- Email: [email protected]
Reintegrating masculinity: developing a sustainable, holistic perspective
Complementary Therapies in Nursing & Midwifery (2003) 9, 23–29
Reintegrating masculinity: developing a sustainable, holistic perspective Stephen Kermode*, Peter Keil School of Nursing and Health Care Practices, Southern Cross University, Australia KEYWORDS CAM theory; Gender; Holistic medicine
Introduction The world is divided in many ways. The social world is divided by ethnicity and culture, it is divided by wealth and it is divided by gender. In an ecological sense, such diversity is an asset. Biologists have known for decades that diversity is what produces sustainability. What comes with diversity, however, is differenceFin many cases this difference manifests as inequity. The struggle against inequity is a political one, but one that has a fundamental ecological imperative. There is no point in conquering inequity if it results in the death of diversity, because it will simply not be sustainable. This paper seeks firstly to address the problem of men’s health in the context of the social construction of gender, and in particular the problem of lack of diversity. It aims through this to promote the project of neo-masculinism, without in any way challenging the important gains of feminism. It attempts to present a holistic context for understanding and promoting the needs of men. Secondly, this paper seeks to expose the crucial need for health workers and therapists to recognise that many of the contemporary health problems and social problems experienced by their male clients and patients are in fact grounded in issues of gender. As this paper points out, there are a wide *Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Kermode).
range of health outcomes that are skewed by gender, and at the heart of many of these are fundamental problems with gender socialisation. While this paper focuses largely on Australian men, it is hoped that readers will test its principles within their own social contexts and within their own areas of practice.
The crisis in masculinity When addressing the area of men’s health in Australia it is difficult to ignore the evidence that Australian men are in trouble. Authors such as Steve Biddulph have listed a litany of problems for contemporary Australian men, and the data are alarming. Australian men, on average, live for 6 years less than women do. They routinely fail in close relationships; for example, almost half of their marriages break down, and divorces are initiated by the woman in four out of five cases. Over 90% of convicted acts of violence will be carried out by men, and 70% of the victims will be men. In school, around 90% of children with behavioural problems are boys and over 80% of children with learning problems are also boys. One in seven boys will experience sexual assault by an adult or other child before the age of 181 (this is not to diminish in any way the serious problems for Australian women in the area of sexual assault, but simply to point out
1353-6117/03/$ - see front matter r 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S1353-6117(02)00128-2
24
that the issue is also a significant issue for Australian men). Young males have much higher rates of death from drowning, motor vehicle accidents, and drug dependence. Men comprise over 90% of inmates of gaols. Men are also 74% of the unemployed. Young men are four times more likely than young women to commit suicide.2 Men are significantly worse off than women across a whole range of major health and welfare concerns. A number of authors argue that aspects of men’s socialisation have had a major impact on health-risk behaviour on their mental health and their sense of well-being. These factors include excessive competition, unrealistic and unattainable models of masculinity, poor self-esteem, lack of meaningfulness in their lives, poor identity formation and lack of sustainable role models.3 Disturbingly, the position for men in Australia seems to be worse than for men in other countries. Cummins4 found in his survey of Australian men and women that men are less happy, less satisfied and less content with their lives than women, and that Australia was the only country in the world reporting such a comfort disparity between men and women. Where a disparity exists in other countries, it is always in favour of men. The literature all seems to be pointing at the same phenomenonFcontemporary social roles for Australian men have changed so quickly, and to such an extent, that many modern men do not know how to behave in the modern world. They are disconnected from their reason for being. They can no longer hunt, fight and conquer in the ways they have previously done, and for which their genetic endowment has prepared themFand yet they also lack the personal resources to fulfil themselves in other ways. Life’s modern challenges are differentFthey are emotional, technical and financial. Relationships and jobs have become the battlefields that men occupy, and their most powerful enemies are their own expectations, reinforced by relentless media portrayal of instant success and gratification. Moreover, they are becoming consistently out-performed in these arenas by their female competitors. Fisher5 presents compelling arguments to support the evolution of femalefriendly societies, in which women have a natural advantage over men. It seems to be well under way in Australia. Women’s genetic inheritance has given them an advantage in areas where networking, emotional intimacy, communication and social support are useful tools. Men’s genetic inheritance, which has programmed them for physical strength, physical aggression, and rugged independence is no longer
S. Kermode, P. Keil
relevant. Girls, on the other hand, use socially acceptable forms of aggression. Owens,6,7 for instance, found in his study of Australian schoolaged girls that they are socialised into verbal and passive aggressive forms of behaviour, and incorporate them into their repertoire of interpersonal skills. They learn the skills of emotional aggression while boys do not. Physical violence is illegal, whereas passive aggression and emotional violence are not. Our society has constructed a powerful set of sanctions which actively encourage female power-seeking behaviour and which actively discourage male power-seeking behaviour. Our society is being systematically de-masculinised. Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder is a good case in point. The behavioural traits attributed to this disorder are archetypally male. It is the de-masculinised Western cultures that have elevated it to epidemic status. Moreover, because testosterone-driven behaviour is now a liability in most social roles, men have had to rely on the power of money to maintain their position of social dominance. Economic dominance is the last bastion of patriarchy. It too will crumble as more and more women opt for independent economic security, and as marriage becomes irrelevant as a social institution. Not surprisingly, marriage in Australia is also struggling to maintain its relevance, with almost 50% of all marriages failing. Indeed, since 1961 the divorce rate in Australia has gone up more than four times, and it is estimated that 29% of men and 23% of women will never marry.8,9 It must also be said that the data on suicide in Australia paint it as being predominantly a men’s issue. At a global level, studies have shown that countries with high suicide rates also have high divorce rates, high youth unemployment, high female employment, and high levels of alcohol consumption.10 All of these are factors which undermine the traditional social roles of men, and are symptomatic of the de-masculinisation process. Self-medication using alcohol is a major public health issue, but is only symptomatic of deeper and more pervasive social problems. There is a problem too in how society and its formal institutions have stereotyped men. Men, for instance, are seen as the prime perpetrators of violence in domestic relationships. This is despite recent evidence from an analysis of over 70 research studies which indicates otherwise. This analysis, conducted by New Zealand academic Garth Fletcher11 summarises the evidence from 60,000 participants in over 70 studies from the US, Canada, New Zealand, Britain, Australia, Korea and Israel. It found that the rates of violent acts by partners in intimate relationships are roughly the
Reintegrating masculinity
same for both men and women. Sixteen percent of married couples report acts of violence in the relationship, while for de facto partners the rate is 30%. On top of this, men and women both reported that women are more likely to be the initiators of such violence. Men, nevertheless, kill their partners more frequently than vice versa in almost all cultures (except among African Americans). There is no doubt that in most cases men have the potential to do more damage in an act of physical violence, because of their greater muscle bulk, but domestic violence is clearly a shared problem with shared responsibility. Fletcher also expressed alarm that many of the authors of these research studies have had death threats made against them because of the ‘political incorrectness’ of the findings produced by their research. The stereotype of men as potentially violent and sexually predatory is only now starting to be challenged by serious researchers. While it is clear that the behavioural effects of testosterone can be easily demonstrated in both experimental and clinical studies, this does not take account of the complex social factors that conspire to produce such stereotyped behaviour in real-life social situations. The overwhelming majority of men are not reported for acts of violence or sexual misconduct. All men, however, are suffering at the hands of misplaced stereotypes and unrealistic expectations. Masculinity is the poorer for the perpetuation of these stereotypes. It seems, moreover, that the bad press that masculinity has experienced over the last half century has been endured in silence by men, because of fear about challenging gender-based political correctness, and also because many men accepted the bad press as part of the legitimate project of feminism. The future for men is bleak unless masculinity can reinvent itself. For many men, this planet has become an alien environment. Many of them feel as though they do not belong here. That is why so many choose to opt out through suicide. It is not because of depression. In fact, a study by the Centre for Adolescent Health in 1996 found that teenage girls are more likely to suffer depression than boys,10 yet it is teenage boys who are far more likely to kill themselves. The problem for men is what Emile Durkheim12 (1897) first described as ‘anomie’Fa sense of disconnection and alienation. Many Australian men simply feel disconnected and alienated from their social reality. Their jobs have become less relevant and less satisfying (if they are lucky enough to have one) through the process of casualisation and the death of single career work trajectories, and many men cannot sustain relationships because their role in relationships is not
25
clear any more. Many men are ending up isolated and alone because of the changing nature of work and the changing nature of relationships. There are, however, very few isolated women. Moreover, women are able to shut men out of social life very effectivelyFnot necessarily deliberatelyFbut effectively nonetheless. Networking and social support seem to be part of the everyday fabric of women’s lives, no matter what the setting is. It is not so for men. No man wants to be an outcast, yet they are almost always alone. ‘yThey go on their life’s journey by themselves, with a partner or companion accompanying them only part of the way. Whereas women seem to find it easier to relate to other women, men have partial friendships’ (West, p. 16).13 Peter West (p. 185)13 said of his interviews with men that ‘yone man after another in interviews expressed helplessness about feeling unhappy, and many of them said that, when unhappy, they just went away to be by themselves.’ In other words, men are deliberately choosing isolation and disconnection, because they have no skills to choose other options. This isolation and disconnection produces a profound loneliness in men. Dorwick14 says of this loneliness that it derives from a fear of abandonment, of not being wanted by someone, of not being recognised, or understood, or appreciated and that behind the fear of abandonment is a profound lack of trust in your selfFa belief that your existence has no meaning and is of no consequence. Biddulph captures the essence of the problem of male isolation: And this is the core of the problemFthat men so often live their lives privately, isolated from each other by a tradition of silence, trapped by the culture and the demands of the economy like beasts of labour in separate pens. Even when men find answers, they are often not shared around. And when men suffer, they suffer alone. Suicide is the ultimate loneliness; following closely are alcoholism, divorce, poor health, crime and violence. The antidote to this poison is obvious. When we uncover our hearts, even just a little, we rejoin the human race (Biddulph, p. 6).15
There is a great paradox inherent in this scenario. There is considerable empirical and scientific evidence to support the importance of holism in sustaining health and well-being, not to mention the survival of the human species, and of the interconnectivity of all things as reflected in the principles of biodiversity. Yet so many men feel so disconnected, so alienated and so isolated. Why do they know one thing with their heads, and feel something quite different with their hearts? Why
26
can they not transfer their beliefs into their experience? There is a desperate need for many men to find ways to actively re-engage. Men are going to have to do it for themselves. It is up to men to reconstruct their own social reality. Women are already doing it for themselves and men have been left behind. The project of feminism, at least in the Western world, is well underway. The project of neo-masculinism is yet to begin. Life has pushed men headlong onto the major battlefields of contemporary lifeFjobs and relationships, yet they seem unable to respond adequately to the challenge, because politically incorrect testosterone-driven behaviour has not been replaced with any other primal drives that equip men better for survival in the modern world. Many men are standing transfixed by the spectacle before them, and unable to respond in any way that is safe. While archetypically female hormonedriven behaviour is given either reverent or even humorous or quasi-mythological status, archetypically male hormone-driven behaviour has been medicalised and criminalised. As a consequence of this, disconnecting is often the only safe response for men. This then is the heart of the paradox. Men are yearning for connectivity, in a social context that alienates them, and once alienated, they have no skills to negotiate their way back. They remain disconnected, because in our society it is unsafe to do anything else. The emerging men’s movement has been characterised in mytho-poetic terms by a number of writers (for example, Refs. 1, 16–19). They argue that the disconnection experienced by men occurs because men no longer have an appropriate story to relate to. Nor do they know the correct psychological techniques for reading such stories in a modern context. The male story is seen primarily as a hero quest told in thousands of different forms. In this quest the man leaves his ordinary life and enters another world (normally an underworld of some kind) in which he faces demons and is either destroyed by them or succeeds against them. If he succeeds, he returns to his normal life carrying a bounty for his community. The need for heroic action is seen as archetypally male in all of these traditional stories. Heroic activity is seen as something ennobling and worthy of admiration. In modern Australia men pursue legitimate hero quests through sport, but not through much else. Indeed, as West13 noted in his study, sport is the crucible of masculinity in Australia. Often, however, the actions of sportsmen are neither ennobling nor worthy of admiration. Furthermore, a great many Australian men are either denied access to expression through sport, or
S. Kermode, P. Keil
alienated by it, due to lack of the necessary physical attributes, lack of talent or simply lack of interest. Most men sublimate their hero quest into their work. With the changing labour market in Australia, however, there are diminishing opportunities for men to do this. Unfortunately, most other hero quests amount to pointless, socially irresponsible or illegal risk-taking adventures. The hero quest has either become perverted or has been repressed. Repression and disconnection are just as dangerous to men as perverted expression of the hero quest. A slow lingering death is just as fatal as a quick and pointless death.
The ‘becoming’ problem Masculinity has been fractured by modernity. Social, cultural and technological advances have undermined most of the social institutions that have supported masculinity in Australia. Slowly, the remaining institutions are also feeling the pressure. What is needed is a re-evaluation of Australian masculinity in a way that allows men to develop their potential without jeopardising the important gains that have been made for women by the women’s movement. Feminism has achieved much that neo-masculinism now needs to emulate. If anything, feminism has done masculinity a huge favour by casting a spotlight on its failures. Social change is constant and inevitable, and it is time for masculinity to meet the challenge. This is not to assume that women have ‘got it right’ in respect of healthy gender socialisationFrather it is to state that feminism has at least created the potential for many women to reject the roles and stereotypes of previous generations should they choose. These choices are backed, at least in the developed West, by legislation and social policy that promotes such objectives. It is time for neo-masculinism to pursue the same agenda on behalf of men. One of the key problems for men is the notion of constantly ‘becoming’ a man. Manhood never seems to quite arrive in its full and complete state. Men find themselves on a lifelong journey of proving their masculinity. Men seem constantly to have to prove their masculinity over and over again, and to do so in reference to the achievements of other men, or in reference to mythical male ideals.13 This competitiveness is crippling many men. Their career is never successful enough, their home never large enough, their lawn never smooth enough, their car never fast enough, their muscles never big enough, their penis never large
Reintegrating masculinity
enough, their partner never beautiful enough. Masculinity in this sense takes on the features of a bottomless pit of yearningFthe quest for a holy grail that does not exist, except in the brainwashed minds of men. Men define themselves as what they are not, and in most cases can never be. Part of the problem for men is that feminism has encouraged women to be anything they want to be, while masculinity has still restricted men to narrow, culturally and socially outdated stereotypes. Women have the opportunity to break free of modernist conceptions of femininity, but men are still largely trapped in a modernist conception of masculinity that has outlived its usefulness. The overwhelming majority of men do not have welldefined muscles, large penises, great sporting prowess and brilliant careersFbut they still have the potential to be not just good men, but great men.
The fathering problem The fracturing of masculinity has been attributed in no small part to changes in the status of fathering. Biddulph,1 for instance, argued that prior to the industrial revolution, boys grew up literally at the feet of their fathers. In village society fathers worked either at home, or close to home. Sons watched their fathers work and spent most of their waking hours in close contact with their fathers. With the advent of the industrial age, fathers were forced out of villages and into factories to work. They left before sunrise and returned after dark, and did so 7 days a week. Sons rarely saw their fathers. The raising of boys was left in the hands of their mothers. Just as girls learn very little about femininity from their fathers, boys learn very little about masculinity from their mothers. What boys did learn, however, was a lot about the traditional roles of women, and how they related to their husbands. They learned to see their fathers as their mothers saw themFbut not as their fathers saw themselves. Generations of men were born and raised without ever really knowing their fathers in any sense other than their stereotyped social role. Even today many men cannot hug their fathers or talk intimately with them, even when they have lived in the same home as them for 18 years or more. Many men are left with a feeling of emptiness because of this ‘absent father’ syndrome. In some cases the absence is only emotional, while in others it is physical. The problem of absent fathers has been accentuated throughout the latter
27
half of the 20th century. The emergence of the women’s movement in the 1960s and the advent of the Family Law Act in Australia in 1975 have created a surge in the prevalence of single-parent families. In Australia, one in eight families is a single-parent family, and in 84% of these there is no father.20 In these cases, manhood is being fashioned in a vacuum, or worse, at the hands of the mass media and peer pressure. In a powerfully youthoriented culture such as that existing in Australia, significant older men are being sidelined from the essential task of raising boys. In addition, the overwhelming majority of pre-school and primary school teachers are female. There has been a systemic de-masculinisation of the raising of boys. As a consequence, we are producing generations of incomplete men. When men look in the mirror, they see the image created by women, the media and their peers. Raising boys may, however, be dangerous for women. There is some evidence that raising boys in pre-industrial society was not good for the health of mothers, and shortened their lifespan.21 In postindustrial society, this phenomenon may be even further accentuated. There is an essential role for fathers in the raising of boys, and masculinity is inextricably linked to fatherhood. Masculinity is incomplete without the inter-generational influence of fathers and grandfathers. Unfortunately, Western society has taken these men away from their sons and grandsons. Any reconstruction of masculinity must include a reconstruction of fatherhood. Fatherhood alone is not the answer, however. Often the problems of raising boys are compounded by dysfunctional relationships between parents, where fathers are perpetuating poor role models due to the pressures within the relationship. Adam Mitchell22 recounts the episode where, at age 7, he was subjected to emotional, verbal and physical violence by his mother. In desperation, he slapped her back. His father’s response was that he should not only apologise for hitting her, but should also accept blame for whatever he had done to make his mother hit him. His father’s advice was given sensitively and calmly. He explained that it was a very unjust world, in which only men were held responsible for these things, and that to maintain peace in the household, his mother needed to feel justified for her violence. Not surprisingly, Mitchell found that this pattern repeated itself in his school years with teachers and later in his marriage. It seems that generations of men have been complicit in suppressing the true nature of power relations in cross-gender relationships. Good fathering is strongly related to good mothering and good
28
S. Kermode, P. Keil
partnering. All of these things have powerful influences on the nature and development of masculinity.
The reintegration of masculinity Masculine ideals have been corrupted in many ways by Western cultureFby the belief that physical strength denotes power; by the belief that ‘success’ as a man is measured by your income, your car or how beautiful your partner is; by the belief that sex is the basis of love; by the fear that every other man is your competitor. The Western ‘macho ideal’ of masculinity has been portrayed as ytoughness, courageousness, decisiveness (with) an adventuresome spirit, a proclivity to violence, a tendency towards physical rather than oral expression of thoughts and a callous attitude towards sexual relationsy(which will often) manifest in brute physical strength and unerring silence (Louie, p. 8).23
Louie argues that masculinity derives primarily from being embodied as a manFthat the biological reality of sexual identity cannot be divorced from the cultural and social constructions of gender. Success as a man is felt by men to relate at least in part to their image of their bodies. ‘Manliness’ has had a physical denotation just as much as a cultural one. What Louie further argues, however, in his exploration of Chinese masculinity, is that physical prowess (wu) is balanced by cultural attainment, and that the ‘ideal man’ is developed in physical abilities as well as in cultural, intellectual and artistic abilities (wen). The ‘macho’ man is not the predominant form of masculinity in China. In fact, says Louie, the ‘cerebral male model’ dominates the model of the ‘macho hero’, and always has. Furthermore, throughout Chinese history it has been documented that ‘ywhile not all men would necessarily be able to incorporate high levels of skill in both wen and wu attributes, the truly great men would’ (Louie, p. 16).23 Interestingly, this reflects medieval attitudes towards masculinity that emerged alongside the concept of romantic love around the 12th century. The knights of the middle ages while heroic, were not ideal men if they did not combine their warrior skills with poetic, musical, religious and political skills as exemplified by the character of Tristan in the classic mediaeval love story Tristan and Iseult. This set of attitudes later re-emerged in the form of the ‘renaissance man’ (Ref. 19, pp. 106–113). Being a ‘successful’ man is first and foremost about being a successful person. The environmen-
talist catch phrase ‘think globally, act locally’ is a perfect metaphor for masculinity. For men to survive in an increasingly hostile social world, and to promote the global cause of neo-masculinism, they need to look first at themselves as individuals. For older men this is a daunting task, but one that may be more successful with the vision of hindsight. It is not society that is to guide and save the creative hero, but precisely the reverse. And so every one of us shares the supreme ordealynot in the bright moments of his tribes great victories, but in the silence of his personal despair (Campbell, p. 391).18
Men need to work on being less isolated. Isolation is what underpins their disconnection. They need to make real friends with other menFnot just casual, superficial acquaintances, but real friends. They seem to have fewer problems communicating about deep, emotional and spiritual issues with women than they do with other men. The walls they build around themselves as a result of their drives and their socialisation are killing them. It took two generations for women to make fundamental changes to the social order in the Western world, and to successfully promote the interests of feminism. In two generations men can do the same. One generation of powerful fathers will create a generation of powerful young men who will be much better prepared for survival. It is hard to escape the view that good fathering is such an important issue in the growing of good men. The reintegration of masculinity cannot be achieved without the reintegration of fatherhood. Good men, whether gay or straight, find immense strength in the love of a powerful and significant man. A man who can hold them, stand beside them and mentor them for as long as they need. Fathers who can support and promote diversity among boys and young men. Fathers who talk. Fathers who demonstrate how to relate to women appropriately. Fathers who hug. Fathers who are prepared to show their feelings, their shortcomings, their humanity. There are a number of recurrent themes that characterise the emerging neo-masculinism, including committed fathering, strong and appropriate emotional expression and the willingness to take a personal stand on important ethical issues. Many individual men are recognising and embracing these characteristics. But there is also a social responsibility to facilitate the promotion of neomasculinism. Social policy must recognise that there are significant social gains and public health gains to come from growing better men. Issues such as childcare, maternity leave, family friendly
Reintegrating masculinity
employment can no longer be construed as ‘women’s issues’ alone. They are also men’s issues. There needs to be an equitable and just approach to the issue of relationship violence in all its forms. Both men and women need to relate in ways that are productive rather than destructive. Men should not be intimidated into disconnecting because of the power of political correctness and the power of socialisation. The process of reintegrating masculinity is also about simultaneously recognising the gains of feminism. It must be sustainable. Better men will be better citizens, and this will also promote the interests of feminism.
Conclusion Populist contemporary models of masculinity in Australia are corrupt, fractured and causing unacceptable levels of illness and death among Australian men. Their lack of sustainability is becoming patently obvious to men and women alike. The reintegration of masculinity and the promotion of neo-masculinism is long overdue, and must proceed as a matter of urgency. And it must proceed without in any way challenging the important gains of feminism in order for it to produce sustainable ways for men and women to share this planet.
References 1. Biddulph S. Manhood. Sydney: Finch Publishing, 1995. 2. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Australia’s Health. Canberra: AIHW, 2000. 3. Huggins A. The Australian male: illness, injury and death by socialisationFa paradox of health inequalities. In: Laws T, editor. Promoting men’s healthFan essential book for nurses. Melbourne: Ausmed, 1998.
29
4. Cummins R, Eckersley R, Pallant J, Van Vugt J, Shelley J, Pusey M, Misajon R. Australian unity well-being index: survey 1. Report 1. Australian Centre on Quality of Life, Deakin University, Melbourne, June 2001. 5. Fisher H. The first sex: the natural talents of women and how they are changing the world. New York: Random House, 1999. 6. Owens L, Shute R, Slee P. ‘Guess what I just heard y ’ Indirect aggression amongst teenage girls. Aggress Behav 2000;26:67–83. 7. Owens L, Sleep Shute R. ‘It hurts a hell of a lot y‘The effects of indirect aggression on teenage girls. School Psychol Int 2000;21(4):359–76. 8. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Australian Social Trends. Canberra: AGPS, 1995. 9. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Australian Social Trends. Canberra: AGPS, 2002. 10. Healy K. Suicide: issues for the nineties, vol. 84. Balmain: The Spinney Press, 1997. 11. Fletcher G. The new science of intimate relationships. Oxford: Blackwell, 2002. 12. Durkheim E. Suicide. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1970 [1897]. 13. West P. Fathers, sons & lovers: men talk about their lives from the 1930s to today. Sydney: Finch Publishing, 1996. 14. Dorwick S. Intimacy and solitude. Melbourne: Mandarin Press, 1991. 15. Biddulph S, (editor). Stories of manhood: journeys into the hidden hearts of men. Sydney: Finch Publishing, 2000. 16. Bly R. Iron John. Melbourne: Element, 1999. 17. Bly R. Men and masculinity. London: Rider, 2001. 18. Campbell J. The hero with a thousand faces. London: Palladin, 1988 (orig. 1949). 19. Campbell J. The hero’s journey. New York: Harper and Collins, 1990. 20. O’Doherty S. Inquiry into boy’s education: a report to the Minister of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Sydney, 1994. 21. Helle S, Lummaa V, Jokela J. Sons reduced maternal longevity in preindustrial humans. Science 2002;296:1085. 22. Mitchell A. ‘The last time I hit a woman’. In: Biddulph S, editor. Stories of manhood: journeys into the hidden hearts of men. Sydney: Finch Publishing, 2000. 23. Louie K. Theorising Chinese masculinity: society and gender in China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
A specialist is one who knows everything about something and nothing about everything else (Ambrose Bierce)
Reintegrating masculinity: developing a sustainable, holistic perspective Stephen Kermode*, Peter Keil School of Nursing and Health Care Practices, Southern Cross University, Australia KEYWORDS CAM theory; Gender; Holistic medicine
Introduction The world is divided in many ways. The social world is divided by ethnicity and culture, it is divided by wealth and it is divided by gender. In an ecological sense, such diversity is an asset. Biologists have known for decades that diversity is what produces sustainability. What comes with diversity, however, is differenceFin many cases this difference manifests as inequity. The struggle against inequity is a political one, but one that has a fundamental ecological imperative. There is no point in conquering inequity if it results in the death of diversity, because it will simply not be sustainable. This paper seeks firstly to address the problem of men’s health in the context of the social construction of gender, and in particular the problem of lack of diversity. It aims through this to promote the project of neo-masculinism, without in any way challenging the important gains of feminism. It attempts to present a holistic context for understanding and promoting the needs of men. Secondly, this paper seeks to expose the crucial need for health workers and therapists to recognise that many of the contemporary health problems and social problems experienced by their male clients and patients are in fact grounded in issues of gender. As this paper points out, there are a wide *Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Kermode).
range of health outcomes that are skewed by gender, and at the heart of many of these are fundamental problems with gender socialisation. While this paper focuses largely on Australian men, it is hoped that readers will test its principles within their own social contexts and within their own areas of practice.
The crisis in masculinity When addressing the area of men’s health in Australia it is difficult to ignore the evidence that Australian men are in trouble. Authors such as Steve Biddulph have listed a litany of problems for contemporary Australian men, and the data are alarming. Australian men, on average, live for 6 years less than women do. They routinely fail in close relationships; for example, almost half of their marriages break down, and divorces are initiated by the woman in four out of five cases. Over 90% of convicted acts of violence will be carried out by men, and 70% of the victims will be men. In school, around 90% of children with behavioural problems are boys and over 80% of children with learning problems are also boys. One in seven boys will experience sexual assault by an adult or other child before the age of 181 (this is not to diminish in any way the serious problems for Australian women in the area of sexual assault, but simply to point out
1353-6117/03/$ - see front matter r 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S1353-6117(02)00128-2
24
that the issue is also a significant issue for Australian men). Young males have much higher rates of death from drowning, motor vehicle accidents, and drug dependence. Men comprise over 90% of inmates of gaols. Men are also 74% of the unemployed. Young men are four times more likely than young women to commit suicide.2 Men are significantly worse off than women across a whole range of major health and welfare concerns. A number of authors argue that aspects of men’s socialisation have had a major impact on health-risk behaviour on their mental health and their sense of well-being. These factors include excessive competition, unrealistic and unattainable models of masculinity, poor self-esteem, lack of meaningfulness in their lives, poor identity formation and lack of sustainable role models.3 Disturbingly, the position for men in Australia seems to be worse than for men in other countries. Cummins4 found in his survey of Australian men and women that men are less happy, less satisfied and less content with their lives than women, and that Australia was the only country in the world reporting such a comfort disparity between men and women. Where a disparity exists in other countries, it is always in favour of men. The literature all seems to be pointing at the same phenomenonFcontemporary social roles for Australian men have changed so quickly, and to such an extent, that many modern men do not know how to behave in the modern world. They are disconnected from their reason for being. They can no longer hunt, fight and conquer in the ways they have previously done, and for which their genetic endowment has prepared themFand yet they also lack the personal resources to fulfil themselves in other ways. Life’s modern challenges are differentFthey are emotional, technical and financial. Relationships and jobs have become the battlefields that men occupy, and their most powerful enemies are their own expectations, reinforced by relentless media portrayal of instant success and gratification. Moreover, they are becoming consistently out-performed in these arenas by their female competitors. Fisher5 presents compelling arguments to support the evolution of femalefriendly societies, in which women have a natural advantage over men. It seems to be well under way in Australia. Women’s genetic inheritance has given them an advantage in areas where networking, emotional intimacy, communication and social support are useful tools. Men’s genetic inheritance, which has programmed them for physical strength, physical aggression, and rugged independence is no longer
S. Kermode, P. Keil
relevant. Girls, on the other hand, use socially acceptable forms of aggression. Owens,6,7 for instance, found in his study of Australian schoolaged girls that they are socialised into verbal and passive aggressive forms of behaviour, and incorporate them into their repertoire of interpersonal skills. They learn the skills of emotional aggression while boys do not. Physical violence is illegal, whereas passive aggression and emotional violence are not. Our society has constructed a powerful set of sanctions which actively encourage female power-seeking behaviour and which actively discourage male power-seeking behaviour. Our society is being systematically de-masculinised. Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder is a good case in point. The behavioural traits attributed to this disorder are archetypally male. It is the de-masculinised Western cultures that have elevated it to epidemic status. Moreover, because testosterone-driven behaviour is now a liability in most social roles, men have had to rely on the power of money to maintain their position of social dominance. Economic dominance is the last bastion of patriarchy. It too will crumble as more and more women opt for independent economic security, and as marriage becomes irrelevant as a social institution. Not surprisingly, marriage in Australia is also struggling to maintain its relevance, with almost 50% of all marriages failing. Indeed, since 1961 the divorce rate in Australia has gone up more than four times, and it is estimated that 29% of men and 23% of women will never marry.8,9 It must also be said that the data on suicide in Australia paint it as being predominantly a men’s issue. At a global level, studies have shown that countries with high suicide rates also have high divorce rates, high youth unemployment, high female employment, and high levels of alcohol consumption.10 All of these are factors which undermine the traditional social roles of men, and are symptomatic of the de-masculinisation process. Self-medication using alcohol is a major public health issue, but is only symptomatic of deeper and more pervasive social problems. There is a problem too in how society and its formal institutions have stereotyped men. Men, for instance, are seen as the prime perpetrators of violence in domestic relationships. This is despite recent evidence from an analysis of over 70 research studies which indicates otherwise. This analysis, conducted by New Zealand academic Garth Fletcher11 summarises the evidence from 60,000 participants in over 70 studies from the US, Canada, New Zealand, Britain, Australia, Korea and Israel. It found that the rates of violent acts by partners in intimate relationships are roughly the
Reintegrating masculinity
same for both men and women. Sixteen percent of married couples report acts of violence in the relationship, while for de facto partners the rate is 30%. On top of this, men and women both reported that women are more likely to be the initiators of such violence. Men, nevertheless, kill their partners more frequently than vice versa in almost all cultures (except among African Americans). There is no doubt that in most cases men have the potential to do more damage in an act of physical violence, because of their greater muscle bulk, but domestic violence is clearly a shared problem with shared responsibility. Fletcher also expressed alarm that many of the authors of these research studies have had death threats made against them because of the ‘political incorrectness’ of the findings produced by their research. The stereotype of men as potentially violent and sexually predatory is only now starting to be challenged by serious researchers. While it is clear that the behavioural effects of testosterone can be easily demonstrated in both experimental and clinical studies, this does not take account of the complex social factors that conspire to produce such stereotyped behaviour in real-life social situations. The overwhelming majority of men are not reported for acts of violence or sexual misconduct. All men, however, are suffering at the hands of misplaced stereotypes and unrealistic expectations. Masculinity is the poorer for the perpetuation of these stereotypes. It seems, moreover, that the bad press that masculinity has experienced over the last half century has been endured in silence by men, because of fear about challenging gender-based political correctness, and also because many men accepted the bad press as part of the legitimate project of feminism. The future for men is bleak unless masculinity can reinvent itself. For many men, this planet has become an alien environment. Many of them feel as though they do not belong here. That is why so many choose to opt out through suicide. It is not because of depression. In fact, a study by the Centre for Adolescent Health in 1996 found that teenage girls are more likely to suffer depression than boys,10 yet it is teenage boys who are far more likely to kill themselves. The problem for men is what Emile Durkheim12 (1897) first described as ‘anomie’Fa sense of disconnection and alienation. Many Australian men simply feel disconnected and alienated from their social reality. Their jobs have become less relevant and less satisfying (if they are lucky enough to have one) through the process of casualisation and the death of single career work trajectories, and many men cannot sustain relationships because their role in relationships is not
25
clear any more. Many men are ending up isolated and alone because of the changing nature of work and the changing nature of relationships. There are, however, very few isolated women. Moreover, women are able to shut men out of social life very effectivelyFnot necessarily deliberatelyFbut effectively nonetheless. Networking and social support seem to be part of the everyday fabric of women’s lives, no matter what the setting is. It is not so for men. No man wants to be an outcast, yet they are almost always alone. ‘yThey go on their life’s journey by themselves, with a partner or companion accompanying them only part of the way. Whereas women seem to find it easier to relate to other women, men have partial friendships’ (West, p. 16).13 Peter West (p. 185)13 said of his interviews with men that ‘yone man after another in interviews expressed helplessness about feeling unhappy, and many of them said that, when unhappy, they just went away to be by themselves.’ In other words, men are deliberately choosing isolation and disconnection, because they have no skills to choose other options. This isolation and disconnection produces a profound loneliness in men. Dorwick14 says of this loneliness that it derives from a fear of abandonment, of not being wanted by someone, of not being recognised, or understood, or appreciated and that behind the fear of abandonment is a profound lack of trust in your selfFa belief that your existence has no meaning and is of no consequence. Biddulph captures the essence of the problem of male isolation: And this is the core of the problemFthat men so often live their lives privately, isolated from each other by a tradition of silence, trapped by the culture and the demands of the economy like beasts of labour in separate pens. Even when men find answers, they are often not shared around. And when men suffer, they suffer alone. Suicide is the ultimate loneliness; following closely are alcoholism, divorce, poor health, crime and violence. The antidote to this poison is obvious. When we uncover our hearts, even just a little, we rejoin the human race (Biddulph, p. 6).15
There is a great paradox inherent in this scenario. There is considerable empirical and scientific evidence to support the importance of holism in sustaining health and well-being, not to mention the survival of the human species, and of the interconnectivity of all things as reflected in the principles of biodiversity. Yet so many men feel so disconnected, so alienated and so isolated. Why do they know one thing with their heads, and feel something quite different with their hearts? Why
26
can they not transfer their beliefs into their experience? There is a desperate need for many men to find ways to actively re-engage. Men are going to have to do it for themselves. It is up to men to reconstruct their own social reality. Women are already doing it for themselves and men have been left behind. The project of feminism, at least in the Western world, is well underway. The project of neo-masculinism is yet to begin. Life has pushed men headlong onto the major battlefields of contemporary lifeFjobs and relationships, yet they seem unable to respond adequately to the challenge, because politically incorrect testosterone-driven behaviour has not been replaced with any other primal drives that equip men better for survival in the modern world. Many men are standing transfixed by the spectacle before them, and unable to respond in any way that is safe. While archetypically female hormonedriven behaviour is given either reverent or even humorous or quasi-mythological status, archetypically male hormone-driven behaviour has been medicalised and criminalised. As a consequence of this, disconnecting is often the only safe response for men. This then is the heart of the paradox. Men are yearning for connectivity, in a social context that alienates them, and once alienated, they have no skills to negotiate their way back. They remain disconnected, because in our society it is unsafe to do anything else. The emerging men’s movement has been characterised in mytho-poetic terms by a number of writers (for example, Refs. 1, 16–19). They argue that the disconnection experienced by men occurs because men no longer have an appropriate story to relate to. Nor do they know the correct psychological techniques for reading such stories in a modern context. The male story is seen primarily as a hero quest told in thousands of different forms. In this quest the man leaves his ordinary life and enters another world (normally an underworld of some kind) in which he faces demons and is either destroyed by them or succeeds against them. If he succeeds, he returns to his normal life carrying a bounty for his community. The need for heroic action is seen as archetypally male in all of these traditional stories. Heroic activity is seen as something ennobling and worthy of admiration. In modern Australia men pursue legitimate hero quests through sport, but not through much else. Indeed, as West13 noted in his study, sport is the crucible of masculinity in Australia. Often, however, the actions of sportsmen are neither ennobling nor worthy of admiration. Furthermore, a great many Australian men are either denied access to expression through sport, or
S. Kermode, P. Keil
alienated by it, due to lack of the necessary physical attributes, lack of talent or simply lack of interest. Most men sublimate their hero quest into their work. With the changing labour market in Australia, however, there are diminishing opportunities for men to do this. Unfortunately, most other hero quests amount to pointless, socially irresponsible or illegal risk-taking adventures. The hero quest has either become perverted or has been repressed. Repression and disconnection are just as dangerous to men as perverted expression of the hero quest. A slow lingering death is just as fatal as a quick and pointless death.
The ‘becoming’ problem Masculinity has been fractured by modernity. Social, cultural and technological advances have undermined most of the social institutions that have supported masculinity in Australia. Slowly, the remaining institutions are also feeling the pressure. What is needed is a re-evaluation of Australian masculinity in a way that allows men to develop their potential without jeopardising the important gains that have been made for women by the women’s movement. Feminism has achieved much that neo-masculinism now needs to emulate. If anything, feminism has done masculinity a huge favour by casting a spotlight on its failures. Social change is constant and inevitable, and it is time for masculinity to meet the challenge. This is not to assume that women have ‘got it right’ in respect of healthy gender socialisationFrather it is to state that feminism has at least created the potential for many women to reject the roles and stereotypes of previous generations should they choose. These choices are backed, at least in the developed West, by legislation and social policy that promotes such objectives. It is time for neo-masculinism to pursue the same agenda on behalf of men. One of the key problems for men is the notion of constantly ‘becoming’ a man. Manhood never seems to quite arrive in its full and complete state. Men find themselves on a lifelong journey of proving their masculinity. Men seem constantly to have to prove their masculinity over and over again, and to do so in reference to the achievements of other men, or in reference to mythical male ideals.13 This competitiveness is crippling many men. Their career is never successful enough, their home never large enough, their lawn never smooth enough, their car never fast enough, their muscles never big enough, their penis never large
Reintegrating masculinity
enough, their partner never beautiful enough. Masculinity in this sense takes on the features of a bottomless pit of yearningFthe quest for a holy grail that does not exist, except in the brainwashed minds of men. Men define themselves as what they are not, and in most cases can never be. Part of the problem for men is that feminism has encouraged women to be anything they want to be, while masculinity has still restricted men to narrow, culturally and socially outdated stereotypes. Women have the opportunity to break free of modernist conceptions of femininity, but men are still largely trapped in a modernist conception of masculinity that has outlived its usefulness. The overwhelming majority of men do not have welldefined muscles, large penises, great sporting prowess and brilliant careersFbut they still have the potential to be not just good men, but great men.
The fathering problem The fracturing of masculinity has been attributed in no small part to changes in the status of fathering. Biddulph,1 for instance, argued that prior to the industrial revolution, boys grew up literally at the feet of their fathers. In village society fathers worked either at home, or close to home. Sons watched their fathers work and spent most of their waking hours in close contact with their fathers. With the advent of the industrial age, fathers were forced out of villages and into factories to work. They left before sunrise and returned after dark, and did so 7 days a week. Sons rarely saw their fathers. The raising of boys was left in the hands of their mothers. Just as girls learn very little about femininity from their fathers, boys learn very little about masculinity from their mothers. What boys did learn, however, was a lot about the traditional roles of women, and how they related to their husbands. They learned to see their fathers as their mothers saw themFbut not as their fathers saw themselves. Generations of men were born and raised without ever really knowing their fathers in any sense other than their stereotyped social role. Even today many men cannot hug their fathers or talk intimately with them, even when they have lived in the same home as them for 18 years or more. Many men are left with a feeling of emptiness because of this ‘absent father’ syndrome. In some cases the absence is only emotional, while in others it is physical. The problem of absent fathers has been accentuated throughout the latter
27
half of the 20th century. The emergence of the women’s movement in the 1960s and the advent of the Family Law Act in Australia in 1975 have created a surge in the prevalence of single-parent families. In Australia, one in eight families is a single-parent family, and in 84% of these there is no father.20 In these cases, manhood is being fashioned in a vacuum, or worse, at the hands of the mass media and peer pressure. In a powerfully youthoriented culture such as that existing in Australia, significant older men are being sidelined from the essential task of raising boys. In addition, the overwhelming majority of pre-school and primary school teachers are female. There has been a systemic de-masculinisation of the raising of boys. As a consequence, we are producing generations of incomplete men. When men look in the mirror, they see the image created by women, the media and their peers. Raising boys may, however, be dangerous for women. There is some evidence that raising boys in pre-industrial society was not good for the health of mothers, and shortened their lifespan.21 In postindustrial society, this phenomenon may be even further accentuated. There is an essential role for fathers in the raising of boys, and masculinity is inextricably linked to fatherhood. Masculinity is incomplete without the inter-generational influence of fathers and grandfathers. Unfortunately, Western society has taken these men away from their sons and grandsons. Any reconstruction of masculinity must include a reconstruction of fatherhood. Fatherhood alone is not the answer, however. Often the problems of raising boys are compounded by dysfunctional relationships between parents, where fathers are perpetuating poor role models due to the pressures within the relationship. Adam Mitchell22 recounts the episode where, at age 7, he was subjected to emotional, verbal and physical violence by his mother. In desperation, he slapped her back. His father’s response was that he should not only apologise for hitting her, but should also accept blame for whatever he had done to make his mother hit him. His father’s advice was given sensitively and calmly. He explained that it was a very unjust world, in which only men were held responsible for these things, and that to maintain peace in the household, his mother needed to feel justified for her violence. Not surprisingly, Mitchell found that this pattern repeated itself in his school years with teachers and later in his marriage. It seems that generations of men have been complicit in suppressing the true nature of power relations in cross-gender relationships. Good fathering is strongly related to good mothering and good
28
S. Kermode, P. Keil
partnering. All of these things have powerful influences on the nature and development of masculinity.
The reintegration of masculinity Masculine ideals have been corrupted in many ways by Western cultureFby the belief that physical strength denotes power; by the belief that ‘success’ as a man is measured by your income, your car or how beautiful your partner is; by the belief that sex is the basis of love; by the fear that every other man is your competitor. The Western ‘macho ideal’ of masculinity has been portrayed as ytoughness, courageousness, decisiveness (with) an adventuresome spirit, a proclivity to violence, a tendency towards physical rather than oral expression of thoughts and a callous attitude towards sexual relationsy(which will often) manifest in brute physical strength and unerring silence (Louie, p. 8).23
Louie argues that masculinity derives primarily from being embodied as a manFthat the biological reality of sexual identity cannot be divorced from the cultural and social constructions of gender. Success as a man is felt by men to relate at least in part to their image of their bodies. ‘Manliness’ has had a physical denotation just as much as a cultural one. What Louie further argues, however, in his exploration of Chinese masculinity, is that physical prowess (wu) is balanced by cultural attainment, and that the ‘ideal man’ is developed in physical abilities as well as in cultural, intellectual and artistic abilities (wen). The ‘macho’ man is not the predominant form of masculinity in China. In fact, says Louie, the ‘cerebral male model’ dominates the model of the ‘macho hero’, and always has. Furthermore, throughout Chinese history it has been documented that ‘ywhile not all men would necessarily be able to incorporate high levels of skill in both wen and wu attributes, the truly great men would’ (Louie, p. 16).23 Interestingly, this reflects medieval attitudes towards masculinity that emerged alongside the concept of romantic love around the 12th century. The knights of the middle ages while heroic, were not ideal men if they did not combine their warrior skills with poetic, musical, religious and political skills as exemplified by the character of Tristan in the classic mediaeval love story Tristan and Iseult. This set of attitudes later re-emerged in the form of the ‘renaissance man’ (Ref. 19, pp. 106–113). Being a ‘successful’ man is first and foremost about being a successful person. The environmen-
talist catch phrase ‘think globally, act locally’ is a perfect metaphor for masculinity. For men to survive in an increasingly hostile social world, and to promote the global cause of neo-masculinism, they need to look first at themselves as individuals. For older men this is a daunting task, but one that may be more successful with the vision of hindsight. It is not society that is to guide and save the creative hero, but precisely the reverse. And so every one of us shares the supreme ordealynot in the bright moments of his tribes great victories, but in the silence of his personal despair (Campbell, p. 391).18
Men need to work on being less isolated. Isolation is what underpins their disconnection. They need to make real friends with other menFnot just casual, superficial acquaintances, but real friends. They seem to have fewer problems communicating about deep, emotional and spiritual issues with women than they do with other men. The walls they build around themselves as a result of their drives and their socialisation are killing them. It took two generations for women to make fundamental changes to the social order in the Western world, and to successfully promote the interests of feminism. In two generations men can do the same. One generation of powerful fathers will create a generation of powerful young men who will be much better prepared for survival. It is hard to escape the view that good fathering is such an important issue in the growing of good men. The reintegration of masculinity cannot be achieved without the reintegration of fatherhood. Good men, whether gay or straight, find immense strength in the love of a powerful and significant man. A man who can hold them, stand beside them and mentor them for as long as they need. Fathers who can support and promote diversity among boys and young men. Fathers who talk. Fathers who demonstrate how to relate to women appropriately. Fathers who hug. Fathers who are prepared to show their feelings, their shortcomings, their humanity. There are a number of recurrent themes that characterise the emerging neo-masculinism, including committed fathering, strong and appropriate emotional expression and the willingness to take a personal stand on important ethical issues. Many individual men are recognising and embracing these characteristics. But there is also a social responsibility to facilitate the promotion of neomasculinism. Social policy must recognise that there are significant social gains and public health gains to come from growing better men. Issues such as childcare, maternity leave, family friendly
Reintegrating masculinity
employment can no longer be construed as ‘women’s issues’ alone. They are also men’s issues. There needs to be an equitable and just approach to the issue of relationship violence in all its forms. Both men and women need to relate in ways that are productive rather than destructive. Men should not be intimidated into disconnecting because of the power of political correctness and the power of socialisation. The process of reintegrating masculinity is also about simultaneously recognising the gains of feminism. It must be sustainable. Better men will be better citizens, and this will also promote the interests of feminism.
Conclusion Populist contemporary models of masculinity in Australia are corrupt, fractured and causing unacceptable levels of illness and death among Australian men. Their lack of sustainability is becoming patently obvious to men and women alike. The reintegration of masculinity and the promotion of neo-masculinism is long overdue, and must proceed as a matter of urgency. And it must proceed without in any way challenging the important gains of feminism in order for it to produce sustainable ways for men and women to share this planet.
References 1. Biddulph S. Manhood. Sydney: Finch Publishing, 1995. 2. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Australia’s Health. Canberra: AIHW, 2000. 3. Huggins A. The Australian male: illness, injury and death by socialisationFa paradox of health inequalities. In: Laws T, editor. Promoting men’s healthFan essential book for nurses. Melbourne: Ausmed, 1998.
29
4. Cummins R, Eckersley R, Pallant J, Van Vugt J, Shelley J, Pusey M, Misajon R. Australian unity well-being index: survey 1. Report 1. Australian Centre on Quality of Life, Deakin University, Melbourne, June 2001. 5. Fisher H. The first sex: the natural talents of women and how they are changing the world. New York: Random House, 1999. 6. Owens L, Shute R, Slee P. ‘Guess what I just heard y ’ Indirect aggression amongst teenage girls. Aggress Behav 2000;26:67–83. 7. Owens L, Sleep Shute R. ‘It hurts a hell of a lot y‘The effects of indirect aggression on teenage girls. School Psychol Int 2000;21(4):359–76. 8. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Australian Social Trends. Canberra: AGPS, 1995. 9. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Australian Social Trends. Canberra: AGPS, 2002. 10. Healy K. Suicide: issues for the nineties, vol. 84. Balmain: The Spinney Press, 1997. 11. Fletcher G. The new science of intimate relationships. Oxford: Blackwell, 2002. 12. Durkheim E. Suicide. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1970 [1897]. 13. West P. Fathers, sons & lovers: men talk about their lives from the 1930s to today. Sydney: Finch Publishing, 1996. 14. Dorwick S. Intimacy and solitude. Melbourne: Mandarin Press, 1991. 15. Biddulph S, (editor). Stories of manhood: journeys into the hidden hearts of men. Sydney: Finch Publishing, 2000. 16. Bly R. Iron John. Melbourne: Element, 1999. 17. Bly R. Men and masculinity. London: Rider, 2001. 18. Campbell J. The hero with a thousand faces. London: Palladin, 1988 (orig. 1949). 19. Campbell J. The hero’s journey. New York: Harper and Collins, 1990. 20. O’Doherty S. Inquiry into boy’s education: a report to the Minister of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Sydney, 1994. 21. Helle S, Lummaa V, Jokela J. Sons reduced maternal longevity in preindustrial humans. Science 2002;296:1085. 22. Mitchell A. ‘The last time I hit a woman’. In: Biddulph S, editor. Stories of manhood: journeys into the hidden hearts of men. Sydney: Finch Publishing, 2000. 23. Louie K. Theorising Chinese masculinity: society and gender in China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
A specialist is one who knows everything about something and nothing about everything else (Ambrose Bierce)