Could do better: An inquiry into effective action for men and boys

By Mike Bell, with contributions from Geoffrey Breeze, Zac Fine, Joe Horton, Vincent McGovern and Martin Seager

If we look around we see men and boys facing disadvantages in many walks of life and, alongside this, some attempts to improve the situation. However, we have to admit we are not doing well. The ‘anti-male narrative’ still dominates. Gamma bias affects the media, so that the bad deeds of a few men are taken to reflect men as a whole, while male suffering remains almost invisible to the public and legislature.

A group of us has been meeting to try and understand how to create more effective action on men and boys in the UK.

Observations
·      There are a wide range of individuals and organisations trying to address disadvantages facing men and boys, either at the individual level or via campaigns for social and political change. Compared with parallel women and girls movements they are very much less effective, and they are far less effective than would be expected given that, both historically and today, men are usually at the forefront of problem solving and political change.

·      Men seem reluctant to help other men. For example, after they are supported by the charity Families Need Fathers in seeking access to their children, few separated fathers offer help to other fathers.

·      Men work well in a group when the beneficiaries are anything other than the in-group defined as ‘men’.

·      While radical-feminist ideology is influential, its power seems over-estimated, perhaps because of the lack of an effective pro-male response. 

“Men have evolved not to hit women. Working for men can feel a bit like attacking women – and so men stop.” 

Obvious reasons for ineffectiveness
·      While men do organise effectively for groups (e.g. family, business, football team, country), they do not naturally organise to support other men because they are men. There is no comfortable ‘male identity’ in-group, perhaps because to serve one would contradict the masculine instinct to provide for and protect females.

·      Men are stoical: they tend to ‘put up with things’ unless they are very unsatisfactory.

·      Society is gynocentric and more attuned to female needs than male needs.

·      Some men fear being attacked as ‘misogynistic’.

·      Men have evolved not to hit women. Working for men can feel a bit like attacking women – and so men stop.

·      Some men are disempowered by shame. If, for example, they lose contact with their children, they may feel like they have failed as a father and a man. Shame can handicap a person's ability to step forward, be seen and take action with courage.

·      Some highly motivated men are traumatised. This can prevent them from taking action, for example, to reform family law, because it means re-visiting their trauma. Alternatively, their contributions can be aggressive and counter-productive: they vent in their letters and emails, focus on their own story in meetings and fail to do the detailed work required to be effective.

·      Identity. The men’s movement is difficult to define and understand: there are lots of different aims.

·      Men work hard and often cannot find time to carry out the task they agreed to do.

·      Men are less motivated by an abstract aim (e.g. law reform) than by a practical aim (e.g. fix the fence)

“Some highly motivated men are traumatised. This can prevent them from taking action, for example, to reform family law, because it means re-visiting their trauma. Alternatively, their contributions can be aggressive and counter-productive”

We need a further explanation
While these reasons are probably all valid, they do not explain the extent and duration of actions and inactions by activist men which sabotage their contributions, such as:

·      Agreeing to do something, not doing it, not saying they will not do it, saying they will do it when challenged, giving ‘too busy’-type reasons when challenged.

·      Exaggerating the power of the so-called ‘radical feminists’ as an excuse for inaction.

·      Choosing victimhood and the ‘comfort zone of failure’ to stay in their ‘pain cave’.

Evolutionary drivers
We wondered whether these behaviours are natural. As humans evolved, the role of males changed from other primates. Other primate babies are born able to cling to mother’s fur and she is able to carry them and keep them safe without the help of the biological father. Human babies, by contrast, are born premature (due to head size) and so are vulnerable for several years. In late pregnancy, human females are also disabled relative to other primates. Once born, the lack of human body hair means that mothers need to use their arms to carry the child, thus disabling them further.

To meet these new demands, humans adapted; a type of fatherhood emerged where the adult male creates a bond with his biological child and provides for and protects the mother and children. Males evolved a collective responsibility to protect the extended family group or tribe. To do this they needed to be primarily concerned with the protection of fertile women and children, not themselves or other men. All this is well known, so we explored a deeper reason.

The hypothesis here is that the psychological adaptation in males is not just a positive natural desire (and associated reward system) to protect, but a deep seated prohibition (innate taboo?) against action to protect the men-as-a-group. 

This hypothesis says that while their conscious mind wants to take action, they receive a subliminal message from the subconscious telling them that such action is wrong.  While most of the ‘obvious reasons for ineffectiveness’ above explain inaction, this hypothesis may explain the counter-productive action of so many men in the men's movement.

We were unable to conclude whether this was the case or not, but realised that the ‘why’ does not matter as much as understanding how to be effective while accepting men as they are.


Guidelines for effective action
In the second phase of our work we produced the following guidelines for taking effective action for men and boys, which culminate in a 10-point manifesto.

Avoid using men as an in-group
·      Use an identity group other than 'male', e.g. ‘family’ or ‘children’, to side-step the evolutionary reluctance of men to protect men as an in-group. The group could also signify a higher goal such as: ‘A Fair System’ or ‘A Stable Society’, with the message: 'the way to protect women and children is to look after the men in their lives'. 

Develop the idea of ‘positive masculinity’
·      Focus on positive manifestations of masculinity. Promote this to boys to counter the 'masculinity is toxic’ message and the hyper-masculine narrative from influencers such as Andrew Tate. Challenge the wisdom of training boys to be ‘less masculine’.

·      We need ‘effective warriors’ and pathways for men to ‘walk tall’ and create a virtuous circle to inspire. Cultivate aspiration to leadership and think of the next seven generations, positioning the men's movement as one of stewardship, protecting families and the unborn from the gender war.

·      Normalise the issue by using normal language – avoid ‘rights’, ‘prejudice’, ‘feminist’ etc. Speak and act as though our concern is just like any other.

·      Develop ways for men and boys to feel good about themselves. Reinvent ‘the myth of manhood’. Build myth, narrative and story, not relying on an intellectual argument alone.

·      Build on success: men will more willingly follow and act if they see progress being made.

Beyond volunteers
We concluded that, to a significant degree, we should not assume that a group or network of volunteer men will achieve significant change. Effective action will be best achieved by raising funds and employing non-traumatised men or women to undertake campaigning tasks in a professional manner. 

Existing models
Various ‘Positive Masculinity’ models are already in use by successful groups working to improve the health and wellbeing of men and boys.

We turned to the neo-Jungian masculine archetypes — touted as the psychological foundation of a mature, authentic and revitalised masculinity by Robert Moore and Douglas Gillette in their 1990 book ‘King, Warrior, Magician, Lover’ to see if they would help us define positive masculinity more clearly and provide guidelines for our aim to create more effective action for men and boys in the UK.

‘King, Warrior, Magician, Lover’ (KWML)
This approach divides masculine characteristics into the four roles named above which each sub-divide into three sub-groups: a healthy version, which the authors call ‘mature masculine’ and two unhealthy versions which they call ‘immature masculine’. Unhealthy versions are unbalanced, either too full or too empty.

While drawing inspiration from the model and recognising that others had found it helpful, we were dissatisfied on two counts:

1      The idea that masculinity itself could be ‘immature’. We felt the concept ‘masculinity’ was neutral and simply descriptive. ‘Immature masculinity’ is too close to ‘toxic masculinity’. The problem was not with masculinity, but with male behaviour. We therefore re-named the three categories as behaviours: positive masculine behaviour; men behaving badly; and men behaving weakly.

2      We did not agree that the words ‘king, warrior, magician, lover’ were always helpful. For example, ‘magician’ actually refers to aspects like wisdom and knowledge rather than the usual use of ‘magician’ as a creator of illusion. We therefore decided to use descriptive nouns.

We used these descriptors:

·      King: Leadership and Vision

·      Warrior: Action and Fortitude

·      Magician: Wisdom and Knowledge

·      Lover: Compassion and Empathy

Taken together we felt this produces some clear guidelines which could be applied in many situations men and boys find themselves in.

Mature masculine activist
This table applies the formula to the characteristics of an effective men’s issues campaigner. Other versions of this table can, for example, provide guidelines for young men and their teachers to promote positive attitudes and behaviours in boys.

Image: Table of characteristics of an effective men’s issues campaigner

Positive messages for boys
Currently boys are receiving a variety of negative messages. The Andrew Tate approach identifies some of the behaviours which we would identify as ‘men behaving badly’ and elevates them to aspirations and positive actions. By contrast, the dominant anti-male narrative (which Tate is a reaction to) goes into schools and tells boys that they are born faulty. It provides ‘evidence’ from examples of men behaving badly, but then tries to persuade boys into actions which we would describe as ‘behaving weakly’.

To illustrate this approach, and to distil our findings, we developed this ten-point MANifesto:

MANifesto for an effective men’s movement
Ten points to promote a message of positive masculinity that: MEN can embrace, FAMILIES benefit from, SOCIETY is crying out for, POLITICIANS can support, COURTS fully recognise, which will benefit EVERYONE:

1.      Striving for a world in which men are honoured and respected for the special contribution they make to family and society and where men aspire to live that special contribution.

2.      Recognising that empowered, capable men who bring vision, action, wisdom and empathy to their families create a lasting legacy not just within their homes but across society.

3.      Understanding that men have the right to equality in the criminal justice and family court system, and that this benefits children, women and society.

4.      Addressing the role model crisis, where extreme ideology is pouring into a vacuum around men and boys. We seek to inspire a new generation of role models who demonstrate timeless male virtues to current and future generations.

5.      Recognising that men are women’s best allies and women are men’s best allies. This is the basis upon which the human race is predicated and the real adversary is the tiny minority seeking to pit men and women against one another in identity politics and a battle of the sexes.

6.      Presenting information and advocacy in an honest and transparent fashion that is based on evidence rather than ideology.

7.      Seeking out partnerships with women’s groups who share our vision, recognising the benefit this has for women, children and society.

8.      Encouraging men to speak out about double standards, inequality and situations where they feel gagged and marginalised because they are fearful of being shamed by critical ideology.

9.      Empowering men to recognise that while masculinity has been vilified, our strength lies in our ability to overcome adversity and empower others to do the same.

10.   Standing unapologetically for the special contribution men give to society, and working collectively to publicise this fact. Then equipping men with the tools, resources and encouragement to make their own special contribution.

Having met most weeks between mid-January and mid-April 2023, we felt that, having completed these tasks, the group should take a break, re-assess and find ways to integrate these ideas into our own work. We felt warmly satisfied that we had done some good work and made some useful progress.

Scroll down to join the discussion

---

Disclaimer: This article is for information purposes only and is not a substitute for therapy, legal advice, or other professional opinion. Never disregard such advice because of this article or anything else you have read from the Centre for Male Psychology. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of, or are endorsed by, The Centre for Male Psychology, and we cannot be held responsible for these views. Read our full disclaimer here.

---

Like our articles?
Click here to subscribe to our FREE newsletter and be first
to hear about news, events, and publications.

---

---

Have you got something to say?
Check out our submissions page to find out how to write for us.

---

.