Cyber-bullying as a mental health problem

There is no doubt that the rise of social media, in particular Facebook and Twitter, has many benefits to society.  It allows people to express points of view and connect with others in ways that were impossible even a decade or so ago.  Without it, I would not be able to write a blog like this or tweet about things of interest to me and others.  But with the rise of these new ways to connect with others in pro-social ways, also means that there are new ways for those with unhealthy ways of communicating and/or clear mental health issues to harass and abuse others.  This issue rises up occasionally in the media, particularly with regard adolescents and young people (or as I like to call them, "adults in training), but became national news when TV presenter/media personality, Charlotte Dawson exposed people on twitter who launched a sustained cyber-bully campaign against her leading to her hospitalisation last week.

So what's the difference between cyber-bullying and regular face-to-face bullying?  Cyber-bullying is often defined as the intentional and repeated infliction of harm through the use of electronic devices (e.g., computers, mobile phones).  The difference of cyber-bullying lies in the medium whereby the bully may remain anonymous and therefore avoid the consequences.  In my professional work with young people, I have heard the most horrendous things texted/tweeted/facebooked about clients by people they may or may not know.  The consequences for the bullied, as in the case of Charlotte Dawson, can be devastating.  What is perhaps even more clear for me is that those who are perpetuating the bullying are clearly unwell.

What cyber bullies appear to have in common with face-to-face bullies is their inability to communicate in a way that is socially appropriate or healthy.  In truth, it's probably relatively easy to spot a cyber-bully/face-to-face bully in your day-to-day life.  They are the ones who's woes in life are always somebody else's fault, they use phrases like, "You/He/She made me...", their communication style is generally passive-aggressive (or just plain aggressive).  They never start a sentence with "I" because that would mean owning their behaviour or feelings.

There is much talk about legal ramifications for cyber-bullies in the media this week, but I'd like to propose mandatory psychological treatment.  Reading the appalling tweets directed at Charlotte Dawson (e.g., "kill yourself you putrid piece of shit"), they are not being written by people who are happy or  healthy.  It's their lack of compassion that we recognise as human that is so shocking.  But the truth is that a lot of people have no idea how to speak to others in ways that are healthy, build relationships, or in providing appropriate feedback.  The majority of client work I have done includes some aspect of communication skills training, and clients often find it amazing the ways their use of positive language can both enhance and protect relationships.  Not many people really want to go through their lives continually wrecking their relationships through an inability to communicate appropriately to those they love.  The call for legal sanctions is understandable, but the as with any legal issue, there is generally a chronic psychological issue lurking nearby, and sanctions for illegal behaviour without treatment for psychological issues is in the end, counter-productive.

In praise of men's sheds...

When I was 8 my male school teacher, who was probably in his late 50s, retired.  Retirement was a foreign concept to me then, just as it is now.  Anyway, one week later I read in the newspaper that he died.  I remember at the time wondering that if you take someone's vocation away from them, do they just shrivel up and die?  Are these the consequences of retirement?   Knowing what I know now, I wonder about his death and the causes, and the consequences for men in general who retire.  So much of a man's identity seems to be caught up in what he does for a living.  That can be a source of great pride, but also the consequences are huge when that ends.  Often one of the first things two men who meet each other ask is, "What do you do?"  So when so much of a man's self-definition is caught up in his work role, and that is taken away on retirement or disability, you have to wonder about what comes after.

A brilliant meeting place for those men dealing with retirement (or younger men with some time on their hands) has sprung up in towns and cities across Australia.  It's called the Men's Shed.  This movement is amazing.  Basically, these sheds are meeting places for men that may have common interests, including technical skills (i.e., fixing stuff), arts, crafts, gardening, etc.  At their heart, the Men's Shed promotes shared interests and often involves activities built around the things that would be done in a traditional Australian back yard shed but done in a communal way, thereby introducing social interaction among participants that is an important part of promoting health and well-being.  So, in many ways the sheds act as a de facto work place for men where they can go and share time with fellow men in a non-threatening environment.

The importance of meeting places like the sheds for men cannot be understated.  Generally speaking, when men gather in groups, it is more likely "to do something" together, rather than to sit around talking to each other (of course, that happens, but it is the function of the doing, rather than vice versa).  The sharing of action-oriented activities is a way for boys and men to develop friendships.  Compared to females who might develop relationships through disclosure of personal information through discussion, men develop friendships through shared activities, particularly physical or skill-based activities.  Although there may well be less exchanges of intimate personal information, men can nevertheless develop pretty strong friendships in this way.  Unfortunately there has been a marked tendency by many helping professionals to judge male friendships and the way they are formed from the perspective of how female relationships come about.  When they are judged by this standard, they may across as lacking because for men, there may be initially very little verbal  sharing about one's inner life with another man.  I would argue that the way men go about friendships is a bit more covert, and that emotional closeness is indeed developed through self-disclosure that can occur in the context of shared activities.  There is research out there that supports this notion, that Men's Sheds become a haven for men to share details about their lives while doing other things, thus developing a support group culture, without the support group stigma.

This is why the Men's Sheds have been so successful.  They take into account men's relational styles and means of establishing friendships, and respect and support them wholeheartedly in building a place that is more than just about "fixing things".

Are "Men" the New "Women"?

I'm constantly fascinated by the large spectrum of masculinity that exists in Australia.  In equal measure I'm fascinated by the way the media and popular culture keeps seeking to reinforce and manipulate the dominant type of masculinity, which is seen as more valid than any other, purely for entertainment purposes.  Why is your average muscled bloke seen to be considered more "manly" than a hipster-dufus from Brunswick with foppish hair and ultra-trendy clothes?  Sure, the former can be seen to dominate others physically on the sports field, but when the capability to dominate physically can turn into something ugly and violent (e.g., please google former NRL star Craig Field who was recently charged with murder following an "assault" on a fellow pub patron), this seems a rather perverse way of determining the validity of ones masculine status.

There is a new slate of television shows is due to begin screening after the Olympics on various Australian free-to-air stations, all doing their bit for traditional gender stereotyping, or getting their (cheap) laughs by manipulating ones masculine status.

Firstly, on Channel 9 there is something called "House Husbands".  This show is described as depicting four modern families and "gives a real perspective on the way we live today from four modern families with one thing in common: the men are in charge of raising the kids."  I have seen a couple of promos for this show.  In one, Gary Sweet appears to be fixing something around the house, while his daughter makes her own lunch, and his wife, played by Julia Morris berates him.  So, if I have this right, the man is doing maintenance, the child is being ignored by her father, and the woman is a whining shrew?   In another promo, Rhys Muldoon is questioned by his female boss as to why he works only 4 days a week?  4 days a week!  What sort of real man would only work 4 days a week?  Again, the woman appears to be portrayed as a bitch, and Rhys Muldoon is the castrated man who (barely) works part-time.  Yes indeed - ground breaking stuff.

Channel Ten has a new show called "Don't Tell the Bride" in which couples who can't afford the wedding they want, are given $25,000 to plan their wedding, but (wait for it) the men have to plan the whole thing.  The promo portrays men as mindless idiots without class or taste who do things like have the bridesmaids dress as comic book characters, and serve only beer in schooners.  Seriously?  This is a show?  Channel Ten (again) go one better with the talent show, "I Will Survive" which seemingly seeks to humiliate an all male cast by getting them to dress up in drag and drive around the outback of Australia in a bus doing various performances with the "winner" getting some cash and a performance on Broadway.  The comedy in the show seems to be taking men, forcing them to dress up like women, and then taking them to places where traditional masculine stereotypes dominate.  Masculinity clash ensues.

On the face of it, these shows say very little about the complexity of what it means to be a man today.  These shows were conceived in production meetings and were tested in focus groups, so they were created by consensus not by imaginative human beings.  Memo to TV execs: Men can fix stuff around the house, but they can also prepare their children's lunches, and have a respectful interaction with their wife, all at the same time.  Men can work part-time and not be made to feel castrated for doing so.  They can plan a classy, elegant wedding without reverting to some sort of 18-year-old's version of what this may look like.  They can even make it in show business without getting themselves humiliated in some weird reality TV program.  They can do all this, because men aren't the new women - they are the new everything.

 

Personal Responsibility

There is movement in the psychology of men that proposes that men are at a crossroads in terms of their roles in society, that their is great confusion about what being a man actually means today given the gains that women have made in terms of equality, particularly in the workforce and salary.  In other words, if women are equal economically, educationally, and intellectually, what actually makes a man, a man?  What does this mean for men in their relationships and daily lives?

In my practice I see a lot of men, particularly men in their 20s and 30s, who present with this confusion, and to be quite frank, whose reaction to this confusion is to develop a hatred of women.  And when I write "hate" I mean that they don't understand women, what women want, who women are, and what it means for their them and their relationships with women.  This manifests itself in demeaning language and sexist jibes in a therapy conversation, and in their relationships usually it will play out as emotional and physical violence, because in these men's minds where men and women are equal in most every way, the only place men can usually still dominate is physically.

In a therapy session, I am never interested in judging a man for his choices in how he interacts with his partner or the significant women in his life.  As I've written before, judgments of behaviour give you no therapeutic traction.  Understanding is the key - an understanding of a man's behaviour, of his agenda, and what his behaviour demonstrates about his belief system, and how his choices are going to affect his relationship with his partner, his family, his children, and his friends.

When you frame all behaviour as a choice, and I would argue that in 99 out of 100 cases, it is a clear choice, the responsibility falls firmly in the lap of the man.  I am a big advocate of personal responsibility and believe that if there is one thing that truly makes a man, "a man", it is the ability to own and take responsibility for behaviour.  When you hear a man say things like, "She made me" or "She pushed me" you know straight off that this guy has placed the responsibility for his behaviour onto his partner, and probably in many areas of his life (e.g., work, friends) he does this to varying degrees.  I would argue that in many situations there is little validity in saying someone "made you" do something, unless you are under extreme physically coercion.  I always say to my clients something to the effect of, "You can't always help what you feel, but you can help what you do about those feelings."  If you have some sort of cognitive impairment, I might let you off the hook, but that's about it.

Gender relations are evolving constantly, and this is no easy answer.  Sure, there is no denying men and women are different in many essential ways, but last time I looked we had more in common that we had in differences.  Aren't we all still humans after all?  Men aren't from Mars, and Women aren't from Venus, we're all from Planet Earth.  I always think that learning how to talk to each other about what's going on with an open mind and heart, and a healthy dose of humour is a great place to start.  Dismissing or belittling men's or women's concerns about their place in the world is a sure fire way of creating conflict and a lazy way of thinking about an issue that affects us all.

Real Men Cry

I'm constantly fascinated by society and media reaction to men who cry in public, particularly when the behaviour leads to widespread condemnation.

While there are different types of tears, physiologically crying is usually brought on by strong emotionally reactions (e.g., anger, sadness), emotional stress, suffering or intense physical pain (of course, crying is not limited to "negative emotions"; many people cry when very happy).


The socialisation of men starts early.  Parents, immediate family, and society in general directly or indirectly communicate messages about what constitutes appropriate male behaviour.  I remember being at a childcare centre waiting for the lift when a young boy (aged about 3) started to cry as he knew his father would soon be leaving.  His father's response was to pull the clinging young boy away from him and say something to the effect of, "Boys don't cry."  His father's response surprised me as: a) it isn't 1953, and b) the man seemed to have no understanding that a young child doesn't have the verbal abilities to articulate distress - they often do that through crying; and the young boy doesn't yet have the cognitive abilities to mask his distress the way his father had clearly developed.  


While there is no doubt that over time there has been somewhat of a softening towards male crying in public, a blanket "ban" on it seems to have been replaced by a prescriptive list of conditions that are acceptable whereby a man can shed tears and retain his status as "manly" (whatever that means).  Just googling the subject, I managed to access extensive lists of when a man can cry in response to intense emotion (e.g., the birth of his child or death of a close loved one), or physical pain (e.g., if he just broke his arm).  However, the existence of such lists and the listing of circumstances where it isn't "okay" to cry (e.g., if a man is scared or just really sad) clearly demonstrated that men who cry under such unacceptable circumstances are really still "unmanly".


A crying man hit the headlines again in recent weeks when Andy Murray lost the final of the Wimbledon Men's Singles to another frequent crier, Roger Federer.  In the post-match trophy presentation, Murray cried a bit.  The interesting part of this is that the crying got more media attention than the actual match.  Opinion was divided - was Andy Murray being "unmanly" because he was crying about losing a winnable match, or was the crying an acceptable response to the immense stress placed him by a success-hungry British tennis public?  

The coverage of the Murray's crying and the setting up lists of conditions under which men can acceptably cry clearly indicates that there are large section of society that is still not really alright with the image a man shedding tears under many circumstances.


So, how far have we come since 1953?  My take on this, to be quite frank, is that it is unhealthy.  When a boy is taught that it is inappropriate to genuinely experience and express emotions or emotional distress, he inevitably becomes a man who cannot do this.  Surely, a higher risk of a range of mental and physical health problems can only follow.  So while one may think that perpetuating a ridiculous cultural construct is harmless and debating the acceptable nature of men's crying is a bit of fun, consider that little boy by the lift at the childcare centre and the spoken and unspoken lessons we pass on to our children, and how that may affect them in the long term.

Be Here Now

In the modern world where everyone seems to be time poor, trying to get a million things accomplished in what seems like less and less time, being "in the moment" is increasingly difficult.  When clients come to therapy often they are spending a large percentage of their time remonstrating about the past, or worrying excessively about the future.  Spending most of your time doing one or both of these things, leads you to miss what is going on right before your very eyes, something called "the present moment".  Ever heard of it?

There's a large and growing movement in psychological treatment in favour something called "Mindfulness".  When trying to explain mindfulness to clients, I sometimes struggle.  A definition for mindfulness is "the capacity to maintain (for whatever period of time) nonjudgmental attentiveness to the present moment."  This explanation is often greeted by blank looks because it can be heard as a bunch of psychological mumbo jumbo.  Who are the best example of mindfulness - young children... they are caught up in whatever is going on in the moment without worrying too much about what happened 5 minutes ago, and what is going to happen 5 minutes in the future.  They can be crying inconsolably one minute, and totally fine the next... they accept the present moment for what it is without being caught up in past and future.  Of course it is impossible for an adult to life in this manner with so many competing priorities, however when physiological arousal seeks to overwhelm us, the practice of brief mindfulness techniques bringing us into the present moment can be very stabilising and healing for most people.

This is a relatively simple mindfulness exercise, and one that you can do at any point throughout the day.  When last did you stop and listen to the sound of your own breath?  It happens every minute of every day but we rarely pay attention to it.  For 60 seconds your task is to focus all your attention on your breathing. It’s just for one minute, but it can seem like an eternity. Your eyes can be closed or open, but your task is to breathe normally. Be ready to catch your mind from wandering off (because it will) and return your attention to your breath whenever it does so.  This mindfulness exercise is far more powerful than most people give it credit for.  It takes some people a long time before they are able to complete a single minute of alert, clear attention.

The ability to be present, and fully appreciate the wonder of our lives can often come to us most strongly when our lives are in danger, and we realise the time-limited nature of our journey.  Recently, the death of a young actor called Andy Whitfield (pictured above with his family) was reported in the media.  Andy was the star of a TV show called, "Spartacus: Blood and Sand", but he was diagnosed with non-hodgkins lymphoma after the completion of the first season.  The process of his treatment has been captured in a yet-to-be-released documentary called, "Be Here Now".  While watching the trailor, I was struck by the remarkable way in which Andy Whitfield speaks about his illness and I was moved by his calmness and courage, and his determination not only to live, but to live in the moment.  This man had a lot of live for, and in every way that society defines it, he was a success.  From my limited knowledge of him, his time was used well.  Life is time-limited and we waste a lot of time ruminating on the past or contemplating possible future events.  Be Here Now.  I hope this film gets a great deal of attention that it thoroughly deserves.  I couldn't think of a more wonderful message.  

Gratitude

As a Psychologist who commonly works with clients, but especially men, who experience a range of difficulties (e.g, emotional, behavioural, social, and substance abuse/addiction), I am continually struck by how unhelpful thinking patterns developed over years of traumatic interaction with their personal worlds contribute to their ongoing difficulties.  Over time, these guys have developed self-destructive ways of thinking about themselves, others, and the world that make change very tough for them.  Sometimes I say to clients, "How would it be to consider that everything you think you know about yourself and the world is ultimately quite unhelpful to getting to where you want to be, or just plain wrong?"  Often this is a starting point for opening out one's thinking to consider other perspectives, and create some wriggle room for cognitive (and behavioural) change.

I am a big advocate of something called gratitude.  Heard of it?  Basically, gratitude is a feeling or attitude of thankfulness, gratefulness, or appreciation that one has received or will receive.  Some research that has emanated from the positive psychology movement has shown that people who express gratitude regularly find themselves more optimistic.  Therefore, the deliberate practice of expressing thankfulness to others, or reflecting on things in your life you are grateful for, can open up a world of possibilities, rather than a focus on the negative.  So using this notion as a jumping-off point, it is often useful to develop in conversation with male clients, ideas about what they are grateful for in their lives, and how they are communicating that not only to those who are closest to them, but also to themselves.  They can articulate gratitude about people, traits, situations, experiences, anything at all.  For example, I am grateful about being able to do work that I love, that clients will give me an hour of their time every week, and open the door of their lives a little and show me around.  This is a privilege.


Gratitude hit prime time in last few months on the very popular singing competition, The Voice, in the form of one of the contestants, Darren Percival.  Percival is a 40 year old singer who has been trying to kickstart his career for the best part of two decades while being met with obstacles to major success at every turn.  The thing that struck me about his time in the national spotlight of The Voice was how appreciative he was for not only doing something he seemed to truly get joy from, but being able to do it for a large audience who not only appreciated his immense talent, but responded with admiration and adoration, taking him right down to the last two contestants.

The lesson here, is that when you express gratitude for the things in your life that you love and are thankful for, you are much more gentle with yourself.  Additionally, people respond in kind, and your life (and the lives of those around you) become much richer for it.  Try it for a week, and see what happens.