Open post

If life gives you lemons, forget the lemonade – get a haircut

By Dr John Barry

Photo: the author with Alex, enjoying a visit to Swagger barbers, in Liverpool Street, central London. Photo by Louise Liddon.

This article was originally published in the Australian magazine Barber Shop. Barry JA (2018). If life gives you lemons, forget the lemonade – get a haircut, Barber Shop, 7, 2, pp.30-31. It can be accessed online here


Scenario 1: You have just lost your job and your girlfriend has left you. You are feeling miserable and don’t feel like leaving the house but have been advised by a friend to see a therapist. The therapist seems professional and well intentioned, but she is puzzled when you try to make a joke about being dumped and seems more interested in your ex-girlfriend’s feelings than your own.

Scenario 2: You have just lost your job and your girlfriend has left you. You are feeling miserable and don’t feel like leaving the house but you are forcing yourself to get a haircut for a job interview on Monday. You sit down in the barber’s chair and after exchanging a few jokes about awful bosses and ex-girlfriends, you start to sit back and relax. Pretty soon it doesn’t seem quite so serious anymore.


There is a stereotype that when women are depressed they know it. They cry, talk with friends about how they feel, maybe binge eat, and maybe talk to a counsellor. The stereotype for men it that when they are depressed they don’t even know it. They might feel numb or angry, sleep less, drink more and do drugs, play video games, use sex or pornography more. The las thing they will do is see a therapist. But is there any truth to these stereotypes? Well, although we know that everyone is different and that all men don’t act the same and all women don’t act the same, there is also more than a grain of truth in the above stereotypes about sex differences in dealing with stress.

Men are less likely than women to go to a therapist when they have mental health problems. This begs the question: when men are experiencing mental health issues, what do they do? Well, although it is part of traditional masculinity to have control over your feelings, there is evidence that when men are depressed they are more likely than women to ‘act out’ in violence. Worse still, men kill themselves at three times the rate that women do.

In many ways Australia has been ahead of the rest of the world when it comes to dealing with men’s mental health. Several organisations have set the trend for other countries in dealing with the complex problems around men’s mental health. Notable examples are Movember, who started out with a focus on prostate cancer, but expanded into suicide and men’s mental health. Beyondblue and Men’s Sheds have, like Movember, had an influence internationally. These initially community-based projects have begun to influence mainstream mental health providers too. Recent examples are the national campaigns designed to improve male help-seeking such as the “Belief in Change” campaign by the Australian Psychological Society and the “Better Access” campaign by the Australian Department of Health.

And they have good reason to do so: the Australian mental health group Beyondblue suggest that men in Australia underestimate the importance of mental health, and go to therapy less than women do. This begs some important questions, such as (a) why don’t men like therapy as much as women do? (b) do men prefer to do other things that support their mental health? Let’s explore these questions.


Why don’t men like therapy as much as women do?

My research group has identified several issues. For example, interviews with 46 experienced psychological therapists of various kinds had found that men and women tend to deal with emotional problems differently. In general, although women want to talk about their feelings, men prefer to want a quick solution to their problem, and preferably one that consists of steps that make sense to them. Straight away, you can see that some forms of therapy, especially those focussed on talking about feelings, and going to appeal the men less than women. There is no routine training yet for psychologists in how to deal specifically with male clients.

There is another possible issue: in Australia, as in many countries, there are far more female therapists than male. Although most people don’t mind whether their therapist is male or female, reflecting the fact that women are capable of understanding and treating men, some men will only see a male therapist. This is most likely to occur in cases whether their issue is related to women in some way e.g. a male victim of domestic violence. Because of the lack of research on this topic, we can only guess at how many of these men end up with untreated chronic mental health issues, ending in suicide.


Do men prefer to do things other than therapy support their mental health?

A recent survey of ours found that men and women differ in some ways when it comes to coping with stress. For example, women are more likely to comfort eat, and men are more likely to use sex or pornography to deal with stress. There are many other ways in which men find stress relief. A very popular movement that started in Australia is Men’s Sheds. Although intended mainly as a way for men to get together to work on a common project (e.g. fixing garden furniture), it turns out that ‘shedding’ offers an opportunity for men to chat while working, sometimes about their personal lives and feelings. This is especially helpful for men who are socially isolated. Studies at the universities of Oxford and Glasgow have found that there are emotional benefits for men of having a social drink in the pub with friends. (Cautionary note: self-medicating and binge drinking usually create rather than cure mental health problems).

Studies in the US since the 70s have found that the hair dressing salon has an important social and mental health function for women. It is only in the past dozen years that the benefits to men of visiting the barber shop have been more recognised. One of the best examples of this is a UK community-based programme called Barbertalk, which encourages men to open up about their issues with mental health. The Lions Barber Collective is the creation of barber Tom Chapman inspired by the suicide of a good friend. Barbertalk trains barbers to recognise when customers are experiencing mental health issues. The barber listens and offers basic advice on where to seek help. Barbertalk has proved very successful and is being rolled out in the US and Holland.

At the Male Psychology Conference in University College London in 2015, Dr Frank Fielding gave a talk on the mental health of black men. He said that black men often didn’t feel comfortable with conventional therapy for various reasons, and added the intriguing comment that visiting the barber shop was one way in which they got informal community-based wellbeing support. This led me to conduct a study, with Tamika Roper of the Male Psychology Network, into whether there are gender and racial differences in the wellbeing benefits of visting the barbershop. We found that black and white women both had moderate wellbeing benefits in terms of talking and socialising at the hairdresser. However black men left everyone else behind in terms of wellbeing benefits. It seems that black men were not simply going to the barber shop for a haircut, but would take their friends along too in order to socialise and have fun. These findings have impressed me so much that I have given up my previous attitude of sitting grimly in the barber’s chair wishing I was somewhere else. These days I make sure I have a friendly chat with my barber, usually with a lot of good natured banter. I now look forward to getting a haircut, and would advise everyone else to use getting a haircut as an opportunity to have fun and connect with another human being.


About the author: Dr John Barry is a chartered psychologist and co-founder of the Male Psychology Network. He has published around 60 peer-reviewed papers on topics in health psychology and clinical psychology.




Open post

It’s unwise to be dogmatic about gender issues

By Dr John Barry

First published in the BPS blog on 3rd August 2018 here


Like 8% of men and 0.5% of women, I am colour blind. Being colour blind has a significant impact on Quality of Life (Barry et al, 2017), creating problems in everyday activities such as understanding coloured graphs (in lectures and textbooks) and maps (e.g. the London Underground map).

Children who don’t know they are colour blind can be teased by others if they get confused about colours in school, and might doubt their own intelligence (Todd, 2018).

However I was lucky enough to go to a school that routinely tested for colour blindness, and knowing at an early age allowed me to adjust to the fact and avoid a lot of confusion and frustration later on.

Not so lucky were the billions of colour blind people before 1790, the year scientist John Dalton discovered that he was red-green colour blind. This happened when he realised that he could not tell the difference between a block of sealing wax he was told was red and a block he was told was green.

But while Dalton would go on to research the issue and lecture and publish on colour blindness, prior to 1790 people did not realise that colour blindness was a ‘thing’. This no doubt led to all sorts of errors and confusion, from modest people inadvertently wearing outlandishly garish clothing, to people not seeing the signs of serious medical problems (e.g. blood in faeces).

As a teenager, it occurred to me that if I could be absolutely certain that there was no difference between something red and something green, then I in essence had to doubt the evidence of my senses.

Maybe there were all sorts of other subtle blindnesses that we hadn’t discovered yet? Perhaps the same gene coding for colour blindness creates blindness for other issues too?

This was a worrying thought that deflated any sense of being 100% correct on any issue.

For example, I might look at the facts and be convinced that the solution to crime is to end the causes of crime (e.g. social deprivation), but another person might look at the same facts and be convinced that the solution is to increase punishment for offenders. Who is correct?

It would be wonderful if we could just rely on objective evidence rather than subjective views, but the problem is that we view the objective through our own subjective lenses, thus the argument might not move forward at all, and even become more consolidated.

In later years I began to realise that the self-doubt I had learned about my colour vision deficiency was something that many others might benefit from too.

For example, despite the same facts being publicly available to everyone, why are some people apparently so certain that gender is the result of nurture rather than nature? Don’t they feel even a little doubt about their opinion? Or perhaps a certain proportion of the population suffer from blindness around gender.

This might explain why although around 75% of suicides are male, male suicide is relatively non-existent as an issue in Psychology or in Gender Studies.

When this statistic is highlighted, it is often accompanied by a ‘victim blaming’ attitude (e.g. ‘well if men sought help then they wouldn’t kill themselves’) or even humour (e.g. ‘men are better at DIY, thus construct more solidly lethal methods to use against themselves’).

These examples of ‘male gender blindness’ (Seager et al, 2014) and the ‘gender empathy gap’ (Barry, 2016) are a common feature of discussions of gender.

Martin Seager sometimes uses the image of the ‘elephant in the room’ to describe the blindness to male gender issues. I myself prefer the ‘rabbit / duck’ illusion, which is a good analogy for how some people look at life and only see only issues facing women, and typically don’t see any of the issues facing men in the picture.

For example, they see women as being oppressed by they traditional role of housewife, but don’t see men as oppressed in their traditional role of provider (often in dangerous or dirty jobs) and protector (e.g. conscripted to fight in wars).

It seems that we can observe a behaviour, but interpret the behaviour in multiple ways e.g. is the man who holds a door for a woman (a) sexist (b) benevolently sexist (c) kind?

Inevitably, my analogy of colour blindness and gender-related cognitions doesn’t do justice to the complexity of the motives underlying cognitions. It doesn’t explain, for example, the process by which people might change their minds about gender issues.

One suspects that people who have had a trauma of some kind related to gender issues are more likely to impose a schema upon the world that sees gender issue threatening, and the restricted view of gender is a coping strategy to control their anxieties. My experience is that this schema is often emotionally entrenched and changes only slowly, if at all.

I think what we all need to do is take a step back from our strongly held views and have the courage to ask ourselves: ‘what if I am wrong about this? What if there is another side to the picture that I have not been able to see?’

Applying some healthy scepticism to our own views has the potential to bring more light to discussions, and reduce the heat, and lead us all to a more enlightened place.




Open post

Issues adoptive parents might face

I am an adoptive father. I have written this blog in order to share some of my experiences and in the hope of stimulating discussion. I have chosen to write anonymously so as to protect the privacy of my family.


Adoptive parents make a highly significant contribution to the lives of the children they adopt. They provide a home for a child (or children) in need and can end the chain of abuse and/or neglect within families.

Those who adopt also save the taxpayer a vast amount of money every year. Way back in 2007 Gary Streeter MP estimated the cost of keeping a child in local authority care at about £200,000 per year (1). What the cost is now I do not know, but it surely cannot be any less.

There are three problem areas that adoptive parents face.


The task

The first, and most obvious issue, is that the work of adopters is not easy. Children who are placed for adoption can have problems such as Attachment Disorder, Attention Disorder/Hyperactivity Disorder, autism spectrum disorders, foetal alcohol syndrome and learning difficulties. Some of these affect boys more than girls. Others affect both sexes equally.

Children who are placed for adoption may have also suffered extreme neglect, physical and/or sexual abuse.

The resulting problems that adoptive parents may have to face are many and varied. They can include:

  • violence (which can be directed at the parents, at siblings or others)
  • urinary and/or faecal incontinence (not just in infants or children but also in teenagers)
  • withholding faeces (for lengths of time that most people would think impossible)
  • self-harm
  • ‘crazy lying’ (i.e. maintaining a lie in spite of irrefutable evidence to the contrary)
  • demanding the constant attention of one of the adoptive parents while refusing to acknowledge the existence of the other
  • dangerous sexual behaviour
  • outbursts of extreme anger (with or without physical violence)
  • school refusal
  • persistent stealing and more.

It is important therefore that those who are considering adoption ask the relevant questions about the child’s background and insist on a full disclosure of the facts. In her excellent article Are social workers being dishonest about the realities of adoption? Sally Donovan stresses the need for social workers to be as open as possible with prospective adopters about the child’s background. She also highlights the need for possible adopters to be willing to accept the truths that no-one wants to hear (2).

All of this can be particularly difficult for prospective adoptive fathers. The adoption process is almost always female dominated. How can a man insist, and continue to insist, on knowing the full and absolute truth without being stereotyped as an ‘alpha male’ or ‘bully’? How should he deal with evasive answers or with responses that do not answer his question?

These are important questions that men in particular should ask themselves when considering adoption.


Assumptions and stereotypes around gender

We must be aware of any possible gender-based assumptions or stereotypes in regard to adopted children.

It has been generally accepted for some time that girls can suffer sexual abuse. However, as has been noted elsewhere on this site, boys can also suffer this form of abuse. The perpetrator of sexual abuse may be male or female.

If a girl behaves in a sexually inappropriate manner we may ask if she has been sexually abused. Do we ask the same question if a boy behaves in a manner that is sexually inappropriate?

Do we assume that because all of the carers in a boy’s life have been women that sexual abuse cannot have occurred?

Both boys and girls can be physically violent. Do we assume that if a girl is violent that she must need therapy, but assume that a boy who is violent needs stricter discipline?


The myth

As a society we still tend to believe what James Taylor correctly identifies as ‘The Adoption Myth’ (3). That is, the belief that adoption is something rather wonderful and romantic. It is imagined that the rescue of a lost and lonely child by loving parents will suddenly erase all the pain and trauma the child has endured. The child, it is assumed, will be immediately and forever grateful. Everyone will live ‘happily ever after’.

The reality, as we have seen, is very different. The myth however is maintained in the public consciousness. Partly this is done by local authorities that downplay the demands of adoption in order to get more children through the system. It is further supported by popular culture that portrays family breakdown as being quickly and painlessly resolved.

The myth is believed by teachers, medical professionals, social workers and others. The result is often still more trauma for adoptive parents who may already be struggling to cope.


The silence

As I noted at the beginning of this piece adoption saves the local authority a huge amount of money. If it were not for adoptive parents, taxation would need to increase or government services would have to be reduced – or both.

In my experience, and in the experience of every adopter to whom I have spoken, local authority staff refuse to admit this simple fact. Why this is the case is a matter of speculation but it needs to be addressed both as an issue of truth and of justice.


What needs to change?

Any discussion of adoption by any level of government should acknowledge the fact that a child’s problems do not disappear because the child is moved into an adoptive family. This is particularly the case when a local authority is advertising for prospective adopters.

Civil servants, especially those employed by local government, should openly acknowledge the fact that adoptive parents save the taxpayer a vast amount of money.

Local authorities should work toward making their adoption services equally staffed by men and women as far as possible.

It should be recognised that adoptive fathers often face particular challenges. For example, a man may be the household’s main source of income. If so, he may have to accept that he will lose this role as his career is compromised by the demands of his children and the family become increasingly dependent on various benefits.

School headteachers and governors should ensure that their school has a specific policy with regard to ‘looked after’ and adopted children that recognises the unique needs of this group. This should also set out how these will be addressed in the school situation.

Courses in colleges and Universities for the training of doctors, nurses, teachers, youth workers, social workers and others should include how to meet the unique needs of adopted children and their families. Wherever possible adoptive parents should be included in the development of these programmes.


In conclusion

People sometimes ask me if I had my time over again would I still be an adoptive father. It is a question I cannot answer. Being an adopter is not easy. I personally know of two adoptive fathers who have committed suicide. I can only say that I am grateful for a wife who has sacrificed so much of herself, for extended family, and for our church. Without them I know I would not have survived.



  1. Streeter, G. (2007) You and Yours, BBC Radio 4, 21 February 2007.


  1. Donovan, S. Are social workers being dishonest about the realities of adoption? Community care, 16 September, 2014.|SCSC|SCDDB-2014-0916

  1. Taylor, J. (2017) Help! I Need to Know About the Problems of Adoption, Day One, Leominster, UK


See also:




Open post

Tribute to Prof Geoff Dench RIP, author of ‘Transforming Men’

The following is an extract from the start of Will Collins’ article ‘Of Frogs And Men’ in The Illustrated Empathy Gap website on 9th July 2018. The full article is available here


In 1996, Professor Geoff Dench – who died two weeks ago – published a book “Transforming Men”. Apparently he did not choose the title himself. Dench used the fairy story “The Frog Prince” as an allegory for the state of gender relations in the West. There is a curious consilience with the present here, and Jordan Peterson comes into it. But first, Dench’s argument – and starting with the story itself…

A young princess, still very much a child, who spends all of her time playing, ventures outside the palace grounds and enters the wild forest beyond. Her golden ball, which she values more than anything else, falls into a pool (or well) and sinks from view, leaving her heartbroken.

To her surprise a frog appears and speaks to her, offering to retrieve her ball for her if she promises to be his friend. In her childish grief for the lost ball, and carelessly disregarding the future, she agrees. So the frog restores her ball to her.

The princess returns to the palace, where she is later embarrassed by the frog who has followed her, and who now insists on her keeping the promise of friendship. She is reluctant, but her father, the King, insists that she honour her commitment.

So the frog is allowed to participate in the civilised activities of the palace, such as eating at the table and sharing the princess’s food. After contact has become more intimate, variously expressed as the princess kissing the frog, or allowing him to sleep on her pillow (with the result, in some versions, that she begins to feel more friendly towards him), the frog turns into a prince.

He declares that this is in fact his original and true form, and that by befriending him the princess has removed him from the spell of an evil witch. They marry – for the princess has now matured – and go off in a gold coach to live at the prince’s own castle.

In what way did Dench interpret this fairy story as an allegory for gender relations? Dench was a social anthropologist and naturally comes at the matter from that perspective. For Dench the key anthropological problem for a society to solve is how to make constructive use of men. Think primates: the males are a law unto themselves. Or, better, a lawlessness. They make little contribution to the troop (see, however, the comment from Joseph, below). There is, of course, no pair bonding amongst primates; no paternal resourcing. Arguably, the anthropological inventions of family and society are key to the evolutionary success of Homo sapiens. Not that Dench would express it in that way.

But he certainly argued strongly for the crucial importance of family. And families include fathers, and fathers mean patriarchy. Aargh! But Dench did not understand patriarchy in the feminist sense – namely a conspiracy by men to oppress and exploit women. For Dench, patriarchy was a piece of theatre, a subterfuge expressly designed to tie men into familial relationships whose purpose was twofold: to extract benefit from men whilst minimising the threat of men reverting to a feral state. From this perspective, patriarchy is closer to an exploitation of men by women rather than the reverse. This aligns with my own view as expressed in The Empathy Gap, though Dench would not have taken my evolutionary approach to it.

So, to the interpretation of the story. A frog is a feral male – or a free male, if you will: a male who is not a patriarch, a family man. A Prince is a male bound into society – and society (or the ‘moral economy’) is predominantly female. As a boy, and a member of a family, a male starts as a Prince. As he becomes mature, however, he becomes independent and loses his initial status as a Prince. He is no longer accepted by female society and has become a frog. Most adolescent males know what it is to be a frog. It is specifically female society which rejects the young man, so, in the myth, it is a witch – the analogue of female society – which casts the spell which turns him into a frog.

To re-enter society – to become once again a Prince – the frog must avail himself a second time of female magic. To this end he must perform some service of great value to a Princess. That done, the Princess becomes locked into an obligation which – it is notable – the King, the existing Patriarch, enforces. The externally enforced obligation is essential, because the Princess is initially repulsed by the frog.

The allegory makes explicit female power over men: to turn them into frogs or frogs into Princes. The presumption of the story is that any frog must prefer to become a Prince. But the twist for our times is that a frog may prefer to remain a frog, despite the dangers of the forest. Being a Prince sounds grand, but actually means duty and obligation, in contrast to the freedom of the forest. And as for the modern Princess, she is no longer so keen on transforming frogs, and her Patriarch, the King, has been usurped by his wife, the Queen, who does not enforce the old rules. As Dench writes,

Girls no longer want to be dependent, even nominally; and boys are losing hope of being turned into princes. It is time to re-write the story as a fin-de-millenium lament, or even a horror story. In it the princess refuses to accept the loathsome frog as a partner after all. Her power to perform good magic is thereby wasted; and the original spell of the witch, far from being broken, remains unchecked and grows in strength. Soon the princess’s father, the king, abdicates and turns back into a monstrous and malevolent frog himself, and starts abusing the inhabitants of the palace. Bereft of leadership, the kingdom slips into feuding and chaos, its citizens selfish and unruly; and the forest of individual desire starts to encroach upon the formerly meticulous and orderly palace gardens.”

Patriarchy was only ever a piece of theatre, a con, and the status of Prince in part illusion and in part reward. Surely the Witch and the Princess were playing for the same team, working the prince-frog-prince scam. In which case, was the “Prince”, who was never truly a prince, never really a frog either? Or is my cynicism merely my froggy tendencies triumphing over my princely tendencies?

In a curious recent resonance of frogs, enter Pepe. And enter Kek – in ancient Egyptian mythology the deification of the concept of primordial darkness. Enter Jordan Peterson and Jonathan Pageau, on whom the relevance of The Frog Prince is not lost, as made explicit in their discussion of the metaphysics of Pepe. In The Frog Prince the choice of frog as the creature into which the Prince is turned is appropriate because, herpetophiles aside, frogs are generally perceived as physically repulsive, especially to beautiful, self-regarding Princesses. But there is something deeper here. The frog is a mythological archetype. Being amphibian, the frog mediates between two states of being. Water represents chaos, and frogs being at home in water, are the emissaries of chaos. The explosion of popularity of the Pepe meme saw the ubiquitous frog deployed to represent absolutely anything. Being the emissary of the primordial, Pepe naturally inclines to the glorification of misrule. As Jonathan Pageau has explained, the universal applicability of the Pepe meme is because, as a manifestation of chaos, it can instantiate anything. Chaos is at the same time nothing and everything. A frog is empowered to pull a specific instantiation out of the infinite potential of chaos, such as a golden ball from water.



Dench, G. (1998). Transforming men: Changing patterns of dependency and dominance in gender relations. Transaction Publishers.
Open post

The Christian psychologist: Some thoughts on anger and justice

by John Steley, psychologist.

Image: The Merchants Chased from the Temple painted by James Tissot


What do people think of when they hear the word ‘Christian’? Some may react with cynicism but for others it may evoke thoughts of a caring attitude, sympathy and a listening ear for those who need it.

I do not disagree that Christians are called to care for those I need. This includes the call to listen when necessary. (Although most of my training took place in secular state universities I was always mindful of the theologian Paul Tillich’s dictum that ‘The first duty of love is to listen.’) But is there more to it than that? I think there is.

The Christian scriptures call us to care, but they also include a demand for justice. In the Old Testament, prophets like Amos were scathing in their denunciation of the injustices of their day. In the New Testament the news of the birth of Christ was first of all given, not to the rulers or the elite, but to a group of shepherds – people at the very bottom of the social heap. (A point that often seems to be missed in sanitised nativity plays.)

So, when I meet a client my first job is to listen. What is this person’s story? Why has he or she come to see me? What do they want me to do? What does he or she really need?

It may be that reflective counselling, psychological insights and a plan to change behaviour may be enough. These things are of benefit to many people. But I must also ask myself, does this person need justice? Has he or she sought justice and had it denied?

The Bible is also clear that while injustice can come from ‘below’, for example the mugger or the thief, it can also come from ‘above’. How many times have we heard complaints from people who have faced indifference, incompetence or outright hostility from those who are paid to address their needs?

In cases such as this my Christian commitment compels me to say that simply listening, offering insights and helping the person to cope are not enough. At best this would be inadequate. At worst it colludes with the abusers.

When a person has suffered abuse he or she must recognise that their anger is normal and good. (As a Christian I believe it is God -given.) They must then decide what to do with it. Expressing anger ‘safely’ by talking, screaming or writing may be helpful to the person concerned but it does little to address the injustice itself. How many people have a lingering sense of justice not having been done years after the event?

What many people need is a plan to use their anger constructively to face the abuser or the abusive system. This may mean joining, or if necessary forming, a group of like-minded people. It may mean developing skills such as approaching politicians, writing press releases and using social media. It may also mean digging in for a long fight.

However long the battle takes, anger used in these ways can help the person concerned. It can also be a benefit to others and to the community as a whole. I sometimes point out to people that some of this nation’s greatest reformers were essentially very angry people. (Think of Florence Nightingale or William Booth.)

So as a Christian psychologist I want to be sensitive and listen as I believe Jesus did. But that same Jesus armed himself with a whip and threw the corrupt money changers out of the Temple. I have not done that myself but I see in that act an important principle – and a challenge.


About the author

John Steley is a psychologist in private practice in London





Open post

Review of the Male Psychology Conference, UCL, 2018

by William Collins

This review was originally published on The Illustrated Empathy Gap blog on 24th June 2018 and the views are the author’s (Will Collins).

If you have a review that you’d like to send us, please send it to

Photos are courtesy of Michael Walton, for the Male Psychology Network.


John Barry and Martin Seager are to be congratulated for organising another excellent male psychology conference in this series, now the 4th I have attended. Each year the attendance increases (by my informal reckoning, at least) and the range of speakers widens, including speakers from abroad.

Picture: IT maestro Jordan Holbrook, John Barry, Audaye Elesedy, and Martin Seager.


Martin opened by reminding us of the expected values. Martin alluded to the distinction between men being expected to change to accommodate society’s demands and society needing to accommodate men’s needs. I look forward to hearing more about “from empathy gap to gender distortion matrix” in due course. I was rather disconcerted by “equity of outcome”. It sounded rather like an attempt to appease. With the macro-demographic micro-replication monster currently chewing its way through the economy, I don’t think we should be feeding it.

The first day of the conference was on the dark side, or downside, of masculinity – much of which related to offenders. The second day concentrated on more positive aspects of masculinity. The following are merely rough unpolished notes.


Naomi Murphy, lead forensic psychologist at HMP Whitemoor, built on last year’s excellent presentation: working with serious violent and sexual offenders. Data: 54% had a history of being sexually abused as children by women, generally acting alone, 73% physical abuse, 81% neglect, 64% from ‘broken’ families, 59% parental antipathy. She reminded us that her staff were almost all women in their 20s and 30s. Yet the prisoner-psychologist dynamic was one in which it was the men who were fearful.

Picture: Dr Naomi Murphy, first keynote on day 1 of the conference.


Joel Beckman updated us on CALM (which differs from Samaritans in being a male-specific suicide help line service). They receive 7000 calls or web chats per month, the service currently growing at 40% per year. They have 24 staff, with 10 staff on duty in parallel each evening/night. They claim to have prevented 427 suicides in 2017 (172 so far in 2018). The evidencing of this was challenged in questioning and the basis of the claim explained. Apparently, construction is the occupation with the greatest number of suicides. (I’d not heard that before, but care is needed – what’s the per capita rate? Construction employs huge numbers). Not only CALM’s staff levels, but also their very expensive, high profile advertising campaigns, testify to the funding pull of CALM, of which some of us can only be envious. In private conversations afterwards, with other parties, there was some frustration that CALM are so resistant to using the influence they have established in the political sphere.

Picture: Joel Beckman,  Operations Director at the Campaign Against Living Miserably (CALM)


Paula Hall (psychotherapist) discussed sex addiction. The definition includes porn, leading to the common phenomenon, on this definition, of sex addicted virgins. There are many 30 year old virgins, she told us. (I couldn’t help observing how odd it is, but somehow fitting in these benighted times, that being a virgin no longer disqualifies you from being a sexual deviant). 30% of survey respondents admitting sex addiction are women – though users of psychology services for sex addiction are almost all men.

Picture: Paula Hall


Andrew Briggs (NHS psychotherapist) talked to the impact of fatherlessness on boys offending, including sexual offending, using a specific case study. His thesis was that (this particular) rape was enacted as an escape from the control of his self-confessed controlling mother. He went as far as to claim the boy’s offending would not have occurred had the father remained in the family. Rather too confident a prediction of a counterfactual, I thought. [Edit by John Barry: Briggs’ suggestion is based on decades of clinical experience, which would somewhat justify his confidence].

Picture: Andrew Briggs


Nathan Roberts talked about the work of Band of Brothers who work with prolific youth offenders, running a rites-of-passage ritual. Ethos: hurt people hurt people. The saddest thing about these sorts of enterprises is that they have been made necessary. For me they speak to how society has abandoned young men.

Picture: Nathan Roberts


Vincent McGovern made some brief remarks about the work of FNF (for which see elsewhere in this blog).

Picture: Vincent McGovern of Families Need Fathers, Central London Branch.

Ashley-Christopher Fallon talked about the forensic mental health services in Solihull. 89% male, 10% high security, 48% medium security. Peak in ages 30s & 40s. Ethnicity: 25% black, 19% Asian, 6% Arab, 41% white. 20% personality disorders (maybe more if florid mental ill health masks it). Offences roughly (reading off histogram) 36% violence, 27% drugs, 18% sexual. Two-thirds referred by health services, one-third from prisons. (When referral is from prison, the time in a secure mental facility does not count as part of the sentence). Fallon, in common with other speakers, mentioned that staff generally don’t want to know about prisoners’ offending history – and this has the effect of perpetuating shame rather than providing a way forward. Gender blindness to male issues is a problem. One of the main conclusions was the need to develop a male-gender strategy in this context.

Picture: Martin Seager, Dr Ashley-Christopher Fallon (second keynote on day 1 of the conference), and filmmaker Rafi Ramirez.


Mark Brooks talked about the work of Mankind Initiative, a domestic violence help line service for men. Only women apply for jobs on their phone-line; of 25 people attending a recent DV training course, Mark was the only man. Mankind took 1,671 calls in 2017 (75% by the man in question, 25% by women calling on behalf of a male victim). 97,000 page hits per 6 months. 52% of male callers had never talked to anyone of their problem before. 71% would not call if the calls were not anonymous. Average call 33 minutes. Average age 43. 56% of men have children in the house. Emotional abuse 95%; physical abuse 64%; psychological abuse 38%; coercive control 13%. Mark reminded us of the invisibility of male victims and how ‘the system’ conspires to facilitate this invisibility by re-packaging male victims within the Violence-Against-Women-and-Girls statistics. Quote “the only thing toxic about toxic masculinity are those who use it to demonise an entire gender” (applause).He called out Grayson Perry and Robert Webb as particular offenders. Mankind have proposed that there should be a separate DV strategy for men and boys. They were instrumental in the Crown Prosecution Service making a commitment to male victims of sexual and domestic abuse for the first time last September.

Picture: Mark Brooks, Chairman of the Mankind Initiative.


Rahmanara Chowdhury talked about domestic violence in Muslim communities. This centred around detailed interviews with 6 Imams. I expect this is rather a difficult subject for a Muslim woman to approach. But I felt the message was failing to hit the target. The message focussed on the identity struggle of young Muslim males (“a baseball cap coming apart at the seams” to quote one Imam), relating to the tension between traditional authentic Islamic teachings and the conflict with western culture. The ‘Muslim = terrorist’ thing and Islamophobia were mentioned, but I felt there was buck passing going on. Nevertheless there was an acceptance that traditional teachings needed modernisation. A pointed question related to the condoning of DV in the Koran, which the speaker claimed was an incorrect reading of the text. The audience became uncomfortable at this line of questioning.

Stuart Hontree (author of the book Parental Alienation, Attachment and Corrupt Law) gave a brief talk on Alienation, including its neuroscience and the diagnostic elements within the DSM (V61.29). (See Stuart’s comment below for further details of the status of Alienation as a  diagnosis).

David Eggins told us of the work of Temper DV, reminding us of the stranglehold that Respect has on the Accreditation of DV perpetrator programmes – which effectively locks-in Duluth-type methodologies despite their known lack of efficacy. (See here and here for chapter and verse on DV perpetrator programmes).

Picture: David Eggins, being filmed for a BBC documentary.


Ianto Doyle & Luke Harney: Journeyman – a rites-of-passage programme for teenage boys. Unlike Band of Brothers, this programme is not (necessarily) for boys with an offending history. No doubt their heart is in the right place, but I’m sceptical about things that end in face paint. And I see these programmes being an attempt to make up for a society in which fatherlessness is endemic and society is increasingly failing (refusing?) to provide a positive identity for biological males. However well meant and well conceived, this is a Band-Aid on a fractured skull. Better than doing f***-all, though.

Shazia Hussain talked to male prisoners’ experience of psychotherapy. Of the 9 men in the study, 6 had paranoid schizophrenia; 8 had an average of 4.5 years of therapy. I felt slightly uncomfortable that the men were merely convenient ‘captive specimens’. Rather than the line of questioning adopted, relating to feelings and opinions, I wondered about simple factual things like family background, literacy, etc.

Matt Englar-Carlson (California State) talked about positive psychology / positive masculinity (PPPM). He told us (and this rings true) that all men tend to think that they are the least masculine man in their group. (To me that suggests an understood standard against which one judges oneself to be failing – but I demur from the view that this standard is quite so crude as the macho image sometimes claimed). The professor continued: Psychology has tended to concentrate upon pathology, on the dark side of masculinity. But it is important to understand what psychological health is for men – otherwise it is inevitable that all you see is pathology and toxicity.

Positive masculinity means empathically connecting with men and working with male strengths rather than working to reform masculine characteristics – as if masculinity itself were a pathology. Performance of traditional masculine norms is not inherently problematic. Positive masculinity emphasises the noble aspects of masculinity. Englar-Carlson emphasised the key role of shame in male psychology, an emotion of far greater importance in men than in women. The purpose of PPPM is to reduce shame, and to assist men in being proud to be men. (That didn’t used to be necessary, did it? What happened?).

He asked us “what kind of man do you want to be?” Right now there are lots of lonely men. Men over 30 find it hard to make friends. In psychologically healthy families, boys are raised to care for and protect others, and to be self-reliant. Perhaps we need to reframe what “provider” means: grit, perseverance, dedication, leadership, humour, leading an heroic life.

Englar-Carlson gave a formal definition of positive masculinity, which I thought was poor: “Endorsing those thoughts and feelings, behaviours and attributes which are socially constructed as masculine and expected of men and promote inter-personal and intra-personal well being and social good”. He was criticised in questioning on the “socially constructed” part – rightly so, in my opinion. Pity, much of what he had to say was – appropriately – very positive. I thought the main shortcoming of his perspective was a failure to acknowledge the practical and institutionalised difficulties which now face men: not least, being a non-resident father. You can hardly demonstrate these positive characteristics when there is a court order against you making contact with your family.

Picture: Professor Matt Englar-Carlson of California State University, and keynote on day 2 of the conference.


Glen Poole (Men’s Health Forum, Australia, via Skype) talked about his work in Australia to promote awareness of the causes of men’s suicide. Men do talk, we were told, it’s just that society doesn’t know how to listen. People need to listen to men with respect and without judgment. The cause of suicide in men tends to be an accumulation of external problems, both practical and social. The reason why it may appear that men don’t seek help is that they don’t necessarily seek help in the context of suicidality. They seek help with practical problems – those problems which may eventually drive them to suicide. Separated fathers are especially vulnerable, he told us. Within the first six months of separation, 50% of fathers are suicidal. This is all wrapped up with social isolation. More generally, men suicide because they feel they are a burden on others, The stereotype that “men don’t need help” is a stereotype which affects society as a whole, not a specific pathology of men themselves. It is society which denies men help.

Picture: Glen Poole, live by Skype from Australia.


Martin Daubney and John Barry presented the finding’s of their “Harry’s” survey which focussed on men’s positive masculinity: what is important for men, what factors contribute most to their positive mental outlook? I refer you to the report for details. Job satisfaction was a massively dominant factor. They authors showed us that martial state was significant. Being single was a downer as regards men’s happiness. (I should have asked if this finding had been controlled for socioeconomic status. Marriage is so strongly correlated with financial status that this finding may have masked “I’m unhappy because I’m poor and have a shit job”.). Health appeared to be positively correlated with competitiveness.

Picture: Martin Daubney, co-founder of the Coalition for Men & Boys.


Gabriel Abotsie, Roger Kingerlee, Luke Woodley (Norfolk & Suffolk NHS): The Men’s Wellbeing Project. Luke (ex-serviceman) reported frustration with being misunderstood by existing practices. Most programmes are feminised; calls for specialist men’s services. This programme (2017-19) was targeted at men and at playing to men’s psychologies. Mensnet site with links to membership. Was pleased to heard men’s therapy referred to as “shoulder to shoulder”. Strong plays on sport and ex-servicemen. Scheme currently confined to Norfolk & Suffolk, but others in audience expressed interest.

Joe Rafferty (CEO Mersey Care NHS Foundation Trust). Good to see someone of CEO status presenting. Mersey have announced a target of zero suicides  of patients in their care. Key aspect of changed policy is ‘no restrictive practices’. I think this means being free to innovate without fear of blame. In my parlance, I believe they have introduced a no-blame culture – which is essential if you want to know what went wrong when something does. Otherwise there is always a cover-up as people try to evade the blame. Rafferty claimed a really dramatic fall in disciplinary actions  not surprisingly. Rather than a Risk Assessment the key now was regarded as being a Safety Plan. This seemed to go down well with informed members of the audience. Surveying people before & after training indicated a dramatic reduction in how many people regarded suicide as (a) selfish, and, (b) inevitable.

Svend Aage Madsen (Copenhagen University Hospital) presented evidence of men as sufferers from post-natal depression (stop sniggering at the back!). 7% of men and 10% of women suffer PND according to the Edinburgh or Gotland scales. The latter is a male specific scale and identifies more male sufferers than the Edinburgh scale.

Picture: Dr Svend Aage Madsen, Head of Research at Copenhagen University Hospital, Head of “The Fatherhood Research Programme”, Denmark, and Head of Men’s Health Forum, Denmark.


Derek McDonnell  – Mojo training for men in distress in N.Ireland. Isolation / emasculation / shame of help seeking. Unemployment rates are very high, and this is likely the root cause of the plentiful candidates. 90% retention of men on the course (unusually high), 83% reduced depression, 70% assistance restarting education.  “Co-production” seems to be the buzz word (active involvement of service users, or ex-service users, in directing the service development or delivery).

Barry Cripps: An old timer in the psychology scene – kept referring to Hans Eysenck, Durkheim and the Existentialists. Bit heavy given that he was addressing men’s psychology in sports. Entertaining, though. Claimed that psychological benefit of sports relates to agency, being in control, raising level of “hardiness” (interesting choice of word) and meaningfulness (which he related to individualism). Hmm.

Picture: Dr Barry Cripps.


Duncan Shields (University of British Columbia) discussed his work with “first responders” (firefighters, 25 men, 5 women). Bemoaned the fact that these people had received no training in recognising the very obvious mental health risks of being perpetually exposed to stress. The dangers of excess stoicism and inability to ‘turn off’. They claimed a 4 day course had dramatic positive effects on PTSD and depression symptoms. A bit touchy-feely for me in parts, but who am I to say what works. (American terminology OSI = Operational Stress Injury, rather than PTSD).

Picture: Professor Duncan Shields.


Hazel Lewis, Michelle Lowe: Post-traumatic growth in male survivors of sexual abuse. I was expecting Bob Balfour to speak (he was there), but he didn’t. Michelle talked about her PhD work, which related only to sexually abused male children (i.e., not adult males). She interviewed 12 participants. Lots of anecdotes. I think the conclusion was that “post-traumatic growth” is possible. I think this essentially means that you can recover. To be honest I was flagging at this point. (See the comment from Bob Balfour below).

Anyhow, all told a well organised and interesting couple of days, and an opportunity to meet up with friends whom I don’t see as often as I’d like, what with living out here in bucolic bliss rather than in the throbbing metropolis.

Well done to John & Martin for organising – noting that the significance of the event is far greater than just the presentations themselves.

We await the outcome of the vote for a male section to be formally recognised by the BPS (British Psychological Society).



About the author of this article

William Collins is a highly respected blogger on the subject of men’s issues.





Open post

Internet dating: rated #1 for men, but for women… meh. Why the difference?

by Hasna Haidar


Many of the things we enjoy in life we enjoy online. Playing, laughing, learning new things, connecting with friends and building new relationships.

It’s the same for both the sexes; we seek a combination of simple and complex pleasures: the hedonic, instant highs of consumerism through online shopping, the mood boosting properties of listening to music and watching funny YouTube videos, and the longer-term pleasures of interaction and relationship building over social media.

As for what yields the most “happiness”, however, it can be highly subjective. Exploring the nature of internet happiness, Carphone Warehouse carried out a survey of 2,002 UK adults (mean + SD age 47 + 17 years old) in November 2017, asking them to rank the online activities that make them most happy.

Overall, activities associated with entertainment and shopping (which offer more hedonic pleasures, gratifying the basic urges of the primal brain) had the biggest impact on our happiness across the sexes. However, when male and female results were separated, there were stark differences.


Men enjoy online dating above all

While the most gratifying online activity among women was “winning an eBay bid”, men stated that “online dating” gave them the most pleasure. Interestingly, among women, meeting a potential partner online didn’t even make the top ten. For women, online dating came in twentieth place, behind ordering a takeaway and managing money online[i].


Top 10 activities that make men happiest online Top 10 activities that make women happiest online
1. Online dating sites (79%) 1. Achieving the winning bid on eBay (80%)
2. Obsessing over a new music video on YouTube and replaying it 100 times over (79%) 2. Instant messaging with friends and family (80%)
3. Achieving the winning bid on eBay (76%) 3. Discovering online discount codes for your favourite retailers and saving lots of money (79%)
4. Finding the perfect meme/gif and sharing it with everyone (74%) 4. Looking things up that interest you (78%)
5. Looking things up that interest you (73%) 5. Discovering the best deal through price comparison sites: from booking hotels to finding a great insurance deal (77%)
6. Getting a message from an old school friend on Facebook who you haven’t heard from in years (73%) 6. Discovering cheap fun days out from websites like Groupon (74%)
7. Discovering online discount codes for your favourite retailers and saving lots of money (73%) 7. Finding the perfect meme/gif and sharing it with everyone (71%)
8. Browsing new bands/tracks through Spotify (71%) 8. Browsing new bands/tracks through Spotify (71%)
9. Discovering the best deal through price comparisons: from booking hotels to finding a great insurance deal (70%) 9. Obsessing over a new music video on YouTube and replaying it 100 times over (70%)
10. Reading funny tweets about a TV program you’re watching (70%) 10. Getting your comment retweeted or liked by someone you love or admire (69%)


Why do men enjoy online dating more than women?

While the study didn’t delve into the thinking behind the respondents’ choices, one reason men might enjoy online dating significantly more than women could be down to the way the different sexes approach dating.

For example, men and women don’t use Tinder in the same manner. A 2016 study into user activity on Tinder showed that men tend to cast their net a little wider, in the beginning at least. They’re more likely to ‘swipe right’ than women and tend to filter their preferences after establishing a match rather than before.

Why do men take this blanket approach? A January 2016 literature review might have uncovered the answers. The review looked at the gender differences in online dating[ii] and found that men “exhibit a positive attitude” towards it, seeing it as an efficient way to meet people. Their interest is in being as productive as possible, even when it comes to something as personal as dating, which could explain their catch-all behaviour.


Short-term goals

The researchers also found that men preferred “short-term romantic relationships with a low level of commitment” within the environment of online dating, while women used the sites to find friends or a potential marriage partner. They also found that men are more active users of online dating sites than women – although it should be noted that the researchers attributed this gender imbalance to the fact that men outnumber women in most IT contexts anyway.

While men are prolific users of online dating sites, and prefer to pursue short-term opportunities within them, The Harry’s Masculinity Report[iii] found that men felt mentally more positive if they were in a steady, long-term relationship, concluding that “relationship stability is an important anchor for many men”. It would seem that while men do value enduring relationships, online dating is not where they ultimately go to find them.


Old-school beliefs

Even in modern-day dating, old-school stereotypes [Editor: or perhaps ‘archetypes’] prevail. When it comes to the ideal type of person they’d like to commence a relationship with, both sexes look for one that can provide the biggest chance of success and fulfilment. For men, this means prioritising physical attractiveness and, specifically, a youthful look (with the logic that female fertility is affected by age, and therefore older women reduce the chance of children). For women, this means prioritising socio-economic status and older men (with the logic that older men are more financially stable and therefore more able to provide for a family).

In their quest to secure a partner – whether in the short-term or in the long-term – both sexes are known to adjust their profiles (even to the point of fabrication) to cater for what the opposite sex might be looking for. Men emphasise their personal interests and assets, overstate their height and misrepresent their online dating goal (aligning their short-term goal closer towards women’s longer-term goal), while women enhance their photos and underreport their weight and age.


Winning online dating

Interestingly, while the sheer number of men on the sites might suggest men gain more romantic success compared to women, the review was inconclusive. Some studies suggested women fared better; others said men were better off; and some felt both sexes were equally successful. In the world of online dating, it turns out the chips are stacked in no particular way at all.


So why do men rate online dating far higher than women do?

When you consider the short-term, commitment-free approach men take to using online dating sites, it’s clear they’re giving themselves a deliberately pressure-free experience. In comparison, the quest for finding a viable long-term partner means women have more at stake.

It would seem that, when it comes to online happiness, everything hinges on mindset.


About the author

Hasna Haidar is a digital researcher and writer, exploring the impact of online activity on happiness and wellbeing.



[i] Managing money online rather than in person or over the phone







Open post

Gender is an obvious factor in addiction and so many other psychological problems, so why is there a gender neutral approach to mental health and psychological therapies?

by Martin Seager, Consultant Clinical Psychologist, Male Psychology Network

I have been working as a psychologist in the addictions field for over two years now and have previously been a psychologist both in the NHS and the voluntary sector for a total of more than 30 years. It seems obvious to me that gender pays a big part in so many psychological problems and issues. Addiction is one obvious example. Approximately 75% of people who use addiction services are male and we must also remember that men are generally less likely to seek help than women so this figure may be an underestimate.

Turning to drugs and alcohol is usually an escape from a life that is hard to cope with, often beginning with trauma, abuse or neglect in childhood.  Emotional damage from the early years can lead to feelings of low self-worth and a need to get away from a hated self and to reduce the pain of living or to create a buzz or a high feeling that is usually missing. Men and women on average deal with their emotions differently. This is not a mere stereotype as the same pattern is found the world over.  Women are more likely to use close relationships to share and process emotions whereas men are more likely to process their feelings through action. This means that on average men will be more likely to do something physical with their pain and alcohol or drugs provides one such option. Of course, the ultimate escape is suicide where men also account for about 75% of cases.

For these same reasons, a depressed or unhappy emotional state is not so easily recognised in men even though the signs are not too hard to read if we are prepared to look in a gender-specific way. But services the land over are gender neutral as if emotional states and behaviours have no gendered qualities or characteristics. With perhaps a few exceptions, we have one size fits all diagnoses and offer one size fits all therapies for men and women as if they were no different. The evidence (e.g. Morison et al, 2014) however suggests that traditional counselling and therapy services are more suited on average to female clients. Within addiction services, as with general mental health services, we deliver counselling and CBT in gender neutral ways and we don’t do enough to offer other options that might help men besides standard drugs or talking therapies. Most of the addiction services that I am aware of do not even have a gender-specific policy on reaching men. Gender specific policies still mainly refer to women only. In some services men’s groups are provided but more often than not men and women are lumped together in mixed groups.

Our own research (e.g. Liddon et al, 2017) shows that although there are many similarities, men and women do show some potentially important differences in preferences for aspects of therapy, coping with stress, and help-seeking. The evidence is also clear that where services are adapted to men (e.g. those provided by the male-suicide charity CALM) they work much better. This is hardly surprising. Men are no different to other groups in needing to be understood and empathised with on their own terms.

All this makes it doubly important that we should succeed in achieving a male psychology section of the British Psychological Society. If psychologists can’t see the difference between men and women, what hope is there for the rest of us?


About the author

Martin Seager is a Consultant Clinical Psychologist and co-founder of the Male Psychology Network. He is Chairing the Male Psychology Conference at UCL this Friday and Saturday (22-23 June 2018)



Liddon, L, Kingerlee, R and Barry, J (2018) British Journal of Clinical Psychology, Volume 57, Issue 1 pp 42-58

Morison, L, Trigeorgis, C & John, M (2014) “Are mental health services inherently feminised?” The Psychologist, Vol 27. No 4 pp 414-6

Open post

How can we help men to be more willing to access therapy? Insights from working with prisoners.

by Dr Naomi Murphy.

Within the UK, three times as many men kill themselves as women[1].  Within the Republic of Ireland, this ratio rises to 5:1.  Concern about male suicide, along with male over-representation in other behavioural statistics that are associated with distress (substance misuse and violence for instance) has led researchers and mental health professionals to consider whether therapy as it is currently provided is accessible to men.

Some observe that therapy is unappealing to men. Discussions of gender differences in relation to therapy suggest men find feeling-focused therapy “too woolly”, prefer structured approaches such as CBT and benefit from an approach that is made less intense by “talking whilst doing”, offering gradual exposure to emotions and with an emphasis on strength and empowerment (e.g. Seidler et al, 2017[2]).

Within prison, treatment is most typically highly structured, manualised, offending behaviour programmes (OBPs).  The Fens Service (HMP Whitemoor since 2000) was established for men considered to be challenging to the prison system and perceived as unable to benefit from standard OBPs.  The typical service user has received a life sentence for violent or sexually violent crimes and has to some degree been labelled as “untreatable” or “treatment-resistant”.  This may be because he has completed OBP treatment and is perceived as making no gains but, more commonly, he has been ejected from treatment for failing to attend regularly or turning up and being disruptive.  Not infrequently, he has been unable to access treatment because his daily behaviour has proved so challenging to manage that he has been located within special accommodation that makes treatment more inaccessible.  Despite this, once within the Fens Service, the average man attends 95% of the individual sessions and 88% of the group sessions available to him over the 5 year course of treatment.

Treatment is as voluntary as it can ever be when one is detained in custody.  There are no immediate consequences to failing to attend a session but staff attitudes towards a D.N.A. (did not attend) may be helpful.  DNA is seen as an inevitable part of beginning an emotionally intimate relationship and the struggle to establish intimacy given the context within which these men were generally raised included brutal physical and sexual abuse by multiple perpetrators in ‘care-giving’ roles, profound neglect and loss which becomes an explicit focus of discussion.

Seiger & Barry (2014[3]) highlight the importance for men of being “a fighter and winner….a provider and protector… and retaining mastery and control at all times”.  Seidler et al draw the apparently logical conclusion that therapy must maintain these needs by teaching men skills and being task focused to enable the men to perhaps avoid feeling vulnerable.  The approach that we utilise at Whitemoor is to normalise vulnerability as part of the human condition and to alleviate them of the burden or “shame” of asking for help by pragmatically acknowledging the hurt child that we know each of them is trying to heal.  The bravery required to do this work is spoken of frequently and staff speak openly of their own emotional responses during therapy which inevitably includes feeling frightened, hated or saddened but demonstrates these feelings are not only universal but are not to be feared.

Would these prisoners have gone to therapy more readily had they been offered the ‘graded exposure’ approach suggested by authors such as Seager, Barry and Seidler? This is a moot point at present because neither approach to facilitating help-seeking has been subject to formal research. There might also be contextual and individual differences that make it difficult to compare help-seeking in the general public to help-seeking in a secure prison environment.

One thing we know is that once in treatment, the prisoners at Whitemoor have a good chance of making clinically significant improvements, so it would be very useful to know which method – graded exposure or normalising vulnerability – is more effective in encouraging prisoners to enter therapy.

About the author

Dr Naomi Murphy, currently Clinical Director of the Fens Offender Personality Disorder Pathway Service at HMP Whitemoor, is a Consultant Clinical & Forensic Psychologist with a long-standing interest in the psychological needs of male offenders. She will be giving a keynote speech on Fri 22nd at the Male Psychology Conference at University College London

You can vote now for a Male Psychology Section of the BPS.
Details are here



[1] Samaritans Suicide Statistics Report 2017

[2] Seidler, Z., Rice, S., Oliffe, J., Fogarty, A. & Dhillon, H. (2017) Men in and out of treatment for depression: Strategies for improved engagement. Australian Psychologist

[3] Seager, M. & Barry, J. (2014)





Open post

We probably need you, but do we want you?

by Anonymous Author

Whilst attending interviews this year, hopeful to be chosen for a place to be trained as a clinical psychologist in our NHS, I managed to talk to many other hopeful candidates. After the textbook icebreaking questions, once they knew how far I travelled to get there and if I had anymore interviews lined up, the next question was usually about my gender. “How does it feel to be the only man here?” or “I have never worked with a male clinical psychologist”. Of course there was no offence to be taken, to me it was harmless, but one comment struck me:

“I would love to be male in this process, it’s such an advantage”.

I felt a bit awkward; I did not want to be selected purely because of my gender. But was it true? Was I at an advantage because I was male? Just as with some of these candidates, every psychologist I have worked with to date has also been female. I knew it was well documented that clinical psychology is a female-majority profession (e.g. Caswell and Baker, 2008; Willyard, 2011), and I knew concern was growing about the lack of males in clinical psychology (e.g. Barry, 2016). I also remembered reading when applying on the clearing house for postgraduate clinical psychology training courses website ( the statement: ‘We welcome applications from people from ethnic minority backgrounds, people with disabilities and men as these groups are currently under-represented in the profession’. But did this mean, compared to the female who made this comment, my chances of getting a place were higher as a male?

No. In fact, they might not have even been equal. What I have recently discovered is that overall, male applicants are statistically and systematically less likely to be accepted onto clinical psychology doctorate courses than females.

The clearing house website has published equal opportunities data since 2005 (, stating numbers and percentages of the applicant demographic compared to the accepted demographic. Let’s take for instance 2015. In total, 633 males applied and 84 were accepted onto a course. For females, 2,922 applied and 498 were accepted. Of course, there are going to be more female clinical psychologists, after all, there are far fewer males applying. However, what deeply concerns me is when we look at these numbers in relative percentages.

Those 633 males applying made up 18% of the total applicants for courses, and the 2,922 made up the other 82%. Yet, those 84 males that were accepted only made up 14% of total acceptances, with the 498 female acceptances making up the other 86%. Seemingly then, in 2015, females had a statistically higher chance of being accepted onto training than males. In fact, every male had roughly a 13% chance of selection, while females had roughly a 17% chance.

Hoping this was just a one off, I decided to look at other years. The pattern, however, was almost systematic. Apart from 2011, the relative percentage of males accepted onto courses were lower than the relative percentage of male applicants in every single year after 2005, when data started to be collected.

I think it is fair to say that the NHS could benefit with more male clinical psychologists. It makes sense that men and boys entering NHS psychological services can request to see a male psychologist; after all, we all reasonably expect to be able to request to see a same-sex GP when we have personal or private physical health issues. More male psychologists could also inform a more gender-inclusive service, which is critical when we consider that 75% of suicides are male. It is even more critical when we consider that 25% of these males seek help from a health professional in the week leading to their suicide (Mental Health Taskforce Strategy, 2016). There are obvious questions as to whether the NHS is meeting their needs effectively; in 2015, over 88 males on average committed suicide each week (Samaritans, 2017), meaning suicide is the biggest killer of men under 50 in the UK (Mental Health Foundation, 2018).

Many ideas have been offered to try and explain the shortage of male clinical psychologists, such as men are more reluctant to pursue the profession because of its association with ‘caring’ aspects of human nature, that fewer males undertake an undergraduate degree in psychology, and commonly that there are far fewer applicants for doctoral training (e.g. Bradley, 2013; BPS, 2004; Morison et al., 2014). The explanation is far simpler. There are enough males applying; enough to fill over 50% of places in any given year. They are just not given the chance to be accepted; at least not as fair a chance as females.

I do not have enough experience or knowledge of doctorate course selection procedures to evaluate them, though, I do speculate that male applicants typically have lower academic achievement than their female counterparts. I also wonder if male personal statements are less warm-hearted and reflective, and whether males come across less compassionately at interviews.

It makes sense that the top scoring candidates get accepted; presumably they would make higher-quality clinical psychologists. However, the entry requirements from the clearing house for postgraduate clinical psychology training courses website states you ideally need at least a 2:1 in a degree that confers graduate basis for chartered membership (GBC) and an unspecified amount of clinically relevant experience. It would be reasonable to assume that all, if not the majority, of male applicants have met all of these entry requirements before paying £23 to submit an application. Therefore, it is reasonable to say, some university selection procedures, which are not controlled directly by the NHS, Government or the clearing house, are disadvantaging male applicants.

Of course, to look at this through the lens of gender is a one-dimensional and narrowminded view. I may come across bias; I may even come across supporting the comment made to me at my interview, that males should have an advantage in the process. I absolutely do not believe this. The best clinical psychologists I have met are female. Instead, I think the profession needs to look into this issue further and think of its implications if it were to continue. More diversity in the profession will only better meet the needs of our diverse range of service users. But things could get worse yet; less success could be further pushing males away from the profession. In the last three years of data published (2013-2016), the number of females applying each year has fallen 2%, however, for males this has fallen a staggering 8%, from an already relatively small number applying anyway in 2013.

Given clinical psychology training is funded by public taxpayers’ money, directed from our NHS, is it fair to say males should have at least an equal chance of getting onto such programmes as females? If the relative percentages were equal in the years where less males were accepted since 2005 (i.e. 18% of applicants being male lead to 18% of acceptances being male), we might have over 130 additional male clinical psychologists working in our NHS today.


About the author

The author has asked for his identity to be witheld.


You can vote now for a Male Psychology Section of the BPS.
Details are here



Barry, J. (2016) ‘More male psychologists?’. The Psychologist, (29): 412-419.

Bradley, J. (2013) ‘Where are all the men?’. [Letter to the editor]

British Psychological Society (2004) Widening access within undergraduate psychology education and its implications for professional psychology: Gender; disability and ethnic diversity. Leicester: BPS.

Caswell, R. and Baker, M. (2008) ‘Men in a female-majority profession: Perspectives of male trainees in clinical psychology’. Clinical Psychology Forum, (214).

Mental Health Foundation (2018) Suicide. Accessed from: [01.06.2018].

Mental Health Taskforce Strategy (2016) The Five Year Forward View for Mental Health.

Morison, L., Trigeorgis, C. and John, M. (2014) ‘Are mental health services inherently feminised?’. The Psychologist, (29): 414-417.

Willyard, C. (2011) ‘Men: A growing minority?’. gradPSYCH, 9 (1): 40.

Posts navigation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12 13 14
Scroll to top