I have come to the realization that men today are at a place where evolution is necessary in order to create a better relationship for themselves and to ultimately redefine the essential role that they play within the human species. It appears as though men have learned over the years that only two extremes exist: 1) the animalistic, aggressive male, or 2) the passive, indecisive, disempowered male.

The emergence of character types such as the "metrosexual" vs. the "player", not only confirms the quandary that the male gender faces, but also urges them to break out of this "black or white" construct and develop strong, positive and respectful traits which men can aspire to obtain.

The "Marlboro Man" provided an icon in the 1950's and 1960's, symbolizing personality characteristics which men could attempt to incorporate into their own self identity. This icon provided a role model for men of the time providing emotional, behavior and moralistic standards by which men could compare themselves. However, authors such as Gary Brooks, who wrote "A New Psychotherapy for Traditional Men", reported that what is built into this persona of the traditional male "is a powerful aversion to anything that even remotely suggests failure or incompetence." Thus, it is easy to see how this need to solve one's problems without displaying vulnerability would lead to a feeling of disconnection and isolation.

This isolation, however, seems to contradict a man's internal need for affection and nurturance, especially within intimate relationships. This internal confusion between dependence, interdependence and autonomy, create conflict issues for the traditional male in his relationships with women. This concept was also identified in a book by Ronald Levant & William Pollack, entitled "New Psychotherapy for Men".

In today's current society, it seems as though the icons presented by the media emphasize physical presentation more than a man's personality or moralistic representation. If a man's personality is represented, it is embodied by one of the two characteristics presented earlier in this paper; either as an aggressive male or a passive one. In addition, these two character types are presented as complete personas that a man must take on, and not as separate or individual traits that a man may or may not choose to incorporate into their self-definition. For example, if a man chooses to assume the persona of a "player", in order to also be emotionally sensitive he would have to contradict the complete picture of the "player" persona.

It appears that the concepts both personas struggle to define, and which men today seem to be confused about, are the concepts of "strength" and "empowerment". The misconception is that if a man is "strong", he must force another into a "disempowered" position. The fallacy is that if one person is "strong" or "empowered", another must be the opposite, or "weak". This misconception is not surprising, considering that traits such as competition, winning, aggressiveness and success all contain elements of this dualistic polarity.

Page 1 of 2 :: First | Last :: Prev | 1 2 | Next