Gender Role Conflict

and the Disidentification Process:

Two Case Studies on Fragile Masculine Self
CHRISTOPHER BLAZINA
University of Houston

This paper argues that changes to the original definition of the

disidentification process are in order, including reconceptualizing
the restrictive gender role behaviors from boyhood onward as an
early form of gender role conflict. It is further suggested that the
disidentification process consequentially harms the development
and functioning of the masculine self. One may react to this
process (the emotional residual of the disindentification process)
by adopting one of two masculine stances in relating to self and
others. One stance is characterized as moving away from self and
others. This may appear as the adoption of many of the stereotypi-
cal male gender roles. The other stance is one of moving toward
others in an overly dependent fashion where the affect residual of
disindentification is dealt with through turning to others to help
modulate its effects. Two case studies are presented.

Key Words: gender role conflict, boyhood, disidentification, mas-

culine self, self-psychology perspective, moving away from oth-
ers, moving toward others, case studies

T raditional psychoanalytic theory addresses masculine identity development, that

is, how boys become men, through disidentification. This according to Greenson
(1968) is a two-pronged process whereby (a) a boy must renounce emotional ties to
his primary caregiver (traditionally held as his mother), and (b) he must counteriden-
tify with his father or male role model. These developmental tasks have been held as
necessary steps toward emotional autonomy, psychological separation, and most
important here, securing the development of the masculine self.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Christopher Blazina, Educational Psychol-
ogy, 491 Farish Hall, University of Houston, Houston, TX 77204. Electronic mail: cblazina@uh.edu.

The Journal of Men’s Studies, Vol. 12, No. 2, Winter 2004, 151-161.
© 2004 by the Men’s Studies Press, LLC. All rights reserved.

151
BLAZINA

This paper argues that the developmental task of disidentification needs to be

expanded and reinterpreted beyond its original conception. Issues of changing gen-
der roles and the rejection of the traditional gender identity model make its original
definition somewhat limited. To that end it is suggested that the process of disidenti-
fication goes beyond that of childhood into adulthood. It is further suggested that
men are left with emotional residual from this process that leaves their masculine
self weakened and in need of bolstering through psychological defenses. It is argued
that men learn styles to deal with this residual. The two that are proposed include
one of moving away from the residual and with it more deeply connected relation-
ships with themselves and others. The other is moving toward others in hopes that
they will help contain and/or metabolize the emotional residual of disidentification.
Part of the original conceptualization of disidentification that is maintained is
the emphasis upon the normal psychological separation/individuation that occurs
with both caregivers as a male develops into his own unique person. This is viewed
as healthy and normative and is not equated with disavowing or disconnecting from
either caregiver.
The first proposed change includes reinterpreting those aspects of disidentifica-
tion that call for unhealthy restrictive gender roles for boys. Some of these expecta-
tions are in line with what David and Brannon (1976) referred to as “stereotypes for
boys” and what Pollack (1998) called the “boy code.” It is suggested that these types
of traditional expectations that stem from disidentification are actually the earliest
forms of gender role conflict. Gender role conflict is what O’Neil, Helms, Gable,
David, and Wrightsman (1986) defined as “…a psychological state where gender
roles have negative consequences or impacts on a person or others” (p. 336). This
early gender role conflict leads to psychological maladjustment and the use of psy-
chological defenses that may be considered developmentally normative (but
unhealthy) thoroughout life.
The second proposed change focuses upon how the gender role conflicted
aspects of the disidentification process manifest themselves in problematic ways in
adult men. It is suggested that having experienced gender role conflict since boy-
hood, men develop different stylistic ways to deal with the residual of the process.
Blazina and Watkins (2000) suggested that conflicts about gender role socialization
lead to the development of the “fragile masculine self,” a condition where the psy-
che is fragmented due to the empathic failing of caregivers and then is consequently
bolstered by masculine defenses. Blazina (2001a) suggested that the masculine self
is a self-representation related to maleness that can be both cohesive and enduring.
However, it is subject to the same developmental conditions and follows the same
intrapsychic functions as the overall sense of self.
Following a self-psychology perspective, Blazina’s model suggested that the
health and cohesiveness of the masculine self also depends upon experiencing at
least one of three lines of self development on a consistent basis: mirroring experi-
ences, merging experiences, and/or twinship. The model also argues that gender
socialization/strain interferes with the opportunity for boys and men to have these
needed developmental experiences, consequently leading to the development of a
fragile masculine self.

152
 GENDER ROLE CONFLICT

Building upon these notions, it is suggested here that the fragile masculine self
is manifest in two masculine styles, based upon how the individual negotiates the
residual of the disindentification process. One stance is the disavowing or disowning
of the importance of a relational stance and of needing others. In this way the indi-
vidual responds to the emotional residual of disindentification by compartmentaliza-
tion or cutting off. This can appear on the surface as the adoption of stereotypical
traditional masculine gender roles. The second masculine stance is that of overde-
pendence. The individual has difficulty modulating the emotional residual from
disindentification on his own and instead feels compelled to turn to others to do so.
This overdependence may appear in the context of a single relationship or in that of
compulsive behaviors (e.g., over-use of alcohol, strings of sexual liaisons, etc.)
employed to temper the emotional residual. In the former situation, the relationship
may act as a metabolizing agent, while in the latter case the compulsive behavior
may act more as an emotional buffer.
Argubly, these two stances are opposite sides of the same coin, coming from
developmental trauma associated with gender role conflicted aspects of disidentifi-
cation. Both manifestations are built upon difficulties with functions of self and oth-
ers. In order to illustrate these proposed changes in disidentification, two client case
studies are presented.

DISIDENTIFICATION

Greenson’s (1968) first developmental step in the scheme of disidentification

emphasizes the need for the maturing young male to progressively assume a greater
sense of self separate from the female caregiver. Greenson’s second step, which is
interrelated with the first, is to have the boy counteridentify with his father. In addi-
tion to giving the boy a model for proper masculine identity, the father’s role is also
to (a) lure the child away from the maternal symbiotic relationship that is character-
ized by emotional and psychological oneness (Horner, 1984); (b) provide the neces-
sary support needed to avoid re-engulfment by the mother (Mahler & Gosliner,
1955); (c) provide an exploratory, “non-mother” space (Abelin, 1971); and (d) serve
as a bridge to the outside world (Meerloo, 1968).
This original disidentification model has been criticized on several grounds,
including that the boy is asked to psychological separate from his caregivers much
earlier that he is emotionally ready (Betcher & Pollack, 1993; Pollack, 1995, 1998).
Blazina (1997) has also suggested that the male child is encouraged to break free of
the symbiotic relationship to explore the outside world without access to the rela-
tional tools that he has been exposed to in the initial caregiving relationship.
Chodorow (1976) suggested that boys face a special developmental task in disidenti-
fication in that they must define themselves as “not mom” and “not female.” There
must be a clear separation from mother both intrapsychicly and interpersonally in
order to adopt a masculine identity. Chodorow suggests “learning to be masculine
comes to mean learning not to be womanly” (p. 109).
Bergman (1995) has suggested that what the boy is actually asked to do is
disidentify from a relational stance of interacting with others, not from a specific
person, that is, mother. This leads to “relational dread,” where emotional connection

153
BLAZINA

with others is feared and avoided. Indeed, in the changing world of gender roles, we
must ask along with Bergman from what the male child is really being asked to
disidentify? It seems, in keeping with traditional psychoanalytic theory and the gen-
der identity model developed by Terman and Miles (1936/1968), that contemporary
culture has embraced the “deep seated and pervasive” psychological differences
between men and women so “as to lend distinctive character to the entire personal-
ity” (p. 1). Women have been seen not only as the keepers of traditional stereotypi-
cal feminine gender roles but also are symbolically equated with them. Therefore, in
keeping with traditional theory, to disidentify from mother is to disidentify from the
feminine and to counteridentify with dad is to automatically embrace the stereotypi-
cal masculine. The difficulty in this type of logic is: What happens when dad is more
the source of emotional nurturance and tender feelings than mother? Further, what
occurs when mom is the source of emotional strength more than dad? Finally, con-
sider when the boy has openly gay parents. Each one of these examples points to
reconsideration of the traditional gender scheme.
A better explanation of the first step in disidentification is to focus on the
process of psychological separation/individuation from the caregiver, be it mom or
dad. Mahler, Pine, and Bergman (1975) suggest that we enter the world in a dual
unity with the caregiver. In essence we do not know where emotionally and psycho-
logically the caregiver ends and the child begins. To not move beyond this develop-
mental place is to have serious boundary issues that border on the psychotic. Every
child, male or female, paired with every caregiver, male or female, must progress
beyond this to have a separate sense of identity. This is what the child must disiden-
tify from given the proper developmental timing and support. This aspect of the
disidentification process—the psychological separation/individuation focus—is
retained in the reinterpreted theory.
Greenson (1968) asks what happens to the original identification with mother?
Is counteridentyfing with the father a way of negating the original connection? Or,
as Blazina (1997) asked, “Is the boy forced to explore the world without the inter-
nalizations of his first relationship?” It is argued in this paper that what need not
happen is an intrapsychic compartmentalizing or cutting off from the object that has
been internalized as suggested in the original theory. Again, this is reflected in the
changing nature of “acceptable” gender roles, where a man may retain the genera-
tive, emotional qualities deemed as “feminine” without negating or threatening an
enduring and cohesive sense of maleness. Rather, integrating these instrumental and
expressive aspects actually aids in the development and functioning of the masculine
self. This occurs in part through allowing more intrapsychic energy to be available
because not so much of the self’s resources are invested in keeping artificially
dichotomized notions of masculine versus non-masculine apart in the psyche. By
doing this, the man can move beyond the intrapsychic defenses of the projection of
the feminine, hypermasculinity, and homophobia. It further aids the self through
allowing more generative qualities and behaviors to be integrated into the relation-
ship between others and himself. For instance, he may be able to sooth himself and
others while not needing the above defenses to protect would-be threats to the mas-
culine self.

154
 GENDER ROLE CONFLICT

MANIFESTATIONS OF THE GENDER ROLE

CONFLICTED ASPECTS OF DISINDENTIFICATION

In the traditional theory of disidentification, the boy is asked to renounce not only
his connection with mother but also the aspects of her that he has encountered and in
some respects internalized. These include emotional connection, vulnerability, and
other sorts of tender feelings. It is suggested, in keeping with the spirit of the O’Neil
et al. (1986) gender role conflict definition, that this is a normative but unhealthy
psychological state that harms the individual. Further, many boys and men experi-
ence these gender role conflicted aspects of disidentification throughout their lives,
not just in what would be traditionally considered the pre-Oedipal years. Men may
experience sanctions for violating this limited traditional definition of masculinity
(McCreary, 1994) and at the same time may suffer psychological maladjustment
when feeling restricted or conflicted by it (Blazina & Watkins, 1996, 2000;
Cournoyer & Mahalik, 1995; Fischer & Good, 1997; Good & Mintz, 1990; Good et
al., 1997; Sharpe & Heppner, 1991).
This paper suggests that there are particular masculine styles of negotiating the
gender role conflict aspects of disidentification and the resulting fragile masculine
self. It may be easiest to accept that this process leads to the adoption of what would
be considered traditional masculine gender roles. Pollack (1995) suggested that a
man emotionally wounded by disindentification may appear overly concerned with
maintaining an independent self, utilize many intrapsychic defenses to bolster mas-
culine appearance, have unconscious anger toward women, devalue the need for
connectedness, have a stoic denial of sadness and pain, be unable to mourn or grieve
loss, and wall off aspects of the vulnerable self.
Building upon the above, it is suggested here that one stance to adopt in
response to the emotional woundedness from disindentification is to compartmental-
ize or cut off in relation to self and others. The guiding ethos for dealing with the
residual of disidentification is to add psychological distance or keep the residual in
check. Therefore, emotional material, intimacy, vulnerability, and other forms of
tender feelings are threats to the tightly bound package of affect. To come into con-
tact with one of these aspects will automatically begin the process of unwinding
other interconnected aspects of the residual. Contact with this material is experi-
enced as a threat and is responded to quickly by tightening the emotional hold. In
this way the individual may feel forced to keep these aspects of the self in check,
which may appear as a preservation of the self at the expense of connection with
others. This stance cannot afford much opportunity to connect intimately with oth-
ers—otherwise emotional residual will be brought to the forefront. While clinical
lore would have us believe that these islands unto themselves are sturdy and
resilient, this stance actually weakens the masculine self through limiting the avail-
able intrapsychic energy in connecting with others and with that part of himself he
has ruled as off-limits.
In contrast to the moving away stance, Horner (1984) also suggested that harsh
disidentification may lead to an overly dependent male, one who believes that
embracing traditional feminine aspects of his mother would threaten his masculine
identity. It is by not accepting these characteristics that he maintains a dependent

155
BLAZINA

stance with his romantic partners because he solely leans upon them for the charac-
teristics and qualities he cannot integrate within his own psyche.
Building upon Horner’s notion of dependency as a result of disidentification, it
is suggested that some men adopt an over-dependent style of relating. These men are
ones who are in search of a never-ending supply of connection with something or
someone that will help metabolize or buffer the emotional wounds of disidentifica-
tion. This can take a compulsive form of a stream of romantic relationships, sex,
alcohol, etc. Or it may draw heavily upon one relationship to meet the need. While
both approaches are related to making the pain go away, the use of the relationship
seems especially linked to the fantasy about a caregiver that will supply all of one’s
needs while he maintains a passive stance. Blazina (2001a) suggested that men who
suffer harshly in the disidentification process may have parts of the psyche emotion-
ally arrested at unintegrated, primitive levels. This would include the fantasy that an
adult partner should mirror the early, all-gratifying relationship experience of the
first caregiver. The boy is asked, in theory, to renounce this fantasy, but in some
cases it seems to linger, and because it does, the ability to relate to self and to others
is left impaired. Further, the individual feels overwhelmed by the residual from the
disidentification process and feels unable to modulate its effects by himself. Instead,
he is compelled to use someone or something to buffer or metabolize the effects for
him. One would argue that he feels he cannot take an active part in the self-care
functions and set appropriate expectations on others to sooth the effects of the early
disidentification wound
Both of these styles derive from how one responds to the residual from the
disidentification process. The word “process” is important here because the psychic
damage is cumulative from early childhood forward. It should not be thought of
exclusively as the repressed experiences of pre-Oedipal age boys. Rather, one must
consider the extent of the intrapsychic template that was initially formed and then
subsequently shaped by the plethora of experiences that go toward forming the self-
representation related to maleness. In this way the use of the phrases “masculine
stance or style” is fitting because of its extensive history.
From an object relations perspective, one might argue that the stance that is
eventually adopted is influenced by the early relationship experience with care-
givers. Kernberg (1976) argues that, during the formative years of human develop-
ment, we build the initial templates of relating to self and others. One of the most
lasting templates for boys and then men is the process of disidentification. The man
who adopts apparent traditional male gender roles, modulating affect within himself
as well as within the context of relationships, will draw upon this old template of
psychological distance and compartmentalization. The man who adopts the over-
dependent stance will instead attempt to persuade others into the role of affect mod-
ulation. Using these two potential masculine stances, the following case studies are
presented.

THE MAN WHO TRIED TO LASSO HIS FATHER

A Caucasian male in his mid-40s came to therapy with the presenting problem of
speech phobia. He had a history of assuming many stereotypical masculine behav-

156
 GENDER ROLE CONFLICT

iors and attitudes, some of which seemed to authentically fit for him whereas others
he seemed to feel were forced upon him. He repeatedly resisted any exploration of
possible intrapsychic dynamics that might be associated with the phobia. Appealing
to his practical side, I reframed the therapy process in terms of a short-term fix or a
more long-term solution. With this the client allowed for some background gather-
ing including the telling of the stormy relationship with his father. After a lifetime of
trying to gain acceptance from and emotional connection with his father, the client
stated he no longer was interested in his approval. However, through more explo-
ration the client realized that his quest for his father’s love and approval was being
manifested in the symptoms of his speech phobia.
As he gave a speech his anxiety began to rise. He imagined the audience filled
by his father and his cronies, each with criticisms aplenty. It was as if he were in a
room filled with these people who saw his insecurities, including the fragmented
parts of his masculine self. In his fantasies his critics would cast doubt upon his mas-
culinity. He felt they were ready to scrutinize his every move. Drawing upon the
self-psychology model of self-development, Blazina (2001a) suggested an important
part of developing the masculine self is being able to be mirrored by or having an
opportunity to merge with a greater masculine other. If this does not occur, then part
of the psyche related to the cohesive and enduring sense of maleness is left weak-
ened or damaged. The client in turn felt these vulnerabilities being exposed, which
in turn heightened his level of anxiety. The client was able to keep this part of the
masculine self protected with hypermasculine behaviors. However, it was in the
event of perceived scrutiny (giving a speech) that his internal world of male accusers
came to life.
As mentioned above, the client had many stereotypical masculine gender roles
including a past history of risk-taking behaviors, difficulty with affect, and (one of
his favorite hobbies) cow roping. The latter became the metaphor we used in therapy
in terms of trying to lasso his father’s love and acceptance. It also stood for the grief
work that needed to be done accepting his father’s limitations. The client made
repeated attempts to connect with his father in a more emotional fashion; it ulti-
mately fell far sort of his hopes. While working with the client only in short-term
work, his insight and somewhat already-softening emotional constriction allowed for
quick movement in therapy.
In terms of fitting within the framework of the fragile masculine self, this
client’s phobia represented its manifestation. The phobic reaction could not be
defended against and consequently revealed the weak link in his masculine armor of
defenses. It was also the window into understanding his intrapsychic dynamics and
beginning the healing.
In regard to the gender role conflicted aspects of disidentification, we must con-
sider this a process that extended beyond the pre-Oedipal years. The client was able
to recall events during his boyhood, adolescent, and adulthood that crystallized this
process.

157
BLAZINA

“THANKS FOR BEING A GOOD GUY”

In the second case example, I discuss the more over-dependent stance that is adopted
as a result of the gender role conflicted aspects of disindentification. A male client in
his early 30s came into therapy because he wanted to work on father issues. His
mother and father divorced at an early age, and while his father lived only a short
distance from him, he felt he could not access that relationship. What he did instead
as he became an adolescent is try to meet that need through casual sexual encounters
in the park restroom. His first encounter was with an older male, who, as he
reflected, unleashed both his level of neediness and at the same time his rage at
ungratifying objects. As these types of encounters continued, he would had the fan-
tasy that these types of casual sexual encounters were moments of tenderness. Only
later in therapy did he realize that they were a “mutual using.” During the course of
the two years working together, he was able to slowly work upon the wounds that
occurred to the masculine self by not being able to connect with a perceived greater
male other. This manifested itself in a father transference toward me.
One of the turning points in treatment occurred when I told him I was worried
about his safety in regard to his unprotected sexual encounters. In retrospect, this
was a moment of emotional merger that I believe he was lacking as a boy and per-
haps a way his fragile masculine self tried to evoke in me the much-needed care that
he was missing.
Latter, in another episode, when a scheduling error led to a missed appointment,
the client began to go into a spiral of depression that led to a temporary hospitaliza-
tion. Upon his return, we discussed how part of his depressive reaction was linked to
my error and his reaction to it. The client was able to access and discuss his anger
toward me, a major step in moving beyond his grandiose transference toward me
and instead beginning to integrate me as a whole object—both gratifying and ungrat-
ifying. This episode set the stage for working through the fantasy of an all-giving
other who would meet his needs—his place of emotional arrest during the disinden-
tification process.
As termination ensued the client had a dream where he and I were walking
through the park together. At some point in the dream we parted ways, and shortly
afterward he was approached by a man who wanted to engage in unsafe sex with
him. After the client repeatedly declined, the would-be sexual partner finally moved
away. Finally in the dream he and I reconnected on the path.
This was a most powerful dream, illustrating that on an intrapsychic level he
was releasing some of the fantasy that the casual sexual encounters would meet his
needs and that instead he was able to move toward his inner representation of our
connection. This, I believe, was key in terms of giving cohesiveness to his masculine
self and acted as the foundation for the ability to seek others. At the time of termina-
tion, he was attempting a monogamous same-sex relationship. He also presented me
with a card that simply said, “Thanks for being a good guy.”
This case illustrated the need for the perceived greater other to metabolize the
residual of the disidentification process. This was evident in the episode of the
missed appointment when the client spiraled into a depressive phase. He was not
able to modulate the affect effectively by himself and instead used a primitive

158
 GENDER ROLE CONFLICT

defense of turning against himself. Theoretically this would fit with the development
of the self-others template that was formed in response to the disidentification
process. There may be potential for an equally strong rage toward the self and
toward the failed other.

CONCLUSION

This paper suggested that changes to the original conceptionalization of the disidenti-
fication process are in order. This includes conceptualizing the restrictive gender role
behaviors from boyhood onward as an early form of gender role conflict wherein the
masculine self is limited or harmed. It is also suggested that there are at least two
general stylistic ways of dealing with the harmful effects of the gender role conflicted
aspects of disidentification. One approach is the adoption of a stereotypical form of
masculinity, and the other is to develop an over-dependent stance of relating to oth-
ers. In extreme forms, both styles limit the potential of the budding masculine self.
While the case examples presented are illustrations of the fragile masculine self,
they should be taken in the spirit of general forms in which they occur. For instance,
in case study two the client had a same-sex attraction, but not all men who adopt a
more dependent stance will be expected to have one. Further, this client struggled
with the fantasy of an all-giving other in male form. One would expect the gender of
the fantasized other to depend upon past developmental history as well as upon sex-
ual orientation.
Likewise, in case study one, the man who followed stereotypical male gender
roles most of his life had already made some changes regarding them before enter-
ing therapy. In this way his receptivity allowed therapy to move more quickly than
one might otherwise expect. For both clients father issues were a central focus. This
does not preclude the notion that female caregivers are not involved in the develop-
ment of the fragile masculine self. As Pollack (1998) noted, even well-intentioned
caregivers (both male and female) may damage the boy through pushing him toward
normative but unhealthy gender roles.
In terms of limitations and future research, the notion of the fragile masculine
self needs further exploration both theoretically and empirically. For instance, theo-
retically, can a woman who embodies many of the instrumental characteristics usu-
ally associated with masculinity provide developmental experiences that strengthen
the masculine self? Further, while this is a self-representation related to maleness,
can opposite-sex caregivers and peers provide developmental experiences that
strengthen the budding self-representation related to maleness?
In another vein, the style of moving toward others to help modulate disidentifi-
cation residual may be further expounded upon in terms of level of aggression. That
is, sometimes there may be a moving toward others in a needy, demanding fashion
that may border on violence. Men who batter their partners may fall into this cate-
gory. Taken from this theoretical point of view, their rage about a partner threaten-
ing to leave the relationship may trigger the early psychological templates related to
abandonment in the disidentification process. Some may choose to move against the
self as in the case example here, or others may chose to target others as the recipient
of their abandonment aggression. Further research should explore these issues.

159
BLAZINA

When using a more dynamic perspective, there is a temptation to follow issues

back to childhood. Though it is theoretically appealing to do this, it should be firmly
supported in an empirical way. This may call for the development of new instru-
ments to assess issues such as gender role conflict in adolescents and boys. Finally,
other case studies should be presented that highlight the notions explored here.

REFERENCES

Abelin, E. (1971). The role of the father in the separation-individuation process. In

J.B. McDevitt & C.F. Settlage (Eds.), Separation individuation (pp. 52-69).
New York: International Universities Press.
Betcher, R.W., & Pollack, W.S. (1983). In a time of fallen heroes: The re-creation
of masculinity. New York: Athenaeum.
Bergman, S.J. (1995). Men’s psychological development: A relational perspective In
R.F. Levant & W.S Pollack (Eds.), A new psychology of men (pp. 33-67). New
York: Basic Books.
Blazina, C. (1997). The fear of the feminine and the masculine developmental task
of disidentification: Their impact upon the development of masculine gender
role conflict. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 6, 55-68.
Blazina, C. (2001a). Analytic psychology and gender role conflict: The development
of the fragile masculine self. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Train-
ing, 38, 50-59.
Blazina, C. (2001b). Part objects, infantile fantasies, and intrapsychic boundaries:
An object relations perspective on male difficulties with intimacy. The Journal
of Men’s Studies, 9, 257-265.
Blazina, C., & Watkins, C.E. (2000). Separation/individuation, parental attachment,
and male gender role conflict: Attitudes towards the feminine and the fragile
masculine self. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 1, 126-132.
Blazina, C., & Watkins, C.E., Jr. (1996). Masculine gender role conflict: Effects on
men’s scores of psychological well-being, substance usage, and attitudes toward
help-seeking. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 461-465.
Chodorow, N. (1989). Feminism and psychoanalytic theory. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Cournoyer, R.J., & Mahalik, J.R. (1995). Cross-sectional study of gender role con-
flict examining college-aged and middle-aged men. Journal of Counseling Psy-
chology, 42(1), 11-19.
David, D.S. & Brannon, R. (1976). The forty-nine percent majority: The male sex
role. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fairbairn, W.R.D. (1954). An object relations theory of personality. New York:
Basic Books.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Good, G.E., & Fischer, A.R. (1998). New directions for the study of gender role
attitudes: A cluster analytic investigation of masculinity ideologies. Psychology
of Woman Quarterly, 22(3), 371-384.

160
 GENDER ROLE CONFLICT

Good, G.E., & Mintz, L.B. (1990). Gender role conflict and depression in college
men: Evidence for compounded risk. Journal of Counseling and Development,
69, 17-21.
Good, G.E., Robertson, J.M., O’Neil, J.M., Fitzgerald, L.F., Stevens, M., DeBord,
K.A., et al. (1997). Male gender role conflict: Psychometric issues and relations
to psychological distress. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 44(4), 432.
Greenson, R. (1968). Disidentifying from mother: Its special importance for the boy.
International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 49, 370-374.
Hinshelwood, R.D. (1994). Clinical Klein: From theory to practice. New York:
Basic Books.
Horner, A.J. (1984). Treating the Oedipal patient in brief psychotherapy. New York:
Jason Aronson
Kernberg, O. (1976). Object relations theory and clinical psychoanalysis. New
York: Jason Aronson.
Kohut, H. (1977). The restoration of the self. New York: International Universities
Press.
Mahler, M.S., Pine, F., & Bergman, A. (1975). The psychological birth of the infant:
Symbiosis and individuation. New York: Basic Books.
Mahler, M.S., & Gosliner, R.J. (1955). On symbiotic child psychosis; genetic,
dynamic, and restitutive aspects. Psychoanalytical Study Child, 10, 195-212.
McCreary, D. (1994). The male role and avoiding femininity. Sex Roles, 31, 517-
531.
Meerloo, J.A.M. (1968). The psychological role of the father: The father cuts the
cord. Child and Family, 102-116.
Ogden, T. (1982). Projective identification and psychotherapeutic technique. New
York: Jason Aronson.
O’Neil, J.M., Helms, B.J., Gable, R.K., David, L., & Wrightsman, L.S. (1986). Gen-
der role conflict scale: College men’s fear of femininity. Sex Roles, 14, 335-
350.
Pleck, J.H. (1981). The myth of masculinity. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
Pollack, W.S. (1990). Men’s development and psychotherapy: A psychoanalytic
perspective. Psychotherapy, Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 27, 316-321.
Pollack, W.S. (1995). No man is an island: Toward a new psychoanalytic psychol-
ogy of men. In R.F. Levant & W.S. Pollack (Eds.), A new psychology of men
(pp. 33-67). New York: Basic Books.
Pollack, W.S. (1998). Real boys. New York: Henry Holt.
Sharpe, M.J., & Heppner, P.P. (1991). Gender role, gender-role conflict and psycho-
logical well-being in men. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38(3), 323-330.
Terman, K., & Miles, C. (1968). Sex and personality: Studies in masculinity and
femininity. New York: Russell & Russell. (Originally published 1936)

161