The All-Party Parliamentary Group report on Issues Affecting Men and Boys is a welcome step in the right direction, but must not be led astray, as initiatives have been in the past

Oct 5

Without a doubt the most positive news so far this year for the wellbeing of men and boys is the publication of the report, A Boy Today, by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Issues Affecting Men and Boys. The report was based on evidence from experts presented over a series of sessions. These experts included highly esteemed colleagues of mine from Male Psychology Section of the BPS: consultant clinical psychologist Martin Seager, and Professor Gijsbert Stoet.

From these consultations, four of the main issues that emerged were:

A need for greater recognition that growing up in a fatherless household is a risk factor for adverse educational and personal development
We need more awareness of the developmental differences between boys and girls and the impact the school environment has on boys’ learning
Depictions of masculinity as inherently bad (e.g. ‘toxic masculinity’) need to be challenged
Greater awareness of sex differences in physical and mental health are needed.

The report is a very welcome step forward, but before we start celebrating we should recognise that we are a long way from seeing action being taken on these ideas. Although APPGs are run by members of parliament from various political parties in both the Commons and Lords, with assistance from people outside parliament, APPGs have no official status within parliament.

“Even when action should be taken by governmental groups, there is still no guarantee this will happen. An example of this was the inquiry into the Mental Health of Men and Boys, led by the Women and Equalities Committee (W&EC) in 2019.”

Even when action should be taken by governmental groups, there is still no guarantee this will happen. An example of this was the inquiry into the Mental Health of Men and Boys, led by the Women and Equalities Committee (W&EC) in 2019. Although 60 written submissions and eight oral submissions were made to the inquiry, including one from the Male Psychology Section of the British Psychological Society and one from the Male Psychology Network (forerunner of the Centre for Male Psychology), the inquiry was abandoned before a full report could be completed and findings be acted upon.

After all the effort of conducting an inquiry, why would it be abandoned? The Right Honorable Maria Miller MP, Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee said it happened because of “the current political situation”. Written in October 2019, this implies that the demands of Brexit and the general election were somehow not anticipated by the W&EC.

Although there was no final report, and so no official recommendations which could be put into action, the W&EC Chair, Maria Miller, wrote a letter to the Under Secretary of State for Mental Health, Suicide Prevention and Patient Safety, giving five suggestions for further work based on the inquiry. It is probably fair to say that the wellbeing of men was never the main impetus of the W&EC’s creation or subsequent activities, but nonetheless it is also fair to say that most of Miller’s suggestions were refreshingly male-friendly:

“The Government needs to improve its current understanding of the specific causes and impact of poor mental health for men and boys, by commissioning appropriate pieces of research.” Miller sensibly suggested “launching a Men’s Mental Health Taskforce, similar to the Taskforce established for Women’s Mental Health in 2018”.
“The Department of Health and Social Care should give serious consideration to creating and implementing a National Men’s Health Strategy, like those launched in Ireland and Australia.”
“There is a need to create and implement easy to access, male-friendly mental health services, with improved signposting.” This included the recognition that services are at present “very much more female-coded, as is the language around therapeutic or treatment approached to mental health”.
She also suggested there was an urgent need for more awareness of the causes of mental health issues in BAME and sexual minority males.

However one of the suggestions stood out in contrast to the others:

“More work needs to be done to tackle harmful gender stereotypes, both in educational settings and in the media, which prevent many men from seeking help for their mental health”.

What were these harmful gender stereotypes? Miller explained: “We were told that the concept of masculinity is “defined as putting food on the table; it has been defined as this strange conflation of stoicism and strength, meaning the strong, silent type”. Witnesses explained that masculinity often means, “there is no room for vulnerability or weakness” and this is reinforced by common phrases such as “man up” and “be a real man”. We were told that as a result of these stereotypes, many men and boys experiencing mental health issues do not engage with mental health services because doing so can often be associated with being weak and vulnerable”.

What did Miller suggest should be done about this? “The Government Equalities Office [GEO] must work with other departments to challenge harmful stereotypes of masculinity. The GEO should work specifically with the Department for Education on tackling negative male stereotypes in schools, colleges and universities, by requiring Ofsted to review the teaching of gender stereotypes during their inspections, especially in primary education. … The GEO should also work closely with the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to address how male stereotypes are being reinforced through the media. … to establish what interventions would be most effective to stop these negative masculine stereotypes”.

“the W&EC Chair was suggesting that masculinity is a harmful stereotype, whereas in reality the clumsy and unrealistic definition of masculinity she cited in her letter is itself the harmful stereotype, more fitting of the Wild West of 200 years ago”

Given the controversy about the current head of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport’s attitude to men, we might reasonably worry about how this recommendation might have been enacted. But the key issue here is that the W&EC Chair was suggesting that masculinity is a harmful stereotype, whereas in reality the clumsy and unrealistic definition of masculinity she cited in her letter was itself the harmful stereotype, more fitting of the Wild West of 200 years ago than the men and boys of Britain today. Although it has become popular these days to talk of masculinity as if it is a problem, in reality there is evidence that masculinity can be beneficial to men’s mental health. In fact to call the prevailing negative view of masculinity ‘popular’ is an understatement, because it is probably the result of what has been recognised as the paradigm fixation of theory and research in this area, focusing relentlessly on a negative view of masculinity despite evidence to the contrary. Inevitably, many people will not feel motivated to publicly contradict the ‘popular’ view of masculinity.

Not only was Miller’s description of masculinity a straw man argument, but it didn’t even adequately reflect the evidence presented to the inquiry. Despite the popularity of the negative view of masculinity, 50% of the 60 submissions did not present masculinity in a negative way at all. Of the other submissions, 22% of them (13 of 60) gave only partial support for the negative view, perhaps influenced by the rather leading way some questions were phrased in the W&EC’s inquiry submissions form e.g.“What is the effect of the following on men and boys’ mental health: Gender stereotyping in childhood; Gendered expectations around work… Media portrayals of masculinity…”. Thus the suggestions made by Miller regarding masculinity represented only negative views of masculinity rather than the large number of submissions that took a neutral or positive view of masculinity.

“What if I told you there is evidence that red cars are more likely to be involved in accidents because red cars make people drive more aggressively. This idea makes intuitive sense, and you might agree that a sensible solution would be to warn people not to buy red cars”.

Like many pervasive ideas, the notion that masculinity is bad for mental health typically goes unquestioned, even by otherwise sensible people, who then draw apparently logical conclusions based on faulty information. What if I told you there is evidence that red cars are more likely to be involved in accidents because red cars make people drive more aggressively. This idea makes intuitive sense, and you might agree that a sensible solution would be to warn people not to buy red cars, and if they owned a red car they should paint it blue, a much safer colour. But what if I told you that other evidence shows that cars of other colours are just as likely, or in some studies even more likely, to be involved in accidents. It makes the idea of repainting red cars blue seem a bit pointless, even though for a while it was a popular idea and everyone seemed to think red cars were a threat to society.

“’male-friendly’ therapy is an oxymoron if the basis for therapy is that masculinity is the problem.”

Although four of the five suggestions in the W&EC Chair’s letter were positive, it is important to realise that each of the four would have failed to help men and boys had they incorporated the toxic assumptions in the suggestion regarding masculinity. For example, the idea of ‘male-friendly’ therapy is an oxymoron if the basis for therapy is that masculinity is the problem. The far more obvious solution to the mental health issues facing men and boys is to steer men and boys toward positive ways of dealing with their mental health rather than an all-out war on bogey man versions of masculinity. There are various was in which male-typical strengths can be harnessed to enhance help-seeking and other aspects of mental health. This ‘strengths-based’ approach helps us to realise that masculinity is closer to an evolved archetype than a socially constructed stereotype, and is more of an asset than a problem. In many ways the lack of male help-seeking is not the failure of men to open up but the failure of society to care when they do. If we genuinely want to embrace inclusivity and diversity, we need to have positive and respectful attitudes towards all identities, and unless we want to leave out half of humanity, that means accepting masculinity.

Two years on from the W&EC inquiry, it is very encouraging to see that the new APPG appears to be succeeding where others have failed. My recommendation to the APPG is to be vigilant against Trojan horses, ‘experts’ filled with theories they assure us will help men, but which in practice would be toxic to men and boys. Opportunities to help men and boys are easily driven off course, as we have seen in the US government, where the new Gender Policy Council could have helped everyone, but ended up being a forum to help women and girls only.

These concerns aside, so far it looks like the APPG is in good hands and heading in the right direction. I fully agree with the words of the Vice-Chair of the APPG, Nick Fletcher (MP for Don Valley), who stated that “…if we are to live in a fully inclusive country, we need to address the disadvantages that men and boys face alongside the disadvantages women and girls face. We all live in our society together – boys are sons, brothers and future husbands, partners, dads and work colleagues. Resolving the issues boys face today means a better society for all, now and in the future.”

Scroll down to join the discussion

Disclaimer: This article is for information purposes only and is not a substitute for therapy, legal advice, or other professional opinion. Never disregard such advice because of this article or anything else you have read from the Centre for Male Psychology. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of, or are endorsed by, The Centre for Male Psychology, and we cannot be held responsible for these views. Read our full disclaimer here.