Which of the following would be associated with the ideal man in today’s hegemonic masculinity?

What Is Hegemonic Masculinity?

The concept of hegemonic masculinity came to prominence through the work of Connell (1987, 1995) and Connell and Messerschmidt (2005). Drawing on work across a number of disciplines, Connell developed the concept as a reflection of the interests of a range of scholars that sought to prioritize the study of masculinity within a system of gender relations. Largely influenced by Gramsci’s (1971) notion of hegemony as an ideological practice that sustains and legitimizes the interests of the powerful in society within particular historical periods, hegemonic masculinity in Connell’s terms has come to constitute the most dominant and most socially prized form of masculinity available to men. The status of hegemonic masculinity distinguishes it from and sets it above other forms of gender identities that do not match up to this dominant ideal. For example, an alternative form of masculinity is one does not meet the expectations of the hegemonic form as norms that shape accepted social practices but which does not present any challenge to that identity; it is thereby viewed as complicit in the maintenance of hegemonic masculinity and as benefitting from that complicity. Other forms of masculinities, however, differ markedly from the hegemonic ideal and are either marginalized or subordinated to the hegemonic version. Hegemonic masculinity thus symbolizes and enacts power over other masculine identities as well as over women. It constitutes the most socially valued form of masculinity to which individual men can aspire, notwithstanding that it does not necessarily reflect the lived identities of many, or indeed of any, individual men.

In Western and Westernized societies the ideal hegemonic masculinity is treated as synonymous with an identity that is broadly considered to be “macho,” ie, being (to at least some extent) assertive and aggressive, courageous, almost invulnerable to threats and problems, and stoic in the face of adversity. It is thereby viewed as associated with behaviors that display courage and strength and that include refusal to acknowledge weakness or to be overcome by adverse events, while discouraging other behaviors such as the expression of emotions or the need to seek the help of others. As Connell acknowledges, such a form of identity is not easily performed or necessarily desirable in itself; indeed it is a prescribed and idealized set of norms rather than reflecting the lived reality of men’s lives. Nonetheless, hegemonic masculinity provides a normative standard to which men can aspire and against which individual men can assess their own identities.

Positive expression of maleness

“Toxic masculinity” and “hegemonic masculinity” are terms and concepts often studied and discussed in both empirical research and the media. While it is important to better understand the darker side of masculinity, there are also researchers who are examining masculinity from a strengths-based/positive psychology approach. Given the relevance of positive psychology constructs to meaning in life, this approach may help understand and emphasize how strengths expressed through masculinity can counter the problematic elements of masculinity.

Kiselica and Englar-Carlson (2010) argued that identification of masculinity strengths may be more beneficial than focusing on the problematic elements of masculinity. They proposed that studying male “strengths” would increase understanding of masculinity. Among the strengths they identified, six related specifically to interpersonal patterns: male relational style focused on shared activities, male ways of caring including use of empathy, generative fatherhood, a group orientation toward common purpose, and the larger societal impact of fraternal organizations. Individual strengths are self-reliance, importance of work, courage and daring, and use of humor.

These strengths, with a positive psychology masculinity paradigm, were investigated by McDermott et al. (2019) in a large-scale survey (over 1000) of community living men and women. Using literature review and focus group methods, a large number of attributes were developed and presented for ratings on the degree to which the attribute was expected for women and expected for men. One notable finding was that almost all of the social-relational variables were expected more of women; a few exceptions were being a mentor and being a motivator, which were equally expected. Many attributes were rated as positive and as expected more for men; examples were being a leader, providing safety, being hardworking. However, of the male expectations, many were expressions of the traditional masculinity models; examples were being strong physically, driven to succeed, and finding ways to achieve goals despite obstacles.

Conclusion

The narratives included in this chapter very much speak to the presumed binaries of engaged and distant fathering, of hegemonic masculinity and what has been termed “caring masculinity” (Hunter et al., 2017a), and of gay fathers and heterosexual fathers. The narratives suggest that, certainly, there may be moments where these binaries encapsulate something about the differences between men as fathers, but the narratives also suggest that these binaries are far from discrete, often overlapping with one another and taken up simultaneously by many of the men. In terms of clinical practice, this would suggest that parenting programs aimed at men should encompass a diversity of approaches, such that they hold open the possibility that men will take up and utilize a diversity of understandings of fatherhood in their everyday practices in raising children.

The narratives included in this chapter also suggest that while much may have changed with regards to attitudes toward gay and/or transgender parents, much still stays the same in terms of how heterosexual cisgender parenthood is treated as the norm against which all other parents are compared. This suggests that clinical practice and support services targeted at men as fathers must continue to strive to develop inclusive approaches that challenge assumptions that all children need a mother, or that transgender people cannot be good parents, or that in gay relationships specifically there is a “mother figure” and a “father figure.” Certainly in one of the narratives this distinction was at times employed; however, it was done so with some humor, and appeared to refer less to gender differences between the men, and more to differing roles in terms of the provision of care. As Doucet (2006) has suggested, it is not that men who provide primary care to their children become mothers per se, rather than men who provide primary care engage in behaviors that are often read as “maternal,” when in reality they simply reflect the very care provided to children, and especially young children.

Finally, the narratives included in this chapter demonstrate that while new parenthood can be a joyous time for some fathers, for other fathers it can be a time of ambivalence, of increased investment in normative accounts of masculinity, of increased challenges, all of which relate to how men are expected to think about themselves as fathers. This suggests the importance of clinical approaches that are cognizant of the challenges that fathers can face, and which seek to link men in with services that provide support. For some men this might be through connection with fathering groups, as was the case for some of the men whose narratives are included in this chapter. For other men it might be about providing opportunities for counseling focused on the transition to fatherhood. Whatever the approach, and as noted above, it must be mindful of the diversity of experiences that fathers bring with them, rather than presuming that either “wearing the pants” in the traditional sense, or being an engaged caring father, are the only pathways available.

In conclusion, the narratives included in this chapter speak to some of the challenges that men face as fathers, and which may make it difficult to engage them in research and clinical practice. These challenges include attitudes toward men as primary caregivers, attitudes related to gender and sexuality, and beliefs about what men should and should not do as fathers. As we shall see in the final chapter of this book, these challenges must be addressed in a concerted fashion by researchers and clinicians so as to foster men’s engaged with, and connection to, pathways to parenthood, and the experience of being a father.

Racialized perspectives of masculinity

Foney and Cunningham (2002) also identified race as a significant factor affecting the male academic performance. In particular, they explored the connection between concepts of hegemonic masculinity and the experience of black/African-American students. Relevant to student behavior, they note as follows: “Although the ‘daring’ behaviors may not ordinarily be labeled ‘aggressive behavior’ in majority cultures, in Black/African American males, these daring behaviors may be viewed as antisocial and aggressive” (Foney and Cunningham, 2002: 145). Therefore, their interpretation, among other cultures, produces a negative impact that triggers attitudes within this population such as the development of maladaptive coping mechanisms which are linked to behavior that affect academic performance.

Wright et al. (1998) focused on black Caribbean males and recognized that current perceptions of their masculinity are constructed and influenced by other male peers and white teachers. However, they emphasize that these expressions of black male masculinity triggering exclusion from the educational system should not be interpreted as an inability to attain white concepts of masculinities. These particular findings are in direct opposition to what Horvat and Lewis (2003) assert in their analysis of factors that inhibit academic excellence. Horvat and Lewis rely upon Fordham and Ogbu's (1986) work, Black Students' School Success: Coping with the Burden of Acting White, and conclude that black/African-American students continue to underperform in school because of their cultural opposition to acting white, particularly believing that they do not receive comparable returns for their hard work in school relative to whites.

Sexism

Research on gender in sport consistently documents fewer opportunities and less support for female sport participants compared to males. International competitions, such as the Olympics, have more events for male athletes; governing bodies are male dominated; media reinforce gendered ideologies and provide limited coverage of female athletes; sexual harassment toward female athletes is widespread, and women in sport must contend with “accusations” of being lesbians. These actions have led to sport being considered a patriarchal institution; that is, it is dominated and often controlled by males who hold social, political, and economic power.

Sport also reinforces and supports hegemonic masculinity and femininity. These ideals reinforce socially sanctioned mannerisms specific for each gender. Most societies encourage males to be masculine and females to be feminine. Characteristics associated with hegemonic masculinity include strength, competitiveness, assertiveness, confidence, and independence. Being gentle, compassionate, emotional, and dependent, for example, are characteristics of hegemonic femininity. These characteristics are considered hegemonic because they are accepted and reinforced by social norms, customs, and behaviors. Hegemonic customs and behaviors are so widely visible that they are rarely questioned, rather they are accepted as “natural.” Males who act contrary to hegemonic masculinity or females who counter hegemonic femininity face discrimination and social exclusion. Further, in athletic contests, especially contact sports, success often is determined by how well an athlete expresses characteristics associated with masculinity. As such, there is more support (financially and socially) for boys and men in sport than for girls and women. Female athletes' sport accomplishments often are invisible for similar reasons.

Fundamental, non-Western societies are even more restrictive toward women's sport participation. Within traditional Islamic cultures women face rigid barriers for participation in sport. This culture also emphasizes modesty, and for women this may encompass completely covering their bodies in clothes. This expected attire may impede participation in sport altogether or limit women's ability to compete in elite events where competitive attire is inconsistent with Islamic culture. Only in all-female environments may traditional Islamic women wear shorts and t-shirts, otherwise they are expected to be covered properly. For Islamic women to compete at elite events, they must forsake traditional attire and modesty, participate in mixed gender venues, and resist the strongly patriarchal social structure. They also risk severe reprisals for doing so. Female Islamic athletes have received public disavowals and death threats for participating in settings not consistent with Islamic law. Although facing different ideologies of intolerance, Aboriginal women have similar struggles. While women in general are underrepresented in sport; women of color, economically disadvantaged, older, physically challenged, or lesbian, bisexual, and transgender are even less visible.

Masculinities, Femininities, Sexualities, and Curriculum

In recent years, issues of multiple identities have risen to the fore in considerations of gender and curriculum. This work has sought to engage with the variations within gender categories, stressing the fluidity of category boundaries and the multiple positioning of individuals along the male–female continuum. This has necessitated feminist scholars engaging with conceptualizations of masculinities in an attempt to analyze the way in which gender as a category impacts educational experience. As the examination outcomes of girls have improved, there has been increasing attention paid to the way in which constructions of hegemonic masculinities work in opposition to notions of achievement and attainment in schools. The notion of laddishness (Jackson, 2006), the deliberate construction of resistant masculinities, has been advanced as a part-explanation for this male conflict with normative educational discourses. The work on masculinities has been valuable in further strengthening the understanding about the complexities of identity work and the relationship between structure and agency in the formation of gendered identities. Alongside this work, consideration has been given to multiple femininities, with acknowledgement that the relationship of girls with traditional gendered identities is complex and can be both compliant and transgressive. This has challenged stereotypes surrounding the compliance of girls in classrooms and led to a range of work that has illuminated how some girls work actively to destabilize academic identities, leading to alienation, underachievement, and even exclusion.

Drawing primarily from Foucauldian concepts of the relationship between power and knowledge, gender studies in recent years have sought to identify ways in which the embodiment and performance of gender can be traced in classroom discourses. Butler’s (1990) insistence on gender as a citational practice indicates that the ritualized performances of what it means to be inscribed as male or female can be identified in the daily transactions of classroom life. This relates to the curriculum in a number of ways. If students are not challenged to question these norms, through the development of curricula that enable them to deconstruct normative gendered practices, then such practices produce idealized notions of gender that serve to further reinforce partial knowledge. In addition, a curriculum that fails to acknowledge the nature of multiple, fluid, and performed gendered identities is likely to silence those pupils who sit on the margins of classroom life and lead to pedagogical practices that promote alienation and the othering of difference. Recent work in gender studies and curriculum has, therefore, further problematized the relationship between curriculum and pedagogy and illuminated the way in which they work together to create the illusion of stabilized gendered identities.

There have been other developments in curriculum theory that relate to a consideration of issues of gender within the curriculum. Developing out of the work of a number of progressive reconceptualist curriculum theorists, the queer studies movement in education has challenged the heteronormative construction of the curriculum in which gender and sexuality are correlated in unproblematic ways (Pinar, 1998). This work has sought to disrupt the notion of heterosexuality as a secure category and indicated that the curriculum needs to incorporate work on constructions and performance of sexual identities. Attention needs to be paid to the way in which heterosexual practices and values become naturalized within curricula. Particular subjects have received more detailed analysis in this work than others. For example, physical education has been identified as an intensive site for heteronormative work, given the relationship between sexuality, gender, and the body. Compulsory heterosexuality is reinforced in a subject in which physical prowess is related to hegemonic masculinity. The study of literature offers more potential for the exploration of queer identities, although this is achieved in spite of, not because of, the official curriculum as gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered readers reinscribe themselves into texts (Vicars, 2007). What is needed is the inclusion of texts that speak about the lives of marginalized pupils in the curriculum. In addition, the role of sex education in challenging prejudices and enabling self-exploration in relation to sexuality has been considered, and Britzman (1998) has argued that the subject should not simply reflect on issues relating to sex, but should also consider how knowledge about sexualities is constructed. There is still work to be done in relation to other curriculum subject areas, but the emergent work on queer theory and curriculum has highlighted the need to trace, in close detail, the normative discourses regarding sexuality that are embedded within the development of curricula.

6 Synthesis and Conclusions

Sexism impacts boys and girls across many contexts of childhood. This chapter touched on just some of the recent research examining gender stereotypes and discrimination facing children and adolescents—from teachers, coaches, and parents, from peers, and from media. Overall, gender stereotypes establish norms that prescribe behaviors that children try to proactively embrace for themselves and enforce in others (Martin & Ruble, 2004). Biased treatment from teachers, parents, and peers reinforces children's gender-specific skills and interests, and children face recrimination and discrimination when they do not conform to those stereotypes. We propose that gender bias and discrimination funnels children into one of the three stereotypical prototypes: macho boys, smart girls, and sexy girls.

We suggest that, for boys, many of the gender stereotypes and discrimination described in this chapter stem from hegemonic masculinity. Specifically, hegemonic masculinity dictates that boys should be physically tough, emotionally stoic, self-sufficient, and heterosexually dominant over girls (Chu, Porche, & Tolman, 2005). In other words, the stereotypic norm is that boys should be tough, not ask for help or be too compliant, and be sexually assertive. Thus, boys’ pursuit of these masculinity norms discourages boys from seeking help from teachers when needed; thus they are more inclined to fall behind academically when they encounter difficulties (Morris, 2012). Masculinity norms also encourage boys’ noncompliant behaviors in the classroom, resulting in harsh disciplinary actions that take them out of the learning environment, pushing them even further behind academically (Skiba et al., 2002). As a result, these macho boys disengage from academic achievement to preserve their burgeoning masculine identity and maintain self-esteem. Disengaging from academics is further reinforcing for macho boys because it is associated with greater social status and popularity (Jamison et al., 2015) and it cements teachers’ stereotypes of underachieving, troublesome boys (Jones & Myhill, 2004).

As boys enter adolescence, the masculinity norms which dictate that macho boys should be heterosexually assertive and dominant over girls become prevalent. As a result, boys show high rates of sexual harassment directed at girls (Poteat, Kimmel, & Wilchins, 2011) and endorse the belief that girls should be sexually objectified (Jewell & Brown, 2013). Further, the more boys endorse the belief that girls should be sexually objectified and boys should be sexually assertive, the more they report sexually harassing girls (Jewell & Brown, 2013; Jewell et al., 2015). These behaviors and beliefs also boost the social status of macho boys and are most prevalent in boys with the most social influence over their peers (Jewell et al., 2015). In contrast, those boys who show any feminine characteristics (e.g., play a sport deemed a “girl sport”) are rejected, teased, and bullied by their peers (Jewell & Brown, 2014). Boys who do not portray an image of sexual dominance over girls are insulted with homophobic epithets. This happens regardless of sexual orientation but is most extreme for sexual-minority boys (Williams et al., 2005).

In contrast to boys, girls seem to have a bit more flexibility in the stereotypic norms prescribed to them. Based on the literature reviewed here, we suggest that girls can take one of the two (mutually exclusive) paths: they can be smart or they can be sexy (see Graff et al., 2012). Unfortunately, as they currently function, both result in maintaining lower social status for girls and women relative to boys and men.

When children first begin school, girls are perceived to be good and compliant students (Jones & Myhill, 2004). We suggest that their lower social status relative to boys is still maintained, however, because they are presumed to struggle with the most difficult abstract subjects (such as physics). Because of both subtle and overt discrimination stemming from these stereotypes, girls often lose confidence, motivation, and interest in these male-dominated subjects (Brown & Leaper, 2010). Some girls, however, persist in academics, often achieving high levels of educational attainment (thus, being overrepresented in college relative to boys). Despite high overall achievement, these smart girls have often segregated themselves into “gender-appropriate” subjects (Steffens & Jelenec, 2011). If these smart girls push back too much about against traditional feminine stereotypic norms (e.g., if they do not value physical attractiveness), they are teased and rejected by both male and female peers. This, in turn, is associated with negative psychological outcomes (Chiodo et al., 2009). If these girls reject feminine norms by playing too many sports or being too athletic, they are also teased and rejected (Slater & Tiggemann, 2010). Thus, these smart girls are often academically successful and may play a sport, but only in gender-specific ways (Schmalz & Kerstetter, 2006).

Some girls do not, however, show strong academic self-concepts. Specifically, some girls as early as elementary school, particularly girls who have a lot of media exposure, internalize sexualization messages and begin to self-sexualize (Tiggemann & Slater, 2014). Based on the stereotypic norms of sexualized girls, being sexualized and academically successful are incompatible (Stone et al., 2015). Thus, girls who aspire to be sexy girls may opt out of more difficult academic courses. These girls are also perceived by others as less competent and smart (Graff et al., 2012), which can further diminish academic outcomes through self-fulfilling prophecy mechanisms. The result is that these sexy girls, those who have internalized sexualization messages, have more negative academic outcomes (McKenney & Bigler, 2014b). In addition, if girls believe that women should be sexual objects, they are more likely to interact with boys who also believe that (Jewell et al., 2015), and they are more likely to be the target of sexual harassment (Jewell et al., 2015). Experiencing sexual harassment, as well as repeated exposure to sexualized media, contributes to sexy girls having worse body image and more body concerns (Daniels, 2009; McKenney & Bigler, 2014a). Lastly, because sexy girls are perceived as less athletic (Stone et al., 2015), they are more likely to be teased by peers. This teasing and taunting dissuades girls from participating in athletic activities, the very activities that can improve body satisfaction (Vu et al., 2006). Thus, girls that aspire for the sexualized ideal leave adolescence with lower academic achievement, more negative body image, and more negative social and emotional outcomes associated with sexual harassment.

Conforming to these rigid stereotypes limits children and adolescents’ individual opportunities and developmental outcomes. There are also broader economic implications. For example, equity in STEM domains is important because students’ achievements in these subjects are considered important for economic success in today's increasingly technological world (Zakaria, 2011). Thus, although this gender disparity has existed for a long time, because the world's economy is becoming more and more technologically dependent, the urgency for increasing equal participation in STEM fields is growing. Furthermore, because starting salaries in STEM careers are 26% higher than non-STEM careers ($66,123 vs $52,299; Burning Glass, 2014), girls opting out of high-paying STEM careers perpetuate wage gaps between men and women. Yet, we have smart, high-achieving girls steering clear of STEM careers and potentially smart boys disengaging from academics altogether. This severely limits the applicant pool for cutting-edge, innovative (and high paying) occupations.

We propose that conforming to these rigid stereotypes also has broader damaging social implications. For example, by the time young men and women enter college, many are well entrenched in the macho boy and sexy girl stereotype. Thus, macho boys believe that they should be sexually assertive and dominant (beliefs associated with endorsing rape myths), and sexy girls believe they should compliant, sexually desirable, and are desensitized to sexual harassment. It is not surprising, therefore, that more than one in four girls in college have experienced some form of sexual coercion, with one in five experiencing forced intercourse, most frequently by a boyfriend (Gross, Winslett, Roberts, & Gohm, 2006). Very few girls ever report these rapes to the police (Gross et al., 2006). These rates are alarmingly high but seem to be the inevitable conclusion of the stereotypes and bias that began in early childhood.

6.4 Broader Extracurricular Opportunities

More broadly than GSAs, many youth participate in a range of school-based extracurricular activities and groups (e.g., sports or clubs) as a part of their educational experience. These settings also can promote resilience and healthy youth development (Fredricks, 2012). Participating in extracurricular activities is associated with higher GPAs and school completion rates (Darling, 2005; Eccles & Barber, 1999; Feldman & Matjasko, 2005) and higher self-esteem (Blomfield & Barber, 2009). Extracurricular participation also has been linked to greater interpersonal competence, school engagement, sense of belonging, and educational aspirations (Denault & Poulin, 2009; Marsh & Kleitman, 2002).

There are several explanations for the academic benefits derived through extracurricular involvement. Structured activities promote physical safety, supportive relationships, positive social norms, and self-efficacy (Eccles & Gootman, 2002). Participation in extracurricular activities increases school connectedness, self-worth, and sense of school belonging (Libbey, 2004). In essence, extracurricular sports and clubs are positioned to promote healthy development in many of the same domains around which sexual minority and gender-variant youth experience greater hardships due to victimization and marginalization in schools.

Despite the benefits of extracurricular involvement, discrimination is evident in these contexts for many sexual minority and gender-variant youth. Organized sports can be particularly hostile environments in which hegemonic masculinity and sexual prejudice are pervasive (Gill, Morrow, Collins, Lucey, & Schultz, 2010). These unwelcoming and unsafe climates may discourage or explicitly prevent sexual minority and gender-variant youth from participating in these activities (Gill et al., 2010; Mishna, Newman, Daley, & Solomon, 2009). Ultimately, social exclusion and homophobic climates within certain extracurricular groups deprive many sexual minority and gender-variant youth of the benefits of participating in them.

Males who are involved in sports are socialized to conform to a restricted masculine and heterosexual identity; those who deviate from these norms often face ridicule, harassment, or physical violence (Gill et al., 2010; Messner, 1992). Furthermore, males who wish to participate in stereotypically female-oriented activities, such as cheerleading, often are victimized based on their perceived sexual orientation (Barron & Bradford, 2007). Sexual minority males who are involved in sports often feel pressured to conceal their sexual orientation out of fear of reprisal or rejection (Griffin, 1993). Although sexual minority males involved in sports may avoid being targets of discrimination because peers are less likely to suspect them to be gay or bisexual, this carries a substantial psychological and social cost of hiding their identity and facing exposure to prejudice and homophobic behavior from peers and adult figures (Griffin, 1993).

Sexual minority females also face barriers and challenges to sports participation, although they differ in some ways from those faced by males. (Barriers to physical activity and sport participation faced by girls in K-12 education are reviewed by Solmon, 2014 [Chapter 4 of this volume].) For instance, males who participate in sports are validated for their heightened displays of masculinity, yet females often feel pressured to compensate with heightened femininity to offset their engagement in stereotypically masculine behavior (Griffin, 1993; Stoelting, 2011). Consequently, whereas males who participate in sports may be less likely to be considered gay or bisexual, females who participate in sports may be more likely to be considered lesbian or bisexual (Gill et al., 2010). At the same time, it is unclear whether homophobic expressions and pressure to conform to feminine norms arise from within the setting (e.g., from teammates or coaches) as they do for males, or whether they originate from outside the setting (e.g., from other students within the school). In general, little research has explored the experiences of sexual minority youth athletes or whether experiences differ for male and female youth athletes due to gender differences in sexual prejudice and its intersection with traditional gender norms. Nevertheless, attention to these issues would be quite valuable for efforts to develop tailored programming to counter sexual prejudice and sexism in these settings within which sexual minority youth may face the greatest hostility.

Adding to these concerns, some school policies perpetuate the marginalization of transgender youth. Participation in some clubs, particularly sports teams, is sometimes restricted by one's biological sex (Barron & Bradford, 2007). For example, transgender females may not be allowed to participate in women's sports teams. As with most other areas of research, however, there has been a severe lack of attention to the experiences of transgender youth in these contexts. As schools begin to address issues related to gender identity and expression, however, there has been a growing awareness that this constitutes a priority area within research, practice, and policy work.

Although sexual minority and gender-variant youth face barriers and resistance to their involvement in sports and clubs, recent research suggests that these outlets may promote overall well-being and positive academic outcomes for those who are involved in them (Toomey & Russell, 2013a). If barriers to extracurricular involvement can be diminished, these settings could be a major source of support and may promote healthy social and academic development for sexual minority and gender-variant youth. Thus, researchers should give much greater attention to how school-based extracurricular involvement may foster social relationships, improve mental health, and promote academic achievement among sexual minority and gender-variant youth.

Conclusions

There are very different characteristics among and between groups of people who kill themselves. Prevention and intervention must be tailored to fit the groups. There are essentially two subgroups in the interpersonal relationships group, the unrequited love suicides and the abusive relationship suicides. For men in both subgroups, losing control in the relationship was the impetus for the suicide. Yet for the unrequited love group, the response was to turn inward; their suicides were predicated on loss. They may have internalized ideas of hegemonic masculinity in which they believed they ought to have been in control of their relationships, but most often they were not violent towards others. For these men, interventions that involve counseling make sense. As we noted in Chapter 3, Suicide Motivated by Interpersonal Relationships, hotlines may be of value since reaching out to someone may help break the isolation that they feel as a result of their loss.

For those in the abusive subgroup, the suicide is not a turn inward, but a turn outward. Even when the situation is not murder-suicide, the events are frequently aggressive, public and terrifying. Hotlines and counseling are not interventions that these men would accept, so other interventions must be devised. In Chapter 8, The Intersection of Suicide and Legal Issues and Chapter 10, Conclusions and Implications we propose some possible solutions.

Those who kill themselves for escape represent the most complex group to help, and indeed prevention and intervention have no one-size-fits-all model. When Baumeister et al. (1993) advanced his escape theory, he proposed that those who killed themselves to escape would exhibit a heightened sense of perfectionism, self-loathing when failure is present, negative emotional affect, high self-awareness, cognitive destruction, and disinhibition. Yet those qualities do not hold true for our escape umbrella, nor for the individual subgroups. There are demographic differences among those who die to escape problems.

Those who want to escape physical pain may be, in some cases, beyond help. This group more carefully planned their suicides and took steps to ensure there would be no intervention. They were not ambivalent in their wish to die. At the same time, their suicides were in response to situations that were not all inherently fatal or miserable.

For those attempting to escape psychological pain, prevention and intervention are very complex. There seemed to be ambivalence about dying among some of the people in this group. If a large number of individuals in any group wanted to be prevented from killing themselves, it appears to have been these. Yet, there was often no precipitant, so that a time to intervene was not necessarily obvious to family, friends, or even professionals such as social workers, counselors, or doctors. Since members of this group had been diagnosed with psychological problems, they had in fact sought help, but what existed was not continuing to work. Those suffering from grief or failure were similar to those escaping psychological problems. In none of these groups were the individuals trying to hurt others. Their actions were all directed inward, and the very quietness of these victims may have staved off intervention.

Those escaping multiple problems are also among those hardest to help, but not because they refuse to reach out. All the evidence points to this group reaching out or behaviorally acting out to get help. Yet because the set of problems is so complex, those who could help them often don’t know what to do first. For example, people suffering from depression and alcoholism have what is a called a “dual diagnosis.” Psychologists and social workers will often tell the alcoholic to get treatment for the alcoholism first, because it is impossible to treat the depression while the individual is still drinking. Yet the difficulties of getting treatment for the alcoholic abound. Many “treatments” are simply 12-step programs, which are not evidence based and sometimes have no professionals involved. For individuals who are clinically depressed, an Alcoholics Anonymous (A.A.) group may not provide sufficient care, although one study has indicated that membership in A.A. does decrease suicidality (Hashimoto & Ashizawa, 2012). In Europe treatment for alcoholism almost always involves medications to stop cravings, but in the United States, it rarely does (Jonas et al., 2014).

For people with multiple problems, all of which bear down on them at some point and snowball, the idea of tackling one at a time may appear overwhelming, both to them and to those who could help them. For all parties involved, the victim and those close to the victim, it may appear that death is the only way to stop the downward spiral. Thus, others share the constricted thinking or poor problem-solving affects of the suicidal individual, and may also perpetuate help-negation. Studies have documented that help-negation occurs for both professional and nonprofessional sources of help (Yakunina, Rogers, Waehler, & Werth, 2010). This cycle must be broken among all parties in order for the person to survive.

Those escaping legal and financial problems also resemble the escape multiple, but have some slight differences. The individuals in these categories also show some hypermasculine or hegemonic masculine qualities, like those in the interpersonally abusive relationship category. Yet the fact they were caught up in external economic and political forces may have exacerbated their problems.

A central question in all of the suicidal acts was whether and to what degree the victim was suffering from mental illness. In the next chapter, we explore mental illness and its role in causation.