PhD/PsyD Resources for teaching men about gender equality and talking about emotions

[Marissa4usa]

I am wondering if anybody knew of resources/materials on gender equality and discussing emotions that are aimed at men who've grown up with traditional gender roles being instilled with them. I am working with couples and families from a population where there is often a clash between traditional and egalitarian views, and I am looking for something that is accessible for people with a lower reading level, and conveys information in a nonjudgmental manner.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[futureapppsy2]

@MCParent might have ideas?

 

[PsyDr]

 

[borne_before]

Can you provide more info?

 

[Marissa4usa]

Can you provide more info?

Is that question directed at me or PsyDr?

 

[Sanman]

This seems like a somewhat dicey proposition to me. Not sure how well this would go over as non-judgmental, especially if coming from a female therapist.

 

[ClinicalABA]

This seems like a somewhat dicey proposition to me. Not sure how well this would go over as non-judgmental, especially if coming from a female therapist.

I'm going to be a "pot stirrer" and suggest that, maybe, that's why it's necessary.

 

[kestrelcry]

I work with veterans and have specialties in couples therapy, anger, IPV, and trauma, so between: a) clinical population, and b) general society and military cultural messages, a vast majority of my clients are so emotionally disconnected and stuffed down that it's causing some -reeeeally-significant dysfunction in their lives. I usually talk about gender roles and related stuff in a pretty science-y and matter of fact way, as social messages we all get that can clash with biology (men and women don't have different tear ducts, anger issues are correlated with heart disease, etc) and explore the pros and cons of their emotional style. Since folks aren't usually in my office 'cause everything's going great, they can usually identify more cons. Also, presenting it as: here's this kinda ****ty thing society's put on you and tried to take away tools biology gave you, so **** the man and screw social niceties, you take back your god-given soft, underneath emotions and vulnerability! Like a badass! The guys take it well approximately 99.82% of the time.

I mean, I'm being hyperbolic here, but only slightly. Mind you, I also just generally present masculine of center and swear like two shipfuls of heavily inebriated sailors, which I suspect helps make it feel not, I don't know, touch-feely?/intimidating?/emasculating?.

I've shown a ton of vets who have mostly been pretty heavily invested in traditional gender roles this video (I like it because science, and also it's a dude giving the message) and haven't had any negative reactions and a ton of -really- positive ones.



I also sometimes share the following comic with couples where an imbalance in household management is causing problems, but only after having a strong rapport with both individuals, and with a very light touch. Again, I think my gender presentation helps my couples perceive me as equally aligned, although, also, I was trained heavily on keeping the relationships equal and put a lot of work into it, so I'm gonna take some credit to my own work and not just to my hair, clothes, and seriously high cussin' levels.

You should’ve asked

Here is the english version of my now famous “Fallait demander” ; now available as a book with other stories : Orders available here or here or here ^_^ Thanks Una from unadtranslation.…

www.google.com

 

[R. Matey]

https://www.apa.org/about/policy/boys-men-practice-guidelines.pdf

 

[WisNeuro]

Maybe check out Div 51

Division51

This is the official website for Division 51 of the American Psychological Association, Society for the Psychological Study of Men and Masculinities. The site houses information for researchers, clinicians, and students interested in men's issues.

www.division51.net

 

[Ollie123]

This seems like a somewhat dicey proposition to me. Not sure how well this would go over as non-judgmental, especially if coming from a female therapist.

A lot depends on context. I'm in the south and have worked with a number of....shall we say...."classically southern, rural men" where this became a focus of treatment and was something that came up and was pursued in the course of therapy. Admittedly I'm male, but I don't know that this is the main concern. Its very different if its a therapist-driven "You need to change more diapers because feminism" when that isn't the presenting problem, but I don't see any reason to suspect that is the case here.

Unfortunately, I haven't found any "good" resources for it. I keep in a fairly open-ended general CBT framework. A lot of psychoeducation on emotions. We pull out one of those stupid smiley sheets and do basic psychoeducation on emotions (and I will call it a stupid smiley sheet and poke fun at it as we go..."This one is either having an extremely large bowel movement or experiencing......what emotion?"). I pull from mindfulness and talk a lot about physical sensations that go along with different emotions. This usually makes it real for them. We talk about different ways it gets expressed. I also tend to curse more than I probably should, which is probably not a requirement but some of my largest therapeutic breakthroughs have definitely emerged from a well-placed curse word here and there. I'm usually tying it into values/BA work so even if "big-southern-farmer-man" isn't willing to set "Be more emotionally vulnerable" as a goal, he is usually happy to set "Take care of my family" as a goal and I just have to work some cognitive-restructuring-magic to merge those two together. So far, the reactions have been pretty universally positive when handled this way. I've gotten a few surprise bear hugs at final sessions from gruff old men I'm not certain have ever hugged their own children. Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any manuals.

 

[Sanman]

A lot depends on context. I'm in the south and have worked with a number of....shall we say...."classically southern, rural men" where this became a focus of treatment and was something that came up and was pursued in the course of therapy. Admittedly I'm male, but I don't know that this is the main concern. Its very different if its a therapist-driven "You need to change more diapers because feminism" when that isn't the presenting problem, but I don't see any reason to suspect that is the case here.

Unfortunately, I haven't found any "good" resources for it. I keep in a fairly open-ended general CBT framework. A lot of psychoeducation on emotions. We pull out one of those stupid smiley sheets and do basic psychoeducation on emotions (and I will call it a stupid smiley sheet and poke fun at it as we go..."This one is either having an extremely large bowel movement or experiencing......what emotion?"). I pull from mindfulness and talk a lot about physical sensations that go along with different emotions. This usually makes it real for them. We talk about different ways it gets expressed. I also tend to curse more than I probably should, which is probably not a requirement but some of my largest therapeutic breakthroughs have definitely emerged from a well-placed curse word here and there. I'm usually tying it into values/BA work so even if "big-southern-farmer-man" isn't willing to set "Be more emotionally vulnerable" as a goal, he is usually happy to set "Take care of my family" as a goal and I just have to work some cognitive-restructuring-magic to merge those two together. So far, the reactions have been pretty universally positive when handled this way. I've gotten a few surprise bear hugs at final sessions from gruff old men I'm not certain have ever hugged their own children. Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any manuals.

To clarify, I have done some of this work in the past and currently with male clients (as a male therapist in individual and running a men's group). Re-reading the OP, what concerned me was the context. The OP mentioned "working with couples and families", which made me picture this being brought up by a female therapist in the course of couples therapy. This may be seen as bias by many clients if not done very well. Now I may have misconstrued the OP, but that was my off the cuff response.

 

[WisNeuro]

I can imagine that this is difficult in a couples/family situation. I do not do couples/family work. But, this is definitely something that ALWAYS came up in one form or another when I used to run PTSD groups in the VA. A big thing is how you discuss this. For us, it always helped to discuss it all in the context of communication and family dynamics. For example, how being a "good provider," something many vets expressed as part of their identity, also meant providing for the emotional well-being of family members. And, as an extension, they could better manage that if they also attended to their own emotional needs.

How you approach it, and the terminology you use is everything. You're still working on the same issues, but people are easily turned off by certain buzzwords.

 

[borne_before]

You might want to come at it from an ACT framework. In ACT, the focus is on the utility of a behavior, not the person. The utility of a behavior is determined by one's values/goals.

For example, a possible value for relating to a traditional role is hard work and not complaining (acceptance of struggle). I can think of a few ways to link that to the behavior of changing a diap. That's why I wanted an example.

Also, don't demonize maleness. If the goals is to feminize these men, it wont work. Remember, there is nothing wrong with being a male or assuming a traditional role. In many cases, its cultural.

 

[WisNeuro]

Also, don't demonize maleness. If the goals is to feminize these men, it wont work. Remember, there is nothing wrong with being a male or assuming a traditional role. In many cases, its cultural.

This terminology is just as wrong as the flip side. Egalitarian, or more modern views, on what masculinity means, are not inherently feminine. Additionally, one can assume some traditional values, while engaging in more egalitarian behaviors, or acknowledging emotional health. What exactly does it mean to "feminize" someone?

 

[WisNeuro]

I am only alluding to the end goal, whereas trying to make a male more female for it's own sake wont be fruitful therapeutically.

I am still not sure what you mean, what does it mean to make one more female? Is the therapist going to force the male to take hormones? Besides that, what would make someone more female?>

 

[WisNeuro]

Not trying to obtuse here, but are you really claiming there are no differences between males and females?

I'm serious, what psychological well-being variables are uniquely female, and which are uniquely male?

 

[WisNeuro]

What variables related to psychological well-being that would come up within a therapeutic context are unique to each gender? So, in terms of the therapy context, how would you "make a male more female" in psychotherapy, as you claimed?

 

[WisNeuro]

No, I think this actually gets at the heart of the OP's question and discussion about this area. If you don't want to clarify your statement, that's fine.

 

[Justanothergrad]

No, I think this actually gets at the heart of the OP's question and discussion about this area. If you don't want to clarify your statement, that's fine.

Speaking as a former D51 conference chair and co-chair, this gets a huge +1.

It really depends on what OP means for resources. D51 is a great general resource depending on the need. I'm not sure what I would point to specifically otherwise without more detail. This is a bit older but related - I enjoyed when Ed (former D51 pres) talked a bit about the topic back when it was big news for the guidelines:

 

[R. Matey]

"just be more like a woman."

I think people are taking issue with you ascribing certain behavioral patterns to anatomical sex. This is sex based stereotyping. So, I don't know what you're talking about when you say: "act like a woman/man." There's also a element of cis-stuff in that statement that I won't touch, but for a point of reference, you might note that the MMPI-2-RF no longer includes scale 5 which was historically a masculine/feminine scale based on nothing more than preference for "mechanical" or "aesthetic" activities.

 

[R. Matey]

How am I doing that? I'm saying that to these patients, there is a real, tangible difference between genders. I'm not commenting on my personal thoughts at all.

And what are they in a therapeutic context?

 

[deleted480308]

How am I doing that? I'm saying that to these patients, there is a real, tangible difference between genders. I'm not commenting on my personal thoughts at all.

So the patient is making up differences between genders and your therapeutic goal is to just tell them to be more like the other gender (that they made up the definition of)?

 

[WisNeuro]

Coming back to this convo, it seems like there are some deleted posts.

 

[R. Matey]

Coming back to this convo, it seems like there are some deleted posts.

Oh, wow. They bailed. It was basically a rehashing on an earlier exchange between you two. No conclusions were reached.

 

[WisNeuro]

That's unfortunate, I think this could have actually been an good discussion.

 

[Marissa4usa]

Sorry, guys, for not responding sooner. I posted this on a Thursday, and then forgot about it over the weekend. Thanks for everyone’s comments. To address some of the things that were brought up: I am a woman, and do primarily couples therapy. Usually, patients and their partner see me in addition to individual therapy, so I have the opportunity to consult with their individual therapist..

This seems like a somewhat dicey proposition to me. Not sure how well this would go over as non-judgmental, especially if coming from a female therapist.

I do see why you are saying that, but I also don’t quite agree. A topic like that is not one that is good to bring up early on in session, especially as a female provider. However, given that a common complaint by the female partner is lack of emotional connection, and unfair distribution of household chores, this isn’t really something that can be entirely avoided. And if one of the underlying factors is a very traditional view of gender roles, then it needs to be addressed in some way. I am not saying the goal is to get the male partner to become an equal rights advocate; and typically I am able to get them on board that their current approach to handling their relationship conflict by resisting to share emotions and/or participate in household chores isn’t really helping them. However, translating that into actions that actually benefit is a different story, and it would really helpful to have some resources for that that are not judgmental

Maybe check out Div 51

Thanks – I will definitely do that.

I pull from mindfulness and talk a lot about physical sensations that go along with different emotions. This usually makes it real for them. We talk about different ways it gets expressed.

That is a great suggestion. I have never thought about incorporating physical sensations into my couples work.

For example, how being a "good provider," something many vets expressed as part of their identity, also meant providing for the emotional well-being of family members. And, as an extension, they could better manage that if they also attended to their own emotional needs. How you approach it, and the terminology you use is everything. You're still working on the same issues, but people are easily turned off by certain buzzwords.

I realize that my OP was brief, so I didn’t properly convey things. In the early stages of my couples work, I focus on my conceptualization and getting the couple to buy into it. Especially, when they have (minor) positive experiences, it increases their willingness to consider questioning their own views. I am essentially looking for materials/resources to really capitalize on that, and not turn them off by the use of certain buzzwords.

You might want to come at it from an ACT framework. In ACT, the focus is on the utility of a behavior, not the person. The utility of a behavior is determined by one's values/goals.

For example, a possible value for relating to a traditional role is hard work and not complaining (acceptance of struggle). I can think of a few ways to link that to the behavior of changing a diap. That's why I wanted an example.

I don’t know ACT well, and I have done things that seem ACT adjacent, but I think that this could very useful.

Also, don't demonize maleness. If the goals is to feminize these men, it wont work. Remember, there is nothing wrong with being a male or assuming a traditional role. In many cases, its cultural.

I am surprised that my OP came across like that. I fully agree that the goal is not to “feminize men,” whatever that may mean. But if a certain set of beliefs (whatever they may be) result in behaviors that are damaging to the relationship (the terms of which the partners need to agree on, not I), it needs to be addressed.

 

[Sanman]

Sorry, guys, for not responding sooner. I posted this on a Thursday, and then forgot about it over the weekend. Thanks for everyone’s comments. To address some of the things that were brought up: I am a woman, and do primarily couples therapy. Usually, patients and their partner see me in addition to individual therapy, so I have the opportunity to consult with their individual therapist..



I do see why you are saying that, but I also don’t quite agree. A topic like that is not one that is good to bring up early on in session, especially as a female provider. However, given that a common complaint by the female partner is lack of emotional connection, and unfair distribution of household chores, this isn’t really something that can be entirely avoided. And if one of the underlying factors is a very traditional view of gender roles, then it needs to be addressed in some way. I am not saying the goal is to get the male partner to become an equal rights advocate; and typically I am able to get them on board that their current approach to handling their relationship conflict by resisting to share emotions and/or participate in household chores isn’t really helping them. However, translating that into actions that actually benefit is a different story, and it would really helpful to have some resources for that that are not judgmental

Here is where I would disagree with you. There is no such thing as "unfair distribution" of household chores without an assumption by someone being made (unfair in whose opinion? It may seem very fair to the client) Moreover, I disagree that distribution of chores should ever be a therapeutic goal to be addressed as it is unlikely to ever be a shared goal (who wants more chores?). There is only poor communication between spouses over who will do the chores or not. Assuming they are coming to you, the assumption is that there is poor communication. The goal of therapy should be to improve their tools for communication so that both partners can come to an agreement that makes them happy (or equally unhappy and they are willing to live with it). Beyond that, I do not find it our job as therapists to judge their lifestyle choices.

You may very well disagree with my line of thinking and there is nothing wrong with that.

 

[WisNeuro]

Here is where I would disagree with you. There is no such thing as "unfair distribution" of household chores without an assumption by someone being made (unfair in whose opinion? It may seem very fair to the client) Moreover, I disagree that distribution of chores should ever be a therapeutic goal to be addressed as it is unlikely to ever be a shared goal (who wants more chores?).

I don't do couples therapy, but do have some close colleagues who do, and I've heard them discuss this pretty often. As far as their experience, this would seem to be a nearly universal discussion at some point during couples therapy. And yes, while the distribution of chores is not the goal of therapy, I can easily see how it can be a vehicle for the overall goals of couples therapy. I don't see how the therapist is "judging their lifestyles" choices when they are merely helping them address a common couples issue. Additionally, there is a good deal of evidence showing that as women have entered into the workforce over the past 50+ years, traditional gender norms still expect them to maintain a very similar workload in terms of cooking, cleaning, childcare, etc. So, yes, while we cannot always extrapolate group differences to individual, it would still stand to reason that there would actually be an unequal distribution of home maintenance labor in many couples.

 

[Sanman]

I don't do couples therapy, but do have some close colleagues who do, and I've heard them discuss this pretty often. As far as their experience, this would seem to be a nearly universal discussion at some point during couples therapy. And yes, while the distribution of chores is not the goal of therapy, I can easily see how it can be a vehicle for the overall goals of couples therapy. I don't see how the therapist is "judging their lifestyles" choices when they are merely helping them address a common couples issue. Additionally, there is a good deal of evidence showing that as women have entered into the workforce over the past 50+ years, traditional gender norms still expect them to maintain a very similar workload in terms of cooking, cleaning, childcare, etc. So, yes, while we cannot always extrapolate group differences to individual, it would still stand to reason that there would actually be an unequal distribution of home maintenance labor in many couples.

I never said it could not be a vehicle for working through communication or relationship differences. I said it should not necessarily be the expressed goal for therapy to "fix" the distribution of chores rather than foster a conversation. The fixing the distribution is a judgment. If you have a couple where:

A. The husband works and the wife is a stay at home mom

B. The wife works and the husband stays at home

C. Both spouses work outside of the home

D. The wife works from home and the husband has a 3 hour daily commute

In all of these couples, the wife complains about an unequal distribution of household chores. Should the intervention for all of these couples be to strive for equality in household chores? Who decides what equal is in each situation? What if someone agreed to this situation and has now changed their mind?

The other issue is who is your client? I get this issue all the time as the wife if often the caregiver for a disabled veteran and there are often claims that the veteran "can do more". That may be true and while I do provide caregiver/spousal support, my client is the veteran. Even if the veteran (my client) is taking advantage of his wife in that situation, it would be incorrect for me to act as her therapist if the goal of that work leads her to take action and leave her husband (which may be healthy for her) and mean he has to enter into a nursing home.

Is it never possible in couples work that a good outcome for one spouse is a poor outcome for another? If so, was there a role the therapist played in letting personal values dictate which spouse was favored in the session? Does this alienate one member of the couple? Like I said, it can get dicey. It is easier in individual work where the goal might be for a client to manage their emotions and part of the work is getting them to verbalize and express emotion ( like normalizing crying in men).

 

[WisNeuro]

I think that is missing the forest for the trees. I don't recall any person advocating that the primary issue would be distribution of labor, rather, how traditional gender roles affects the perception of distribution of labor, sometimes in an unequal way. But, even in this instance, the chores are not the issue, rather a consequence of another larger issue. That being said, they remain an issue that is an everyday occurrence in people's lives, therefore, something that comes up quite often in couples therapy.

The therapist can help the couples gain insight on this issue without taking a side. However, they cannot escape the objective truth of where the imbalance usually, but not always, lie.

 

[Sanman]

I think that is missing the forest for the trees. I don't recall any person advocating that the primary issue would be distribution of labor, rather, how traditional gender roles affects the perception of distribution of labor, sometimes in an unequal way. But, even in this instance, the chores are not the issue, rather a consequence of another larger issue. That being said, they remain an issue that is an everyday occurrence in people's lives, therefore, something that comes up quite often in couples therapy.

The therapist can help the couples gain insight on this issue without taking a side. However, they cannot escape the objective truth of where the imbalance usually, but not always, lie.

It is not missing the forest for the trees. It is asking whether traditional gender roles are always the underlying issue here. Would a discussion of gender roles address the underlying issue in all four of the couples I mentioned above? Not necessarily. Would addressing the communication issue of the wife feeling unheard be helpful in all cases? More likely.

 

[WisNeuro]

It is not missing the forest for the trees. It is asking whether traditional gender roles are always the underlying issue here. Would a discussion of gender roles address the underlying issue in all four of the couples I mentioned above? Not necessarily. Would addressing the communication issue of the wife feeling unheard be helpful in all cases? More likely.

I don't recall anyone saying traditional gender roles were "always" the issue. The OP simply stated that in her current work there was a clash between traditional roles and more modern/egalitarian views. She then clarified that this was a common issue brought up in therapy. It just so happens that teh research would support the notion more times than not. Not sure where the controversy is here. Seems like it could be simply solved by some of teh same reality testing we use in CBT.

 

[Sanman]

I don't recall anyone saying traditional gender roles were "always" the issue. The OP simply stated that in her current work there was a clash between traditional roles and more modern/egalitarian views. She then clarified that this was a common issue brought up in therapy. It just so happens that teh research would support the notion more times than not. Not sure where the controversy is here. Seems like it could be simply solved by some of teh same reality testing we use in CBT.

The controversy is in how you address it. If the way you are addressing it comes off as that traditional roles are wrong and modern/egalitarian views are right, you risk alienating one half of the couple. That's why I said it is a dicey proposition. If the wife has the issue and you are addressing it with the husband who does not see it as the issue, are you meeting the needs of both clients? Are you deciding the needs of one half of the couple take precedence over another that may have no interest in this goal?

 

[R. Matey]

I do see why you are saying that, but I also don’t quite agree. A topic like that is not one that is good to bring up early on in session, especially as a female provider. However, given that a common complaint by the female partner is lack of emotional connection, and unfair distribution of household chores, this isn’t really something that can be entirely avoided. And if one of the underlying factors is a very traditional view of gender roles, then it needs to be addressed in some way. I am not saying the goal is to get the male partner to become an equal rights advocate; and typically I am able to get them on board that their current approach to handling their relationship conflict by resisting to share emotions and/or participate in household chores isn’t really helping them. However, translating that into actions that actually benefit is a different story, and it would really helpful to have some resources for that that are not judgmental

Can we have some more information? Like generally, male clients are amenable to your intervention during session, but there isn't any follow through? I mean, if you can get them on board, aren't we really just talking about social/life skills training?

 

[beginner2011]

The controversy is in how you address it. If the way you are addressing it comes off as that traditional roles are wrong and modern/egalitarian views are right, you risk alienating one half of the couple.

I don’t think anyone is suggesting that’s a good idea.

it’s odd to me that this is a contentious issue. Having never done couples therapy I would imagine one could address communication issues and also address concerns/perceptions re distribution of labor. Not mutually exclusive.

 

[Sanman]

I don’t think anyone is suggesting that’s a good idea.

it’s odd to me that this is a contentious issue. Having never done couples therapy I would imagine one could address communication issues and also address concerns/perceptions re distribution of labor. Not mutually exclusive.

You can address anything you want in couples therapy that is a mutual goal and in which you have buy in. You can't treat anything if there is no buy-in or the client stops coming to sessions. The questions in any therapy scenario becomes what goals to set and how hard to push the client for change given the limits of the time frame you have to work with a client.

Things that I believe make this risky:

1. Do you have buy-in from BOTH clients? Certainly you will from one, but maybe not the other. The male client may not vocalize this because they are not comfortable doing so or they may not want to start a fight with their spouse. That doesn't mean you will get follow through. You might get avoidance.

2. Trust - With a female therapist, there is always the additional risk that it appears that two women are ganging up on you and you lose trust and buy-in for the therapy. Not always, but the risk is there. Given things like the political/cultural divide in this country, this can be a trigger for some men. I have done some of this work with disabled vets who struggle to accept that they are not able to provide for their family. have a traditional role ,etc. It is often difficult for them to discuss this even with a fellow cis-gendered male who is like them. Many see it as a rebuke of everything they grew up believing. Discuss the issue with some vets I know and the next thing you will hear is " See, that's what's wrong with this country today...". Good luck getting them to care what you have to say after that.

3. Are there better ways to address the issue through avenues like communication or compromise?

4. Is this something you are realistically going to see improvement in given the time frame of the therapy. Are you changing their minds about gender roles in a maybe 2-4 sessions of a 10-12 session protocol after decades of learning something else? Or is this something to strive for after years of exposure to the idea?

 

[Marissa4usa]

Here is where I would disagree with you. There is no such thing as "unfair distribution" of household chores without an assumption by someone being made (unfair in whose opinion? It may seem very fair to the client) Moreover, I disagree that distribution of chores should ever be a therapeutic goal to be addressed as it is unlikely to ever be a shared goal (who wants more chores?). There is only poor communication between spouses over who will do the chores or not. Assuming they are coming to you, the assumption is that there is poor communication. The goal of therapy should be to improve their tools for communication so that both partners can come to an agreement that makes them happy (or equally unhappy and they are willing to live with it). Beyond that, I do not find it our job as therapists to judge their lifestyle choices.

@Sanman, I think you are missing my point. I have no vested interest in any particular outcome when I work with couples. I don’t give a hoot whether (in a hetereosexual relationship) the wife is responsible for stereotypical “female responsibilities,” while the guy is the breadwinner. And I agree that teaching basic communication skills is the foundation of basic couples therapy…AND…in my work these strongly held traditional have interfered with progress in therapy. For what it’s worth, I’ve run into comparable issues with women, who criticized the amount of money their partner made, and generally were dissatisfied with their husband’s “lack of masculinity.”

Is it never possible in couples work that a good outcome for one spouse is a poor outcome for another? If so, was there a role the therapist played in letting personal values dictate which spouse was favored in the session? Does this alienate one member of the couple? Like I said, it can get dicey. It is easier in individual work where the goal might be for a client to manage their emotions and part of the work is getting them to verbalize and express emotion ( like normalizing crying in men).

100% yes to that bolded statement. I haven’t quoted everything you’ve said but you are making a lot of assumptions about me, and my intentions as a provider (including that I can’t separate my personal values from my clinical work). You also insinuate that I do not take into consideration patients’/couples’ specific circumstances, by presenting an example where it is very obvious that “fair” does not necessarily mean “the same.”

Would addressing the communication issue of the wife feeling unheard be helpful in all cases? More likely.

Yeah, I fully agree with you…and, like I said, I’ve now run into this issue several times, in which the male partners are well intentioned, participates in therapy, etc., but there is still a disconnect.

The controversy is in how you address it. If the way you are addressing it comes off as that traditional roles are wrong and modern/egalitarian views are right, you risk alienating one half of the couple. That's why I said it is a dicey proposition.

Again, I am not sure what gave the impression that this the approach I am taking.

If the wife has the issue and you are addressing it with the husband who does not see it as the issue, are you meeting the needs of both clients? Are you deciding the needs of one half of the couple take precedence over another that may have no interest in this goal?

I am definitely not meeting both people’s needs if I ignore the female partner’s needs, so…

It’s probably not news to you that women tend to be more comfortable expressing themselves (don’t want to generalize anyone here, but statistically speaking it’s probably safe to say that this is how it tends to be), and men (especially those who ascribe to more traditional gender roles) tend to struggle more with that, simply because they aren’t used to it. Part of my job as a clinician is to not only teach both partners how to communicate better, but I also end up help the male be more comfortable with expressing emotions, and often times there is a lot of shame and fear of appearing weak when expressing emotions. I can’t count the number of times when he guy was barely holding it together, only to tell me that he’s totally okay. I have observed that same shame often being one of the reasons for not engaging in stereotypical female responsibilities.

Can we have some more information? Like generally, male clients are amenable to your intervention during session, but there isn't any follow through? I mean, if you can get them on board, aren't we really just talking about social/life skills training?

Not surprisingly, it’s somewhat more common for the female partner to be the one seeking therapy. But as a whole, most men have pretty willingly participated, and they do want their relationship to be better. They just get stuck. I’ve used emotion wheels quite a bit with those men but that has only gotten me so far - they still tend to express “safe” emotions. So, yeah, maybe it’s a social skills training issue. They’re not macho a**holes by any means, their mind just goes blank. Most don’t have an issue even telling me that this is hard for them, that it is uncomfortable, and that they’re just feeling very overwhelmed. I mean it makes sense, for the first 50 years of their life they were told to “be a man”, and “a real man doesn’t fold the laundry,” and now I am asking to say/do all these things that go directly against that.

 

[Sanman]

@Sanman, I think you are missing my point. I have no vested interest in any particular outcome when I work with couples. I don’t give a hoot whether (in a hetereosexual relationship) the wife is responsible for stereotypical “female responsibilities,” while the guy is the breadwinner. And I agree that teaching basic communication skills is the foundation of basic couples therapy…AND…in my work these strongly held traditional have interfered with progress in therapy. For what it’s worth, I’ve run into comparable issues with women, who criticized the amount of money their partner made, and generally were dissatisfied with their husband’s “lack of masculinity.”



100% yes to that bolded statement. I haven’t quoted everything you’ve said but you are making a lot of assumptions about me, and my intentions as a provider (including that I can’t separate my personal values from my clinical work). You also insinuate that I do not take into consideration patients’/couples’ specific circumstances, by presenting an example where it is very obvious that “fair” does not necessarily mean “the same.”



Yeah, I fully agree with you…and, like I said, I’ve now run into this issue several times, in which the male partners are well intentioned, participates in therapy, etc., but there is still a disconnect.



Again, I am not sure what gave the impression that this the approach I am taking.



I am definitely not meeting both people’s needs if I ignore the female partner’s needs, so…

It’s probably not news to you that women tend to be more comfortable expressing themselves (don’t want to generalize anyone here, but statistically speaking it’s probably safe to say that this is how it tends to be), and men (especially those who ascribe to more traditional gender roles) tend to struggle more with that, simply because they aren’t used to it. Part of my job as a clinician is to not only teach both partners how to communicate better, but I also end up help the male be more comfortable with expressing emotions, and often times there is a lot of shame and fear of appearing weak when expressing emotions. I can’t count the number of times when he guy was barely holding it together, only to tell me that he’s totally okay. I have observed that same shame often being one of the reasons for not engaging in stereotypical female responsibilities.



Not surprisingly, it’s somewhat more common for the female partner to be the one seeking therapy. But as a whole, most men have pretty willingly participated, and they do want their relationship to be better. They just get stuck. I’ve used emotion wheels quite a bit with those men but that has only gotten me so far - they still tend to express “safe” emotions. So, yeah, maybe it’s a social skills training issue. They’re not macho a**holes by any means, their mind just goes blank. Most don’t have an issue even telling me that this is hard for them, that it is uncomfortable, and that they’re just feeling very overwhelmed. I mean it makes sense, for the first 50 years of their life they were told to “be a man”, and “a real man doesn’t fold the laundry,” and now I am asking to say/do all these things that go directly against that.

To be clear, I am not making any assumption about you. These are just general concerns I have about about addressing these types of issues (even in my own work) and clients possible perceptions of it. I have no idea what your skills or views are based on this thread. You may be more skilled than I in couples work (which wouldn't be that hard) and some of my assumptions may be wrong (for example, the willingness of your male clients to engage in this; I am going off my experiences). To my view, this can be difficult work that can be riskier to the therapeutic relationship than focusing on some other things. I often find it easier to do this type of things one on one after a longer relationship with the client because I have built up trust. The other option is that they do it because it is important to their spouse, who is also trying. this is where I find the communication angle more helpful. Social skills training may help as well, but seems to stick part of the time.. Sometimes the passage of time and the slow practice help to bring about these changes. At the end of the day, I have found that these changes are often difficult to accept in light of their past histories and choices they have made.

 

[Marissa4usa]

To be clear, I am not making any assumption about you. These are just general concerns I have about about addressing these types of issues (even in my own work) and clients possible perceptions of it. I have no idea what your skills or views are based on this thread. You may be more skilled than I in couples work (which wouldn't be that hard) and some of my assumptions may be wrong (for example, the willingness of your male clients to engage in this; I am going off my experiences). To my view, this can be difficult work that can be riskier to the therapeutic relationship than focusing on some other things. I often find it easier to do this type of things one on one after a longer relationship with the client because I have built up trust. The other option is that they do it because it is important to their spouse, who is also trying. this is where I find the communication angle more helpful. Social skills training may help as well, but seems to stick part of the time.. Sometimes the passage of time and the slow practice help to bring about these changes. At the end of the day, I have found that these changes are often difficult to accept in light of their past histories and choices they have made.

Okay, maybe I wasn't quite clear then. I kept my original question fairly general because this is an issue that I run into semi-regularly, and I wasn't looking for case consultation. However, the reason I am decided to ask for resources now is because I've explored all of the options you are suggesting here: Worked with couple for ~20-25 session (they've been one of my most consistent patients), practiced communication skills, and they both have the technical aspects down (i.e., I-statements, no-mind reading, etc.), guy even volunteered that he has found couple therapy to be very helpful. However, at the end of the day, a lot of it is superficial - not due to unwillingness/maliciousness, but some very deeply ingrained and not critically evaluated beliefs about masculinity/traditional gender roles. And I admit, I feel a bit out of my comfort zone. Which is why I am looking for resources that can help to nonjudgementally convey that traditional gender roles aren't all that they were hyped up to be

 

[Justanothergrad]

Okay, maybe I wasn't quite clear then. I kept my original question fairly general because this is an issue that I run into semi-regularly, and I wasn't looking for case consultation. However, the reason I am decided to ask for resources now is because I've explored all of the options you are suggesting here: Worked with couple for ~20-25 session (they've been one of my most consistent patients), practiced communication skills, and they both have the technical aspects down (i.e., I-statements, no-mind reading, etc.), guy even volunteered that he has found couple therapy to be very helpful. However, at the end of the day, a lot of it is superficial - not due to unwillingness/maliciousness, but some very deeply ingrained and not critically evaluated beliefs about masculinity/traditional gender roles. And I admit, I feel a bit out of my comfort zone. Which is why I am looking for resources that can help to nonjudgementally convey that traditional gender roles aren't all that they were hyped up to be

Did you end up joining D51? If you want to talk to someone more in depth about it, shoot me a message. I can talk to you or I can put you in touch with membership chairs who would be great resources anyway (one runs a mens practice for exactly these issues)

 

[Marissa4usa]

Did you end up joining D51? If you want to talk to someone more in depth about it, shoot me a message. I can talk to you or I can put you in touch with membership chairs who would be great resources anyway (one runs a mens practice for exactly these issues)

@Justanothergrad - yes, I did. I am going to send you a PM.