AFTA CLINICAL RESEARCH CONFERENCE

October 17–20, 2002, Niagara-on-the-Lake

BOYS AND MEN: PROFEMINIST & SYSTEMIC

RESEARCH AND CLINICAL PERSPECTIVES

Ronald F. Levant

Why Study Boys and Men?

Those not familiar with the new work in this area sometimes ask: "Why do we need to study boys and men? Isn't social science in general the social science of men?" The answer is: Well, yes, of course, for many years, most sociological and psychological research focused on males. However, these were studies that viewed males as representative of humanity as a whole. Feminist scholars challenged this traditional viewpoint by arguing for a gender-specific approach, and in the past three decades, have developed a new social science of women. In the same spirit, men's studies scholars over the past fifteen years have begun to examine masculinity not as a standard by which to measure humanity (both males and females), but rather as a complex and problematic construct. In so doing, they have provided a framework for a perspective on men and masculinity that questions traditional norms of the male role, such as the emphasis on toughness, competition, status, and emotional stoicism, and views certain male problems (such as aggression and violence, devaluation of women, fear and hatred of homosexuals, neglect of health needs, and detached fathering) as unfortunate but predictable results of the male role socialization process. They have also provided a framework for creating positive new definitions of masculinity that support the optimal development of men, women, and children.

This new perspective on boys and men is both overdue and urgently needed. Boys and men are disproportionately represented among many problem populations—school children with learning or behavior problems as well as those diagnosed with ADHD, parents estranged from their children, the homeless, substance abusers, perpetrators of family and interpersonal violence, sex addicts and sex offenders, victims of life-style and stress-related fatal illnesses, and victims of homicide, suicide, and fatal automobile accidents. A new perspective on boys and men might contribute to the understanding and solution of some of these male problems which have long impacted women, men, boys, girls, and society in negative ways.

In addition, there is a "crisis of connection" between men and women resulting from major structural changes in women's roles over the past 40 years without compensatory changes in men's roles. This resulted from women's dramatically increased participation in the labor market. There has been an almost 600% rise in the employment of mothers of small children since the 1950s: 12% mothers of children under the age of six were employed in 1950, whereas almost 70% were employed in 2000. Women have thus moved from a sole emphasis on the family, and now combine career and family concerns. In making this shift, they have integrated traditional values such as love, family, and caring for others with newer values such as independence, career, and defining themselves through their own accomplishments. Many men have yet to make equivalent and corresponding changes. Although there has been some increase in men's openness to relationships, and greater participation in the emotional and domestic arenas, most men still cling to the older definitions, and emphasize work and individual accomplishment over emotional intimacy and family involvement. As a result, the pressures on men to behave in ways that conflict with various aspects of traditional masculinity ideology have never been greater. These new pressures—pressures to commit to relationships, to communicate one's innermost feelings, to share in housework, to nurture children, to integrate sexuality with love, and to curb aggression and violence—have shaken traditional masculine ideology to such an extent there is now a "masculinity crisis" in which many men feel bewildered and confused, and the pride associated with being a man is lower than at any time in the recent past.

To many men, the question of what it means to be a man today is one of the most persistent unresolved issues in their lives. Raised to be like their fathers, they were mandated to become the good provider for their families, and to be strong and silent. They were discouraged from expressing both vulnerable and caring emotions, and required to put a sharp edge around their masculinity by avoiding anything that hinted of femininity. Unlike their sisters, they received little, if any training in nurturing others, or in being sensitive to their needs and empathic with their voice. On the other hand, they received lots of training in logical thinking, problem-solving, staying calm in the face of danger, risk-taking, and assertion and aggression. Finally, they were required at an early age to renounce their dependence on their mothers and accept the pale substitute of their psychologically, if not physically absent fathers.

For the past several decades, men have had the experience of attempting to fulfill the requirements of the masculine mandate in the midst of criticism that has risen to a crescendo. Men feel that they are being told that what they have been trying to accomplish is irrelevant in today's world. Since women now work and can earn their own living, there is no longer any need for The Good Provider. Furthermore, society no longer seems to value, or even recognize, the traditional male way of demonstrating care, through taking care of family and friends, by looking out for them, solving their problems, and being one who can be counted on to be there when needed. In its place, men are being asked to take on roles and show care in ways that violate the traditional male code and require skills that they do not have, such as revealing weakness, expressing their most intimate feelings, and nurturing children. The net result of this for many men is a loss of self-esteem and an unnerving sense of uncertainty about what it means to be a man.

Men are caught in a trap both because they do not have the incentives and because they are ill-equipped to address the loss of the good provider role in a collaborative and equitable fashion with the women in their lives, and as a result react with anger and defensiveness. They do not have the incentives to address the loss of the good provider role in collaboration with their wives because of the power, prerogatives, and entitlements that accrue to them in a patriarchal society. And they are not equipped to address it in this way because to do so would require a degree of comfort and fluency with emotions (particularly those emotions that make one feel vulnerable, such as sadness, fear, or shame) that is rare among men, due to the effects of the male gender role socialization process.

As the relative power between men and women shifts as a result of the gains of feminism and women's increasing financial independence from men, men derive less benefit from their power and become more aware of their pain. To help men take the next step, and connect their pain to a critical examination and reconstruction of masculinity, we need to do two things. First of all, we must take men's experience seriously and adopt an empathic approach to their pain. If we want men to hear our message, we must first listen to theirs. Second, the masculinity crisis has resulted in a wholesale trashing of all aspects of masculinity, such that for many men the essential dilemma is that much of what they have been taught to value since childhood is under attack. To help men come to terms with the crisis and restore their lost sense of pride, we also must honor the still-valuable aspects of masculinity in order to restore the lost sense of pride associated with being a man. But before we undertake such a project of helping men reconstruct masculinity, it is important to have an in-depth understanding of the psychology of men and masculinity in the context of the family, and that is what we propose to do this in this Clinical Research Conference.

If you have not attended this conference before, it is typically a smaller gathering (about 70 people), and an intensive but also relaxing one. The programming is absolutely first-rate, and artfully blends science and practice, with maximum time in each plenary for active audience discussion with the speakers and with each other. In the past, these small conferences have had a very strong and lasting impact on the field of couples and family therapy

All registrants stay at the same resort hotel and eat all meals together, allowing for lots of informal interaction. There are also scheduled times for discussion as well as free time for participants to see some of the wonderful surrounding areas. We also have scheduled group entertainment at the highly acclaimed Shaw Theatre Festival Friday evening.

The program will begin Thursday eve, 10/17, with a plenary session featuring sociologist Michael S. Kimmel, a leading thinker in the field of profeminist men's studies, and renowned family therapist Michelle Bograd. Friday's schedule will begin with a morning plenary session on boys and young men in developmental and multicultural perspective, featuring psychologists A. J. Franklin and Ronald F. Levant, followed by an afternoon plenary session on men's health issues featuring sociologist Donald Sabo and family therapist Gonzalo Bacigalupe. To round out the day, there will also be poster session, free time and a video plenary featuring Gary R. Brooks and Ronald F. Levant.

Saturday morning will begin with a plenary on the variety of masculinities in terms of the dimensions of race, culture, and sexual orientation, with distinguished speakers Louise B. Silverstein, Carl F. Auerbach, Robert-Jay Green, and Jaipual Roopnarine. After lunch there will be a block of free time to visit Niagara falls or do whatever conferees wish to do. This will be followed by a late afternoon panel discussion on couples featuring brief remarks by Norma Akamatsu, Judith Myers-Avis, Don-David Lusterman, and Miguel Hernandez with plenty of time for participants to discuss the material.

On Sunday morning, we have scheduled a plenary on men's violence, with family therapist Rhea Almeida and psychologist James M. O'Neil. This will be followed by a panel discussion on feminism and men's lives, featuring Monica McGoldrick and Gillian Walker.

Ronald F. Levant, Chair, AFTA Clinical Research Conference Planning Committee

Committee Members: Gonzalo Bacigalupe, Martha Edwards, Robert-Jay Green, Sue Johnson, Matthew Mock, Louise Silverstein

FOR INFORMATION ON CONFERENCE REGISTRATION, CONTACT:

American Family Therapy Academy

PMB 273, 202 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC, 20006-1846

202-994-277

Afta@afta.org

Ronald F. Levant is the Chair of the AFTA Clinical Research Committee. He earned his doctorate in Clinical Psychology and Public Practice from Harvard in 1973 and has served on the faculties of Boston, Rutgers, and Harvard Universities. He is currently Dean and Professor, Center for Psychological Studies, Nova Southeastern University. One of Dr. Levant's major interests is in the new psychology of men. He has been an active investigator in this area, conducting a research program on masculinity ideology in multicultural perspective. He was also the co-founder and first President of APA Division 51 (the Society for the Psychological Study of Men and Masculinity). His books include Between Father and Child (1991, Penguin), Masculinity, Reconstructed, (1995, Dutton), A New Psychology of Men, (1995, Basic Books), Men and Sex: New Psychological Perspectives (1997, John Wiley & Sons) and New Psychotherapies for Men (1998, John Wiley & Sons).

.