The Good Men Project

"The essays pack unusual power, just plain healthy, straightforward, emotional power."

F.D. Reeve

Author of The Toy Soldier and Other Poems and The Blue Cat Walks the Earth

March 4, 2010

From the SPSMM: Men, Conflict and Community—Focus on Relationship

Filed under: SPSMM — Tags: — tmatlack @ 7:00 am

This essay is the latest in a series of monthly submissions from members of the Society for the Psychological Study of Men and Masculinity, Division 51 of the American Psychological Association. SPSMM’s objective is to advance knowledge in the psychology of men through research, education, training, public policy, and improved clinical practice.

By BRIAN J. MISTLER

Two heads are better than one. Most of us understand that this maxim speaks to the importance of community. Together you and I can do more than either of us could do apart. Relationships help us achieve greater life satisfaction; build bigger, better things; and make more money. In the language of business, focusing on relationships adds value to the bottom line.

And most of the time we do value our relationships. But often we—I mean, especially we men—act as though we don’t value relationships. In fact, I frequently see men damaging and even destroying relationships they say they value and have certainly worked hard to create. Why? Usually because anger, pride and a belief that pushing back is the way to get what we want causes us to lose focus. The irony is that when we do this, we are often acting in a way that gives us less control and less of what we want.

It’s not a surprise. As men, we grow up idealizing the battle-hardened, zero-tolerance gun slingers who embody the archetype of the detached man doing what it takes to get what he wants. In the Wild West the quickest gun wins, and callin’ me a name is reason enough to shoot ya’. A few thousand movies and maybe a couple playground battles later, and we get it: If someone hits you, hit him back. Of course this often degrades into a broad teach-them-a-lesson mentality, and one that doesn’t apply just to hitting. It applies whenever our pride is threatened or our ego bruised.

Perhaps a tit-for-tat approach is the best way to handle substantive negotiations. If we’re dividing up the marbles, justice may be approximated when I give you another marble only when you give me one. If instead we’re talking about community building and our long-term individual and group interests, we do a heck of a lot better if we also focus on our relationships. And there’s no risk’ Things like compassion, appreciation, and forgiveness are not limited resources.

So as a man, how can I begin to focus more on relationships? To start, listen—listen unconditionally. If I seek first to understand you, I benefit whether or not you reciprocate by understanding me.

Next, be consistently respectful. If the other guy or gal is being unreasonable and antagonistic, I can still do my part by behaving in an honorable, constructive way. In this way, I hold on to the power I have to prevent our conflict from escalating out of control when there is miscommunication and overreactions. In their book Getting Together: Building Relationships as We Negotiate, Roger Fisher and Scott Brown of the Harvard Negotiation Project reach this same conclusion: Putting relationships at the center of our negotiation strategy is critical.

It turns out the Wild West was not tamed just by lone gunslingers—far from it. America was built building by building, town by town, through countless acts of cooperation.  The same is true for today’s communities. Same is true for today’s workplaces, universities and families.

To build a relationship long-term, we can’t make our relationship conditional on the outcome of each quibble. Sure, I’ll lose sometimes. Would I rather get what I want? Absolutely. And if the relationship consistently causes me more pain than it’s worth, you better believe I’ll find another relationship.

Until then, if I can keep my head in the game and focused on the relationship—even when my girlfriend, boyfriend, spouse, partner, work colleagues, or family members do not behave the way I would like—I’ll ultimately have better relationships and get much more of what I want. While two heads are better than one, one is better than none.

*****

Brian J. Mistler, PhD, is a psychologist at Hobart and William Smith Colleges and a senior business consultant with Excellence Tree. Named an International Ambassadorial Scholar by Rotary in 2001, Dr. Mistler received his master’s degree in conflict resolution from the University of Bradford in the United Kingdom and regularly provides consultation and training in conflict resolution and building multicultural communities. He is the author of more than 50 scholarly and popular articles and a member of APA Division 51 (the Society for the Psychological Study of Men and Masculinity).

 

February 2, 2010

From the SPSMM: The Masculinity Crisis, Redux

Filed under: SPSMM — Tags: , — tmatlack @ 7:00 am

This essay is the latest in a series of monthly submissions from members of the Society for the Psychological Study of Men and Masculinity, Division 51 of the American Psychological Association. SPSMMs objective is to advance knowledge in the psychology of men through research, education, training, public policy, and improved clinical practice.

By RONALD F. LEVANT

I once wrote, in regard to the masculinity crisis of the 1990s, What it means to be a man today is one of the most persistent unresolved issues in mens lives. Men feel that they are being told that what they have been trying to accomplish is irrelevant to the world of today. Since women now work and can earn their own living, there is no longer as much need for Mr. Good Provider.

Unfortunately, this crisis is still with us. If anything, it has intensified, as a result of the continuing imbalance between womens and mens work and family roles. With the majority of adult women in the work force, very few men are sole providers and most are co-providers.

A New York Times article on a recent Pew Research Center report highlights this point. The story notes that Men are now increasingly likely to marry wives with more education and income than they have.

Womens roles have changed since the late 1960s. They have been managing both family and career responsibilities for decades. They have combined traditional feminine pursuits, such as love, family, and caring for others, with newer ones for women, such as independence, career, and defining themselves through their own accomplishments.

Some of us men have changed too and scrapped our old definitions of manhood as good providers. Instead we view ourselves as good family men who can fully share parenting and housework with our working wives. Those of us who have chosen this path have increased our openness to relationships and our participation in the emotional and domestic arenas of life. We who have done this have renewed our relevance to todays world.

However, too many guys still cling to the older definitions that emphasize work and individual accomplishment over emotional intimacy and family involvement, thus making themselves irrelevant. It is puzzling that so many men have resisted change in role definitions in light of the fact that many, if not most, of us are not the good providers for our families that men have traditionally been.

To address these issues I suggest that we reexamine our notions of what it means to be a man and confront our archaic ideas that it is unmanly to cook, clean or care for a child. This may be hard to do, because we learned as kidssometimes the hard way, from the violence of our peersthat it was absolutely imperative to uphold the traditional male code. Hence, even thinking about this may make some of us feel ashamed and less of a man. But why, really? Whator whoare we afraid of?

Mens groups can be vehicles for men to offer support to each other to brave this shame, confront the old models, and develop workable new ideals for being a man. For example, if you have young children at home, you can take the morning shift, waking the kids and getting them dressed, fed, and off to day care or school. Or you can take the evening shift, picking up the kids and getting them settled in their evening routines while you prepare supper.

Guys, lets do it. We have nothing to lose but our irrelevance.

*****

Ronald F. Levant, EdD, is professor of psychology at the University of Akron. Dr. Levant is the cofounder and was the first president of APA Division 51 (the Society for the Psychological Study of Men and Masculinity). His books include Between Father and Child (1991, Penguin); Masculinity, Reconstructed (1995, Dutton); A New Psychology of Men (1995, Basic Books); Men and Sex: New Psychological Perspectives (1997, John Wiley & Sons); and New Psychotherapies for Men (1998, John Wiley & Sons).

 

January 7, 2010

From the SPSMM: Defining Masculinity

Filed under: Guest Blogger, Relationships, SPSMM — Tags: , , , , — tmatlack @ 8:00 am

This is the first in a series of monthly essays from members of the Society for the Psychological Study of Men and Masculinity, Division 51 of the American Psychological Association. SPSMM advances knowledge in the psychology of men through research, education, training, public policy, and improved clinical practice.

By Andrew Smiler

I study masculinitynot just as a guy whos trying to figure out if Im man enough, but as a professional: I work for a university and publish research on the definition of masculinity. Its been about 10 years since I started trying to answer the question, What is masculinity?

One of the best analyses that Ive read is David Gilmores Manhood in the Making (1991, Yale University Press). Gilmore examined definitions of masculinity in a dozen cultures and reached two main conclusions. His first was that masculinity is something that needs to be achieved or proved, at least in most cultures. It often starts with a formal rituala vision quest, a Bar Mitzvah, a first huntthat allows a boy to be proclaimed a man. But the proof often continues for the next several decades.

Gilmores second conclusion was that proving masculinity typically occurs by providing (for family/clan), protecting (family/clan), and/or procreating. When I teach, I tell my students that these are the three Ps, but theyre also the three Fs: feeding, fighting, and fucking.

I like the three Ps more than I like the three Fs. They sound more honorable. They also seem to tell men when and where to do these things. The three Fs dont provide the same guidance.

For example, protecting is what you do only in the face of a real threat to family and clan, but you almost always can find a reason to fight. Elton John told me it was an alright thing to do on a Saturday night. Other people have told me that its an important way to save face when Im insulted. Yet others have asked me if I wanted to take a disagreement outside and settle it like men? Fighting sounds like something that can happen anywhere and for almost any reason; protecting is much more limited.

Theres a similar difference between procreating and fucking. Guys dont feel the same way about hooking up or getting laid or whatever you want to call casual sexual encounters as they do about having sex with a long-term partner. The short-term encounters are supposed to be emotion- and commitment-free, but sex in a long-term relationship is often about love and emotional connection. And, of course, its often about having kids. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, about 90 percent of American adults are parents, and most of us absolutely adore our own kids.

I like providing more than feeding because theres more to the former than the latter. Providing sounds as though it includes shelter, love, and warmth, as well as food. In the United States, weve mostly lost sight of the idea that men provide love and warmth to their family members, and Im not entirely sure why that is. But doing all these thingsproviding food, shelter, comfort, lovemakes for a good parent and, I think, a real man.

Im not sure why we talk about the three Ps as characteristics of masculinity and why guys need to prove it. To me, it seems as though the three Ps tell us how to be good people: You dont fight unless you have to; you dont sleep around; and you take care of those who are dear to you.

*****

Andrew Smiler is a visiting assistant professor of psychology at Wake Forest University and a member of the Society for the Psychological Study of Men and Masculinity. A more detailed description of Dr. Smiler’s research can be found at http://andrewsmiler.wordpress.com/.