September 10, 2002
(This is a follow-up to my previous post. The books mentioned are linked from there.)
I went to the library yesterday and took out two books by Dr. Terrence Real, an author that Jeneane Sessum has be posting about: I Don’t Want to Talk About It – Overcoming the Secret Legacy of Male Depression and How Can I Get Through to You – Reconnecting Men and Women.
Real, a family therapist, includes all kinds of the requisite case studies in both books, and they’re good examples of the points he’s trying to make – points I’ve been seeing made lately in many personal stories on various blog posts struggling to understand the frequent disconnect between genders. Real’s books makes these points real, give them some objective validity.
Of course, I have a feeling that, as usual, it will be mostly women reading these books – women who are desperately trying to stay in relationships that – in their present form – are not in their best interest. So they’re trying to get a better understanding of the men with whom they live, the men who “don’t want to talk about it.” It is really the men who should be reading these books and then talking about them.
Real confirms general observations that I’ve been reading and hearing about in recent news stories. For example, we are born with genetic dispositions toward certain behaviors, but it is our early upbringing (and also our various interactions with chemical substances of all kinds) that either activates these dispositions or tempers them. Recent studies seem to indicate that some men are born with something in their DNA that predisposes them to violence. Certain kinds experiences, especially in childhood, can set them on a violent life paths. Real maintains that the same is true of depression, and the expectations placed on men by our society provide fertile ground for a genetic predisposition toward depression to flower.
In Real’s experience as a family therapist, he has come to learn that, while it usually is the female in the relationship who initiates the complaints that lead to therapy or separation, it is often the male in the relationship who is struggling internally (and not talking about it) with various kinds of depression. She is the one who becomes “symptomatic,” although the problems did not necessarily originate in her.
I think this statement of his, in the conclusion of the book, is important:
In family therapy, we are trained to consider a symptomatic person as a signal that old mores and beliefs in the family no longer serve the present context. A symptomatic family member is the bearer of news that a change must come, a messenger of transformation.
Near the end of his book, he provides a perspective that I haven’t seen voiced this way before:
The greatest cost of the less than/better than dynamic of traditional masculinity lies in its deprivation of the experience of communion. Those who fear subjugation have limited repertoires of service. But service is the appropriate central organizing force of mature manhood. When the critical questions concern what one is going to get, a man is living in a boy’s world. Beyond a certain point in a man’s life, if he is to remain truly vital, he needs to be actively engaged in devotion to something other than his own success and happiness….. A grown man with nothing to devote himself to is a man who is sick at heart. What a great many men in this culture choose to serve is their own reflected value, which they often believe serves the needs of their family, even while their families may be crying out for something different from them.
My next post will be about Dr. Real’s other book: How Can I Get Through to You – Reconnecting Men and Women, which I am finding even more helpful in understanding the struggles of men in our society.
Stay tuned.
Comments now powered by HaloScan. Click here to read this entry's comments (if any), or to post one of your own.
Old Comments (6)
Dorothea Salo on 10 Sep 2002
I think it would be a good idea to read some of the literature on resilience when you're done with the books you're reading now, Kalilily. I don't have any titles at the tips of my fingers, but your library catalog should turn up something.
Elaine of Kalilily on 10 Sep 2002
Resilience: The ability to recover quickly from illness, change, or misfortune; buoyancy.
The property of a material that enables it to resume its original shape or position after being bent, stretched, or compressed; elasticity.
Until and unless one has been clinically depressed, stretched beyond elasticity, deflated of all bouyancy, it's almost impossible to understand just how absent the capcity for resilience becomes. The goal of therapy is to restore the capacity for resilience. Then, of course, there's the issue of which direction one bounces back toward. These books describe a direction for men's resilience for which few men consciously opt, although many more are exploring it these days. And that's the point. I will investigate books on resilience, although I think that becomes the result of engaging in the processes that these books describe. As for me? I've reinvented myself so many times that sometimes I feel as though I've led several totally different and sometimes concurrent lives: rebellious Catholic girl; sorority sister; wife and mother; raging feminist; disco queen; activist educator; recent grandmother; and now? Well, that's the Crone's journey. Resilience must be in my genes.
dave rogers on 11 Sep 2002
Hello Elaine!
May I offer you some well-intentioned, compassionate criticism? First, a disclaimer, I haven't read Dr. Real's book, though I suppose I'll have to now. I have read a lot of books on similar subjects recently.
First, you write: "Real's books makes these points real, give them some objective validity."
I would be reluctant to ascribe the quality of "objective" validity to any account. Dr. Real is a therapist writing a book, which is great, but what he selects from his case histories will be those cases that most support his general thesis. It's a subjective assessment, not an objective one. But you are correct in the sense that it does validate other accounts you have read or heard. I just caution against putting too much weight into one therapist's views.
Then you write: "Of course, I have a feeling that, as usual, it will be mostly women reading these books, women who are desperately trying to stay in relationships that, in their present form, are not in their best interest. So they're trying to get a better understanding of the men with whom they live, the men who don't want to talk about it. It is really the men who should be reading these books and then talking about them."
Oh, groan. How many things are wrong with this paragraph, dear Crone? It's good that you preface your remark that this is a "feeling," can't argue with feelings, but then you derail. You write "as usual, it will be mostly women reading these books," as if men don't read such books. The "mostly" qualifier is negated by the "as usual." The sentence can be constructed in different ways:
1. Of course, I have a feeling that, as usual, it will be women reading these books.
2. I have a feeling that it will be mostly women reading these books.
There are two different messages in these sentences, and you mix them in your sentence. That "as usual" comes across as a dig at the male gender, that they are somehow deficient when it comes to reading books about relationships.
You go on to imply that the women who will read these books are only women who are "desperately trying to stay in relationships...that are not in their best interest." This then excludes all women, like yourself, who are reading the book simply for their own edification, and not because they're in a toxic relationship. And, also by implication, it is only women who are in such relationships, not men. Again, you discount men.
Then you commit the cardinal sin, you use the word "should" in connection with the third person. Are Crones granted some form of omniscience that affords them the knowledge of who "should" do what? Only men "should" read the book? I've learned that the word "should" is a flag. There's another message here. "It is really the men who should be reading these books and then talking about them." Well, that certainly absolves the female gender from responsibility, doesn't it? Which sort of makes it clear where the problem originates, doesn't it?
This would be a pretty good world if it weren't for all these men, wouldn't it?
;^)
Just trying to hold the same mirror up to your writing that you hold up to men's. I know you're not a sexist.
(Sorry if some of the quotes are screwed up. I previewed the post and all the punctuation in the edit box got mangled into what I don't know.)
Elaine of Kalilily on 11 Sep 2002
I will be much more careful in how I phrase my next book report. It's hard not to write from personal experience and from personal knowledge of the experiences of other women I know. I don't know the male experience because none of the men I know talk about it. I'm not in a toxic relationship because I quickly extricated myself from any that were so. (As a result, I'm not in any relationship.) My own experiences and feelings color what I say. I'm not a journalist or a therapist. I'm a personal essayist. I think that means I write from a very personal place. But I will try to choose my words more carefully. While I don't think I'm a sexist, my experience is such (and my reading of many women's blogs and writings is such) that it all leads me to believe that too many men still are not making efforts in the directions that Dr. Real suggests are required to make relationships work.
Dorothea Salo on 12 Sep 2002
Kalilily, I happen to have Been There, and if the epidemiologists on depression are correct (they say that 3+ major depressive episodes hand you a 90% chance of another one) I will likely Be There again someday. Careful about your assumptions.
I still recommend the literature on resilience. It's not what you think it is -- it's about how children overcome terrible growing-up environments. The applicability is, I hope, evident.
Elaine of Kalilily on 12 Sep 2002
I'll be interested to read what the "experts" think are the variables that make it possible for some people to overcome terrible childhood experiences and some not. I wonder if it's something with brain chemistry, or something in the genes? And sorry about the assumptions. I've gotta watch that; it's one of my biggest faults.