Child Psych Podcast Episode #122

[Tammy Schamuhn] Hello everyone, and welcome to the 2024 Children’s Mental Health and Parenting Summit. We are so excited to have Michael Gurian with us today. Thank you for joining us!

[Michael Gurian] My pleasure, thanks for having me.

[Tammy] Yeah, I’m gonna call you Mike if that’s okay. 

[Michael] Great.

[Tammy] Perfect. We’re going to be talking about boys and their brains, discussing how to support their emotional intelligence and learning styles, and touching on some aspects of the current political climate in the Western world. I’m really excited for this interview because I’m deeply immersed in Mike’s research, especially as a boy mom.

 

The Gurian Institute, which he co-founded, conducts research internationally, launches pilot programs, and trains professionals. He has been called “the people’s philosopher” for his ability to connect ordinary lives with scientific ideas. Michael has pioneered efforts to bring neurobiology and brain research into homes, schools, corporations, and public policy. A number of his books have sparked national debate, including The Wonder of Girls, The Wonder of Boys, and Boys and Girls Learn Differently—which is one of my favorite books you’ve written. The Minds of Boys and the one I just finished reading, Saving Our Sons, also stand out. And you have another book coming out called Boys: A Rescue Plan. Did I get that right?

[Michael] Yep, coming out soon.

[Tammy] Mike has spoken at the United Nations on violence against women, provided insights on boys’ and girls’ educational needs at the White House, and briefed members of the 114th Congress on the boy crisis in America. Thank you so much for joining us today.

[Michael] My pleasure, thanks for having me.

[Tammy] Yeah, my gosh, I don’t even know where to start with you. I just want to pick your brain! I absolutely love the science that backs up all of your work and the meta-analysis you include—it’s just beautiful. I think we’ve experienced a pendulum swing. We wanted to support girls, and we did—but for a long time, we were unintentionally doing them a disservice. Now, I feel like our boys are facing a crisis. We saw a crisis among girls, and now we’re seeing one with boys.

We’ve focused so much on gender equality that we’ve forgotten boys learn differently. Their brains function differently. I suppose we should clarify that this is really about sex equality because, as I know you differentiate, gender is more of a social construct. We’ll be sure to explain that before anyone gets too upset. So let’s dive into this crisis. Maybe we can start by discussing how you define the difference between gender and sex in this debate.

[Michael] Okay, so let’s start with the statistics. What we call the boy crisis—this isn’t new. When I wrote The Wonder of Boys 30 years ago, we could already see it happening. In that book, I pointed out the statistics and warned about what was coming. This has never been an anti-female issue. We live in equity-focused cultures, and we have the resources to help everyone. To me, this was never a zero-sum game or a debate against anyone else. It was simply about recognizing that even 30 years ago, boys were already falling behind—in college enrollment, in education overall. And now, things have only gotten worse. Look at the statistics today—suicide rates, fentanyl addiction, mental health disorders, and neurodevelopmental conditions like ASD and ADHD. The numbers are alarming. And beyond that, we now have boys who struggle to develop and mature. We’ll discuss this today, particularly how, for political reasons, we abandoned healthy male development in the West about 50 years ago. But we need to rethink that approach because the data is undeniable. That’s not to say that women and girls don’t face challenges. Post-COVID, we’ve seen a rise in overt depression, anxiety, and social anxiety disorder among women and girls. So again, this is not a zero-sum issue. For males, however, we see a lot of covert depression and what I call the disease of violence—which manifests in addiction, suicide, fentanyl abuse, and withdrawal from society. You may have heard terms like diseases of loneliness or diseases of despair—and overwhelmingly, males are dying from these conditions across the lifespan. So while our focus today is on boys, that does not diminish the struggles of girls and women. In fact, ensuring that boys and men are healthy benefits everyone. It’s good for society, for families, for relationships. Healthy boys and men contribute to the well-being of girls and women, and we all benefit from a society where both genders thrive.

The Science of Sex Differences: Understanding How Boys and Girls Learn Differently

[Tammy] Absolutely. And I really like this quote from one of your books. I’ve read multiple books of yours, so I’m pulling insights from everywhere, Mike. You say, “Ensuring gender equality for girls and women does not require gender sameness.” What really stood out to me, especially in the first book of yours that I read, Boys and Girls Learn Differently—you should see how marked up my copy is, it’s insane. I was a teacher before I became a psychologist. I taught kindergarten and third grade, and I’m telling you, my boys and girls were like two different creatures in how they learned and moved. I never really understood why. Now, as a mom to a boy—and, well, married to one too—I notice these differences even more. And it’s not just social. Can you touch on brain science a little bit? I have tons of notes here, but you’re the expert.

[Michael] Right. Yeah, yeah. So, sexual dimorphism is a very real thing. If you look at social media, you’ll sometimes see people claiming otherwise because of the political discussions around it. But in real life, sexual dimorphism is a scientific reality. Back in the late ’80s, I started using brain scans to show how differently male and female brains operate.

[Tammy] And just to clarify, we’re talking about chromosomal differences—X/Y versus X/X—so we’re really referring to biological sex differences. I always differentiate between gender and sex, and what Mike is discussing here are sex differences based on hormonal changes and chromosomal makeup. Right?

[Michael] Starting in the 1970s, a gradual shift occurred where everything switched from “sex” to “gender.” It was easier—easier for the Supreme Court, which was trying a case in the 1970s with Ruth Bader Ginsburg, easier for academics, and easier for the media. The term sex was associated with reproduction and the sex act, so everything shifted to gender. But gender is a social construct. I know we’ll talk about gender nonconformity and gender fluidity in this discussion, but gender is a social construct—it is not sex. Sex is determined by the X and Y chromosomes. XX results in a female, and XY results in a male. The Y chromosome triggers a process in the mother carrying the baby—it signals the release of a small amount of androgenic hormone into the womb, stimulating the testes to drop. During this four-to-five-month period, testosterone floods the male system but not the female system. That little baby boy is exposed to 10 to 20 times the amount of testosterone as a female. This remains true throughout life—males consistently produce 10 to 20 times more testosterone than females. Testosterone is a very powerful chemical that differentiates the male brain from the female brain. Now, there are approximately eight billion people on Earth—so there are four billion ways to be a boy and four billion ways to be a girl. That’s absolutely true. But those four billion ways to be a boy occur within the male brain, just as the four billion ways to be a girl occur within the female brain, due to sex differentiation in utero. By six months in utero, the fetus becomes immune to cross-sex hormones. At this point, the brain is already formed, and while there is significant variety, fundamental sex differences are present. As of 2019, fMRI scans have been used on fetuses, and by eight months in utero, scientists can already distinguish between a male and a female brain.

So, how did the shift to gender occur? In academic circles—what I call the “Big Three” (academia, government, and media)—the decision was made to equate equality with sameness. In the past 50 years, many of us in academia considered ourselves good feminists, committed to gender equality. But the mistake made was equating equality with sameness. To achieve equality, everyone had to be seen as the same—but this contradicted scientific reality. We all want equality, and we’ve made great strides for women. But men and women are not the same. The four billion boys and men, and the four billion girls and women, have brains that are wired differently. If you’d like, I can outline some clear, observable differences that everyone can recognize. Because of these differences, our systems—whether in education, the workplace, or healthcare—must understand boys and girls at the brain level. Nature, nurture, and culture all play a role, but if we don’t start with nature, our systems will fail to serve boys, girls, men, and women effectively. Fifty years ago, we made changes to accommodate women. We recognized that the female brain is different, that women have unique assets, and we adjusted our systems to support them. At that time, it was all about female assets—girls and women were recognized as female, and we worked to uplift their strengths. But over time, this focus shifted into gender discussions, which are rooted in social constructs. We still recognize that females bring valuable assets to the table. For example, when advocating for women in leadership positions, we emphasize the importance of their contributions, not because they are simply a gender category but because they are women, and we need their unique strengths. However, we are not doing the same for boys and men. Instead, we hear claims that “there is no male brain” and that we don’t need to acknowledge male-specific traits or needs. This imbalance must be addressed if we truly want to build systems that serve everyone. And so, that’s a mistake because now we have systems across the board—social-emotional development systems, counseling systems, education systems, governmental systems—that do not recognize that these individuals are male. As a result, we are losing them by the millions.

[Tammy] I think so. What was really helpful to me, especially as an educator who worked with young boys, and later as a mother and now a wife, was trying to better understand the boys in my life. One of the things that really spoke to me was recognizing the differences in how men process information. It’s completely different—where they spend time at rest within their brain, such as the limbic system versus the brain stem. I think we can talk more about that. Women process information faster and handle pain differently, whereas men tend to move toward pain. This information is mind-blowing. If you want to connect with a boy, you need to listen to Michael here—he will explain this in detail. And if you’re a teacher, he will show you how to accommodate these structural differences in your teaching style.

[Michael] Yeah, this matters to all systems—counseling systems, education systems. Okay, so let me explain. You can cut me off whenever you want, but I’ll take a few minutes to discuss brain differences so people can understand how significant this is. Building on what you said—girls and women have word centers on both sides of the brain, multiple word centers on each side. Male brains, on the other hand, are structured differently. We should mention that these differences arise because of genetic factors—XX, XY, and even variations like XXY or XYY. Even if someone is intersex, their brain will still lean toward either a male or female pattern. Despite all the variations, brain scans consistently reveal these differences. For instance, in girls and women, word centers exist on both sides of the brain. More importantly, these word centers are directly connected to the midbrain, where sensory processing, memory, and emotions occur. This means that the female brain moves emotive material up to the word centers very quickly. Not coincidentally, the female brain heavily relies on the frontal lobe—responsible for executive decision-making, impulse control, word production, and emotional processing. About 80% of a female’s brain activity happens in the frontal lobe. If a girl is sitting in a chair reading a book, 80% of her white matter and gray matter activity is concentrated in the frontal lobe. Meanwhile, a boy in the same scenario might have zero white matter activity in the frontal lobe and only 40% gray matter activity, compared to her 80%. This creates a significant gap—not just in word production and the ability to connect feelings and memories to words—but also in impulse control, executive function, and emotional processing. Then, there’s the difference in white and gray matter activity. The female brain uses about 10 times more white matter than the male brain. White matter, which is found in the myelin, connects different brain regions. As a result, a female brain can process and connect 20 or 30 different things at once using white matter activity.

[Tammy] It’s like telephone wires, right? So, processing speed is higher. Would you describe white matter as the telephone wires of the brain?

[Michael] Yeah, exactly. It’s like signals going everywhere, and she’s picking up information from all over. Now, he can also have fast processing, but only in the gray matter areas that dominate his brain. Males use up to seven times more gray matter activity. Gray matter exists in clusters throughout the brain, meaning it doesn’t spread signals as widely. Of course, men have white matter activity, and women have gray matter activity, but this distinction is significant. It means that, for example, whether you’re working with a heterosexual couple, a male client in a counseling session, or a boy in a classroom, understanding these differences is crucial. When a female is asked a question—such as, “How do you feel about that?”—especially in a social-emotional context, her brain can almost immediately process an answer. In contrast, a male brain, with fewer word centers, less connectivity, and operating more from gray matter areas (some of which have no emotional connectivity), may take 12 to 24 hours to process the same information. This phenomenon is known as the “male delayed reaction” because his brain is not dominated by white matter activity or frontal lobe processing; instead, he operates further back in the brain with less connectivity. If our systems don’t understand this, it can have serious consequences. For example, in early childhood settings, educators might unintentionally shut down male physical affection, touch attachment, and male emotional expression—what I call “aggression nurturance.” They might say, “You can’t do karate kicks,” or “You can’t touch that person,” or “You have to use your words.” But this issue starts at a very young age. Many teachers haven’t been trained in these brain differences. My team and I work closely with Head Start, and when we show educators brain scans, their minds are blown. They completely change their approach because they realize that shutting down this natural behavior is counterproductive. Boys bond through physical interaction, not just words. Telling a three-year-old boy to “use your words” all the time doesn’t work because he may not have the words yet. Instead, we need to find alternative ways to provide discipline and structure, recognizing that his emotional connectivity develops more slowly. This understanding impacts everything—counseling, education, relationships, and especially marriage. For example, if a woman asks her partner, “What do you think?” and he doesn’t immediately respond, she may feel abandoned or unvalidated. But in reality, he simply may not have an answer yet.

Understanding Gender Differences in Processing and Communication

[Tammy] No, my husband and I have had this conversation multiple times. Sometimes, he will come back to me the next day. I learned to navigate this years ago by approaching him with something that bothered me and saying, “I need you to think about this. This really upset me, but I don’t expect you to say anything right now. Can we come back to it tomorrow?” The next day, he always has something very thoughtful to say. In your book, I think you really delineated that men and boys spend a lot of time in their bodies, in their brainstem, and in the spatial world. As a result, it takes longer for information to work its way up to the executive functioning centers, which are responsible for language production and for connecting feelings and sensations into a coherent narrative. This process allows them to explain what’s going on for them, apologize, or clarify something. That’s why I always tell parents, when talking to their sons, to wait. Give them information, stop talking, and let them process it. Then, come back to it later. Most girls and women will be able to respond immediately, but my boys take a long time. As a therapist, I sometimes have to wait until the next session to revisit a conversation. You give them a little something, and then you return to it—because of that natural delay.

[Michael] Yeah, absolutely. I’ll give one example of how this works in the brain. When a stressor occurs—it could be a trauma, but it could also be an everyday stressor—the amygdala in both the male and female brain swells slightly as blood flow increases. This happens because the brain perceives the stressor as a threat. In the male brain, as you mentioned, the brainstem contains more fluid. When the amygdala, located in the midbrain, swells, more signaling is sent down into the brainstem and, consequently, into the body. In contrast, for females, that same stressor causes the amygdala to swell, but instead of sending signals downward, the activity is directed upward into the frontal lobe and word-processing centers. People can observe this in real life. I always encourage people to become citizen scientists and test it out. You’ll notice that boys, when faced with stress, often exhibit physical responses—they may want to hit something, run around, punch a punching bag, or engage in some kind of physical activity. Their body is somaticizing the stress, moving it down through the brainstem into their limbs and digits, and they attempt to release it through physical actions. If they do engage in verbal expression, it’s often a short burst—a quick cuss word or an outburst. I call this “quick male, quick burst activity.” For females, the process is different. While they can also have quick outbursts, statistically, they tend to process stress through words. They may internalize it, talk to a friend, or find other verbal ways to cope rather than expressing it physically. Understanding this difference is crucial when dealing with boys. It’s normal for them to somaticize their stress, and we need to guide them appropriately. We should teach them clear boundaries: “Here’s what you can hit, and here’s what you can’t hit.” For example, they can hit a punching bag, go for a run, or yell in their car—but they cannot hit people, pets, or any living things. This knowledge presents a perfect teaching opportunity for raising boys in a way that channels their natural tendencies productively. However, if we don’t understand this brain difference, we risk overreacting. We might misinterpret their physical reactions—like punching a punching bag, hitting their own knee, yelling in the car, cursing, or doing a fake karate kick—as signs of aggression or future violence. This is incorrect. Instead, we should encourage them to release their stress in appropriate ways while reinforcing the rule that they must never be violent toward others.

[Tammy] This is what I tell parents. I also teach a lot of psychologists how to do therapy with young boys. Last week, I was consulting with a therapist who works with young boys, and I asked, “Where are the swords, the handcuffs, the toy guns, the shields?” These boys need aggressive toys in the room. She responded, “Won’t the parents get mad?” I said, “If they aren’t allowed to be aggressive in playful ways, they will become violent in inappropriate ways.” Boys are meant to roughhouse. For a long time, we were hunter-gatherers, and there is a masculine element to this behavior. We see it in their play. While some girls may roughhouse, I rarely see them engage in sword fighting or gun play the way boys do. Parents are often amazed when they see play therapy in action. The boys pretend to kill me, cut off my legs, tie me up—they fully engage in this type of play. And then the parents say, “They’re not aggressive at home anymore.” That’s because they are supposed to do this. They are meant to develop hierarchical relationships, pummel each other, and challenge each other. I’m simply giving them a space to do it with me, but they should also be doing this with their dads and other kids. We make space for play and roughhousing so they don’t become violent.

[Michael] Yeah, absolutely. Even when working with early childhood teachers, we talk to them about this, and they figure out how it can be allowed within the rules. They see what you’re seeing and what others are observing. When they conduct their own citizen science on this, they realize, “Yeah, that actually makes sense.” I call this concept aggression-nurturance and empathy-nurturance. The female brain tends more toward empathy-nurturance, specifically because of the insula, which houses the mirror neurons that create empathy. A female’s brain fills up with mirror neurons, and her oxytocin cells actually increase her mirror neurons for empathy. Oxytocin is a bonding chemical, and females have more of it. In contrast, testosterone cells kill off mirror neurons, and males have more testosterone. So, what I’ve come to understand is that guys are still nurturing—but in a different way. For example, imagine a group of boys and girls playing a game of street hockey. They’re on rollerblades, using small nets, and they’re about 10 to 12 years old. I once saw this near my house. In the middle of the game, a little boy falls down. A girl on the opposing team stops playing, even though it’s a competition and she wants to win. She’s immediately hit with a surge of oxytocin and mirror neurons. She runs over and says, “Are you okay? Do you need a Band-Aid?” He has only slightly skinned his knee. Meanwhile, his team leader, a 12-year-old boy, skates over, looks down, sees that the boy is hurt but ultimately okay, and says:

“Get up, get up—we need you!” At first, people often assume that the girl’s response is better because she’s being empathic. But I argue that the boy is just as empathic—it’s aggression-nurturance. He’s using aggression to nurture. What he’s really saying is, “If you get back in this game, you’ll build self-esteem. You’re part of this team. We need you. You belong here. Your knee is fine, you’ll push through it.” And of course, the boy gets up and keeps playing. That’s resilience. So yes, it’s wonderful that the girl comes over to help—that’s empathy-nurturance, and we wouldn’t have civilization without it. But I would argue that we also wouldn’t have civilization without aggression-nurturance—the “Get up, get up, we need you!” mindset. This isn’t about shaming or dismissing emotions. It’s not “Don’t be a wuss” or “Stop crying.” The boy was a good leader. He was building grit. Aggression-nurturance—like boys roughhousing with each other, with girls, and with everyone—is part of the male tendency. It’s wired into the brain because of how the insula and male neurobiology function. If we recognize this, we can start changing our environments. We’ll stop disciplining boys so much for behaviors that are actually forms of nurturance—for actions that build resilience and connection. And recognizing this doesn’t change how we nurture girls; it just helps us understand boys better.

[Tammy] Well, I look at my husband. If our son were to fall and skin his knee, it would be the same thing—my husband would be more likely to say something like, “Get up, bud, you got this!” He’d dust him off and encourage him to keep going. It’s not that he’s ignoring the fact that our son fell—it’s just a different way of responding. Meanwhile, I’d be more likely to say, “Ouch, that must have hurt.” I’d use a more empathetic, verbal response. But through counseling boys, I’ve learned that they don’t typically respond well to too much helping or coddling. Instead, they do better when you increase the energy back up—encouraging them to move forward, to tackle the problem again. I often see dads take this approach, and moms sometimes get upset, thinking the father is invalidating their child’s pain. But in reality, this is often how boys communicate—they focus on momentum, resilience, and action rather than dwelling on discomfort. And that ties into valor—which maybe you could expand on further? There’s a certain sense of honor and bravery in the way men and boys navigate challenges, and I’d love to hear your thoughts on that.

[Michael] Yeah, yeah—valor, courage. What males are doing, and what I call this, is bi-strategic parenting. I also talk about multi-strategic parenting—so if you have an extended family system, your child benefits from multi-strategic parenting because multiple people are involved in raising them. But if we focus on just the nuclear family unit for a moment—let’s say in a heterosexual household with a male and a female—you have two different brain structures at play: a female brain and a male brain. Instead of telling parents to always be consistent in their parenting, wouldn’t it actually be better—just as it was for most of human history—to raise children bi-strategically or multi-strategically? Each parent brings unique strengths to parenting. In the case of a male-female dynamic, bi-strategic parenting means you have both a female-brained and male-brained approach, each contributing valuable skills and insights. That’s why I always encourage parents. Moms shouldn’t tell dads how to parent, and dads shouldn’t tell moms how to parent—unless, of course, someone is doing something truly harmful. But in general, both parents are parenting wisely from their own brain wiring. Each approach nurtures the child differently, and both are developmentally essential. I often hear moms say, “For the first few years, I parented one way, but then I realized my husband had some wisdom, so I let him do things his way—especially with our son, because he really understands him.” Now, when we talk about highly sensitive children (about 1 in 5 boys and girls), their needs can shift. These children—who often have highly sensitive skin, emotions, and nervous systems—tend to gravitate toward their moms in their first 10 years of life, before puberty. This makes sense because their moms are often providing more mirroring, empathy, and emotional support. But even for highly sensitive boys, once they hit puberty, it becomes important to introduce more of Dad’s influence—to develop resilience, confidence, and the ability to handle challenges. Aggression nurturance plays a key role in this stage, helping them function well in life. For children who aren’t highly sensitive, bi-strategic parenting should be balanced throughout their entire development. But for the highly sensitive ones, parents may need to adjust their involvement at different stages, ensuring the child gets the right mix of nurturing and resilience-building. In the end, bi-strategic parenting is incredibly important, and it allows children to grow up with a diverse set of strengths, prepared for both the emotional and practical challenges of life.

[Tammy] Yeah. Well, I think what you’re delineating is the role of men in parenting. And it doesn’t have to be just dads—it can be grandparents, uncles, or any male figures. But when we have that paternal influence—which isn’t just about gender but also about a particular energy—we see what you call paternal nurturance in your book. I was thinking about my husband’s parents, and this aligns with what you wrote. He teases, he rough houses, he’s big on task orientation—he wants to teach our kids how to be independent, how to contribute. He gives them huge tasks to accomplish, and while I often find myself thinking, Is this too much?, I let him do it. So far, we’ve only visited the ER a few times—we’re okay. But what I really see is this level of grit in my kids—not just my son, but my daughters too. They’ve developed a resilience I don’t always see in other children, and I attribute that largely to his parenting style—his willingness to let them take risks. When they get hurt, he doesn’t just provide comfort like I do. Instead, he rustles them up, revs them up, and gets them moving again, rather than just focusing on nurturing them through the moment. Would you like to speak more on that? And is it okay to parent this way? Because I truly believe that paternal nurturance is essential—especially for four out of five boys who thrive under this kind of parenting.

The Role of Paternal Nurturance in Building Resilience

[Michael] Yep, and girls—you brought up girls, and they are so important. I’m a dad of two daughters, and now I have grandkids. When I was raising my daughters, I couldn’t help but parent based on my own brain. I lean toward paternal nurturance, even though, as a therapist and educator, I consider myself to have a “bridge brain”—one that connects both male and female traits. I can openly talk about my feelings, but I still naturally leaned toward the paternal side. Paternal nurturance, at its core, is about building resilience. Of course, it includes providing food, clothing, and all the basics, but from a social-emotional standpoint, it’s about helping children develop resilience. This is seen in behaviors like roughhousing, tossing kids in the air, and even teasing. Teasing, in particular, is a good example. Over the last 20 to 30 years, pop psychology has framed teasing as something that hurts feelings and should be avoided. While it’s true that certain types of teasing can be harmful and require sensitivity, the male brain often uses teasing as a tool to build resilience. Resilience isn’t developed through words alone. Telling kids to “be resilient” does very little. Instead, resilience is built through experience—by meeting challenges head-on. Whenever I see a school resilience program that is heavily word-based, I think, Okay, but words only contribute about 20% to resilience-building. Real growth happens when children face and overcome challenges. By the time they reach 20 years old, they’ve encountered countless obstacles that shape their resilience. The paternal brain is wired for this kind of resilience-building. Of course, sometimes fathers can take it too far, but their role is naturally inclined toward strengthening resilience. For example, paternal affection often comes in “quick bursts”—throwing a child in the air, giving a playful shove, or engaging in a short, energetic interaction before moving on. This contrasts with maternal affection, which tends to be longer and more continuous in nature. Another key difference is in how empathy is expressed. Paternal nurturance often provides “task-specific empathy”—offering support and guidance within the context of an activity. For example, a father might say, “Okay, that wasn’t great, but let’s try again this way.” In contrast, maternal empathy tends to be more consistent throughout the day. Discipline also differs. Fathers are generally more rule-oriented and quicker to enforce consequences when rules are broken. They might say, “You broke the rule, so here’s the consequence.” On the other hand, mothers—due to higher oxytocin levels and a natural instinct to prevent suffering—may be more likely to give repeated warnings before enforcing a consequence. All of this aligns with decades of fatherhood research. Over the past 40 to 50 years, studies have consistently shown that children raised without a father, or without a strong male role model, face greater challenges. They are more likely to struggle with addiction, and girls, in particular, face a higher risk of sexual abuse. This doesn’t mean every father is a good father, but it does highlight the importance of paternal nurturance. From a neuroscience perspective, the absence of a father impacts brain development. Fathers play a crucial role in strengthening the connection between the midbrain and the frontal lobe, which is essential for maturation. Without that paternal influence, children may grow into adulthood without fully developing these neural connections, impacting their decision-making, emotional regulation, and resilience. Fatherhood research strongly supports the insights from male brain research. When we remove paternal nurturance from a child’s development, we deprive them of a crucial element in their growth and resilience.

[Tammy] Absolutely, I agree. I think this comes down to a couple of key factors. When we consider roughhousing, it’s a misconception that girls inherently feel more pain due to activity in the parietal lobe. However, boys do have reduced tactile sensitivity to pain. In the context of paternal nurturance—whether it comes from a father, grandfather, uncle, coach, or any male role model—there is a certain energy that these figures bring. They are naturally more likely to display aggression and be drawn to it. This aggression can often be playful, and boys tend to handle it well because they don’t have the same level of tactile sensitivity to pain as girls do.

[Michael] There are more nerve endings in the female body, even just on the fingers. Female fingers have a higher concentration of nerve endings for pain, and this sensitivity extends throughout the female system. As a result, females are generally less inclined to seek out physical pain. Of course, females experience immense physical pain when giving birth, but across the lifespan, they tend to avoid unnecessary pain. One reason for this is the increased activity in their frontal lobe, which helps them assess danger and make conscious decisions. Their frontal lobe processes risks and determines, Hmm, that’s too dangerous. I’m not going to do that. In contrast, males have fewer nerve endings and lower frontal lobe activity, which means they are less likely to think, That will cause pain. I shouldn’t do that. This is why boys often engage in risky behaviors where they knowingly expose themselves to pain. A great example is how boys form teams to seek out physical challenges—football being a prime example. They willingly sign up for a sport where they know they will experience pain. This process builds resilience, but it’s also a natural inclination of the male brain. Similarly, men are far more likely to take on high-risk jobs, such as working on skyscrapers. There are very few women on the 65th floor of a construction site because their frontal lobe warns them of the danger: That could be fatal. I’m not going to do that. Meanwhile, a man’s brain processes the same situation differently: I’ll have a harness. I’ll be fine. I’ll take the risk. Testosterone also plays a role, driving men to take more risks and exhibit higher levels of aggression—not necessarily violence, but assertive, competitive aggression. This type of nurturance through aggression is a natural part of male behavior. Additionally, neural differences influence decision-making. A male brain is more likely to say, I’m going to put on my skis, jump off that snowy roof, and land on that bump. If he breaks his leg, he may regret it momentarily, but once healed, he’s likely to try again. This risk-taking behavior is deeply rooted in the neural structure of the male brain.

[Tammy] That basically describes my son’s tendency to do terrifying things. I was raised with a very active dad and brothers, so I think I tend to parent in a similar way because that’s what I experienced growing up. I often find myself thinking, Eh, it’s fine. Yes, we end up in the emergency room occasionally, but for the most part, I believe that the more we allow boys to roughhouse and engage in risky activities—within reason—the more competent they become in their bodies, leading to higher self-esteem as a result.

[Michael] Yes, they become competent not only in their bodies but also in their minds. Their social-emotional skills develop every time they engage in high-risk activities. Males don’t necessarily develop these skills through words, yet for the past few decades, our approach to social-emotional learning (SEL) has been largely word-based. SEL programs in schools are heavily focused on verbal interaction—getting together in groups and talking about emotions. And while that approach is valuable, male social-emotional development primarily occurs through tasks and activities. When boys engage in these activities—especially in teams—they develop social-emotional skills through shared experiences with teammates, mentors, and coaches. In my opinion, males develop social-emotional skills just as effectively as females, though in a different way. As long as they are engaged in tasks and activities with others, they will grow emotionally and socially. However, isolation is a major problem for males—it leads to stagnation, a lack of emotional development, and an absence of both aggression and empathy nurturance. That’s why I believe in raising boys within a three-family system: nuclear, extended, and institutional. By providing them with abundant opportunities, tasks, and social connections, they will develop in a healthy, well-rounded way.

[Tammy] Yeah, but I think you’re emphasizing the importance of having both influences. There needs to be a feminine brain influence in their lives, along with the masculine, paternal influence. This doesn’t have to come solely from the nuclear family—it can come from other people as well. The key is providing boys with opportunities to experience both types of brain influence, as this is essential for their healthy development. And I believe it’s just as beneficial for girls too.

[Michael] Yeah, the three-family system—what I call the three-family system—will ideally include the mother, assuming nothing has happened to her. It will also include grandmothers, grandfathers, aunts, and, in this case, grandmothers and aunts, as well as female peers. Even within the institutional family, there will be significant female influence—such as in education, where pre-K through sixth grade is 90% female. So, we absolutely want female influence. We want balance—we want equality.

[Tammy] Yes, and I think what you’re saying is very egalitarian. We’re not suggesting that one is better than the other—they are simply different, and both are essential for healthy development. That is what I’m hearing.

[Michael] Yeah, that’s the key. They are equal, and both are required. I think that’s what others aren’t realizing—they’re both necessary. And yet, the fatherhood research clearly shows this. In that research, the mother’s role is already assumed; we don’t have as much research on motherhood because everyone knows the mother’s presence and contributions are a given. So, we need to recognize that the paternal role should be equal to the maternal role. But that doesn’t mean erasing the maternal role.

[Tammy] Yeah, I think people get upset because they assume that’s what we’re saying, but that’s not what your research is saying at all. I really love these insights, so for any moms of young boys or teachers listening, here are two principles I live by when working with boys. And Mike, please feel free to jump in with the research here.

1. Visual before verbal with boys.
2. If the bum is numb, the brain is the same.

When I was a kindergarten teacher, these were my guiding principles for working with little boys. I used to do dance breaks with them and give them tasks when they were getting dysregulated. Instead of sitting them down to talk, I’d give them something to do—like taking a note to the principal. I’d even ask the office to give them a small task to complete, just to get them engaged. The same applies in therapy. If a boy comes in looking frustrated after a rough day, he likely doesn’t want to talk about it. Instead, I’d say, “Let’s do a pushup competition. Ready? Go!” We’d do pushups right there in my therapy room to reengage the brain. Why do boys need less talking, more movement, and more visual engagement? Why do they respond better to action rather than verbal processing?

[Michael] Okay, I’m going to talk about that based on the two great strategies you provided: “visual before verbal” and the “rest state.” In other words, if the, you know, the bum is numb, etc. A large portion of the right side of the male brain is very visual. However, we should also remember that the right side of the female brain is visual too. The difference is that the female brain has word centers there, using a lot of that space for language processing. On average, males do not have these word centers in the same area. Instead, they have more developed spatial, mechanical, and visual processing abilities. One of the first strategies I developed 35 years ago, when I conducted my initial research and teacher training, was to have students draw what they were going to write. At the time, boys were receiving Cs and Ds while girls were getting As and Bs. This was because teachers would give a writing prompt—”Write a paper about [topic]”—and girls, with their well-developed word centers and greater frontal activity, would immediately start writing. They could also sit still more easily, which I will discuss in a moment regarding the rest state. Meanwhile, many boys struggled. A few, like me, who were natural writers, could start writing right away. However, four out of five boys would stare at the paper, struggle to form sentences, get frustrated, and sometimes even tear up their work because they couldn’t get their thoughts onto the page. This happens because the female brain is naturally better equipped to generate verbal content immediately. A solution to this is having boys draw first. Take a large piece of paper, divide it into four quadrants, and have them draw out their ideas in these sections. While girls may start writing right away, boys spend the first 20 minutes drawing—stick figures, colors, or anything that represents their ideas. Then, once they have their visuals, they start writing. Now, instead of struggling, they look at their drawings and translate them into words. This technique activates the right side of their brain through visuals first, which then helps stimulate verbal expression. As a result, male students’ grades improved from Cs and Ds to As and Bs simply by using this strategy. Another important strategy is allowing movement. The male brain naturally enters what is called a “rest state” or “boredom state,” which is clearly visible in brain scans. Once a boy reaches this state, his brain essentially shuts down, leaving only basic survival functions like breathing active. If you watch closely, you can see this happening—his eyes may flutter, or he may stare blankly, but cognitively, nothing is happening. This also applies to men in general, including husbands. It’s a trait that stems from our evolutionary past as hunters and is linked to the Y chromosome. Men enter rest states multiple times a day, especially in the evening. That’s why I always advise parents not to bring up important topics with their sons or husbands until they have had time to transition out of this state—whether by listening to music or engaging in some other activity for 20 minutes. Teachers often aren’t trained to recognize this phenomenon. Unlike male brains, female brains do not enter the rest state in the same way. So, when a boy sits in a classroom for 45–50 minutes without movement, he is likely in a rest state and unable to process information. If the teacher gives instructions during this time, he won’t even remember them because his brain is effectively “offline.” This is why boys (and girls, too) should be given movement breaks every 10 to 20 minutes. Activities like jumping jacks, push-ups, or any form of physical movement help re-engage the brain. Movement activates the cerebellum, the “doing center” of the brain, which in turn stimulates the higher cognitive functions needed for learning. Without movement, the cerebellum remains inactive, and the brain struggles to stay engaged. That’s the key to the rest of the state.

[Tammy] Beautiful. Thank you for explaining that. I’ve noticed that with my son compared to my daughters—if I give him directions at the wrong time, he’ll ask, “What did you say?” Meanwhile, my daughters always seem to hear me for the first time. I’ve also observed this with my husband; I have to catch him at the right moment for him to process what I’m saying. What I just heard you say is that getting them moving—essentially lighting up the brain—before giving directions makes a difference. If my son is in a bored or zoned-out state, he’s not fully present. You can see it—he looks spacey, and when I ask him something, he responds as if he’s on another planet, like, “What did you say?” That would explain where he is in his brain—he’s not yet operating at the right level or wavelength.

[Michael] Yeah, we never really understood the male brain. I mean, when it comes down to it, so many of our social issues—whether they’re micro-level issues in counseling males, teaching males, marital conflicts, or even national policy issues—stem from this lack of understanding. I have to say that most of these challenges, if they intersect with males in any way, ultimately come down to the fact that we don’t fully grasp how the male brain operates. As a result, we’ve set up systems, including policies, that fail to take the male brain into account. And circling back to what we said earlier, right? At some point, we collectively decided not to educate people about the male brain—because of politics, specifically gender politics. But what we really ought to be doing—and this would even benefit our gender-nonconforming and gender-fluid kids—is teaching everyone about both the female brain and the male brain first. Then, we can introduce gender as an add-on, because gender is a social construct. But the female and male brains? Those are what we’re born with. No matter where someone falls on the spectrum of male or female, there’s still a biological foundation. And if we teach people about these brain differences, they can develop strategies—how to work with that brain in different situations. Once we do that, we’ll start seeing systemic change. I know this because, for the last 30 years, we’ve been doing this work in schools and with counselors. We’ve gathered a ton of success data, and the results are clear. For example, when teachers are trained on how boys and girls learn differently, grades improve across the board. That book you mentioned? We’ve trained about 60,000 teachers, and they’ve tracked their classrooms—while we’ve tracked their classrooms, too. We’ve compiled much of this data in Boys: A Rescue Plan. And the results? Not only do boys’ grades improve, but girls’ grades do too. Test scores go up for both boys and girls. One major reason education improves for girls when the male brain is understood is that teachers naturally gain a better understanding of the female brain in comparison. Additionally, classroom management becomes more efficient. Instead of spending 15 minutes managing behavior—something that often revolves around boys—teachers spend about one minute because they’ve learned how to communicate effectively with all students. As a result, girls aren’t losing 15 minutes of instruction time per class, which means their learning experience improves too. So, overall, everyone benefits—grades rise, test scores increase, discipline referrals decrease, behavior improves, and bullying is reduced. These aren’t just theories; we’ve seen specific, measurable change simply by training people in understanding the male brain.

[Tammy] Beautiful. Now, the two that I’m really familiar with—any educators and parents would especially benefit from the first three chapters on how boys and girls learn differently. That’s the brain science to me, especially with the beautiful tables you have that explain anatomical and hormonal differences and what that translates to in terms of their movement, how they express themselves, and how they need to learn in the classroom. I just finished reading Saving Our Sons, and I wish we had more time to talk about male emotional intelligence. That’s like a whole podcast in itself. But this book really delves into how men express and process emotions. You also have a whole section on screens, showing how they affect males differently. It doesn’t mean it’s better or worse, it’s just different. But your new book—how does it differ? I know you have many books, 32 to be exact. So how is this one different? It’s coming out in February, and if you’re listening to this podcast now, it’s out. Check the podcast notes for more.

[Michael] Yeah, February 2025. It’s really the culmination of my work, I would say. But I’m also writing it with Sean Kuhlman, who is the director of the Global Initiative for Boys and Men. One thing in the book is a much deeper focus on sex and gender. For instance, I use the term brain sex dysphoria to distinguish it from gender dysphoria, which is related to gender. These are new terms that aren’t used widely yet, but I hope they’ll eventually make their way into the DSM. I’m developing a lot of new concepts in this book to help people have conversations and meet the needs of everyone across the gender spectrum. We also have a lot of policy in this book. I would say both Sean and I focus more on policy here, specifically what needs to happen at the policy level to address the male suicide crisis, the fentanyl crisis, and the imprisonment crisis—right? The incarceration crisis, with 2 million males imprisoned. We’re obviously doing something wrong in raising kids, you know? That’s just too many. And this is in the US. So, across the board, what has to happen at the policy level? We also have probably 30 or 40 strategies for teachers and counselors there. It’s got a lot of practical strategies, and it’s also aiming to address the crisis at both the policy and data levels.

[Tammy] Okay. Yeah, I really encourage everyone to look at Mike’s research on this. It reinforced so much of what I’ve been doing in counseling boys. Some people think my approach to counseling looks really strange. I have boys walking in the forest with me. We go to the park together. I started this, and then I began an animal-assisted therapy program, which I initially used primarily with my boys because they needed to move their bodies. They don’t do well looking face to face and talking; it’s always shoulder to shoulder. They need to be in nature; they need to run and move. And that’s where my best therapy happened. Then, I started raising my son in the same way. Honestly, he can talk about his feelings better than my girls can now, because I gave him so much of that motor learning. We did so much integrative work with both the female and male, the paternal and maternal pieces, that his social-emotional intelligence is higher than my stepdaughters’. It’s incredible when we allow for this, but we have to honor the differences that exist. This is what equality means. We can’t just mitigate them and pretend they don’t exist. They do exist, and your research substantiates those differences.

[Michael] Yep, yeah, beautiful. I love the way you put that. People worry that they can’t get their males to, you know, emote. Well, okay, boys will not spend as much of their life talking about what they feel as girls and women. That’s true, and that’s fine; it’s a brain difference. But social-emotional learning can go just as well for boys as for girls, as you’ve said. We just need to approach it in a way that resonates with males. And in one in five, we don’t. The highly sensitive are already wired for massive verbal emotiveness—let’s call it connecting words to feelings. The other four out of five, yeah, we really need to do it this way if we want the result we’re after, which is boys talking about their feelings.

[Tammy] Thank you so much. So, for everyone listening, you’ll see some links to the books that I mentioned for the summit. Unfortunately, if you’re attending our summit, Mike’s book won’t be ready yet. I don’t know if it’s on pre-order. Is it on pre-order, Mike? No? Okay, so it’s not yet. But I have Boys and Girls Learn Differently and Saving Our Sons. I just finished that one, and it’s excellent because I love the social-emotional learning piece. To me, as a psychologist, that’s really important for boys. And then, for anyone listening to the podcast, we’ll air this again when Mike’s new book is released. The new book is coming in February. So, if you’re listening to this as a podcast, you can go to the show links, and you’ll see a link to purchase Mike’s new book, Boys: A Rescue Plan. Correct?

[Michael] Yes, Boys: A Rescue Plan.

[Tammy] Thank you so much. I just love your work. I was really excited for today’s presentation, and I hope parents everywhere learned so much from you. We see this as a cultural issue, a sociological issue, a psychological issue, and an issue in parenting. It’s something we all need to sit and pay attention to. So, thank you for bringing this to light.

[Michael] You bet. Thanks for having me, and let’s do it again. You’re awesome.

[Tammy] Thanks!