Running head: ADOLESCENT BOYS AND THE MAKING OF MASCULINITIES

Adolescent Boys and the Making of Masculinities

Anastasia Platoff

Lesley University
ADOLESCENT BOYS AND THE MAKING OF MASCULINITIES 1

Adolescent Boys and the Making of Masculinities

Identity is what we make of ourselves within a society that is making something of us.

(Josselson, 1996, p. 28)

Concepts of masculinity are predicated on and perpetuated by cultural practices

that are socially constructed and historically variable (Addis et al., in press). Masculinities are

the shifting embodiments of communal values, beliefs, and expectations (see, e.g., Rogoff,

2003). The dominant norms of masculinity in the United States must have some pragmatic

benefits for adolescent boysotherwise, these practices would not exist as they do; they would

look different. Yet there is evidence to suggest that normative American masculinity necessitates

that young men follow restrictive paths of identity and relationship. I plan to explore the ways in

which adolescent boys mediate the effects of these socialization processes, as well as the

intersections of gender and race/ethnicity as they reinforce and challenge masculine norms. I

have chosen to concentrate on adolescent development because this is the period (albeit one of

many) in which young men encounter their positionality and are often faced with a dilemma. In

negotiations of self and society, they are compelled to unpack and repack their identities. This is

the time when masculinities are being made and tested for endurance.

Relational scholarship emerged in response to the historical androcentrism of

developmental theory and research (Bem, 1993). The relational discourse challenges theoretical

models that treat heterosexual white men as the given, or as the baseline from which women are

differentiated, pathologized, or ignored (see, e.g., Kohlbergs stages of moral development in

Crain, 2011, pp. 157-179). While studies of girls and women are the heart of this perspective,

relational and feminist psychologists have expanded their focus to include boys and men.

Relational theories of development do not suggest that adolescent boys are not relational, but
ADOLESCENT BOYS AND THE MAKING OF MASCULINITIES 2

rather that they are socialized to be less relational than girls (e.g., Chu, 2005; Gilligan, 1982;

Way & Greene, 2006). The relational framework differs from other developmental and

psychological theories in its premise that human beings are born with a fundamental capacity

and desire for close, mutual relationships (Chu, 2005, p. 9). Furthermore, I would argue that,

regardless of gender, the desire for trusting, intimate relationship does not end once we have

reached cultural markers of independence or maturity. Whether they are manifest or

repressed, these capacities exist in some form for as long as we are sentient. However, the

explicit lessons and implicit messages that boys receive in American culture relay that their

biology empowers them to somehow transcend or relinquish this need.

Girls and boys are socialized in accordance with their communitys gender role

expectations (Rogoff, 2003). Contemporary psychological literature recognizes gender as

socially constructed (e.g., Levant & Richmond, in press; Pascoe, 2005). The polarization of

gender is sustained by practices that rely on biological essentialismthe perspective that

rationalizes gender inequalities by treating them as the natural and inevitable consequences of

the intrinsic biological natures of woman and man (Bem, 1993, p. 2). The cultural practices that

define male-female roles and masculine-feminine norms are steeped in gender ideology.

Our patriarchal society has varying developmental implications for men and women.

While patriarchal voices attempt to govern and silence women, they demand that men become

and remain emotional cripples (hooks, 2003, p. 27). Western developmental ideals of autonomy

and separation are in some ways congruent with masculine norms that emphasize physical

toughness, emotional stoicism, and projected self-sufficiency (Chu, 2005, p. 7). However,

research suggests that adolescent boys active participation in conventions of masculinity is

associated with an array of negative psychological and behavioral outcomes (Levant &
ADOLESCENT BOYS AND THE MAKING OF MASCULINITIES 3

Richmond, in press; Mahalik et al., 2003; Way, 2013). Adolescent boys are more likely to report

poor psychological adjustment, such as depression, feelings of self-hatred, and insecurity, as well

as risk-related behaviors, like engaging in delinquent activity, being suspended from school,

having unprotected sex and less intimate relationships, and tricking or forcing someone to have

sex (Chu, 2014, p. 253). Studies have also substantiated the centrality of homophobia (e.g.,

Bucher, 2014; Pascoe, 2005), aggression and violence (e.g., Poteat, Kimmel, & Wilchins, 2010),

heterosexual practice (Giordano, Longmore, & Manning, 2006; Richardson, 2010), and alcohol

and drug use (e.g., Iwamoto & Smiler, 2013; Sanders, 2011) in the construction of masculinity

among adolescent boys. At the same time, other studies have shown that gender role discrepancy

(i.e., the failing to meet masculine ideals or expectations; Blazina et al., 2007) and actively

challenging masculine norms are correlated with similarly adverse psychological and behavioral

effects. Thus, the literature reveals that conformity and resistance to masculine norms can be

risky or adaptive in adolescent boys social-emotional development.

In his psychosocial theory of development, Erikson conceptualized adolescence as the

dialectical stage of identity versus role confusion (Crain, 2011). As adolescents travel the

hormonally-charged road between childhood and adulthood, the question of identity becomes

more salient than ever before. While Erikson understood identity development as a life-long

journey of meaning-making and adaptation, he believed that adolescence was characterized by

uniquely passionate and purposeful identity explorations. At this stage of life, the pursuit of

identity entails adolescents to moderate conflicts between past and future, self and others, feeling

and action, and internal hopes and external expectations. By testing and rejecting various

templates of self-representation, they aggregate the qualities that they can confidently call I

and me. Indeed, Josselson (1996) proclaims, Never again in life is identity as malleable as it
ADOLESCENT BOYS AND THE MAKING OF MASCULINITIES 4

is in adolescence (p. 40). Though they may not be aware of it, adolescents begin to frame their

identities through the synthesis of various partial identifications (Crain, 2011, p. 291). When

adolescents sketch portraits of their temporal selvespast, present, and futurethey look to

their models: the possibilities that their cultures have provided.

Models are central to Banduras social learning theory. Bandura proposed that we learn a

great deal from watching others. Observational learning is not simply passive acquisition. The

ability to observe and subsequently imitate behavior is a form of learning that involves cognitive

processes of mentally coding what we see (Crain, 2011, p. 204). Bandura viewed childrens

early relationships as influential to, but not determinants of, social-behavioral development.

Individuals learn much of their behavior from various models, both live (e.g., adults and peers)

and symbolic (e.g., mass media images; characters from books and television). In childhood, our

models provide opportunities for vicarious reinforcement when, by noticing what happens when

someone else tests out a new behavior, we formulate expectations about the consequences of our

own behavior, without ever having to take action (Crain, 2011). If a young boy witnesses his

older brother get scolded for swearing at the dinner table, he will note the likelihood of a similar

outcome should he decide to imitate this newly-learned behavior. However, if a few days later

the young boy observes the most popular kid in his middle-school utter the same word during

recess, where he is met by positive peer response, the performance of this behavior may become

disinhibited for the observing boy. At the very least, he will learn that his use of this word will

likely garner different responses depending on the context of its performance.

This distinctionbetween the acquisition and the performance of behavioris

significant in the learning of gender roles (Crain, 2011). Through observation, boys learn the

behavior of both genders, but they generally perform only the behavior that corresponds with
ADOLESCENT BOYS AND THE MAKING OF MASCULINITIES 5

male gender roles, as this is what has been directly and vicariously reinforced. With enough

social reinforcement, the extrinsic value or necessity of gender-congruent behavior will be

internalized, and its ongoing performance will be governed in part by individual processes of

self-reinforcement (Crain, 2011). Experiences of direct rewards and punishments will prompt

children to adopt self-evaluative standards, which are often based on the standards they observe

in others. Bandura notes that children typically embrace the self-evaluative standards of their

peers, rather than adults, because children can more easily achieve the lower standards that

peers set (Crain, 2011, p. 213).

Children develop other methods of self-regulation as they regularly reflect on their own

behavior, observing how their performances measure up to their standards. Self-efficacy

appraisals are judgments of ones general skills and abilitiesjudgments which are largely

derived from knowledge of our actual performance (Crain, 2011). For instance, if a boy

routinely scores well on math tests, he may conclude that he is good at math. Once he realizes

math as an area of expertise, he will be motivated to excel in this subject. Additionally, his high

self-efficacy will mitigate the sting of an occasional B on a math test because he will likely

attribute this failure to a lack of effort or poor tactics (p. 214) rather than an immutable

personal weakness.

By the time boys reach adolescence, peers have often become their most compelling

models. Most adolescent boys spend the majority of their waking hours within the social sphere

of school, and their peers function as primary socialization agents. In The Will to Change: Men,

Masculinity, and Love, bell hooks (2003) notes that, around this time, anti-patriarchal parents

find that the alternative masculinities they support for their boy children are shattered not by

grown-ups but by sexist male peers (p. 40). Peers become objects of idealization as well as the
ADOLESCENT BOYS AND THE MAKING OF MASCULINITIES 6

everyday arbiters of normalityof what is desirable, appropriate, and condemned in realms of

thought, feeling, and action. For adolescent boys, gender is constructed through daily, repetitious

social interactions within a rigid definitional frame. Erikson observed that adolescents

uncertainty about who they are prompts them to anxiously identify with in-groups, becom[ing]

remarkably clannish, intolerant, and cruel in their exclusion of others who are different (Crain,

2011, p. 291). In the social context of school, heteronormative masculinity could be considered a

temporarily adaptive strategy for adolescent boys whose sexual identities are indeterminate or

socially hazardous. Through their adherence to masculine norms, or through their repudiation of

unacceptable gender identities, adolescent boys affirm and reaffirm their masculinity (Pascoe,

2005).

In her ethnographic research, Pascoe (2005) investigated adolescent boys interactional

use of the fag epithet as an instrument of gender regulation. Her analysis elucidated the fag

discourse as a complex and significant mechanism of American adolescent masculinity. Findings

were based on qualitative interviews and observational data gathered from primarily working-

class students at a public high-school in California. The schools ethnic breakdown was roughly

50% white, 28% Latino, 9% African-American, and 6% Asian.

Feminist scholars who have focused on homophobia and adolescent masculinity have

often failed to unravel the layered implications of homophobic insults that extend beyond sexual

orientation. The fag insult was found to have meanings which were primarily gendered but also

sexualized and racialized (Pascoe, 2005). Though the word is used as North American

homophobic slang, many students claimed that they would be unlikely to utter the fag epithet

around homosexual peers. They also asserted that gay men could still be masculine. Pascoe

observed that, whether or not the fag insult was invoked with explicit connections to sexual
ADOLESCENT BOYS AND THE MAKING OF MASCULINITIES 7

identity, its meanings were always gendered. As an abject position, the fag identity is fluid and

ephemeral: Any boy can temporarily become a fag in a given social space or interaction

(Pascoe, 2005, p. 329). The word was socially defined as synonymous with unmasculine or

feminine (i.e., weak or vulnerable). It is a subordinated masculinity, implying a boys failure to

rise to the masculine tasks of competence, heterosexual prowess, and strength (p. 330). The

term was used almost exclusively by and for boys, as a sort of masculine power play.

In their aggressive and joking harassment, these adolescent boys were highly attuned to

displays of insufficient masculinity in their peers and were quick to remind themselves and each

other that at any point they [could] become fags [In these interactions] fag becomes the hot

potato that no body wants to be left holding (p. 339). By invoking the epithet, an adolescent boy

is implicitly testifying that he is not a fag. Additionally, boys demonstrate that they are not fags

through their imitations of fags, after which they promptly becoming masculine again.

The fag discourse varied across social groups in this study. For example, meaning-

making around practices related to clothes and dancing differed between white boys and

African-American boys, and demonstrated some of the ways in which the fag identity is

racialized. For the white boys at school, masculinity became the carefully crafted appearance of

not caring about appearance (p. 341), and often involved deliberate apathy toward cleanliness.

If a white boy dressed or behaved in a way that suggested he cared about his appearance, his

peers made him a fag. For the African-American boys who identified with hip-hop culture,

clothing did not suggest a fag position; rather, it was an important means of defining membership

in a cultural and racial group (Pascoe, 2005). These boys wore clean, oversized garments, and

were meticulous about keeping their clothing, especially their shoes, in pristine condition. For

the African-American boys who embraced hip-hop culture, these styles and attitudes defined
ADOLESCENT BOYS AND THE MAKING OF MASCULINITIES 8

masculinity. Dancing was another practice that had masculine meanings for many African-

American boys, while for white boys, dancing carried distinct fag associations. For example, one

boy claimed that the boy band nSync was gay (p. 341) because its members could dance.

Ways (2013) work on intimacy and loss in adolescent boys friendships revealed a

similar mechanism among boys in late adolescence. When asked questions about close male

friendships, boys frequently concluded their responses with the verbal reflex, no homo (Way,

2013, p. 205). While boys in this study had intimate male friendships throughout early and

middle adolescence, they typically lost these friendships by late adolescence, despite their

continued desire for them. In early and middle adolescence, boys speak about the differences

between their friends and their best friends. With their regular friends, many of the boys enjoy

playing basketball or videogames (p. 203). However, they define a best friend as someone with

whom they can talk intimately and share secrets. By late adolescence, something changes. These

close friendships have been terminated, primarily due to the betrayal of this confidence (Way,

2013). In late adolescence, these boys narrate personal stories of disconnection and diminished

closeness, around which they articulate feelings of sadness, frustration, and anger.

In some ways, these boys narratives call to mind a pattern of disconnection that occurs

among girls at an earlier age. In their pioneering work, Brown & Gilligan (1992) found that,

while girls in late childhood (ages 8-11) express themselves honestly and freely in their

relationships, as they approach the edge of adolescence (ages 12-13), girls experience a loss of

voice. Brown and Gilligan witnessed girls struggle to express what they knowof self and

relationshipas they are faced with the pressure to become independent (Western

developmental ideal) and yet self-sacrificing (feminine ideal).

ADOLESCENT BOYS AND THE MAKING OF MASCULINITIES 9

Adolescent boys experience a different kind of loss. In early and middle adolescence, the

boys in Ways (2013) study have close friendships marked by a great willingness to be

emotionally intimate and supportive. These friendships seemed to share the plot of Love Story

more than the plot of Lord of the Flies (Way, 2013, p. 201). However, by late adolescence,

most boys are pushed to respond to a cultural context that links intimacy in friendships with an

age (childhood), a sex (female), and a sexuality (gay) Rather than focusing on who they are,

[boys] become obsessed with who they are not (p. 205). Somewhere along the isolated road to

manhood, adolescent boys bury a piece of themselves.

We need not conflate nor polarize the experiences of girls and boys in order to appreciate

adolescent development as a period of progress as well as a period of profound loss (see, e.g.,

Josselson, 1992; Noam, 1996; Taylor, Gilligan, & Sullivan, 1995; Way, 2013). While conformity

to masculine norms has the potential to stifle adolescent boys relational possibilities and identity

explorations, it can also facilitate the sense of social belonging which adolescents so desperately

desire.

We know that human beings are not the passive recipients of culture (Rogoff, 2003).

Culture does not make men abuse women or carry out mass shootings. The oft-depicted model of

causality between social constraints (e.g., gender roles; masculine ideals) and negative outcomes

(e.g., violent crime; mental illness; social-emotional maladjustment) fails to recognize these

processes as active and interwoven. Relational studies have examined the myriad ways

adolescent boys understand and confront norms of masculinity in their friendships and peer

group culture (e.g., Chu, 2005; Smiler, 2014; Way, 2013; Way et al., 2014). From their

narratives, we discern the ways in which adolescent boys interpret their socialization and address

signs of discord in perceptions of who they are and who they should be.
ADOLESCENT BOYS AND THE MAKING OF MASCULINITIES 10

A recent study from psychologist Niobe Way and colleagues (2014) looked at adolescent

boys resistance to norms of masculinity (i.e., emotional stoicism, physical toughness, and

autonomy) in their peer relationships. Longitudinal patterns and levels of resistance were

measured based on interviews with an ethnically diverse sample of male boys (White, Black,

Latino, and Chinese-American) over the course of 6 years (6th to 11th grade). Analyses indicated

that both levels and patterns of resistance varied by race/ethnicity. In general, boys resistance

had positive associations with psychological and social adjustment. As hypothesized, the boys

who demonstrated low resistance their interviews often expressed feelings of depression and

isolation, or of not caring any longer (Way et al., 2014, p. 245). The most common trajectory

of resistance showed a clear pattern of decline between early and late adolescenceby 11th

grade, most of the White, Black, and Chinese-American boys had adopted the masculine norms

of their peer cultures.

Latino boys were more likely to show stable or increased levels of resistance over time,

as well as greater intimacy and emotional attunement in their male friendships. The researchers

speculated that since these boys were predominantly first or second generation immigrants, they

may have been less entrenched in the American value system of autonomy and independence

and more entrenched in Latino values such as being emotionally expressive, interdependent,

and family oriented (p. 249). Thus these boys may have found it easier to resist these American

cultural norms than their peers who were American-born or who were not Latino.

Additionally, the researchers note that the social hierarchy within the school could have

been an influential factor in patterns of resistance. Boys acquire social power or rank among their

peers through routes such as playing sports, being tall, and being associated with an ethnic

group that is stereotyped as cool, manly, or American [and] the consequence of such power
ADOLESCENT BOYS AND THE MAKING OF MASCULINITIES 11

is that it leads to greater freedom to bend the rules of the boy code (p. 249). In an American

context, Latino and Black boys tend to be perceived as more manly, while Chinese American

boys contend with opposing stereotypes of weakness or femininity (Way et al., 2014). The

Latino boys in this study were seen as inhabiting the upper echelons of the schools social ladder,

which may have given them some leeway with regard to masculine norm adherence.

The Chinese-American boys were the most likely to have low levels of resistance that

remained stable over time. Chinese-American boys often described their adaptation to American

norms of masculinity as more of a necessity than a goal (Way et al., 2014). This sentiment aligns

with elements of Qins (2009) research adolescent identity negotiations for Chinese immigrants.

Chinese immigrant adolescents struggle to maintain a sense of self-continuity when they are

balancing two conflicting sets of cultural values and expectations. Chinese immigrant boys often

fear that by embodying their familys expectations of a good Chinese boy who does well in

school, their American peers might perceive them as nerds and bully or harass them (Qin,

2009, p. 56). Thus many Chinese immigrant boys resist and challenge this ethnic stereotype by

assimilating American culture and adopting identity markers of a popular boy (e.g., playing

sports and video games; and participating in other non-academic social activities). While

Chinese immigrant girls in this study often enacted resistance to stereotypes by strengthening

their Chinese cultural identities, Chinese immigrant boys were more likely to resist ethnic

stereotypes through their identification with American cultural norms.

Way & Greene (2006) explored adolescents perceptions of friendship quality over time,

measuring for differences across gender and race/ethnicity. Their findings indicated that

trajectories of improvement in adolescents family relations correlated with improvements in

friendship quality (i.e., an attachment-like pattern). The sharpest improvements in friendship

ADOLESCENT BOYS AND THE MAKING OF MASCULINITIES 12

quality, however, occurred specifically for boys who reported the lowest levels of quality in

family relations, indicating the presence of a compensatory-like pattern (Way & Greene, 2006).

While the former attachment-like pattern affirms the importance of models on subsequent

nonfamilial attachment and relationships in adolescence, the second compensatory-like pattern

suggests that close friendships can become meaningful corrective experiences for boys who

dont have supportive familial relationships.

Indeed, Chu (2005) has found that close friendship can act as a protective factor for

adolescent boys, supporting their resilience and healthy resistance to social expectations of

masculinity that might have otherwise impaired their ability to be true to themselves (Chu,

2005, p. 16). This study took a relational approach to psychological inquiry, using adolescent

boys qualitative interviews as narrative data, analyzed with the Listening Guide method (see,

e.g., Brown & Gilligan, 1992; Taylor, Gilligan, & Sullivan, 1995). Chu (2005) found abundant

documentation of adolescent boys capacity, willingness, and desire for mutuality and closeness

in their male friendships. However, their resistance to cultural norms of emotional stoicism and

autonomy has social implications. Ironically, it is because boys retain these relational capacities

and desires that they are faced with a dilemma (Chu, 2005, p. 18). In an effort to protect their

vulnerability, these boys presented themselves and behaved in ways that would sustain and

reinforce a normative image of masculinity. This conformity was understandable, and even

advantageous, given that these boys perceived their peer culture to be antagonistic and intolerant.

Opportunities for honest self-expression and interpersonal closeness were seen as protective

factors against the restrictive influence of peer group culture. However, these boys often felt the

need to actively participate in this very peer culture in order to shield themselves from the social
ADOLESCENT BOYS AND THE MAKING OF MASCULINITIES 13

repercussions of their deviation. These coping strategies consequently limited their opportunities

to develop the close friendships they wanted.

Other studies on adolescent boys development have illustrated the positive effects that

can accrue from close relationships which allow for, or are defined by, emotional connectedness.

For example, Spencer (2007) analyzed qualities of relationships between adolescent boys and

adult male mentors. The adolescent boys in this study came from homes in which a father-figure

was absent. These boys reported that their adult male mentors provided a safe space for

emotional vulnerability and support, which in turn helped many of them manage their feelings of

anger more effectively. Way (2013) has found a significant pattern in her studies on adolescent

boys: The boys who report the presence of at least one emotionally engaged parent, who allows

them to speak freely about their thoughts and feelings, are often the boys who successfully

maintain intimate male friendships over the course of adolescence.

We have not paid much attention to the intimacy in boys friendships because boys are

supposed to be, by nature, not interested in these types of relationships (Way, 2013, p. 210).

I am struck by the extent to which dominant American cultural practices have structured and

sustained gendered definitions of the most basic human needs. Masculinities are not essential;

they are created. Care, however, is a biological necessity. As infants, we die without it. As adults,

we die faster without it. Adults who lack supportive social networks are more likely to suffer

from depression, get physical illness, and have shorter life spans (Way, 2013). It seems like there

has been an obfuscation of fact in favor of a story that promotes mens power in global arenas.

Adolescent boys can greatly benefit from social support and trusting relationships,

especially if such relationships were not modeled in early life. However, their adolescent status

is like a cultural alarmwhen it rings, the time has come for them to man up. It is usually in
ADOLESCENT BOYS AND THE MAKING OF MASCULINITIES 14

adolescence, bell hooks (2003) states, When many caring and affectionate mothers stop giving

their sons emotional nurturance for fear that it will emasculate them (p. 65). When they are

unable to cope with this loss of connection, Boys internalize the pain and mask it with

indifference or rage (hooks, 2003, p. 65). In response to neglect or withholding, boys are

expected to give up or grow out of emotional attachment. In response to abuse or bullying, boys

are expected to toughen up or fight back. It is crucial to recognize that masculinity does not dwell

in boys bodies; it cannot be molded by force, and it is not strengthened by negligence. A boy

will shape his masculinity in accordance with what enables him to cope with and thrive in the

contexts of his lived experience.

Hegemonic masculinity, first introduced by Carrigan, Connell, & Lee (1985) is

masculinity which defines itself through practices that seek to legitimize male dominance

through the subordination of women and men. Gender, as it intersects with race, ethnicity,

sexuality, and social class, shape masculinities in relation to systems of power. Hegemonic

masculinity is embodied by white, rich, educated, heterosexual men. Men who are subordinated

by hegemonic practices form alternative masculinities in response to their marginalization (e.g.,

gay men, men of color, low SES men, men with physical disabilities; Connell, 2005).

Bronfenbrenners ecological system can contribute to our understanding of these complex

interactions. His theoretical model conceived human development as the progressive, mutual

accommodations (see Rogoff, 2003, p. 45) between an active, developing individual and the

changing properties of his/her changing environments. From the microsystems of immediate

experience (e.g., home and school) to the macrosystems of culture (e.g., social institutions and

ideology), an adolescent boy is immersed in multi-layered, overlapping relations among and

ADOLESCENT BOYS AND THE MAKING OF MASCULINITIES 15

between settings. As individuals and cultural practices function together in mutually defining

processes (Rogoff, 2003, p. 49), masculinities emerge and transform.

Masculinity is always about gender, but it is never only about gender. In clinical

treatment, cultural competence and sensitivity come into play as therapeutic essentials. Our

cultural assumptions about men are tied to what discourages them from asking for help. If a man

seeks counseling due to depression, anger, or antisocial behavior, counselors should remind

themselves that these psychological issues are not inherently male, nor are they the effects of

culture. It is worth repeating what research has continually shown: men are less likely than

women to seek mental health services, and while women are about three times more likely to

attempt suicide, men are about three times more likely than women to commit suicide (Vogel &

Heath, in press). Yet there are people who continue to utter the hackneyed-yet-disturbing

phrases: Boys will be boys, Be a man, and Man up.

Though I have traversed adolescence to become a relatively well-adjusted person, I do

not engage in much nostalgic remembrance of those years. I recall social anxiety, self-

consciousness, isolation, and rumination. Accordingly, I have a lot of empathy for others who

experience adolescence as a time of Sturm und Drang.

My interest in this research emerged from my negative judgments of men who subscribe

to masculine norms. When I encounter someone who embodies a certain constellation of

masculine qualities, my automatic thought is: What an idiot. As a graduate student of

counseling and psychology, I think it is important for me to confront my assumptions. Even if

they are reasonable, whom do they benefit?

ADOLESCENT BOYS AND THE MAKING OF MASCULINITIES 16

When I observe the token bro (e.g., the lascivious language, the macho posturing, the

peer competition, and the unabashed sexism and homophobia), I am disgusted. These practices

seem so transparent to me. But if they are transparent, then what truth am I perceiving behind the

faade? Vulnerability? But about what? My interior line of inquiry usually ends before a cogent

conclusion is reached. I dont really know bros because I avoid them. I wanted to learn about

how adolescent boys deal with the potentially destructive aspects of their socialization. Although

I still have an aversion to contemporary American masculinity, I have greater empathy for boys

and men who live in a culture that tries to keep them from being real.
ADOLESCENT BOYS AND THE MAKING OF MASCULINITIES 17

References

Addis, M. E., Reigeluth, C. S., and Schwab, J. R. (2016). Social norms, social construction, and

the psychology of men and masculinity. In Y. J. Wong and S. R. Wester (Eds.), APA

Handbook of Men and Masculinities (pp. 81-104). Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association.

Bem, S. L. (1993). The lenses of gender: Transforming the debate on sexual inequality. New

Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Blazina, C., Eddins, R., Burridge, A., & Settle, A. G. (2007). The relationship between

masculinity ideology, loneliness, and separation-individuation difficulties. The Journal of

Men's Studies, 15(1), 101-109. doi:10.3149/jms.1501.101

Brown, L.M. & Gilligan, C. (1992). Meeting at the crossroads: Womens psychology and girls

development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bucher, J. (2014). 'But he can't be gay': The relationship between masculinity and homophobia in

father-son relationships. The Journal of Men's Studies, 22(3), 222-237.

doi:10.3149/jms.2203.222

Carrigan, T., Connell, B., & Lee, J. (1985). Toward a new sociology of masculinity. Theory &

Society, 14(5), 551-604.

Chu, J.Y. (2005). Adolescent boys friendships and peer group culture. New Directions for Child

and Adolescent Development, 107, 7-22.

Chu, J. Y. (2014). Supporting Boys' Healthy Resistance to Masculine Norms. Psychology of Men

& Masculinity, 15(3), 253-255.

Connell, R. W. (2005). Growing up masculine: Rethinking the significance of adolescence in the

making of masculinities. Irish Journal of Sociology, 14(2), 11-28.

ADOLESCENT BOYS AND THE MAKING OF MASCULINITIES 18

Crain, W. (2011). Theories of development: Concepts and applications (6th ed.). Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Prentice Hall/Pearson.

Gilligan, C. (1982/1993). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Giordano, P. C., Longmore, M. A., & Manning, W. D. (2006). Gender and the meanings of

adolescent romantic relationships: A focus on boys. American Sociological Review,

71(2), 260-287. doi:10.1177/000312240607100205

hooks, b. (2004). We real cool: Black men and masculinity. New York: Routledge.

hooks, b. (2003). The will to change: Men, masculinity, and love. New York: Atria Books.

Iwamoto, D. K., & Smiler, A. P. (2013). Alcohol makes you macho and helps you make friends:

The role of masculine norms and peer pressure on adolescent boys and girls alcohol use.

Substance Use and Misuse, 48, 371-378.

Josselson, R. (1996). Revising herself. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Josselson, R. (1992). The space between us: Exploring the dimensions of human relationships

San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Levant, R. F., & Richmond, K. (2016). The gender role strain paradigm and masculinity

ideologies. In Y. J. Wong and S. R. Wester (Eds.), APA Handbook of Men and

Masculinities (pp. 23-49). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Mahalik, J. R., Locke, B. D., Ludlow, L. H., Diemer, M. A., Gottfried, M., Scott, R. J., &

Freitas, G. (2003). Development of the conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory.

Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 4, 325.

Noam, G. (1996). High-risk youth: Transforming our understanding of human development.

Human Development, 39, 1-17.

Pascoe, C. J. (2005). Dude, youre a fag: Adolescent masculinity and the fag discourse.
ADOLESCENT BOYS AND THE MAKING OF MASCULINITIES 19

Sexualities, 8, 329-346.

Poteat, V. P., Kimmel, M. S., & Wilchins, R. (2010). The moderating effects of support for

violence beliefs on masculine norms, aggression, and homophobic behavior during

adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(2), 434-447.

Qin, D. (2009). Being good or being popular: Gender and ethnic identity negotiations of

Chinese immigrant adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 24(1), 37-66.

Richardson, D. (2010). Youth masculinities: Compelling male heterosexuality. The British

Journal of Sociology, 61(4), 737-756. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-4446.2010.01339.x

Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. Oxford, UK: Oxford University

Press.

Sanders, J. M. (2011). Coming of age: How adolescent boys construct masculinities via

substance use, juvenile delinquency, and recreation. Journal of Ethnicity in Substance

Abuse, 10(1), 48-70. doi:10.1080/15332640.2011.547798

Smiler, A. P. (2014). Resistance is futile? Examining boys who actively challenge masculinity.

Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 15(3), 256-259.

Spencer, R. (2007). 'I just feel safe with him': Emotional closeness in male youth mentoring

relationships. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 8(3), 185-198. doi:10.1037/1524-

9220.8.3.185

Taylor, J. M., Gilligan, C., & Sullivan, A.M. (1995). Between voice and silence: Women and

girls, race and relationship. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Vogel, D. L., & Heath, P. J. (2016). Men, masculinities, and help-seeking patterns. In Y. J.

Wong and S. R. Wester (Eds.), APA Handbook of Men and Masculinities (pp. 685-707).

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

ADOLESCENT BOYS AND THE MAKING OF MASCULINITIES 20

Way, N., Cressen, J., Bodian, S., Preston, J., Nelson, J., & Hughes, D. (2014). 'It might be nice to

be a girl Then you wouldnt have to be emotionless': Boys' resistance to norms of

masculinity during adolescence. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 15(3), 241-252.

doi:10.1037/a0037262

Way, N. (2013). Boys' friendships during adolescence: Intimacy, desire, and loss. Journal of

Research on Adolescence (Wiley-Blackwell), 23(2), 201-213. doi:10.1111/jora.12047

Way, N., & Greene, M. L. (2006). Trajectories of perceived friendship quality during

adolescence: The patterns and contextual predictors. Journal of Research on

Adolescence (Wiley-Blackwell), 16(2), 293-320.