Who will save our boys and men?
The feminist movement illustrated to me how men hurt society.
- Men are almost entirely the perpetrators of sexual violence against women, girls, and boys.
- Men commit violent crimes at much higher rates
- Men are more likely to engage in riskier, dangerous behaviours at a high cost to society
- Men and boys do worse in school and are not improving
Mass shootings, sexual assault, and gang violence. Almost entirely male phenomena.
I was drawn to the work of a guy named Jackson Katz. He gave a Ted Talk 5 or 6 years ago that highlighted the need for men to call out other men for the objectification of women. It was meant to empower men, to not be bystanders, to challenge the culture of "toxic masculinity".
I started using his material in my work with men with some mixed success. Men in large part can admit these social problems are largely perpetrated by men and that men can and usually should be the ones to fight these issues. It was time for good men to stand up against the bad ones. Men and boys can really get behind this idea. I'm sure I'm not the only one who fantasized/ still fantasizes about being a hero in the comic book sense. This was my chance to be that hero. To stand up against other men in order to make the world safer for women and girls. But there was a problem with calling men the bad guys.
the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?- Aleksander Solzhenitsyn
In our attempt to "fight" the bad guys we came to the realization that we, in fact, were all bad guys. Or rather there is bad in us, as well as good. Whether it's objectifying women, or being lazy, or being greedy, or being over competitive, or attempting to inflate our status in relation to others, or being jealous and spiteful, we are all guilty or at least have a capacity to be guilty of all the evils that seem to just be inherently a part of being a "man". So what are we to do? Fight ourselves? Sacrifice ourselves on the alter of justice to signal our virtuous submission?
This should lead to deep introspection where we constantly self-evaluate our motives and our actions. We would consider the emotional consequences of our choices and use feedback from those around us to inform our continual moral refining.
Instead, we often find the men who best exemplify the evil within us, the abhorrent attitudes and desires that we most find contemptible, and attempt to burn them to the ground hoping that with them, our own penchant for similar evil will also burn.
- Of course I treat women well, look how loudly I called for the heads of Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein.
- I would never cheat to win a game, need I remind you about that post I shared about Tom Brady?
- School shooters lack any value of human life. They should get the death penalty.
We've identified a significant portion of the problem and that is what many call "toxic masculinity". Men establish hierarchies among ourselves, based almost entirely on perceived strength (physical, social, intellectual, etc.) We tend to be pretty rotten to the men who we see as lower than us and we either have pathetic idolization or petty contempt for those above us. It doesn't have to be that way, but it tends to be so.
So we want to challenge that hierarchy, which is actually a myth but a myth that it is acknowledged and shared, at least subconsciously, by most males and females, making it very real and very significant. How do we challenge it? We eliminate the petty competitions that drove us to squabble over who fouled whom when we were kids. We take away incentives to win so that no one has to lose. We govern our boys from roughhousing, so that the physically strong won't seem as dominant over the weak.
This approach sounds good and has its merits. Kids need to be taught limits and prosocial behaviour. Nobody wants to be friends with the kid who keeps hitting or cheats to win, but there's a few downsides to this approach.
1st, even when you take away the first place trophy and the roughhousing, trust me, the boys still know who the alpha is anyway. The dominance hierarchy is so much more than who wins the game or scores the most. It's biological and we can sense it.
2nd, we're discovering that certain forms of play seem to be crucial for social development. Like wolves that play fight with the pack, we need (not just want) to act out aggression. Rough and tumble play (as it's called in child development literature) is extremely important for boys and girls, and sadly in our climate there are less and less places where our children get the opportunity for this. Ideally, our children would have daily wrestling matches with their Dad (it could be Mom but the reality is that Moms just don't tend to want to do this). Due to increasing amounts of split homes, single mothers, and absent fathers, we have a large section of kids who are Dad-deprived, touch hungry, and salivating at the mouth to get physical with someone who will teach them the inherent boundaries and rules of play fighting that eventually translate into pro-social skills.
Warren Farrell is a controversial figure, he was a second-wave feminist who helped a lot of men out of toxic masculinity, challenging regressive gender norms, and championing the progress and equality of women, BUT then his research led him to see how men were floundering in their own way, and he tried to come up with ideas about how to help men specifically and he was met with mass rejection. I don't know or necessarily agree with everything he says, but his recent book "The Boy Crisis" highlights some research that convincingly indicates some crucial changes we need to make in regards to how we treat and socialize boys. In particular, more rough and tumble play, as well as overall time with Dads specifically, is correlated with a significant drop in ADHD, an increase in delayed gratification, and an increase in empathy. If you ask anyone who works with kids they will rank all of these issues in the top five of the most significant concerns to children's well-being and success. We need to correct the Dad deprivation...
So I have this idea... On paper it sounds insane. It's a potential law-suit/discrimination/accident/overall creepy mess waiting to happen... but I have to think that there is some way to make this possible....
In short... I want to have a centre for a type of play therapy that is based on rough and tumble play. My facetious pitch is that, "you'll pay me money to beat up your kids." (please read the sarcasm I intend in that sentence).
Let me back up for a second. I am an elementary school counsellor and let me tell you what almost every single boy wants to do with me. He wants to wrestle... and you know what... I want to as well. The bonding, the social skill training, the physical literacy, the teaching of limits and boundaries, the exercise, the enjoyment! Kids crave it, especially boys.
But of course, in my position, at an elementary school, there is no way I would ever be allowed to do that. And for good reason.
But where then will these boys get this type of play? And how? Yes it should be happening at home but what if it doesn't?
I want to have a centre dedicated to rough play. We'll wrestle and tackle, and have sword fights and jousting sessions, piggy back rides and sparring.
Does this sound crazy?
What would I need to make sure it was safe enough to ensure that no one got seriously hurt or taken advantage of?
Would it be enough to have a carefully written waiver?
The feedback I've received so far is that perhaps it would be better to facilitate rough and tumble play between children and their caregivers, as opposed to having them come to do it with me a handful of times. Some people have asked what the difference would be between this and organized sports or martial arts to which I reply that there would be significant benefits to having the facilitator be a trained therapist in order for the play to be therapeutic.
I'm curious what anyone else thinks of this idea. Comment and share.
- Men are almost entirely the perpetrators of sexual violence against women, girls, and boys.
- Men commit violent crimes at much higher rates
- Men are more likely to engage in riskier, dangerous behaviours at a high cost to society
- Men and boys do worse in school and are not improving
Mass shootings, sexual assault, and gang violence. Almost entirely male phenomena.
I was drawn to the work of a guy named Jackson Katz. He gave a Ted Talk 5 or 6 years ago that highlighted the need for men to call out other men for the objectification of women. It was meant to empower men, to not be bystanders, to challenge the culture of "toxic masculinity".
I started using his material in my work with men with some mixed success. Men in large part can admit these social problems are largely perpetrated by men and that men can and usually should be the ones to fight these issues. It was time for good men to stand up against the bad ones. Men and boys can really get behind this idea. I'm sure I'm not the only one who fantasized/ still fantasizes about being a hero in the comic book sense. This was my chance to be that hero. To stand up against other men in order to make the world safer for women and girls. But there was a problem with calling men the bad guys.
the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?- Aleksander Solzhenitsyn
In our attempt to "fight" the bad guys we came to the realization that we, in fact, were all bad guys. Or rather there is bad in us, as well as good. Whether it's objectifying women, or being lazy, or being greedy, or being over competitive, or attempting to inflate our status in relation to others, or being jealous and spiteful, we are all guilty or at least have a capacity to be guilty of all the evils that seem to just be inherently a part of being a "man". So what are we to do? Fight ourselves? Sacrifice ourselves on the alter of justice to signal our virtuous submission?
This should lead to deep introspection where we constantly self-evaluate our motives and our actions. We would consider the emotional consequences of our choices and use feedback from those around us to inform our continual moral refining.
Instead, we often find the men who best exemplify the evil within us, the abhorrent attitudes and desires that we most find contemptible, and attempt to burn them to the ground hoping that with them, our own penchant for similar evil will also burn.
- Of course I treat women well, look how loudly I called for the heads of Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein.
- I would never cheat to win a game, need I remind you about that post I shared about Tom Brady?
- School shooters lack any value of human life. They should get the death penalty.
We've identified a significant portion of the problem and that is what many call "toxic masculinity". Men establish hierarchies among ourselves, based almost entirely on perceived strength (physical, social, intellectual, etc.) We tend to be pretty rotten to the men who we see as lower than us and we either have pathetic idolization or petty contempt for those above us. It doesn't have to be that way, but it tends to be so.
So we want to challenge that hierarchy, which is actually a myth but a myth that it is acknowledged and shared, at least subconsciously, by most males and females, making it very real and very significant. How do we challenge it? We eliminate the petty competitions that drove us to squabble over who fouled whom when we were kids. We take away incentives to win so that no one has to lose. We govern our boys from roughhousing, so that the physically strong won't seem as dominant over the weak.
This approach sounds good and has its merits. Kids need to be taught limits and prosocial behaviour. Nobody wants to be friends with the kid who keeps hitting or cheats to win, but there's a few downsides to this approach.
1st, even when you take away the first place trophy and the roughhousing, trust me, the boys still know who the alpha is anyway. The dominance hierarchy is so much more than who wins the game or scores the most. It's biological and we can sense it.
2nd, we're discovering that certain forms of play seem to be crucial for social development. Like wolves that play fight with the pack, we need (not just want) to act out aggression. Rough and tumble play (as it's called in child development literature) is extremely important for boys and girls, and sadly in our climate there are less and less places where our children get the opportunity for this. Ideally, our children would have daily wrestling matches with their Dad (it could be Mom but the reality is that Moms just don't tend to want to do this). Due to increasing amounts of split homes, single mothers, and absent fathers, we have a large section of kids who are Dad-deprived, touch hungry, and salivating at the mouth to get physical with someone who will teach them the inherent boundaries and rules of play fighting that eventually translate into pro-social skills.
Warren Farrell is a controversial figure, he was a second-wave feminist who helped a lot of men out of toxic masculinity, challenging regressive gender norms, and championing the progress and equality of women, BUT then his research led him to see how men were floundering in their own way, and he tried to come up with ideas about how to help men specifically and he was met with mass rejection. I don't know or necessarily agree with everything he says, but his recent book "The Boy Crisis" highlights some research that convincingly indicates some crucial changes we need to make in regards to how we treat and socialize boys. In particular, more rough and tumble play, as well as overall time with Dads specifically, is correlated with a significant drop in ADHD, an increase in delayed gratification, and an increase in empathy. If you ask anyone who works with kids they will rank all of these issues in the top five of the most significant concerns to children's well-being and success. We need to correct the Dad deprivation...
 |
The idea:
So I have this idea... On paper it sounds insane. It's a potential law-suit/discrimination/accident/overall creepy mess waiting to happen... but I have to think that there is some way to make this possible....
In short... I want to have a centre for a type of play therapy that is based on rough and tumble play. My facetious pitch is that, "you'll pay me money to beat up your kids." (please read the sarcasm I intend in that sentence).
Let me back up for a second. I am an elementary school counsellor and let me tell you what almost every single boy wants to do with me. He wants to wrestle... and you know what... I want to as well. The bonding, the social skill training, the physical literacy, the teaching of limits and boundaries, the exercise, the enjoyment! Kids crave it, especially boys.
But of course, in my position, at an elementary school, there is no way I would ever be allowed to do that. And for good reason.
But where then will these boys get this type of play? And how? Yes it should be happening at home but what if it doesn't?
I want to have a centre dedicated to rough play. We'll wrestle and tackle, and have sword fights and jousting sessions, piggy back rides and sparring.
Does this sound crazy?
What would I need to make sure it was safe enough to ensure that no one got seriously hurt or taken advantage of?
Would it be enough to have a carefully written waiver?
The feedback I've received so far is that perhaps it would be better to facilitate rough and tumble play between children and their caregivers, as opposed to having them come to do it with me a handful of times. Some people have asked what the difference would be between this and organized sports or martial arts to which I reply that there would be significant benefits to having the facilitator be a trained therapist in order for the play to be therapeutic.
I'm curious what anyone else thinks of this idea. Comment and share.
Comments
Post a Comment