Sofia Harris

Research Paper (Final Draft)

Sofia Harris

Professor Blower

HI 303 A1

4 May 2023

How Society’s Expectations of Masculinity Create Negative Connotations Surrounding Boys Having Close Maternal Relationships

As a child, the best sound in the world were those three dings that played over the school speaker, the ones that indicated that class had ended and that recess had begun. The school playground was the best place for a kid like me: I could swing on the monkey bars with the self-proclaimed gymnasts, play tag with the kids who lived for gym class, play pretend with the aspiring actors, or braid hair and learn all of the gossip from the fifth grade girls. I had all of the freedom in the world on the elementary school playground; the boys in my class, however, did not. Their only options were to either play tag or spend the entire recess playing with a ball, even if that meant kicking it against the wall for the entirety of the recess. But if one of the boys in my class were to be seen braiding hair with us girls or even crying from tripping on the asphalt ground, they would be laughed at and called the worst insult of all: a sissy.

Throughout this essay, I will like to delve into the phenomenon of “daddy’s girls” and “momma’s boys.” I remember the boys who I went to elementary school with that were called “momma’s boys” were often seen as “not masculine enough” because they had a strong attachment to their mother. Which, thinking about this logically, seems a bit ironic because children should be attached to their parents; afterall, they are the ones who take care of the children. As we travel back through time, there seems to be a long history of negative connotations about momma’s boys and sissys, but not daddy’s girls. And although we could focus on the nature vs. nurture arguments about why children grow into the people they are, I would like to focus on the evolution of gender norms and argue that society’s high expectations of boys to demonstrate their masculinity and high tolerance of  “tomboys” changes parenting expectations and therefore society’s positive and negative connotations with momma’s boys or a daddy’s girls.

In order to find the origins of momma’s boys and daddy’s girls, it is necessary to find the moment in time when childhood started being viewed as something special and different from adulthood. The Puritans, for example, considered children to be demonic beings who needed to be suppressed because their actions, such as crawling and constant whining, were viewed as unholy. It was not uncommon for Puritan families to dress their infants in long robes in order to reduce crawling and suppress their children’s “demonic” actions.

Puritan families often even sent their children to other families, this was known as “putting out,” and it was done in avoidance of raising their children with too much affection (1). After the American Revolution, however, society’s view of childhood began to shift. The unthinking obedience to God that the Puritans instilled in their children began to become revised because the country was no longer a monarchy where citizens mindlessly followed their leader, it was under a self-governed democracy that required its citizens to think for themselves. At this point, children were no longer viewed as mini adults; instead, they were viewed as people with their own distinctive needs and impulses, malleable people who society could shape and mold into critically thinking citizens.

Post-revolution childhood was only something that the wealthiest of children could experience, less fortunate children had to spend their days working to support their families. The majority of families relied on income from their children to stay afloat. In a 1975 report on manufacturers, Alexander Hamilton argued that child labor was essential to the country’s economic growth (2). Not only was child labor crucial to familial income, but it was also vital to the entire country’s economy. Although young boys earned more money than young girls; it did not matter what the gender of your child was, both boys and girls had to work. Many parents at this time took the advice of leading pediatrician, Luther Emmet Holt, who essentially set the standards for raising children. Holt believed that childcare was something scientific because childhood should be about suiting the next generation for the modern work environment (3). So although childhood was special and different from adulthood, it was something that prepared them for adulthood and a life of work.

It was not until the end of the nineteenth century that childhood split into girlhood and boyhood, life paths that were treated completely different from each other. As the concern over gender blurring grew in the early twentieth century, babies' clothes became gendered. As David Macelot wrote, children’s clothing had always been androgynous up to this point (4). As seen with the Puritans’ infant clothes, both male and female babies wore long robes. All children wore dresses, regardless of their gender up until this point (as shown in the portrait of a boy in green and most likely a girl in yellow below). The opposite of a boy had never been a girl, it had always been a man. But families now felt a great pressure to distinguish their sons from daughters, so they dressed each other differently. This gendering of infant clothes was also driven by the United States having a capitalist economy; because parents could no longer pass down clothes between their sons and daughters, they had to purchase twice the amount of clothes.

Although clothing may seem like something meaningless to one’s identity, it actually plays a significant role in how people are perceived. Even though children of the time did not have much choice over their outfits everyday, what they wore implied a lot about whoever was dressing them, or even who society wanted the child to be. Dresses, which used to be worn by children of all genders, linked childhood with woman hood; whereas pants, which were easier to move in, represented that boys had more liberty and freedom. Because people were now partaking in gendered clothing from a younger age, the pressure to conform to society’s gender norms were now being placed on children, something that was previously a pressure placed solely on adults.

With girlhood and boyhood being considered as completely different experiences, parents were given different guidance on how to raise their sons and how to raise their daughters. Boyhood developed into something that Americans felt was a new and unique experience, and people began to create an idea of what it meant to be a “good boy,” and that was a self-restrained boy. Ministers, doctors, and parents all grew to become concerned over boys’ sexuality. People like Sylvester Graham advised parents to feed their sons bland food, claiming that it would reduce sexual desires (5). 

Girls, on the other hand, were free from sexual attention. It was not until a girl began her menstrual cycle that her freedoms became limited; women were advised not to run after reaching sexual maturity, had to deal with pregnancies and motherhood, were told not to do anything taxing during their menstruation, and were restrained from anything superficial (even mirrors) because their character was what mattered most. So even though women had much stricter limitations as to what they could do, men had many more gender expectations to live up to.

Sophie Swett’s, The “Sissy” of the Family tells the story of a young boy who is viewed as the sissy of the family (6). While all of his older brothers work in the factory, he stays home and does housework with his mother, who is condemned for allowing a boy with such potential to do housework like a girl. This story shows how people believed that boys had greater capacities than girls and were expected to use that potential. People began to worry that mothers were overcivilization their sons; and out of fear that mothers were raising a generation of men who would not live up to society's expectations, mothers were advised to distance themselves from their sons. Gertrude Neil’s, With Children and Youth: Boys Must be Boys, for example, tells the story of Mrs. Ross, who is informed by a boy in the neighborhood that she is so overprotective of her son that the other boys call her son a sissy (7). And even though Mrs. Ross worries about her son, she eventually allows him to get dirty and play with the other boys. Mrs. Ross’ story was reinforcing the notion that all boys should be strong and tough, and that spending too much time with their overprotective mothers will inhibit them from becoming “manly men.”

In hopes that boys playing roughly with other boys would develop their thick skin, parents gained a high tolerance for what would now be considered bullying. Because men had to  live up to this standard of being strong, unbothered, and unemotional; boys were encouraged to play aggressively with each other, and any behavior that imposed emotional or physical harm onto other boys was brushed off and justified as “boys being boys.” While women were expected to present themselves with outward markers of their feminism (such as shaving, braces and teeth whitening, nail care, skin care, cosmetics, hair curling, etc.), there was more leniency in their need to prove their femininity. There was a higher tolerance for masculine girls in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries; girls who were more masculine were labeled as “tomboys” and were socially acceptable; boys who tended to gravitate towards what society deemed to be feminine, however, were less socially acceptable.

Growing up in the early 2000s, I had always proudly identified myself as a “daddy’s girl.” Because my sister and I spent the majority of our lives going to different schools, my mom would often get my sister ready and my dad would often get me ready for school. By the time I had reached elementary school, I was a miniature version of my dad. I would always bang my head to his 80s rock music, make an effort to watch the same cartoons he told me he watched as a kid, and even drank kiefer because it was one of his favorite drinks. Growing up, I essentially worshiped the ground that my father walked on. Both my mother and father received praise for having close bonds and good relationships with their daughters; but I know that if either my sister or I was a boy, my mother would not receive as much praise as my father would for having a good relationship with their son. Kate Lombardi writes about how people consider a good father-daughter relationship essential to a girl’s well-being, but a mother who is as involved in her son’s life as a father is expected to be in his daughter’s life would be viewed as coddling or smothering mother (8). There is no fear of fathers masculinizing their daughters, but there is a large stigma and fear surrounding mothers feminizing their sons. Boys are often described to be “in crisis” whether it is falling behind girls in school, becoming anxious about living up to society’s masculine standards, or dealing with more behavioral issues than girls. A study conducted by Dr. Michael Kimmel, published in Child Development, actually points out that boys who are distant with their mothers from a young age develop anxiety, trust issues, and behavioral problems because the woman who is supposed to love them most is not there for them (9). So this fear that mothers felt of turning their sons into momma’s boys caused many to distance themselves from their sons in hopes of setting their sons up for a future of fitting in; but in the end, it actually did more harm than it did good.

Because it is more socially acceptable for girls who want to express themselves in ways that society would typically deem masculine, there is no fear of fathers masculinizing their daughters like there is for mothers feminizing their sons. And with fathers having a much more positive connotation of having close relationships with their children, men have less of a hesitancy to have close relationships with their daughters than mothers do with their sons. Ellyse Givens’ talks about how much of an important role her close relationship with her father played in her life (10). As she grew and matured, so did her relationship with her father; and she describes this father-daughter relationship as shaping her into the person she is today. This modern portrayal of a daddy’s girl has no negative connotations and demonstrates how influential and beneficial a paternal relationship with a child is. 

As of very recently in American history, maternal relationships with sons have slowly started to become more normalized as there is less fear surrounding men that display what society views as feminine traits. Drag queens, for example, are men who dress in extravagant dresses with over-the-top make-up and wigs; and not only are they accepted, but they are widely embraced, some even being beloved celebrities. Although momma’s boys have historically been viewed as something to be ashamed of, Neda Ulaby writes about how they are now something that many men are proud of (11). Due to the long history of Americans having a close eye on young boys and how they should be raised, this new found appreciation for a mother-son relationship is slowly deconstructing society’s idea of what it means to be a man. 

End Notes

(1) Morgan, The Puritan Family, 77-79

(2) Alexander Hamilton, “Children and Manufactures,” eds. Paula Fass, Mary Ann Mason, Childhood in America (New York: New York University Press, 2000) 248.

(3)  Luther Emmet Holt, The Care and Feeding of Children: A Catechism for the Use of Mothers and Children’s Nurses (New York: Appleton and Company, 1907): 88-90.

(4)  David Macleod, The Age of the Child, 63-64

(5) Natalie O’Neill, The Graham Cracker was Invented to Stop you from Masturbating

(6) Sophie Swett, The Sissy of the Family

(7)  Gertrude Neil, With Children and Youth: Boys Must be Boys

(8) Lombardi, The Myth of the Mama’s Boy

(9) Kimmel, Child Development

(10) Givens, Daddy’s Girl: a deliberation on drives with dad

(11) Ulaby, ‘Mama’s boy’ is a flex, not an insult, for a new generation of men

About the Author