen for the first time as different ways that men are in the world, and that the variations among male expression of "transgressive" masculinity does not make them “other” or “evil” as it might in the previous stage.

Stage 4a: Entrenchment. Primary exposure may challenge the person enough that he becomes entrenched in his biological sex role. This person is essentially a "closed system," and he is not open to accepting alternative ways of being masculine. This is a transitional space between 2^nd Order and 3^rd Order Consciousness – the person may not hate all “gays,” but he also has no desire to befriend a gay man.

OR . . . following secondary exposure . . .

Stage 4b: Differentiation. On the other hand, this person is an open system, willing to allow that there is more than one way to be masculine. The person begins to think about what it is that constitutes masculinity or being a man, not from a simple biological level, but in terms of values and behaviors. A person at this stage may also come out as gay or bisexual. This is the 3^rd Order Consciousness and Kegan’s model. There is some understand that being gay, which often results in being beat up, denied jobs, and so on, is not a “lifestyle choice” and is, in fact, biologically determined.

Stage 5a: Conscious Traditional Masculinity. A man at this point accepts the dominant hegemonic masculine model as his gender identity. However, he accepts that others do it differently than he does - different but equal. Some men at this stage will see feminism as either harmful to women or destructive to men. Different cultures will embrace their own unique definition of what traditional masculinity looks like to them.

At this stage a man is pretty comfortable with 3^rd Order Consciousness and has no real desire to be anything other than what he is, and most liberal, educated American men are near this position.

OR . . . following further exposure . . .

Stage 5b: Gender Styles: "I am a man, but I can be masculine, feminine, androgynous, or something else." Men at this stage can try out different styles until they find the one that fits for them. They may begin to read about masculinities, accepting that there are many ways to enact masculinity. Men at this stage may see feminist studies and/or queer studies as tools toward exploring their own identity.

For the first time, we see men entering the realm of Self-authoring, as Kegan termed it, the ability to make some choices about who we are as human beings and how we want to identify ourselves or shape our experiences. This is 4^th Order Consciousness, either fully of in part (transitioning in).

Stage 6a: Adopted Gender Role: "I am . . . androgynous, a manly man, a metrosexual, a gay man, a feminine man, and on and on." There are many options, but the individual finds one role that feels comfortable internally and in social enactment. Any cognitive dissonance that existed previously has been resolved. There tends to be no further development at this stage, barring a change in life conditions.

More than likely, this person is in the 3^rd/4^th transition of Kegan’s model – they felt the freedom to explore identities, but feel more comfortable in adopting a single perspective/experiences and calling that self an “I.”

OR . . . following further exposure to other perspectives . . .

Stage 6b: Pluralism. Recognition and acceptance of masculinities, that there are many ways to be masculine and that I can embody more than one style of masculinity. There may in fact be an understanding that each person contains various subpersonalities, each of which will enact a unique form of masculinity, or even be feminine or female. It is accepted that this is true in other men, and is also true in women.

A man at this stage is pretty well centered in 4^th Order Consciousness and may even be moving toward 5^th Order Consciousness. There is no personal need to adopt a single form of masculine identity, but he has not yet reached that integrated, self-transforming model that Kegan offers as 5^th Order Consciousness. This may look or feel like having a whole selection of masks from which to choose, depending on the interpersonal and cultural situation.

Stage 7: Fluidity. "I have different parts/selves/roles and each one may manifest sex/gender role/gender identity in different ways at different times and in different situations. A person at this stage accepts his multiplicity and does not cling to any one manner of being in the world.

This is the 5^th Order Consciousness – self-transformative. According to Patten, the 5^th Order is “where they come to see the Fourth Order’s personally created ideologies themselves as constructed objects from a ‘dialectical’ or ‘self-transformational’ perspective.” This stage is representative, in part, of Gergen’s relational self, not simply as a process of self-formulation, but as an awareness that you and I are constructed of relationship, with all the paradox and contradiction that may entail.

As far as we can tell, no one has yet reached this stage of consciousness and very few people even exhibit aspects of it, so we have a ways to go. Most men are at the stage of traditional masculinity, and some evolving men are at the stage of 5/6 transition in my model.

In a future post, I will try to include Jane Loevinger’s stage model, as well as the expansion of it created by Susanne Cook-Greuter.

I am very open to comments and criticisms - so drop me a note if you have any thoughts.


References:
Benson, C. (2001). The cultural psychology of the self: Place, morality, and art in human worlds. New York: Routledge.

Blazina, C. (2001). Analytic psychology and gender role conflict: The development of the fragile masculine self. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training; 38, 50–59.

Blazina, C. (2010). Multiplicity and the masculine self. In An International Psychology of Men: Theoretical Advances, Case Studies, and Clinical Innovations (Blazina & Shen-Miller, eds). New York: Routledge.

Diamond, M. J. (2006)Masculinity unraveled: the roots of male gender identity and the shifting of male ego ideals throughout life J Am Psychoanal Assoc. 2006 Fall;54(4):1131-8.

Eriksen, K. (2008, June). Interpersonal: Clients, Students, and Supervisees: Translating Robert Kegan. Counselor Education & Supervision; Volume 47, p. 233-248.

Farrell, W. & Wilber, K. (2010). The Need for Men's Liberation. Integral Life. Retrieved from http://integrallife.com/node/68177

Gelber , C. (2010). Gender Identity. International Dictionary of Psychoanalysis. E-Notes.com.

Georgaca, E. (2001, Jun). Voices of the self in psychotherapy: A qualitative analysis. British Journal of Medical Psychology; 74, ProQuest Health and Medical Complete; pg. 223-236.

Gergen, K. (2009), Relational being: Beyond self and community. New York: Oxford University Press.

Gergen, K. & Gergen, M.M. (1997). Toward a cultural constructionist psychology. Theory and Psychology, 7; 31-36.

Hardiman, R. & Jackson, B. W. (1997) Conceptual Foundations for Social Justice Courses. In L. A. Bell and P. Griffin, eds. Teaching for Diversity and Social Justice. (1st ed.) New York: Routledge.

Hermans, H., Kempen, H. & van Loon, R. (1992, Jan). The dialogical self: Beyond individualism and rationalism. American Psychologist; Vol. 47, No. 1, 23-33.

Kegan, R. (1980, Jan). Making meaning: The constructive-developmental approach to persons and practice. Personnel & Guidance Journal, 58(5), 373-380. Retrieved from SocINDEX with Full Text database.

Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Money, John (Ed.). (1965). Sex research: New developments. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Patten, T. (2007). How Consciousness Develops Adequate Complexity to Deal With a Complex World: The Subject-Object Theory of Robert Kegan. Retrieved from http://terrypatten.typepad.com/iran/files/KeganEnglish.pdf

Quiñones-Rosado, R. (2010). A Developmental View of “Men’s Liberation”. Consciousness in Action Blog. Retrieved from http://consciousness-in-action.com/archives/179

Schwartz, R. (1995). Internal Family Systems Therapy. New York, Guilford Press.

Scott, D. A. & Robinson, T. L. (2001, Fall) White Male Identity Development: The Key Model. Journal of Counseling & Development; 79:4.

Sherman, P., & Billing, J. (1999). Darwinian Gastronomy: Why We Use Spices. BioScience, 49(6). DOI: 10.2307/1313553

Stemplewska-Żakowicz, K., Walecka, J. & Gabińska, A. (2006, Spring). As many selves as interpersonal relations (or maybe more). International Journal for Dialogical Science; Vol. 1, No. 1, 71-94. DOI: 10.1037/1524-9220.9.1.40

Stoller, Robert. (1968). Sex and gender: On the development of masculinity and femininity. New York: Science House.

Szymanski, D.M. & Carr, E.R. (2008). The roles of gender role conflict and internalized heterosexism in gay and bisexual men’s psychological distress: Testing two mediation models. Psychology of Men & Masculinity; Vol. 9, No. 1, 40–54.

Way, B. & Lieberman, M. (2010). Is there a genetic contribution to cultural differences? ... SCAN, 5 (2-3), 203-211. DOI: 10.1093/scan/nsq059

Tags: psychology, development, masculinities, gender roles, identity, Thoughts Toward a Developmental Model of Masculine Identity, Part Nine, Multiplicity, Fluidity, Masculine Identity Development, Chris Blazina, Robert Kegan, Social Identity Development Theory, Rita Hardiman, Bailey W. Jackson, David A. Scott, Tracy L. Robinson, White Male Identity Development, The Key Model, Ciaran Benson, Cultural Psychology of the Self, Kenneth Gergen, Relational Being, Self Other Masculinity Schema, SOMS, An International Psychology of Men, Theoretical Advances, Case Studies, Clinical Innovations, Multiplicity and the Masculine Self, heterosexism, hegemonic masculinity, social constructionism, gender identity, socialized mind, self authoring, self transcending, cultural constructionist psychology