Boys’ Emotionality and its Implications for Men by Alisha Husseinali Hooda

Definitions of masculinity in American culture are leading to a crisis of connection in boys and men. Niobe Way, in her book Deep Secrets, defines this crisis of connection as a “growing alienation, social isolation and fragmentation” (Way, 2013, p. 5). American culture characterizes masculinity as being emotionally stoic, independent, autonomous and physically tough (Pollack, 1998). Social pressures to conform to these rigid masculine norms lead boys to suppress their emotions and appear invulnerable (Way, 2013). However, contrary to generalized norms in American culture, studies show that boys have an immense capability to express their emotionality (Way, 2011). The emotional capabilities of boys (and men) are questioned and gender role theories enforce social codes by which boys must abide by in order to feel and seem ‘normal’ or in line with the American notion of masculinity (Jaramillo, 2019; Mazei et al., 2015). As boys mature and masculinity norms begin to intensify, they start to develop a duality in their ideologies by assigning a feminine or masculine attribute to behaviors (Kindlon & Thompson, 2000; Smith, 2015). There is a blanket notion that boys must stray as far away from feminine behaviors in order to appear ‘manly’ and expressing their emotions can make them seem effeminate (West & Zimmerman, 1987). This dualistic thinking style can be dangerous as they progress through adolescence (Way et al., 2014). 

There are also implications for how boys who were not allowed to appropriately develop intimate friendships display emotions of anger later in life. These suppressed emotions can eventually culminate and erupt into aggression and violence which can be seen through forms of terrorism and abuse (Way et al., 2014). Suppressing emotions and disconnecting from the world can increase the risk for depression, suicide, low school engagement, drug use and gang membership (Way, 2013). Way concludes that boys’ suicide rates increase by four times the rate of girls as they become less emotionally articulate and distrustful of their peers (Way, 2011). Dynamics in boys’ friendship groups and masculinity norms has serious implications for mental health outcomes of men later in life which leads to negative impacts on society overall. When men are not allowed to fully develop their emotional toolbox and emotionality is perceived as the antithesis of manliness, men commit acts of terrorism and abuse (Way, 2013).  

By Alisha Husseinali Hooda 

References 

Jaramillo, R. F. (2019, May 10). Why Can’t Men Say ‘I Love You’ to Each Other? Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/10/style/modern-love-college-i-love-you-man-.html?fbclid=IwAR08WwF2lcpC53lQjPpi4dVkpeUQirIP1oQhpDI696nPUND8dkNEzka9wV8 

Kindlon, D. J., Thompson, M., & Barker, T. (2000). Raising Cain: Protecting the emotional life of boys. New York: Ballantine Books.

Mazei, J., Hüffmeier, J., Freund, P. A., Stuhlmacher, A. F., Bilke, L., & Hertel, G. (2015). A Meta-Analysis on Gender Differences in Negotiation Outcomes and Their Moderators. Psychological Bulletin, 141(1), 85–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038184 

Smith, R. L. (2015). Adolescents’ emotional engagement in friends’ problems and joys: Associations of empathetic distress and empathetic joy with friendship quality, depression, and anxiety. Journal of Adolescence, 45, 103–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.08.020

Way, N., Cressen, J., Bodian, S., Preston, J., Nelson, J., & Hughes, D. (2014). “It might be nice to be a girl… Then you wouldn’t have to be emotionless”: Boys’ resistance to norms of masculinity during adolescence. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 15(3), 241-252.  

Way, N. (2013). Boys’ Friendships During Adolescence: Intimacy, Desire, and Loss. Journal of Research on Adolescence (Wiley-Blackwell), 23(2), 201–213. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12047 

Way, N. (2011). Deep secrets: Boys, friendships, and the crisis of connection.

West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing Gender. Gender & Society, 1(2), 125–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243287001002002