#william pollack

[…]

Feminism may have afforded girls an escape from teh constraints of conventional feminity, offered them alternative identities as women and a language with which to express the myriad problems-that-have-no-name, but it has made few in-roads with boys. Whether you label it the ‘mask of masculinity,’ ‘toxic masculinity,’ or ‘the man box,’ the traditional conception of manhood still holds sway, dictating how boys think, feel, and behave. Young men who most internalize masculine norms are six times more likely than others both to report having sexually harassed girls and to have bullied other guys. They are more likely to have themselves been victims of verbal or physical violence. They are more prone to binge-drinking and risky sexual behaviour, and more likely than other boys to be in car accidents. They are also painfully lonely: less happy than other guys, with fewer close friends; more prone to depression and suicide. Whatever comfort, status, or privilege is conferred by the ‘real man’ mantle, then—and clearly those exist—comes at tremendous potential cost to boys’ physical and mental health, as well as that of the young women around them.

At its core, what psychologist William Pollack calls ‘the boy code’ trains guys to see masculinity in opposition to, and adversarial toward, feminity: a tenuous, ever-shifting position that must be continuously policed. Anything that smacks of ‘girlieness’—in oneself, in other boys, and, of course, as embodied by actual girls—must be concealed; ridiculed, or rejected. Love, connection, and vulnerability are signs of weakness; aggression is celebrated and eroticized; conquest is everything.

[…]

The boys told us stories of brusque reactions to others’ problems, continual mocking of one another, and shoving one another around. These stories resembled the ‘culture of cruelty’ described by boys-in-crisis writers. Those writers frame boys’ behavior in the individualist terms that are commonplace in U.S. psychology. They see cruel behavior as the expression of learned attitudes and values inculcated earlier in boys’ lives. Indeed, listening to the stories boys told about one another, we too were tempted to ascribe traits like callous, uncaring, mean-spirited, and bully to the boys. However, the boys’ accounts of cruel behavior differed from the boys-in-crisis account in two important ways. First, boys situated the behavior within their ongoing social relations and saw it as part of the joint project of maintaining and developing one another’s manliness. Second, the boys viewed brusque remarks and hurtful treatment as ultimately serving positive ends. Because they felt obliged to maintain an unconcerned and tough demeanor, they had to steer clear of both displaying emotion and expressing care for others. Dismissing a friend’s problems as ‘no big deal,’ urging him to ‘just suck it up,’ or distracting him helped him save face and stay within the bounds of masculinity. At the same time, dismissing or downplaying others’ problems maintained a boy’s posture of tough-minded unconcern. Such practices thus maintained the masculine appearance of both boys. Not surprisingly, then, many boys seemed to welcome them and to regard them as helpful.

[…]

Boys described teasing, mocking, taunting, and shoving other boys as natural and everyday parts of manly behavior. Ridicule and teasing were said to be means of both eliciting others’ masculinity and challenging it. The cycle of being taunted, ‘taking it like a man’ (or not), and then taunting in return constituted a ritual whereby boys continually enacted and reaffirmed their masculinity. Here too, although an outsider might view these actions as cruel, boys themselves interpreted them as helping one another develop and strengthen their masculinity.

The accounts given by the boys we studied raise doubts about claims made by boys-in-crisis writers. Boys’ talk disputes the claim that adolescent boys are ‘emotionally illiterate,’ that is, incapable of understanding and communicating emotions. The boys we spoke to appeared quite skilled in reading others’ feelings: They knew when others were upset, hurt, or afraid, just as they could recount their own moments of terror, strain, or worry. Moreover, they were skilled in concealing their own feelings from others when necessary. Rather than having an impoverished emotional life or a deficiency in comprehending or empathizing with others’ feelings, boys made use of complex strategies regarding the display of their own feelings and shutting down unwanted or taboo communications from others. Like Chu, we observe that adolescent boys possess a ‘breadth and depth’ of emotional and relational abilities.

Violence is the most visible and disturbing end result of the process that begins when a boy is pushed into the adult world too early and without sufficient love and support. He becomes seriously disconnected, retreats behind the mask, and expresses the only ‘acceptable’ emotion—anger. When a boy’s anger grows too great, it may erupt as violence: violence against himself, violence against others, violence against society. Violence, therefore, is the final link in the chain that begins with disconnection.

Adam was doing what so many boys do: he was hiding behind a mask, and using it to hide his deepest thoughts and feelings—his real self—from everyone, even the people closet to him. This mask of masculinty enabled Adam to make a bold (if inaccurate) statement to the world: ‘I can handle it. Everything’s fine. I am invincible.’

Adam, like other boys, wore this mask as an invisible shield, a persona to show the outside world a feigned self-confidence and bravado, and to hide the shame he felt at his feelings of vulnerability, powerlessness and isolation. He couldn’t handle the school situation—very few boys or girls of fourteen could—and he didn’t know how to ask for help, even from the people he knew loved him.

Many of the boys I see today are like Adam, living behind a mask of masculine bravado that hides the genuine self to conform to our society’s expectations; they feel it is necessary to cut themselves off from any feelings that society teaches them are unacceptable for men and boys—fear, uncertainty, feelings of loneliness and need.

As a boy, Anakin is described as caring and selfless by his mother. He gladly gives of himself to help others with no thought of personal gain. But as he becomes part of the Jedi order, another code—The Jedi Code—becomes the template by which he is judged.

[…]

Standing in front of the Jedi council as an eight-year-old who has left his mother for good, Anakin is told by Jedi Master Yoda that the Council senses much fear in him and that “fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, and hate leads to suffering.” For this reason, the Jedi Council is at first unwilling to allow Anakin to enter their order. When he finally is accepted, Anakin is repeatedly admonished for expressing his emotions and is taught to be mindful of his feelings because, as he is warned, “they betray you.” Pollack believes that a similar judging socializing process occurs with boys: “Even when boys appear to be sad or afraid, our culture lets them know in no uncertain terms that they had better toughen up and ‘tough it out’ by themselves.” Unfortunately though, as Pollack contends, this process of ‘toughening up’ boys and showing them how to bury their feelings can have serious effects on their development into young men. They may become depressed, show symptoms of serious learning and behavioral disorders, and may even turn to violence.