A recent surge in psychological and sociological research has ignited debate about how families should raise boys, with new findings showing that affectionate, patient, and emotionally engaged parenting is just as crucial for sons as it is for daughters—even more so, in some cases. This growing body of evidence, highlighted in a recent Atlantic feature, challenges long-held beliefs about masculinity, toughness, and what boys truly need to thrive, both in Western contexts and, importantly, for parents and educators across Thailand grappling with similar generational pressures.
For years, common wisdom—reinforced in both Thai and global culture—has dictated that boys should be raised to be “tough,” resistant to pain, and stoic in the face of emotional hardship. Parents often invest extra time, affection, and conversational engagement in their daughters, assuming boys are naturally more resilient. However, recent research surveys spanning the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada have found that parents talk, read, and sing more to their young daughters than sons, and even report feeling closer to their daughters during early childhood. Longitudinal data from the late 1990s, analyzed by economists Marianne Bertrand and Jessica Pan, showed that parents with sons were more likely to feel too busy for emotional engagement and play, leading to a growing “nurture gap” as children aged.
Further observational studies reinforce this pattern. For instance, a 2014 study revealed mothers chatted more to daughters’ early vocalizations, and mothers in general played more often and gave greater comfort to girls. Fathers, meanwhile, tended to use emotionally focused language with daughters and competition-related talk with sons, suggesting boys face subtle but constant social policing around what emotions are allowed. The cumulative effect, experts argue, is that boys are often starved for the same patient, nurturing guidance that affords girls advantages in emotional regulation and mental health.
“It’s not just that boys are more aggressive or rambunctious,” noted one leading journalist on the topic. “By almost every measure, boys are more sensitive, fragile, and emotionally vulnerable.” This runs counter to widespread perceptions in both global and Thai society. In Thailand, traditional sayings such as “ลูกผู้ชายต้องเข้มแข็ง” (“a son must be strong”) echo similar messages, encouraging families to discourage tears and mask emotional pain.
What’s particularly striking about the latest research is the biological underpinning: scholars such as UCLA’s Allan N. Schore have shown that boys’ stress-regulation brain circuits mature more slowly than girls’, making them less proficient at managing difficult emotions. The British psychiatrist Sebastian Kraemer found that, from conception, boys lag roughly a month behind girls in development, and are more sensitive to disruptions in caregiving. If parents withdraw affection or become overwhelmed by boys’ high-energy behavior, researchers argue, the risk of later emotional or conduct disorders only increases. Indeed, men are statistically more at risk for behavioral problems and violence, with root causes often linked to early deprivation of responsive caregiving.
Socioeconomic context strongly magnifies these trends. In both Western and Thai settings, boys in poor, single-parent, or overstressed households fare particularly poorly in academic and emotional development compared to girls, according to research by Bertrand, Pan, and UK-based analysts. In Thailand, this intersects with rising numbers of migrant worker families and single-mother households amid persistent economic strains, making early social support and attentive parenting especially crucial for boys’ future educational and social outcomes.
Culturally, these dynamics are reinforced—not only by fathers but also by mothers—through expectations that equate masculinity with endurance, reticence, and dominance. Yet, as several experts stressed, tenderness and empathy are not just “feminine traits” but fundamentals of human development. Historian Stephanie Coontz traced the origin of harsh masculinity back to the 19th-century Western industrial era, when public affection between men declined and toughness became a parental ideal. In the Thai context, similar shifts occurred in parallel with urbanization, the adoption of Western educational models, and changing conceptions of patriarchy and national identity.
Amid this, the pressure on boys to conform can backfire dramatically. Studies reviewed in the Atlantic article found that “masculine discrepancy stress”—the sense of failing to meet societal standards for manhood—correlates strongly with higher rates of violence, including intimate partner and gun violence. These findings echo local concerns in Thailand about rising youth violence, bullying, and a spike in adolescent mental health crises, particularly among boys who struggle to express vulnerability or seek help.
Experts warn, however, that merely reversing scripts and smothering boys with attention won’t solve the problem. UC Berkeley psychologist Philip Cowan points out that even as fathers in the US and other countries are encouraged to show more tenderness, societal and spousal expectations often undercut these efforts. The same patterns can be observed anecdotally in Thailand, where attempts by men to be emotionally engaged parents sometimes face skepticism from older relatives or suspicion of being “soft.”
Political and media narratives also complicate the picture. Globally, influencers on the political right often promote “ornamental” masculinity—equating manhood with dominance and sarcasm—while left-leaning voices sometimes inadvertently shame boys and men as “toxic,” leaving them alienated. Thai public discourse occasionally echoes these divides, with national figures and pop culture icons oscillating between calls for boys to be stronger and appeals for more compassionate masculinity.
Given that even the most attentive parenting can’t fully protect boys from these cultural storms, researchers argue that a new paradigm is needed—one that integrates emotional sensitivity, agency, and nurturance in children of all genders. “We should focus on raising good people and de-emphasize masculinity and femininity,” one sociologist concluded. The lessons are clear: Empathy, care, and affirmation are not luxuries but essentials for every child’s neural and emotional architecture.
For Thai families, the implications are profound. Existing state efforts to support early childhood development—such as preschools’ integration of emotional learning and healthcare providers’ screening for developmental delays—could be further enhanced by initiatives to educate parents and teachers about these gendered nurture gaps. Family support programs, particularly for single-parent and low-income households, should explicitly address boys’ heightened vulnerability and the special pressures cultural messaging imposes. Community role models, especially monks, teachers, and respected local elders, can powerfully reframe masculinity for the younger generation by openly affirming gentleness, patience, and emotional expressiveness.
Schools, too, can do more to counter the trend. Instead of channeling boys primarily into physical activities or encouraging competition above all, Thai teachers and counselors might accompany these with deliberate efforts to foster storytelling, collaborative projects, and group reflections where boys have space to feel heard. Given the high stakes around academic disengagement and behavioral issues among Thai boys, these changes could have far-reaching effects for both schooling outcomes and long-term social harmony.
Looking ahead, the next decade offers a unique opportunity. Just as efforts to empower girls helped transform education and career opportunities for Thai women, so too could a deliberate shift toward nurturing boys—a “revolution in boyhood,” as some experts call it—help build a generation better equipped for the emotional and social demands of contemporary Thailand. Of course, entrenched attitudes will not change overnight, and it may take years for the effects of such a revolution to yield visible results. But, as research continues to show, helping boys thrive is not merely a family concern; it is fundamental to the nation’s future well-being.
For Thai parents, educators, and policymakers seeking actionable steps, the message from current research is clear:
- Make time for daily, non-pressured conversations with boys, starting in infancy.
- Encourage and validate boys’ expression of a range of emotions, including vulnerability and sadness.
- Avoid language and stereotypes that equate emotional need with weakness.
- Support fathers and male caretakers in adopting nurturing, emotionally open roles.
- Push back against media and societal narratives that define masculinity in rigid or damaging terms.
The benefits, say researchers and advocates, will ripple outward—not only in happier, healthier sons, but also in safer schools, more resilient communities, and a more empathetic national culture.
Sources: The Atlantic, British Medical Journal, National Institutes of Health, University of California, Los Angeles