And even at that tender age I somehow held in my heart and gut what it meant for a young male to lose the very vital bond of the masculine. And it would be something I would have to work on retrieving, embracing and cultivating my entire life. It’s a journey that many men have had to take in our present day society: finding themselves again after a time of losing what it actually means to be male.

Even the mere mention of the concept of “being a man” or “embracing masculinity” or “knowing yourself as a male” can bring a response of confusion, mockery and even, for some, disdain. What you mostly get is a joke and a nervous sort of laughter. So what are we even talking about here?

I didn’t know it at the time, but what my best friend Jamie represented to me – back when he moved from Cambay Lane in Huntington Beach to the far, far faraway outskirts of Irvine – was the masculine spirit that can barely be defined. How can you define a spirit? What words to use? Freely expressive, outrageously competitive, a brother to rely on, an honorable ally, protective of what we love, yet free to be aggressive with what we hate?

This is surface attention on that which lies so deep. For definition sake, it’s easier to paint some pictures from the past, such as: tribesman taking the youth out to receive the gifts of nature – learning of the rivers, rocks and wildlife. But for the more recent past:

* The image of a boy hitting a girl in grammar school? That boy never heard the end of it from the other boys.
* Rough housing, calling each other “jerk” or “dork” – then returning to the basketball court to play.
* My buddy Jamie waiting for me at the curbside after I went to retrieve my forgotten lunch, even though we’d both be late to school.

And so where does that spirit go? How does it get lost? Answers vary in breadth and depth.

Raised by mothers since fathers left for the industrial age job market, males haven’t always received the mentoring by their own kind. After the farewell of the fraternity brother, the male, through the collective unconscious mandate, would enter the structure of the family into small boxes where males would be partnered with the female. Many men have found themselves isolated, disconnected from a tribe, and rushing to females – when upset – for security, acceptance and an ear to be heard and understood. Softened and “feminized,” some men have lost the strength and confidence that can actually be fostered through the trust and bond with those of their own ilk – other men.

And our way back? Somehow the males must find it. And many do in their own way … mostly without words, without fanfare – for that would belittle in some odd way that which we find sacred.

For me, in the mid-1990s, after realizing most of my friends were females, I searched for other men’s groups but didn’t find anything powerful, raw or masculine enough until I attending The Men’s Weekend in November 1997. From there I continued on a men’s team, which would meet each week to rekindle, remember and reinstate the innocence of free expression, the fun of outrageous competition, the trust of a brother in arms, and a masculine bond that words can not define.

It’s where I could retrieve my buddy Jamie, from the far outskirts of Irvine … back to the old Huntington Beach neighborhood game of hide and seek, right there on our own front lawns.

James Anthony Ellis is a writer and producer who also runs, as Division Coordinator, the San Diego Men’s Division, which is part of the international non-profit organization, MDI, dedicated to mentoring men into their greatest success. He can be reached at JimEllis1103@yahoo.com.

I often speak with men about archetypes and the lessons they can teach about our behaviour and group interactions. Recently, one man objected to the notion that I could claim to understand the “feminine” archetypes (such as the Maiden and Crone), while another man objected to the notion that men should be encouraged to be aware of and to embody the abilities represented by the “feminine” archetypes. I also encountered a man who objected to these other two views, and believed that all of this was the result of “sexism” in our treatment of mythology, culture, and attitudes towards all aspects of psychology and sociology.

To sort this all out, I will begin with a simple “two-sided” category system. However, I do not assign anything specifically to males or females, or to what one might call “masculine personality” or “feminine personality”.

The main division I use is between “communication, perception and understanding” on the one hand, and “deduction, decision and action” on the other. Note that each occurs equally often in any living thing that exhibits behaviour, regardless of sex or gender. Also, each of these two categories includes physical, emotional and mental aspects. For example, communication can be mental (through words), emotional (facial expressions) or physical (touch, gestures, watching someone move around a room).

The first category (communication) happens between two or more people, while the other can involve a single person or more than one. If you believe in the autonomy of multiple parts of the mind (the id, ego, and super-ego, an inner child, etc.) then there is “communication” inside the mind. I consider this to be part of “decision”: you are using several of your skills at the same time. Awareness of the multi-part mind is fairly recent, and is too sophisticated a concept to be relevant here.

In ancient times when story-tellers “taught” wisdom they usually did so through fables involving characters. Many of the stories that were being told concerned psychology, behaviour, ethics and morality, group interaction, and so on — the kinds of things I am discussing when I refer to “archetypes” and why they are important.

I believe that when the story-tellers needed to discuss a lesson related to communication, they told the story with a female character. When they needed to discuss a lesson related to action, they chose a male character for their story.

What happens if a young child is given a vaugely-defined object (say an oddly-shaped piece of wood) to play with? A boy is likely to pretend the object is some sort of tool or weapon, and a girl is likely to treat it like a baby or doll. There is a big nature versus nurture debate regarding this phenomenon, but it does not need to be resolved here. The only thing we need to agree on is that this phenomenon also affected the story-tellers’ choices of what characters to use in their fables. (Of course, once they made such choices, the resulting oral tradition would have helped amplify the existing gender role bias in the culture).

This use of gendered characters in fables led to a gradual accumulation of beliefs (some of them subconscious) linking lessons to gender-roles. These lessons covered all the areas I listed above (behaviour, morality/ethics, group dynamics, etc.).

Over time, human cultures accumulated a vast body of literature (myths, fables, stories, etc.) containing lessons about behaviour, most of which can be classified into one or the other of the categories I set out above. Lessons regarding communication/perception/understanding are more likely to use female characters, and those regarding deduction/decision/action are more likely to use male characters.

The archetypes have been derived from the mythology fairly recently (e.g. by Jung, Moore and Gillette). The treatment of them as “masculine” and “feminine” is a convenience of nomenclature for those who study and understand the mythology. In general, a Jung/Moore/Gillette “masculine” archetype unifies lessons and wisdom imparted by myths/fables/stories that use male characters.

The association of these with actual male and female people (as distinguished from mythological characters) is an unfortunate accident caused by the terminology.

In other words, our current use of “male” and “female” to refer to the archetypes has no relevant connection to the use of the words “male” and “female” to refer to people — or to the use of “male” and “female” to refer to electrical cable connectors! This is much like the treatment of such words in the east (see for example the relation between male and female in the yin and yang distinction.) It is no surprise to me that eastern thought has less trouble with the gender words.

Given the problems of “sexism” in teachings that are meant to illustrate the same psychological principles in all people regardless of sex, it might be useful to purge all gender names from the archetypes entirely — but that will be a lot of work. Moore and Gillette describe 24 “masculine” archetypes, and there are another 24 on the “feminine” side (see my table). Nearly all of them have genderized names. That’s a lot of names to change!

The purpose of the Legacy Discovery is to connect you with your masculine identity through the wisdom of men and with that power put your legacy into action.

Legacy In Action is the collective wisdom of men engaging, discussing everyday topics contributing to your journey of self discovery and personal development.

Do you  know your life’s purpose? How to live empowered? Living a more fulfilling life as a better leader, father, husband…

If you want answers to these questions and more, this is for you. Suggest a category you want to discovery more about and thank you for caring about YOU, you deserve to live a life you’ve always wanted.