Helena Wladimirna Antipoff (1982 - 1974) The Feminist Psychologist, newsletter of the Society for the Psychology of Women, Division 35 of the APA. Appearing with permission of the author.

http://www.apadivisions.org/division-35/about/heritage/helena-antipoff-biography.aspx

Helena Wladimirna Antipoff (1982 - 1974)

by Pelin Gul

Helena Wladimirna Antipoff was born to a wealthy aristocratic Russian family on March 25, 1892, in Grodno, Belarus, which was then a province of the Russian Empire. Due to the social unrest and the revolution that was about to occur in Russia, her family moved to Paris. There, Antipoff attended the University of Sorbonne, and in 1911 obtained a bachelor’s degree in science. During her studies in Sorbonne, she attended Pierre Janet’s and Henri Bergson’s lectures on psychology, igniting her interest in the subject. Upon her graduation, she interned at the Alfred-Binet Laboratory under the supervision of Theodore Simon, assisting in the ongoing research measuring the intellectual ability of school-aged children (Campos, 2012).

Enthusiastic about the field of psychology, she went to Geneva, Switzerland, to study with the psychologist Edouard Claparède who was a pioneer in the area of children’s learning.  She received her training at the Institute of Jean Jacques Rousseau (IJJR) from 1912 to 1916 where she obtained a diploma in educational psychology. At Claparède’s invitation, Antipoff then joined the team at the IJJR and devoted herself to research on intelligence testing and children’s learning. She acquired extensive knowledge of the “Active School” methods — an approach which emphasized the autonomy and creativity of children in their process of learning basic skills (Campos, 2001).

In 1916, she left Geneva and moved back to Russia to take care of her father who was seriously injured in the world war. Despite the social and political instability that followed, she decided to stay in Russia until 1924 (Campos, 2001).  During her stay in Petrograd (formerly St. Petersburg), she became acquainted with the directions taken by Soviet Psychology under the influence of the historical-cultural approach. In 1918, she married the journalist and writer Victor Iretzky and in 1919 she had a son, Daniel Iretzky Antipoff, who later became a famous agronomist and an educator (Campos, 2001)

Antipoff published articles on the results of her investigation of children’s cognitive capacities in 1924.However, the articles were severely criticized by the Soviet regime, claiming that they demonstrated the superiority of upper-class children over working-class ones in standardized tests (Campos, 2001). Although Antipoff interpreted the results as indicating that the scope of the tests were bounded by the cultural constructs of the upper-class.

Because of the restricted freedom of expression in Soviet Russia and her husband’s exile to Berlin, Antipoff fled to Germany in 1925. A year later, Antipoff and her husband separated, and she went back to the IJJR in Geneva as Claparède’s assistant, and a Professor of Child Psychology. There, she published articles on children’s process of learning about and interacting with their environment (Campos, 2011).

In 1929, Antipoff accepted an invitation to prepare Brazilian teachers at the newly established Teachers College in Belo Horizonte. Once there, she also started a research program studying the interests, ideals and cognitive development of school children at the Teachers College Laboratory of Psychology — one of the first laboratories of psychology established in the country (Campos, 2001). For her first published report in 1930, Antipoff designed a questionnaire for fourth graders, dealing with their preferred tasks at home and at school, preferred toys and books, adult models, and plans for the future. She compared these results with those obtained in Germany, Switzerland, United States and Moscow, and revealed the impact of social and cultural environment in shaping children’s inner trends (Campos, 2001).

After several successful renewals of her initial contract at the Teachers College, Antipoff decided to permanently stay in Brazil. She conducted other studies concerning the mental development of children in Belo Horizonte public schools at the Teachers College Laboratory of Psychology during the 1930s (Campos, 2001). She criticized Binet’s definition of intelligence as a “capacity to solve new problems through thought” (Claparède, 1933; as cited in Campos, 2001, p. 145) as well as intelligence tests for imperfectly measuring the intellectual ability. For her, intelligence was “a more complex product shaped by the actions of several agents, besides innate intellectual dispositions and biological growth, the combination of character and social environment in which a child grows up, as well as the pedagogical action, education and instruction to which a child is submitted both at home and at school” (Antipoff, 1931; as cited in Campos, 2001, p. 145).

In 1932, Antipoff founded the Pestalozzi Society in collaboration with a group of educators, doctors, intellectuals and philanthropists to guide and treat children with mental disabilities. Antipoff encouraged the use of non-derogatory words such as exceptional to describe this population, instead of using the words such as abnormal, subnormal or subhuman. When questioned about this, she replied that: “We are devoted to de-emphasizing the labels that were used in our first publications, such as abnormal children, imbeciles, and idiots. They are so very pejorative. Don’t you think?” (Antipoff, 1975; as cited in Block, 2007, p.187)

In 1937, Antipoff left the Teachers College. However, she decided to stay in Brazil for the rest of her life.  In the years following, she worked to expand educational opportunities in rural Brazil. After receiving her Brazilian citizenship in 1952, Antipoff found a position as a professor of Educational Psychology in the School of Philosophy, Humanities and Sciences at the Federal University of Minas Gerais (Campos, 2012). She contributed to the education of the first generations of Brazilian psychologists, and helped initiate the legal regulation of the profession (Campos, 2012).

As a researcher and an educator of children with mental disabilities for a period of over 45 years, Antipoff significantly contributed to the development of a national model for special education and support services for disabled people in Brazil (Campos, 2012). She advocated social and educational inclusion at a time when individuals with disabilities were being sterilized, persecuted, imprisoned and even killed in other countries. Today, her work is achieved and carried out in the Helena Antipoff Foundation in Brazil.  In recognition of her accomplishments, the former governor of Minas Gerais, Milton Campos said: “She planted ten thousand seeds in our wilderness. All teachers and students whose lives she touched will now continue her work” (Pestalozzi Association of Niteroi, n.d., para. 19).

Selected Works By 

Antipoff, H. (1928). L'evolution et la variabilite des fonctions motrices [Evolution and variability of motor functions]. Archives de Psychologie, 21, 1-54. 

Antipoff, H. (1930). Ideais e interesses das criancas de Belo Horizonte e algumas sugestoes pedagogicas [Ideals and interests of Belo Horizonte schoolchildren and some pedagogical suggestions] (Boletim 6). Belo Horizonte, Minas Geraus, Brazil: Secretaria do Interior do Estado de Minas Gerais.

Antipoff, H. (1931). O desenvolvimento mental das criancas de Belo Horizonte [The mental development of Belo Horizonte schoolchildren] (Boletim 7). Belo Horizonte, Minas Geraus, Brazil: Secretaria de Educacao e Saiide Publica.

Antipoff, H. (1944). Como pode a escola contribuir para a formacao de atitudes democraticas? [How can schools promote the development of democratic attitudes?]. Revista Brasileira de Estudos Pedagogicos, 7(1), 26-45.

Antipoff, H. (1966). Educacao dos excepcionais e sua integracao na comunidade rural [The education of exceptionals and their integration to the rural community]. Boletim da Sociedade Pestalozzi do Brasil, 31, 7-18.

Selected Works About

Antipoff, D. (1975). Helena Antipoff: Sua vida/sua obra [Helena Antipoff: Her life/her work]. Livraria José Olympio Editora, Rio de Janeiro.

Block, J. (2007). Institutional utopias, eugenics, and intellectual disability in Brazil. History and Anthropology, 18(2), 177-196.

Campos, R. H. F. (2001). Helena Antipoff (1892-1974): A Synthesis of Swiss and Soviet psychology in the context of Brazilian educational system. History of Psychology, 4(2), 133-157.

Campos, R. H. F. (2012). Helena Antipoff: A quest for democracy and human rights with the help of psychological science. In W. E. Pickren, D. A. Dewsbury, & M. Wertheimer (Eds.), Portraits of pioneers in developmental psychology (pp. 51-65). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Pestalozzi Association of Niteroi (n.d.). Helena Antipoff. Retrieved from http://www.pestalozzi.org.br/aspx/historia_helena.aspx

This was originally published in The Feminist Psychologist, newsletter of the Society for the Psychology of Women, Division 35 of the APA. Appearing with permission of the author.

Equality Week, University of Kent, November 2015

https://jacyyoung.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/curriculum-vitae_web.pdf

Uneven Change in Gender Equality

The following article was written by Pelin Gul, Associate Lecturer and Postgraduate Researcher in the School of Psychology.

Despite the widespread gender discrimination that still exists in various forms all around the globe today, there is no doubt that sweeping changes have taken place in the last half century which have helped to raise women’s position and status in society. Many forms of sexism in institutions have become illegal, women’s employment, educational attainment and political involvement have dramatically increased, and women have entered traditionally male domains as well as top-level managerial and leadership positions.

While all these revolutionary changes have taken place regarding women’s status, what has been happening regarding men? One would think that gender disparities in society could be minimized if similar changes have occurred regarding men’s entry into traditionally female domains. In fact, the change regarding men’s involvement in typically female domains (e.g., housework, childcare, nursing, teaching, etc.) has been much slower compared to women’s (see Croft, Schmader, & Block, 2015 for a review). This uneven change in the gender system has been well-documented by sociologists and economists, and various explanations for the reasons behind this uneven change have been put forward (England, 2010). A plausible argument is the financial incentive standpoint. It is not financially beneficial for men to move into typically female occupations because female-typical jobs are associated with low status and low pay rate in comparison to typically male jobs. While this can partly explain the nature of the asymmetrical change in the gender system, it tells us little about the social psychological processes that are preventing men from taking on female-typical roles.

The precariousness of manhood hypothesis offers an important social psychological perspective on this issue (Bosson & Vandello, 2011). According to this hypothesis, manhood (relative to womanhood which is obtained through biological maturation and thus cannot be lost easily) is an unstable and tenuous social status which can be lost easily and thus needs constant validation and affirmation. The fear of losing manhood and failing to be a real man makes men more sensitive about potential threats to their masculinity. Because of this, men demonstrate their manhood to others through acts that signal masculinity such as aggressive displays, toughness and risk-taking. Affirming manhood can even take the form of derogating and socially distancing oneself from effeminate/gay men (Carnagi, Maass & Fasoli, 2011). Such internalized notions of manhood can clearly pose barriers to men’s move into occupations and activities that are stereotypically feminine.

Even though the precariousness of manhood is a universal phenomenon, certain cultures can bring masculine identity concerns into sharp relief (Brown & Osterman, 2012). In cultures where manhood is intimately linked to honour (honour cultures), people are socialized with the idea that attaining traditional notions of manhood (toughness, strength, courage, capacities to protect and provide) are required in order for men to earn status in society. Men who are socialized with honour ideals may be even more resistant to moving away from masculine domains and embracing feminine roles.

In my research, I have been examining the self-presentations and preferences of men and women who are socialized to have precarious and honourable manhood beliefs. I have found that men who strongly hold honour ideals present themselves in more masculine traits and make more gender-normative activity preferences, while disavowing feminine ones. Such a strong link between gender-normativity and honour beliefs did not appear among women.

Research into the structure of masculinity, such as its precariousness and associations with honour, can help explain men’s relatively higher resistance to internalizing typically feminine traits, values and roles into their self-concepts. It can also extend our understanding of why it is harder to crack gender inequalities in certain arenas of life, and why men and women react to gender-related changes in society (e.g., feminism) in different ways.

References

Bosson, J. K., & Vandello, J. A. (2011). Precarious manhood and its links to action and aggression. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(2), 82-86.

Brown, R. P., & Osterman, L. L. (2012). Culture of honor, violence and homicide. In T. K. Shackelford & V. A. Weekes-Shackelford (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of evolutionary perspectives on violence, homicide, and war. Oxford University Press.

Carnaghi, A., Maass, A., & Fasoli, F. (2011). Enhancing masculinity by slandering homosexuals: The role of homophobic epithets in heterosexual gender identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 1655-1665. doi:10.1177/0146167211424167

Croft, A., Schmader, T., & Block, K. (2015). An underexamined inequality: Cultural and psychological barriers to men’s engagement with communal roles. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1-28. doi: 10.1177/1088868314564789

England, P. (2010). The gender revolution: Uneven and stalled. Gender & Society, 24(2), 149-166.

NEW DEFINITION OF RAPE IN GERMANY

http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21688418-ultimate-victim-sexual-assaults-migrants-could-be-angela-merkels-liberal-refugee

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/06/tensions-rise-in-germany-over-handling-of-mass-sexual-assaults-in-cologne

why do rapists rape? - sex or power?

https://emmatheemo.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/why-do-rapists-rape-for-power-or-sex-lets-ask-a-rapist/

6)2,8% used rape as punishment.

Revenge.

19)” She was wearing my clothes, and I was very angry with that. I took matters into my own hands and wanted to teach her a lesson.”

Hmm, power, perhaps?

20)” I wanted her to become my wife. I sent my friends to go and entice her (the woman) to come to my place. They brought her to my house.”

Sex with a touch of power.

17) “She let me in the house and let me kiss and caress her, but she was not for sex. This was a challenge to my manhood, and I forced her to have sex with me.” 

Opendemocracy entry - Why don’t men care?

https://www.opendemocracy.net/transformation/gary-barker/why-don%E2%80%99t-men-care

Why don’t men care?

GARY BARKER 23 May 2014

Caregiving is neither a male nor female responsibility - it’s what helps to make us all human. It’s time we reshaped society and social norms to make equality possible. 

Village chief in Burundi playing with his child as part of a community discussion about the role of men in caring for children. Credit: Gary Barker/Promundo. All rights reserved.

In 1999, while conducting interviews with young men involved in gangs in Chicago, I met Tony. The son of immigrants from Mexico, Tony had spent time in prison for gang activity. The tattoos on his face marked him as a gang member, and he was undergoing a painful process of laser surgery to have them removed because of the harassment he faced from police, former gang members and rival gangs.

Tony was bitter, both at the gang members who didn’t end up in prison and at a world that treated him like a walking problem.  He was a marked man wherever he went, seen as either a potential criminal or a potential rival. He couldn’t get a job because of his prison record.

On the cold winter evening that we talked, his life didn’t look very promising. I asked him, “How will you stay out of the gang and not go back to that life?”

Tony pointed to his young daughter, who was sleeping in his lap. “Her, man, she’s the reason,” he said.

Tony is not unique. In one of the largest studies ever carried out on gang violence in the United States, researchers followed almost 1,000 low-income young men in Boston aged over 45 years. They found that being married, a father and strongly connected to their children were key factors in keeping men out of gangs and criminal activity. The same conclusion emerged frominterviews I carried out with young men who participated in gangs in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

The evidence is clear: caring for children and for others transforms men. But if that is the case, why don’t more men care?

The answers are both personal and political. At the personal level, many men don’t see caregiving as their role. Maybe they grew up in households where women and girls did all the care work, or maybe they simply follow the dominant social norms. Either way, too few men are prepared to accept an equal share of caregiving responsibility.

At the political level, both men and women need help to do caregiving in the form of affordable daycare, flexible leave, paid maternity and paternity leave, and other forms of support.

Both levels need to be addressed simultaneously. Personal commitment to doing care work is vital, but it easier for some men and women to translate it into action because of their position in society. That’s why action on the political side of the equation is just as important.

At the same time I was interviewing young men like Tony in Chicago, my own daughter was born. I was working on my doctorate in child development, studying brain development and attachment, and sharing care-giving responsibilities with my partner.

One day, as I was leaving class early, some of my fellow students said, “You’re leaving to be the babysitter.” They said the word “babysitter” in a condescending tone.

“I’m not a babysitter, I’m a caregiver,” I told them slowly so they could understand me. They looked at me as if I were speaking a foreign language.

Getting men to do half of the world’s care work means changing what it means to be a man. It’s also one of the keys to ending violence against women and children. It’s essential to achieving equality for women. And research shows that in taking on more responsibility for caregiving, men’s lives improve as well.

According to the World Health Organization, one in three women worldwide has experienced physical violence from a partner. A vast majority of countries have made it a crime for men to use violence against their wives or partners, but, with a few exceptions, there is little evidence that violence against women is declining.

However, research is consistent in affirming which men are more likely to use violence in this way. In surveys that Promundo and its partners have carried out, men who witnessed their fathers or other men use violence against their mothers when they were children are twice as likely to commit similarly-violent acts later on. Men who believe that they are entitled to sex with women are more likely to commit rape. And men who have themselves experienced violence as children are more likely to use violence when they are adults.

Which men are less likely to use violence against women? According to the International Men and Gender Equality Survey (or IMAGES), the answer is clear: men whose fathers didn’t use violence; men whose fathers treated their mothers with respect, and shared decision-making responsibilities with them in the home; and men whose fathers cared for them when they were growing up. What men do as caregivers every day can either strengthen or interrupt these violent cycles.

One of the few countries where violence against women has declined isNorway. Since the late 1980s, Norway has promoted equal pay for women, extensive family leave, and, since 1993, paid paternity leave. Twenty years later, violence against women and children had decreased by a third, partly because these policies have enabled men to do more of their share of caregiving. Now, Norway is ranked as one of the most gender-equitable countries in the world nearly every year.

There has been nothing short of a global revolution in many aspects of gender equality over the past 20 years. According to the World Bank’s 2012 World Development Report, women now make up 40 per cent of the paid workforce, and half of the world’s food producers. With some exceptions, girls today are as likely as boys to be in primary school. Fewer women die during childbirth. There are more women in politics, in business, in government, and working outside of their homes than ever before. 

But with all these changes, who still cares for children? In the Global South, women and girls do two to ten times more of the unpaid domestic and care work than men.

In the Global North, men do between 20 and 40 per cent of the care work, at least in Europe according to a 2012 study by the European Commission. But while men’s incomes continue to rise, women’s incomes hit a ceiling, and expensive daycare pushes women out of the labour market. After having children, women are far more likely to move to part-time work.  According to the same study, the result is a Europe-wide gender pay-gap of 16 per cent, and in the US, a gap of more than 20 points.

The implication of these statistics is unambiguous: if we want equal pay and other forms of equality for women, then men have to do more of the caregiving.

The benefits to children are also evident. Girls raised in households with more equitable relationships are less likely to experience unwanted sex. Men who have stronger relationships with their children contribute more of their incomes to their households, so their children are less likely to grow up in poverty. Women are more likely to report safe and calm birthing processes, to breastfeed and to seek prenatal care when their partners are more involved in birth, pregnancy and caregiving.

About 80 per cent of men in the world will be biological fathers at some point in their lives, and the rest will have parents or other children who also need caring for. But what many men don’t realize is this: getting more involved in caregiving is good for everyone, including men themselves.  

A recent article in the Lancet confirms that men lead women in every one of the top ten causes of premature death and chronic health problems. Men are four times more likely to commit suicide and two times more likely to drink or smoke too much compared to women. In Europe, men die five years earlier than women on average. Women have cancer more often than men, but men die from cancer earlier. Why? Because men don’t go in for preventive health care, and they don’t take care of themselves when they get sick.

The IMAGES study, for example, found that men were more likely to go to a prenatal visit with their partners than they were to visit a doctor for their own health needs. Building on this finding, the Brazilian Ministry of Health enacted a “prenatal protocol for men.” When men accompany their pregnant partners to prenatal clinics, health providers encourage them to make another appointment for a check-up for themselves.

What does men’s health have to do with their caregiving responsibilities?Studies from Sweden and the USA have found that men who report close connections to their children live longer, have fewer mental health problems, are less likely to abuse drugs, are more productive at work, and report being happier than men who are not connected to their children. Caring for others helps men to care for themselves, and men’s lives are made richer and happier when they do.

Gender equality and reducing violence against women are impossible to achieve without equality in caregiving. The daily care of others is as important as anything else that men or women will do in their lives. Indeed,developmental psychologists, evolutionary psychologists and neuroscientistshave all affirmed that human beings are hard-wired to care for, and live in close social connection with, one another. But caregiving is still seen and organized primarily as the work of girls and women. It’s time this was ended.

Caregiving is neither male nor female; it’s what helps to make us all human. 

Opendemocracy entry - Why manning up is the worst thing we can do

https://www.opendemocracy.net/transformation/mark-greene/why-manning-up-is-worst-thing-we-can-do

Why manning up is the worst thing we can do

MARK GREENE 28 December 2015

Can we cure the toxicity of male trauma and the resulting illnesses it creates?

Image credit: YES! Magazine. All rights reserved.

The traditional rules about how to be a ‘real man’ in America are breaking down. Economic upheaval has shifted wage earning from men to their wives or partners. The rise of men as primary caregivers of their children is challenging our most fundamental assumptions about gender. The gay rights and trans rights movements are creating expansive new definitions of masculinity. Millennials are leading a much broader acceptance of diversity.

This generation is witness to a collision between traditional masculinity and a new wave, one that values intimacy, caregiving, and nurturing. But many of us have spent our lives under immense pressure to stifle emotional expression of any kind. And we’re learning there’s a cost: Men are suffering higher rates of life-threatening disease, depression, and death. Simply put, the suppression of emotional expression in men is damaging their health and well-being.

If you’ve grown up in the United States, then you’re familiar with the Man Box, the longstanding rules of how to walk, talk, and sound like a man in America:

1. Real men don’t express a wide range of emotions. They limit themselves to expressing anger or excitement. 

2. Real men are breadwinners, not caregivers. 

3. Real men are ‘alphas’ and natural leaders. 

4. Real men are authoritative and make all final decisions. 

5. Real men are physically tough and sexually dominant. 

These rules take hold early in our lives. Boys four and five years old are told to shake it off, man up, don’t be a crybaby, and, worst of all, don’t be a girl. This is because the Man Box devalues any form of emotional expression traditionally deemed to be feminine. A devastating result of this anti-feminine bias is that women, gays, and trans people face epidemic levels of bullying, rape, misogyny, homophobia, and violence. 

The Man Box robs our sons of a lifetime of opportunities to develop their emotional capacities. Instead, they grow into emotionally isolated men who wall themselves off from the social connectivity central to healing and creating community. The resulting health effects are undeniable.

One in three men aged 45 or older reported himself to be lonely or socially isolated according to a 2010 survey conducted by AARP. The consequences of that social isolation can be fatal. Between 1999 and 2010, suicide among men aged 35–64 rose by nearly 30 percent, as reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Although rates have been rising for both sexes, the study found that middle-aged men are three times likelier than women to end their own lives—27.3 deaths versus 8.1 (per 100,000).

But the risks of social isolation are not just psychological; the absence of robust social relationships has a direct measurable impact on men’s physical health. A 2004 medical study based in Sweden showed that for middle-aged men, having a strong social network and sense of belonging lowered their risk of heart attack and fatal coronary heart disease; inversely, low social support predicted a risk. 

The study further confirms that the risk of mortality for poor social relationships is comparable to risk factors like smoking and alcohol consumption, writes Niobe Way, author of Deep Secrets and professor of applied psychology at New York University. “This point underscores the fact that friendships are not simply a feel-good issue—they are a life-or-death issue.”  

Add to this epidemic of emotional isolation the physical impact of unresolved trauma in men’s lives, and the combined effects are devastating. In The Body Keeps the Score, psychiatrist and PTSD researcher Bessel van der Kolk explores his decades-long work in treating victims of catastrophic trauma. In 1978, he joined the Boston Veterans Administration Clinic as a staff psychiatrist. There, working with veterans of the Vietnam War, van der Kolk began to see the patterns that mark our modern-day understanding of trauma. 

He learned that the human body, when confronted with trauma, can etch horrific memories in the brain, literally reorganizing our perceptions and imagination. The most harmless sounds can trigger flashbacks. One veteran, upon hearing a baby crying, “found himself suddenly flooded with unbearable images of dying children in Vietnam.” He was stuck, in effect, in a terrible loop, revisiting the events over and over again.

One of the many physiological responses to trauma can be seen in a region of the brain called Broca’s Area, which freezes up during flashbacks. This region of the brain is where we construct language to define and interpret our experience of the world. Is it any wonder people find it deeply challenging to put their experiences of trauma into words? Our own physiology is telling us it’s better to remain silent, making trauma all the harder to share or process.

And what exactly qualifies as trauma? Is it only present after catastrophic events, or can it also take hold in the smaller brutalities of daily life, on playgrounds or in locker rooms? How much unresolved trauma do men carry after decades of emotional suppression?

I can recall, as a seven-year-old, seeing my home disappear out the back window of a car as a bitter divorce and my mother’s new marriage drew me away. I recall my brother taking out his shock and rage on me for 15 years afterwards. I still flash back to the suffocating bullying and violence that ran rampant throughout my years of school and Scouts. And yet, when is any man encouraged to share such stories?

For generations, talking about such things was antithetical to our culture’s insistence on male toughness. Thankfully, this is changing. As an editor for theGood Men Project, a website devoted to modern masculinity, I see thousands of men’s stories being told. But we need to hear more—millions more.

Trauma and the Man Box are mutually reinforcing. If, as men, we do not share our feelings, we will accrue decades of painful hidden stories, some of which will play over and over, triggering depression, fear, and unresolved anger toward ourselves and those we love. 

Van der Kolk writes, “Everything about us—our brains, minds, and our bodies—is geared toward collaboration in social systems. This is our most powerful survival strategy, the key to our success as a species, and it is precisely this that breaks down in most forms of mental suffering.” 

If we are to empower our sons and improve men’s lives—and their health—we must tear down the walls of the Man Box, encouraging boys and men to express their full emotional range. The path forward begins in our homes. In small, ongoing daily conversations, we can encourage our sons to explore their internal emotional landscapes, sharing those profound discoveries of life. The result will be countless authentic human moments, strung out across decades, each one growing the rich tapestry of human connection and capacity.

The cost of failing to do so is incalculable. Without the robust social networks that emotional expression creates, men will continue to suffer social isolation and shorter, sicker lives.  

Van der Kolk defines humans as powerfully resilient and resourceful creatures, able to move beyond the challenging events of our lives and heal. But to do so, men must collaborate, connect, and share our stories, no matter how difficult they may be to tell.

MY DISSERTATION WRITE UP - VERY WELL-WRITTEN AND JUSTIFIED DECISIONS IN THIS DISSERTATION

Indicators of threat to masculinity. To reduce socially desirable responses in
participants, I assessed the threatening nature of the party gang rape scenarios indirectly by
asking participants to report on perceptions the offenders and a typical college male bystander
might have rather than their own.

from:

Darnell, D. A. (2010). Examination of Perceived Norms and Masculinity Threat as Predictors of College Men's Behavioral Intentions as Bystanders