Copyright ©2001 Massachusetts News, Inc. Photocopying and data processing storage of all or any part of this issue may not be made without prior written consent. 

Harvard Professor Joins Feminist Plan to Alter the ‘Nature’ of Males
Dr. William Pollack Became Famous and Wealthy, Saying ‘Single Mothers are Fine’ and Boys are in ‘Crisis,’ Just Like Their Fathers

January 2001

Dr. William Pollack, a psychologist at Harvard Medical School, has joined the feminists at Wellesley College and Harvard’s Graduate School of Education in their attempt to alter the nature of men by starting with boys in public schools across the country.

They’re trying to make the boys more like girls so they will grow up to be better men than we have today – and they’re using millions in tax money to do so, says a respected woman professor, Christina Hoff Sommers.

She’s written a best-selling book, The War Against Boys, How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men, which charges that these feminists, notably Carol Gilligan at Harvard, cheated to mislead the country in the 1990s into believing that girls were being “shortchanged” in schools.

Now these feminists, including Dr. Pollack, have convinced the popular media that all males are “in trouble,” says Prof. Sommers. They do not hide their intention to change the nature of males by using the public schools to indoctrinate them when they are very young.

Prof. William Pollack is becoming wealthy by telling the nation that our boys are in “silent crisis” – just like their fathers. He’s helping to create a “new kind of boy” and to impose his values on children in public schools across the country. He says he is building a new type of man for the future. “[A]s society begins to put a premium on ‘emotionally intelligent,’ verbally capable, empathic, loving men, there could probably be no better way to cultivate such ‘new men’ than by starting to cultivate such ‘new boys.’” He sounds hysterical on talk shows and in his books, saying, “Boys today are in crisis.” These are some of the outrageous things he is saying:

Photo: Dr. William Pollack threatened to sue The Massachusetts News when we reported the charges by Prof. Sommers. But he has not indicated any factual errors in anything we wrote.

• “Boys are in silent crisis. The only time we notice is when they pull the trigger.” He said this in a Newsweek cover story.

• “Boys who kill their classmates are the “tip of the iceberg, the extreme end of one large crisis.” He said this in People magazine.

• When asked whether there is a “silent” crisis going on with “normal boys,” he replied, “Well, absolutely. In addition, to the national crisis, the boys who pick up guns, the boys who are suicidal and homicidal, the boy next door or the boy living in the room next door is also, I have found in my research, isolated, feeling lonely, can’t express his feelings. And that happens because of the way we bring boys up.” This was said on the Today show.

The interviewer, Maria Shriver, replied, “As a parent of a young boy, that concerns me, scares me a lot.”

As Prof. Sommers says of Pollack and the other feminists. “Who has authorized their mission?” Did Harvard Medical School do so? She wonders, “What sort of credentials do the critics of masculinity bring to their project of reconstructing the nation’s schoolboys?”

Also Has a Conservative Message
But Pollack also writes in his book, Real Boys, a very conservative message. He cites the following as the causes of the problems that we are seeing today:

• Divorce  He says that divorce is terrible. It is one of our worst problems.

• Single Parents  All children need two parents, but this is especially true for a boy.

• Missing Fathers  Fathers are essential for a boy.  

• Failing Schools  In their quest to help the girls, schools are failing boys because they have removed all of the structure that boys need.

• Sex Sexual activity makes things worse. When the schools encourage teenage boys to be sexually active, we put them under enormous pressure.

Book Begins In a ‘Crisis’ Mode
Dr. Pollack’s book begins in an hysterical, crisis mode. But in later pages, he disputes his own statements.

The Introduction begins with this sentence, “Boys today are in serious trouble, including many who seem ‘normal’ and to be doing just fine.”

He follows that with, “[E]ven boys who seem OK on the surface are suffering silently inside – from confusion, a sense of isolation, and despair. They feel detached from their own selves, and often feel alienated from parents, siblings, and peers. Many boys feel a loneliness that may last throughout boyhood and continue into adult life.”

He continues this bleak look at the boys of our society throughout the entire Introduction. He blames the “problems” he sees on what he describes as a “gender straitjacket” which consists of “outmoded ideas about masculinity and about what it takes for a boy to become a man.”

The main cause of this problem, he says, is that, “Boys are pushed to separate from their mother prematurely.” As a result, boys “mask their emotions and ultimately their true selves.” He is constantly pointing to a “mask” that he believes that boys put over themselves.

But as you begin to read the book, you learn immediately that most boys are doing just fine.

In Chapter One, you’ll find a large dose of mundane common sense. The book begins with the story of a 14-year-old boy who was sent to a different school to participate in a special prestigious program for talented students. It was in a well-to-do section of town and he was picked upon by the other students. He didn’t tell his parents about his problems until one day when a 12th grader gave him a swollen eye.

Photo: Dr. Pollack has gotten large amounts of hysterical publicity from Newsweek, TIme, People and all of the major television shows, including Oprah. He is telling the world that men and boys are in serious trouble and we must correct the 'problem' by changing the basic nature of boys in our public schools.

This story from Pollack will indicate to many a complete lack of discipline in the school that is endemic today. It indicates a problem with the adults who are in charge, not with the boy. It also shows that parents have to stay in close touch with their children. But there is nothing new or unusual in that. Prof. Pollack gives additional common sense ideas that parents have always used when he advises them how to get “behind the mask” that boys put on to hide their concerns. His ideas are not new. Pollack advises parents to be sensitive to early signs of trouble (what he terms “the masking of feelings”), remain calm and supportive if he tells you his problems, be patient, do something enjoyable with him and he will be more likely to talk, tell him some of the problems you had as a child.

He writes that most boys in the country are doing okay. It doesn’t sound like what he said in the introduction or what he was telling Newsweek, Oprah and People. He says, “My research demonstrates that despite society’s traumatizing pressure on boys to disconnect from their vulnerable inner selves, many, if not most, boys maintain an inner wellspring of emotional connectedness, a resilience, that helps to sustain them.”

Prof. Pollack Admires the Feminists
Prof. Pollack expresses his admiration for the feminist Stone Center at Wellesley College as well as for the feminist professor, Carol Gilligan at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, who became wealthy and famous in the 1990s.

Those two institutions reported dishonestly in the early 1990s that the public schools were “shortchanging girls,” according to Prof. Sommers. As a result, Congress passed a new law, the “Gender Equity in Education Act,” which categorized girls as an “under-served population,” on a par with other discriminated-against minorities. As a result, both Gilligan and the Stone Center gained great prestige and received millions in federal grants.

Pollack expressed his deep admiration for Gilligan when he wrote: “Boys are full of love and empathy for others and long to stay ‘attached’ to their parents and closest mentors. These yearnings, in turn, can empower parents and professionals to become more deeply connected to the boys in their lives, much as Professor Carol Gilligan at Harvard and researchers at the Stone Center Group at Wellesley College have so eloquently advocated we do for girls.”

He says that boys are not allowed to express their “tender” feelings and they therefore wear a mask of “toughness” and push their tender feelings “underground.” The one feeling they are allowed to express, according to Pollack, is anger. “Understandably, it is very challenging for most men to express or experience emotions other than anger, since, as boys, they were encouraged to use their rage to express the full range of their emotional experience.”

He says that because of Gilligan, girls over the past ten years have been encouraged to change their goals, but “we continue to keep boys in the tight straitjackets of nineteenth-century models of masculinity.”

Nobody Can Argue with Common Sense
Pollack, however, does argue with some of the tenets of the feminists, but he doesn’t say he is doing so. He espouses the common sense notion that boys are different from girls.

“Boys do play differently than girls…,” he writes. “Boys, in general, like play that is competitive, physically rough, and forceful. They like games that involve interaction in large groups and take place in large spaces (such as playing fields, gymnasiums, stadiums) as well as those that follow rules and have a hierarchy of authority. Girls, on the other hand, generally enjoy play that is more interpersonal, often one-on-one, and less physically aggressive.”

That is not what Carol Gilligan writes. She even wants to eliminate the game of “tag”  and recess itself, because they are too competitive.

Dr. Pollack says: “Researchers examining play in elementary school children find consistent patterns. Boys and girls cluster in same-sex groups. The play within these groups differs considerably. Boys tend to engage in active, competitive games. Girls, on the other hand, tend to play cooperatively in small groups. Boys enjoy structured games, with set rules and procedures.

“Taunting, boasting, and jousting with one another is part of the fun. Boys argue often during games, but their arguments seldom end the game. When they can’t agree, they resort to the rulebook or just repeat the play. They seem to value the rules and procedures that govern the game and make it fair for all participants. They learn, as one teacher told us, ‘to argue and hold no grudges.’ In other words, boys seem to be good at ‘agreeing to disagree.’ Their friendships are resilient, surviving even the roughest play and disagreements….

“For when it comes to boys, it is often through their rowdy play that they build friendships. Underneath the rough and tumble games where boys are seeking to feel part of the action and striving for excellence in the company of their buddies, they are building relationships.” 

He wants to be sure there are “enough breaks each day during which boys can enjoy uninhibited play and engage in the gross motor activities that may come naturally to them.” For older boys, there should be study halls where “boys can talk, romp, dish, and rumble to their hearts’ desire.”

Refutes the Myths About Boys
Dr. Pollack refutes three of the feminist “myths” about boys with the following:

• Violent. Boys do not need to be violent, says Pollack. It is a myth to believe that testosterone mandates aggression and violence in boys. What is important is “how the boy is loved, nurtured, and shaped by his parents and by the context of the society within which he lives.”

• Conformity. Boys should not try to conform even though the Boy Code forces them to do so. “The Boy Code says that boys should be tough, should demand respect from others, and should never act ‘like a girl.’”

Pollack talks about one young man who wanted to be a chef but wondered if it would be an acceptable career. To which the readers of his book will say, “Of course, what’s the big deal?” Pollack agrees. “There is no single path to a healthy and mature masculinity. A good school or home environment will send the message that activities like sports, acting in a school play and volunteering at the local nursing home all provide equally good ways to succeed in the journey from boyhood into manhood.” To which all readers will say, “Of course,” except that it is difficult to believe that many teenagers will spend much time in a nursing home.

• Dangerous. Boys are not dangerous or toxic. Pollack cites women who believe that the “presence of boys might have a toxic effect on her daughter” while they believe that “girls could help mitigate the noxious disposition of her son.” He says, “Such views must be seen as discriminatory to boys, but they are seldom challenged by other parents or by teachers because of the prevalent myth that boys are in fact toxic.”

He cites one story and says, “This is just one example of the kind of caring, deeply supportive, empathetic behavior that boys can show for their loved ones – their parents, their friends, their families – and that I have seen boys display in a wide variety of situations and circumstances.”

Pollack argues that parents must remain close to their children, and his anecdotes reflect the basic conservative viewpoint that it is very difficult to be close to your children when both parents are working or divorced. Pollack expresses concepts like, “At least once a day, give your boy your undivided attention.”

Pollack Is a Feminist
It is clear that Dr. Pollack is very close to the extreme feminists. He praises single mothers in Chapter 5 – even those who choose to be single. “Among some of our best coaches in this area are women who raise sons without fathers, due to divorce, a father’s death or simply the choice of single motherhood.” [emphasis added]

But he begins the next chapter with these words, “Interactions between father and son are, as we know, crucially important in a boy’s life…Beginning very early in the lives of boys, fathers show a special ability to enliven and broaden their sons’ play activities and to teach their sons how to feel and express certain emotions….This gift that fathers have – this enhanced ability to evoke a son’s diverse emotional responses – is invaluable to boys….To put it simply: that roughhousing between father and son that may make mom cringe is actually the rudimentary beginning of a boy’s management of his aggression and his ability to substitute emotional mastery and mutual cooperation for violent interaction.”

How can this psychologist possibly write that and be approving of a person who becomes a single parent by choice?

He warns further, “Single dads are particularly at risk for losing touch with their sons, but struggle with all your heart and might not to let this happen to you. With the only exception being when an abusive relationship exists, fathers are still so necessary to their sons!…In reality, I believe, most so-called deadbeat dads are actually deadpan dads – dads who are depressed and confused about their isolation from their boys. Many actually long to find a healthy, genuine way to return. When they find a way to reconnect with their sons, they come to feel better about themselves, their sons’ mental and emotional states improve, and ultimately they genuinely change the world for ‘real boys’ and for all of us who love them.”

He mentions three boys at the end of the book who suffered from depression. Two had just suffered the loss of the father, one from divorce and the other because of incarceration.

He spends an entire chapter on the terrible damage that is done by divorce, saying, “[J]ust as a father can never have the same deep and instinctual understanding of a daughter’s needs as a mother can, even the most caring and intuitive mother will be unable to completely anticipate and understand the idiosyncrasies and concerns of her boy.”  373 A study showed that “boys in mother-only households were five times more at risk for major depressive disorders than girls in mother-only families.”

Weird Tests
Pollack says that two psychological tests he has given to 150 boys prove that the boys of America show “profound inner turmoil.” He wrote, “[W]hen given the opportunity to bare their souls, the adolescent boys, without knowing it, revealed an inner fissure, a split in their sense of what it means to become a man.”

Prof. Sommers comments in her book, “We must bear in mind that Pollack is not talking about a small percentage of boys who are seriously disturbed and lethally dangerous. He is attributing pathology to normal boys, and his conclusions are expansive and alarming. It was said in a press release from Harvard Medical School, which gave its support to his findings that, ‘The time has come to change the way boys are raised – in our homes, in our schools and in society.’”

What was the research that caused Dr. Pollack to make these claims? He says he gave two psychological tests to 150 boys. One measured their approval of the “new” masculinity. The boys endorsed statements such as, “Men and women should be given an equal chance for professional training” and “Courses in home management should be as acceptable for male students as for female students.” They strongly rejected, “The husband should be the head of the family” and “It is more appropriate for a mother than a father to change a baby’s diapers.”

These answers pleased Pollack, but he also gave them another test to measure their attitude towards traditional male roles. This test asked questions such as, “I admire a guy who is totally sure of himself,” “It is essential for a guy to get respect from others,” “A man always deserves the respect of his wife and children,” “It bothers me when a guy acts like a girl,” and “Men are always ready for sex.” He didn’t like the boys’ answers to these because they supported the statements. Based upon tests like these and other research which he won’t reveal, he is telling us that all boys are in trouble.

Prof. Sommers wonders why Harvard Medical School would put its reputation behind Pollack’s study when it “does not present a single persuasive piece of evidence for a national boy crisis.” She says the answer may be that other psychiatrists tell her that hospitals are continuously looking for ways to generate revenue and publicity. She was told by the director of public relations at Harvard that the press release had been based upon the “news value” of the story.

Slumber Parties
Dr. Pollack believes that boys are “frightened” of girls, but they search “desperately” for a connection with them. In order to correct this, he recommends co-ed slumber parties.

“These boy-girl friendships allow boys to be more free about emotions and feelings. Without outside society intruding and without other boys around to challenge or shame them, boys feel liberated to verbally uncover that part of them that is tender, caring and loving….It is important that boys and girls recognize what they are both getting from these friendships. In boy-girl friendships, each sex gets to see the fragility of the other. This is what Judy Jordan at Harvard calls ‘gender empathy.’ Girls begin to see through boys’ bluster and recognize boys’ deep fears and vulnerabilities. Boys begin to see girls as less threatening, and admire their ability to communicate emotionally. These gender-empathy friendships become a blueprint for adult heterosexual love relationships.”

Schools Are Failing Boys
Dr. Pollack spends an entire chapter elaborating on the failure of the schools, which are populated largely with female teachers and administrators. “Put simply, I believe most of our schools are failing our boys,” he says.

Pollack writes, “Our schools, in general, are not sufficiently hospitable environments for boys and are not doing what they could to address boys’ unique social, academic, and emotional needs. Today’s typical coeducational schools have teachers and administrators who, though they don’t intend it, are often not particularly empathetic to boys; they use curricula, classroom materials, and teaching methods that do not respond to how boys learn; and many of these schools are hardly places most of our boys long to spend time.”

He says that we have strived in the past ten years to help girls succeed, but we have discouraged and hindered boys.

Part of this is because the predominately female teachers have been taught, since the 1990s, that girls need special attention. “The teachers had become especially vigilant, even obsessive, about making sure that the voices of girls in their classes received ample attention….I  think the prevailing method in class that day was structured around the way girl students prefer to work, and that boys were at a disadvantage….Obviously, boys quickly sense these anti-boy attitudes.”

He cites a school in England where a group of at-risk students were put into a class of all boys with a male teacher. He says that this experiment worked so well that they are going to expand the program.