Kindlon And Thompson's Analysis

My father has always been an openly emotional man. Growing up, I admired his emotional intelligence; throughout his life, he has defied the pressures of toxic masculinity that demand stoicism, brutality, and superficiality. Raised in a country town with less than 200 people, his small world was filled with classic Southern masculinity: his father worked tirelessly in kaolin mines and hunted game that the 3 boys often ate for dinner. While my father was more sensitive and introspective among such ruggedness, his second eldest brother aligned himself with a hyper-masculine identity shaped by their upbringing. I believe my father’s stark contrast to his community’s gender roles has positively impacted his life, and he has seen markedly more stability

This negligence echoes the notion that the internal pain of young men has no inherent validity in society, and only when we feel endangered or upset is there concern. I appreciate where Kindlon and Thompson acknowledge the significance of internal distress, and as they quite simply explain, “in this psychological war no boys are truly protected, and there are no real ‘winners’” (73). But despite addressing this struggle, the authors fall short of providing an extensive and detailed exploration of its damage. Instead, they emphasize the visible effects of said damage. “Emotional isolation wears many faces,” they observe; “sometimes it comes in the guise of anger, sarcasm, or hostility…” and claim because “their behavior is so off-putting… they don’t win much sympathy” (Kindlon & Thompson, 151). Kindlon and Thompson further note that boys “seek to camouflage their fears with an exaggerated image of strength” because “nobody wants to think of boys as depressed or emotionally needy” (154; 159). Deconstructing these ideas, I notice a certain hypocrisy in the authors asserting “a boy suffering from depression may seem intentionally abrasive, hostile, or sullen, but the truth is, he is ill,” while focusing so little on the nature of this illness (Kindlon & Thompson, 175). As reiterated throughout my argument, I do not disagree with the Kindlon and Thompson’s position; rather, I am dissatisfied with the extent of their argument, and this instance illustrates their major