Conversations about young men’s mental health often return to a familiar idea: men need to open up more. While there is some truth in this, it does not fully capture the complexity of the issue. It places emphasis on the individual without always considering the conditions that shaped how that individual learned to relate to his own thoughts and emotions.
Boys do not develop emotional restriction in isolation. They are, in many ways, guided into it. From an early age, emotional expression is not treated as entirely neutral. Certain emotions are reinforced, while others are subtly discouraged. Anger, competitiveness, and composure tend to be more acceptable, while sadness, fear, or uncertainty are often redirected or minimized. Over time, these repeated experiences begin to form underlying beliefs, not always consciously, but in ways that shape how internal experiences are interpreted.
A boy may not explicitly think, “I am not allowed to feel sad.” Instead, the belief takes on a quieter form: “I shouldn’t feel this,” or “If I do feel this, I shouldn’t show it.” Emotion itself is not the issue. It is the meaning assigned to it. The result is not that emotion disappears, but that access to it becomes filtered, sometimes to the point where it feels distant or difficult to identify. This is often where concerns such as anxiety and depression begin to emerge in less recognizable ways, sometimes long before someone considers therapy or counseling.
Masculinity is often discussed as though it were a fixed trait. In practice, it functions more like a set of expectations. Raewyn Connell conceptualizes masculinity as something socially constructed, shaped by cultural and interpersonal dynamics rather than something inherent. These expectations tend to emphasize independence, control, and emotional steadiness. While none of these qualities are inherently problematic, they can become restrictive when they are experienced as requirements rather than preferences.
Over time, these expectations often shift into rigid internal rules. Not simply “it would be good to be strong,” but “I must be strong.” Not “I prefer to manage things on my own,” but “I should never need help.” When these rules become absolute, they leave little room for normal human experiences such as uncertainty, dependency, or vulnerability. Masculinity can then begin to feel less like an authentic expression of self and more like something that must be maintained.
There is also research suggesting that masculinity is often experienced as something that is difficult to earn and easy to lose. This creates a heightened sensitivity to how one is perceived. Behaviors, thoughts, and even emotional responses may be monitored and adjusted in order to maintain that identity. In this context, vulnerability is not simply uncomfortable. It becomes uncertain.
If vulnerability is associated with weakness, loss of control, or social risk, then avoiding it follows a certain logic. From a cognitive perspective, this is not irrational. If the belief is “I should not appear weak,” and vulnerability is interpreted as weakness, then avoiding vulnerability becomes a way of maintaining consistency with that belief. What may appear externally as emotional avoidance is often better understood as adherence to internalized rules.
This becomes particularly relevant in psychotherapy and counseling. Individuals may present with difficulty identifying or articulating their internal experiences. This is not necessarily resistance. It can reflect a longstanding pattern of minimizing or filtering emotional states. Over time, when emotions are repeatedly dismissed or reinterpreted, they can become less distinct. Instead of clearly defined feelings, they may present as irritability, restlessness, fatigue, or a general sense that something is wrong without being able to specify what that is. Many individuals enter therapy at this point, not because they lack emotion, but because they have learned not to recognize it.
The broader context is important. Research on the mental health of boys and young men has consistently shown that rigid adherence to traditional masculine norms, particularly those emphasizing emotional control and self-reliance, is associated with lower rates of help-seeking and poorer mental health outcomes, including anxiety, depression, and increased risk of suicide . At the same time, many young men are less likely to engage in counseling or psychotherapy until distress becomes more severe.
At the developmental level, this pattern is not inevitable. Work by Niobe Way suggests that boys are often emotionally expressive and relationally oriented earlier in life. The shift toward emotional restriction tends to occur later, as social expectations become more pronounced and the perceived cost of vulnerability increases. Her talk expands on this idea in more depth here: https://www.tedmed.com/talk/why-boys-will-be-boys-is-a-myth-and-a-harmful-one-at-that/
From a cognitive and behavioral standpoint, the difficulty is often not the presence of emotion, but the evaluation of that emotion. When someone believes “I should not feel anxious,” anxiety becomes something to resist. When the belief is “I must always be in control,” vulnerability becomes something to suppress. The emotional experience is not only felt, but judged. It is this secondary layer, the interpretation of the feeling as unacceptable, that contributes significantly to distress and can reinforce cycles of anxiety and depression. Approaches such as cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) often focus on identifying and restructuring these types of beliefs.
A more useful approach may not be to eliminate masculinity, but to expand it. Qualities such as resilience, independence, and confidence can still be valued, while also allowing space for emotional awareness and connection. This does not require abandoning strength, but redefining it in a way that includes flexibility.
When internal beliefs shift, even slightly, the impact can be significant. Moving from “I must not feel this” to “I do not like this feeling, but I can tolerate it” reduces the intensity of the response and allows for greater emotional regulation. This creates a foundation for developing awareness, improving communication, and increasing willingness to engage in support, whether through therapy, counseling, or other forms of connection.
Young men are not struggling because they lack emotional capacity. They are often navigating a set of learned expectations about what they should and should not feel, and how they are supposed to respond to those experiences. Recognizing this does not remove responsibility from the individual, but it does place their experience within a broader and more accurate context.
As these internal rules become more flexible, it becomes easier to engage with one’s internal experience in a way that is less judgmental and more adaptive. The conversation then shifts. Not simply toward encouraging young men to open up, but toward helping them develop a different relationship with what they are experiencing in the first place.
References
Connell, Raewyn. (1995). Masculinities. University of California Press.
Connell, Raewyn, & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender & Society, 19(6), 829–859.
Way, Niobe. (2011). Deep Secrets: Boys’ Friendships and the Crisis of Connection. Harvard University Press.
Way, Niobe. (2018). Why “Boys Will Be Boys” Is a Myth—and a Harmful One at That. TEDMED.
https://www.tedmed.com/talk/why-boys-will-be-boys-is-a-myth-and-a-harmful-one-at-that/
Rice, S. M., Purcell, R., & McGorry, P. D. (2018). Adolescent and young adult male mental health: Transforming system failures into proactive models of engagement. The Lancet Public Health, 3(1), e4–e5.
Addis, M. E., & Mahalik, J. R. (2003). Men, masculinity, and the contexts of help seeking. American Psychologist, 58(1), 5–14.Wong, Y. J., Ho, M.-H. R., Wang, S.-Y., & Miller, I. S. K. (2017). Meta-analyses of the relationship between conformity to masculine norms and mental health-related outcomes. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 64(1), 80–93.