The Warrior Ethos

According to the Biblical creation story, Adam and Eve were divined in a paradise of plenty, the Garden of Eden.  Not long after their genesis, they were dismissed from the Garden of Eden.  Since that time, humans have found themselves in a world where natural resources were unevenly distributed.  As humans competed with other humans (and animal species) for natural resources, conflict was probably inevitable . . . .

. . . . And the warrior was born . . . .

The warrior is a product of conflict.  Much has been written and spoken of the warrior.  Currently, the term “warrior” is bandied about with little consideration of what defines it as a construct.  Many use the word “warrior” and “soldier” in the same sentence, as if the two are synonymous.  Some speak of the “spiritual warrior.”  Others speak of competitors in the Ultimate Fighting Championship as warriors.

It is my thesis that warriors are few, and far between.  U.F.C. competitors are no more warriors than those who battle their internal demons.  As Redmoon (1994) states:

“Warrior?  Soldier?  Is there a distinction?  Yes, and a most important one, which most civilized intellects seem unable to understand . . . When there is no enemy, a soldier might contrive one; never the warrior.  (The warrior) is ever-discriminating and never insincere (p. 21).” 

As the technology of warfare advanced, distant killing methods (bombs, gas, and even firearms) became the unquestioned mode of warfare, and the warrior began to disappear from the scene.  And as political realities became ever entangled and complex, the soldiers that remained often found themselves abandoned by their orders, and even their society.

The warrior, in my opinion, evolved as a protector.  It is comforting to imagine the vile attacker as easily succumbed by the righteous protector.  However, this does not necessarily align with reality. To protect means to put your physical form between the helpless and that which would harm the helpless.  The attacker is often armed with experience, strength, and the disposition necessary to harm anyone that gets in his or her way. 

It takes great courage to be a protector . . .

I think it’s time to move Mount Rushmore.

I haven’t written anything in a while, and for that I apologize.  I’ve had quite a fascinating and yet stressful summer, though it’s been overflowing with spiritual gifts. 

 

And I have to segue from our usual topic.

 

Every now and then I have a great idea, and here’s my most recent one.  I know, it’s a little ahead of it’s time, but I think our country is ready, given that . . .

Well, just hear me out.

 

Lakota holy man John Fire Lame Deer, commenting on what Mount Rushmore means to his people, replied the monument is telling them, “First, we gave you Indians a treaty that you could keep these Black Hills forever, as long as the sun would shine, in exchange for all the Dakotas, Wyoming, and Montana.  Then we found the gold and took this last piece of land, because we were stronger, and there were more of us than there were of you, and because we had cannons and Gatling guns, while you hadn’t progressed far enough to make a steel knife.  And when you didn’t want to leave, we wiped you out, and those of you who survived we put on reservations.  And then we took the gold out, a billion bucks, and we werent’ through yet.  And because we like the tourist dollars too, we made your sacred Black Hills into one vast Disneyland.  And after we carved up this mountain, the dwelling place of your spirits, and put our four gleaming white faces here.  We are your conquerors.  And a million more tourists every year look up at these faces and feel good, real good, because they make them feel big and powerful, because their own kind of people made these faces and the tourists are thinking: ‘We are white, we made this, what we want we get, and nothing can stop us’ . . . They could just as well have carved this mountain into a huge cavalry boot standing on a dead Indian.” (Lame Deer and Erdoes, 1972; p. 91.)

 

The mountain Mount Rushmore is built on was Black Elk’s “Six Grandfathers.” Lame Deer also says, on p. 92, “You could make a lovely mountain into a great paperweight, but can you make it into a wild, natural mountain again? I don’t think you have the know-how for that.”

 

I know, this is a great idea. You all can thank me later, after someone else figures out where to put it. That mayor of New York, he’s a pretty helpful guy, maybe he can think of something.

The proposed Islamic center near Ground Zero has created such controversy and discussion, that I think it’s time to reflect on some of our (meaning Euro-American majority culture) own lack of sensitivity and mis-steps on the path of multiculturalism (which is the basis of our “melting pot” ideal).  Maybe we can understand some small, small piece of the alienation and rage posessed by some members of our First Nation’s people.  (Consider that the creator of Mount Rushmore, Gutzon Borglum, was allegedly a member of the Klu Klux Klan, or at a minimum sympathetic to their cause (Wikipedia).)

 

References

(Fire) Lame Deer, J.; Erdoes, R. (1972). Lame Deer, Seeker of Visions. New York:

            Pocket Books.

Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutzon_Borglum.

Part 3: Men and Sex (the unabridged version).

“Feeling is the language of the soul.” 
 - Walsch (1996), p. 3.
A fundamental tenet of my theory of men and masculinity is that men have learned it is less functional to be in tune with their inner experience.  If you are the parent of male children, you may want to pay particular attention to the information I’m going to summarize, along with its possible implications.  I’m going to cover quite a bit of ground here in my next few writing sessions . . .
1. What neuroscience researchers know, or think they know, about how the male brain develops. 
2. How this development impacts the post-natal male.
3. How social interactions can impact post-natal males.  I’ll include discussion of psychological theories, notably the work of Lev Vygotsky and Jean Piaget.
4. How traumatic experiences (be they “normative developmental trauma,” or more severe forms of emotional and physical trauma) can impact the developing male brain.
5. The impact of peer social interactions.
6. The emergence of adult male masculinity, focusing on sexuality and intimate relationships.

(This will be not be either a complete or comprehensive analysis.  I will be revising it and will include updated information as it comes to me.  I appreciate the reader’s patience.  Remember the way males commonly create – by “going out.”  As we go out, we also go within . . . this is a work-in-progress.  Further, I am a man of mostly European ancestry.  I apologize in advance for what may be, or appear to be, my own white ethnocentric bias, and I will include as much information for men in other cultures as I can.)    

Via scientific research methods, we are gaining a greater understanding of what a complex, fascinating place the human brain is.  MRI, PET, and CAT scans are neuro-imaging techniques that give us a view into neuro-anatomical structures that “light up” when the brain is subjected to stimuli.  However, I don’t have the same faith in brain imaging techniques that “pop” neuroscientists espouse in the media.  For one, just because a particular region of the brain “lights up” when that brain is subjected to a particular stimulus doesn’t mean the illuminated region is the major player in processing information about the stimulus.  The idea that it is the major player reminds me of the story of the police officer, walking night patrol in a residential area, when he finds a man crawling in circles on the sidewalk under a lamp post on the otherwise darkened street.  The police officer asks the man what he’s doing.  The man answers “Looking for the keys to my apartment.”  The police officer asks him where he lost his keys, and the man responds “Over there by the door to my apartment, but it’s dark there.  This is the only place there is enough light to look.”

Further, as feminists Carol Tavris, Barbara Ehrenreich, and Katha Pollitt have suggested, “. . . . using biologically based assumptions about feminine behavior is not only scientifically unsound but also socially damaging . . .  the biological-determinist view is a dangerous tool used to destroy the ability of women to fully explore all the aspects of their gender.” (cited in Kimbrell, 1995; p. 24.)  I suggest the same reasoning be applied to men’s full exploration of their gender.         

What can be seen with certainty is that new born babies have different brains.  Some of this difference is based on gender.  For example, among the many structures of the brain is the corpus collosum.  The corpus collosum is a bundle of fibers that serve as a communication route between the two hemispheres.  Interestingly, the corpus collosum is less developed at birth in male children than female, although the post-natal male’s brain is (on average) at least 10% larger than that of the post-natal female. 

Enter what’s known as “lateralization,” the specialization of functions of the two hemispheres.  It appears that the left half of the cortex (allegedly having a greater influence on cognitive processes) develops later than the right (which allegedly has a greater influence on spatial relationships).  Gurian (1996) hypothesizes that “When the right (hemisphere) is ready to hook up with the left (hemisphere), in the male (brain) the appropriate cells don’t yet exist on the left.  So (the fibers) go back and instead form connections within the right hemisphere.  You end up with extremely rich connections on the right.”  And a brain that is good at parallel parking and video games is created in the male.  A brain adept at reading, interpreting emotions, and verbal communication is created in the female.

. . . . to be continued . . . .

References
Kimbrell, A. (1995). The Masculine Mystique. Ballantine: New York.
Walsch, N. D. (1995). Conversations with God. G.P. Putnam & Sons: New York.

Men and Sex, Part 2

“Many of us don’t want to be with a nice guy, even though the man we’re attracted to may make us miserable.  For years I wrote off nice guys. They didn’t seem sexy.  They seemed too easy.  I wanted to work hard to keep a guy’s interest . . . How I wish I could get some of those nice guys back now . . . Sometimes we avoid nice men because it puts pressure on us to reciprocate . . . Being with a jerk is safer: We know it won’t last . . . It demands less responsibility on our part . . . Nice guys are easier to trust.  You may be afraid to give your trust to anyone, so you avoid them.  I’ve finally grown up enough to know I don’t need the excitement a jerk can create . . . Being with a jerk can take the pressure off, because we don’t have to take responsibility for our own happiness.  If it doesn’t work out, we can blame the jerk.”

                                                          Schwartz (1998), p. 21 – 22.

There it is, that responsibility thing again . . .

It seems those men and women dubbed “nice” share a common experience.  They have experienced the opposite sex as shallow and narcissistic, and they are jaded on the prospects of finding that “ideal someone” who is not plagued with this condition.  Fromm (1956) speaks directly to this, stating we are confused that the problem lies in finding someone to love, rather than our own capacity to love another.  We try to make ourselves into the most desirable set of features possible.  This means adhering to a cultural construct of what “desirable” or “attractive” is . . . .  

Only to find our self-worth and self esteem are the stakes in a game of relational-emotive poker.

If you are a guy reading this, you’ve probably noticed how many seemingly wonderful, attractive women fall for guys you would rather harm than have a conversation with.  You would not be friends with the men these women are hanging on.  You’ve probably thought it best to “play the game” and treat women with disrespect.  After all, it seems they enjoy this treatment, and you want to be desirable.

You may have even experienced a variety of women who seem to be narcissistically wounded, shallow people (though your descriptive term is different than that – probably a lot simpler).  It’s their way, or the highway.  They seem quick to “figure you out” – they’re judgmental – and never get to know you beyond the casual.  You get no chance with these women.   

Of course, you may not be thinking this at all, and long ago resorted to game playing.  You never answer a question directly, keep an aura of mystery about you, and you’re always too busy to call.  These are the ingredients of a great A-game.  The problem with game playing is it will never fulfill you, lead you toward self-actualization, help you grow (some things that result from having “a good B game”).  And it will probably only work on women with low self-worth and/or women that are developmentally (though not necessarily chronologically) young.  You may not care about that.  You’re having sex, everyone’s having a good time, and so what’s the problem?  You probably don’t see this as a game either.  You may even see this as a healthy reality.  You’re screening women for their long-term relationship potential, disregarding the fact that the women who will buy into this are “young,” and that ones that don’t will dismiss you as a game-player. 

If you’re a woman reading this, you’re probably reacting to what I just wrote, and thinking a variety of things, with an accompanying array of feelings.  Are you shocked and angry that some “nice” guys consider becoming “not-so-nice” guys?

By way of analogy, when I was a kid we occasionally watched movies for a class at school.  Now this is not unusual.  At the risk of giving the reader a clue to my age, we often had to watch movies that were shown on a movie projector that had big film reels that turned the film from metal arms extending out from the projector.  The reels held the film, and the arms helped guide the film over a light that cast the image on the film onto a screen.  If we aimed the projector at a wall that had a color or a poster on it, you couldn’t really tell what the film image was.  You had to aim the projector at a screen that was white, and devoid of any other color.  Then you could watch the film and see exactly what the images were.

People do something similar with their minds.  In psycho-babble-ese, it’s called PROJECTION (you can thank Freud for this).  It’s like we have little “movies” in our heads that give us artificial information about real-time people and situations.  This process is seems easier than congruent communication.  We take a movie in our head and project it onto a “blank screen” – someone we don’t know, or barely know.  We don’t even have to consciously pick the movie we are projecting, and it can therefore happen very quickly.  Just because people are cognitively lazy doesn’t mean their mind is going to slowly select a movie for their psychological projector.  It’s as if we hate dealing with ambiguity, and we need to classify or “figure out” people or situations as quick as we can, with as little effort as possible.  We even fill in dialogue – assumptions we make about the projected-on person.

Projection is a psychological defense mechanism.  (I previously mentioned anger and humor as other potential types of defenses.)  As a defense, projection is potentially useful as a shield used to protect us from the threat of PAIN.  It’s normal for humans to use it.  It is negative when we use it to harm ourselves or another person, or use it to deny the rights of ourselves or another person.  Consider that defenses are non-selective, meaning they have the unfortunate tendency to shield us from positive things as well as negative.

(Unconscious projection is a bad foundation for public policy  . . . but I’ll come back to that some other time.)

Perls (1969) defined projection as a trait, attitude, feeling, or bit of behavior which actually belongs to your own personality but is not experienced as such.  It is instead attributed to objects or persons in the environment, who you believe are directing the trait, attitude, or feeling toward you (instead of you directing it toward them).  A common example of this is a guy who thinks all women want to have sex with him (all the while choosing to be unaware that he is projecting his sexual interest onto them).  Or, conversely, a woman who is sexually inhibited, and complains that men are constantly regarding her as a sex object.

Again, it is difficult if not impossible to resolve projections without help.  It’s an unconscious defense mechanism, after all!  You will take responsibility for it when you train people who care about you, and that you trust, HOW to confront you when they think you are projecting.

If I can be serious about a silly topic for a moment, I will express my like for romantic comedies.  They make me laugh, because they poke fun at my/our stereotypes of who humans are.  Stereotypes are things we use to be cognitively lazy, instead of actually thinking.  Use romantic comedies to laugh at your stereotypes, and you will gain an important tool.  This is an important contribution of the artist’s expression.  Humans – and I’m thinking particularly about men, because men are the topic of this blog – possess a psyche that is a complex equation.  We are anything but simple. Be conscious of any beliefs you may have to the contrary.  If you’re paying attention, every day you can learn something new about the people closest to you.

So if stereotypes are one source of our psychological movies, where else do they come from? Here, the field of psychology has an answer!  In fact, it has many answers, so many that volumes have been written about each.  Of course, the answers are largely unproven and theoretical.  Attachment theory, for example, suggests some of us mistakenly choose people to have relationships with based on “attachment schemas” – early childhood experiences of bonding with our parents, primarily our mother. (This has prompted some feminists to criticize this theory as mother-blaming.  Others see it as a premise for granting women sole custody in divorce cases.)  Control mastery theory, on the other hand, sees our relational struggles as resulting in “grim, constricting pathogenic beliefs that the patient acquires in the traumatic experiences of childhood (see controlmaster.org).” 

It’s fortunate for psychology that early childhood trauma exists, isn’t it?

Go to a university bookstore and you can find a textbook outlining every psychological theory.  Select one that you like, and apply it.  No doubt you’ll like features of several, and combine them into an eclectic “theory of self.”

If these theories are unproven, then according to Kuhn’s theory of scientific revolutions, they are all of value.  Therefore, consider a theory you won’t find in a psychology textbook.  This one is founded in the arena of paranormal/psychic experience.  In this construct, if we are attracted to someone we should first call our energy back to us.  Sometimes we are attracted to another based on a connection with them we had in a past incarnation.  In the previous incarnation we exchanged energy with them, are psychically “seeing” our own energy in the present, and attracted to it – not necessarily the person.  This theory holds that merging energies with another may feel good, but it can never bring us conscious connection with them, or ourselves.  If we call our energy back (which is done via intention) and we are still attracted to them, then we have more information on which to select our next move.

If you like this idea, and it feels right to you, OK.  If it puts you off, that’s OK too.  Follow your own nose, not the butt of the lemming in front of you.

Remember that stuff I said previously, about taking responsibility for our experience? . . .

It may put you at ease to let some psycho-babbler tell you who you are, and why you are the way you are.  What does your inner voice tell you?  What’s in your heart?

The idea of taking on responsibility may incur some sense of anxiety.  May (1981) suggested changing the definition of mental health to “living with normal anxiety as a stimulant to vital existence, as a source of energy, and as life-enhancing. (p. 19).”  Freedom and responsibility are connected.  You can’t have one without the other. 

References

Fromm, E. (1956). The Art of Loving. HarperCollins: New York.

May, R. (1981). Freedom and Destiny. W.W. Norton: New York.

Perls, F. (1969). In Hatcher, C.; Himelstein, P. (Editors) (1983). The Handbook of

Gestalt Therapy. Jason Aronson: Northvale, NJ.

Schwartz, D. D. (1998). All Men Are Jerks (Until Proven Otherwise). Adams Media:

Avon, MA.   

Reply to Will (2010): “The Basement Boys: The Making of Modern Immaturity.” Published in Newsweek, 3.8.2010.

Reply to Will (2010): “The Basement Boys: The Making of Modern Immaturity.”  Published in Newsweek, 3.8.2010.

Will’s debasement of man-boys living in their parent’s basement is founded on the idea of a culture of immaturity among contemporary males.  He cites a Pew Research report to support his claims, stating that:

• Twenty-eight percent of wives between the ages of 30 and 44 have more education than their husbands.
• Nineteen percent of husbands in the same age group have more education than their wives.
• Twenty-three percent of men with some college education earn less than their wives.

                                    

It has been popular for some time to deride men.  Either men have changed too much or not enough.  It’s important to be aware of who we’re talking about when we discuss men in America.  The American population has always consisted of white men of mostly European descent, and of Hispanic men, Afro-American men, Asian men, and Native American men.  All these types of men are more visible to us then they once were, though for some the struggle for visibility certainly continues.  Some of these men were raised in large, emotionally close extended family networks. In this context, the “immature basement boy” takes on a new light.  In these families, it may not be uncommon – or immature – for a 23-year old man to live in his parent’s home.  I have seen Native American families where a man in his twenties, even thirties, either lived in his parent’s home or very close by.  These men contributed to their family, assuming various roles and responsibilities.  They were important, and not seen as a burden to their loved ones.  Sadly, even tragically, for these men to pursue higher education often requires them to leave their family and all that is familiar.  It is no wonder that college degrees are elusive for so many Native American men. 

Much has been written and discussed about the disparity among Afro-American men and women’s education and earning potential.  Tonry (1995) has identified the struggles of under priviledged men, and the choices they are forced to consider that lead them away from higher education, and into prison.  Patterson (1998) writing cogently about gender dynamics in the Afro-American community, describes an “etnocidal assault on gender roles, especially those of father and husband. (p. 25)”  The system of slavery had to assault fatherhood, since fatherhood meant to have some rights to wives and children.   Further, Patterson suggests that Afro-American male slaves, unable to protect their wives and daughters from the sexual depredations of white slave owners, lost their ‘protector value,’ and Afro-American women began to distance from them.  The implications of this are possibly reflected in the ’basement man-boy’ stereotype.  I hope the reader is beginning to see some shades of compassion, versus judgment. 

However much judgment (and the righteous indignation that oft accompanies it) makes us feel good, it is not a positive secondary emotion to inspires change in others.  It also makes a poor foundation for forming public policy, but I digress.            

In all fairness though, I don’t think this is what Mr. Will had in mind with his thesis of the immature, basement man-boy.  I assume a man of European descent is what he pictured.  It’s probably what many readers of the article pictured, also.

 It’s with this man in mind that I say . . . O.K. . . . . What’s the problem? 

Just because some, even many, women have more money and education than their husbands, I’m not sure their husbands are somehow “less.”  It’s quite an assumption to propose that these men are lounging around home and playing video games before resentfully heading off to their McJob.

Consider a historical perspective.  Since economies became more centralized and the Industrial Revolution took men away from home-based work and family apprenticeships, they have endured psychological distancing from themselves and the ones they loved.  Work hasn’t   always been the masculine haven of memory.  Some indication of this was in the “gender gap” of death, with men’s life expectancy much lower than women’s.  And tragically, the distance grew between men and their children. Dad was no longer readily available, because he was at “the office” or “the factory” much of the week. 

Men outpaced women in receipt of college degrees and earnings.  It was taken for granted that men would go to college, earn a degree, and devote their lives to work.  They were the “breadwinners.”  This is how they showed love, responsibility, and caring for their family.  It was an honorable life in many respects, though a fairly limited masculine role.  These guys probably felt the family need for his income outweighed the family need for his love. 

Women have struggled to earn their rightful place in the world of economic production.  It was inevitable that some women would outpace their husbands.  This does not make these husbands morally inferior to their wives, or suggest they are “in crises.”  If I can be allowed a hope, it would be that these men are taking a greater role in child care and homemaking responsibilities.  This can produce not a deficient, but a balanced masculinity that any empowered woman would likely find refreshing.  I suppose these men can still exhibit the penetrating focus and tenacity of heroes in 1950’s style Westerns (if necessary), while possessing a new definition of responsibility.

And maybe, just maybe, these men have a more truthful grasp of what responsibility really means  . . . .    

References

Patterson, O. (1998). Rituals of Blood. Basic Books: New York.

Tonry, M. (1995). Malign Neglect. Oxford: New York.

Men and Sex: Part 1 of However Many it Takes

“The human heart is always seeking love.”

Satir (1988), p. 17.

Sex is probably the topic most likely to attract curiosity and nervous laughter.  So, let’s all try to laugh a little, shall we?  Let’s do a little exercise Jan Hindman devised (Hindman, 1980).  Chant the word “penis” several times out loud.  Then chant “vagina” several times.  If you have very young children, ask them to watch your face as you do this.  Have them tell you if your face turns red.  If it turns red, you have some information about yourself.  (If your children don’t know the words “penis” or “vagina,” and refer to genitalia as “woo woo” or some such thing, I suggest you immediately get on the webpage of your favorite book vendor and get a copy of Jan Hindman’s “A Very Touching Book.”  Read it then read it to your children.  It would be a cumbersome segue to explain all the reasons you need to do this.  Just do it.)

This can be a painful topic, too.  The common way to deal with pain is to use some kind of psychological defense – like laughter, or anger.  So, I request some ground rules.

One: Notice when you feel angry or like laughing.  Just agree to be curious about it, and ask yourself what’s going on.  You see, I’ve learned that a lot of people aren’t very aware of their pain, and the role it plays in their world view.  It takes effort to become more conscious – and truthful – about it. 

Second, notice when you tell yourself something like “Oh, these men and their egos!”  I’ve noticed that the person saying this – female or male – is usually in their own ego.  The male ego is not the sole driving force in male sexual behavior.  Sometimes this statement is just a manipulation used to give the speaker an ego boost (by offering pseudo-validation, usually to women).  It has the negative impact of keeping men from being in touch with their selves.  It may feel good to the speaker and some of the listening audience (I’m picturing a popular talk-show host – yes, “Doctor” Phil, you), but it is NOT actually helping anyone.  (Just because your validated doesn’t mean you’re actually being helped.  Sometimes the “validator” is colluding with the validated in keeping them stuck . . . People need validation, but not that way.  However, I digress.)

Third, as you’re reading this, if you ever hear yourself thinking “Yes, but women . . .” followed by some statements about women’s experience, I’d like you to ask yourself what’s going on.  Remember, I’m not writing this to validate women (although that may happen).  I’m writing this to help women understand men, and for men to begin to understand themselves. 

There’s a lot of variation among males, and I encourage you – male or female – to talk and discuss sex with your partner if you’re in a relationship.  Leveling with each other isn’t always easy, but it’s important to become more and more consistent and adept at it.  Leveling is when our voice’s words match our facial expression, body position, and voice tone.  Leveling represents a truth the leveler experiences in the moment (Satir, 1988: p. 94; Satir, 1976).

If you’re suddenly aware of how often you aren’t leveling, good!  Join our collective reindeer game!  Kick yourself if you need to do so in order to get the full experience of your learning or whatever – but above all be aware of it.

The way women can learn more about men is to learn more about themselves.  It feels so selfish though!  Not really.  It’s also very difficult, and takes much responsibility.  Crain Baker (2008) emphasizes that women should claim their right to sexual pleasure, and that this means men are not responsible for a woman’s sexual pleasure.  Read that again if you need to.  Better yet, check out the book yourself.  Even better – cozy up and read it with your sexual partner. 

“If women have been cheated by our reliance on the myth of intimacy over orgasm, then so have men.  The pressure has been on him to do something he probably can’t do no matter how ‘good’ he is in bed: bring her to orgasm on the strength of his penis alone.  That gives him ‘performance anxiety,’ his own special sex problem to compliment hers. (Crain Baker, 2008; p. 10).” 

When Zilbergeld (1992: p. 48) bemoans men who treat sex like a performance, he’s denying what may be an apparent reality for men in sexual relationships with women who haven’t taken responsibility for their sexual experience.  The apparent reality for these men is: Sex IS a performance.  It is not consistently a shared experience of love and connection.  It can’t enhance his spiritual development.  For a man who is detached from so much of his inner experience, such a sexual relationship will probably become unfulfilling.  It’s one of the reasons affairs are such a red herring in couple’s therapy.  They are a symptom, but not the real issue.     

It’s probably one of the hallmarks of a mature woman to take responsibility for her sexual experience.  It’s probably one of the hallmarks of a mature man to not expect his penis to perform miracles, and uncover his inner experience.  It’s the hallmark of mature love to do things that are uncomfortable to one’s self, yet contribute to the spiritual or emotional growth of the other person (Peck, 2003).  So if we want to help each other, we have to be willing to help ourselves a little.

So much for the perfect experience falling from the sky and landing in our lap with no effort on our part, eh?   

Part of my thesis is that men have learned that it is not functional to be in touch with their inner experience.  Younger men in particular are in a difficult life phase, in which their awareness of their inner experience will be threatened from every angle, including from within.  Women – mothers, girlfriends, even the high school cheerleaders – have (all too often) colluded with men in avoiding their internal reality.  And it creates a lifetime of challenges for men and women. It’s a socio-cultural construct, but not in the spirit of a “narcissistic macho-culture,” or resulting from “hegemonic masculinity.”  It is a kind of “normative male alexithymia,” as Bobby Levant might put it (Levant & Pollack, 1995: p. 238), but for more humanistic, less pathological reasons that also have potentially vast spiritual ramifications.  It is not what is called (notably by pro-feminist men) “male power and privilege.”  I have a hunch this socially encouraged “inner numbing” is one of the reasons the male suicide rate is so many times higher than that of females.  It is no coincidence that this rapid escalation begins in adolescence – at the same time the male role is becoming more apparent (Farrell, 1993, p.31;Pastore & Maguire, 2002). 

For example, male sexual arousal patterns suggest something about men’s internal experience.  The way(s) men become sexually aroused often changes over time.  I’ll say it again.  The way(s) many men relied on to get aroused when we were 20 is not the same way(s) they get aroused at 40, 50, or 60.  What did you just say?  “That’s because men have lower testosterone as they age.”  This is true, but it’s not the sole reason. Sadly, a major contributor is not discussed in the common press.  Popular psychological and sociological literature doesn’t delve into it much, if at all.  However, I think it is one of the reasons Schnarch (1997) found that people – and that includes men – often have great sex as they get older.  The truth is, the male role changes as men age, and it impacts many things for us, including how we get sexually aroused.  (This is a topic not without implications (duh) – and the subject of a different blog entry.) 

I think the key is to overcoming the struggle is to begin to see it as a blessing . . .      

Note: I decided to include a reference list with my writing.  One of the reasons I’m doing this is to provide the reader with sources, if he or she wishes to pursue a topic further.  In addition, feminists in higher education taught me that some people lie.  (In fact, they achieved remarkable success at propogating dishonesty and half-truth.)  So, if I’m writing something, I want to support my statements as best I can.  If a source is questionable, I’ll try to state that and explain why I think it may lack veracity.

References

Crane-Bakos, S. (2008). The Orgasm Bible. Quiver: Beverly, MA.

Farrell, W. (1993). The Myth of Male Power. Beverly Books: New York.

Hindman, J. (1983). A Very Touching Book. Alexandria Associates.

Levant, R. F.; Pollack, W. S. (1995). A New Psychology of Men. Basic: New York.

Pastore, A.L.; Maguire, K. (2002). Sourcebook of Criminial Justice Statistics 2001. U.S. Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics: Washington, DC.

Peck, M.S. (2003). The Road Less Traveled. Simon & Schuster.

Satir, V. (1988). The New Peoplemaking. Science and Behavior Books: Mountain View, CA.

Satir, V. (1976). Making Contact. Celestial Arts: Berkeley, CA.

Schnarch, D. (1997). Passionate Marriage. Henry Holt & Co.: New York.

Zilbergeld, B. (1992). The New Male Sexuality. Bantam: New York.

Introduction to ‘Men . . . . 101.’

As a graduate student in counseling, and later as a licensed therapist, I had often thought of writing a book to help women better understand men.  However, it has occurred to me that men often don’t understand themselves.  The field of psychology has proven, to me at least, woefully inadequate in helping women and men gain deeper insight and empathy into the world of men.  Theory informs questions, with the questions themselves demonstrating a pathetically unsound, theoretical grasp of masculinity. 

But I’m already starting to get tangential. 

A friend of mine (thanks Laura), perhaps unwilling to wait for me to write a book and enjoying some of my insights into masculine psychology, recently suggested that I write a blog.  So . . .

“Men . . . 101” was born.

First, some definitions, from the 4^th edition of the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: 

-          Misogyny: the hatred of women.

-          Chauvinism: prejudiced belief in the superiority of one’s own gender, group, or kind.

-          Misandry: hatred of men.  If you hadn’t heard of it until now, don’t worry.  In graduate school my “teachers” hadn’t either.  Even the resident “expert” on masculinity hadn’t. 

I don’t suppose anyone would argue that misogyny is a culturally propagated syndrome.  Others have argued that misandry is, also (for example, Nathanson & Young, 2002).  You can readily find it, once you know what it is.  You may have already noticed it and called it “reverse sexism,” or some such thing.       

And now, a quote from Betty Friedan:

“If I were a man, I would strenuously object to the assumption that women have any moral or spiritual superiority as a class.  This is . . . female chauvinism . . “

(You can find the above quote in Farrell (2000), and in the original source, Friedan’s “It Changed My Life.”)

The question “Why are men sexually turned on by visual stimuli?  I know men probably evolved that way, but women are more attracted to a man’s personality – who he really is,” is full of misandric overtones.  It assumes men get attracted to a woman solely through the visual realm, assumes men are not attracted or even care ‘who a woman really is,’ assumes the ‘right’ way to get attracted is how women do it, assumes that women are not attracted to men via visual stimuli, assumes men haven’t ‘evolved’ to a the higher plane of woman, etc., etc., etc.  Trust me, as a good red-blooded man, there are many, many things about a woman I find attractive.  It’s the whole package!  If you like cake, you want to eat the whole cake – not just the frosting. 

If you find yourself saying the question above, maybe you need to find some guys to date who really LIKE women (vs. ONLY liking sex with women).  Men are individuals, and as individuals can show remarkable differences.  Which brings me to my next point.     

A (but not THE) fundamental tenet of racism is the inability to distinguish individual differences within groups, classes, or races of people.  Sadly, this is true with contemporary conceptualizations of men.  If you are reading this hoping to be validated by a man’s feminist conceptualization of men, you will be disappointed.  If you want to hear a man go on and on, bemoaning some misogynistic portrayal of women in the media, you won’t find it here (well, maybe you will).  If you are hoping to get the new take of “revisionist bitch theory” on some patriarchal scheme to oppress or otherwise destroy the lives of women, you will be disappointed.  But if you want to understand men, you are at the right place.

Sadly, I assure you, the demon does not live “out there,” in the soul of the other, but within your own soul.  Happily, I also assure you our deliverance lives within our soul, too – and maybe even in the demon we fear.

Yes, I have a bone to pick with the way SOME feminists (often as not, pro-feminist MEN!) have shown women who the men in their lives are. 

By way of introduction, I have been influenced by the likes of Warren Farrell and Glenn Sacks, though I don’t agree with EVERYTHING these men say.  I do believe Farrell knows more about male psychology than virtually all of the “enlightened” psychologist of academia (yes Jimmy O’Neil, I mean you and those of your ilk).  Like many feminists, I will always support what Farrell (2000) calls “empowerment feminism” – feminism that encourages a woman to develop all of her potential, without regard to gender.

To a greater extent – and if the reader will allow me the indulgence to write confusedly for a moment – I’ve been influenced by the men I have known.  Men who raised me, men who nurtured me, men who protected me, and who taught me how to provide and protect.  Men who showed me that empowerment and equality were about respecting others.  This respect might entail teaching others to provide for themselves and protect themselves, as providing and protecting are not my obligations.  They couldn’t always empower themselves, or free themselves, but they seemed to believe I could.  I could be more.  They helped me become more in touch with myself, even if they couldn’t always be in touch with themselves.  As humans being, these men were not without personal deficiencies.  God love them, all the same.

And I’ve been influenced by women! . . . . .

I will always cherish women who understand that to know themselves profoundly they must risk profound pain, yet they have the integrity to take this path.  They don’t expect things to always “be easy,” or fall from the sky and land in their lap.  They aren’t consumed with an uncompromising ego identity.  They haven’t become their worst enemy – confusing anti-dependence with independence and interdependence.  They can be interdependent WITH men, and love men without fearing they love themselves any less.  I think they truly are on the path to knowing the divine feminine within.  And they are a joy to behold.