boys in crisisTitle: Boys in Crisis
Paul J. Marcille, Ph.D
Over the last 40 years, remarkable social gains have been made by women in Western societies. For all but the last minute or so of human history, gender stereotypes have relegated women to the nursery, kitchen and bedroom, while their male counterparts were free to go off and establish empires and determine their own destiny. Women, the “weaker sex”, sacrificed their lives and ambitions for the sake of their husbands and families. In the latter part of the 20th century, however, developments in technology and health care, coupled with the activities of the feminist movement, have released the gender stereotype chains that have so long bound women to traditional second class roles and have opened new personal, educational and professional horizons to the benefit of themselves and their societies.
Feminists, however, both men and women, have developed some harmful myths: Women have an inherent capacity for empathy, caring, communication and relationships; while men, with their tendencies to be distant, unconnected, task oriented and non communicative, are subtly denigrated. Some argue that this has created a crisis for boys and men with serious consequences for their emotional and physical health (Pollack, 1999; Sommers, 1999). This stereotype also has implications for adult men’s abilities to participate fully and constructively in relationships and parenthood.
Some indications of the crisis that boys and men are facing today are surprising. In education today, boys lag behind girls in most important measures of academic success. In the US, boys are twice as likely as girls to be diagnosed as learning disabled and they make up 67% of students in special education classes (Pollack, 1999). In many school systems, boys are ten times more likely to be labeled as emotionally disturbed, usually with a diagnosis for attention deficit disorder, for which most receive medication. Boys are much more likely to create disciplinary problems and to be suspended from or drop out of school entirely.
In 1998, the Horatio Alger Association conducted a survey of two groups of US students: highly successful (approx. 18% of American students) and the strongly disillusioned (approx. 15%). Results from the survey indicate that successful students study diligently, select more challenging classes, establish schoolwork as a priority, achieve good grades and participate in extracurricular activities. They feel that teachers are interested in them. The successful group in the 1998 survey is 63% female and 37% male. The disillusioned students were pessimistic about their future, achieved lower grades, and felt little support from their teachers. The disillusioned group could be characterized as demoralized. Nearly seven out of ten of this group were males (Sommers, 2000).
Boys today tend to be much more likely to involved with alcohol and drugs and they are much more likely than girls to the be both the victims and perpetrators of violent crimes. The incidence of depression among boys, in comparison to girls is strikingly high. Girls attempt suicide more often than boys, but it is boys who more often succeed. In 1997, 4,483 young people in the US age five to twenty four committed suicide: 701 females and 3,782 males (Sommr, 2000)!
The US Department of Education (1999) reports that women now make up 55% of undergraduate full-time university students; men only 45%. This gap will continue to grow. According to the National Center for Educational Statistics, slightly more girls than boys enroll in high level math and science courses. Girls now outnumber boys in student government, in honor societies, on school newspapers, and in debating clubs. More girls than boys study abroad.
Only in participation in sports are boys ahead.
Violence by boys and men, always an area where men unfortunately excel, is on the increase. As I write this article, I’m listening to the report of another school shooting in the US perpetrated by a 15 year old boy who killed two of his classmates and wounded 13. This is just the latest of a string of violent acts committed by boys and directed at teachers and peers. The US is not alone. The French Minister of Education has reported over 22,000 acts of violence occurring in French schools over the last academic year, the wide majority being committed by boys.
The incidence of frustration and depression in men moving into adulthood is also on the rise. Those of us who work with men clinically report seeing more difficulties as men attempt to achieve both the professional and personal successes dictated by traditional male gender stereotypes and, at the same time, to be a loving and caring partner and parent, who is both physically and emotionally available to his family and friends.
Traditional gender role paradigm argues that men and women inherit a physical and psychological need to develop a gender identity. Successfully achieving such a gender identity results in normal personality development and happiness. Failure to do so was assumed to create both personal and relationship problems, including psychological disturbances and homosexuality. The strides that women have made in transcending the limitations of traditional female roles have thrown into doubt the innate nature of such a gender role paradigm. Pleck (1981) has proposed a gender role strain paradigm in which gender roles are as much a result of learning and socialization, imposed by parents, teachers and peers who subscribe to the prevailing norms and stereotypes, as much as they are a result of biological differences.
He argues that the number of violations of gender role norms in all societies is very high and that it is societal condemnation of such deviations which actually causes negative psychological consequences and “strain.”
Feminists and non-feminists alike would agree that the history of psychology is really the history of male psychology. Critics of Freud and traditional psychoanalytic theory need only refer to the theories of castration complex and penis envy to illustrate Freud’s gender centric bias. However, psychologists who study men’s issues today have recently begun to question some of the long standing beliefs about men’s psycho sexual development, shedding light on possible sources of the difficulties boys and men are currently experiencing.
Literally all western psychological theory about human development has considered that normal human development involves a separation and individuation from parents and loved ones in order to become autonomous and develop a sense of self. This autonomy and self knowledge then allows us to enter relationships with a clear sense of who we are and what we need. Pollack and others psychoanalytic theorists (Levant, 1992) have argued that the gender role socialization of boys involves a premature and traumatic separation from their mothers during the separation-individuation phase of early childhood. Girls, on the other hand, are allowed to prolong the symbiotic relationship with mother much longer and to avoid the traumatic emotional rupture that such separation can create. Betcher and Pollack (1993) call this separation of boys from their mothers a “traumatic abrogation of the early holding environment” that causes a premature psychic separation from the mother, the first empathic relationship that all humans, men and women, experience. This can create a psychic trauma that can leave men at risk for problems in the areas of intimacy, empathy and commitments in relationships. The trauma of this premature separation from mother is also compounded by the lack of a supportive father. Osherman in his book “Finding Our Fathers” (1987) quotes studies indicating that fathers interact with their children, in the first three months, an average of 37 seconds per day; at nine months, their interaction is in the range of one hour. Fathers tend not to be very available to their children for either physical or emotional support. This absence has profound impacts for boys, who have not only lost their special relation with their mother but are also lacking the presence of a male role model. In 1966, the US Census Bureau reported that there were 5.1 million children living with their mothers alone. In 1996, this figure had grown to more than 16 million (Sommers, 2000).
It is commonly assumed that women have a deeper capacity for experiencing and expressing emotions, allowing them to form and develop healthier and nurturing relationships. It is also assumed that men have a much more restricted emotional life. However, while there are definite biological and hormonal differences between female and male infants, research indicates that the existence of sex differences in terms of emotionality in infants are really quite small. Haviland and Malatesta (1981) in a review of the literature on emotionality of young children, concluded that male infants are actually more emotionally reactive and expressive than girls. They startle more easily, become more quickly excited, have lower tolerance for frustration, cry sooner and more often and demonstrate more highly variable emotional states.
What does appear to occur in the early childhood of boys is that this capacity to feel and express a range of emotions is brought under control of what Pollack (1999) has called the “Boy Code,” a set of socially constructed and rigidly enforced rules for how to be male. The Boy Code, which is instilled by parents, teachers and peers, are the gender norms for masculinity. They include the proscription that boys need to be stoic, stable and independent, never feeling pain or show it openly; boys must be outgoing and energetic to the point of violence; boys must achieve status and dominance and avoid failure and shame; and boys must not express feelings or urges that appear feminine, i.e., dependence, warmth and empathy. The socialization of boys does produce many admirable and constructive attributes. These include a willingness to sacrifice and set aside his needs for others, a capacity to withstand pain and hardship in order to protect others, a capacity to express love by doing things, a sense of loyalty, dedication and commitment, an ability to think logically, to stay calm in crises, to take risks, and to assert himself. However, there are consequences of the Boy Code that have become obsolete and dysfunctional. These include a relative inability to experience and express emotions, and inability to be empathetic to the emotions of others, a tendency to turn anger into rage and violence, a tendency to experience sexuality as separate from relationships, and difficulties with emotional intimacy with partners and children (Levant, 1992).
Selman (1980) defines empathy as “interpersonal understanding,” the ability to step outside of one’s own egocentric frame of reference in order take on another’s perspective. Levant (1992) believes that boys and girls learn different types of empathy. Boys, he argues, learn action empathy, the ability to see things from another’s point of view and predict what they will do. This is in contrast to emotional empathy, which girls learn, seeing things from another’s perspective in order to know how they feel. Action empathy is learned through the physical and goal oriented activities that boys are encouraged and pushed to participate in. Action empathy is a valuable skill that can assist men to function well in their professional roles later in life. What boys and men are not taught to do is to understand how they themselves and others feel.
One of the most profound consequences of male gender socialization is the inability of many men to identify and describe their emotions. They are unable to do what most women find completely natural - to feel their feelings and describe them. The development of the condition in boys and men, called alexithymia (Levant & Kelly, 1989) results from the early traumatic separation from mother and the necessity to repress the overwhelming feelings of loss that this produces and also the socialization process by which boys are told to be tough, not be a wimp, “big boys don’t cry,” “no pain, no gain,” “tough it out, shake it off.” When men are asked to describe their feelings, they often are unable to and must resort to logical deduction. This can lead to problems in relationships with partners, who want genuine emotional dialogues and exchanges. It can also lead to a tremendous sense of frustration and pain, as men experience emotions for which they have no vocabulary or capacity to express. Men feel profound depression and rage without understanding where these feelings came from and without having the vocabulary to talk about them. This can lead to destructive acting out. Men also experience profound happiness and love without being able to express these feelings to those who need to hear them.
Related to this inability of men to feel and describe their feelings is the over development of anger and aggression. Long (1987) points out that anger is one of the few emotions that boys are permitted to feel and encouraged to express. The emotions that are prohibited by the Boy Code: hurt, disappointment, shame, fear, etc., get funneled into anger, the one acceptable emotion. The problem is that anger does not solicit the response that feelings of hurt and fear would. Another important corollary of male gender role socialization and alexithymia in men is the limitation of expression of the caring emotions. At an early age, little boys are encouraged to be strong and independent, to not need hugs and kisses, to not express their love and need to be loved. Demonstrations of such feelings is seen as feminine and sissy. Levant (Levant & Pollack, 1995) argues that later in adolescence, the caring emotions become channeled into sexuality, which takes the form of unconnected lust, that is, sexuality with no requirement for emotional intimacy. Sex becomes a pleasure unto itself, disconnected from feelings of intimacy and relations with others, centered on the desire for physical release and the need to prove oneself.
In summary, the premature separation of boys from their mothers, the frequent physical of psychological absence of fathers, compounded by the male gender socialization process suppresses and channels natural male emotionality to such an extent that boys grow up to be men who, though skilled in action empathy, cannot readily sense other peoples or their own feelings and put them into words. It creates men who tend to channel their vulnerable feelings into anger and their caring feelings into sexuality. The frustration brought about by these conditions in boys results in problematic academic performances and the high incidence of depression and violent behaviors witnessed today. In men, these conditions can lead to personal and professional frustrations, an inability to participate in emotionally satisfying and intimate adult relationships, and an inability to father in ways that provide both sons and daughters with a second, connected parent and that do not perpetuate outdated and dysfunctional male gender stereotypes.
At the Stone Center at Wellesley College, Judith Jordan and her colleagues (1991) argue that continuous healthy development is not based on individuation of the self but rather the development of the self in connection with others. And not just any connection, but connections that are mutually empathic, authentic and empowering. In this view, psychological dysfunction is less a result of lack of individual autonomy but more a result of relational disconnection from others and from oneself. Over the last 20 years, the feminist scholars at the Stone Center have developed a Relational/Cultural Theory to help explain the nature of the relations that both men and women need in order to be healthy and happy and to explain how disconnection in relations can lead to intra personal and interpersonal dysfunction. This theory was first developed with and for women, but its relevance for men has also been identified (Levant & Pollack, 1995). Both men and women have a yearning to be in connection with others and also in connection with themselves and their feelings. Little boys are encouraged, because of male gender stereotypes, to “disconnect” and learn not to listen to others feelings as well as their own. They learn to do rather than to feel and this paves the way for depression, frustration, anger and acting out, academic under performance and, later, for dysfunction in relationships with partners and children.
The Journal of the American Medical Association (1997), reporting on a two-year collaborative study of over 12,000 adolescents, found that the best predictor of health and the strongest deterrent to high-risk behaviors in teens was a strong connection with at least one adult, at home or at school. This finding held up regardless of family structure, income, race, education, amount of time spent together, where and with whom the child lives, or whether one or both parents work. The message is loud and clear, good relationships create the resilience that prevents dangerous acting-out behaviors in our children. This same finding emerges in both adult men and women: achieving a balance between autonomy and affiliated relatedness to others is a strong predictor of psychological well-being, physical health, marital satisfaction, children’s satisfaction and family adaptation (Fedele et. al., 1988).
The implications for parenting, education and therapy for men are clear. Boys and men can participate in non-self centered, mutual relationships and they can grow within connections to others. Parents need to recognize the importance of the connection they have with their children and not push them to separate prematurely. Fathers need to be present and connected to their children, particularly modeling the capacity to feel their own and their son’s emotions. And both fathers and mothers need to be conscious of the tendency to push their sons and daughters into gender role straight jackets, which will limit their development and handicap them in their ability to participate in intimate relationships later in life. Boys can become boys, learning the positive aspects of the traditional Boy Code, independence, action oriented, logical, calm, etc. But boys can also learn to feel and stay connected with others in order to grow and develop in the significant relations in their lives. This is the psychological challenge for men in the 21st century.
For more information about Relational/Cultural Theory, consult the Jean Baker Miller Training Institute, Stone Center, Wellesley College web site: http://www.wellesley.edu/JBMTI
End Notes
Betcher, R.W. & Pollack, W.S. (1993). In a Time of Fallen Heroes: The Re-creation of Masculinity. New York: Atheneum.
Fedele, N. M., Golding, E. R., Grossman, F. K. & Pollack, W. S. (1988) Psychological issues in adjustment to first parenthood. In G. Y. Michaels & W. A. Goldberg (Eds.) The Transition to Parenthood (pp. 85 - 113). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Haviland, J.J. & Malatesta, C.Z. (1981). The development of sex differences in non-verbal signals: Fallacies, facts and fantasies. In C. Mayo & N. M. Henly (Eds.), Gender and Nonverbal Behavior (pp183-208). New York: Springer.
Jordan, J. V., Kaplan, A. G., Baker Miller, J., Stiver, I. P. & Surrey, J. L. (1991) Women’s Growth in Connection. New York: Guillford Press.
Levant, R. F. (1992). Toward the reconstruction of masculinity. Journal of Family Pscychology, 5(3/4), pp.379-402.
Levant, R. F.. & Kelley, J. (1989). Between Father and Child. New York: Viking.
Long, D. (1987). Working with men who batter. In M. Scher (Ed.) Handbook of Counseling and Psychotherapy with Men. (pp. 305-320). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Osherman, S. (1987). Finding Our Fathers. New York: The Free Press.
Pleck, J. (1981). The Myth of Masculinity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pollack, W.S. (1999). Real Boys’ Voices. New Your: Random House.
Pollack, W.W. (1998). Real Boys. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
Selman, R. L. (1980). The Growth of Interpersonal Understanding:
Development and Clinical Analyses. New York: Academic Press
Sommers, C.H. (1999).The War Against Boys. New Your: Simon & Schuster.
Sommers, C.H. (2000). The war against boys. The Atlantic Monthly, May 2000 (pp. 59-74).
Paul J. Marcille, Ph.D. Is the Dean of Students at The American University of Paris. He is also a Clinical Psychologist and Assistant Professor of Psychology. His interest in the psychology of men stems from his clinical work and his being the father of two little boys. For the last 18 months he has been part of study group with his colleagues at the International Counseling Service in Paris focusing on Relational Therapy.
Discuss
|
|
