What Boys Need That Nobody Is Giving Them Right Now

There is a conversation happening about boys in Australia, and it is mostly the wrong conversation.

It is a conversation about screens and gaming and disengagement, about declining academic performance and falling workforce participation, about the concerning ideological directions some young men are finding attractive, about whether modern boyhood is too soft or too hard or too directionless. These are real phenomena, and they deserve serious attention. But the conversation about them tends to oscillate between alarm and dismissal - between treating boys as a problem to be solved and insisting that the problem is overstated - without ever quite arriving at the question that actually matters, which is: what do boys need, and are we giving it to them?

The answer to the second part of that question, broadly and systemically speaking, is no. Not because nobody cares about boys, but because we have significantly misread what caring for boys actually requires.

Let me be precise about what I mean.

Boys need challenge. Not hardship for its own sake, not the reflexive toughening-up mythology that has done significant damage to generations of men, but genuine challenge - something that requires real effort, produces real competence, and gives a boy the visceral experience of being capable of hard things. The research on this is consistent: adolescent boys who have access to meaningful challenge, whether through sport, physical work, creative endeavour, learning a technical skill, or taking real responsibility for something that matters, fare significantly better across mental health and social outcomes than boys who do not. The word meaningful is doing a lot of work in that sentence. Pointless busy-work is not meaningful challenge. A task that is hard, that requires sustained effort, that produces something real, and that is witnessed and acknowledged by an adult who the boy respects - that is meaningful challenge. We have significantly reduced boys' access to this, through risk-averse environments, reduced physical education, declining opportunities for unstructured outdoor activity, and an educational culture that privileges the kind of compliance and verbal processing that many boys find genuinely difficult.

Boys need genuine mentorship. Not management, not supervision, not the kind of distant admiration that passes between men who have never been taught to be close. Mentorship in the proper sense: an adult man who is consistently present, who takes the boy seriously as a person in development, who shares skills and knowledge and values through proximity and practice rather than lecture, and who models what it looks like to be a man who is both capable and emotionally alive. The crisis in male mentorship in Australia is not a crisis of intention. There are men who want to be present for boys. The crisis is structural and cultural - the shrinking of the spaces where intergenerational male relationships used to form naturally, the school environment where male staff are chronically underrepresented, the fragmentation of community and extended family that used to provide multiple mentoring relationships by default. Boys who have one consistent adult male in their lives who takes them seriously are substantially more resilient than boys who do not. That single variable is more protective than almost anything else we can name.

Boys need to feel needed. This is perhaps the most underappreciated developmental need on the list, and it is one that our current arrangements almost systematically fail to meet. For most of human history, adolescent boys were incorporated into the productive life of their community in ways that required and rewarded their contributions. They were not consumers of an environment built for them. They were participants in something real. The modern version of adolescence, particularly for boys in middle-class suburban environments, offers very little of this. School is largely passive. Home life rarely requires anything of them beyond compliance with rules. Their labour is not needed, their judgment is not sought, their contribution is not expected. This produces something that looks like laziness but is closer to purposelessness, and purposelessness is among the most psychologically corrosive states a young person can be in. Boys who feel genuinely needed - by a family, a team, a community, a project - show up differently. They are more engaged, more regulated, more connected to the people around them. Giving a boy something real to contribute to is not just a kindness. It is a developmental necessity.

Boys need the explicit, consistent, modelled message that strength and emotional aliveness are not opposites. This is the one that is hardest to give, because it requires the adults in a boy's life to examine what they are actually modelling rather than what they intend to model. A father who tells his son that it is okay to have feelings while demonstrating throughout his own life that feelings are to be managed in private, suppressed at cost, or expressed only through anger is teaching the lesson his son will carry. A school culture that talks about emotional literacy in a fifteen-minute pastoral care session and then produces a social environment where showing vulnerability carries real peer cost is teaching the lesson students will carry. Boys learn from what they witness, not from what they are told. The men around them are the primary curriculum. What does the curriculum currently look like?

Boys need spaces where they can fail without it becoming a defining verdict on who they are. This is developmental, universal, and particularly acute for boys whose sense of self is heavily organised around performance and competence. The fear of being seen to fail - which is different from the fear of failure itself - keeps boys from trying things that matter, from asking for help in domains where they are struggling, from acknowledging difficulty before it has compounded into crisis. The environments that produce boys who can take risks and recover from setbacks are environments where the adults in their lives have demonstrated, repeatedly and practically, that failure is information rather than indictment. Where a mistake is met with curiosity rather than disappointment. Where not knowing something is the beginning of a conversation rather than evidence of inadequacy.

And finally, though it should go without saying and clearly does not: boys need to be loved in ways they can feel. Not in ways that feel comfortable or natural to the adults who love them. In ways the boy actually receives. Some boys receive love through physical presence and shared activity. Some receive it through being told directly, in plain language. Some receive it through being taken seriously when they talk, even when what they say is not particularly profound or is in fact incorrect. Some receive it through practical help - someone showing up, fixing the thing, being there. Meeting a boy in his love language, rather than defaulting to the one that comes naturally to you, is not indulgence. It is basic relational competence, and it is the foundation of everything else.

None of what boys need right now is complicated. Very little of it requires resources, programmes, or policies, though those things matter at the systems level. Almost all of it requires adults - parents, coaches, teachers, uncles, mentors, fathers - to be more deliberately and more consistently present than the culture currently demands of them.

The boy who is disengaging, struggling, retreating, or being pulled toward something harmful is not doing so because he has too much. He is doing so because something essential is missing. In most cases, that something is not hard to name.

It is someone who knows him, takes him seriously, shows up consistently, and makes it absolutely clear that his presence in the world is not just tolerated but genuinely valued.

That is what boys need. It is not complicated. It is just harder to give than we have been willing to admit, in a culture that has long assumed boys are fine with less.

They are not. They never were.

Want more tools like this?

Subscribe for parenting insights, practical strategies and a deeper look into how Daniel’s Diaries helps your child understand their world.