Shame and Anger

There has been some activity in the comments section of my blog regarding my latest blog on male anger. One thing I am gleaning from these comments is that, perhaps, there is a need for me to be more specific about the kind of males I am talking about.

In my experience, the men who seem to most struggle with this problem of no longer knowing how to show their anger (and their feelings) are middle-class white men. I include myself in this group. This group of men (who have often been labeled the most privileged group in our society), in my opinion, has also best "learned" and implemented the changes feminists have been pushing for in the last 35 years. We have become involved in our children's lives, we are used to (and eager to) doing household chores, from cooking to doing the dishes to cleaning windows. We have learned how to be sensitive to the needs of our female partners. We are generally willing to share power in every respect with them, and, for the most part, also with our male peers. Some of us are liberals some conservatives, but really we share this new self-understanding of being sensitive, reasonable and open to being equal partners with our wives, peers and even our children.

All of us men have been told that our anger is bad. That it is toxic, destructive and demeaning of others. We have been told to manage our anger which to many of us seems to have morphed into "not showing our anger." Perhaps this was the fundamental misunderstanding. Perhaps men's solution to the anger problem, i.e., stoicism, was never intended. (Actually, I am sure it was intended.) But that's where it went. Right to what men do best: swallow their anger, not show they're feeling anything, becoming resentful, developing ulcers and other somatic issues--which will, in the end, kill them.

The men I have in mind seem to share a somewhat patterned experience: they experience some kind of negative emotion; they hesitate to voice it; they voice it anyway but feel awkward doing it; they are criticized by their partners, if not attacked, for being unreasonable, selfish, mean or controlling. What is going on?

When our partners are sad, confused, angry, stressed we have certainly learned not to judge, not to attack. (Which doesn't always mean that we do it. But we are under a kind of cultural pressure, I believe, to adhere to these new norms of male behavior). We listen, we ask questions . . . we are sensitive. Of course, we're not always perfect at it and so we fail. Our own stuff gets in the way of doing these things. But, overall, it seems clear to me that this group of men knows the right thing to do.

So, I think there are two things going on in this:

a) There is an unconscious (perhaps even conscious) wish or assumption on the part of women that men should not be helpless, confused, panicked or freaked out about things.
b) Men actually share this unconscious wish and experience great amounts of shame when they deal with these kinds of feelings.

Some women who read this might think "oh no, believe me, my husband acts confused all the time, especially when I ask him to do something around the house." Or, "partner really panics all the time, especially when it comes to thinking about buying Christmas presents for the whole family."

So, I would say let's forget about cynicism and sarcasm about men. And let's instead go with a more benevolent interpretation. Helplessness, panic and being freaked out are traits I encounter in men quite often. These are true emotional states for men, they're not a show. What might be a show is the facade they adopt to hide these emotional states. The facade often is a mix of stoicism and anger. Off-putting to anyone who experiences it on the outside, sure. But from the inside the male perspective they're absolutely necessary as they protect the man from his greatest foe, shame.

b) This brings us to the second point. From inside the male brain, emotional states are identified as vulnerability (with the exception of anger). Bio-historically emotional states, i.e., vulnerability, are better avoided by men (whose responsibility of providing for and protecting their partners and off-spring forces them to circumvent vulnerability at all cost. Nature's fool-proof mechanism for such circumvention is shame. Shame, itself an emotional state, trumps all others and leads almost directly to anger (i.e., the male's path out of other emotional states). We conclude from this that men actually frequently experience two emotional states: anger and shame.

Now 50 years ago male anger was more or less considered a nuisance, but also a fact. That men would yell sometimes, that they might threaten and on occasion even raise their hand against their partners and children was minimized and not thought of as something that needed to change. Feminism as well as our increasing understanding of child development and child-rearing have changed this. This is a good development. I don't know many men who would like to turn the clock back and return to the 50s of the last century. But, as described above, our justified intolerance of male anger has not always led to enlightened males who now feel lighter and better about themselves. Rather it has led to enlightened males who act the part, but don't have a clue what to do with their emotional states and their anger. In fact, they're worse off now, because the cultural response (which is both outside of them and inside of them) to their anger is to frown on anger. And thus, the angry male experiences shame . . . which, in turn, leads to more anger . . . and more shame . . . and so on.

So, as far as knowing what a man might want is concerned, when he is confused, panicked or otherwise emotional, I would encourage you readers to either ask the men in your life about it or, if you're a man, I'd put it close to your heart to think about these matters and what you need when you're feeling vulnerable.

One more thing, never confront a man about his shame. Even if the confrontation is meant to be "gentle way of opening him up." He will deny it at best and get angry at worst. Experiencing shame is itself shameful.

So, if the man/men in your life is upset tell them you adore them and love them, hold them, if they're willing, leave them alone, if they need that (but let them know you're right around the corner), and if they have been angry at you, and you, rightfully, need to hold them accountable, don't forget to start by saying loud and clearly "I love you a lot, honey." And don't forget to mean it either. Then, but only then, can you go into what's bothering you. You might think that men are tough, that they can do without these statements of love and care. You might even think they will get arrogant and less inclined to listen to you, if they are treated in this gentle way. But, please, think twice: Have you tried this? Have you talked and listened to your men about what they need?