According to the LA Times only about half of all boys expect to work in well-paid professional jobs when they grow up compared to nearly three quarters of girls. In other words, we’re somehow teaching young boys that either learning is girl’s stuff or that there is no point in aspiring. Either way a dumb lesson that does not seem to be a high enough priority among educators, especially at the K – 8 levels. Compounding the problem is the almost total feminization of school personnel. Only 16% to 18% of teachers in elementary and middle school are male. Therefore, we should be helping teachers learn how best to engage and motivate boys based on their gender based learning styles. For example, boys tend to prefer reading non-fiction over novels. With this in mind, teachers need to allow more freedom in allowing students to choose their reading material. After all the main purpose of reading instruction is to derive meaning from the written word. The particular reading material to achieve that should not be that important. Another example is hands on projects. In general boys are more motivated when the learning experience involves hands on activities. Again teachers should be planning their instructional activities to take gender differences into account. The adage, ” the equal treatment of unequals is inherently unequal” certainly reinforces the need for educators to include gender based strategies in planning educational activities.
If you click on the link to the book you will find the recently added preface to “Walk Like A Man”, the memoir that was the motivation for this blog. I wanted to again underscore that the blog and book are not intended to be read as academic works. Rather they are an attempt of exploring masculinity on a personal level and hopefully will stimulate others to contribute to the masculinity conversation through the lens of their own personal experiences.
In response to the data about men committing violent acts – including domestic abuse and sexual abuse – far more than women one interesting thought is that it’s almost certainly rooted in childhood. Boys are more likely to be beaten at school than girls, and parents are far more likely to encourage fights between boys. Think about it: if one of your earliest experiences is being told to punch that kid who insulted you, it’s no great leap to imagine you’d reach adulthood thinking violence was the right response to, well, everything. And since our culture loves to reward aggression—in the boardroom, on the sports field, in the military—it’s easy to see why unlearning that lesson might be next to impossible.
Although these environmental factors probably play a role in male violence it is not the whole story. The reality is that males are born with higher levels of testosterone than females. This hormone defines one of the biological distinction of maleness and is responsible for aggression and risk taking. From an evolutionary standpoint, male aggression has produced successful hunters and protectors of the community and has been genetically passed on through natural selection. Even though hunting and protecting with violence are not nearly as important in our modern world does not mean that the testosterone has disappeared. The issue for men is to figure out how to channel their natural aggression in ways that are socially and morally acceptable by today’s standards. Using the paradigm of the archetypes of masculinity we can gain insights about understanding aggression. The warrior archetype is a man’s aggressive nature. The warrior can operate either in the shadow or the light. The shadow is being violent, except if it is in pure self defense. The warrior in the light is assertive. Being assertive is the non-violent method to seek control of a situation and to protect what is important for the well being of our partners and families. It is imperative that we teach our young men -especially those in early adolescence when the testosterone starts flowing – how to manage their aggressive impulses through assertive non-violent means.
There was a small really disturbing article in the New York Times, Sunday magazine section entitled “Computer Love” by Hope Reeves.. She described a new app called BroApp which allows guys to outsource their digital affections by sending automated texts to needy girlfriends. Guys pick the messages, days and times, and the app does the rest. She goes on to indicate that the app even has a “girlfriend safety lockdown,” which sends prying eyes to a list of gifts you were allegedly planning to buy her. This is intended to mitigate any resentment of BroApp usage and she will think that the user is the best boyfriend. Not sure if this story was tongue in cheek I googled BRoApp and found that it really exists. Their website tag line is, “message your girlfriend sweet things so that you can spend more time with the Bros”.
Let me explain why I was upset. For the record I have no qualms with an appeal to the lover archetype of masculinity. As men, our lover reflects a man’s ability to be compassionate, sexual and to connect with others – men and women – in relationship. The reality is that we can have our lover operate in the light of in the shadow. Using artificial means like BroApp is a manipulative and insincere approach to growing a relationship with a woman and is certainly our lover acting in the shadow. The other aspect that bothered me was the reinforcement of the stereotype that real men do not want to spend the time on communicating affection but would prefer to use that time hanging with the Bros. This message only serves to diminish the importance of the lover in our lives and limits our ability to be fully connected with friends, family and lovers. The best of masculinity is to embrace our lover in the light and learn to communicate in relationship with honesty and compassion.
A number of years ago there was a problem with the elephant herds on a game preserve in Africa. Because they were protected, the herds were growing to such a size that they were destroying the countryside and even farm crops in a search for food. The local experts decided that the way to control the size of the herds was to “cull” them; to kill the adult bull elephants so that they could not breed.
Elephant herds are matriarchal in nature, in other words the female and young elephants live in a herd under the leadership of the dominant female. Older males live by themselves until it is time to breed. When male elephants are born they live with the herd for protection until they are teenagers, at which time the dominant female kicks them out of the herd so they are not “bothering” the females. Typically, these young males then find an adult bull elephant to live with and learn how a male elephant lives life. Unfortunately, they had killed off all the adult bull elephants. So, much like young males in our culture, with no male role models to teach them, these young pachyderms starting hanging around with each other and eventually formed a “gang” of teenage bull elephants. The results were similar to untrained and unrestrained young males in our culture in that the gang of teenage bull elephants started destroying crops, villages, even killing people.
A group of experts were called in and tried a variety of solutions with no success. Eventually someone suggested asking an old African chief what to do. He said, “Find an old bull elephant.” And so they found an old, old bull elephant and air lifted him by helicopter into the bush where they had last seen the gang of teenagers. He walked off and they did not see him for several weeks. One day, he came slowly walking out of the bush, and right behind him in single file were all the teenage bull elephants. They never had a problem with this herd again. Not because the old male was tough enough to fight the young males, but merely his presence as an older male taught them how a male lives life.
In light of the recent senseless shootings in our country, I couldn’t help but notice that so far there has not been any mention of a father for the Oregon or Connecticut shooters. In the vast majority of these tragedies the young man’s relationship with his father was non-existent or strained at best. It was seldom one of a guiding, loving, protective nature.
As my wise young friend Justin Farrell remarked, “Perhaps we don’t need more gun laws. Perhaps we need more elephants.”
(Rick Johnson – Patheos.com)
When I saw an article “Save Face” in a recent edition of the magazine Men’s Journal reviewing men’s skin-care productI was frankly astounded. Are men really willing to spend anywhere from $36 to $289 for a tiny bottle of a product that allegedly would help fight age- related damage? Apparently, contrary to my old school sensibilities, there is a sufficient market for these companies to advertise and sell their vanity promoting products. Besides my personal views on the superficial aspects of manliness – real men aren’t overly concerned with appearance – is there a more important message about masculinity that these types of products represent? I think it does reflect an overall obsession by both men and women not to look old. What has changed is how much this fear of appearing old has grown among men. The feminist movement attempted to reduce women’s fixation on superficial appearance and probably reduced young women’s need to apply makeup. Yet it seems that men are willing to step up and fill the demand gap by their purchasing of cosmetic and grooming stuff. I find this trajectory disheartening. Over valuing superficial attributes- hard bodies, perfect skin, etc., – diminishes the importance of character, values and compassion in how we think of ourselves. An unhealthy shift that has been a long standing issue for women and now increasingly for men.
I was re-watching the television series “Breaking Bad” and my attention was grabbed by an interchange between the main protagonist – Walter White – and his drug distributor Gus. Walt was telling Gus that he no longer wanted to manufacture meth because of the negative impact on his relationship with his wife. Gus responded with the argument that the role of a man was to provide even if there were consequences and that a man must step up and do whatever is needed to promote the financial well being of his family. This appeal to Walt worked and he relented and agreed to resume cooking meth. The concept of men as providers as an essential part of the male code and has been challenged by the success of women in the workforce. There are growing numbers of households where the wife out earns the husband or the husband is the stay at home parent while the wife is the primary bread winner. In my view there is nothing inherently wrong with these changes in our society. However, men who see being a provider as an essential part of their masculine identity experience these changes as a loss of their manhood with the resulting consequences of increases in depression, domestic violence and substance abuse. We cannot change a man’s need to provide but we must help redefine the concept of being a provider so that it is not entirely based on a man’s income.
Although not specifically a father’s day issue, how men are portrayed in the media does have a direct input on the value of men as fathers. A recent commercial for paint really got my goat. The first image was a women in a business suit sitting on a hotel bed “skyping” with her husband and children on her laptop. The husband, presumably the children’s father, is shown in a tight shot with three children sitting in a kitchen. She asks if everything is OK at home. He answers that everything is under control. The next scene is an expanded view of the kitchen totally trashed with all sorts of writing and drawing on the walls. Of course the mother does not see this on her computer. The narrator then pipes in that it is a good thing they used a particular brand of paint in the house so that these walls can be cleaned before the mother returns from her business trip. I guess the paint company wants us to identify with the helpless Dad who cannot manage his children and allowed them to scribble all over the household walls. I feel certain that the advertising agency which came up with this commercial thought it was humorous and reflected what they think is only a mild exaggeration of fathers who are unable to parent their children. I find the underlying message to be offensive to all fathers who quite capably parent their children whether or not their wive’s are present. In my opinion this advertisement is just one more example of how men are identified in the media as being inept needing advice and approval from a women in order to respond to life’s challenges. Without their guidance, guys are just screw ups who avoid meeting responsibilities – especially those dealing with family business.
There is strong data that suggests that father’s play a crucial role in helping adolescent boys manage their aggression and risk taking behaviors. Aggression, a component of the Warrior archetype, can be expressed either in the shadow or the light. Shadow behaviors include violence, bullying and physical coercion. In the light, the warrior is protective, assertive and bold. Fathers through appropriate modeling and teaching provide adolescent boys with a road map for handling their surging hormones. Boys who are poorly fathered are far more likely to join gangs, drop out of school and wind up in the juvenile justice system. Even in the animal kingdom we can observe the impact of fathering. Researchers report that rogue adolescent elephants who destroy property and threaten villages usually come from herds without an older male elephant in proximity.
With Father’s Day fast approaching – hard to miss with all the ads for dad’s gifts – each day leading up to father’s day I will offer a reason fathers are important. With the growing number of children raised in homes without their biological father it is essential that we are reminded that men have a significant role in raising well adjusted productive children.
Father’s play with their children tends to be more physical which promotes confidence in taking physical risks and self confidence.