The Manliest Thing I Did Was To Leave The Man's Meeting

David.

This post made me profoundly sad.

I don't want to defend the use of 'I' statements and the value of speaking personally when it comes to these groups. There's a number of important reasons - the first of which is to help to keep people from 'fixing' each other. Healing is something that has to be done internally, though it helps to have another, or a group of others, to witness this process; it serves to make the transformation more real and solid. And the 'I' statements are meant to AVOID groupthink …  it prevents people from making general comments about “We believe … ” or “We should …”  It's all too easy one forceful member of the group to inadvertently include everyone with these generalizations, while those that disagree might be too anxious to speak up, or might feel it's not worth it to make waves.

But I digress.

I also don't want to get into the 'theory' about these sorts of groups. I could talk for a while from an intellectual point of view about why they're so effective: they allow those taking part to come to terms with those areas of themselves that they feel a great deal of shame about, so that they can stop being in denial about the past, can stop running from it or being afraid of others finding out, and to begin to accept those shadow sides. It's only when THIS happens that it's truly possible to move on. It's not (usually) a matter of being connected to those psychodramas; it's a matter of letting go of the story. And letting go of the story needs to be done at a deep and experiential level: merely “getting it” from an intellectual p-o-v isn't enough to create the limbic shift necessary to start changing one's deeper reactions.

I find it so fascinating, though, how you've been wanting to see more of this on Zaadz (you posted not long ago about wishing that people would share more of their “shit” instead of all this sweetness and light) but when it comes up in the men's group you called the stories “god-awful boring.”

One final thing, and then I'll stop. I wrote that this post made me sad. I couldn't help but feel for not just you, but for the group of men who trusted you and allowed you to hear their stories and who you so painfully rejected by leaving. How is hurting others manly? And why was it so difficult for YOU to remain in the Now and  in the present in that circle?

Keep writing, though! Your blog is one of my favorites. ;)

All I can say is….WOW. Thanks for sharing your perspective David Jon.

And yours, too, Siona.

Seconding Siona's last line: I love reading your blog, too. I felt like I am right there with you, in this, and others you've written.

With love, your friend,
d

[Comment revised to protect the innocent.]

I can't add anything to what Siona said (well said, too), but I can validate some of your perceptions.

I knew a guy who was in a men's group of the same philosophy. The group inspired him to come clean to his wife about his cheating. She struggled to forgive him, including individual and couples therapy. The thing is he was still cheating.

My sense is that the group simply allowed him to alleviate his guilt (if there was any), and that it simply re-enforced his ego structures, which were already too developed and too good at creating rationalizations and internal defenses against feeling the pain of others. He abdicated all responsibility for his actions.

I'd like to believe that these groups can help men get in touch with their feelings (a project I am totally down with), but even more important for some of them is learning how to empathize. Empathy is the missing component for some of these groups.

This is the fatal flaw I see in all but the Christian-based groups (and they have their own issues): there is little or no vertical orientation, no transcendence. The emphasis is on the horizontal, on translation. Without a balance of the two, there will be pathology of all sorts.

My 2 cents.

Peace,

Right on to the balance WH.  It's easy to take contextual situations. slice and dice, and categorize yourself into Ideological fixations of any stripe, relative or transcendent.

There's a fine line between respect and co-dependent complicity.  Right on for the fearlessness of what you did, from my p.o.v.  I tend along the same lines; I'm outspoken.  But I don't know how to be gentle enough, yet. 

Looking for that balance, fearlessness and gentleness.  Kind of easy to have one; tough to 'have' both.

Great Blog, and cool with the triplefaunic display!  Triplefawnia- coming soon to a secluded angst ridden forest near you!

T

T

Siona's post spoke well and heartfully to my own point of view. Unlike Siona, I am unfamiliar with your (David Jon's) writing/blogging though so it takes some effort not to judge your carelessness rather uncharitably. Frankly I greeted the post with mixed emotions, since I have been involved with MKP and a variety of different men's groups for several years and make the shadow work opportunities they provide a cornerstone of my practice. Mostly, I found it ignorant and annoyingly arrogant. But I also welcomed your willingness to spot some legitimate shortcomings and limitations of the groups. As you and WH observe, there are real limitations to mythopoetic and group shadow work: a tendency to reinforce egoic conflicts, oversensitivity, etc. It didn't take you long to spot the limitations of the group–how it might be imperfect or not well suited for you–and to bolt for the door.

But mostly I'm writing to correct a few misperceptions and inaccuracies, as best I can. First, The ManKind Project has no men's groups of the sort you describe; they sponsor initial I-Group trainings for eight or ten weeks only. Many men who have completed such groups want to continue on and they conduct their own men's groups which are independent from MKP. Some such groups have been in association for over a decade. This may seem like a technical point, but readers unfamiliar with MKP will be confused by your inaccuracies such as, “At Mankind Project too much psycho-drama,” when you have apparently never attended an official MKP function (only a gathering with men who have participated in MKP trainings).

Second, you err in grossly misrepresenting I statements. You say: “Because you are only allowed to speak about yourself. Check this… I was reprimanded because I didn't speak in exclusively 'I-terms.'” Using I-statements means, e.g., “I believe you're wrong” rather than “You're wrong.” It has nothing to do with “speak[ing] about yourself.” As you express yourself, I find myself wondering if you are speaking about “pre-I-language” or “post-I-language,” and about your willingness to simply go with the flow for a couple of hours and try something that challenges your comfort zones. There are differences between a man who goes to a men's group and says, “You're a dumbass” (pre-I-language) and one who says, “Compassion is the keen awareness of the interdependence of all things.” Both are non-I statements. Since you don't make a distinction, I wonder if you basically wanted to go to this group to start spouting your “you're a dumbass” statements or if your motives were different. Unfortunately, you didn't stick around your meeting long enough to form a better impression of how I-statements were used in that particular group. And perhaps if you had you would still have the same opinion. Or not. Here's where I'm going with this…

Not all men's groups use the same methodology; personalities and procedures differ; my experience in a group may be different than yours. You formed your judgments quickly and ran out the door. Sometimes a man knows a meeting isn't for him. Obviously you are quite opinionated and form judgments quickly. I tend to urge men to visit a few different men's groups in the area, if such groups are available, before making a decision. Some groups really don't have much to offer, frankly, and you don't want to judge prematurely.

As a side note, I don't see much point in arguing the point of any kind of psychotherapy or shadow healing with someone who firmly believes, “How can you heal your present self by healing your past self. You can't!!” If you are unwilling to look at the past, you are overlooking a huge part of the healing dynamics available to us all. It's not the be-all and end-all, of course, but I don't know a single soul who is so undamaged, unneurotic, that he or she couldn't benefit from at least a few years of shadow/therapy work. Perhaps you're that rare soul. Men's groups can reinforce woundology, as you suggest, just as any kind of therapy can be abused or stretched beyond the limits of its applicability. Any group is limited by its own methodology and the consciousness of its members. Surely because a group may not be suited to your own needs at the moment this is no reason to mock the many men who are getting something out of the groups that is profoundly healing and transformative? For every man that WH knows anecdotally who (if WH is correct, something I have no reason to believe or question) uses the groups to reinforce a positive self-image, many other men have found the groups' focus on the dark side, the shadow, to be a catalyst for profound self-questioning leading to positive life changes.

Amazing that you could figure out how bad men's groups are based on a few minutes in one meeting and therefore cast aspersions on all men's shadow work. I'll try to form judgments regarding your blogging less quickly and hope that it's less sloppy and arrogant than this post would suggest.

Without taking anything away from my judgments in the previous post, when I re-posted my comments on my own blog I wanted to give a gentler conclusion. That is, I wanted to emphasize that I'm sharing first impressions here of one particular post, and not judging the author's work overall, with which I am unfamiliar.

I said,  “Although I haven't yet explored much farther than this post, at first blush David Jon's blogs certainly look interesting and definitely worthy of further attention. Even as I reject much of this particular post, I look forward to getting better acquainted with this smart, provocative author.”