MenAreGood
Reproductive Coercion: Setting a Narrative
August 23, 2024

This report was written some time ago but the deceit it exposes is important to grasp in order to understand how narratives are created and maintained.



 

I was browsing on the web and happened to read an article about a study on “Reproductive Coercion.” As I read it I was amazed at the sorts of statistics that the study was quoting. One article said that 53% of women surveyed had experienced violence in her relationships. “Wow” I thought, thatʼs over half of the respondents. Thatʼs quite a few. I read on and other stats were quoted that were equally shocking. I began to wonder about how they got such alarming statistics. My interest was stimulated and I started searching for articles on this research. There were plenty. One from Newsweek, one from Science News Daily, one from Medical News Today, one from EScience News, one from the LA Times and others. They all made similar claims about this study and often used the same quotes and the same statistics. I kept looking for more articles thinking that with statistics as strong as these that there must be something unusual here. I wondered if their sample was biased in some way or perhaps the way they had defined their terms had inflated the numbers. About the tenth article I found was one from the college newspaper of the lead researcher in the study. The publication was called “The Aggie” and was the student paper for the University of California, Davis. That article included something that the others had omitted. The Aggie article said that the survey was done on an “impoverished” population of African American and Hispanic females. It went on to say that the study should not be generalized: “The five clinics surveyed were in impoverished neighborhoods with Latinas and African Americans comprising two-thirds of the respondents. The results are expected to be applicable to reproductive health clinics in demographically poor areas. Researchers cannot estimate if surveys at private gynecologists would produce similar results.” Suddenly the results started to make more sense. We know that lower socio-economic levels tend to show much higher levels of interpersonal violence (IPV). One DOJ report shows that women with lower income levels are almost three times more likely to experience relationship violence than those with higher incomes. We know that women in rental housing are also three times more likely to experience IPV than those in homes that they own. By studying a sample that was impoverished it dramatically increased the likelihood of finding higher rates of IPV.

 

Then I started to wonder. How was it that all of the national media articles which had obviously been seen by millions of people had missed the sample being of impoverished African American and Hispanic females? I started to think that the media was simply not doing their homework and that their readers were getting fed misinformation as a result. I decided at that point to obtain a copy of the study. I went to the online site for the Journal Contraception which had published the original article and purchased a copy. I read it. By the end I was shocked. There was no mention in the journal article of the socio-economic status of the sample that had been surveyed. No mention of whether they were rich or poor. I had to catch myself because I had earlier assumed that it was the media not doing their homework and simply not reading the journal article. But now it was a completely different situation. The information had been omitted from the journal article. How could that be? This was an article that had 7 researchers named as co-authors. It had to have been read and edited over and over again. How could it be that something so basic would have been left out? I decided to write to the lead researcher Dr Elizabeth Miller. I sent her an email and asked about the sample. I told her that I had read the article in the Aggie that had mentioned that the sample was “impoverished” African American and Hispanic females and I was interested to know if this was correct or if the Aggie had made a mistake. She wrote me back a very pleasant email in several days apologizing for taking so long to get back to me and saying that yes, the Aggie was correct that the sample was largely disadvantaged African American and Hispanic females. I wrote her back very quickly and asked why that information had not been mentioned in the journal article. I also asked if she was concerned about the national media articles that never mentioned the fact that the sample was impoverished and seemed to be erroneously implying that the study could generalize to the population at large. She wrote me back once but has never offered any answers to those questions.

At that point I contacted Gabrielle Grow, the author of the Aggie article and congratulated her on a job well done. I asked her how she had found out about the sample being “impoverished.” She told me that it was just one of the questions that she had asked the researchers in the interview. I wrote her back and congratulated her again and explained to her that all of the national articles including Newsweek, LA Times, Science News Daily, EScience News, Medical News Today and others had all missed that important bit of information. Ms Grow was the only reporter that asked the important question. But why did the national news media not ask the same question? This is an important question and we really donʼt know the answer at this point. What we do know is the study issued a press release about the research findings and never mentioned the sample being largely a poor population. They also made no mention of the fact which is referenced in their study that this sort of population has higher reports of IPV thus creating inflated responses when compared to the general population. It made no mention that the study should be applicable only to other poor neighborhoods. Reading the press release one might easily assume that the study applied to everyone. Here are just a few of the points the press release made: 1. Men use coercion and birth control sabotage to cause their partners to become pregnant against their wills. 2. Young women and teenage girls often face efforts by male partners to sabotage their birth control or coerce or pressure them to become pregnant - including by damaging condoms and destroying contraceptives. 3. Fifty-three percent of respondents said they had experienced physical or sexual violence from an intimate partner. 4. Male partners actively attempt to promote pregnancy against the will of their female partners. With no mention in the press release that the studyʼs sample was largely indigent African American and Hispanic females one could get the impression from reading it that the study might apply to the general population. Even though the researchers when asked by Ms Grow, admitted that the study should only be applied to the poor. One can only assume that the researchers failed not only to mention this important information in the press release but also didnʼt offer this to the media in any of the interviews. Actually there was very little information offered that might have discouraged the media from playing this as a study about men and women in general.

 

This is obvious when you look at the headlines and quotes from various news articles. Here is a sampling: NEWSWEEK "What we're seeing is that, in the larger scheme of violence against women and girls, it is another way to maintain control," says Miller.” "The man is taking away a woman's power to decide she's not going to have a child.” LA Times “Reproductive coercion is a factor in unintended pregnancies” “Young women even report that their boyfriends sabotage birth control to get them pregnant.” ScienceDaily “Over half the respondents -- 53 percent -- said they had experienced physical or sexual violence from an intimate partner.” “The study also highlights the importance of working with young men to prevent both violence against female partners and coercion around pregnancy.” Physorg “Approximately one in five young women said they experienced pregnancy coercion” ESCIENCE NEWS “Young women and teenage girls often face efforts by male partners to sabotage birth control or coerce pregnancy — including damaging condoms and destroying contraceptives” INSCIENCES “This study highlights an under-recognized phenomenon where male partners actively attempt to promote pregnancy against the will of their female partners,” said lead study author Elizabeth Miller, a Medical News Today Headline - Physical or Sexual Violence Often Accompanies Reproductive Coercion End Abuse . org “It finds that young women and teenage girls often face efforts by male partners to sabotage their birth control or coerce or pressure them to become pregnant – including by damaging condoms and destroying contraceptives.”

 

What do these quotes and headlines have in common? They all sound as if the study in question applies to the general population of men and women, boys and girls. The circulation of Newsweek is 2.7 million so just from that source alone a great many people have been given the impression that men in general will tend to coerce women in general to get pregnant. The first level is the research paper itself. The Contraception Journal was obviously read by many, especially other researchers. Then the next level is the national media that wrote stories about the study. We saw above some of the sorts of misrepresentations that were common from the national media articles. But things go even further. Once the journal article is published and then the media articles follow there is a third wave that hits: the blogs. When end users hear this sort of thing they take it a step farther. Here are just a few examples of what happens: Hereʼs a headline from a blog:

Crazy, Condom-Puncturing Control Freaks Are Often Men

So we have gone from omitting the nature of the sample to the printing of articles in the national media that implicate men in general and once this happens the end users at the blogs take that information and exaggerate it much farther. Hereʼs another example:

There is a new study which discusses a horribly prevalent but rarely discussed form of intimate partner violence: reproductive coercion.

So we have gone from low income Black and Hispanic females claiming to be coerced to making global pronouncements about reproductive coercion being “horribly prevalent.” Right. Those crazy condom puncturing control freaks are part of a horribly prevalent pattern. It doesnʼt take much imagination to see the next step of a dinner table discussion of this issue. The daughter announces at the table that it is men who puncture condoms and force women into pregnancy. Mom tells her that that couldnʼt be and the daughter pulls up a link to the blog and then to the Newsweek article. Dad is still unimpressed until she pulls up a link to the study which partially verifies her false claim. All at the table are convinced now it is the men in general who are coercing women into pregnancy. This is the way memes get started. A “research” article tells half the story and the partial data is misinterpreted unknowingly by the media who then pass on the half story as truth to unwitting millions who hear the medias version and their claim that it is research driven and the public is sold. It must be true! This is of course what happened with domestic violence. Early feminist researchers only told half the story, that women were victims of domestic violence and men were perpetrators. The media simply passed on the story to millions and the rest is history. We have a general public who is convinced that it is only women who are victims of domestic violence.

The scientific method is very clear. You create a hypothesis and find a way to test it. You then carefully sift though the test data and account for the data that affirms your hypothesis and importantly account for the data that conflicts with your hypothesis. What has happened over and over from feminist researchers is simply ignoring the data that conflicts with your hypothesis (male victims) and focusing solely on that data that confirms your ideology (female victims). Interestingly in this study the researchers failed to ask the subjects if they had also coerced their male partners. They only asked the questions that would provide them with the “acceptable” answers. In the study examined in this article the researchers seem to have “forgotten” to remind the media of the limitations of their sample. In a similar fashion to the first study, the press release seems to have been used to steer the data. One could assume that leaving out the nature of the sample was an honest mistake. If so, I would have expected Dr Miller to respond to my email asking about the omission of the nature of the sample. But she did not. This leaves us not knowing if the mistake was or was not intentional. Perhaps we will never know. I know what my guess is. Whatʼs yours?

community logo
Join the MenAreGood Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
0
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
June 20, 2025
10 Factors that Help Explain Male Suicides

A quick dive into 10 reasons behind the high rates of male suicide. For a deeper look, check out my two-part series linked here.

part 1 https://menaregood.locals.com/post/3606115/the-truth-about-male-suicide-part-1
part 2 https://menaregood.locals.com/post/4871019/the-truth-about-male-suicide-part-two

00:04:13
June 05, 2025
Debunking the UN's Attack on the Manosphere

There is a growing wave of attacks against what’s being called the “manosphere.” These attacks are coming primarily from feminist organizations and media allies who claim that the manosphere (the electronic patriarchy) is filled with misogynists who hate women and promote violence.

The truth, however, is quite different. What they’re labeling the "manosphere" is, in many cases, a loose network of voices pushing back against decades of feminist misinformation. That pushback — often grounded in research data, lived experience, and reasoned critique — is what truly alarms feminist ideologues.

To them, this movement represents a threat. It challenges their long-standing narrative by exposing its flaws, hypocrisies, and one-sided portrayals of gender dynamics.

What’s really happening is that young men are waking up. They’re realizing they’ve been fed a steady stream of blame and shame, and they’re beginning to walk away from the ideology that cast them as the problem.

In this segment, Jim ...

00:50:58
June 02, 2025
The Decline of Feminism and the Manspreading Chair - Regarding Men 27

Recorded 2020 - This conversation was recorded several years ago, but it’s just as relevant today. Janice, Tom, and Paul take a sharp look at the absurdities of modern feminism—including the infamous, award-winning “Manspreading Chair.” They also discuss the growing signs that feminism may be in decline. Take a listen and see what you think.

00:29:04
February 07, 2023
The Way Boys Play and the Biological Underpinnings

My apologies for the last empty post. My mistake. Let's hope this one works.

Tom takes a stab at using the podcast function. Let's see how it goes.

The Way Boys Play and the Biological Underpinnings
May 13, 2022
Boys and Rough Play

This is a short excerpt from Helping Mothers be Closer to their Sons. The book was meant for single mothers who really don't know much about boy's nature. They also don't have a man in the house who can stand up for the boy and his unique nature. It tries to give them some ideas about how boys and girls are different. This excerpt is about play behaviors.

Boys and Rough Play
June 08, 2025
How to Cut the Gordian Knot of Feminism - Stephen Baskerville

In his post “How to Cut the Gordian Knot of Feminism,” Baskerville tackles the crucial question of how to dismantle feminism. It’s an essential read for anyone seeking to understand and challenge modern feminism. - Tom Golden

https://stephenbaskerville.substack.com/p/how-to-cut-the-gordian-knot-of-feminism

Great video pointing out men’s humanity and the expectation of service that can become exploitation.

Dr Orion Teraban from PsycHacks addressing male disposability.

This is an amazing video and he really lays out the case for men to value there lives. It’s amazing to a tualy see such a Video.

June 18, 2025
post photo preview
Ever Wanted to Ask a Book a Question on Men's Issues? Now You Can


Have you ever wanted to ask a book a question? Here's your chance.

The links below go to custom GPT's that relate to men's issues. Many are books, some are pdf's, and some are peer reviewed research papers. We will describe them one at a time below. When you go to the links simply ask whatever questions you might have and watch AI give you a response based on the book. I will be adding more books and would love to hear your suggestions for books to add.

The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell
Fiamengo File 2.0 Janice Fiamengo
Taken Into Custody - Stephen Baskerville
Who Lost America - Stephen Baskerville
The New Politics of Sex -- Stephen Baskerville
Understanding Men and Boys: Healing Insights - Tom Golden
Boys' Muscle Strength and Performance - Jim Nuzzo PhD
Sex Bias in Domestic Violence Policies and Laws - Ed Bartlett (DAVIA)

Note: You’ll need a free account with chatgpt account to access any of these resources.


 

Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell

The Myth of Male Power - meticulously documents how virtually every society that survived did so by persuading its sons to be disposable. This is one of the most powerful books on men ever written. https://chatgpt.com/g/g-68489762e8288191baaf0a6f38158a2e-the-myth-of-male-power-warren-farrell


Fiamengo File 2.0 - Janice Fiamengo

 

This GPT brings together Janice Fiamengo’s deeply researched and compelling Fiamengo File 2.0. It reveals how intersectional feminism fosters both personal and social dysfunction by teaching members of designated victim groups to hate so-called oppressor groups and to compete with one another for greater victim status.

https://chatgpt.com/g/g-684a0c6ac32481918728f77103b818f4-fiamengo-file-2-0-janice-fiamengo


GPT Icon
 

Sex Bias in Domestic Violence Policies and Laws

By Ed Bartlett and DAVIA

This GPT is designed to offer clear, professional, and well-sourced insights into the often overlooked experiences of male victims of domestic violence. It explores societal blind spots, institutional biases, and the unique challenges men face in being seen, believed, and supported.
https://chatgpt.com/g/g-68178dd19bfc8191a3475bcd8051917e-sex-bias-in-domestic-violence-policies-and-laws


 

Understanding Men and Boys: Healing Insights

By Tom Golden

Built on the insights of three books, this GPT offers thoughtful understanding of the lives and healing processes of men and boys.
https://chatgpt.com/g/g-680ed336677c8191a3527bdf1d4bf17f-understanding-men-and-boys-healing-insights

________________________________________

 

Taken Into Custody - Stephen Baskerville

By Stephen Baskerville

Taken into Custody exposes the greatest and most destructive civil rights abuse in America today. Family courts and Soviet-style bureaucracies trample basic civil liberties, entering homes uninvited and taking away people's children at will, then throwing the parents into jail without any form of due process, much less a trial. No parent, no child, no family in America is safe.

https://chatgpt.com/g/g-68239e442d0c81918469f94d38850af5-taken-into-custody-stephen-baskerville
_________________________________________

 

Who ‘Lost America - Stephen Baskerville

This book provides the first explanation for our governmental fiasco. It is not another recitation of well-known events, nor another tirade against the Left and its reckless, sometimes deadly policies. It is also not a wish list of impossible “solutions.” The aim instead is to explain what the Left did and what the rest of us failed to do.

https://chatgpt.com/g/g-6847820661f08191af7b3d0173512940-who-lost-america-stephen-baskerville


 

The New Politics of Sex - Stephen Baskerville

This book is essential to understanding the impact of the new sexual ideology not only on the family and other social institutions, but also on the machinery of government, the criminal justice system, and the global political environment.

https://chatgpt.com/g/g-68377b5ca0288191a00c521994755487-the-new-politics-of-sex-stephen-baskerville


GPT Icon
 

Boys' Muscle Strength and Performance

By Jame Nuzzo

Research by James Nuzzo, PhD, and others offers valuable insights into boys' muscle strength and physical performance. Ask this GPT a question about muscles or strength and see what it finds! Jim is not only an expert on exercise science but also deeply knowledgeable about the pervasive and often overlooked governmental sexism in these areas.

https://chatgpt.com/g/g-6824833d14d48191be9491084dd4cc8b-boys-muscle-strength-and-performance

Read full Article
June 15, 2025
post photo preview
Let the Tool Do the Work: A Lesson from My Father
Happy Father's Day

This Sunday, people will hand out ties, cards, and mugs that say #1 Dad. But if you ask me what makes a father truly irreplaceable, it’s not something that fits in a box — it’s moments like this:

I will never forget my father teaching me how to use tools. I was just a small boy, determined to show him what I could do. He set me up with a saw and a scrap of wood, probably scrap to him — but a treasure to me.

Like most little boys trying to impress Dad, I thought speed was skill. So I attacked that piece of wood with gusto, sawing as fast as my arms would move. Any other adult might have barked at me to slow down. Maybe laughed and said, “Whoa there, where’s the fire?” Or worse — grabbed the saw and finished it for me.

But that’s not what my father did. He didn’t judge. He didn’t scold. He watched, sized up the situation, and then said something​ calmly that has stuck with me my whole life:

“Let the tool do the work.”

That one line has saved me frustration more times than I can count — not just with saws and hammers, but in every area of life where patience and trust matter more than brute force. He gave me guidance I could actually hear at that age. He didn’t shame me for being eager; he directed my energy and gave me a principle to rely on.

That’s good fathering.


Why Fathers Matter in a Way No One Else Can

Stories like mine are not unique — but they are becoming ​more rare with father’s being removed form the home. Too often we forget what fathers bring to the table that no one else does. We reduce them to extra hands or bonus paychecks. We pretend they’re interchangeable or optional. But deep down, and in study after study, we know better.

Fathers model calm strength under pressure. They teach boys how to be men without brute force — and teach girls what true masculinity feels like when it’s steady, protective, and kind. They bring a different energy to parenting: one that sets boundaries, tests limits through rough play, and then pulls children back into safety and love when they fall.

Dads don’t always use a lot of words, but they teach through presence, through small gestures, and through the unspoken lesson: “You can handle this — but if you can’t, I’m here.”


What Happens When Fathers Are Missing

We don’t talk about it much on Father’s Day, but we should: when dads disappear, children pay the price. Boys lose their guide for channeling power responsibly. Girls lose their first experience of what it feels like to be ​loved and respected by a good man.

The numbers bear it out: more school dropouts, more juvenile crime, more emotional struggles. A father’s absence ripples outward for generations.


Imperfect But Irreplaceable

Fathers aren’t flawless — they never have been, and they don’t have to be. For me, what mattered was that he was present. He noticed things. He knew when to offer a hand and when to let me stumble and figure it out on my own.

When I look back on that day with the saw, I realize something else: he didn’t just teach me how to cut a board. He taught me how to trust the process, how to be patient, and how to use the tools life gives me — not to force everything with my own strength.

That is fatherhood at its best: presence without suffocation, correction without shame, guidance that lasts far longer than childhood.


This Father’s Day, Let’s Remember

As we celebrate dads this weekend, let’s remember: it’s not about what we buy them, but about what they have given us — quietly, daily, in moments so ordinary we don’t even know they shaped us.

If you’re a father reading this, take heart: your calm words today may echo in your child’s mind for decades to come. You don’t need to have all the right answers. Just be there. Watch. Guide. And every so often, remind them:

“Let the tool do the work.”

Happy Father’s Day.

Read full Article
June 13, 2025
post photo preview
The Forgotten Power of Unsupervised Play
Why Every Child Needs It—and Why Boys May Need It Even More

The Forgotten Power of Unsupervised Play

Why Every Child Needs It—and Why Boys May Need It Even More

Not long ago, kids roamed the neighborhood on bikes, made forts out of sticks, got dirty, got in arguments, and figured out how to make up. These weren’t activities we scheduled. They just happened. Today, that kind of spontaneous, unsupervised play is vanishing—and with it, something essential to childhood is being lost.

There’s been a quiet but powerful shift over the past few decades: adults now manage more and more of children’s lives. We organize their time, structure their activities, and hover over their every move, convinced that doing so will make them safer, smarter, and better prepared for life. But what if the opposite is true? What if removing unsupervised play is actually stunting their development?

What Is Unsupervised Play?

Unsupervised play doesn’t mean unsafe play. It means play that isn’t micromanaged. It’s when children make the rules, solve the problems, and decide what the game is. It can be solo or with peers. Sometimes adults are nearby in case of emergency—but they’re not directing the action. This kind of play is a natural, evolutionary part of how kids grow into capable adults. And today, it’s in short supply.

Research backs up what many of us have long sensed: unsupervised play is essential to healthy childhood development across emotional, social, physical, and even moral domains. And here’s the added layer that often gets ignored—boys may suffer the most when this kind of play disappears.


Building Independence and Confidence

When children aren’t being constantly told what to do, they learn something powerful: “I can figure this out.” That lesson builds confidence. They try something new, and maybe it works, maybe it doesn’t. But it’s their decision. Over time, this builds independence—an internal compass that tells them they don’t always need someone else to approve or decide for them.

For boys, this kind of autonomy is especially critical. Boys often learn by doing, not by being told. Unsupervised play lets them test, fail, adjust, and master challenges on their own terms. Take that away, and they’re left with a life of instruction and correction, where adult voices drown out their own inner development.

Dr. Kenneth Ginsburg from the American Academy of Pediatrics has emphasized that free play builds resilience and decision-making skills—especially important for children developing their sense of agency. Boys, who are often more sensitive to control than we realize, benefit enormously from this space to lead themselves.


Imagination and Creativity Take Root

Watch kids in free play and you’ll see a burst of creativity. Sticks become swords or magic wands. A pile of blankets becomes a secret base. They’re not limited by adult ideas of “how it should go.” In fact, adults often get in the way.

Girls may gravitate toward collaborative storytelling or nurturing role-play, while boys are more likely to invent rule-based games, fantasy scenarios, or rougher adventures. Both types of play are essential. But boys in particular benefit from this rule-making process—they’re not just playing a game, they’re creating social order and testing fairness, leadership, and strategy.

Studies by Sandra Russ show that unstructured pretend play fuels divergent thinking—the kind of thinking that leads to problem-solving, invention, and art. For boys especially, who may not always shine in traditional classroom settings, free play offers a creative outlet that aligns with their natural interests and strengths.


Social Skills Without a Script

We often hear about how kids need to learn to “work well with others.” But how do they actually learn that? Not through lectures. Not through adult-facilitated “sharing time.” They learn it by being with other kids—without an adult immediately jumping in.

In unsupervised play, children naturally encounter disagreements. Someone wants to change the rules. Someone doesn’t want to play anymore. Someone gets hurt feelings. And they work it out. Or they don’t—and learn from that too.

For boys, this kind of organic negotiation is often more developmentally effective than verbal instruction. Boys are less likely than girls to engage in emotional check-ins or group conversations. But they do sort out status, fairness, and inclusion through physical and active play—what some researchers call “rough-and-tumble diplomacy.”

When adults interrupt or manage these processes too closely, boys miss critical opportunities to practice leadership, cooperation, and empathy in their own style. Over time, they may come to believe that their instincts are wrong—or worse, that they’re simply bad at relationships.


Learning to Handle Risk and Judgement

Children need to experience healthy risk. Climbing a tree or balancing on a log teaches them something that flashcards can’t: how to assess danger, how to listen to their bodies, how to push limits wisely.

Modern parenting often sees risk as the enemy. But eliminating all risk also eliminates the chance for growth. Studies by Mariana Brussoni and others have found that riskier outdoor play is associated with better physical health, improved confidence, and even lower injury rates over time—because kids learn to evaluate risk on their own.

And here again, boys are disproportionately affected by risk-averse environments. They are biologically more inclined toward high-energy, adventurous play. This isn’t a defect—it’s a design. Rough-and-tumble activity isn’t aggression; it’s exploration, boundary testing, and relational learning.

When we suppress boys’ access to this kind of play, we don’t reduce aggression—we remove a key mechanism for learning how to channel and regulate it.


Ownership, Accountability, and Consequences

When kids direct their own play, they also learn that their choices have consequences. If they leave toys out and it rains, those toys get ruined. If they make up a game that nobody else enjoys, they lose players. That’s the real world in miniature.

Adult-managed play often shields children from consequences. We clean up, we fix, we redirect. It might be well-intended, but it can rob children of the chance to learn responsibility in a natural, non-punitive way.

For boys—who often respond more strongly to hands-on learning—this kind of consequence-based development is vital. They learn best by experiencing the outcome, not just being warned about it.


Emotional Regulation and Expression

Unsupervised play also gives children the space to express themselves emotionally—without being corrected or redirected. A child who stomps off in frustration might, five minutes later, come back with a new idea. That’s emotional processing in action. No adult needed.

This is especially important for boys, who are often discouraged from expressing vulnerable emotions outright. In play, they can express frustration, ​anger, mastery, joy, or failure in ways that feel safe and embodied.

Therapists like Dr. Garry Landreth and researchers like Michael Gurian have shown how boys tend to process emotion kinetically—through movement, role-play, and active trial-and-error. In highly managed, verbal environments, these outlets dry up—and emotional development suffers.


A Word of Caution on Over-Supervision

Today’s children are often supervised to the point of surveillance. Playdates are scheduled, adults are ever-present, and rules are pre-written. Even well-meaning interventions—like constant praise, correction, or encouragement—can crowd out a child’s internal voice.

Peter Gray, an evolutionary psychologist, has warned for years that the decline of independent play is linked to rising rates of anxiety, depression, and learned helplessness among children and teens. And again, boys show these effects earlier and more acutely, often being over-diagnosed with ADHD, conduct disorders, or defiance—conditions that may actually be adaptive responses to unnatural environments.

Boys aren’t broken. But they’re often misunderstood. When the systems we place them in suppress movement, creativity, risk-taking, and autonomy, we shouldn’t be surprised when they rebel—or shut down.


Bringing It Back

We can bring back unsupervised play. It starts with letting go of the idea that kids must always be occupied, guided, or entertained. It means allowing a little boredom, a little mess, and a few scrapes. It means trusting that play is not a waste of time—but a form of learning that’s just as vital as reading or math.

Let the backyard become a jungle. Let the basement become a spaceship. Let the kids make the rules—even if they’re strange, inconsistent, or fall apart halfway through.

Unsupervised play isn’t about being reckless. It’s about trusting childhood. It’s about recognizing that the best kind of growth often happens when adults step back—not in neglect, but in respect for the child’s ability to figure things out.

And if we want to raise boys who are confident, connected, and emotionally resilient, then we need to stop managing their play—and start protecting it.


References

  • Brussoni, M., Gibbons, R., Gray, C., Ishikawa, T., Sandseter, E. B. H., Bienenstock, A., ... & Tremblay, M. S. (2015). What is the relationship between risky outdoor play and health in children? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 12(6), 6423-6454.

  • Ginsburg, K. R. (2007). The importance of play in promoting healthy child development and maintaining strong parent-child bonds. Pediatrics, 119(1), 182–191.

  • Gray, P. (2011). The decline of play and the rise of psychopathology in children and adolescents. American Journal of Play, 3(4), 443–463.

  • Gurian, M. (2010). The Wonder of Boys: What Parents, Mentors and Educators Can Do to Shape Boys into Exceptional Men. TarcherPerigee.

  • Landreth, G. L. (2012). Play Therapy: The Art of the Relationship (3rd ed.). Routledge.

  • Pellegrini, A. D., & Smith, P. K. (1998). Physical activity play: The nature and function of a neglected aspect of play. Child Development, 69(3), 577–598.

  • Russ, S. W., & Wallace, C. E. (2013). Pretend play and creative processes. American Journal of Play, 6(1), 136–148.

  • Yogman, M., Garner, A., Hutchinson, J., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2018). The power of play: A pediatric role in enhancing development in young children. Pediatrics, 142(3), e20182058.

Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals