Recent research conducted in Australia has focused on the challenges experienced by psychologists working with men, in an attempt to explore why so many therapists have difficulty enegaging and retaining male clients. The researchers used open-ended responses to a survey and an inductive thematic analysis to identify common themes.

Seidler Z et al. Challenges working with men: Australian therapists' perspectives. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 2021-12, 77(12):2781-2797. www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jclp.23257

Three main themes explaining why men are so difficult to engage emerged from the study: 1. men's wavering committment and enegagement; 2. men are ill equiped for therapy; 3. therapists are uncertain how to enegage with men. While to study subject is laudable and has a high clinical need (given the high rate of male suicide), the conclusions disturbingly echoe feminist ideological framing of masculinity as a dangerous doctrine, and leave me even less likely to engage with contemporary Australian psychologists.

The conclusions of the study suggest that psychologists/therapists need to be better trained to engage effectively with Australian men. This sounds OK, but a deeper reading of the study conclusions revealed a more disturbing and sadly sexist conclusion. The authors of the study suggested that "improving therapist's understanding of masculine socialisation as an underpinning factor in men's presentation to therapy and the manifestation of their distress could have far-reaching impacts in helping therapists achieve positive outcomes". Sounds like blaming men and their masculinity for their problems.

The reasons for this conclusion are not clearly explained, and are certainly not directly supported by or related to the results of the study. The related citations are all of the same authors, or feminist gender studies. However, the demographics of the study responders, and some of their response may provide further insight.

Firstly, 71% of responders were female, reflecting the gender imbalance in the Australian therapist professions. This gender imbalance is dismissed by the authors, and its impact simply ignored, regardless of the fact that several therapists noted that the gender of the clients was a problem (just being male).

Comments by many of the responders suggested that the maleness of their their clients was not well understood or caused them discomfort, and at worst revealed therapists practiced in a prodominately female orientated framework or a culture of misandry: "I find it difficult to not feel intimidated by adult male clients"; "Having to balance feminist principles of the work I do .... with not pushing a feminist stance too hard - some men react poorly to this..."; "There seems to be a lack of the natural understanding and concept of inherent sameness than when treating female clients". This framing of men as "other", as not-female, as problematic seems to be more related to the therapist than the client, but was also ignored by the authors.

While the authors identified several limitations of the study, they did not identify the gendered imbalance of the profession/responders, the potential misandry of the responders and the researchers, and the obvious confirmation bias that limited the conclusions of the study to reiterate themes previously explored by the authors, attributing the poor engagement of men in therapy to problems with masculinity, or in simple terms, blaming men.

It seems there is little hope for men seeking help in Australia, unless they are willing to accept the prevailing feminist view that masculinity is a dangerous and damaging doctrine.