Author: R. Horton

Book Review: A cross-dresser explains The Descent of Man

R. Horton

In a world where a man who talks openly about kissing and grabbing women without consent can be taken seriously as a candidate for leader of the “free” world, you may wonder how toxic masculinity has spun out of control. As an antidote to all the bully posturing, perhaps the wisdom of a famous cross-dressing artist can help explain how we got here and how we can move forward, so it is time to pick up Grayson Perry’s The Descent of Man and begin to unravel the mystery of toxic masculinity.

If you have already spent some time pondering feminism, masculinity, and gender, you really have two choices as you read Perry’s screed: You can quietly applaud from the choir loft or utter a mild rebuke that it doesn’t go far enough to liberate us all from the shackles of rigid gender roles. On the other hand, if you have not really examined assumptions about gender and how they affect the world, prepare yourself for a brief but fairly inclusive overview of entertaining and insightful musings on gender, violence, fashion, and injustice.

If you aren’t already familiar with Grayson Perry, he is a celebrated artist, cross-dresser (he refers to himself as a transvestite and sometimes “tranny,” something I decline to do), and host of a television program titled All Man, which was also an exploration of masculinity. At the outset of the book, Perry says that some may think his cross-dressing gives him a better understanding of women, but he insists that it instead gives him a better understanding of men. Though he mentions cross-dressing a number of times in the book, it plays a relatively minor role in this overall thesis, with the exception of his emphasis on fashion.

For a man of a certain means and status, wardrobe options are limited. When doing any kind of business, a fairly bland suit with a fabric “penis,” as Perry says, wrapped around his neck is the default choice for what Perry describes as the Default Man. The Default Man represents all the power and privilege of being male, but Perry acknowledges that not all men share the power and privilege of maleness equally. Still, the Default Man is the assumed cultural archetype for Western society. His clothing is bland, Perry avers, because the Default Man is in a position to observe and objectify others, not to be observed and evaluated himself.

To care about fashion is decidedly unmanly, and, indeed, men who fuss about their appearance are often assumed to be gay by homophobes and self-appointed gender police. Men from other social classes may not be condemned to the prison of the gray suit, but are still considered effeminate in the event that they spend too much time worrying over hairstyles and clothing choices. This is why, of course, cross-dressing is so emotionally and, for some, erotically charged.

While noting that men are responsible for most of the violence in the world, Perry claims that aggressive masculine behavior is entirely, or almost entirely, the result of conditioning that begins even before birth as parents, family, and friends begin choosing clothing, toys, and decorations that “match” the gender of an expected child. Infants and children are treated differently according to their gender, so it would be surprising if boys and girls did not behave differently. Boys learn early to suppress their emotions, be fiercely independent, and solve problems with violence.

Perry gives many compelling and interesting examples of how boys and men experience violence and emotional isolation, but I wish he had spent a little more time talking to the men who seem immune from this conditioning and to people of all genders who fail to fill the role of stereotypical male. For example, if gender is all conditioning, why is it that at least some gay (and some straight) men fail to follow the dictates of the gender binary? What disruptions alter the course of the conditioning? If we are hoping to modify gender roles for future generations, we need to explore alternative paths to non-binary or, at least, non-destructive masculinity.

Though he gives some a passing mention, Perry mostly ignores the experiences of nurturing men such as at-home dads, male carers, transgender men, transgender women, and intersex people. Perry claims gender is a matter of performance in that we all perform behaviors, dress, and emotions that indicate our gender. In other words, we perform masculinity or femininity by taking on the attributes of either gender. In this sense it would seem that anyone would be free to change the mode of performance at any given time.

The use of the word “performance” in this sense recalls the work of Judith Butler, who img_2269distinguishes between “performance” and “performativity.” Butler explains here that performativity is about the effects our behavior as related to gender has while performance is a choice to take on a role. If gender were merely a performance, bullying and other forms of gender policing would probably not be such a problem. The shame people feel when they are unable to conform to gender expectations is related to what they are, not what they do. Perry is probably wise to avoid the treacherous philosophical waters of gender identity and deep linguistic analysis, but the question of how deep our inclinations run and can be modified haunts the discussion like the baggage of an old relationship.

In chapter four, he begins by declaring, “I think we like the idea that gender is in our genes because it is convenient, it lets us off the hook.” If he is correct and gender is not in our genes, is not biologically determined, then we have a much better chance at making changes. We can expand the emotional lexicon of boys and men. We can increase male capacity for empathy. We can end war and violence and finally bring peace on earth.

After declaring that we are free to change our gender expression, he paradoxically says this: “Men, bless ‘em, are tethered to a monster, a demon conjoined twin, a one-man ‘wrong crowd’ who will often drag then into bad behaviour. The penis is at once us and not of us.” He says a boy’s sex drive keeps him from understanding the importance of platonic relationships and forming adequate social support networks. Here, near the end of the book, he seems to be speaking of a kind of gender essentialism, which contradicts most of what comes before.

He says, “Men, particularly when young, view the world through a heads-up display of sexual desire.” I’ve never been a young girl or woman, but I have a suspicion that sexual desire also occasionally clouds female judgment and causes them to behave less rationally than they may otherwise hope. And some boys, I am certain, are not so driven by their sexual desires. Regarding biological determinism, Perry clarifies, “We may be genetically predisposed to be straight or gay, identify as male or female or in between, but I think the attitudes, cues, contexts, power relationships, props and costumes are supplied by conditioning.” This clarification is crucial.

While some men “perform” masculinity well and succeed throughout their lives, other boys and men (or people assigned male) find it impossible to “act like a man” and, further, have no desire to join the fraternity. Removing the toxic part of masculinity can make more room for varied forms of gender expression.

In the end, Perry seeks to liberate men from the confines of narrow gender conformity. Once men are freed from shame around weakness and vulnerability, perhaps they can have more compassion for themselves and for those around them. Perhaps, finally, boys who like My Little Pony can say so without fear of bullying. Perhaps, finally, men in the throes of grief can cry openly without being told they need to pull themselves together.

 

Protecting the sexual rights of our grandparents

R. Horton

Bioethicists and experts on aging spend some time advising people on advance directives aimed at helping us make decisions about our medical care in the event of dementia or unconsciousness near the end of our lives. The idea is that we may give prior consent for decisions to be made when consent is not possible. We generally make decisions about what treatments should be offered or withheld in the event of fading autonomy.

Perhaps we should consider a broader range of choices as well. In some cases, a personGrowing-Old-Together-800px with dementia can consent to a variety of activities that might not have seemed appropriate previously. In Holding and Letting Go: The Social Practice of Personal Identities, Hilde Lindemann gives an example of a life-long vegetarian and animal rights activist who ends up in a residential care facility and desperately wants to eat the meat dishes offered his fellow residents. Should his earlier convictions be respected or should his later desires be sated?

Lindemann breaks down the problem by identifying a capacity for two types of volition: primary and secondary. Primary volition is simply the ability to want something. Secondary volition is the ability to want something but think better of it because of overriding desires, which could be based on moral, social, or health concerns (among others). Our resident is able to want a hamburger but not able to think about the ethics of eating meat and how it affects the animals, the environment, or the economy. People who eat meat tend to say it is harmless to give him a hamburger, so his current desires should be indulged. People who care about animals might take a different view.

But what if we weren’t talking about eating meat? Perhaps our resident never cared about animals, but did care about sexual behavior. He may have been prude or strict moralist. Now, however, he would quite like to masturbate frequently and doesn’t mind who sees or knows. In the past, of course, he would have been more discreet, but he has lost the ability to take such concerns into account. Still, it is his body, and he should be able to do what he wants, even if the comfort of other residents and staff must also be considered. When the occasion arises, Mr. X might gently be guided to a private room.

Or he may meet a fellow resident with similar desires. Surely consensual sexual activity, with allowances for the comfort of other residents and staff, should be respected. When younger people have limited autonomy, we are likely to say they are incapable of consent, making sexual relations with them problematic at the least. Such patients are “protected” from sexual advances of any kind, even if they may appear to be willing “victims.”

Rarely is this debate framed as a “right” to sexual pleasure, but sexual puritanism is the only reasonable explanation for the imbalance in the discussion. Surely sexual pleasure is a human drive and a human need. If it isn’t such a strong drive for older patients, it is certainly still a human good. Currently, even the most progressive attitudes toward sexual pleasure for older patients could only be described as polite tolerance rather than accommodation.

To actually accommodate the sexual needs and desires of older, and sometimes demented, patients would require conversations and actions that are sure to make us uncomfortable. It may be possible to discreetly make condoms available to residents in nursing homes, but asking residents whether they might want a vibrator or other sexual aid available is more of a challenge. Involving children and grandchildren in the discussions is likely to be an insurmountable model, at least without a sea change toward sexual behavior in general and among the elderly in particular.

A further difficulty is posed by the possibility of sexual assault or exploitation. Normal guidelines for consent won’t do. A demented patient might consent to sexual activity that would never have occurred in the absence of dementia. The only way to honor the wishes of a patient’s lifelong values is to have difficult discussions earlier in life. We would need to ask question of this nature: “In the event of dementia, what types of sexual pleasure if any would you like to be available to you? What types of sex if any would you consider appropriate with other people? What types of sexual aids if any would you want provided for your pleasure?”

I would caution any young people thinking of completing an advance directive now to reconsider often. As we age, our estimation of what kind of sex lives we will want in old age changes dramatically. Younger people tend to assume that older people naturally lose interest in sex, and I’m sure some do, but many older people find the opposite.

Sexual pleasure has many advantages for older people. It doesn’t cost a great deal of money or effort. While illness and disability can limit sexual options for people of any age, they do not eliminate it. Sexual pleasure doesn’t require one to leave a residential facility, isn’t inherently risky (especially when partners are not involved), and doesn’t necessarily strain the budget (expensive sex toys and porn addictions notwithstanding). In fact, for many older patients, sexual pleasure may be one of a handful of pleasures still available to them.

Some of the risks of sexual behavior are no longer of concern to older patients. While sexually transmitted diseases are still a distinct possibility, many of the diseases seem much less frightening to someone nearing the end of life. Further, pregnancy is no longer a concern, and people who have already lost their spouses are no longer concerned with issues related to fidelity. In ways the young rarely understand, old age is liberating.

Of course, sexual activity of patents has the possibility of creating discomfort for staff. Taking care of a patient should not mean providing sexual services for patients, unless one is specifically hired as a sexual surrogate. Staff must be protected from sexual assault or exploitation. However, feeling squeamish or embarrassed is not the same thing as enduring sexual harassment or assault, and staff must know the difference.

We can make staff more comfortable by becoming more comfortable ourselves with elder sexuality. Normalizing mature sexuality will go a long way toward opening frank and productive discussions of policy and procedures to protect the sexual rights of patients.

Can Ethical Review Be Automated?

R. Horton

I often told my students of the connection between comedy and philosophy, noting that many popular comedians have an academic background in philosophy. [Editor’s note: insert generic list of philosophical comedians here.] Hoping to validate my statement and gain interest points for himself, one student approached me to say he went to the comedy club and the comedian joked that he started doing comedy after graduating with a philosophy degree and learning that “all the big philosophy firms” were not hiring.

It is a good joke, but I’m assuming this comedian was not a bioethicist. According to the prominent and well-paid bioethicist Arthur Caplan (whose comments appeared in this article by Sheila Kaplan for STAT), for-profit review boards complete almost all institutional review of research ethics. He is quoted as saying, “If you want to work in research ethics,” he said, “you work with them.’’

In other words, institutions developing research protocols, farm out the review of the protocols to for-profit ethical review. If you’ve ever reviewed research proposals, you know that it is a little bit mechanical, anyway. You ask basic questions: 1. Is there a consent form? 2. Is the consent form complete? 3. Are appropriate disclosures included? And so on. Most people involved in review, tick through a checklist to make sure everything is in order.

The work is tedious and mostly clerical, if we are honest. It makes sense to just pay someone to go through and make sure everything is in order. Leave it to the professionals. It saves time and may ensure nothing is overlooked. It is worth the investment to make sure nothing slows down your project or results in embarrassment down the line. The professionals know exactly what they are doing, and you want it done right.

While it makes perfect sense to hire a professional review of your protocol to ensure it meets all legal and regulatory requirements, I fear a professional reviewer will work to find ways to make the protocol successful rather than questioning whether the whole venture passes ethical muster.

The problem is that I’m not sure how you move from “How can we do this according to established ethical standards?” to “How can we act ethically in the pursuit of the good?” Is it possible to seek the good life for hire? Or, is it possible for competent ethicists to exist if they are not paid for their work? How do we create space for genuine soul searching among ethicists?

Of course, ethicists need to be paid for their expertise and work, but it raises problems when how much they earn is tied to what answer they give. A commercial IRB won’t get much businesses if it tells all its customers their research is unethical, so at least some ethicists need to be free to comment on research and all other areas of life and work without their specific answers affecting their income.

Further, the work of such independent ethicists must not be disregarded specifically because they are outsiders. Ethicists working within a system are necessary and their expertise is valuable, but only outsider ethicists are able to comment freely and honestly.

At some point, you have to ask how your work looks to outsiders. People within a system are often amazed that anyone outside the system could possibly doubt their motives, but it may be the outsider who sees your motives most clearly.

Privatization eliminates spaces for free inquiry. While private enterprise certainly has a role in medicine and research, it is imperative that we preserve or create public spaces for ethical discourse. It isn’t a question of experts versus non-experts. It is a question of ethicists with something to gain compared to those with nothing to lose. Sometimes, you have to listen to the voices of those with nothing to lose.

How to Support a Mourning Man

R. Horton

When Olympian gymnast John Orozco made it onto the US Olympics team after recovering from an Achilles tendon injury and, more importantly, the loss of his mother, he wept openly with a mixture of joy and profound grief. We can’t know whether he was trying to suppress his tears, but they flowed freely and he made no apology for them. I was moved by his emotion, of course, but also grateful that he appeared to weep unabashedly and free from shame.

Not many men can do the same. I have been honored and fortunate to be in the presence of men crying on a regular basis. As a volunteer facilitator for a grief support group, I see men seeking support after the loss of their children, spouses, or other loved ones. Although a few manage to suppress their tears, most of the men weep, and almost all of them apologize for crying like a child. Fortunately, other men who have experienced a traumatic loss are quick to offer a reassuring, “Don’t worry, I’ve spent many hours crying my eyes out, too” or something similar.

It is disappointing, though, to learn how many men do not feel comfortable crying in front of their own families and partners. I hear stories of men crying in the middle of the night or in cars, closets, and bathrooms. Some men schedule time to let their tears flow as they try to put on a brave, unemotional face for the world.

I wish I could say their efforts were unwarranted, but too many men have been criticized for their tears. One distraught father who lost his son to suicide told me people at the funeral told him to “pull himself together” for his family. Other men tell of supporting their wives through extended fits of wailing only to receive a cold shoulder when they break down. Often, I hear laments along these lines. “I know I’m a strong person. I have to be strong. But this is too much. Is there nowhere I can get support?”

It is commonly held, even by some therapists, that men naturally grieve differently from women. Allegedly, men process their emotions through actions rather than emotional purging. Men may bury themselves in work, start organizations in the name of the deceased, build monuments, or fight for legal changes to prevent future deaths. Of course, many men do this, and so do women, but this does not mean that men’s biology prevents them from accessing their tears. Men and women both grieve through actions and tears.

If anything prevents men from grieving openly, it is social prohibition, not biology. Whether you are a man or a woman, please know that most men are capable of crying, need to cry, and should not be ashamed of their grief or their tears. If you need to support a man in mourning, please let him cry. If you are a man in mourning, please follow the example of John Orozco and cry without shame or apology. You are not crying like a baby; you are crying like a man.

Review: Martha Nussbaum on Anger, Apologies, and Forgiveness

R. Horton

Over the years, I’ve spent a considerable amount of time discussing anger, apologies, and forgiveness with therapists and survivors of child abuse and other traumas. Survivors and therapists alike are often passionate in the their belief that forgiveness is the only way to move forward from traumatic abuse. Without forgiveness, they feel, healing is impossible.

Having a typically transactional view of forgiveness, I always held that it makes no sense to forgive when there is no acknowledgment of wrongdoing on the part of the abuser. Asking a survivor to forgive unilaterally and unconditionally is bereft of meaning at best and morally repugnant at worst. Only if the abuser were to apologize and make some effort at amends, at least, could I see then extending forgiveness to the abuser, and I would consider this a charitable act on the part of the survivor.

Others have hastened to tell me that such an exchange is not necessary. They insist that unconditional forgiveness, freely given, is more meaningful and more liberating to survivors than the transactional form of forgiveness. Besides, they say, forgiveness is cleansing and is, indeed, the only way for survivors to rid themselves of the burden of intense and destructive anger.

I have always countered that it is possible to put anger aside without offering forgiveness to someone undeserving and unrepentant. Choosing a somewhat less emotional and inflammatory example, I can point out that I once had a moderately expensive lawnmower stolen from me. It wasn’t the end of the world, but it certainly made me angry. The thief was not caught and, I assume, never suffered any pangs of guilt for the crime. Over time, I was able to get on with my life, though I still remember it 30 years later. I decided to stop dwelling on it and get over it, so I tried to stop thinking about it and focus on things that could improve my life.

My interlocutors quickly countered that losing a lawnmower is nothing like the pain of having your innocence robbed (some described it as theft of a child’s “soul”). I am quick to agree, but I see it as a difference in degree, not kind, and I still cannot see how offering forgiveness to a remorseless abuser can aid healing.

My view was bolstered by the work and words of Alice Miller, the famed psychoanalyst and child advocate who died in 2010. In her 1991 book, Breaking Down the Wall of Silence, Miller writes, “Forgiving has negative consequences, not only for the individual, but for society at large, because it means disguising destructive opinions and attitudes, and involves drawing a curtain across reality so that we cannot see what is taking place behind it.” Instead, she tells us, “Survivors of mistreatment need to discover their own truth if they are to free themselves of its consequences. The effort spent on the work of forgiveness leads them away from this truth.”

Martha Nussbaum’s new book, Anger and Forgiveness: Resentment, Generosity, Justice, offers a

Martha_Nussbaum_wikipedia_10-10
By Robin Holland – Photo file provided by Robin Holland

third way of viewing anger and forgiveness. Nussbaum agrees that therapists should not force forgiveness, but she offers a more nuanced and philosophically grounded way of viewing the work of anger and the way forward from even extreme wrongs and injustices.

While many philosophers have ignored or dismissed the moral relevance of the emotions, others such as Aristotle have noted the importance of anger to a good life. While anger is a negative emotion, it has benefits for people seeking to flourish in life. Namely, anger is said to enable us to recognize injustice when it occurs and then motivate us to action to correct the wrongs inflicted on innocent parties. For Aristotle, anger occurs when someone’s status is lowered without good cause. Indeed, an attack on one’s character or social rank is likely to provoke anger and, in many cases, a wish for revenge. Nussbaum notes that revenge has few or no practical or moral benefits. Other than a temporary sense of satisfaction, payback accomplishes nothing of importance for us.

But if payback isn’t a useful result of anger, then perhaps contrition, apology, and forgiveness are necessary components of a moral and flourishing life. Most of us have grown up in a culture that stresses the importance of apologies and forgiveness for wrongs. Nussbaum traces ancient Jewish and Christian (primarily) texts dealing with the role of forgiveness. The most familiar form is transactional—if someone reduces the status of someone else, the perpetrator shows remorse and asks forgiveness. When the wronged party bestows forgiveness, the proper ranking of the parties is restored, and justice, it seems, is served.

Of course, contrition and apologies are not always forthcoming. Sometimes the perpetrator is simply stubborn and sometimes the perpetrator is no longer alive. This is often the case for survivors of child abuse. In the absence of an apology many therapists, as noted above, advise survivors to offer unconditional forgiveness. This kind of forgiveness is said to release the victim from the shackles of anger and enable a flourishing life to happen. Of course, contrarians such as Alice Miller claim this type of forgiveness traps survivors in a life-long lie that destroys them emotionally.

Nussbaum recognizes these challenges and takes a different approach. She offers several examples of people who move forward without offering forgiveness but in a more positive way than Alice Miller would likely think possible. In the example of the Prodigal Son, the son returns to his father to be greeted with open arms. Although the son has behaved quite badly, his father thinks only of the future with his son and not the past (his other son is not quite so ready to embrace his wayward brother). It is the focus on the future that makes all the difference for Nussbaum.

In an even more painful and poignant example, she describes a father from Philip Roth’s American Pastoral, whose daughter becomes an addict and kills several people. The father finds his daughter and realizes he is helpless to change what she has done or her future prospects. He does all that he can do. He loves her and stays with her. Nussbaum says, “There is no apology, and there’s really no question of forgiveness on the agenda, whether conditional or unconditional. There’s just painful unconditional love.”

When anger is useful, Nussbaum says it is useful as a transition from a wrong to a focus on a better future. In the transition, someone would say in anger, “That’s outrageous! Something must be done to prevent this in the future!” Nussbaum applies this model in three realms: the intimate, the middle (public), and the political (social) realm. Simply because of my interest and background, I found her discussion of the intimate realm the most interesting and compelling.

In the middle, or public, realm, I think most of us realize our anger at strangers is rarely helpful. Minor wrongs (e.g., someone cutting in line at the grocery store) are best forgotten as quickly as possible. More serious wrongs are a matter for law enforcement and the court system. Being consumed with anger is only a form of self-torture.

In the political realm, though, anger is said to be a great motivator toward justice, and surely anger has propelled many social movements to success. Again, though, Nussbaum warns that it is easy to get caught up in concern for revenge or payback rather than creating a better world. After great harms, we need to focus on truth and reconciliation, not punishment. Indeed, the most successful social movements have focused on the future and not redressing wrongs.

Nussbaum sees Nelson Mandela as an exemplary role model for looking to the future rather than the past in response to injustice. She says, “Mandela frames the entire question in forward-looking pragmatic terms, as a question of getting the other party to do what you want. He then shows that this task is much more feasible if you can get the other party to work with you rather than against you. Progress is impeded by the other party’s defensiveness and self-protection.”

For years, I have had difficulty clearly delineating exactly what I found problematic with our accepted model of anger and forgiveness. Nussbaum has provided a welcome bit of clarity for a universal yet surprisingly complex human problem. Realistically, we will not be able to let go of useless anger and focus only on transitional anger, but at least we have a better target. When we do succeed it will be because we rely on another human emotion—love.

April 22, 2016 Workshop: Intersection of Ethics and Justice for Therapists

R. Horton

Intersection of Ethics and Justice for Therapists

CEUs: Three CEUs for LMFTs (provider 891), LCSWs (provider 6900), and LPCs (provider 2444).
Date: Friday, April 22, 2016
Time: 9 am – noon
Location: 2017 Colquitt St, Houston, TX 77098
Price: $35.00
Registration: This is a small group workshop limited to six registrants. To register, please complete and return the attached form: Workshop Registration April 22 2016

Contact: Randall@ethicsbeyondcompliance.com

Description:

Justice is often neglected in discussions of ethics as it seems to be a societal problem Justitia-2400pxrather than an individual problem, but what obligations do therapists have toward promoting justice? If we are not responsible for justice, who is? What is the importance of rights, interests, development, and capabilities? How can therapists promote justice, particularly given that they typically work with individuals rather than large populations?

Objectives:

Define libertarian theories of justice
Define utilitarian theories of justice
Define contractarian theories of justice
Define capabilities theories of justice
Distinguish ethics and justice
Analyze problems related to access
Analyze problems related to marketing
Analyze problems related to choosing clients
Analyze problems related to advocacy
Analyze problems related to activism
Analyze problems related to pricing
Evaluate theories of justice
Apply theoretical reasoning to practical

He isn’t being vulnerable, he’s crying

R. Horton

As a child, I grew up in a culture defined by rampant sexism, racism, and homophobia. While I now realize many of the people around me were gay, they were invisible to me at the time. At least, their sexuality was invisible to me. As a teenager, I made an intellectual decision that everyone had a right to equal dignity and expression. Living in a seemingly homogeneous society, though, I didn’t have the opportunity to experience my own implicit biases until later.

I strongly defended the rights of gay people to live, work, love, and express their lovepublicly, but my reaction to actual gay lives was untested. I was probably a bit too comfortable with myself and my choice for equality, for the first time I saw two men kissing, I was horrified to find that I looked away with feelings of discomfort and perhaps even disgust. I was then filled with shame for the latent feelings I obviously had, but I did my best to not turn away.

Over time, I was lucky enough to find many gay friends and to experience their love and affection in ways that seemed perfectly natural because they were perfectly natural. I’m sure I still have many implicit biases, and I keep trying to overcome them all, but at least now I can usually deal with people kissing with no internal conflict. (As I age, I have become painfully aware that many young people feel the same disgust when they see older people kissing.)

Unfortunately, many people react to a man crying in the same way I initially reacted to men kissing men—they turn away in discomfort or even disgust. It is widely assumed that it is men who are disgusted by other men crying (and I’m sure some are), but famed vulnerability researcher Brene Brown found that it is more often women who can’t accept men’s vulnerability. Obviously, being vulnerable means much more than just crying, but I would like to say that I think crying is really the single behavior that sets people stomachs to churning.

We find crying so shameful, in fact, that we often call it “being vulnerable” in order to avoid saying the word “crying.” I don’t mean this to be a criticism of researchers’ use of the word “vulnerability” while they discuss men’s emotional health. Rather, I mean to suggest that the rest of us have adopted the word “vulnerability” as a way of avoiding discussion of crying. Often we will only say that a man “was vulnerable,” because to say that he was “openly sobbing” would be to rob him of his dignity and bring shame to him. Paradoxically, by trying to protect him from judgment, we reinforce the judgment that all men face for being weak, sad, or emotional.

I should qualify that last statement. We don’t judge men so much for being emotional as we judge them for what particular emotions they express. Crying is acceptable for women and girls, but anger is reserved for boys and men. If a man loses his son or father, for example, he may seek revenge in various ways, and he is often honored for doing so, especially if the death was caused by malice or negligence.

Historically, revenge frequently took the form of actual violence, and vengeful violence has certainly not disappeared, but revenge can also take the form of lawsuits, public shaming campaigns, and other legal and socially acceptable forms. But the man who falls into a deep depression or cries uncontrollably for an extended period will face criticism. I once talked to a father who was told he needed to “get it together” at his own son’s funeral.

We pretend that men aren’t in touch with their feelings or that men are incapable of expressing their feelings. If these things are true, it is only because we have conditioned men to suppress their feelings through our own reactions of disgust. Boys are taught in their first months out of the womb that crying is unacceptable. The result is that men must either destroy themselves or destroy those around them in order to process their own feelings.

The price we pay is that the men we are around are emotionally drained, stressed to the breaking point, and prone to anger and destruction over empathy and connection. Of course, this is an oversimplification and is an exaggerated statement of what happens. We all know well-balanced men who are nurturing and emotionally connected. Some men are lucky that their lives have not burdened them with too much grief and sadness. Other men have, in spite of social programming, been lucky to find people who accept them and their emotions. And, finally, some men have the fortitude to find effective means of self-care.

Still, we can and should work to remove the shame and stigma from male weakness, and that begins with removing disgust from the sight of male tears. How do we do it?

  1. Don’t turn away. If a man is crying in your presence, do not avert your gaze. Continue to look at him and let him know that you are with him, free from judgment.
  2. If you are a man, openly discuss your own tears with both women and men. When we remove our own shame, the disgust of others cannot affect us.
  3. Stop saying, “boys don’t cry” to anyone, especially a child. Boys hear this almost as soon as people start talking to them. Support the full emotional range of boys.
  4. Stop mocking male tears. Some feminists seem to feel that making fun of male emotions is an acceptable response to centuries of male tyranny, but mocking male tears is a sure way to help perpetuate misogyny and the oppression of women.
  5. Create safe spaces for men. Men need opportunities to talk to other men about crying and weakness. Men need to let one another know that crying is not weakness. You can take care of your family, be a protector, or be a warrior and still take time to cry.
  6. Recognize the varied experiences of men. Adult men are often victims of childhood abuse whether it be physical, emotional, or sexual. Men are victims of domestic violence and abuse. While physical violence is a reality for many men, emotional battery is even more common. The victimization of men is not a joke, so please stop laughing at it.

Many men will reject my suggestions as being absurd and will suggest I should just “man up.” I ask those men to remember those words the next time, and it will happen, they are struggling to force back the knot forming in their throats as they build a dam against the tears threatening to break forth. Whether we choke the tears back successfully or not, the damage is done. We still feel the shame and disgust. We feel devalued and demoralized by our own natural emotions. We can be free and we can be whole. We just have to come out and be honest about what and who we are.

Business man blowing his nose

Diogenes Versus Plato: Who will set you free?

R. Horton

No one can question Plato’s writing and rhetorical abilities. He was a superstar of the ancient world, and the fact that his dialogs have endured for millennia attests to the fact of his beautiful writing. Of course, Bertrand Russell found it ludicrous to praise Plato’s ideas based on the quality of his writing, saying, “That Plato’s Republic should have been admired, on its political side, by decent people, is perhaps the most astonishing example of literary snobbery in all history.” Other famous thinkers of the ancient world weren’t as lucky as Plato; although their reputations survive somewhat through the words of others, we often have no copies of their original works or just a few remaining fragments. It may be that Plato was simply such a great writer that his works were preserved while the works of others were not, or perhaps other factors played a role in which works were saved and which were lost.

According to the biographer of philosophers, Diogenes Laertius, the Cynical philosopher Diogenes of Sinope (no relationship to the biographer), also wrote a number of books.* If he actually did, none survives today. The biography is here. The Cynic is infamous for masturbating in public, going naked, eating in the market, and carrying a lamp around in the middle of the day. As we don’t have the original works of Diogenes, we can’t be sure which of these stories might be true and which are apocryphal as they reflect how others saw him, not necessarily how he presented himself. The lack of surviving texts may be down to Diogenes himself, at least partly. When Hegesias asked todiogenes-800px read some of his writing, he reportedly replied, “You are a simpleton, Hegesias; you do not choose painted figs, but real ones; and yet you pass over the true training and would apply yourself to written rules.”

So, it seems that Diogenes, like Socrates before him, valued face-to-face interaction over the more passive learning that comes from reading. It is worth noting that Diogenes was a student of Antisthenes, who was in turn a student of Socrates. Although Antisthenes was reluctant to accept Diogenes as a student, Diogenes considered Antisthenes, not Plato, to be the true successor to Socrates.

According to Bertrand Russell’s History of Western Philosophy, Antisthenes enjoyed a comfortable and aristocratic life until the death of Socrates. After that, “He would have nothing but simple goodness. He associated with working men, and dressed as one of them. He took to open-air preaching, in a style that the uneducated could understand. All refined philosophy he held to be worthless; what could be known by the plain man.” Also, “There was to be no government, no private property, no marriage, no established religion.”  Diogenes, it would seem, followed the lessons of his teacher to their logical extremes, which lead Plato to describe Diogenes as “Socrates gone mad.”

When studying the history of philosophy, we generally follow the lineage from Socrates to Plato to Aristotle. We could just as easily follow it from Socrates to Antisthenes to Diogenes. With the former approach, we find justification for authoritarian rule over the ignorant unwashed masses constantly threatening the fabric of society. With the latter approach, we find a rejection not only of authority but of all the values that drive the totality of social regulation and empty social status.

It should be no surprise, then, which works were preserved. We know Socrates primarily through the works of Plato, which painted Socrates as a victim of ignorant Athenian leaders who rose to positions of power through a democratic process and not on their own merit. Threatened by the wisdom of Socrates, the thoughtless and insecure leaders sentenced Socrates to death. In response, Plato promised order could be secured under the direction of educated and dispassionate leaders who would tame the rabble, leading from their own realm outside the cave of illusion and delusion. The Cynics, on the other hand, would cause disruption, encouraging the working people to believe that they could take control over their own lives even without the aid of book learning and academic discipline. The Cynics valued reason, but not the well-healed reason of the aristocrats such as Plato and Aristotle.

Further, the Cynics encouraged citizens to question the value of everything that is supposed to motivate the working class. For Plato, workers driven by their appetitive elements would produce more goods in order to receive rewards to satisfy their hungers and desires. Diogenes rejected the value of expensive clothing, food, shelter or anything else, and often lived off what he could get through begging. Having almost no possessions and no desires for any more, how could anyone take control over him or threaten him with anything? When Perdiccas threatened Diogenes with death if he didn’t appear before him, Diogenes reportedly replied, “That is nothing strange, for a scorpion or a tarantula could do as much: you had better threaten me that, if I kept away, you should be very happy.” As Todd Snider said in his song, “Looking for a Job,” “Watch what you say to someone with nothing. It’s almost like having it all.”

Imagine if the working class (note: if you work for money, you are working class) now began to question the value of cars, wide-screen TVs, sports, clothing, and “good” neighborhoods. And if the poor of the world adopted Diogenes’s views on citizenship, who would fight our wars? Diogenes gets credit for coining the word “cosmopolitan,” which is usually taken to mean citizen of the world. People who travel the world, speak more than one language, eat varied cuisine, and are not, to put it simply, provincial, consider themselves cosmopolitan, but this is not what Diogenes meant. Diogenes considered himself a citizen of the universe with no political allegiance and without political rights. He was banished from his home for defacing currency or something, and he was what would now be described as a “man without a country.” Imagine everyone being that way (John Lennon thought it should be easy, if you try).

Examined rationally, as the Cynics would have us do, virtually nothing we hold dear has any intrinsic value. We spend our lives working for trifles while ignoring anything that make us genuinely happy. When Diogenes was told it is a bad thing to live, he said, “Not to live, but to live badly.” We can live well, but we may be thought mad.

* Diogenes Laertius says, “The following books are attributed to [Diogenes of Sinope]. The dialogues entitled the Cephalion; the Icthyas; the Jackdaw; the Leopard; the People of the Athenians; the Republic; one called Moral Art; one on Wealth; one on Love; the Theodorus; the Hypsias; the Aristarchus; one on Death; a volume of Letters; seven Tragedies, the Helen, the Thyestes, the Hercules, the Achilles, the Medea, the Chrysippus, and the Oedippus.”

Illness as Financial Ruin (US only)

R. Horton

Every human who has drawn a breath has faced illness, injury, and death. The universal experience of illness creates vulnerability, loss of identity, anxiety, diminished autonomy, and fear. The inescapable battle between health and illness defines human experience and shapes our personalities, our worldviews, and spiritual depth.

For most of the developed world, though, it does not mean financial ruin. In the United States, alone among developed nations, even a relatively minor injury such as broken bones or illness requiring a brief hospital stay can lead to economic disaster. As a result, when we in the US get sick, we don’t think about how we can recover, how we can endure the pain, or the spiritual significance of our pain; rather, we think of how we will pay for our bills.

poorunclesam-800pxAs we face our anxiety over possible diagnoses, we must constantly be prepared to battle with insurance companies, aggressive hospital billing agents, and doctors exhausted from dealing with insurance paperwork. Few things in life create as much anxiety as financial insecurity, and illness always brings the threat of insecurity to US residents. When people have serious accidents, they balk at calling an ambulance because they fear the bills—they worry over whether the ride will be covered and whether the ambulance will take them to a hospital that is in-network. As a result, many people suffering medical emergencies drive themselves to the hospital.

When it isn’t an emergency, Americans often forgo treatment altogether. A Gallup poll in 2014 found that one-third of Americans skip needed medical treatment because of cost concerns, even when they have insurance.  According to the report, “Some 34% of Americans with private health insurance say they’ve skipped out on care because it was too expensive, up from 25% last year. Additionally, 28% of households that earn $75,000 or more report that family members have delayed care, up from just 17% last year.” The Affordable Care Act succeeded in insuring more people, but it also created greater financial burdens for middle-income families through higher deductibles and co-pays. Many people who have been accustomed to being able to afford healthcare now find that it is out of reach.

While healthcare inflation has slowed a bit in recent years,  catastrophic medical events put the costs incurred out of the reach of most of us. The United States alone finds medical fundraisers to be normal and routine. According to an article in Journal News, the number of GoFundMe contributions for medical expenses “was up more than 293 percent in 2014, when more than 600,000 medical campaigns were launched, compared to just over 158,000 in 2013.”  Families with or without insurance cannot afford their medical bills. A serious accident or illness such as cancer creates an existential crisis while forcing people suffering from illness and their families to scramble to avoid destitution.

I don’t write this impersonally, my wife and I buy our insurance through the healthcare exchanges. We pay $682 per month ($8,184 per year) with a $4,000 deductible per person. The out-of-pocket limit on expenses is $13,700 per year. Balance-billed charges do not apply to the out-of-pocket limits, so there really is no upper limit to possible charges. Ignoring balance billing, my costs could easily exceed $20,000 per year.

I often hear the argument that universal healthcare coverage is too expensive and will require raising taxes on the middle class. As I see it, I would still benefit from a tax rise of $15,000 or even $20,000 each year. It is true that others are not in my position, but all Americans should realize they are at risk. No one stays young and healthy. Eventually, everyone will be at greater risk for catastrophic illness, but even those who are currently young and healthy can face illness and injury, though we may not like to think about it. Further, everyone’s income is subject to great variability. Those who have employer-provided health insurance may not want to pay in to a national system, but employer-provided insurance is never guaranteed. Employers may cut benefits, employees lose jobs through layoffs and termination, or illness can end employees’ ability to work.

The same is true for business owners. The tides of fortune shift. When the Affordable Care Act was passed, Mary Brown brought a lawsuit against it, saying she did not want to be compelled to purchase health insurance. Mary Brown owned an auto repair shop that went under due to the pressure of economic recession and the Gulf oil spill in 2010. Of note, her bankruptcy filing listed “among the couple’s unsecured creditors several providers of medical care – a hospital and a physician group in Florida; an anesthesiology group based in Mississippi; and an eye care center in Alabama.” https://newrepublic.com/article/98145/affordable-care-act-mandate-lawsuit-nfib-mary-brown-bankruptcy-court-standing

Like many people, when she was doing well, Mary Brown thought that guaranteed universal access to healthcare was something the government was providing to other people. It didn’t occur to her that she might ever be in a position where she could not pay for her own medical care, but that is exactly what happened. I recently had the opportunity to speak to a Swedish citizen about Sweden’s healthcare system. He was a middle-aged man who explained that healthcare was paid through higher taxes. He said he didn’t mind the taxes, though, because you never know when you will be the one needing care.

It seems many Americans are not able to make this basic calculation of risk. Most people, even those who consider themselves well off, are not immune from the financial ruin that illness and injury can bring. Once people realize their own vulnerability, they support universal coverage for healthcare. The time for a more sober and accurate assessment of risk is well past due. We must wake up to the fact that the US healthcare system is not sustainable, that it leaves us at risk of financial failure, that it makes the experience of illness exponentially more stressful, and that we can do better.

It will not be easy. The US spends far more than other developed nations on healthcare. Each excess dollar we spend is profit for an insurance company, hospital, testing facility, pharmaceutical company, biotechnology company, or other player in the healthcare industry. Many people profit from the dangerous, expensive, and inefficient system we have in the United States. Every reduction in healthcare spending will be a reduction in profit for someone, and each person (or business) facing a loss of income will argue vehemently and vociferously that such a loss of income is a horrible tragedy and an impossible feat.

We will be told that reducing healthcare spending will reduce the quality of care. We will be told it will reduce our choices and control. We will be told it is impossible. We already have little choice or control, and we already have higher mortality rates than the rest of the industrialized world, so we have nothing to lose and everything to gain. We have plenty of ideas on how to improve the system. What we lack is political will, but I think the will is growing. If we want universal coverage, we must demand it, and the time to demand it is now.