Translated material
RAISING BOYS
by Colette Shulman
"I think we need to talk more about men. How to raise boys. What values to give the. What mothers can do to help them be happy and free from stereotypical outlooks." This was a comment from a reader and in response, this article was written in June l998 to give our readers a glimpse of the research and thinking in the US about boys and their development.
Shortly after I began gathering material in early l998 on this large absorbing subject, there appeared almost simultaneously in our national press three important articles about boys entitled "How to Build a Better Boy" (Newsweek), "Doing Right by the Future Men of America" (The Washington Post) and "After Girls Get the Attention, Focus Shifts to Boys' Woes" (The New York Times). In all three articles the central message is that our boys are in trouble, experiencing deepening difficulties of being a boy in the current American culture, and that more researchers are now studying boys and learning things about them which can greatly help parents and teachers.
The women's movement of the past few decades and the research on girls that it stimulated have led to widening horizons for girls in our society of what they can do with their lives and what it means to be a woman. Boys on the other hand are mostly stuck in the old rigid stereotypes of manhood and if anything, many of them have become more isolated and stunted by what has been called "the culture of cruelty." These words resonate with us Americans because over the past year, l997-98, we were shocked as a nation by a series of school shootings in which adolescent boys stole hunting guns from fathers and grandfathers and went on a rampage of wounding and killing their schoolmates, and in one case a boy also killed his parents. They had previously uttered verbal threats, as kids occasionally do -- "I'm going to kill so-and-so for what he/she did to me." -- and often enough to attract attention, but no one took these threats seriously.
Some years earlier, in the l980's, there was a highly publicized scandal of quite another sort involving a group of high school boys in the California town of Lakewood who kept score of how many girls they had slept with by persuasion, intimidation and force. When asked whether they had ever worried about hurting a girl's feelings and damaging her life, one of the boys replied, "They're not really girls to me. They are just points." A friend of mine grew up in that town in the early l960's when life revolved around the school football players whose coach disciplined them like a marine sergeant into a fight-to-win team. They were the town stars adored by the girls and the entire community, and those were the town's "glory years" when everything seemed wonderful. Then the troubles began: racial strife brought on by the busing into the school from nearby towns of black and large numbers of Hispanic kids, and later on the loss of jobs in the town's once stable aircraft production economy as a result of cuts in the national defense budget. Against this background came the scandal of the "Spur Posse," as the boys called themselves (in the old American West and South, a "posse" was a citizen vigilante group formed by the local sheriff to pursue and capture someone -- a cowboy outlaw, or a black man destined for lynching). My friend Alida Brill set about investigating what had happened to her hometown and recorded her findings and observations in a book-length manuscript, of which this is a small excerpt very relevant to our subject: "Having a childhood history and understanding of Lakewood, as well as listening to friends and classmates, made me believe that the Spur Posse is an outgrowth of the 'home team culture.' ... Lakewood has simply always been a place with a fairly high tolerance for the misbehavior of boys. If not tolerance, then resignation. In a town where masculinity is defined in such traditional ways (some of them very troubling), boys have been given permission or license to act in ways that in some other places would be defined as unacceptable. Much of the Lakewood attitude about masculinity is mirrored in communities across the United States -- neighborhood boys causing problems. 'Problems' might be defined as a penchant to harass and bully anyone younger, weaker, or more vulnerable. Such behavior is actually institutionalized in many elite all-boys' prep schools. In Lakewood, being tough and in control characterized the competent boy; it was not until the Spur Posse got so far out of line that these particular boys would have appeared to be an aberration, Dr. Cohn, the district education supervisor, was shocked at the level of intimidation practiced by the Posse. But this behavior may in fact be more in keeping with a Lakewood pattern than the sexual aspect itself. If the Spur Posse had begun their group with severe sexual misbehavior, they might well have been turned in to the authorities earlier. But the sexual acts evolved from typical neighborhood "tough-guy" actions, the way groups of boys have behaved since the town's first streets were laid. The Spurs started as a bunch of rowdy boys pushing others around."
The incidents described above are more extreme manifestations of boys' troubles that are now seen as widely pervasive in the schools and in society as a whole. Compared to girls, boys are much more likely to be told they have learning disabilities and put in special education classes which set them apart for the rest of their lives, and to be diagnosed as schizophrenic or autistic. They are more likely to be given medication for hyperactivity and attention deficit disorder (ADD). They have more discipline problems and are more often suspended from high school and they commit more crimes. As adolescents they kill themselves five times more often, though girls more often attempt suicide. As adults, men are going to jail at ever increasing rates, abandoning their women and children. Even when things appear to be normal, they may not be under the surface. Over a decade ago, Olga Silverstein wrote in her book, The Courage to Raise Good Men: "As a family therapist I can tell you that male children in adolescence are assumed to be well functioning when they are athletic, do reasonably well in school, and show signs of leadership qualities and bravado while remaining basically attentive to authority. That they may also be detached, uncommunicative, and emotionally sealed off is seldom perceived as a problem. Indeed, in a variety of ways we demand that cutoff and, as mothers and fathers, do what we can to ensure it. We do this out of love for our sons -- we want them to fit in, to be accepted, to succeed, and thus, we think, to be happy. But twenty years of looking at the results in the therapist's consulting room have convinced me that the costs are too high. Ranging from mild depression, irritability, and sullenness to violence and suicide, these costs are seldom recognized for what they are. Indeed, we have an entire mythology of adolescence, a veritable symptomatology of male (and to a lesser extent female) behavior, to account for them, to explain them away. "Typical teenager," we say, in response to a remarkably wide range of antisocial and self-destructive behaviors, some of which might better be acknowledged and dealt with as real problems."
In response to these real problems a lot more research is going on, much of it in the Boston area where psychologists, doctors, professors and teachers have been talking with and observing boys in various settings from the hospital right after birth, to kindergarten, and on into the school years. Carol Gilligan of Harvard University, who pioneered in studies of girls' psychological development, is now directing some of her attention to boys. "The traditional unisex way of looking at child development was deeply flawed," Gilligan says. "It was like having a one-dimensional perspective on a two-dimensional scene." Whereas most girls hit their first crisis point in early adolescence, many researchers now agree that for boys it comes much earlier at age five or six or even younger. In infancy male and female development is quite similar in the open emotional connectedness and mutual responsiveness of mother and baby. Then around the age of three or four, sons and mothers begin relating to each other in a different way from mothers and daughters. Mothers are often startled to hear their little boys say, "I can't wait to grow up and not need you." In the view of Boston-area psychiatrist, Stephen Bergman, this shift or disconnection has serious implications for the rest of male development, in human relationships and in the way male dominant power is reflected and played out in the institutions of family and society. Here are excerpts from Bergman's thought-provoking analysis in his paper "Men's Psychological Development: A Relational Perspective," published in l991 by the Stone Center, part of the Wellesley College Centers for Women: "This disconnection from the relationship with mother is a primary violation in many men's lives, and a parallel violation in the life of a mother of a son. It's like a big wave, carrying the boy along from then on, a first learning about relationship which colors his learning in other close relationships, not in stages but continuously, in the family and in the culture, with women and men both. Please note that the break is not from 'the mother' that traditional theories have described and sometimes exalted, but from a mutually empathetic relationship, which happens to be with mother.
Why does this disconnection occur? Rather than any one factor bringing it about, everything in the culture forces it to come about, in the name of 'growth.' Prompted by father and the male image in the culture, the boy is heavily pressured to disconnect, to achieve maleness. Not only is he expected to turn away from mother to do this, and not only is mother told she has to support this, but it is bigger than merely mother. It is turning away from the process of connection. A boy is taught to become an agent of disconnection. ... This turning-away-from means that the boy never really learns how to do it, how to be in the process of relation with another and grow. Unlike girls, whose relational development is grounded in the practice of attending and responding to others' feeling states, boys do not get much practice in this arena of empathy."
In boys' development, Bergman continues, the cultural emphasis is on competing, self-achievement, becoming someone special, becoming good at doing things and fixing things, and often this is at the expense of being with or nurturing others. Many men do well in their twenties and thirties until they reach a "mid-life crisis" when life loses meaning for them and they feel angry, lonely, sad and depressed. "Terrible things may happen: drink or drugs, harmful affairs, workaholism, suicide, neglect and violation of loved ones -- and, if in positions of power, neglect and violation of other members of society or of other nations. In this crisis, men may use sexuality to try and connect; they can be surprised to find that women may need connection to be fully sexual.
On the other hand, if at that more receptive time of men's lives, the yearning for connection is nurtured, amazing things can happen: Men may go into therapy, where they may begin to address the relational conflicts and differences instead of stopping them; men may try to reconnect with their children, wives, fathers, and mothers" Bergman discovered that when men in therapy try to reconnect, they very often experience a sense of dread, which can best be interpreted as a fearful anticipation of danger. In a workshop of men and women facing each other, "when we asked one man what was wrong, he said, 'I'm afraid that something might happen.' Bergman uses the term "male relational dread" for this visceral gut fear men have that if they enter with women into a process of verbally exploring their innermost feelings, nothing good can come out of it for the man, things will only get worse, and the man would rather escape out the door than sit and talk. Some men do break off the conversation and never get back into connection. Others blossom in the process but only, as Bergman puts it, "after being forced to face their common and individual differences in relationship with women."
One could say that it was to prevent this problem of male disconnection and dread that two women psychologists in the Boston area, Cate Dooley and Nikki Fedele created a model of child-raising which they call "Parenting in Connection," helping children acquire the skills needed for fulfilling satisfying relationships of all kinds in life. The focus is on mothers and sons, simply because mothers are in a unique position to influence their sons. In the words of Dooley and Fedele: "The goal of Parenting in Connection is to maintain connection, and to circumvent distance and separation. Disconnections are opportunities to look at what is happening and to deepen and strengthen the relationship.
Reconnection can be quick and easy, or it can take time and effort and creative work. It can be teaching a two-year old to share, helping a nine-year old to deal with the rejection of not being chosen for a sports team, or coaching a teenager through the experience of breaking up with a girlfriend.
Boys are consistently told: 'toughen up.' 'Just do it.' 'Don't cry.' 'Be a man.' 'Be cool.' These cultural messages from the Boy Culture bombard the mother-son relationship at different stages in a child's life. Little boys are besieged by superhero figures that imply that survival depends on strength and stoicism. Middle school boys are indoctrinated with the competitive ethic of winning at all cost and exploiting power over others. Teenagers are influenced by clear messages that enforce physical and sexual dominance.
Parenting in Connection provides a context for responding to these pressures. Mothers can create and nourish deep connections that enable boys to grow emotionally and ultimately to enter into mutually satisfying relationships with others as they become adults. Parenting in Connection means rejecting the premise that mothers who fail to aggressively encourage their sons to separate run the risk of turning their boys into girls. Boys need to be connected just as much as girls do. Becoming a man does not require letting go of a connection with mom. At the same time, a connection with mom does not take the place of, and is not preferable to, a relationship with dad. Boys, like girls, benefit from any and all healthy relationships -- the more, in fact, the better."
Dooley and Fedele single out four stages in the mother-son relationship: The Early Years, ages 3-7; The Middle Years, 8-l3; The Teenage Years, l4-l8; The College/Adult Years. For each stage they identify the particular messages from the "Boy Culture" that besiege boys and the goals that mothers should work towards in guiding their sons into connection and relationships. They have conducted numerous workshops for parents, teachers, and therapists, and their research is centered in an on-going university project through which they interact with colleagues who are also studying boys.
I went to one of the Mother-Son workshops in Boston -- I was curious to hear how Cate Dooley would talk about developing "relational skills" in children. She did it in part by drawing on her vast store of life experiences as a mother and a therapist. She recounted how she helped her teen son Nathan reach out to his friend Ralph when Ralph's dog died. Nathan had similarly lost his own dog the year before, nevertheless he resisted even telephoning his friend to express sympathy. He felt awkward, embarrassed, he didn't know what to say. His mother wrote down a few sentences that he could say to Ralph and finally persuaded Nathan to pick up the phone and call. Cate then suggested that Nathan give Ralph a "bean baby", since he had more than one. This too Nathan resisted. The next day Ralph came over to Nathan's house and said to Cate, "Hey, it was real cool of Nathan to telephone me." And that day Nathan did give his friend a "bean baby." Thereby did Cate succeed in getting two l4 year-old boys to connect with each other over an emotional issue. Throughout the workshop she had a lively exchange with the audience-participants, most of them therapist-mothers themselves, and from the warm applause at the end it was clear that these women felt they had gained in awareness and insights.
Even as I write there has just appeared a new book by yet another of the Boston-area psychologists, William Pollack, entitled Real Boys, Rescuing Our Sons From The Myths of Boyhood. It is intended for mothers and fathers, teachers and anyone involved in boy-raising. Pollack identifies three myths, the first being that nature and specifically testosterone controls much of boy's' behavior making them prisoners of their own biology. In other words, "Boys will be Boys," as the popular saying goes. The truth is that while testosterone does contribute to boys' love of action and rough play, its effects vary greatly, from inclining one boy toward aggressiveness to enabling another to focus on an intellectual challenge such as a chess game. Far more important is parents' love and nurturing and what they do to stimulate a baby's brain, which in the first years of life is pliable and growing and can be permanently altered by the total surrounding environment. "The truth is that we can do a great deal to shape how a boy behaves. We can search for ways to celebrate our boys' energy and channel it into positive and productive activities. If they feel the urge to hit, let's give them a punching bag and help them learn to box. If they want to scream and yell, let's play a game that gives them a chance to cheer. If they want to argue, let's engage them in a conversation that allows them to develop their debating skills."
The second myth is that "Boys SHOULD be Boys" -- that they have to live according to the prevailing macho values of the "Boy Code" (the same as the "Boy Culture", for Dooley and Fedele). Pollack gives examples of how cruel boys can be to anyone who strikes them as less than conventionally masculine, and how long-lasting are those memories of having been shamed and humiliated. The truth is, he says "there is no one correct pathway to healthy masculinity."
The third myth, following from the other two, is that society tends to see boys as "inherently dangerous or toxic," meaning unaware and unsocialized, psychologically and emotionally, and this is discriminating to boys. The truth is that boys can be raised to be sensitive and empathetic, "to care deeply about other people, including girls, and their feelings."
Pollack offers tips to mothers on how to stay close to their boys and at the same time prepare them for the real world awaiting them.
l. Talk openly with your son about the "Boy Code," letting him know that you understand the dilemma for him of having to act tough with his pals even while you are trying to show him what it means to be empathetic. And talk with friends and teachers about how the "Boy Code" limits boys' development.
2. Teach your son about masculinity by talking about the men you love and what it is about them that you love -- their warmth, their independent-mindedness, their love of music and art, the way they dress -- whatever.
3. Rotate the parenting responsibilities with your partner so that your son comes to understand that the loving and nurturing is not just a woman's job and that being tough and strict is not just for men.
4. Try to talk with your son when he is hurting. Find a way to spend time together and draw him out about his feelings -- if not right away, then when he is ready to talk. And be understanding if he doesn't want to talk. Remember, he needs time alone. But try to be there for him when he wants to reconnect.
5. Do things together -- walking, playing games, doing chores. Connecting through action is a preferred style of relating for many boys.
6. Don't hold back -- show your son that you love him; it adds to his strength in taking on the outside world. To single mothers, Pollack says don't let society intimidate you into thinking you can't raise your son alone, and that if you do, somehow he won't grow up masculine. Trust in your instincts. "Single mothers, I believe, have a lot of good things to teach the rest of us about boys and masculinity." The main reason for changing the way we raise boys is that too many men and boys are hurting. But if additional reasons are needed, let the reader reflect on these four final observations on the world we live in, as it relates to both men and women.
"We live in an interdependent world, so that even the best corporate executives, heroic men of strong vision and action, sink or swim on their ability to work with others. We also live in a world where traveling even long distances is relatively quick and easy -- and communicating over these distances is even quicker and easier -- so that we don't need to be training our boys (or any other group of our citizens) to withstand long, lonely, dangerous journeys. It's time we rethink the merits of our old-fashioned male archetypes -- the distant 'warrior,' the 'lone adventurer,' the 'fearless hero' -- and reconsider what we really want from our boys and men. I would suggest that most peoples' image of a healthy male is one who can succeed on the job, on the athletic field, AND in relationships, and change diapers. What we really want is for our boys to become strong, authentic individuals, to become capable both of acting heroically and of maintaining strong affectionate relationships to spouses, children, parents, co-workers, neighbors and friends." William Pollack (Real Boys)
I used to think that what we have here is just Western culture -- competitive, individualistic, self-sufficient. But the cross-cultural data suggests that this country is off the scale -- that we are so far into the individualistic, competitive ethic, and that, in fact, we continue to socialize males to be soldiers -- whether on the battlefield or in industry -- and you don't socialize soldiers to be empathetic, listening, caring people. I think, ultimately, the individualistic ethic is starting to fail in terms of ecological and economic success in the world, and it will push the system to move into some new paradigms, and I feel some hope about that. Judith Jordan (Stone Center, Work in Progress paper No. 48)
The nuclear and global age -- the interconnectedness and the necessity for living with a different kind of consciousness -- is really pushing our attentiveness to our survival at a rate far beyond what it's been for 3,000 years. I think many forces are at work to bring change. Janet Surrey (Stone Center, Work in Progress paper No. 48) Both men and women have experienced violations which interfere with healthy mutual relationships. The creative energy which can be liberated by the genders working with conflict and difference is profound. It seems to me that the real hope for living in harmony and wholeness in the world is that liberation. ... In shifting the paradigm from Self/Other to Relationship, we are entering the realm of the common good. From there, it's a short step to global awareness and action. Stephen Bergman (Stone Center, Work in Progress paper No. 48)