Macho, the derivative of machismo, appears to have a fairly wide range of definitions.  On what might be considered on the surface to be a positive take on the word,  the Cambridge Dictionary defines machismo as a “strong ​pride in ​behaving in a way that is ​thought to be ​typically ​male, esp. by ​showing ​strength and ​power.”  I guess the ambiguity comes from the phrase “typically male.”   Some might say that a typical male has an unusually high or exaggerated sense of masculinity. including an attitude that aggression, strength, sexual prowess, power and control is the measure of someone’s manliness. A macho man feels having these traits entitles him to respect and obedience from men and women around him.  The key words here are exaggerated and obedience.  This poses the question. Is it possible to have pride in one’s masculinity, to seek respect as a man yet not attempt to forcibly control or dominate others – especially women?

I would answer with a strong affirmative.  Men can be macho in the light rather than the shadow when they express their masculinity in ways that earn respect not demand it and do not attempt to dominate others – especially women – just because they are male.   A good example would be comparing a dictator or bully with an elected or chosen leader.  The dictator seizes power through aggression, coercion and usually some aspect of violence to control the environment.  In contrast, an elected or peer selected leader earns the respect of those who put him in power through a proven record of accomplishment.    Both the dictator and the elected leader can be labeled “macho” but with obvious differences.

Certainly it is legitimate to ask how we would characterize a female dictator or bully?   Probably some would label her behavior as “macho”  with the implication that she is acting like a typical aggressive  dominating man.   Again those are the shadow traits of being macho.   The challenge for men in our gender sensitive  world is to figure out how to take pride in being a man without being labeled as a domineering  misogynist.  This can only happen through the expression of  their machismo in the light.  This is critically important especially for younger men trying to figure out the differences between a gender equal and a gender neutral society.

An opinion piece in the New York Times by Ellen Pollack  attempted to explain why women shy away from “Tech” jobs in engineering and computer science.   She references high school girls not choosing computer science classes to illustrate how early women tend to reject technology as a profession.  Pollack proffers the idea that the perception by women of the tech world leaves them with the impression that they will not fit in and therefore reject the notion of employment in tech companies.  She does make a good point highlighting how the media portrays tech workers.   The stereotype of a poorly socialized headphone wearing male nerd, addicted to video games hovering alone over a computer is often the depiction of a tech worker.  She even goes as far as focusing on how these male dominated workers decorate their cubicles and offices with posters and memorabilia that mainly appeal to geek interests.   Her conclusion and recommendations are based on the assumption that if the perception of the tech environment changes more girls would take computer science courses and more women would be motivated to seek tech jobs.

Frankly I believe she is missing a key element in how males and females differ in career choices.   Is the notion of fitting in more of a female than male concern?   Why do men tend to avoid careers in social work, nursing, and K-12 education?  Why do women show little interest in seeking decent paying jobs in  the trades?   Certainly cultural stereotypes are a factor but as gender equality has gained more traction in our society, the gender stereotypes in employment still remain.   I will risk being attacked by feminists and posit that there are biological and evolutionary dimension in play in setting differing  priorities for men and women as they define their career paths.  Females do tend to value fitting in and group harmony more than males.  Males do gravitate towards tangible objects and manifest tunnel vision more than females.  Men are empathetic but express their concern for others differently than women.  Women seem to be more willing to nurture before problem solving while men are more willing to bypass nurturing to seek fixes for people’s needs.  .Again, as in most gender related issues there are many exceptions and tendencies are on a continuum.  However, in our zeal for gender equality in employment we need to be reminded that some gender preferences are here to stay and not modifiable by simply combating stereotypes.

In an exclusive Salon interview, cultural critic Camille Paglia finds parallels between Cosby and Clinton.  She said, “So I say there is a big parallel between Bill Cosby and Bill Clinton–aside from their initials!  Young feminists need to understand that this abusive behavior by powerful men signifies their sense that female power is much bigger than they are!  These two people, Clinton and Cosby, are emotionally infantile–they’re engaged in a war with female power. It has something to do with their early sense of being smothered by female power–and this pathetic, abusive and criminal behavior is the result of their sense of inadequacy.”

Is she really suggesting that Cosby’s criminal acts – drugging women into unconsciousness and then essentially raping them- is the same as consensual sex with a willing partner?  Her criteria is based apparently on her rather unique definition of “abusive behavior.”   I simply cannot understand how Clinton’s encounter with Monica Lewinsky and alleged trysts with other women in his past should be labeled abusive.  Immoral, yes, since these exploits violated his marriage vows.  However, Paglia seems to believe that because Clinton was in a position of power and that some of his affairs were with younger women, albeit of legal age, he acted abusively even though the sex was totally consensual.  Cosby is a criminal, Clinton is an adulterer they are not equivalent.

Paglia seems to totally discount the fact that some women are attracted to so called powerful men and eagerly seek sexual relations with them regardless of the fact that they are married and in the public eye.  In other words her implication is that women bear no responsibility for their sexual choices and that men totally control the decision to engage in sex.  Yet she then contradicts herself with her stated belief that women really are powerful and their actions shape how masculinity is expressed.

I want to be clear that I strongly believe that a women saying no means no and that a women who is semi-conscious because of excessive use of alcohol or drugs cannot consent to having sex.  However, women who knowingly put themselves in situations such as drinking heavily at a frat party or accepting a private dinner invitation in a celebrity’s hotel room are engaging in high risk behavior.   Unfortunately, it seems that the onus for acting responsibly about sexual behavior seems to be placed entirely on men.  Young women in addition to young men need to be schooled about appropriate behaviors that put them at risk.

The recent events in Waco Texas involving biker gang violence has brought a plethora of pundits speculating about gangs and their members.  Biker gangs, self identifying as motorcycle clubs,  and street gangs are usually all male, hierarchical, with members referencing each other as brother.   According to reports of former members, gang speak includes words of loving their brothers.  Even though fiercely heterosexual members often greet each other with hugs and occasional kisses.  Why are gangs so successful in attracting new members and command so much media attention?

Obviously for some gangs and their members engagement in illegal activities – drug dealing, gun running, extortion – is a source of untaxed income.  However, that is an insufficient explanation.  Many gang/club members are employed in day jobs and also participate in gang endorsed community service activities.   In addition,  it appears that many gang members, especially bikers, are veterans.   This fact helps one understand the real attraction of gang membership.  Men need the company of other men.  Gang membership provides a sense of community and male companionship that is hard to find elsewhere.   Historically, men have had many opportunities to be in the company of men.   Most indigenous societies emphasized male only lodges and initiation practices guided by older men to prepare young men for their adult male roles.  There are countless examples throughout history of men finding ways either informally or institutionally to be in the company of other men.   However in our post-industrial world opportunities for men to affiliate with other men has diminished. In his seminal work, “Bowling Alone”  Robert Putnam points to the decline in membership of organizations like the American Legion and volunteer fire departments where traditionally men spent part of their non working hours in the company of other men.   No doubt the feminist revolution has contributed to the decline of male only groupings.  With some justification, women view male only structures as contributing to patriarchy and sexism and contrary to gender equality.

It should not be surprising that the few remaining male only institutions are drawing membership from men who experienced the closeness of other men in the military.   Younger men who have not served are also seeking the camaraderie and bonding of an all male grouping that is difficult to find in our communities.   The take away is that instead of marginalizing the concept of gang affiliation with criminal and anti social labels media should focus on how gang/club membership is need fulfilling for so many men and how these gangs/clubs can change their image from outlaws to community activists.  Wearing a patch and enjoying the open road in the company of other like minded men should not define a man as a miscreant.  How he contributes to his community should be the defining aspect of his masculinity.

I have been a harsh critic of the way men, particularly fathers, have been portrayed in  many advertisements.  Men are usually made out to be inept and impulsive, needing a female to set them straight or to remedy the confusion or mess that they have made.   The rare exception occurred on Super Bowl Sunday where a commercial for Dove’s Men’s Care Products entitled “What makes men stronger?- Care” was aired.  The ad showed a series of short clips with men interacting with children of various ages.  In each scene the presumed dad was positively interacting with his child.  Playfully tossing a small child in the air, dancing with his daughter at her wedding, tending to a child’s call for daddy’s help and a kiss of congratulations.  It was a thoughtful, honest depiction of the roles  a dad  can play in a child’s life.   I am grateful to Dove (Unilever) for reminding us  that being well fathered is an essential component in raising an emotionally healthy and responsible child.   There is a good deal of research that demonstrates that men bring a particular type of parenting to children and that their contribution to parenting compliments a mother’s female energy.  For example, fathers tend to play more physically with their children.  This encourages healthy risk taking and reinforces athletic pursuits and physical activity.  In addition, research shows that girl’s who are well fathered tend to feel more secure about their sexuality and have lower rates of teen pregnancy.  Presumably, validation by dad means that they are less likely to seek self worth through casual sexual encounters.  Astonishingly, girls without fathers in the home tend to reach puberty earlier than girls with fathers who are present.   A fact that proves how important environment is in expressing our genetic programming.

Hopefully the message in the Dove Men’s Care commercial will help those  men who are active in their fathering role feel validated for their efforts and at the same time remind fathers and  men who are not yet fathers how they can still be manly while parenting their children with care and compassion.

The media frenzy about police shootings in Ferguson, Missouri and Staten Island, New York have a disturbing connection that has not been mentioned.  In all cases the men involved acted in the shadow side of their masculine energy.  Let me break it down.  In the Ferguson incident, Michael Brown the young man who was killed, started the chain of events by stealing a box of cigars and pushing aside a store clerk who tried to stop him.  He was then confronted by a police officer, apparently refused to move to the sidewalk and engaged the cop, Darren Wilson, in a physical altercation which ended up with Michael being shot to death.  Michael’s stealing and assault of the store clerk and his subsequent confrontation with Darren Wilson point to impulsive and aggressive behaviors that can be attributed to masculine energy in excess.  Officer Wilson over reacted to the aggressive behavior of Michael and pursued him leading to his shooting of a clearly unarmed individual.  Did Wilson act out of a vengeful need to recapture his manhood because he was disrespected and punched by Michael?  Again, Wilson’s masculine energy was inappropriately expressed with excessive force.  The result.  One life lost, one career ruined and a community outraged over the apparent racial aspects of the incident.

In Staten Island, Eric Garner was selling untaxed cigarettes on a street corner.  A crime, although petty, it is against the law and known to  Garner who was a previous offender.  When confronted by officer Daniel Pantoleo he did not follow the officer’s instructions and his refusal led to the cop taking him down in an apparent choke hold which subsequently killed him.  Garner made two decisions.  The first one was to consciously break the law.  The second was to refuse Ponteleo’s  commands because he didn’t want to be arrested.  Garner’s decision to break the law is once more an expression of an excess of  masculinity –  I can risk defying a law for my own gain.  As for Officer Pantoleo, we do not have the audio portion of his confrontation with Garner, but we can easily hypothesize that Pantoleo’s sense of his mamboed was challenged by Garner’s verbal refusal to obey.  Why else would  the officer have made the decision to employ an illegal choke hold to bring down the offender who was unarmed, not physically aggressive but simply refusing to do what the officer demanded.   Pantoleo over reacted as a result of his excessive male energy driven by his personal need to be instantly obeyed and respected.  The  result, Garner is dead,  Pantoleo will most likely lose his job and another community is outraged over the racial aspects of the incident.

Let me be clear..  I am not attempting to negate the racial implications inherent in these cases.  In both instances a white police officer’s actions led to the death of a black man.  However, I believe there is an additional narrative to be considered concerning how men can express their masculinity. Men need to learn how to more appropriately act  in the light not the shadow of their  masculine aggression.  Aggression which can often lead to violence needs to be expressed as non-violent assertiveness.  Men can fully embrace their masculinity without  resorting to violence to preserve it.

An interesting story by Jaime Primak Sullivan on Yahoo illustrates the conflict between being a husband and being a Dad.  The author details how her marriage almost fell apart because her husband abandoned her emotionally and transferred his reservoir of affection and intimacy to the kids.   Contrary to the stereotype where men feel neglected because their wives put the kids ahead of them the author described how her husband ignored her needs – emotionally and physically – despite her frequent feedback to him about what she was feeling.  Even when it came to disciplining the children, she would take a fairly strict approach and he would often contradict her and appease the misbehaving child.    Finally, when she threatened separation, he listened and they began to work on salvaging their relationship which essentially boiled down to the principle that the health of their relationships came before the needs of the children.

The idea that our partner’s needs should take precedence over our kids needs is not new.  Most marriage and family therapists often remind couples that when as individuals they are feeling being second fiddle  to the kids that they have to make efforts to give their relationship the highest priority.  My experience with modern child rearing practices has led me to the conclusion that the issue of conflicting needs between a couple’s relationship and parenting has become far more prevalent.  Raising kids to compete in our 21st century environment has created two working parents, the  helicopter parent and the over scheduled child.  No wonder couples find little time for each other and the health of their relationship.

What to do about it?  First, make sure your relationship is in good shape before you decide to have children.  At times couples will falsely believe that having a child will resolve their relationship issues.   Be on the same page as far as parenting strategies.   Read parenting books, discuss the good and bad of how you were parented, adopt a philosophy of parenting and never disagree in front of the children.   Nurture your relationships with your partner.  Schedule date nights, set aside time each day to share and most importantly pay attention to meeting your own adult needs even if it means not always fulfilling what you think your kids need.  Children who are raised  by parents who are loving and caring for each other will have healthier relationships in their lives and will learn that they are not always the center of the universe – an important lesson in our hyper-narcissistic society.  .

Last night I attended an education symposium by a local education foundation  entitled, “Why We  Are Losing Our Boys?”  I left the presentation with mixed feelings.   On the positive side was the focus on the data that clearly shows how boys are not succeeding as well as girls in our schools.  The facts: 80% of high school dropouts are boys,  75% percent of students diagnosed with learning disabilities are boys,  nationally, of the children classified as emotionally disturbed, 84% are boys, boys account for the overwhelming majority of students receiving D’s & F’s and are far more likely to be suspended for disciplinary reasons.   This information has been known for quite some time but it is still important to remind an audience ofteachers and youth workers of the hard facts about the gaps in achievement between boys and girls.   In addition, important questions were raised.  Can we continue to use the same methods for both boys and girls and close our eyes to the fact that many of the methods aren’t producing equal results?  Should we encourage our schools and legislators to reconsider and modify zero-tolerance policies which are not working and cause collateral damage?  Do we start formal education at too young an age?

The negative side was the lack of depth in the responses by the panel.   There is a great deal of information available through books and research on gender differences in achievement in school and the biological and cultural factors contributing to those differences.  The consequence of ignoring the literature was proposing solutions that were either off target or beyond the scope of a local community being able to implement.   For example, all of the panelists agreed that increasing Physical Education and recess time would be helpful to boys, especially those likely to be labeled ADHD.  Not that this is a bad idea for a number of reasons.  However, changing PE requirements would take action by both local and state legislators.  An upward struggle especially with the emphasis on testing and accountability throughout our nation’s schools.  What was needed were suggestions that teachers can immediately implement in their classrooms that would alter the classroom environment in a way that allows boys to more successfully achieve at the same level as girls.  Shortening assignments, restructuring instructional groups so that boys can take on more hands on tasks and allowing more freedom in choosing reading materials are just a few of the changes that indiviudal teacher’s can make in their classrooms.

Hopefully, the symposium did increase awareness of the problem of gender differences in school achievement and in the future focus more on immediate and practical interventions that create a level playing field in our classrooms.

Seven football players at a New Jersey High School have been arrested and charged with a variety of offenses involving hazing related sexual assaults against younger players on the team.   Hazing, fundamentally the same thing as bullying with the difference being that hazing is more organized and involves initiation and acceptance into an organizational structure like a team or fraternity.  The community in this case, which has traditionally been highly supportive of their football team, is sharply divided about the  alleged criminal charges and the Superintendent’s decision to shut down the program for the entire season. Some folks feel that the acts of the perpetrators were not that bad – boys will be boys –  and that suspending the program hurts the other kids, especially seniors who are seeking college scholarships.   Others are horrified by the allegations and want to have answers from the adults in charge as to how they could not have known what was going on in the locker room.

I am relatively certain that what happened in New Jersey is not unique.   Males are by nature highly hierarchical, especially within the context of an all male organization, and  dominant males will use whatever tactics are necessary to  achieve and maintain their dominance.  Therefore, if, as we should,  want to protect against the most outrageous examples of hazing we need to find other ways of establishing hierarchy without resorting to violence.  The usual response by  adults in charge is to attempt to ban the practice entirely.   In other words zero tolerance for hazing.   Frankly all this will do is to drive hazing underground which is  potentially far more dangerous.   The more logical and ultimately effective response has to be based on the recognition that hierarchical behaviors will not go away.  Those in charge should be attempting to define hazing/initiation rules and regulations that .are consistent with the notion of  hierarchy yet still protect the well being of those subject to hazing.   Of course, this process will work best if the boys and young men who are part of these teams or fraternal organizations have input into the rule setting process.   Bottom line – Boys Will Be Boys but they do not have to be abusers to preserve one of the fundamental components of their masculinity.    .

Media attention about violent men has shifted from domestic violence – the Ray Rice incident to child abuse – thanks to Adrian Peterson.   Both men are NFL stars who have been suspended from football because of their assaultive behaviors.   The silver lining in both cases is greater awareness of these issues.   However, my concern is that the talking head experts will over generalize the potential for  male violence and once more diminish pride in our masculinity.   As discussed in a previous post, the testosterone which we are born with does in aggregate make men more aggressive and potentially more physically violent than women.  There are a variety of  ways to understand, but not condone, domestic violence.  The root cause is usually an erosion of a man’s sense of power and control.  There could be antecedent circumstances that make a man prone to spousal abuse such as a loss of  a job, diminished or aggrandized self worth and/or obsessive jealousy.   For these men even a minor argument with a women can lead to a violent attack.  Their anger- in the form of abusive behavior –  is a misguided short term attempt to restore their sense of power.  The irony is that when these men calm down they are often deeply disturbed by what they have done and beg forgiveness from their partners.  Unfortunately, unless they find better alternatives to meet their need for power/control they often repeat their abusive behavior.  This scenario is even more mystifying for a super star athlete like Ray Rice.  One would think that his status and fame would fill him with an enormous sense of power/control.   The likely explanation is that his sense of self worth is so over inflated that his perception of being disrespected by his then fiancé triggered the violent response.

Physical abuse of children is a different story.   Women abuse children almost as much as men.  The difference is that the abuse by men, as in the case of Adrian Peterson, is by and large more violent and devastating.   I believe resorting to physical violence against children has the same root cause as domestic violence.   A parent finds their sense of power/control diminished by their inability to control a child’s annoying or destructive behavior.  Again, the quick fix is anger with its natural consequence of a violent physical or verbal outburst.  An additional explanation for men hitting children – especially their sons –  is the mythology that only harsh physical discipline will control a boy’s aggressive behavior.  These men often say, “My father beat me and I turned out all right.” This appears to be Peterson’s explanation for his crimes.  Frankly they might not be as all right as they think and many other men who were beaten are far from all right and often are abusers themselves.   As a professional parenting coach I can unequivocally say the corporeal punishment is never OK and there is an enormous amount of research data to support this conclusion.  I understand that even the most grounded parent out of frustration  may occasionally resort to a quick spank.   Not a great disciplinary tool but probably does little harm.  However, when spanking or paddling is the primary disciplinary tool we are on the slippery slope to child abuse and causing psychological and physical  trauma to a child.

Getting back to male aggression and the potential for it to be expressed in violence, we need to be reminded that aggressiveness can be expressed in positive ways that are still manly but not violent – unless that violence is in a response to a direct threat to our families.  Being assertive through competence, leadership, self-awareness and leading a principled life are ways men can channel their aggression for the benefit of their families and society in general.