According to Gilles Tremblay and Pierre L’heureux (2009) in their work Genesis of the Construction of the Male Identity, gender socialization for boys is more risky. This was articulated from the sense that boys lack adequate male role models. The analysts cited adult male insecurity in identifying men who are reluctant to seek help when it is needed, because they are ashamed. Male chauvinism pushes them from revealing their true emotional identity. Subsequently, they are socialized into hiding emotions, thinking that true expression of their fears is femininity since only girls cry. This is told to them even by their mothers and fathers when they are present in the homes (Laker, 2009).
As such, the development of true gender masculinity is caught up in a series of activities pertaining to differences in how boys behave in relation to girls and not as a purely gender orientation process. Gender socialization for boys is therefore, more risky because they ought to learn free express of their sexuality and be proud boys emerging into a gentleman character category sturdy/firm yet emotionally stabled. This philosophy must be inculcated irrespective of race, ethnic identity or socio-economic conditions engulfing their existence (Laker, 2009).
Hence, triple dissociation and shame determines how gender identity is articulated and ultimately formed. Therefore, when boys ask themselves the questions who am I and where I am going it becomes very difficult to answer. Sincerely, who they truly are culminates as humans functioning, as physical, social and spiritual beings. The only difference between their identities with those of girls is that girls were born with reproductive organs, which are complementary to theirs. Ultimately, the riskiness of today’s world creates further risks in gender socialization for boys (Laker, 2009).
Laker, Jason. Canadian Perspectives on Men and Masculinities. Oxford University Press. 2009.