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.

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.

Context Matters: Why This Article's Tone Is Especially Misplaced

It’s important to note that this article (Men in feminism: A self-determination perspective and goals for the future.) was published in a special issue of Psychology of Men & Masculinities, themed “Uncharted Territory” and intended to explore the possible future of research on men and boys. That context makes the tone and framing of this particular piece all the more jarring. The article isn’t a research study but an opinion-based essay focused on promoting strategies to increase male support for feminism. What? While such a topic might make sense in a feminist journal, its placement in a journal dedicated to understanding men and boys—and especially one tasked with envisioning their future—seems oddly out of place.

Rather than offering new insights into how men might thrive, heal, or participate meaningfully in future gender discussions, the article reverts to a familiar script: men are framed as the problem, their psychological needs treated as secondary, and their involvement tolerated only when it's filtered through feminist ideology.

The piece positions feminism not as a framework for mutual transformation, but as a moral litmus test — one that men must pass by internalizing guilt, accepting blame, and proving themselves worthy through re-education. Instead of exploring what it means to be a man in today’s world or considering the genuine challenges boys and men face, the article doubles down on one-sided concern. Feminism, it declares, is a “nuanced and multifaceted movement that aims to improve the lives of women.” Really?

If this is what the future of men’s studies is supposed to look like — a repackaging of guilt and exclusion — then it offers little to the men it claims to engage.

Coercion in Disguise: The SDT Contradictions

What’s especially troubling is how the article invokes Self-Determination Theory (SDT) as a framework — while blatantly disregarding its foundational principles. SDT emphasizes intrinsic motivation, rooted in three key psychological needs: autonomy (freedom of choice), competence (a sense of effectiveness), and relatedness (a feeling of connection and belonging).

Yet the article undercuts autonomy from the start by quoting ​Bell ​Hooks approvingly:

“Sexism and sexist oppression... can only be successfully eradicated if men are compelled to assume responsibility.”

Compelled? That directly contradicts the heart of SDT. Autonomy means choosing to engage out of personal conviction — not guilt, coercion, or external pressure. Framing men’s involvement in feminism as something they must do or be blamed for failing to do strips the motivation of all autonomy.

Worse still, the article insists repeatedly that even when men do participate, they should not expect empathy or appreciation. Instead, they are reminded:

“Satisfying men’s psychological needs does not mean absolving them from responsibility for ways they contribute to gender inequality and sexist oppression.”

Even when men try to help, they are portrayed as morally compromised — always in debt, never fully trustworthy. That guilt-laden framing suffocates genuine engagement.

The article also centers on women's needs exclusively, showing no reciprocal curiosity or concern about men’s experiences, values, or pain. It also relieves feminist women from any responsibility to be patient, non-judgmental or even make the men feel welcome. The goal is not dialogue — it’s correction. This is captured clearly in lines such as:

“It is not feminist women’s responsibility to make men feel welcome or to agree with men, adding emotional labor on top of gendered oppression.”

And:

“We do not mean to imply, however, that it is women’s responsibility to provide patient and non-judgmental spaces for men as this places an additional burden on women.”

So if feminist women are not responsible who is? The article recommends that rather than feminist women helping men understand feminism they should farm out that task to male feminists. This outsourcing of the task to feminist men — rather than encouraging feminist women to engage directly — creates a dynamic where emotional safety is offered only if men are already ideologically compliant:

“Women have good reasons for not trusting men immediately.”

There is no vision of mutual growth or shared humanity. Men are to be “retrained” by others — not included as equals. This fails to model dialogue or mutuality and instead sets up a hierarchy: feminist women as gatekeepers of virtue, men as potential liabilities who must prove themselves.

The result is a message that frames men as morally obligated to support women because of their supposed complicity in oppression, offers no space for their own stories or struggles, and then bars them from expecting even the basic empathy that would allow for meaningful exchange.

This isn’t just intellectually inconsistent — it’s emotionally cold and strategically self-defeating. It asks men to invest in a movement that clearly does not care whether they feel welcomed, understood, or respected. In doing so, the article violates not only the principles of SDT, but any realistic pathway toward lasting engagement or authentic partnership.**

A Better Way Forward: Respect, Not Re-education

For more than 50 years, our public institutions, media, and educational systems have focused intensely on the needs and struggles of women and girls. Perhaps it’s time we reverse the lens — to spend the next 50 years focusing just as deeply on boys and men.

Imagine this: billions of dollars dedicated to researching male development, crafting education and healthcare systems tailored to boys’ needs, launching public campaigns about male well-being, creating commissions and councils that advocate solely for men’s voices. And while all this unfolds, women and girls are politely asked to wait on the sidelines — to watch without participating, without complaint, as the cultural spotlight shifts away from them.

Would that feel fair?

For many women, such a proposal would feel outrageous — as if their lives, their needs, their experiences were being brushed aside. And that reaction is exactly the point.

Because for the past half-century, that is precisely how many men have felt: ignored, blamed, and left out of the conversation. While women were told “you matter,” men were told to man up. While girls’ self-esteem, safety, and education were prioritized, boys quietly fell behind — in school, in mental health, in family life. And yet, few women stopped to ask: What about the boys?

If the idea of sidelining women now feels wrong, then perhaps it’s time to acknowledge how wrong it was to sideline men for so long. The belief that men were powerful oppressors who deserved no empathy was a cultural myth — one that too many accepted without question. And the damage of that myth is now all around us.

We don’t need to swap one form of exclusion for another. What we need is balance. We need to understand that men have struggles, too — and they deserve just as much care, compassion, and attention. Real progress doesn’t come from focusing on just one sex. It comes from listening to both.

Let’s stop pretending that empathy is a limited resource. There’s enough to go around. But first, we have to be willing to offer some to the half of the population who has gone without it for far too long.

Journal
https://www.apa.org/pubs/highlights/spotlight/future-boys-men-masculinities

Article
https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fmen0000480