Wanna Change the World? Break the "Boy Code"

The Boil-Down: If you watch "normal" modern boys go about their day, they often seem okay--happy, energetic, competitive, even industrious. But beneath the surface, the vast majority of boys are not okay, because pressures to be "normal" boys inoculate them with the toxins of masculinity. Silently shamed into hiding vulnerable emotions, being "tough," braving life's ups and downs independently, and having their situations under control, our boys are set up to suffer...and fail. Boys are five times more likely than girls to suffer from hyperactivity, and they account for 71% of school suspensions. From ages fifteen to twenty-four, they are four times more likely to be the victims of homicide, and are five times more likely to complete a suicide (Pollack, 2006). Boys who are subjected to this are growing up to traumatize their own sons and victimize our women and girls through emotional neglect, resource neglect, abandonment, domestic violence, rape, and sex trafficking...and by perpetuating the "boy code," a process which William Pollack calls gender straitjacketing. This is because although girls' expectations through socialization have expanded and improved in the last fifty years (this research observation does not minimize the incredible challenges that remain in girls' lives), the way boys are raised presently has not significantly changed from the way they were raised back in 1970 (Terry Real). Eyes Wide Open identifies this crisis of toxic masculinity in boys as the number one factor in the social problems of the modern world.

The Details: In a groundbreaking 2006 study, William Pollack of Harvard Medical School found results that belied modern psychology's views of "normal" boys. His atypical results were achieved because the study used "psychological inventories specifically designed to measure subconscious emotional states—states that boys may avoid showing in social contexts." In other words, the instruments used in the study went deeper than the face valid self-report measures many surveys and interviews use. Traditional psychological findings about boys may have come from strong researcher confidence in the soundness of the methods used in prior studies; or, there may have been institution-wide denial about boys, held by the male-dominated, male-engineered fraternal disciplines of psychiatry and psychology. The men leading these fields may have been too out of touch with their own crises of masculinity, or too blinded by institutional groupthink, to identify or admit these possibilities about problems with boys' functioning.

What Pollack and his colleagues found is consistent with my own informal clinical observations. Boys by and large are required by family and society to suffer from the trauma of premature separation as early as ages four to six. Whereas girls are socially permitted to have and experience vulnerable emotions, and to seek support from their parents and others about those emotions, gender straightjacketing prohibits boys from having these important attachment needs met. Boys experience shame about the feelings of this separation, and perceive pressure to hide their vulnerabilities and their desire to reunite emotionally with their mothers and fathers (reunions which would be developmentally healthy for them). As they grow, they experience increased pressure to fulfill traditional masculine roles (including sexual roles), and to hide their fear, shame, and self-perceived weaknesses and shortcomings with a false bravado. All of this comprises what I call the "boy code".

In his book published in 1967, Thomas A. Harris made a case for people's use of one of four "life positions"; his paradigm was rooted in Berne's transactional analysis and influenced by Penfield's brain experiments on the neurology of memory. Of these four life positions--which other theories might call attitudes or schemata, only the one comprising the book's title is healthy and desirable: I'm okay, you're okay. This is the position Harris encourages individuals to aspire to and practice in life. The other positions, I'm not okay, you're okay; I'm not okay, you're not okay; and I'm okay, you're not okay, are indicative of transactional pathology or ego state crisis. I assert here that the trauma of premature separation (and other trauma) can produce any of these three unhealthy life positions in boys. As listed above, the first unhealthy life position reflects low self-esteem, the second reflects nihilism, and both of these exemplify depression and the traumatic locus of control shift described earlier in Eyes Wide Open blog entries. The third reflects false empowerment and exemplifies narcissism and sociopathy (although deep down, what severe narcissism is masking is I'm not okay).

The National Sexual Violence Resource Center (NSVRC) states that 18.3% of women have been raped sometime in the course of their lives; this includes forced completion or attempted penetration, as well as chemically facilitated subjection to intercourse. Of those victims, 51.1% report being raped by an intimate partner, and 40.8% by an acquaintance. In statistics reported by Rainn.org, eight out of ten victims knew their rapist; among juveniles, the rate is 93%. The vast majority of rapists are men over age thirty.

According to a 2007 survey released by the Workplace Bullying Institute, 37% of employees indicated they were bullied at work, 60% of the time by a male. Most of the bullies were the victims' bosses. According to research by Expert Market, 57.3% of senior management positions are held by men. While these results paint a clear picture of the ability of girls and women to emotionally abuse others (their tactics tend to differ from those of boys and men), the male bully is ubiquitous. And while I have every confidence that student children underreport bullying, nearly four times more workplace employees admit they were bullied, than do kids on the playground! When looking at how adults treat one another, our expectations of children's lunchline conduct seem ridiculous. But regarding the role of boys and men in all the above social problems, gender straitjacketing is an arguably potent variable.

Eyes Wide Open has already examined concepts such as triangulation, narcissistic gravity, and groupthink which would encourage boys and men to make ineffective, self-centered decisions--decisions which chronically harm people around them. Living a life out of touch with vulnerable emotions, a life disconnected from the humanity of self and the humanity of others, is another such harmful phenomenon in the lives of boys and men. According to Pollack, "the older they become, the more pressured they feel to hide their feelings of insecurity and vulnerability. Their mask hardens."Men are also confused about how to conform in accepting traditional masculine roles and rules while trying to espouse new gender egalitarian norms introduced by a progressive society. There is increased perceived pressure to keep up appearances so as not to "lose respect"; they feel they must close off their emotions, stay silent, act tough, come across as having everything under control, and "distort what they say and do in order to be perceived as strong, confident, and masculine." Only 15% of males endorsed a positive future; most had anxiety about the future, and those with lower self-esteem endorsed depression. It's difficult to imagine this internal state as effective for any person, or for the people who depend on them.

There is a case to be made for the influence of trauma therapy concepts in gender straitjacketing. I've worked with individuals who found themselves in situations so triangulated and toxic that for the sake of their own emotional health and survival they needed to carve out space to breathe and connect outside the reach of narcissistic gravity. The codependent partners of alcoholic spouses are one example of this. Another is the union pipefitter who was determined to work on his anger problem--a problem which his coworkers encouraged; they would have persecuted him had they known he was in therapy trying to manage his emotions. He mostly wanted his wife to feel safe, and wanted to be prepared for his impending fatherhood role. A third example is a young adult female from a culture where it is common for extended family to live with the parents, and where respecting one's mother meant not challenging her word, no matter how irrational or tangential it was. This young woman's mother, however, had untreated schizophrenia; the mother's thoughts were paranoid and her judgment was chronically, even dangerously, out of touch with reality. The young woman's father was emotionally exhausted and spent most of his time "walking on eggshells" rather than being assertive in the presence of his wife's psychosis.

The survival need articulated above applies to boys who have experienced the trauma of premature separation and live under the impositions of gender straitjacketing. Their parents have unresolved attachment trauma which leads to reenactments of the past in their present relationships. They are too busy abiding by their own narcissistic wounds, living vicariously, undoing or still trying to win the affection of their fathers, and failing to individuate from their current triangulated group dynamics to love and raise their boys effectively. The grief of their own demons, their own self-unawareness, their own peer pressure is primary, generating narcissistic gravity--a strong by-product of which is the premature separation from their sons, the gender straitjacketing of their boys. And let's break our denial: this is not the exception in society, this is the unhealthy norm.

Pollack asserts that if we want to raise boys who are empathic to others, we must consistently express empathy for those boys. When they are given "the opportunity to connect with an empathic other, such as a friend, parent, teacher, or psychologist in 'shame-free zones,' with a model of what our research has dubbed action talk (Fein et al., 2002; Pollack, 1998, 2000, 2001)," they quickly shed the mask, the puffed up braggadocio, and reveal that they are caring individuals sensitive to the needs of others, placing importance on their desire for healthy connected relationships. By removing boys from the crucible of peer pressure; speaking to them openly and thoughtfully; and, above all, listening to them in a patient, nonjudgmental way, we were able to elicit voices reflecting the gentle, caring, loving sides of our study subjects. The boys spoke passionately about the importance of their relationships with girls and with other boys, about how much they cared about maintaining these friendships, and about the critical role their parents, grandparents, and, in some cases, older siblings played in mentoring them toward adulthood (p.194)."

You can help the boys and men in your life by starting today. Free yourself and them from your own issues by engaging in therapy or serious self-help. Encourage the men in your life to embrace this seriously by taking time away from their male peer groups and man cave interactions to emancipate themselves from even subtle boy code forces from their pasts. This often can't be done without good therapy. Also, join or establish a study group, blog, or community movement to raise awareness of and further educate ourselves and others about the effects (rigid roles, depression, rape, bullying, emotional neglect, other trauma, suicide) of the trauma of premature separation. Let's break the boy code. Our boys' lives, and the wellness of those who will need them, depend on it.

*The concept of boy code and other concepts previous and following will be used in the Eyes Wide Open project to help the reader to identify the impact of previously "invisible" forces such as social tactics and other phenomena upon individuals and groups, see past those tactics, and gain a more effective understanding of events in the family, the government and other institutions, in the media and in politics.