What Are Little Boys Made Of? (final) REFLECTION/QUOTES

The author of the article, What Are Little Boys Made Of?, Michael Kimmel, is trying to suggest that feminism offers the “possibility of a new boyhood and a new masculinity based on a passion for justice, a love of equality, and the expression of a full range of feelings,” despite what some male psychologists are saying. Kimmel believes that the idea of manhood and masculinity being an image of independence, courage, invulnerability and power needs to shift to the vision of being raised to confront, “racism, sexism, and homophobia – both in our communities and in ourselves.”

Critics of feminism, such as psychologists Michael Gurian and Steve Bioldulph, say that the biology of boyhood is to naturally be loud, highly active and inclined to perform weird experiments on bugs, and that “cultural meddling – especially by misinformed women – won’t change a thing.” I feel that this is especially ignorant, and it implies that women feminists are all uninformed and are only hurting men, as well as that all boys are crazy and impolite. Kimmel agrees saying that the idea, expressed by Bioldulph, that all “boys will be uncivilized animals,” is insulting and disgraceful. Gurian feels that teaching boys that they are not supposed to be rambunctious is only sending a message that “boyhood is defective,” and that to give them this feeling would give reason for boys to be insecure, depressed and ultimately more likely to commit suicide.

I am slightly confused because Gurian says that no matter what any feminist says or tries to do that “boys will be boys,” but he also believes that corporal punishment for boys, what he calls “spanking responsibly,” should be allowed at home and at school. Bioldulph agrees that boyhood should be accepted for what it is, but goes against himself saying that boys should start school a year later than girls so they can be “on par intellectually”. Both of these psychologists, to me, seem to be contradicting themselves.

Another pair of psychologists, Dan Kindlon and Michael Thompson, feel that boyhood is less biologically influenced and more culturally influenced, and that the difference in emotional paths is due to unearned male privileged. They also recommend that we “allow boys to be boys,” but that they be treated with respect, that discipline should be allowed to build and guide boys in the right direction, and that manhood should be modeled “as emotionally attached.” Kimmel feels this is an effective and feminist approach, because girls should also be treated in the same way. Kindlon and Thompson believe that boys should not only not be taught about their nearly inevitable privilege, but that it should not be addressed at all and ignored.

In spite of the opinions of Gurian and Bioldulph, Kimmel explains that feminism, rather than “wreck[ing] boyhood,” should encourage men of all ages to be more emotionally expressive, empathetic, and to be more constructive with emotional outbursts than violent, “and feminism demands the kinds of societal changes that makes this growth possible.” I am finding myself completely agreeing with him. The fact is that men are advantaged, looked up to, and favored in our society, and saying that masculinity means being emotionally unavailable and forced to “suffer in silence” is seemingly inconsistent with reality. All that feminists are trying to say is that “boys and men can do a little better.”