By Dr Ben Hine & Ally Fogg, Co-founders of the Men and Boys Coalition

If you begin any conversation about men’s behaviour in the year 2018, it won’t be long before someone throws in the term ‘toxic masculinity’. It seems to be used by some to help understand men and by some to demonise them, by some to pity men and by others to shame them.

Such conversations make it painfully clear that society is pretty confused right now about how we feel about masculinity, and men, and the relationship between the two. And here’s the rub – the term ‘toxic masculinity’, and the way people choose to use it, are part of the problem.

The phrase itself emerged in the 1990s to describe elements of masculinity which are destructive or harmful to the man displaying the behaviour as well as those around them. One of the most influential applications of the term was in Terry Kuper’s 2005 article, arguing that such traits were the principal barriers to men in prison seeking treatment for mental health issues. Put simply, ‘toxic masculinity’ refers to those norms and behaviours, associated with masculinity, which cause harm to men themselves, as well as those around them.

Recognising and identifying such behaviours, and highlighting their damage, remains an incredibly useful exercise. For example, in providing health, social or psychiatric care, it is essential to understand that some men, particularly those marginalised and maligned by society, have grown to believe it is better to engage in damaging and self-destructive coping mechanisms than admit to personal vulnerability or accept that they need help, and so compromise their gender scripts. Moreover, while the jury is still out on the biological versus socially-constructed nature of such behaviours, being able to objectively identify negative elements of masculinity is an important step in understanding the relationship men have with themselves and with others, particularly women.

However, whilst identifying the existence of ‘toxic masculinity’ may be useful, the term itself may not be. Put simply, the concept of TM is valuable, but the label is confusing and unhelpful, for several reasons.

First, not all masculine traits are inherently ‘toxic’. Examine some of the traits typically associated with masculinity – competitiveness, assertiveness, protectiveness, courage, rationality, independence (you get the idea). It can and should be argued that those are, objectively, GREAT qualities for a person to have – I mean, who wouldn’t want to be an independent, assertive, rational thinker? We all want our sons to have those traits, and if we have daughters we want them to have those traits too. However, all too often when people throw around the phrase ‘toxic masculinity’ it is taken to mean that all masculine traits are toxic. All too quickly it becomes difficult to tell the baby from the bathwater.

Second, the traits that are labelled as ‘toxic’ aren’t negative or problematic all of the time. Even when you look at some of the more problematic characteristics, like competitiveness and protectiveness, their ‘toxicity’ depends on context and extremity. Wanting to win whilst playing a board game is not the same as throwing the board at your opponent if you lose. The same applies for protectiveness, it is a matter of context. Wanting to protect the people you care about from harm? Healthy, of course. Becoming so protective that you constantly check where your partner is and control their behaviour so that they won’t ever leave or hurt you? Not at all healthy. Crucially, all of these behaviours can be classed as performances of masculinity, but only some should be branded toxic and it is not always obvious where the line lies.

This is partly because masculinity means different things to different people. Individual traits aside, even if society says ‘this is masculine, and this isn’t’, most men (and women) have their own definition of what it means to be masculine, and those descriptions are changing all the time, and vary across generations and cultures. Being competitive may be part of my masculinity, while not being part of yours, but we’re still both masculine by our own definitions. Just ask any undergraduate cohort to name ‘typical’ masculine and feminine characteristics; the usual suspects will inevitably crop up, but the mix of words changes every year. To shake things up even more, some people act in ways that are traditionally labelled as masculine by others, but don’t actually identify themselves as masculine, and some people class typically feminine traits as part of their masculinity (for example being a caregiver). So, when we talk about masculinity as being toxic, without qualification, whose masculinity are we even talking about?

Often, people aren’t talking about masculinity at all, they’re talking about men. But, and we really can’t stress this enough, ‘masculinity’ does NOT mean ‘men’, nor vice versus. Our physical biology (hormones, brain structure etc.) undoubtedly have some part to play in our gender identity and how we behave, but it is also clear that a large part of our gendered behaviour is shaped by environmental and societal influences, as are the traits, attributes and characteristics we believe are appropriate for men and women. What this means is, when a man does something seen as typically ‘male’, even if many other men behave in a similar way, that does not mean all men behave this way. It also means that, in most instances, men aren’t biologically bound to act that way, it is society that has taught them it is appropriate or even desirable to do so.

This is demonstrated by our fifth point – women can and do show ‘masculine’ behaviours, traits and characteristics. Indeed, as mentioned above, one of the principle outcomes of feminism has been the break-down of restrictive female gender role expectations, which have encouraged women to venture, nay charge, into traditionally masculine realms, and excel in doing so. If we depend too heavily upon the concept of toxic masculinity to explain negative and destructive behaviours by men, how do we explain similar or even identical behaviours when they are performed by women?

The sixth and final issue is that toxic masculinity is invariably described as something that men have. It is a noun, a thing, an entity, something which is just there inside us, like a hereditary disease or an internal organ. It is both applied, and understood, to mean that the individual man is held responsible for his own toxic behaviour. But the reality is that gender scripts and gender roles are (at least to a large extent) socially conditioned. They are dynamic, and are not things we have but things we do; roles we perform. Attributing problematic behaviour to toxic masculinity is therefore offering an individualistic diagnosis of a social and political failure.

Based on these observations, wouldn’t it be more accurate to talk about ‘toxic masculinisation’ rather than ‘toxic masculinity’? By that we mean the myriad destructive and poisonous ways in which we raise our boys to be men, including how we brutalise them with actual physical violence, or how we instruct them to toughen up, man-up or punish them with mockery and humiliation for showing emotion or vulnerability. Put simply, imagine if we were instead having the same conversation about men, and the male gender role, that we have been having about women and the female gender role for decades. It is unarguable that this would enable men to show a more diverse, and much healthier range of gendered behaviour, and yet we seem so resistant to evaluating men with the same care and attention. Why?

The two principal answers – that we don’t want to, and that we don’t need to, are equally damaging. Both speak to a key issue that we have with men at the moment – the male empathy gap – as described by Dr John Barry and colleagues at UCL. This work speaks to the belief that men are less in need, and less worthy, of our help and compassion because they either don’t need it or they themselves don’t want it. This stems from the ideas outlined above that men are expected to be strong and stoic and can not only cope on their own, but that it is heroic to do so. Unfortunately, such ideas leave men in a position of immense vulnerability, as no-one, not even they, are interested in their issues or needs.

In this sense, assessing the direct link between a restrictive male gender role and the myriad issues which affect men is long overdue. Indeed, it is becoming ever harder to argue against acknowledging and attempting to tackle issues in which men and boys are disproportionately affected, such as homelessness, suicide, and educational underachievement, as well as those where men suffer gender-specific challenges, for example as victim-survivors of domestic or sexual violence, or as new or separated fathers.

However, it is also important to note that, as we write in the summer of 2018, the world is still coming to terms with the unfolding scale of institutionally-enabled sexual abuse and harassment – for example that relating to the #MeToo movement, and before that the succession of scandals from Savile and Operation Yewtree, to abuse in football clubs, children’s homes, the Catholic Church and beyond. Therefore, we are only too conscious that we are questioning the notion of toxic masculinity against a backdrop of the appalling behaviour of all too many men. We could even broaden that vista to include terrorists, school shooters and other violent criminals in the news, who are disproportionately (if not quite exclusively) men.

However, identifying why men behave so negatively and understanding their issues, as well as understanding what we can do to make such behaviours less likely or frequent, is all part of the same big question; finding the answer to which is arguably a key challenge of our time. And the argument we raise is whether throwing around the term ‘toxic masculinity’ is helping or hindering that process?

Because, whatever the original intentions of those who coined the phrase ‘toxic masculinity’, and whatever the motivations of those who throw it around today, it seems clear to us that it is a phrase that a large majority of men and boys find alienating and unhelpful. Correctly or not, the term is understood to be associating men and boys – all men and boys – with the very worst behaviours of anyone who shares our gender. In this sense, the first thing that needs to change is how we speak about men and boys, and how we engage with them.

Crucially, engaging in such debate is not only important in improving the lives and experiences of men, but of women also. So many of the behaviours currently blamed on men as a universal group are negative acts directed towards women. However, many of these, again, are not a result of biologically being a man, or even masculinity, but of a restrictive male gender role that, for example, socialises men to be sexually domineering.

Thus, in writing this we are not asking for the worst of men to be given a free pass. On the contrary, we are calling for outrage. Just as women have been outraged by the oppressive gendered structures that have long shackled them to restrictive gender roles, we call for outrage at the impositions on men and boys. Such restrictions, perpetuated by oppressive patriarchal structures are both real and extremely damaging. But crucially, we need to recognise that such structures are damaging to both women and men, and that men per se aren’t the problem, they are, and must be, part of the solution. We should all be battling against oppressive gender socialisation, in an attempt to improve and enrich all of our lives.

So, let’s ditch #toxicmasculinity, and instead place due value on men and masculinity, and the richness they, and it, brings to our lives. It is only by doing so, alongside engaging in critical, positive debate on what it means to ‘be a man’ in the 21^st century, that we will finally find ourselves on the path to true equality.

One in 12 men are colour blind (and one in 200 women) which, by any standards, is a lot. Yet not many people are aware of this statistic, probably because colour vision deficiency (CVD) is a hidden condition. Sometimes colour blind people themselves don’t realise they have this condition – they simply think everyone sees colours the way they do. But living with CVD can have serious repercussions for a person’s safety, their education, professional and social life, and, in some cases, their self-esteem.

People with the most prevalent forms of CVD confuse all sorts of colour combinations, not just reds and greens. So, on an average day, they might bite into an unripe banana, they may confuse the recycling bins, documents corrected in red ink at work could be meaningless, and watching Liverpool play footie on the box could be more of a challenge than a pleasure (their all-red home kit blurs into the green pitch).

Not insurmountable problems perhaps, but day after day, and in certain jobs and situations, they are definitely a frustration and can constitute a disability – and failure to assist people with this disability, whether intentional or not, can be discriminatory.

Images copyright Colour Blind Awareness

Ignoring the needs of people with colour blindness can also be a form of indirect sexual discrimination. Girls could be considered to have an advantage over boys in all kinds of situations because so many more boys struggle with undiagnosed colour blindness, or a lack of support post diagnosis, compared with the small numbers of girls who are colour blind.

A key area where CVD causes difficulties is at school. In the educational environment, CVD can impact negatively on a pupil’s performance, and ultimately their opportunities going forward in life, if the classroom and teaching methods are not adapted to meet their needs. For example, traffic-light coding in primary schools is incomprehensible to children with CVD, colour-coded pie charts are impossible to navigate, while chemistry students will be lost when it comes to colour-reliant experiments.

“People, including teachers, don’t realise how widespread the problems can be in school,” says Kathryn Albany Ward, founder of Colour Blind Awareness. “It can affect performance across the whole curriculum including, geography, maths, ICT and even languages.”

Regrettably, screening for CVD is no longer a mandatory part of school entry, nor is a colour vision test part of the NHS eye test for children. As a result, some youngsters can struggle for years at school if a parent or teacher has not spotted there is something wrong. It can also affect their career prospects – and therefore their choice of subjects as they advance into higher education – because certain jobs and professions will be off limits, at worst, or complicated, at best, for people with CVD, such as working as a pilot, electrician or in medicine.

The good news is that, thanks to sustained efforts by Colour Blind Awareness in recent years, many sectors of society are starting to take notice. Significant advances are being made in football, with UEFA and the English FA leading from the front, raising awareness and implementing CVD-friendly strategies. Educational institutions have been slower on the uptake, but CBA has written best practice information leaflets and runs workshops for teaching professionals which it is hoped may begin to make a difference soon.

In reality, we can all play a part in helping to prevent discrimination against those with colour blindness. If you come across information or methods that can’t be interpreted without colour recognition – a danger sign, an occupied toilet indicator, computer software – why not point it out to the relevant body or, if necessary, log a complaint? And keep an eye on young people in your entourage, in particular young boys, for any signs of trouble with colour recognition (see the tips below). If in doubt, ask an optician to test for CVD. Like most things in life, once a difficulty is identified, you can work out strategies to help manage the negative impact.

What causes CVD?

Essentially, CVD a deficiency in one of the three types of specific cone cells in our eyes that absorb red light, green light and blue light respectively. Most cases of CVD arise from a defect in the red or green cone types – commonly known as red/green colour blindness – but colour blindness can affect many other colour combinations. The generally held view that colour blind people only confuse reds with greens is a myth.

Why does CVD affect men and boys in greater numbers?

Colour blindness is far more prevalent in males than females (1 in 200 women is colour blind) because the condition is inherited via the X chromosome. If a male inherits the colour blindness gene on his single X chromosome, he will be colour blind. If a female inherits colour blindness on just one of her two X genes, the good (non colour blind) X overrides the bad X so she won’t be colour blind but she will be a carrier, with a 50% chance of passing the bad gene down to her sons. If, however, both her X chromosomes carry the gene, she will be colour blind.

How to spot CVD?

There are a few tell-tale signs to look out for that may indicate CVD. For example if someone:

• Needs more time, or looks for other clues, to process information that uses colour
• Appears to regularly misunderstand instructions (is it because colour is involved?)
• Has difficulty ‘seeing’ colours in PowerPoint presentations or data communication (see personal testimony below)
• Has difficulty using software programmes (many website pages uses colour text or graphics on a colour background that can be very difficult for people with CVD to ‘see’)
• Appears confused by coloured sports equipment – e.g. green bibs, red cones, blue court markings (see below)
• Isn’t sure when meat is cooked

For more information, visit colourblindawareness.org

Boys are falling behind girls at every level of education and young women are now 35 percent more likely to go to university than young men. Despite this, there is currently no Government policy dedicated to tackling the issue. Here one small organisation describes what they are doing on a day-to-day basis to help boys overcome the educational barriers they face.

Mengage Limited is a not-for-profit company working on male health and the issues that affect male health; we are a practitioner-led organisation using a ‘what works’ approach to work with boys and men, which means that we acknowledge that there are a diverse range of disciplines and theories involved in work with men – and that these can sometimes be at variance.

All of that said, an area of work that most people attending our workshops can agree on are the social determinants of health, a prominent one being education. Girls outperform boys in schools in the majority of subjects and are more likely to go onto higher education, a pattern that is not unique to Britain, but one that can also be found in other developed countries.

Poor academic achievement correlates with reduced social mobility, poor health outcomes and also criminality, therefore to address these concerns it is essential that we take action on improving boys’ education and preventing early school leaving.

Government neglect

Social determinants are often influenced by Government policy – and education is no different. In the UK, despite boys falling behind girls at every level of schooling, there is currently no recognised statutory programme for improving boys’ education. In contrast in Australia, for example, biannual National Boys Education Conferences are held and work programmes with a specific focus on improving boys’ education are a normalised part of education work.

However without a policy – and the funding this brings — unlike some other social determinants of health, we can at least begin to address this in small part via workshops and initiatives that enthuse and provide knowledge and skills to UK teachers. Hence Mengage’s involvement in this field of work, with us criss-crossing the country visiting schools with our Raising Boy’s Achievement workshops for teachers and Mentoring Male accredited award for people interested in helping boys and young men in education through mentoring. It does of course help that one of the Mengage collective of practitioners –  the author of this article – is a qualified teacher.

What follows is my account of one of our workshops – a day in the life of a practitioner.

The majority of schools we work in are secondary schools, primarily for financial reasons with secondary schools being much larger and having bigger budgets to bring in external support; the opportunity to work in a primary school doesn’t arise too often. So when offered work at a larger primary with some 620 students and 50 staff we were pleased to accept; admittedly it’s easier to work with 15-20 committed staff – we’ve worked with a lot more than 50 staff at one sitting in secondary schools, but primary education is where we can really tackle issues such as boys and literacy, so I was keen to accept the school’s invitation to work with them.

Ideological resistance to helping boys?

Working in a primary school setting is different to work in secondary schools and required a change of approach. The format I used included an obligatory powerpoint introduction about who we are and what we do — and do not do. Experience of working in a gender-politicised area of work has meant we have had to build this into the start of many of our workshops. Whilst people know they are attending a workshop implicitly stating that it is about a boys and/or a men’s concern, people — often those from ideological perspectives – question whether we should be giving special support for boys or work with men, or that sometimes emerging research perspectives challenges their own views. We acknowledge that people can hold different views, but Mengage does not hold to any politicised or ideological doctrine and this is reiterated during these slides along with a robust rationale as to why we are doing this.

Once the introductions are out of the way, to explore these personal perspectives and allow staff to air their opinions, I used an activity we commonly employ, which uses questions such as: “what do boys want to know about education?” “What do boys need to know about education?” “What do we remember about boys/girls when growing up?” and so on.  Lots of participation and discussion ensued, informing me about their knowledge and opinions on work with boys and how they perceived them and this area of work (and as this was their first day back after Christmas the staff had conversations with each other about their holidays without being put under too much pressure to ‘perform’. Informality is part of the workshop!)

This then allowed me to explore research perspectives with them – challenging some of their views, looking at areas as diverse as neuroscience and literature, statistics and social mobility. I lovingly describe this as “the boring bit”, but it actually is the core that holds the whole workshop together. The discussion about the relevance of brain science and different viewpoints — social construction of masculinity/feminist schooling, the cultures of young men — onto psychology perspectives, action on social determinants and what does ‘salutogenic’ mean? This is the part that gets people to listen and get involved. Yes, you do need to know about best practice – but to improve practice you also need to build it on a sound research-based foundation, you need to know where practice is coming from. That took us up to a break and further discussion.

‘The biggest issue? Literacy.’

After the break, we were into the main barriers to boys’ achievement in school; drawing on best practice, in this case a nod of approval has to go to a leading expert in the field of work on boys’ education Gary Wilson, who identified a number of specific barriers and how to counter these. I certainly recommend anyone with an interest in this area to take a look at Gary’s work, and I always acknowledge my sources – after all I’m a practitioner spreading best practice. Hence we took a look at boys’ early years in school, literacy concerns, whole school approaches, socio-cultural issues, emotional intelligence and having a male-inclusive classroom – a lot of territory to cover in a time-condensed workshop.

Literacy is far and away the biggest issue we encounter and normally I would spend a bit of time allowing the staff to come up with their own ideas around this – but on this occasion and wary of timing I set out pre-prepared flip chart paper headed with each of the barriers, allowed them to sit where they had a particular interest and gave them 15 minutes to come up with their own ideas.

This worked really well. They were coming up with great ideas for their own school – such as suggesting areas of the school where there could be male friendly displays, doing an audit of classrooms to see whether the displays are ‘too feminine’, doing ‘stay and play’ sessions (for both sexes) so that parents/grandparents come in and they all put their technology down and play board games – and others too. Feedback followed with my offering solutions I have collected running  these workshops in many other schools and the staff then adding to them (a benefit of working cross-country is working with many different schools and picking up great ideas and sharing them) – experiential for both myself and the staff, as in future I’ll be running this particular part of the workshop in this way if there are more than a handful of staff.

The feedback at the end of the workshop was positive — the Head teacher and the Deputy Head who had originally organised the workshop were grateful and I was able to drive home at the end of the day feeling that at the very least the staff I had worked with were aware of exactly why we need to work to improve boys’ education and were informed and enthused to do so.

‘We shouldn’t ask why boys are failures, but why the system is failing boys’

This group of teachers embraced the workshop content. We shouldn’t regard boys and young men as a homogeneous deficient group – a problem, but as heterogenous and unique individuals with attributes that should be nurtured and allowed to grow so that they can build on their own strengths and succeed rather than be pigeonholed as educational failures; that it’s their fault, rather than that of a system that doesn’t account for their differential needs and how to work with them. We all know or have had experience of a boy who does not fit in with the broad-brush strokes we are using and probably know a girl that doesn’t too. We need to recognise this – but we also need to acknowledge that boys are not doing well in education and that gender-sensitive steps need to be taken to address this and not continue in the gender-blind fashion that has allowed boys to fail with subsequent consequences for themselves and the wider community.

If that sounds a little too idealistic or that I’m surfing on a wave of enthusiasm, I’m soon brought down to earth in the days following the workshop. There is a barrier to making all of this work, and one that many people will encounter. How many times have you been to a workshop or conference, come away enthused and ready to put what you’ve learnt into action only to be told by a manager or head of department who hadn’t attended that it wasn’t going to happen, it didn’t fit with the department’s ethos – etc? In this instance, upon finishing the workshop, the enthusiastic Deputy Head asked me to write a ‘quick check document’, a Red, Amber, Green rated checklist that could be applied to all aspects of the school environment to enable them to identify areas where they are letting boys down and so on – “stay in touch”. Sounds great?

I have emailed the Deputy Head about this several times since but to no avail. Our mentoring workshops are repeat business, we’re invited back as people want to train to be mentors and understand boys’ issues and concerns, but a workshop for busy teachers on raising boys’ achievement?  It would seem, as schools have so many pressures on them, that once this workshop is completed they are already moving on to the next thing. As a teacher I’m aware of this.

You could say that it’s a thankless task, and why do it when there is easier work to be had, but there is no provision for this area of work currently coming from Government and limited guidance for practitioners. So whilst that remains the case, as practitioners we will remain out on the road talking about work with boys and men and applying theory to practice – because, small company though we are and as frustrating as this work can be, we believe it can make a difference.

By Liam Kernan

Image: Flickr/DFAT

Perceptions of ‘typical’ incidences of domestic violence are deeply ingrained in the public consciousness and based on gender stereotypes — but although more women than men are victims of domestic violence, statistics show that many incidences of violence are mutual, or involve a female aggressor and male victim, or take place within same-sex couples.

In December, Prof. Ben Hine, senior lecturer in psychology at the University of West London, gave a presentation at University College London in which he asked challenging questions about these societal beliefs around partner abuse: How do our perceptions of domestic violence influence the judgements we make regarding those involved? Are some victims taken less seriously than others, and why? And how do we change this?

This fascinating, surprising and insightful talk, explores our perceptions of domestic violence, and – for the sake of all victims – emphasises the importance of challenging unhelpful narratives.

To watch Prof Hine’s presentation, which was the latest in the UCL Gender Equity Network’s series of talks on contemporary gender issues, click on the videos below.

Part 1

Part 2

More than 50 of the UK’s leading charities, academics, journalists and campaigners have come together to form the UK’s largest ever coalition to tackle gender-specific issues affecting men and boys.

The Men and Boys Coalition, which includes insideMAN, brings together organisations and individuals specialising in fields ranging from mental health and suicide prevention to education and parenting and will be launched in Parliament today ahead of International Men’s Day on 19^th November 2016.

The Coalition aims to collectively ensure that issues affecting men and boys are fully recognised and tackled by Government, the statutory sector and society in general.

The many nationally-recognised and award-winning campaigns that have agreed to participate in the Coalition include The Campaign Against Living Miserably [CALM]; Britain’s leading charity for male victims of domestic abuse, the Mankind Initiative; and organisations working with men and boys affected by sexual violence, such as Survivors Manchester.

A world first

Although bringing diverse expertise and coming from across the political spectrum, all members are committed to developing constructive, progressive, coherent and gender-inclusive solutions to male-specific issues. The Men and Boys Coalition will bring these voices together under a single lobbying and campaigning umbrella, believed to be the first coalition of its type anywhere in the world.

Mark Brooks, Chair of domestic abuse charity the ManKind Initiative, said: “Over recent years, we have seen many examples of cooperation from a wide range of voices and charities all concerned that not enough is being done to support men and boys in tackling issues they face in their lives.

“This joint working includes challenging statutory bodies to provide services, campaigning for funding and representing the needs of men and boys in the political arena. It is welcome and long overdue that this new coalition has been formed which will represent us all and make all of us stronger – for the good of men and boys, and of course, the women and girls they share their lives with.”

Jane Powell, CEO of the Campaign Against Living Miserably, said: “As a society we need to look at the needs of men and boys across all of our services, as we have done, for girls and women, and rightly so.

‘Long overdue’

“We see boys failing significantly more than girls in education, significantly more men in prison than women, and far more men taking their lives than women. Inequality in any guise is unacceptable; this is a coalition which is long overdue.”

Duncan Craig, CEO of Survivors Manchester, said: “The Men and Boys Coalition is important to the growth of an area that has been vastly under resourced and neglected – the health and wellbeing of men and boys.

“The coalition provides us with an opportunity to address inequalities, network and join forces and build new relationships that will inevitably result in better provision across the UK for men and boys.”

‘A better society for all’

John Adams, stay-at-home-father and leading dad blogger, said: “Women face a lot of issues that need addressing and men have a role to play in making society better for women and girls. There has, however, been a definite change. Slowly but surely, society is waking up to the fact men also face significant challenges: poor mental health provision, a depressingly high suicide rate, ever poorer educational attainment. I am delighted to do my small part to help men meet these challenges and help create a better society for all.”

To mark its launch ahead of International Men’s Day, the Coalition has created a series of meme cards for sharing on social media, highlighting some of the hard-hitting facts the Coalition’s members hope to address. Each of the cards has the tagline “Not everyday Is International Men’s Day”.

The conditions of membership for the Coalition include an agreement that progress for men and boys should never come at the expense of the interests and wellbeing of women and girls. The Coalition’s gender-inclusive approach asserts that solutions to male-specific issues should complement campaigns on women’s issues, rather than oppose them. The Coalition will not accept or work with organisations or individuals who express misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, racism or any other form of bigotry or discrimination.

The co-founders of the Coalition are: Dan Bell, Features Editor, insideMAN magazine; Mark Brooks, equalities campaigner and chair of the ManKind Initiative; Martin Daubney, journalist and broadcaster; Ally Fogg, writer and journalist; Dr Ben Hine, senior lecturer in psychology at the University of West London and Glen Poole, UK Coordinator of International Men’s Day.

To see the full list of members and find out more about the Coalition’s aims, visit their site at: www.menandboyscoalition.org.uk 

During Parliamentary questions today on whether the Government was going to mark International Men’s Day on 19 November, it was revealed that the Prime Minster, Rt Hon Theresa May MP, supports the important issues the Day seeks to address and highlight:

“I recognise the important issues that this event seeks to highlight, including men’s health, male suicide rates and the underperformance of boys in schools, these are serious issues that must be addressed in a considered way.”

This was further supported by Government Ministers with Caroline Dinenage MP, Parliamentary under Secretary of State for Women, Equalities and Early Years, who stated:

“…as parents of sons up and down the country we will all be conscious about the issues he has mentioned and the Prime Minister has mentioned.”

“International Men’s Day in the UK does take a very gender-inclusive approach and therefore believes that issues affecting women and girls are also to be resolved”

“I am aware that there are 60 countries around the world that celebrate International Men’s Day and there are various different ways that they do that, focusing on men’s health and wellbeing, highlighting discrimination against men and any inequalities they face, improving gender relations and gender equality. This creates a safer world for everybody, Mr Speaker, and is always to be commended.”

This was the first endorsement by a Prime Minister and Government in the UK.

The International Men’s Day team in the UK, said: “This welcome Prime Ministerial and Government endorsement clearly proves there is now growing acceptance and recognition of issues of inequality that affect men and boys, and, a need to take these seriously. This is a landmark moment. It gives a clear signal to both politicians and the public sector of the need to step up to the plate and ensure that practical policies and action is taken to address them.

“This endorsement will provide comfort and extra impetus to charities, professional  and organisations already working hard to support these issues and often struggle to have them recognised.

“There are at least 25 events already marking the Day right across the UK, and there is still plenty of time to join these events or set up your own. These range from health days, education events and conferences. The full list can be found at www.ukmensday.org.uk/events”

The UK theme for the Day continues to be Making a Difference for Men and Boys.

The theme is designed to help more people consider what action we can all take to Make a Difference by addressing some of the issues that affect Men and Boys such as:

• The high male suicide rate
• The challenges faced by boys and men at all stages of education including attainment
• Men’s health, shorter life expectancy and workplace deaths
• The challenges faced by the most marginalised men and boys in society (for instance, homeless men, boys in care and the high rate of male deaths in custody)
• Male victims of violence, including sexual violence
• The challenges faced by men as parents, particularly new fathers and separated fathers
• Male victims and survivors of sexual abuse, rape, sexual exploitation, domestic abuse, forced marriage, honour-based crime, stalking and slavery
• The negative portrayal of men, boys and fathers

The key issue of focus at a national level for 2016 is “supporting boys with their academic, employment, personal, social and health education“. There will also be a continuation of the attention on male suicide. International Men’s day also coincides with International Survivors of Suicide Loss Day.

Philip Davies MP has called for a debate to raise awareness of issues such as male suicide, boys’ educational under-performance and fatherlessness to be held in Parliament on International Men’s Day.

The request follows last year’s controversy after calls for a debate to mark the day were initially mocked by Labour MP Jess Phillips, before pressure from leading men’s charities and campaigners led to the debate going ahead.

If Davies’ application is successful, it will be only the second time an International Men’s Day debate has been held in Parliament.

Davies told the backbench committe the issues debated last year “are still relevant today and still very rarely get debated and discussed in the House of Commons, things like male suicide, the under-performance of boys in schools, the way that men sometimes have difficulty getting access to their children, the impact on men of the criminal justice system.

“Only recently the Prime Minister has raised the issue of how black men in particular are particularly affected in the criminal justice system. And it seems to me this debate would allow all of those issues and others to be discussed.”

Davies told the committee: “I am delighted to say as well that we actually had as many women speaking in the debate as men, to show that it wasn’t just about one particular gender.”

Watch Davies’ full presentation here:

Poet, author and artist Rick Belden has been at the cutting edge of thinking and writing about the psychology and inner lives of men for over 25 years. Here he explores the profound barriers men face when asked to talk about their feelings. (We’ve also included some of his poems to show how powerful it can be when they do.)

Being asked what you need for the very first time by someone who really wants to know and then finding yourself coming up blank is, I think, a common experience for many men. In the very first men’s group I ever attended, virtually every man (including me) was unable to answer the first time the facilitator asked him, “What do you need right now?”

The most common immediate reaction was disorientation and confusion, as if the question itself was somehow beyond comprehension. A lot of men were rendered speechless. Some shrugged and said, “Nothing.” Some looked away or stared at the floor, as if ashamed at the prospect that they might even have needs. Others made jokes or attempted to change the subject. But almost no one was able to answer the question truthfully and sincerely.

‘Little Iron Man’

In exploring our reactions and discomfort with the question as a group, it became clear very quickly that most of us (including me) were unaccustomed to expecting anyone else to genuinely care about what we needed, much less give it to us. As we dug a little deeper into our individual experiences and histories, many of us found ourselves feeling very angry about how little our needs had mattered to those around us throughout our lives. There was often a great sadness as well. In some cases, the grief expressed was profound.

One of the first steps for many of us was to learn that it was okay for us to respond to “What do you need right now?” by simply saying, “I don’t know.” Perhaps this seems like an obvious answer to the question, but it’s one that doesn’t come easy for many men. “I don’t know” is a state of mind men have often been taught to equate with weakness; it is something we’ve been conditioned not to acknowledge to ourselves, much less say out loud.

‘Gift (Iron Man Dream No.3)’

The work required to break through the associated resistance was often substantial for the men involved, and sometimes quite grueling. But a man who is honestly able to say “I don’t know” when he is asked what he needs right now has taken a powerful first step forward in the direction of reconnecting with himself, and those of us who began to answer in that fashion generally found ourselves pleasantly surprised at our ability to respond with something far more specific very soon thereafter.

As we made our first attempts at saying what we needed, some other patterns began to emerge. There was a tendency for many men to talk about their needs in very abstract or high level terms (e.g., “I need more money,” “I need a new job,” “I need a girlfriend,” etc.) that sidestepped the “right now” part of the question. Time after time, the facilitator patiently but firmly steered each man who answered in this manner back into the group, back into the room, and back into real time “right now” experience with the other men who were there with him. This was the next hurdle for many of us, because it meant answering the question not only in “right now” terms, but in terms of telling the other men, “This is what I need from you right now.”

‘Present Time’

Admitting our needs to other men was another challenging taboo for most of us. We had little or no experience understanding and expressing our needs, and many of our initial attempts felt awkward and clumsy at first. It was also very hard for most of us to trust the other men. Men are often most deeply wounded in groups of other males while growing up, and are therefore highly protected against letting it happen again. But the group provided us with what we most needed, a safe space to practice and make mistakes, and we all made progress, in our own way and at our own pace. It was beautiful and often quite moving to watch these men brave the truly daunting risks of opening and unfolding themselves before others in ways they never had before, and such a great and unforgettable privilege to be present as both a participant and a witness.

I’ve been in several other men’s groups over the years since then, with scores of other men, and I’ve continued to see this same dynamic over and over. Many men, when presented with the question “What do you need right now?”, honestly cannot answer because they learned long ago that their needs were not important. A man who is disconnected from his own needs is truly disconnected from himself, and well down the path to trouble in his life. The good news is that, with proper support, attention, and assistance, every man can learn to answer this very important question consistently with clarity and confidence.

Originally posted at poetry, dreams, and the body on Feb 6 2013.

Rick Belden is a respected explorer and chronicler of the psychology and inner lives of men. His book, Iron Man Family Outing: Poems about Transition into a More Conscious Manhood, is widely used in the United States and internationally by therapists, counselors, and men’s groups as an aid in the exploration of masculine psychology and men’s issues, and as a resource for men who grew up in dysfunctional, abusive, or neglectful family systems. His second book, Scapegoat’s Cross: Poems about Finding and Reclaiming the Lost Man Within, is currently awaiting publication. He lives in Austin, Texas. Rick is a contributor to insideMAN: Pioneering stories about men and boys.

More information, including excerpts from Rick’s books, is available on his website and blog. You can also find him on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.

In an interview for her (failed) Conservative leadership bid, the now Environment Secretary Andrea Leadsom made a number of comments regarding men who show an interest in providing professional childcare. In short, she suggested that to avoid hiring a man for such a job was not sexism, but ‘cautious and very sensible’ considering that paedophiles are often attracted to working with children, before closing with the statement ‘I’m sorry – but they’re the facts’[1].

I, like many others, am utterly appalled by such comments on a deeply personal level, as well as from an academic perspective and through my involvement in campaigning for gender equality and men’s issues. To understand my personal disgust, you should know a bit more about my upbringing. When I was 12 years old, my parents had the first of my two (much younger) siblings, Fraser, with Macy being born around 16 months later. I therefore spent my teenage years surrounded by all things baby; helping out with changing nappies, babysitting, and keeping the tiny tots amused. One specific incident is forever seared into my memory, that of sharing a deeply traumatic day with my other sister, Sophie (three years my junior, and eight at the time) looking after a continuously screaming one-year-old Fraser whilst my mum accompanied my Dad to a hospital in Tenerife for a dislocated shoulder. Suffice to say, I consider myself pretty ‘baby-savvy’.

These experiences, combined with genuine interest and intrigue, mean that I am fascinated by kids. From new-borns to teenagers I love interacting with them, and I am always spending time with my neighbour’s babies and offering to babysit. I can’t wait to be a Dad myself.  I also studied gender development for many years as part of my degree and PhD, and now teach developmental psychology to undergraduates at my institution, where, more than anything, I try to portray just how fascinating children are and how rewarding it is to work with them (with varying success!).

Considering my substantial practical and theoretical experience in caring for and understanding children, and my genuine, innocent, interest in their behaviour, comments like those made by Andrea Leadsom make me feel deeply uncomfortable. The very fact that I had to use the word ‘innocent’ to describe that interest in the previous sentence quite simply makes me sad. Why does being male mean that those particular interests are eyed with such deep suspicion? Interests that wouldn’t evoke a second thought when exhibited by a woman. This is where my anger takes on an academic angle.

Where does this prejudice come from?

Firstly, I will agree, cautiously, that statistical evidence does suggest that the majority of paedophiles are male. However, this categorically does not mean that the majority of men are paedophiles, or that paedophilia is part of some innate male quality. It certainly does not mean that men who show an interest in children or providing professional childcare are likely to be paedophiles, or that they express such interests for any other reason than the genuine enjoyment and reward gained from interacting with children. Yet sadly too many comments, often by prominent public figures, seem to suggest that the inherent suspicion that surrounds men interested in children and these roles is fueled by such thinking. But where does this come from?

To me it appears that the seeds are planted in childhood. Parents, and others such as teachers and peers, frequently and systematically limit young boys’ engagement with activities linked to caring and nurturance, and steer them away from professions like childcare and nursing. Indeed, recent academic studies[2][3] suggest that parents, particularly fathers, still seek to discourage ‘gender-atypical’ behaviour in boys, such as playing with dolls. Conversely, boys are often praised for engaging in ‘gender-typical’ behaviour, such as rough-and tumble play or playing with toy cars. I have seen and experienced this myself in observing other families, and was routinely discouraged from feminine activities during my own childhood. This is before we even begin to discuss the influence of the media (take as one example the episode of the popular TV show ‘Friends’ where Ross and Rachel hire a male nanny for their daughter. Cue Ross becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the femininity and sensitivity of ‘Sandy’, and eventually dismissing him, as well as having his own sensitive nature mocked[4]). Is it no wonder then that boys, and the men they become, show disinterest and even fear when engaging with children? Most likely due to a lack of experience and understanding, as well as the residual impact of relentless socialisation away from such interests? Is it also no surprise then, that when men do show an interest in children, it is felt that explanations for such strange behaviour must be found? ‘Maybe he’s gay? Maybe he’s a paedophile? Maybe it’s both!’ At the very least, you are guaranteed to get a highly suspicious and judgmental look.

‘Shunned at the school gates’

I must therefore ask, what exactly are we worried about here? Why do we feel it is necessary or important to discourage young boys from learning such important skills? They may not want to take up careers that involve care, but many will one day become fathers. By so strongly discouraging engagement with traditionally feminine activities, aren’t we robbing men, so early on in their development, of the opportunity to provide the emotionally engaged, loving, and nurturing care that their children need and deserve?

I have spoken to many expectant and new fathers, and many of them feel isolated in the process of caring for their own children, largely due to their personal fears and perceived inadequacies, but also due to the chronic lack of value placed on their input by some health professionals, friends, and even their partners. One male clinician I spoke to at a recent conference described how, as a stay-at-home dad, he was shunned by other mothers at the school gates, especially when looking after his daughter. I hear similar stories of judgement from other new dads that I know about their experiences in taking their children solo (heaven forbid!) to the local park. The explanation they all give is that the women that judged them just couldn’t seem to understand why a man would want to choose to be a stay at home dad, or how a father could care for his child for 60 minutes on his own. Their fear, was that those women had similar beliefs to Andrea Leadsom regarding their interest in caring for their own children.

Despite their hurtfulness, in a way, I don’t specifically blame Andrea Leadsom for her comments. Sure they were misguided, ill-informed, seriously lacking tact, and damaging, but she, like so many others, make such remarks because of a wider issue that we face as a society. Whilst young girls are now allowed, and often encouraged, to engage in masculine activities and careers, we are yet to see a similar impetus behind encouraging boys to pursue and enjoy traditionally feminine interests.

‘Gender expectations on sons are still rigid’

More than anything, I feel that we must move towards a place where children are permitted to pursue their own individual interests, without the relentless pressure of gender, and therefore allowed to fulfill their true potential. Indeed, recent evidence does suggest that traditional attitudes are softening somewhat, but that gender role expectations of sons in particular are still rigid[5]. Clearly we still have a long was to go before boys can feel freer to enjoy activities that involve nurturance and care, to possibly pursue that enjoyment into a related career, and to live in a society that doesn’t harshly judge them, or believe there is something wrong with them, for doing so.

I will never stop being fascinated by children. Their behaviour, their development, and their wondrous love of life. But I do sometimes feel uncomfortable in expressing that interest and when spending time with children, as I often feel others are judging me, or worse, thinking there might be something deeply awry. I will take solace however in a comment made by one of my male neighbours, and father of a 1-year-old girl, when discussing Leadsom’s comments. He commented that the decision about who looks after his child is less about gender and more about the individual, how they interact with your child, and whether you can feel that you can trust them; saying that he trusted me to the extent that he would rather I looked after his daughter than some (female) members of his close family. I found this to be both a deeply comforting comment, and a refreshing perspective, that hopefully many people throughout the country share.

My hope is that, by challenging the negative and hurtful beliefs regarding men and childcare, and by allowing young boys to engage with these interests, we will soon begin to see an erosion of these outdated attitudes. A process that will, with any luck, allow boys, and the men they become, to enter caring professions without judgement, to become wholly fulfilled and valued fathers, and to express a normal level of interest in children and their behaviour without the associated prejudice.

By Dr Ben Hine

Ben is a lecturer in psychology at the University of West London and a chartered member of the British Psychological Society (BPS). Ben is interested in a number of gendered issues, concerning both men and women, and specialises his research in attitudes surrounding victims and perpetrators of sexual violence. He is a strong believer in the negative and restrictive affects that gender can have on young children, particularly young boys, and the adults they become.

[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/andrea-leadsom-men-paedophiles-childcare-workers-hired-sensible-a7139351.html

[2] Endendijk, J. J., Groeneveld, M. G., van der Pol, L. D., van Berkel, S. R., Hallers-Haalboom, E. T., Mesman, J., & Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J. (2014). Boys don’t play with dolls: mothers’ and fathers’ gender talk during picture book reading. Parenting, 14, 141-161.

[3] Kane, E. W. (2006). “No way my boys are going to be like that!” Parents’ responses to children’s gender nonconformity. Gender & Society, 20, 149-176.

[4] Crane, D., & Kauffman, M. (Writers) & Bright, K. (Director). (2002). The One With the Male Nanny [Television Series Episode]. In Bright, K., Crane, D., & Kauffmans, M. (Executive Producers), Friends. Los Angeles, California: NBC

[5] Leaper, C. (2013). Parents’ Socialization of Gender in Children. Gender: early socialization, 6.