Understanding the Midlife Crisis by Peter O"Connor
(written in 1981, and is difficult to find)

i don't have the book. i found this info that someone who has the book shared:


O'Connor does not discuss MLC in terms of stages.

Each one of us has 2 separate but equally important parts of us.

1. The feminine side: The feminine side is the caretaker of feelings and emotions, caretaking and all that touchy feely stuff that guys are so uncomfortable with.


2. The masculine side: The masculine side is the outwardly successful side. The career man, the provider, the parts of your personality that has to do with material wealth and successful careers.

IF the MLC person has spent too much time nurturing and growing the masculine side, he does so at the expense of the feminine side. A great business deal must sacrifice compassion and feelings right?

Successful or not, the masculine/outside persona is highly developed. Any that is where he gets his strokes. Not from feelings. So the difference in the level of development becomes greater.

The person who develops the masculine side of himself to the exclusion, or stunted growth of his feminine side, begins to have an uneasy, uncomfortable feeling that he is not happy any more. The feminine side is ready to rebel. "Her" growth has been neglected, and she is looking for answers, for attention.

If at the beginning of MLC, the person does not resolve these issues by paying attention to the nagging little pain, then "she" begins to grow the pain until "she" has the attention of the other half. No one is happy if she ain't happy. And so the crisis begins.

This Man's Man knows how to deal with problems. "Yes indeed. I will figure them out logically and with determination. Gosh, I am just not happy. Why am I not happy? I am a great guy. Everyone knows this. I can not be the problem. Where is the problem? I will get a new car. Or build a new house. Or buy some new clothes.Or listen to that ego flattering OP. Boy this feels good to be adored. Well it feels good some of the time.

Hey..... I am still not happy." (The feminine side is gaining some ground!)
Yah know it must be my wife. I just feel differently about her. What are those feelings that I am having? Yeah, those feelings of being old, and boring, and not good enough. They must be feelings about Her, the wife. Yeah, they are about her. And this life. And maybe my job. My boss. If only they would fall into line, and do what I want them to be like and do then I will be happy."

So begins Projections. Projections are feelings and perceptions (not facts that would still be developing the masculine qualities) that this can not be my fault, it must be her fault.

the 1st perception is when the person in MLC sees thier spouse in the role of Parent.
You know how you felt about your parent about 17 or 18? They tried to get in the way of your having fun, so we became sneaky and deceptive so we could go to those HS parties and drink and do bad things?
So this is where our MLC mate goes. Back to the past, and we have taken on the projections of the parental figure, with the twist of all the bad things that the MLC is feeling about themselves, projected onto you.

(You/the spouse can't help but lose. You have been set up, and you don't even know it)

The 2nd projection is about the OP if there is one. In most cases there is.

The OP becomes every the recipient of all the enviable feminine characteristics there are. This is not the truth, but a fantasy, all fiction.
This OP has it easy for awhile, but sooner or later, has to live up to the fantasy that MLC created, and that is why they usually fail.

Projections do not last forever. Especially if new and consistent evidence through behaviors are noticed, recorded in the MLC memory bank for the return of some sanity.

The projections are uncovered in layers, like a nicely made up bed. Peel back the comforter.... then later the blanket..HEY! what is happening to the bed I thought I made? Finally, the sheets are peeled back and then the naked truth will be revealed.


MLC according to O'Connor, is an "inevitable review of his situation." For a more complete male this crisis is not as debilitating, rather it is a period to grow the creative side of himself ( a more mature, female response, don't you think?)

For these men MLC is a "nervous blink"

but... "for others it is a prolonged, painful never ending stare." these men will delay the look inside, by doing a Peter Pan. That is the masculine , logical answer to the problem.

They chose to solve the problem in a outside world way.
" These men find plenty of faults and problem "outside" themselves - it is either a man's wife, children, friends, or his boss who are to blame- but never inside, since the BACK OF THE MIRROR IS BLACKED OUT.

Such men find the MLC a painful, losing battle, since they lack the essential equipment for resolution: that is an attitude of inward reflection and a belief that events and phenomena in the outside world are only half the picture."

O'Connor goes on to combine how the warding off of old age, combined with this inability to look inward is another strong dimension of the crisis.

MLC men try to solve this problem in the way that they have always solved these problems, and that is to tackle it head on. They have experience with this type of problem solving, and it has worked more times than not. Another way to solve the MLC crisis, seen as a problem that needs attention is to "create enough movement and action in one's life to maintain continual distraction. But such action is often motivated by fear, a fear of stopping and finding out that it is all pointless."

(No stages mentioned in this book, but this sounds like the replay stage from other sources)
The acquisition of cars, new homes, boats, and toys of all sorts are an attempt to fill the pain, so it will go away. When this does not happen, they feel awful, and misguided. They still do not see the way to solve the inward struggle, between the feminine and masculine sides of themselves.

I don't think it's helpful to categorize human emotional experience in terms of "masculine" and "feminine"

Even the so-called feminine aspects of the male psyche are radically different from the corresponding aspects when possessed by a female.

If we used his theory, then we would see women becoming butch at mid-life becasue they've suppressed their "masculine" side. We don't see that as often.

The theory was not that these man would become feminine.
Or that women in MLC become butch.

But women in MLC might say...
"My children are out of the house.. I sacrificed my career opportunities for my children and/or H.. what have I ever accomplished?"
"Why does nobody ever listen to anything I say?"
"Why do I never get to do the things I want to do?"
"I'm so sick and tired of everyone telling me what to do.."
... coming from the "stunted" masculine in a woman.

Hmmm.. interesting topic!

This is kind of odd, because these are the exact same questions a man in MLC asks...

So, is it masculine when a woman asks them and feminine when a man asks them?

Faulted theory

This is a really interesting article, and one that fits in with Terrence Real's arguments in "I Don't Want to Talk About It".

LowOrbit, this article isn't describing being "butch" or "womanly". "Feminine" and "masculine" are shorthand words for describing patterns of behavior in a way that's easily identifiable to most people, that's all.

ANOTHER PLUS ABOUT THE BOOK: It does not describe MLC in stages!

Then why are we using obviously loaded terms in the first place?

Here's my unsugarcoated opinion:

This is feminist drivel designed to further emphasize how deficient "masculine" behavior really is.

After all...the whole point is that our engagement with our "masculine" side results in the MLC problem.

No...categorizing behavior patterns as feminine and masculine instantly allows application of gender bias to those same behaviors. It does nothing to make it easier for people to get a handle on.

Therefore, having compassion is not something that men do well?



Complete bull****

Negotiating is ALL about emotions and coming to an agreeable outcome. Only business idiots see it as a means to "crush" an adversary.



No gender bias here... How about if we rewrite this:

"The person who develops the feminine side of herself to the exclusion, or stunted growth of her masculine side, begins to have an uneasy, uncomfortable feeling that she is not happy any more. The masculine side is ready to rebel. "His" growth has been neglected, and he is looking for answers, for attention. "

Oh no, wait...the feminist side is GOOD, so the masculine side should be happy and has no need to rebel...



Feminine emotions = maturity? A masculine male is an incomplete male? The masculine, logical response is to do a Peter Pan? Masculine men aren't introspective?

Hogwash
<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

Not sure we'll get any further than agreeing to disagree.. but ok, LO, I'll bite <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I love masculine men.
I love a man who is in touch with his emotions.
There's no contradiction for me.

The following story is something Chuck Norris described.
He took his son to school and the son gave him a goodbye kiss. One of his schoolmates that saw this, sneered: "Pff, do you still kiss your daddy goodbye?" The son walked up to him, took him by the collar and said, "Do you have a problem with that?"
(To which the answer was "Er, no.")

And I'm glad you think this way. But do you characterize compassionate and emotional abilities as good mature "feminine" attributes and strength and efficacy as bad immature "masculine" attributes?

That's precisely what this author did...and it's what I take issue with.

Men struggle with being real men these days because they are constantly bombarded with messages that being a man is a bad thing. I, for one, am tired of it.

I think a mature person is compassionate, has emotional stability, has strength and efficacy.

I have come across hysterical men.
I have known women who were not in the least bit in touch with their emotions.
Some woman are very controlling and bossy.
Some men seem to have no spine.

I don't really care about these terms.
I have been told I'm very feminine.
Yet I love action movies.
I don't like girly movies.
I do like the think-deeper sort of films (like The Woodsman or The Force Of Words).

Am I making any sense or is this just my feminine side rambling on <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> ?

What I'm trying to get at, brownhair is not the concept that men and women can share all these attributes...we agree about that.

The point I'm trying to make is that the author of the subject article has written a blatantly gender biased article that paints masculinity in a poor light. Because of his approach, his credibility is completely blown with me.

His message is very clear to me...being a man is a bad thing.

What do you think about the author's portrayal of masculinity in the article above?

I think - or at least, I hope - that the author is talking about a robot-like, theoretical 100% masculine way of viewing things, which no-one has, because we all have some part masculine and some part feminine inside of us (even biologically).
A sort of "take from this what applies to you" buffet.
Otherwise I think you're right and he makes it seem that there is nothing positive about the "masculine" side.

A theoretical 100% feminine view might result in something along the line of "I'm just going to sit here and sob, because I'm unable to take any sort of action" etc.

Maybe the book is somewhat dated? A lot has changed these last 25 years. Might be interesting to read what he published in 2000, "FACING THE FIFTIES, from denial to reflection". By now he probably got there himself <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

i considered that the book WAS written in 1981 when i read it...and i didn't make a judgement about men or women...i just assumed that it was the best way for the author to describe the two sides that he believes we all have


how about if he had explained it this way?


Each one of us has 2 separate but equally important parts of us.

1. The emotional side: this side is the caretaker of feelings and emotions


2. The unemotional side: this is the outwardly successful side. (career driven, the provider, the parts of your personality that has to do with material wealth and successful careers.)

if he changed what he called it....would his theory have any merit?

I can imagine so.
There was a time when some in women's lib were so fanatic that any woman that "dared" to be feminine - you know, make-up, skirt, fancy underwear.. - was thought of as "not with it", "suppressed", whatever. A stay-home-mom was a downright "betrayal" and "from the middle ages".

I love real men and real women.
People who make their own choices, regardless of the current fashion or trend.

Don't worry LowOrbit.. this trend of putting down "real men" will also pass. It's just a swing of the pendulum.

I don't buy this theory because I don't buy the premise. I experienced a severe MLC...and it had NOTHING to do with me suppressing some half of my personality or another.

I find it hard to relate to an MLC theory that doesn't consider stages, because MLC is by definition a stage. I'm not sure why this is an attractive feature.

As far as considering the period of the book...I wonder how many women would lend credence to '50s books about how to keep their husband happy. Surely if we just remove the gender reference in those there would be some merit in them? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

To summarize...the aim of the article was to advance feminist agenda...not to look seriously at understanding MLC. I find it without merit.

These trends only pass when target demographic puts their foot down and says ENOUGH!

Unfortunately, you are seeing that...men were being told that being a man is bad. Many no longer know how to be men these days...but they sure as ****** know they don't want to be something else. They are lost...

But they are beginning to create a new identity...one that doesn't afford women the place of honor and respect they had in the old one.

They ARE seeing women as equals...but they are seeing them the same way they see other men...as competitors and adversaries - not partners. Relationships become about negotiating what you can get.

What is confusing for young women is that their traditional leverage - their physical offerings - doesn't seem to work with these guys. They would rather play xbox than WORK to please a woman. She doesn't have much to offer a man anymore.

Ask young women how most young men behave these days and you'll immediately see what I mean. Young women are, in most cases the pursuers. They are finding that a relationship with a man is much more important to them than it is to the men they want.

It's sad really. I do feel bad for women these days. I feel bad for men who've decided their company isn't worth the hassle. I feel bad for our society as a whole.

And we wonder why birth rates in "developed" countries are dropping like rocks...

I hear you, LowOrbit. I'm sorry that you experienced a severe MLC. No matter the reasons, theories or trendy views on MLC - it still sucks. I hope you are finding your OWN balance now.