Joel D. Lazar, Ph.D.
CA Licensed Psychologist  PSY 12520
619-540-6038                     doctorj7989@gmail.com
La Jolla and Point Loma, CA

It’s a man’s world, or is it?

It’s a man’s world, isn’t it?  After all, men comprise approximately 50% of the population, yet occupy the overwhelming majority of elected governmental positions and executive jobs in corporations.  Despite many advances in gender equity, men often continue to get paid more than women for comparable work.  And even when both husbands and wives work outside of the home, women continue to do the lion’s share of child rearing and house chores.  With all of these “advantages” it is not always apparent why a Men’s Movement has developed.

Increasingly over the past 70 years, feminists have accurately raised society’s awareness of the inequities women have historically faced in our country.  Although there is still a ways to go, this work has appropriately broadened the definition of “feminine”, and has increased women’s personal and societal power and their opportunities in business and sports.  You can go into any bookstore and find a sizeable section on Women’s Studies.  Until recently you could not say the same for Men’s Studies though Men’s Psychology has blossomed the past 50 years.

Men’s Psychology is a branch of Gender Issues, and explores why men and women have historically been so different from one another.  There are two main branches of Men’s Psychology, which place differential levels of importance on the main sources of the differences between men and women, biology and society.  The Biological Essentialism Movement argues that the differences between males and females is primarily due to genetic and biochemical differences between the sexes.  It encourages society to honor and revere the positives of masculinity and femininity.  It laments the lack of rituals and elder statesmen in so many boys’ lives to usher them into manhood, and sometimes uses myths, fables, and Native-American inspired activities such as drum beating to recapture the energy, social responsibility and connection of men to their society.

The second movement, popularized by among others Ron Levant, William Pollack and Terrence Real, emphasizes the role of societal messages that boys grow up hearing.  This model is referred to as the Social Constructionist Movement, and suggests that the definition of a “real man” changes over time, albeit slowly.  The male role is viewed as socially constructed, and largely learned.   These theorists often applaud the work of feminists, but point out that it is similarly important to look at the other side of the coin: what unhealthy messages are boys also hearing growing up?  There is a price to be paid for “male privilege”, which is paid by men as well as the women and children with whom they relate to.

When girls reach puberty then 18 years of age they become women.  However, when boys similarly mature biologically, they are asked by society to prove that they are a man.  Although the times are changing for the better (little boys are less likely to be shamed with “big boys don’t cry”), many boys still feel pressure from the media and in real life to be “the man of the house”, or taunted by a coach or peer to “man up” when injured or emotionally upset.  Research is clear that restricting expression of emotions is not very healthy regardless of one’s age, and movements like “Movember” are encouraging guys to take better care of their physical and emotional health. While many of you are no doubt thinking “I don’t say that to my son”, boys still hear messages to be hyper-masculine on TV, in movies and video games, at school, on playgrounds and by coaches and bosses. 

The process of boys’ socialization was effectively brought to the attention of the public in a book by William Pollack entitled “Real Boys”.  While promoting his book, Oprah Winfrey asked why it was so important to teach boys to express their vulnerable emotions.  His response, a few days before the tragic school shooting at Columbine High School, was that “If we don’t teach boys to cry with tears, sometimes they cry with bullets”.  But the socialization of boys has been an increasing topic of study since the early 1970’s.  Brannon summarized the rules for being a traditional “Real Man” as encompassing four issues; 1- “No sissy stuff” (avoid anything considered feminine, which includes expressing tender and vulnerable emotions), 2- be the “Big Wheel” (be number one in competitions and  the one with the highest income and job title), 3- be “The sturdy oak” (be strong and self-reliant), and 4- “Give ‘em hell” (seek adventure and don’t back down from a fight or a challenge).   Although men are generally moving away from this model of masculinity, and it is less prevalent in some U.S. sub-cultures, it remains a set of guidelines that many men and women use as a measuring stick when judging men.

Joseph Pleck introduced the concept of Gender Role Strain in the 1980’s, and identified three potential sources of stress inherent in growing up male. To a greater or lesser degree, most boys are exposed to two of the three depending upon their personality.  Boys who conform to the rules of traditional masculinity are at risk of being overly aggressive, avoidant of vulnerable emotions and intimacy in relationships, and reluctant to seek help when overwhelmed.  He called this “dysfunction strain”, and it can result in getting into trouble at school and with the law.  Compared with women, traditional men are at higher risk of dying prematurely from nearly every fatal disease, for being the perpetrator and victim of violence, and for substance abuse.  It also contributes to the disinclination of men to seek medical and especially psychological help.

Boys who vary from the traditional model of masculinity often face shaming and being criticized and ostracized by peers.  Pleck referred to this as “discrepancy strain”, and pointed out that the criticism of these males often comes from within as well, due to not measuring up to one’s view of a “normal” guy. 

The last source of stress Pleck termed “trauma strain”.  This refers to the harsh psychological and physical intimidation many boys face while being socialized into the male role.  While this may seem an exaggeration to some, ask almost any man you know who has taken a gym class or been a member of an athletic team, a fraternity or the military about the way they were treated by a frustrated coach, teammate, or superior and you are bound to discover disrespect, insults and shaming in the name of bringing out the best in a man. In contrast to the often austere spiritual bonding that goes on during a sorority initiation, fraternity hazing and mistreatment had to be outlawed to prevent further deaths.  

The purpose of this article is neither to minimize society’s unhealthy messages and treatment of girls and women, nor encourage a debate of which gender has it worse.  Both are hampered unnecessarily by societal pressure to adhere to outdated and restrictive definitions of masculinity and femininity.  My goal is to point out that society provides men as well as women with impediments to developing all of their capabilities.  It is not a man’s world any more than it is a woman’s world as long as boys and men are not allowed to express all sides of being human without criticism for betraying unhealthy norms for masculinity.  As clinicians, parents and citizens, how are we helping to reduce obstacles to selfhood for the boys and girls we know and with whom we interact? And how are we validating yet remediating the damage done to the adults whom these boys and girls become?

Joel Lazar, Ph.D. is a Licensed Psychologist in California who has private practice offices in La Jolla and Point Loma.  He has been a CPA-PAC Trustee and the Gender Issues Chair for Division VII of CPA.  He has been President of the San Diego Psychological Association, and Chair of their Men’s Issues Committee.  He was also one of the founding members of Division 51 of APA, the division focusing on men’s psychology.  Thanks go to CPA and SDPA for allowing this article to be reprinted.