Well meaning (feminist) moms ruin their sons chances at friendships

Why feminists are useless when it comes to understanding masculinity and male loneliness

Cathy Reisenwitz

and

Ruth Whippman

both come across as well-intentioned (if misguided) “allies” of boys and men. Ruth did what she perceived to be a deep dive into masculinity in her book “BoyMom: Reimagining Boyhood in the Age of Impossible Masculinity”, and Cathy has several articles (here, and here) where she among other things explain how masculinity is a “performance” that hold men back.

I do believe, as stated, them to be well-intentioned and sincerely well-meaning. And I am grateful, sort of, but I also believe they are severely misguided.

Both being feminists, they can’t help themselves but to explain boys and men’s problems as a result of “patriarchy” and “gender norms”. They seem to believe that boys are misshaped and misguided girls, and if boys and men only just leaned into their feminine sides, cultural pressure be damned, they would come out happier and better off in every way.

Haven’t we all ready tried that? I know I will get some push-back here, but in my opinion we have tried our best to “broaden” the “The box” labeled “socially acceptable ways to be a man”, since the 70ies. We have dismantled the nuclear family, abandoned male role models, emphasized emotional vulnerability and “gender non-conforming” trends - for fifty years. (And that’s one issue I have with feminism, it’s theories are not falsifiable, as in more feminism, less patriarchy, the happier we’ll be. But it has not made us happier or better adjusted.) We’ve tried for 50 years to feminize boys, when should we expect to see results?

Quote a lot of our population have grown up with out fathers, and hence been under uncontested female influence at home. Few of those boys have been pressured by their mothers to grow up to be the strong, silent type, emotionally unavailable, aggressive and distant, but rather raised as “allies” to girls and women. This seems to have worked poorly for the boys, but also, alas, for the girls and women.

So for you well-intentioned mothers and or feminists out there honestly wanting to improve your boys chances in life, his social life, his dating-chances and his general well being, (and by inference improve the life of the women in your boys life) I might have some advice. (Which I will dispense in a bit.)

I’ve toiled with the problem/challenge of masculinity for about four decades. First as “me-search”, then on a broader level on account of perceived challenges with masculinity in society as a whole.

I was raised in the 70ies, by loving, progressive, academic parents, to be an ally to women and girls. I learned to listen, and to empathize. I learned to take up less space, to wait my turn, check my privilege (they didn’t use that term, but the meaning was the same). I was raised to be timid and careful. (That could of course be part of my personality as well, who knows.) And I sought friendships with girls. They were less boisterous, liked to talk, played carefully and soft. I liked their world. Still, something was lacking.

I had a hard time forming friendships with other boys. (Even when I wanted to). Their roughness and competitiveness, their playfights and their challenges intimidated me (and attracted me in a way I could not really explain.) And as my girl -”friends” (as in totally platonic friends) abandoned me for real girls, (who better understood the nuances and implicit elements of the communication), I became lonely. And then I was bullied - as a lanky, nerdy and awkward kid, book smart, but intimidated by boys and rejected by girls, I was an easy target.

Luckily my father, lanky, nerdy and begoggled, had toiled with some of the same challenges, and had a solution. He himself had overcome his awkwardness by being highly knowledgeable and intelligent. And as a grown man, that worked for him. He was respected and liked in the community, but he could see that this was a path that was not immediately available for me. Knowledge and intelligence are not necessarily primary attractions for boys in their relationships. Anyway, my dads solution was to buy boxing gloves and teach me (to the best of his academic knowledge) “the noble art of self defense”, along with challenging me to do push-ups, at least thirty a day, for a summer.

It worked a treat. When bullied, I gave almost as good as I got. I learned that getting a black eye or a fat-lip was not as scary as I had thought, and that having a slightly deeper chest and wider shoulders, while expressing a will to stand up for yourself and take a hit when needed, made me more attractive as a friend to the rest of the boys in my community. Even better, I started to get noticed by girls, in a non-platonic way. And I felt much better about myself!

I’m not saying that having female friends, being respectful and empathic, and even on occasion both emotional and vulnerable was bad. But without the counter of being physically confident and competent, it was unhelpful.

Society has often been criticized for treating men as the default and women as deviations from the norm—a perspective that feminism, among others, has rightly challenged. Recognizing and valuing differences is essential. However, some of the same voices that champion these distinctions hesitate to acknowledge the unique ways boys and men form relationships and what they seek in friendships.

Cathy Reisenwitz

quotes

Celeste Davis

in her piece Yes, we punish men... saying:

“It's hard to make friends when all the ingredients necessary to friendship--vulnerability, compassion and thoughtfulness-- are seen as a threat to masculinity,” Davis wrote.

I believe

Cathy Reisenwitz

(and

Celeste Davis

) walks into the same fallacy as men (society/patriarchy) are often accused of in for example medicine, sports etc. And further subscribes (at least in part) to the notion that it is masculinity itself that is problematic, and that if men just became more like women, rid themselves of the “harmful gender norms” and stopped “performing masculinity”, their lives would be so much better.

You see, mothers, (and the afore mentioned well-meaning feminists), these are NOT the qualities men are looking for in a relationship. At least not initially.

In order to learn anything at all from the following, an acceptance of the fact (?) that at least some of our behaviors are influenced by innate factors and qualities (nature), and that even though societal and cultural factors (nurture) influence our behaviors to some degree, millennia’s of evolution play an important part.

If you are unwilling to accept the role of evolution; fare well, and thanks for reading! I have nothing more to offer. On the other hand, if you accept evolution, also the psychological bit, read on!

Geary, David C.

in his “Evolution and development of boys social behavior” (here) states in the abstract:

The dynamics of one-on-one and coalitional male–male competition provides a theoretical frame for conceptualizing the evolved functions and proximate developmental forms of the social behavior of boys, and for appreciating why the behavior of boys differs from that of girls. We propose the accompanying selection pressures favored the evolution of motivational and behavioral dispositions in boys and men that facilitate the development and maintenance of large, competitive coalitions and result in the formation of within-coalition dominance hierarchies.

Given that Geary et all are “onto something”, (Joyce Benenson delves further into this in her “Warriors and Worriers” ), boys and men have different needs in their male relationships than to girls and women have in their female relationships.

Studies of children's social preferences confirm that boys on their own initiative organize themselves into large boys' groups, and 'play' coalition competitions as soon as the groups are formed. Although there are no gender differences in the amount of time girls and boys spend in two-person interactions in the earliest childhood years, it is seen that most boys prefer group activities to two-person activities as early as the age of three, and express antipathy (bias) towards members of other groups/ coalitions already at the age of five. 10- and 11-year-old boys take part in group competitions (football, handball, etc.) three times as often as girls of the same age, they play in larger groups, and there is much greater role specialization/distribution than among girls. Boys maintain coalition alliances through joint activities, and in social contexts where coordinated group behavior is a prerequisite for achieving common goals.

I go into greater detail here, but the essence is that while women tend to form deep, dyadic relationships, dependent on their ability to be “vulnerable, compassionate and thoughtful”, men form relationships in groups and coalitions, dependent on the others strength, loyalty and ability to “have-your-back”.

It is not by chance that many men make and maintain relationships while playing team sports, in the armed forces, or elsewhere where groups of boys or men are united in competition or battle.

When choosing teammates or “war-buddies”, vulnerability, compassion and thoughtfulness” are not primary factors, but physical strength, competence, confidence, sense of duty, resilience, and willingness to sacrifice one self for the group are.

My lack of male friends in childhood, as described above was a result I believe of two main factors. One internal factor, my own reluctance to engage with other boys, and one external, the other boys reluctance to engage with me.

Internal: timid boys, and boys that are unfamiliar or incompetent at play-fighting and rough and tumble play, other boys boisterousness can seem scary. For boys withheld from physical play, athleticism may seem unattainable, and hence sports will be unattractive. Peaceful, timid (well behaved) boys will excuse themselves from playing with other boys, and hence will exclude themselves from arenas where boys meet and form bonds. This all applied to me.

External: Timid, emotional and incompetent (including overly aggressive) boys will be excluded from the group, as they can not be relied on in a fight or in a physical competition, do not understand the rules of the games, and can not be relied on to keep schtum about certain risky behaviors integral to boys learning and maturing. This also applied to me.

What I am trying to express here, is how denial of “play”

“an activity that is freely chosen, self-directed, and intrinsically motivated. It often involves imagination, creativity, exploration, and enjoyment. It can be spontaneous or structured, and it typically occurs without an immediate external goal or reward. It is driven by curiosity and the desire to engage with the environment and others.”

and especially denial of all-male unsupervised rough-and-tumble play (away from the disapproving look of a worried mother or female kindergarten teacher) in the early years can hamper boys ability to develop critical skills—like reading social cues, understanding boundaries, forming bonds through physicality, and learning how to manage aggression in a healthy way.

Take so-called “rough and tumble play” (RTP) or play-fighting:

“vigorous behaviors such as wrestling, grappling, kicking, and tumbling that would appear to be aggressive except for the playful context”

The Relationship between Father–Child Rough-and-Tumble Play and Children’s Working Memory

Yes, it is noisy and yes, it looks risky, but it is essential for children to engage in. It involves risk-taking, conflict resolution, and builds both empathy and social awareness.

When stunted it could ripple out into adulthood, and provide the grounds for many of the issues I see boys and men struggle with, such as:

• Struggles with forming close male friendships.

• Difficulties managing emotions like frustration or anger.

• An aversion to physical touch and healthy competition.

• A sense of disconnection from self and others.

I believe modern feminism have ruined many boys play, and hence created the very same emotionally unavailable, dependent, immature men-children they now chide.

So dear mother, if you want a well rounded, empathic and competent boy, you’ll do well to heed this advice:

1. let the father play with the boy the way both enjoy - having him throwing your toddler in the air, or “rough-housing” on the sofa will seem scary and immature to you, but it is essential for later development. And for the father-son connection, further your husband (or baby-daddy) will be a better husband to you as well, as his oxytocin levels will increase and stay elevated for hours after playing with the baby.

2. let the boy roam a bit, but be there when he returns. He needs to be familiar with his surroundings, and it will help create a healthy attachment to you.

3. engage him in team-sports, and be wary of co-ed teams. Boys need their own spaces, just like girls do. (That is not say that he shouldn’t play with girls - just not all the time.)

4. scrapes and bruises are a natural part of growing up. Black eyes, fat lips and a bloody noses builds resilience and robustness.

5. when he returns to you, that’s when you do “your thing”; hug and kiss, talk to him about respecting girls and women, being careful etc, he needs that too.

6. leave him and his father alone. If the father is not to be trusted, then you fucked up. But if you chose well, his father loves him just as much as you do, and equally wants him to grow up well, but maybe he shows it differently. Trust his instincts as well as your own.

7. explore HIS interests with him. If weapons and war fascinate him, it does not mean he will grow up a “gun-freak” or a nazi, weapons have always fascinated boys (and men.)

If you manage to do this for the first seven or eight years, you are doing fine. It doesn’t end there, but I’ll end here. For now.

Thanks for reading.

For more on RTP:

Rough and Tumble Play

Rough-and-Tumble Play: A Teacher’s Guide 2025

The Prosocial Benefits of Rough and Tumble Play in Early Childhood Education

How Dads bond with toddlers: Brain scans link oxytocin to paternal nurturing

The Relationship between Father–Child Rough-and-Tumble Play and Children’s Working Memory

Play Fighting Psychology: The Science Behind Rough-and-Tumble Play