For Men, it's 1962
Men seem to be in the shape that women were--in 1962, and what is painfully clear is that most don't even know it or care. Every time I read about women's plight in the sixties and seventies, I realize that men are now being treated in much the same way. Yet, just like so many women then, they rarely acknowledge the extent of the discrimination that is taking place. One of the reasons is that society tells men, particularly white ones, that they hold special privilege in the United States. But as Scott Adams (from the hilarious Dilbert cartoons) says, "those are other men." The truth is, many average guys lead a life of quiet desperation or worse. At the extreme end of discrimination are men who cannot get help if they are battered. Here are quotes from men who have been verbally or emotionally abused--by women:
"Funny, at the time I told myself I deserved it."
"Here's the kicker. I am a mental health professional, social worker and marriage and family therapist. I had blinders on like most guys. I interpreted her behavior as emotional disturbance, and would often sit up all night trying to comfort her after one of these episodes."
"We've tried to find help for him but all of the shelters just answer in silence. It's a shame how he was treated by the police and that there are no shelters or groups to help men, they need it every bit as much as women."
These are the same lines that women had before they became aware that domestic violence was a crime. Yet, they are from men who have been battered and abused--by women. In an excerpt from a new book by prosecutor Jeanine Pirro, she describes domestic violence against women in New York in the 1970's. "..too many people, including those in law enforcement, didn't believe it was a serious matter. Worse still, they treated it like a joke. There was a saying at the time, `Every woman should be taken with a grain of assault.' How could such a sentiment produce laughs?" Well, apparently, those laughs are now reserved for battered men.
Just ask Jan Dimmitt, who is the Executive Director of an emergency support shelter in current times, who states, "Whenever I speak of male abuse, I am met by disbelief and, even worse, laughter. ... I notice in talking with other shelter staff throughout the state that this attitude prevails in the other shelters, too -- men are the perpetrators, women are the victims."
Well, obviously, the judicial system thinks women are victims and men are expendable, otherwise why would women spend so little time in prison for killing their husbands? The Bureau of Justice Statistics found that on average, convicted wives received prison sentences that were about 10 years shorter than what husbands received. Excluding life or death sentences, the average prison sentence for killing a spouse was 6 years for wives but 16.5 years for husbands.
I thought we were supposed to be beyond gender stereotypes, but I guess I was wrong. We've just traded in the old ones for new ones.
"Funny, at the time I told myself I deserved it."
"Here's the kicker. I am a mental health professional, social worker and marriage and family therapist. I had blinders on like most guys. I interpreted her behavior as emotional disturbance, and would often sit up all night trying to comfort her after one of these episodes."
"We've tried to find help for him but all of the shelters just answer in silence. It's a shame how he was treated by the police and that there are no shelters or groups to help men, they need it every bit as much as women."
These are the same lines that women had before they became aware that domestic violence was a crime. Yet, they are from men who have been battered and abused--by women. In an excerpt from a new book by prosecutor Jeanine Pirro, she describes domestic violence against women in New York in the 1970's. "..too many people, including those in law enforcement, didn't believe it was a serious matter. Worse still, they treated it like a joke. There was a saying at the time, `Every woman should be taken with a grain of assault.' How could such a sentiment produce laughs?" Well, apparently, those laughs are now reserved for battered men.
Just ask Jan Dimmitt, who is the Executive Director of an emergency support shelter in current times, who states, "Whenever I speak of male abuse, I am met by disbelief and, even worse, laughter. ... I notice in talking with other shelter staff throughout the state that this attitude prevails in the other shelters, too -- men are the perpetrators, women are the victims."
Well, obviously, the judicial system thinks women are victims and men are expendable, otherwise why would women spend so little time in prison for killing their husbands? The Bureau of Justice Statistics found that on average, convicted wives received prison sentences that were about 10 years shorter than what husbands received. Excluding life or death sentences, the average prison sentence for killing a spouse was 6 years for wives but 16.5 years for husbands.
I thought we were supposed to be beyond gender stereotypes, but I guess I was wrong. We've just traded in the old ones for new ones.
posted by Helen at 7:28 PM
61 Comments:
Actual men (as opposed to theoretical psychological male constructs) have so many actual problems they can and should solve that to worry about these statistical anomalies proves to be somewhat uncompelling.
Unlike women, when men are, as a group, 'under attack', they don't care much - we don't have the same socialization-instincts as women.
Now, if you attack a principal or an ideal, you've put yourself in for a fight, and a good man will go to his grave defending a great principal (freedom, say) just as quickly as if he were defending his family - because, ultimately, a good man realizes the two are the same.
In fact, it's only in the context of the assault on the idea of 'maleness' that I find enough impetus to even respond to your post.
Simply put, I am less disturbed at the idea that there are no "men's shelters" than that there may exist men who feel they need a shelter (whether, objectively, they do or not). If they feel they need one, something is terribly wrong in their psyche and self-evaluation: it implies that they aren't really men, and have been effeminized, which is vastly far more disturbing to me to contemplate.
Oh, certainly, there may be cases where some person stricken with a marginal IQ, or wheelchair-bound, or whatnot might need the protection of society, but I see what would be classified as people of 'normal' IQ and healthy body behaving like, pardon the crass, if apt, euphamism, wusses. And that should not be condoned or sanctioned.
Say what you want - but women need physical protection from an agressive male by other males (or the structures of society), perhaps disabled males need some level of protection, but otherwise uncompromised men do not and should not need such protection from an individual female - and to afford them that goes against everything that makes them 'male'.
This has less to do about physical size or capacity of a given men vs a given woman than about intellect and self-reliance: a man should happily go down fighting using his best efforts, instead of shying away from the fight in cowardice.
Dear annonymous:
There is a double standard for men--if they defend themselves (e.g. against a woman who comes after you with a knife, bat etc.) they can be called abusers and taken to jail and if they do not defend themselves you will call them a wuss or potentially they can be harmed. You underrate severely the part the justice system has in this interaction. You can sure as hell go down fighting but don't be surprised if you wake up in a jail cell for trying to defend yourself.
Let me cop to a gender stereotype: I think that a much higher percentage of the women who kill their husbands were victims of severe abuse by their spouses than the men who kill their wives.
Do I have any basis for this, or is it pure prejudice? I haven't done any of the empirical work, but the impression I've sort of picked up from the social ether is that women are abused by their husbands more frequently and more severely than men are by their wives. I would be surprised if that didn't play some role in explaining the disparity between jail sentences. Of course, another thing that would play a role is just as you say: abuse of a husband by a wife would not be taken seriously as a mitigating circumstance by a judge or jury.
I think one thing that gets less attention than it might is emotional/mental cruelty. I think that women are fully as brutal and perhaps more so on these grounds than men. (Another stereotype on my part? Well, this one is at least based on observation, unlike my beliefs about the prevalence of physical abuse.) Emotional and mental abuse, however, is not considered "real." I think that is strange, and it contributes to a picture of women as purely victims. It is rather closer to the truth in many cases that they are victims, but also perpetrators.
I'm sure that there are too many women perpetrators out there, and men who are victims. Maybe unstable women who tear apart the family are more common than women who physically threaten and abuse their husbands, but I see that they exist too. And for all I know the men aren't getting enough help.
But I still have trouble seeing myself as a victim. I think that the title, "For men, it's 1962" is rather an overgeneralization. Unlike most women in 1962, no one expected me to quit my job when my wife and I had children. We have two kids, but it didn't destroy my career. Unlike outright domestic violence, career vs family a nearly universal issue. In 1962 it was pretty one-sided. Life is fairer in 2005, although I'm skeptical that women have any real advantage as a class.
Besides, even though there are many powerless victims in the country, there is no shortage of men or women who think that they are victims. Thinking of yourself as a victim can be completely unconstructive. It's also a mode of thought that conservatives like to attribute to liberals in general. In fact, some of the world's worst bullies are absolutely convinced that they are the real victims.
So even though I do have my own share of complaints, I just don't feel like thinking of myself as a victim. In particular, none of my problems are as bad as ventricular fibrillation. There but for sheer chance go I.
Yes - some of the biggest bullies often think of themselves as victims, and often these bullies are women.
One kind of abuse that hasn't been mentioned is how some women abuse men through the system - making false allegations, false claims, fraud, etc. Bringing the weight of the government or society to bear on someone through lies, fraud, and deception is definitely a form of abuse, and a particularly cowardly one at that.
You don't have to be physically large to be a bully - you just have to be vicious and cowardly and morally bankrupt enough to lie. And many women have those attributes in abundance.
Why are approximately 70% of psychotherapy patients female? Why are an ever growing percentage of mental health professionals female, almost to the point where a young male therapist is a rarity? Somewhere in the great overlap between cultural influence and inate predisposition lies a male aversion to emotional exploration, flunecy, expressiveness, and mastery. This is a shame. We men consequently pay the price, suffering in silence.
In response to anonymoose...
I am a 6foot2 male. I am quite healthy and reasonably young. I was mentally and physically victimised by a 5foot2 female.
This woman was highly disturbed, and like many in codependent relationships I think I stayed as a "rescue fantasy".
Over the course of our 2 years together the violence escalated. It was easily 'justifiable' to me as it was usually in response to something I'd done 'wrong'. However I was never violent in return. The perception in society is that I was 'safe' because I am bigger.
Guns don't care how big you are.
This woman had some distant 'mafia' type connections (without being specific), as things progressed began to use these to threaten me and when violence occurred it escalated..slowly...one or two punches became a thrown vase...and so on.
I had little recourse. If I ever raised a hand in self defence, what court would believe me ? I eventually apporached the police, who were of no assistance.
I had to leave my house, suffer great financial loss and basically flee the situation with my own resources. I realise that men are the minority in this situation, but we still exist and are perhaps even more powerless than women.
To hnkn,
The Bureau of Justice found that women served 10 less years in prison for killing their husbands even if they were not provoked or abused. You can see the whole article at the Bureau of Justice link on my post.
To annoymous,
Yes, I agree that women can be bullies--they just use the government to get what they want and get away scot free because men like the first commenter (annonymoose) above don't give a damn.
Finally, to annonymous (the six foot two one),
Sorry about your situation--men are often taught to rescue others and look out for women. Psychologically, this means that they will keep trying in a relationship thinking that the woman will come around or stop her behavior. People do not understand that men have psychological difficulties in relationships. They are always portrayed as willing to walk away or not caring--but this is simply a stereotype.
I was in a situation similar to 6' 2" anonymous except it involved children and marriage. I'm taller than 6' 2" (about the size of the average NFL linebacker). My then wife's lesbian "friend" would come over and talk about target practice with her pistol. I sougth a shelter but there none in my state for men except for homeless missions. I would sleep in an unused bedroom with the door locked.
I eventually won out after long, expensive divorce and custody proceedngs. The longest in the history of the county according to my attorney. I guess anonymoose was correct on one account: as a man I was willing to fight to the end for what was best for my kids.
Unpublished Author's comment contains a planed axiom. The problem, as he sees it, is that most patients and therapists are female. This, he implies, should not be. It should be closer to equal.
Why?
That it should be closer to equal only applies if men and women have the same likelihood to suffer emotional difficulties.
Has this been shown?
Perhaps the answer to the conundrum is that men are less likely to suffer emotional difficulties.
Now what?
Consciousness-raising?
For most of our span on this earth, homo sap and his predecessors have been hunters. Hunters can't afford--and it's selected against--to be distracted by internal issues.
If you blow a stalk on a large herbivore, you not only don't get to eat, somebody might get killed. And if the error was a matter of somebody having a terrible time internally about something or other...you still don't eat and somebody is still dead.
It is obviously a matter of conditioning, and, IMO, evolution that men are evolved toward a lower propensity for emotional difficulties, since some of what might otherwise cause them has been stomped flat by Pleistocene would-be prey.
The gathering role is far less selective for such things.
If you're pulling out the tall-guy sob stories, I (6'5") myself was in a relationship with a women who would be diagnosed with (inter alia, one suspects) BPD. She screamed, she threw things (kitchenware, plates, occasionally at my head, usually not), hit rarely but she certainly looked like she was going to claw my eyes out or full-out deck me at several points. Cycles and patterns of behavior that really were somewhat disconnected from reality, like self-aggrandizing lying over trivial things, bizarre assertions of power and control - all reactions to whatever was going on inside her poor, occasionally unhinged mind and reflecting her self-image of the moment.
Of course, being male, I did exactly the wrong thing - I remained calm and collected as she stormed about (in retrospect, it probably made it worse, not 'sharing' her feelings). I had to physically restrain her once or twice until the storms passed, lest she hurt herself. I remember standing up and challenging her to actually hit me once, partly to see what would happen - of course she didn't. Interestingly, things got a little better after that incident - but that was temporary. Sometimes, I was able to get her to laugh at it all, again after the storm had passed. But that was also temporary.
This was a deal, but not the biggest deal. I was quite aware she was the sort who might slip her gears ('she was such a nice and quiet person', I could hear her co-workers say) and kill me in my sleep - but I slept anyway.
I finally left when it became clear to me I couldn't help (yes, certainly I was in the 'rescue fantasy' another commentor mentioned), might have been making it worse, and she wouldn't get treatment, after she gave me her assurance she would. It was the breach of agreement, ultimately, that proved to be the straw on the camel's back.
I consider it, in retrospect, my only 'stormy' relationship - certainly, my parents were never that way, and I wouldn't want such a thing to become a pattern, but it itself wasn't a showstopper, since I presumed with treatment the worst problems would have been alleviated, and, of course, she was a babe. Perhaps these days I would handle it differently, but it was my first experience of it.
But to actually fear her or feel like I needed to run away? Never. I even rejected the inclination that some report to 'walk on eggshells', out of principal.
So, I'm not disagreeing that some women are poisonous or objectively dangerous - I am disagreeing that a man should feel the need to sleep with the doors locked or be intimidated by a veiled (or unveiled) threat, or letting what the police would or would not do hinder you from doing what is right: all that strikes me as just candy-assed. Sorry to invalidate my fellow commentors, but that's what I'm saying: men need to man up in their situations, regardless of the other questions.
Ultimately, it's more important to be a good man and know in yourself that you did the best you could - that you were just and tolerant and implacable and reasonable and embodied all the other male virtues, than it is to avoid penalty, or suffering, or the disappointment of peers, or the resentment of society - or even the concerns of a psychologist who looks hot in a tee-shirt - on account of your actions. That is what makes a man a man.
To Richard Aubrey,
It actually depends which mental disorders one wants to look at in males or females. Women tend to be diagnosed with more depression and anxiety and men have much higher incidences of Autism and ADHD. The sexes are roughly equal in bipolar illness and schizophrenia--although the symptoms of schizophrenia occur earlier in men.
Stereotyping is the key, again. Some men are jerks and some women are jerks. I have never understood the business that "women don't fight for control; the strive toward consensus by nature." Boy, they never knew my Ph.D. advisor!
We all have kinks in psychological garden hoses, and just have to muddle through. I dated a woman long ago who was interesting and a lot of fun. But, as a small woman, she needed to dominate the relationship.
I did what most guys do---I wanted her to be with me, so I did what she wanted, even when I didn't want to do so. As EVERYONE knows, this didn't make her happier with me. She disrespected me for not establishing my own parameters and my own "stamp" on the relationship. It was no longer about compromise, but about whatever she wanted.
I think that this is where abusive relationships, regardless of gender, originate.
Funny part about the story above? When I started sticking up for myself, not giving in on things I felt strongly about---being my own person---she started to find me very attractive again.
But who wants a relationship where you need to have force fields up all of the time? At the same time, I learned to "be myself" in relationships, and things went much more smoothly in other relationships.
I wished I had known that kind of thing in my teens. It would have saved me a lot of grief!
Yes, women can be bullies, and (lest people forget) so can men. But the discussion is going to be stuck in the school playground unless people can get past calculating who is a bully and who is a victim.
I have to applaud "anonymoose" for pulling some common sense into the discussion, although there were some silly comments there too. (For one, I don't think of it as "being a man", more like just being a mature adult.) Obviously, if you are over 6 feet tall and you can bench press 250 pounds, you have a lot of options in most domestic confrontations with most women, options that stop well short of "fighting back". Of course you should stay calm, but that is not the same thing as just taking it on the chin. The common sense approach is to stay calm but hold your ground, both verbally and physically.
Unless, of course, guns or knives are involved. Then all bets are off. Defusing domestic confrontations is completely incompatible with potentially lethal "self-defense". The first step is to keep weapons mentally and physically out of the confrontation. They can be in the house, maybe, but they should be in a different room or locked up. Typically both the perpetrator and the victim think of themselves as victims who need "self-defense".
If you ever actually need a gun to defend yourself against your own spouse, or if your spouse ever thinks so, then you should pack your bags the same day; the relationship is over.
Dr. Helen.
As a rank amateur, let me say that the incidences of emotional difficulties are not ADHD or autism. They are organic.
Unpublished author was referring to folks who show up for therapy, which does not serve the organic problems.
Similarly, I was referring to anxiety and depression as being incompatible with working in the hunting band. Those would be selected out.
The autism and ADHD are organic and may not have a genetic component, although the number of autistic kids in Silicon Valley raises questions. But, in my model, being accidents in development (I sit for a kid with Charge Syndrome whose affliction may have been the result of pre-natal damage by medication), they are not selected out of the gene pool, and continue to happen.
It is the emotionally pained who show up for so much therapy and those are the cases you show as more likely female.
Part of the reason is, as I suggest, evolutionary differentiation by role and another part is guys are more likely to be told to suck it up and drive on. Since they can, they do.
Also, it's men who look strangely at people who tell them to get in touch with their feelings. Those who spend overmuch time touching their feelings may decide to have others do it, too. That would be the therapist.
Full disclosure: I studied psychology in the early Sixties when the field was barely recognizing--and in some cases denying--the organic component of some afflictions.
When a full-fledged shrink finds his role absorbed by the pharmacist, things have to change, and the emphasis on the worried well is one result.
And lots of men wouldn't admit it if they even knew they were "worried". Part of being a male is soldiering on and not bothering other people with your stuff.
Richard,
I understand the organic component of ADHD and autism--but these kids frequently show up at therapists offices for treatment--meaning many boys need treatment--the original point (I think) of yours being that women consume more psychological services due their tendency to have more emotional problems,therefore it is fine to have female therapists. I think that many of these kids could also benefit from male therapists but frequently, the gender makes less difference than the treatment provided.
Just for the record, I do not and rarely have worked with the worried well. Most of my clients over my career have been male. I have specialized in youth and adults with problems of violence or anger and do evaluations (for competency to stand trial, mental status at the time of a crime etc.) rather than therapy. I do not typically advocate pondering on about feelings--I think that using problem solving skills and critical thinking skills are useful. Some of the men I have dealt with have severe problems with anger--they could keep to themselves and "deal with it" as many of the commenters suggest until at which time, they may do something very destructive or they can learn to keep themselves more level headed. I do not see the men I have seen as weak and asking for help. I see them as adding to their strength by learning better ways of coping with their lives. It may not be for everyone but I think for some men, and women--treatment can change a destructive pattern.
Dr. Helen.
I agree with your last, but the "destructive" needs defining.
If by "destructive" we mean simply that a guy isn't very happy when by most standards he ought to be, he might profit by therapy, but chances are he just thinks the world is the way it is and he needs to get on with business.
In other words, men are less likely to think their feelings are important, to themselves or others.
In addition, I don't know for sure, but I got the impression that unpublished author was talking about the entire universe of therapists, which includes counselors of various backgrounds.
They are not qualified to handle the cases you do.
Anger mismanagement could be a valid psychological diagnosis and basis for treatment. But then, if the guy can't manage his anger, then it's unlikely that he's the big victim and the woman is the big bully.
My wife and I went to counseling a while back where the therapist would spend the every session pointing out what I was doing wrong in the relationship and what I had to do differently for my wife. I know I have my share issues, but my wife has PMDD, which for the uninitiated is basically PMS on steroids – so there were more than enough issues for her to address as well, but they were never given serious consideration. It was always about what I was doing. This went on for several weeks until I came to the practical conclusion that our therapist – a woman – was a misandrist. I was never going to get a fair shake in her office, and her bias was nearly the undoing of my marriage.
When my wife goes through the worst part of her cycle, which can be anywhere from ten days to two weeks, her moods rise and drop in an instant, with no predictability. Hitting? I wish she was hitting me. Instead she becomes emotionally abusive, telling me all of the ways she feels I’ve failed our marriage. She becomes an absolute horror.
Perhaps you’ll be surprised when I say my problem isn’t with my wife. No, we’ll be okay, but this therapist is dangerously incompetent. We went to counseling to smooth out the rough edges of our marriage, but ended up arguing all of the time about what was done in therapy. Here’s a hint if our therapist happens to be reading this: It’s impossible for a man to be solely responsible for difficulties in a marriage where the wife has PMDD. I think my story is indicative of just how deeply rooted the bias against men is in some circles, when a major factor like PMDD is swept under the therapeutic carpet to justify a position of gender bias.
Thanks Dr. Helen, for being a victim’s advocate.
To Richard and Greg,
Without talking too much about what I do, let me just say that destructive in the manner you described is quite an understatement--my clients are capable of some very severe violence. Many of them are not bullies, but have held themselves in check--in the face of very bad situations. Their anger at the inability to fight back--at a school, a person or the spouse who took their marriage, their kids and their paycheck has left them with some feelings of rage that is difficult to control. Many of these men hold their feelings in until they explode.
Males are human, too. They sometimes choose to express themselves differently--anger to them is what depression is to women. For a women--it's ok to feel bad, for a man, it's better to feel mad. That madness can overtake some vulnerable people at times--it is what you see on the evening news when a mass murderer shoots up a McDonalds or a post office. Don't you think it is better for these men to acknowlege that they need help?
To Jeff,
PMDD is a very serious disorder. It usually requires medication and treatment. What I have found is that many women who have it do not want to acknowlege the problem or believe they do not have a problem. If you feel there are issues with the therapist, I would bring them up to her directly and see if she can address them.
Dr. Helen.
What I think some people should do about their problems doesn't matter.
I am making the point that this is the way men are.
In addition, I am making the point that where some see a lack of energy in one area of feelings as repression, I see the possibility of a normal LACK of feelings.
Not only are men, IMO, evolved and conditioned to ignore internal issues, IMO they are evolved to have fewer of them.
"Get in touch with what?"
As I said, it's perfectly valid to identify and treat, or at least somehow manage, men who are suppressing rage. But that's very different from the title of this blog entry, "For men, it's 1962". I just don't think that this title is true, even though many of the details below the title are true.
For example you raised the specter of men going postal. I completely agree that the Patrick Sherrills of the world need help. But Patrick Sherrill's problems had nothing to do with women. He went on a rampage because he was disciplined at work, in all likelihood for understandable reasons.
Hi Richard,
I have to disagree with you--I think many men have feelings--you imply that men as a group have evolved into having no feelings--I would say that the wars throughout the years that men have fought in involve an intensity of feeling--of hatred--of anger etc. Are there some men who have no feelings at all? I suppose so, they are usually called robots.
Thank you Greg for making many valid points. I'm not sure I agree with the 1962 reference either.
I think better social conditions for women results in better conditions for everyone, including men. I don't think there needs to be a 'contest' as to who has it worse or who had it worse.
Many men can now be stay at home dads and not be ostricized. Could that have happened in 1962?
To the guy talking about "manning up" to the situation: That's open to a lot of interpretation. Not tolerating serious crimes and torts and pursuing them until justice is collected (legally) could be one person's.
To the therapist speculating about autism: I don't have any experience with autism. (although some would probably like to claim I have) But really take a look at the information linking autism to mercury preservatives in vaccines. Those theories have been suppressed and branded as "kooky" by many but there's a reason why a provision to remove any liability for the pharmaceutical companies was slipped into recent legislation - one of the Partiot Acts I believe. There was also an eye toward liability removal with regard to vaccines in a lot of the Bird Flu stuff as well.
Re: Anger management. I think as therapists you are well-served by keeping an open mind. Especially with new phenomena like cyberstalking, electronic harassment, and group stalking and old phenomena of ritualized harassment like mob/KKK harassment and the masonic "white glove treatment". Or even good old-fashioned attempts by a company to smear someone that may have a serious case against them. These things do exist and someone being subjected to them can sound and look very distressed. Since the goals of such efforts are often to intimidate, smear, discredit, and drive "crazy" the targeted person you may unwittingly doing the bidding of some very bad criminal actors.
The masonic harassment is particularly ritualized and sinister - it involves provoking and harassing someone continually until they become exasperated and respond in some manner. Then this response is recorded and documented as an indication of how "unstable", "crazy", "dangerous", etc. the person is. In effect playing games with cause and effect. The harassers as a group may have broken dozens of laws and committed dozens of torts in an effort to provoke someone into responding in some "unstable" manner that they can "document" and use as "evidence", often with the help of unwitting bystanders.
A good overview of this technique is provided in Chapter 16 of a book called "The Brotherhood" by Stephen Knight. There's a copy of the chapter on-line somewhere. If you're a therapist you would be doing your clients and future clients a favor by reading it. I don't think you want to unwittingly be involved in such vicious and cowardly criminal behavior.
And no - I'm not wearing a tin-foil hat. It's at the cleaners.
Dr. Helen.
I didn't say men have evolved to have no feelings.
I said men have evolved to have fewer internal difficulties because they are less likely to be upset by things which upset women.
This could be considered to have fewer feelings, or some less intense, than women's feelings.
Or less interest in an internal difficulty at a certain level of intensity than women would have.
I majored in psychology because I needed a degree for OCS and I figured I may as well enjoy the process. I used to be a grunt, too, and I've notified next of kin.... and stuff.
Don't be putting words in my mouth.
I never said men have no feelings.
You may have noticed frequent references in pop culture and in the professionals that men are less likely to get in touch with their feelings.
I submit that the generally accepted model for proper feeling intouchwithing is female. Not gender neutral.
It would be odd if men's feeling intouchwithing were identical to women's, yet we find people lamenting a result in such a fashion as to indicate they think ours should be.
My point is to speculate about why that may be, if we don't accept, which I don't, that the proper model for feeling intouchwithing is the female model.
In other words, men are not doing something nasty and repressive to feelings which, were they liberated, would be identical to women's feelings.
I just want to say thank you to greg kuperberg, whoever you are, for bringing some much needed honesty, reasonableness and perspective around here.
I could, I suppose, identify myself as an abused man. I think if I were self-pitying enough to really feel that way, I'd just call myself an abused person. It's not that I was the victim of a termagant with an irrational hatred of men, just a woman with her own mental problems whose extreme anxiety, mood swings, and paranoia were equally successful in driving off family members and friends.
I don't take Helen's stance to be one in which men necessarily are expected to adopt more feminine modes of coping with emotions. Just a recognition that men are also abused in relationships, and the ways our society deals with abusive relationships should be able to accomodate them. Alcoholics Anonymous is not just successful because guys sit around and spill their feelings, it's successful because it creates a brotherhood (or, in more recent terms, a fellowship).
Boots-on-the-ground, your average man doesn't have it so bad. But I'd probably say the same thing of a 1962 woman, who I consider to have enjoyed enormous social privilege, even if she was also forced to bear other social obligations willing or not. The trouble comes in courts and classrooms.
Courts with double standards, and double standards in law itself, need to be addressed. And despite braggadocio about men not needing academia, academia needs men, and it impoverishes itself with consistent hostile attitudes towards them. A poverty of ideas and a poverty of men themselves is not a healthy situation for academia.
To annonymous,
I do not expect men to adopt "feminine modes" of coping with emotions, whatever that means. I believe that men have emotions and that they can be equally as strong as women's at times. In my research dealing with boys who are angry, one variable that comes up in differing from women is that they do not express their anger to others--they externalize it and sometimes end up hurting someone or themselves. No, I do not have these boys come to the office to cry and express their feelings--unless they want to. We work on real ways to solve their problems--by reframing a situation (maybe that school principal is not out to get you etc.) and thinking prior to acting. If you believe this is a feminine way of handling problems, than please enlighten me on the proper way to talk with men--or do you believe that men should be seen and not heard?
Dr. Helen.
I seem to have struck a chord of aminosity.
You've put words in my mouth twice.
To start [over]. What I think men should do is irrelevant. I was talking about what they do do and speculating about why they do it.
The female model of intouchwithness is exemplified in unpublished author's post where he tells us of the difference in the patients and therapists by gender. More women. 70-30, I believe.
This is considered to be a problem with men.
It could, logically, be a problem with women who are too prone to get sloppy and go off and spend time getting touched up.
The point is that the expectation is that the relative absence of men from this enterprise is evidence of a problem with THEM. It's supposed to be even. But we don't think of getting women out of the process to get the numbers right. We wonder why more men aren't in it.
That is, the propoer response to emotional difficulties is supposed to be the female model. Men, get your patient numbers up or there's something wrong WITH YOU.
That there is a difference is considered to be evidence of a problem with men.
I submit two points:
How does anybody know what the "right" figure is for men?
When talking about getting in touch with feelings, why is it men are supposed to do more and not women less?
It's because the female model has been designated as the norm. It is so accepted that nobody even thinks twice about it.
I ask why that is.
To Richard,
I do not mean to put words in your mouth--I am trying to get the gist of your argument which appears to be a fair analysis. If men are not consumers of therapy as much as women--that is ok-I agree. I have seen many men who are reluctant to come to treatment because they are afraid they will be treated with a feminine approach--or just the act of coming is feminine and they want nothing to do with it. I respect that but there are times in their lives where men do need to seek treatment--high rates of suicide in men tell us that they do suffer from depression--perhaps you would say the manly thing to do is kill yourself? Again, I am just asking, not trying to put words in your mouth. I would not want those men to avoid treatment because they are men. And I agree, sometimes women should do less--less emoting, less analyzing of feelings--it is not always helpful and can make a situation worse at times.
Dr. Helen.
Perhaps I would say "the manly thing to do is commit suicide".
This is not putting words in my mouth?
I am making a single case here.
Men consume less therapy than women. My point is that we do not know if that's because men feel, for some reason, that it's not a good idea, or because men are built differently and don't need it as much as women.
My secondary point is that we take as a given, unexamined, that any differentiation from how women approach this issue is evidence of shortcoming in men. In other words, without any notice, the way women deal with this is presumed, or designated, to be the norm.
I ask how this is supported.
You will note that the only thing I have even vaguely suggested "should" be done is to look at whether the presumption that men should do as women do in this area is supported by facts.
I wonder if men and women don't expect something fundamentally different from therapy. Women may be helped by having a sympathetic other to talk to, while men want somebody who will help them solve a problem.
In "You Just Don't Understand", Deborah Tannen quoted a teen-age girl who said that she preferred the company of boys. When she had a problem, the boys would talk it over until somebody came up with a solution (or a good reason why there was no solution) then moved on to another topic. Girls, on the other hand, talked a problem to death, apparently as a bonding exercise, without actually solving it.
(To borrow an example from another thread, what is the solution for a boy who absolutely hates school but is forced to go?)
The point is: isn't most "talk therapy" based on the female model of interacting?
Bobh.
You may be on to something.
My point was the assumption that, if men differ from women in this area--frequency of use, etc--then the men are deficient in some way, or the system is wrong has been assumed but not examined for empirical validity.
I also speculated on why, and I should have thought of what you bring up.
Men in small groups bond naturally--some think because it was selected for by tens of millenia working in the hunting band. See military units or high school teams for current examples.
They don't have to work at it.
It's presumed.
Some men have said, since 9-11, that when boarding a plane, they look another man in the eye, nod slightly and take it for granted they have a comrade in the fight if something goes wrong. They're more than likely right, and that's all it takes.
Talking is irrelevant. In the hunting band, it's counterproductive.
But my idea of the origin of the difference is not the real point here.
Richard - good call: in retrospect, I've done exactly that, the eye-nod thing, in that situation - I find it cool that someone else would think to mention it. I bet it's comforting at some level and I probably end up doing it at other times: something like 'is there another alpha - yeah, got him - good, everything is okay'. There's probably some feedback by facial cue to that.
I also concur about 'intouchwithing'. I'll see if I can elaborate for Dr. Helen -
I certainly recognize I experience feelings - but a key difference it seems to me between men and women is that, for me, they pass and don't leave much lasting impact. It wouldn't occur to me to talk about how I was feeling today, tomorrow. Or how I felt at a funeral, or a party, or whatnot. It certainly wouldn't occur to me to ask about some other male's. When I remember at all, I remember how I felt as a fact, I guess, instead of as an experience being relived. The same does not seem to be as true of women. In fact, one wonders if there is a gender incidence difference between "How have you been?" and "How's it going?"
Also, heaven forbid, a man answers the question truthfully. "What are you thinking?" "I was thinking about (anything other than the answer 'you')" "Oh. Hrmph." "What?" "Nothing.".
Another thought: one wonders if men go to therapy looking for 'solutions' - something, I think, therapists have been conditioned to avoid asserting they have. One wonders if things like 'try thinking about it this way', or 'when this happens, do this instead of that' might do better for men. Communication with an end goal of obtaining new rulesets, new ideas.
anonymoose,
Yes, I do think many men come to therapy looking for solutions or skills--it does seem to work better for men and therapists should be trained at the graduate level in these differences.
As an aside, as a woman, I have often gotten on planes or been in places where I have looked around and tried to size people up to see if they would act (with me) in an emergency--is this something that only men typically do--I thought everyone did it?
I like where this discussion is headed. In my post above I mentioned that I didn't think Helen thought men should necessarily adopt "feminine modes" of coping with emotions (a generalization, I know, but we need to be able to talk about these things).
Like Richard Aubrey, Bobh, Anonymoose, in my opinion there needs to be a partial attempt to modify the form of psychological help such that men would not feel unusual in seeking it out. I used AA as an example of the sort of group that I think might point towards a more male-friendly approach.
More along that vein, I think if we look at men who go to church regularly and the services a pastor or priest provides, we can see a model of a sort of psychological help which, to me, seems more like to be utilized by men (though how to go about doing this is a question mark in my mind as well).
Another example, drawn from my personal experience, is how many men use weightlifting or other forms of strenuous exercise to handle stress. Incorporating psychological help in the form of a personal trainer has no doubt already been done, but it's an approach I think has great merit.
Dr. Helen.
The behavior I referred to upon getting on a plane is a two-person behavior. One man catches another man's eye. They each nod slightly.
They are now next to blood brothers until the flight is over.
Goes with the testosterone.
It's different from looking at others and sizing them up, which is unilateral.
Regarding weight training. Until recently, most men had substantial amounts of large-muscle, brute labor to get through the day. That may help relieve stress and nobody ever figured that was part of the process.
I recall an anthropological piece on Eskimos and how peaceful they are. One speculation was that they have to do a lot of killing to get along, and that displaces aggression. Or they have this "joking cousin" thing where everybody is a practical joker and a victim of another practical joker and can't, by social agreement, get mad.
Or, in line with the Bushmen, those pushed to the margins of survival probably aren't that aggressive to begin with.
Place your bets.
Dr. Helen, very good update! I'm also very glad I found your blog in the first place! Keep it up!
I used to live in a tough Irish neighborhood in Philadelphia which held firmly to, let's say, traditional gender relations. Anyway, the guy who delivered our pizza came in one night with a black eye, a fat lip, and a bruised, swollen cheek. We asked him what the hell happened?
He had gotten into a fight with his girlfriend. The gist of it is that he was at a neighborhood bar with some friends to watch a Tyson fight when his girlfriend came in and started hitting him in the face and head for some reason or other. In full view of the bar and his friends she knocked one of his teeth out.
Being a good Irish catholic he didn't hit her back, only raising his arms to ward off her blows, eventually pushing her away from him. She called the police (from the bar) and claimed he was beating her. The police came and took him into custody for assault and battery, I believe. They were neighborhood cops and shared the same values. When they had handcuffed him and put him in the cruiser, they "accidentally" hit his head on the roof going into the car.
I don't know how the case turned out but I do know that his troubles with his girlfriend weren't over- they had a three year-old boy together at that time.
Gibbie the labrat said... >>> "I don't know anyone's situation, but if someone was trying to kill me, I'd try to kill them right back. Yet the justice system is solidly against us, but I'd rather sit in jail for a crime I didn't do than lose my life. Just my $.02." <<<
Sit in jail? No disrespect but if you think time in prison is like the little jailhouse in Mayberry, then wait until your first lesson in sodomy comes from your 'Uncle Brutus'. Wait until your cell buddies you hit a woman (whether you're innocent or not, they won't that it nor will they care).
You think serving time is going to be sitting all peaceful and quiet? Be prepared to suffer the consequences for your bold convictions of manhood.
Just coming in on this thread, and I'd like to add my two cents worth on the subject of gender differences in counseling.
First, I do often approach counseling as an opportunity to talk through a problem and to get some feedback. Sometimes, I'm pretty sure I know what is needed, but I want to run that past a person who is competent in the field; he or she might have a different perspective that could alter my own thinking. When I am looking for a solution, I try to prepare myself ahead of time to be clear as to what it is that I'm asking.
I have heard many people, trained in interpersonal communication, in marriage and family counseling and related fields, say that, in general, women need to talk, while men go straight to solutions. This, of course, sets the stage for many miscommunications between men and women, as a woman may be simply venting about a situation that has come up, when the man jumps in to tell her what she needs to do. She may already know what she (a) needs to do, and/or (b) is or is not willing to do. She just wanted a sympathetic ear, thank you very much.
Separate subject: I find the comments about the eye-nod behavior fascinating. I've never been aware of that, although I can think of some instances in which eye contact has given me a sense that a connection had been made. That's all. I'll be flying next week; I'll try to be observant.
Thanks for letting me vent!
Vicki. Presuming your name reflects your gender, you won't be a participant, so you'll have to look sharp.
I've never been aware of this "eye-nod" behavior either. I hope that no one on the plane has me in mind when they do it. When I'm on a plane, I just want to get from A to B. I have no desire to join someone else's sky militia.
I'll lend a helping hand if there is some kind of crisis on the plane, but I didn't think that I had to lock eyes and nod to do that.
Greg. There's enough sky militia, and other kinds anyway.
I've thought a lot about how blacks seem to be disappointed that when they got legal protection of their rights, things didn't change as much as they expected.
Everybody suffers from discrimination everyday. Only some of us have anything we can do about it legally. Most types of discrimination, on looks, on family, on social class are just the way it is. They are as irrational as discrimination based on race, sex or age, but that's tough.
There are a lot more types of discrimination based on more or less rational reasons, such as giving people with bubbly, happy personalities an advantage, or people with certain skills, and discriminating against those with disabilities, unsightly injuries, etc.
This is why I think revere discrimination is so wrong. What we have to understand in this society is that being give legal protection only entitle you to the same chance that the majority has always had. From there on, you can't blame it on race, age, sex, etc.
Hi,
first time I've come across this site, and I have to thank you for writing this - I fully agree.
I've been watching the way things have been moving for several years, both in the UK and Australia. I have two sons and a daughter, and I'd like to think that none of them would be discriminated against or victimized - just as I'd like to believe that they would all receive all the help and support they'd need, should such victimisation ever occur.
But I don't believe that's the case, for many of the reasons other writers have listed below and you have so eloquently outlined in your article.
However I'd like to broaden this discussion far beyond abuse, and into many other areas, areas where 1962 is dawning anew for many of us and for the future generations of boys.
Take for example education. I've seen male teachers leave the teaching profession in droves, often because of their treatment by their female colleagues as - in their words - "potential perverts". Boys are failing in education in ever increasing numbers, yet programs for girls increase every day. Men who rape are (rightly) treated harshly by the couts and by society, women who deliberately falsly accuse of rape, destroying the lives of the men they falsely accuse, are almost always let off the hook. Men who have sex with under-aged girls are (rightly) sent to jail for statutory rape. Women who have sex with under-age boys are slapped over the wrists and usually just lose their jobs.
There are very few areas where I don't see the shadow of 1962. I have a friend who was a male Kissogram - he gave it up because the women were so voilent he ended up bruised and battered most weekends. I've seen a fair few strippograms in my time, but never seen guys lay a hand on a female strippogram. Visit bars and clubs and you generally see women being more sexcually aggressive than the men, nowadays - and the media promotes that. The media shows women they can be everything, anything they want, they can have it all - use and abuse men, kick them when they're down, take the job. Fine, except the reverse could never be seen. I've lost count of the number of ads I've seen where the dumb, stupid one is the male, the female 'saves the day' with a role of the eyes at her clumsy husband, inept husband. How many movies show sexual female-on-male violence - a kick in the groin, say - and show it as a positive, funny, empowering thing? Now how many show the reverse in the same light?
And then you have the divorce situation. My own isn't new or strange, in fact it's repeated so often with guys I talk to I'm thinking of starting a club. Alcoholic, drug-taking, abusive wife who's refused help and staggered her way through years of marriage leaving a trail of destruction and three unhappy kids. And yet, my solicitor says she's STILL almost guarantee'd to get the house and the kids and enough money to support them, even though she'll continue to drive them round the neibhbourhood plastered senseless.
1962, here we men come...
I am a highly qualified professional. I was abused by my wife for years. Like many I couldn't recognize what was happening. I sought help for the knock-on effects but what help I could find was as blind as I was to what I was really going through. Despite all this, I was successful in my career, and at the peak of my skills. Then, after one particularly vicious attack (she nearly tore my scalp off), my wife went to the police and claimed that I attacked her. She has traded physical abuse for much more effective and destructive legal and societal abuse. Now, I have no contact with my child, I am subject to ridiculous levels of mother support (let's not kid ourselves, it's not child support), and I am nearly broke. I have, effectively, been raped by "the system". Pretty soon I may need to seek out a shelter simply for somewhere to live.
We are not like women in the 60's, we are worse off than Victorian women. Victorian husbands could leave their wives and take the kids, but they couldn't then systematically force them to pay or have them sent to jail.
I can tell you from first hand experience what the truth is about domestic violence and the law.
I am a man and my ex attacked me during an argument. She kicked, threw things, scratched me and broke many of my valuable belonings. In defending myself I threw her away from me and left the house. The next day the police arrived at my WORK and arrested me for domestic assault.
The court does not care to hear anything from the man. In fact, by defending myself and by trying to tell the truth of what happened only made it appear that I was a batterer. I was told to shut up and let the "system" process my case. The court was swarming with dv advocates who saw all dv matters as a one sided story of abuse, man - abuser, female - victim who deserves extra rights, despite all the evidence to the contrary - I was the one with bruises and scratches on my body.
In short, I waited a weekend in jail as they do not release people on bail until a judge hears the case, I had to attend a batterers program to avoid jailtime. Had my name in the local police log, and my ex got to denigrate me to our peer group when she was the one who had issues.
The DV system was designed as a shield to protect women from abusive men. It is well known in the courts now that the same laws are being used as swords by women who intend to use a biased legal system to easily remove men from their lives (and family) and to gain an advantage on custodial and property matters.
I would say that men are not living in 1962, we now live in a world that resembles the fascist 40's.
I made a mistake in who I chose for a companion. It is unfair that I was the one who was forced to suffer for this bad choice because of my gender. Something has to change.
Regards.
You are quite right about it being "like 1962" for men in this country.
After a long custody battle where I remained silent about being abused by my ex, we are finally co-parenting our two children quite well, but, I have to say, I have no interest at all in sharing a home with a woman, given the de facto presumption of innocence all women seem to enjoy in Family Court.
I think I am not alone in this regard. I see a lot of women in my age range (35-45) desperate for companionship and completely dismissive of men's fears at the same time.
To them I say, "Enjoy your independence".
Men's problems in today's society stem from the fact that they have to display emotions to situations that society has deemed are "manly" and acceptable or they will suffer social condemnation for not being "manly" and as we all know such a label in our culture could not be more indelible.
The socialization of these manly virtues and emotions into young males starts early in childhood. And let us be honest about it, male children are raised to act differently in adulthood than female children.
The way and reason young male children's emotions are molded in this culture to meet this "male only" standard is unfortunately analogous to the way and reason some oriental cultures bound young female's feet so as to make them grow misshapen and deformed. This was done so the female would actually have an advantage later on in life in the type of society that existed at the time. It wasn't done to be cruel. Today our male children are having their emotions bound and distorted for the similar motivations these oriental cultures once bound the feet of their female children. Western cultures need men that are disposable and non-complaining. We just cannot stand complaining whiny men! So we socialize them early on to view themselves as heroically disposable for the greater good and to suppress emotions that females are actually encouraged to express; big boys don't cry and all that rot.
Foot binding is now very much frowned upon and considered barbaric by today's standards. Let us hope that the harsh distortion of emotions in our male children under the assumption that this will give them some kind of advantage in later life meets the same fate.
I have to say that people like Richard Aubrey and AmericanWoman are the reason men can't go to the therapist even if we wanted to - we'd be labeled pansy faggots by these fine advocates of their own brand of "masculinity."
Men have evolved to not having emotions? Speak for yourself. I have plenty of emotions, fear anger love and happiness are all within me. I'm not a shell of a human being like you claim I should be.
Mark
American Woman said:
"Many men can now be stay at home dads and not be ostricized. Could that have happened in 1962?"
If by "many" you mean a "very tiny minority" I'd say I agree!
From my perspective, men are hardly any freer from shouldering the primary financial burden than they were in my father's day.
Well American Woman have you ever been a stay at home dad? I would guess not if you believe ostracizing of men who don't want to be walking wallets is non-existant. In fact I recently read a letter in a parenting magazine from a woman who is distressed that fathers may be 'invading' traditional female spaces by attending parenting/mother groups and activities. Then I figure most men would probably not want to be parts of these groups because the conversations enevitably are the same it's either bragging about how great your kids are, bragging about how much money and power your husband has, or running down your husband and your boys cause you know they're 'just men' and aren't supposed to act civilized. The ones I went to were pretty shallow and pathetic anyway. You ever had your mother in law and father in law tell everyone around you how you're a waste of life because you don't work AmericanWoman? Being called Mr. Mom and being compared to a movie where some idiot dresses up like a women and pretneds to be a mother is only funny the first couple of times. I know of a man in the UK that had been a stay at home dad for over 7 years. This man's wife met someone else and divorced him, he lost everything, you want to know why? His wife's lawyer made him out to be a layabout and a bum because he didn't work.
As for anonymoose, guess you've never had a knife shoved into your stomach in front of your 1 year old and 3 year old boys. Or have you ever been caught in the nightmare of how to get away and keep your kids safe too. Or maybe when aformentioned knife was stuck in your stomach you decided to stop being a 'wuss' and use your superior strength to stop her by pushing her back by the head causing a small clump of hair to come out. Then the person who performed an unprovoked assualt against you the day before goes around showing everyone the hair that was pulled out and how horribly abused she is. Or maybe you've never been in a such a situation where you know for a fact no one is going to help you including the police so your stuck cradling your baby boy in your arms cause she decided to attack you while you were feeding him. You also know if you run at that moment out of the house with the state she's in she will call the police and you will end up in jail for at least a night, with your children there alone. Guess you've never gone to work and when people normally touch each other like give pats on the back and such you cringe away and you don't even know you do it until someone mentions it to you. I would suppose you've never had to flee from a violent women and was completly alone having to find another job as you no longer have a vehicle to get you to work, collect enough money to pay damage deposit and first months rent on your crappy ghetto aparment because it was all you could afford but you couldn't live with her anymore you'd rather live under a bridge. Or having to jump through all her hoops to get your kids from her because you have no money to fight her so she still somewhat controls you even though you aren't together. I can make a sure bet you've never phoned a domestic violence shelter for help for legal aid and been treated like a piece of crap by the person on the other end of the phone and basically told they only help women and ---get this--- transvestites. BTW aren't the laws against assualt supposed to protect men, women, wusses and any human equally. As for women's shelters they should either recieve $0 in tax funding or they should be forced to open their doors to everyone, I know my country has something called the charter of rights and freedoms that states discrimination against anyone based on gender is not allowed especially by the government and I can't think of much less discriminating then using tax money to only help one gender or maybe because they help transvestites they help men too who knows what the logic is there.
Everyone is missing it. Your goal as a man is to document the abuse, video tape, audio tape, (without them knowing) and then prosecute. Get her help in jail and when she gets out let her know that if she behaves she can come back if not you will divorce her and take everything you can. Screw the bitch is the right attitude to use with a woman who is being a bitch, protect the woman is the right attitude to use with a woman who is being a woman. Yes, women owe men, just as men owe women. We can not shift to far in either direction.
One of the reasons is that society tells men, particularly white ones, that they hold special privilege in the United States. But as Scott Adams (from the hilarious Dilbert cartoons) says, "those are other men."
When I was in college someone wrote a letter to the editor whining about how bad it would be if you were a minority. I wrote back and said at least scholarships are given to minorities.
I understand these problems as I spent 16 years with a woman who was very agressive, but I was lucky I left her remarried to a lovely woman fo 23 years who I loved and adored, but alas it came to an end when she died in the year 2000 God bless her. I now run a club for people who are lonely in the hope that I can give them some peace in there life no matter how they finnished in a situation where they were single.
It is nice to know I have helped a lot of these people meet friends & I also have more friends in my life. My Wife we shall meet again
希望大家都會非常非常幸福~
「朵朵小語‧優美的眷戀在這個世界上，最重要的一件事，就是好好愛自己。好好愛自己，你的眼睛才能看見天空的美麗，耳朵才能聽見山水的清音。好好愛自己，你才能體會所有美好的東西，所有的文字與音符才能像清泉一樣注入你的心靈。好好愛自己，你才有愛人的能力，也才有讓別人愛上你的魅力。而愛自己的第一步，就是切斷讓自己覺得黏膩的過去，以無沾無滯的輕快心情，大步走向前去。愛自己的第二步，則是隨時保持孩子般的好奇，願意接受未知的指引；也隨時可以拋卻不再需要的行囊，一路雲淡風輕。親愛的，你是天地之間獨一無二的旅人，在陽光與月光的交替之中瀟灑獨行.................
G8mm視訊影音網G8mm視訊影音網G8mm視訊影音網G8mm視訊影音網G8mm視訊影音網G8mm視訊影音網G8mm視訊影音網G8mm視訊影音網G8mm視訊影音網G8mm視訊影音網玩美女人影音視訊聊天室玩美女人影音視訊聊天室玩美女人影音視訊聊天室玩美女人影音視訊聊天室玩美女人影音視訊聊天室玩美女人影音視訊聊天室玩美女人影音視訊聊天室玩美女人影音視訊聊天室玩美女人影音視訊聊天室玩美女人影音視訊聊天室日本內衣模特兒寫真日本內衣模特兒寫真日本內衣模特兒寫真日本內衣模特兒寫真日本內衣模特兒寫真日本內衣模特兒寫真日本內衣模特兒寫真日本內衣模特兒寫真日本內衣模特兒寫真日本內衣模特兒寫真聊天室尋夢園聊天室尋夢園聊天室尋夢園聊天室尋夢園聊天室尋夢園聊天室尋夢園聊天室尋夢園聊天室尋夢園聊天室尋夢園聊天室尋夢園尋夢園交友聊天室尋夢園交友聊天室尋夢園交友聊天室尋夢園交友聊天室尋夢園交友聊天室尋夢園交友聊天室尋夢園交友聊天室尋夢園交友聊天室尋夢園交友聊天室尋夢園交友聊天室辣妹視訊-援交聊天室辣妹視訊-援交聊天室辣妹視訊-援交聊天室辣妹視訊-援交聊天室辣妹視訊-援交聊天室辣妹視訊-援交聊天室辣妹視訊-援交聊天室辣妹視訊-援交聊天室辣妹視訊-援交聊天室
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
五分鐘護半身視訊美女視訊美女34c五分鐘護半身視訊美女99 視訊美女主播 500 點99 視訊美女主播 500 點888 視訊美女聊天室888 視訊美女聊天室視訊美女 live0204視訊美女 live0204173liveshow 視訊美女173liveshow 視訊美女0401 影音視訊美女聊天室視訊ggo0401 影音視訊美女聊天室gogogirl 視訊美女gogogirl 視訊美女av080 toav080 to視訊美女視訊美女正妹視訊gogo正妹視訊gogo正妹牆視訊交友高雄網正妹牆辣妺視訊
Post a Comment
<< Home