Introduction
One of the leading stereotypes regarding masculinity is incomplete. The stereotype of the strong, calm man who takes action in difficult situations lacks the part of men being able to talk about their emotions. He has to both act when necessary, and bottle up his feelings about it afterwards.
This is strange. It would be good for those who have gone through difficult situations to unload the psychological burden of doing so.
This essay will start with the concept of psychological peak performance and rest, I will give you a story juxtaposing the contemporary conception of the strong man and a possible future vision, I’ll write a little about the problem with the current discourse about men, and lastly I’ll explore how to help men achieve periods of psychological rest.
Thank you for reading this essay.
Peak Performance Requires Rest
One the most impressive UFC fighters, Khabib Nurmagomedov, said about resting,
You know, between trainings you have to sleep because you train so hard; morning for 2 hours and night for 2 and a half [hours]… You need rest.”
He knows that periods of physical rest are mandatory for physical peak performance. The same holds true for mental performance. Yet countless men seem to think that they can reach psychological peak performance without periods of psychological rest.
Many men understand the concept of physically overtraining, but not of mentally overstraining. Destroying your own body isn’t cool. It’s quite stupid. Those who do not listen to the cries of their body - excessive pain, injuries etc. - are doomed to destroy it. The same happens with the mind.
If you ignore the injuries of the mind, at some point it will give out. However, if you take care of the mind just as you would with a small injury - a little rest, some massaging and perhaps some painful pressing - you will be up to normal levels of performance in no-time.
John & Paul
Let’s go through a hypothetical story, and see how we feel about it.
During a situation involving a school shooter, John and Paul arrive at the scene first. They go in and manage to neutralize the threat, saving countless lives. It’s amazing that John and Paul were able to perform to the best of their abilities, both physically and psychologically. Their heroic deeds were good and necessary.
But after their heroic deeds, what happens to them?
Paul never opens up about his feelings. He bottles them up and shows up to work the next day. His wife can’t get a word out of him, and Paul never speaks about the situation with his friends. When asked about it, he always replies with things like, “It is what it is”, or, “I did what I had to do.” Two months later, when his wife is away on a business-trip, he wakes up from a crazy nightmare about the whole situation. He starts to lose his mind. He finds himself alone at home with a bottle of whiskey and a loaded pistol. In the best case scenario, the psychological burden that he tried to sweep under the rug will make him drink himself into oblivion. In the worst case scenario Paul takes his own life due to this moment of peak mental stress.
John comes home after the same situation and tells his wife that what happened today was horrible. He talks about seeing lifeless bodies, and putting a round into the perpetrator. John’s wife listens, acknowledges his feelings, and tells him she thinks he did the right thing. When he goes for drinks with his friends the next day he also talks to them about the situation and they, too, acknowledge his emotions. His best friend tells him to call him when he needs help. Two months later, while his wife is away on business, John is also plagued by a nightmare. He calls his friend in the middle of the night and tells him he’s not doing well. His friend shows up in 20 minutes, and they start talking. After an hour John feels better.
Who would you want your brother, father, husband or son to emulate? John or Paul? Who do you think comes out of this situation stronger?
And, if you are a man, would you rather be John or Paul?
Yes, And…
One of the things I dislike about the current discourse regarding masculinity is that there is a lot of negative energy in it. A lot of angry, dismissive voices are talking about it, creating an atmosphere of pessimism. For example, there is a lot to do around the term mansplaining, and the idea that male stereotypes need to be broken.
The conversation needs more positive energy. A lot of the problems of men are not the consequence of what they do, but of the things they don’t do.
When talking about this specific stereotype of the strong, calm man, one could say something like, “Yes, this is good, and you could also add the part of opening up about your experiences so your difficulties do not come to haunt you in the future.”
This is a serious way of opening up the conversation about an improvement of the roles men play in society. It acknowledges the positive parts of what they are doing, and offers a new approach to solving the possible issues they are facing because of the blind-spots of the stereotype.
How To Help A Man
I am no expert on giving psychological help or treatment. But I do think that the contemporary form of therapy lacks some things that men might need.
Helen Fisher, biological anthropologist, said about intimate conversations,
“…men tend to sit side by side and look straight forward and not look at each other at all and regard that as intimate.”
The setup of therapy can be quite daunting. You are face-to-face & eye-to-eye with a person, and you get this 45-60 minute period in which everything needs to happen. Sometimes you need to pay afterwards, which can make the whole ordeal rather transactional. This is not to say there are no advantages to it. This form of therapy is vastly better than no therapy at all for men in emotional distress. But perhaps things could be altered or added.
First of all, there’s a need for more male therapists. About 75% of therapists are women. It might be difficult for men to open up to a woman, and it might be easier for a man to understand certain issues men face. Both adding barriers to seeking help.
Second of all, it might be useful to do an activity while talking. This could be as simple as cooking, fishing, bird-watching, or any other thing where the focus isn’t entirely on the talking so one can find “refuge” in the activity when the conversation becomes hard.
Third, we might invest in informal spaces where men can share about their lives amongst themselves. This both helps the guys who are already facing difficult problems, but it could also help to stop the manifestations of big mental problems by talking about them before they become hard to deal with. Moreover, spaces like these might foster more intimate emotional connections between men, also solving the problem of lack of deep male friendships and the issue of male loneliness.
Conclusion
Plenty of men don’t think it’s weak for other men to talk about their feelings, but many also think it is weak when they do it. Somehow we have harsher rules for ourselves than for others. We love to help people around us, yet we hate ourselves for needing help.
Why?
Why can we not give ourselves the sympathy we give others? I’m posing this as an actual question, not a rhetorical one, for it plagues my mind. Never when a friend has come to me with his troubles did I send him away, yet I’ve always felt a tremendous barrier to ask for help myself.
What would help is creating a positive, accepting energy around men sharing their feelings and needs, while also encouraging them to be strong. Both are necessary for many men. We can do so by (slightly) altering existing forms of therapy, and encouraging men to accept and ask for of psychological help. Furthermore, we could start providing informal spaces where men can be vulnerable so they can, ultimately, grow stronger by alleviating the burdens of the mind.
I agree with the creation of informal spaces for men. However, I think that mixing therapy with an activity takes out the intimacy that you are trying to reach. It can defeat the whole purpose of a therapy.