Men to Boys: The Making of Modern Immaturity

by Gary S. Cross

Adam Sandler movies, HBO's Entourage, and such magazines as Maxim and FHM all trade in and appeal to one character--the modern boy-man. Addicted to video games, comic books, extreme sports, and dressing down, the boy-man would rather devote an afternoon to Grand Theft Auto than plan his next career move. He would rather prolong the hedonistic pleasures of youth than embrace the self-sacrificing demands of adulthood.

When did maturity become the ultimate taboo? Men have gone from idolizing Cary Grant to aping Hugh Grant, shunning marriage and responsibility well into their twenties and thirties. Gary Cross, renowned cultural historian, identifies the boy-man and his habits, examining the attitudes and practices of three generations to make sense of this gradual but profound shift in American masculinity. Cross matches the rise of the American boy-man to trends in twentieth-century advertising, popular culture, and consumerism, and he locates the roots of our present crisis in the vague call for a new model of leadership that, ultimately, failed to offer a better concept of maturity.

Cross does not blame the young or glorify the past. He finds that men of the "Greatest Generation" might have embraced their role as providers but were confused by the contradictions and expectations of modern fatherhood. Their uncertainty gave birth to the Beats and men who indulged in childhood hobbies and boyish sports. Rather than fashion a new manhood, baby-boomers held onto their youth and, when that was gone, embraced Viagra. Without mature role models to emulate or rebel against, Generation X turned to cynicism and sensual intensity, and the media fed on this longing, transforming a life stage into a highly desirable lifestyle. Arguing that contemporary American culture undermines both conservative ideals of male maturity and the liberal values of community and responsibility, Cross concludes with a proposal for a modern marriage of personal desire and ethical adulthood.

Genres: Nonfiction, Sociology, Psychology, Feminism

316 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2008

About the author

Gary S. Cross is distinguished professor of modern history at Pennsylvania State University.

Reviews

[Aurélien Thomas · Rating 3 out of 5]

'in a recent study, 55% of American men aged eighteen to twenty-four were found to be living at home with their parents, and 13% between twenty-five and thirty-four years of age still live at home, compared to only 8% of women... And this is hardly unique to Americans. Up to half of Italian men between the age of twenty-five to thirty five still live with their parents.'

Here's a fascinating read showing the evolution of our ideas of manhood over three generations: the Greatest Generation, the Boomers, and Generation X. I, in any case, found it fascinating because, although Gary Cross is a Boomer and I am a Millennial, we share the same bewilderment facing the triumph of so-called boys-men.

Thing is, personally I don't think I fit in. Unlike many men of my generation, I left the nest to go abroad and find work instead of carrying on living with mummy; I first became a dad at 23 whereas most other men delay having children until late in their thirties if they have kids at all; I strongly believe marriage and fatherhood to be fulfilling when most prefer the shallowness of casual relationships, and avoid parental responsibilities and what child rearing entails; and, well, I am not addicted to video games, as I think there are more constructive ways to spend your time. Actually, it baffles me that men my age still overplay games they used to play at 20, 15, 12, 8, like kids who never learnt how to outgrow a toy! Sorry, guys, for being condescending, but I don't see grown up women playing dolls for hours on end and be addicted to it! Ha, but I don't see grown up women still living at mummy and daddy while in their twenties and thirties either...

See, manhood used to be about character. It used to be about adhering to an ethos -ambition, success, hard work, responsibility, caring and providing for a family. Sure, feminism's successes and the empowerment of women has (rightly!) led to challenges of the obsolete patriarchal model, and women too now came to embrace such ethos. This is more than welcome, and if manhood is no longer being stupidly opposed to womanhood (unless you're an insecure sexist, but that's another issue!) you would expect, at least, to still have manhood opposed to childhood. Well, not so fast...

Manhood is now not only about appearances, with the modern men more concerned about their look (the triumph of the metrosexual man, as vain and shallow as his bimbo female equivalent...) than about character, but, also, the self-indulgence and hedonism of grown ups, who would rather spend hours on end playing video games (again!) than actually, well, start families and get on with being responsible and independent. In a nutshell, you'll be hard pressed to define when childhood/ adolescence ends and manhood starts.

You don't have to look far to see evidence of such a phenomenon. The author, here, in fact focuses a great deal on popular culture (movies and TV sitcoms especially) to show how the image of manhood has evolved ever since the 1930s up to now. Movies are telling. Sure, it's easy to dismiss the westerns of grandpa as silly escapism into a romanticised Far West -yet such movies used to portray men as being tough, self-reliant, and protectors of the weak against all sort of villains. Sure, it's also easy to see through the political propaganda of action and war movies from the 1950s onward, whereas heroic Americans were fighting evil terrorists and baddie regimes -yet these movies reflected the moral imperative of the times, from patriotism to fighting against Nazis and Communists in the name of liberties. Now, what do we have? Just have a look at our recent blockbusters! On the one hand, comedies and shows indulging in toilet and bellow the belt humour, and where men always are portrayed as gooffies, jerks, useless and immature; and, on the other hand, action movies which are just senseless and graphic violence, with absolutely zero character depth or maturation. How did it come to that? How did men who were depicted four generations ago through the stern stoicism of a John Wayne now came to be portrayed as being as ridicule as an Homer Simpson or a Rambo? Gary Cross is unto something, for example when dealing with the crass and vulgar comedies now invading our screens:

'toilet humour, for all its apparent daring, is a cop out, because it avoids taking on sacred cows in real life (political or religious, for example). Hollywood's seeming outrageousness really is a ruse, but it works because it appeals to the mentality of he who wouldn't know a taboo if he saw it -the little boy.'

Little boy indeed, and he applies the same reasoning to contemporary action movies -they are successful not despite of their silly puerility but because of it. What you see on the screen is what you would expect when a little boy is playing with his action figurines, dreaming of big muscles and big weaponries and big fast packed actions high on stunts and pyrotechnics and big bad words and, well... nothing else. You wouldn't expect a child to have some depth, would you? That's the point: the audience of such stupidity truly are little boys at heart. There is no men anymore, but boys-men.

It would be easy to dismiss such book as the rant of a Boomer. This would be terribly unfair, because the author does precisely the opposite: he doesn't mock or blame or attack, but, explain. And, he explains in light of his generation. In fact, he offers an historical background in an attempt to come to grip in understanding how the boys-men of today came to be in the first place. More, and maybe most importantly, he does not look back to a past ideal of manhood. Actually, here too he does exactly the opposite -showing how the inadequacies and revolt of past generations were justified somehow, even if they fuelled the boys-men mentality of today. Here's the thing: my elders can easily accuse my generation (Millennials) of being self-entitled snowflakes; yet we just took their mindset and values to the next level. There is nothing new under the sun.

In fact, there is nothing new in how history is displayed in here either. Whose who, like me, sympathise with Conservative writers keen on blaming Boomers for being the root cause of the self indulgence, hedonism, hyper-consumerism, and all in all perpetual childishness of today's youth, will here nod more than once. The author, himself a Boomer, actually acknowledges the accusation too:

'I don't want to reduce 1960s radicalism to an oedipal crisis (it certainly was much more about political and social change). Still, my generation gained more pleasure from rejecting elders and revelling in our youth than in creating a better meaning of maturity.'

Or, again, writing about the Hippy generation:

'there was a lot about its challenges to our elders that suggest not so much a New Man as an unhinged boy.'

And indeed, there's a lot to thank his generation for; after all, they embodied the Civil Rights era and so contributed a great deal to make society less oppressive and more tolerant (even if such political heritage also includes identity politics and its divisive derives). But, like with the Beat generation which had influenced them, if rejecting the stuffiness and responsibilities of a conformist society for the spontaneity and carelessness of a Bohemian life was all very well in terms of self-indulgence and narcissism, what did such hedonism had to offer as a new model of a manhood? Nothing. Hippies may have been great junkies and swingers, but they were barely responsible men to look up to to care and provide for a family! Their self-absorbed hedonism actually translated into the hyper-consumerism of our days, as now men consume for themselves on themselves instead of for their families. In other words, buying video games and digital gadgets replaced buying family car and family houses and the appliances going with it. The counter-culture of the 60s were not so much about rejecting capitalistic materialism (well, a lot has been written and said about the hypocrisy of the Hippies!) than about a new consumerism.

It's a sharp coming to term, but this is not about reverting to a pre-Boomers era; the age of the men idealising cowboys in movies, let alone the, god forbid!, Victorian patriarchy that preceded them long before! Such models were indeed inadequate, this is why men revolted against them to start with:

The status of provider-ship often kept the father at work and away from the family and made him a slave to a job he could hate.'

Retracing how fatherhood had been redefined, starting with the 'pal dad' of the 1950s, the author brilliantly shows that in such changes were the seed to the immaturity of today's boys-men. His analyse of the culture of hobbies and its consequences makes for a thought provoking read (although I find him here severe and quite unfair). His appraisal of adolescence emerging as a market also drives a point home when it comes to explaining, in part, the obsession with youth across generations. But, beyond history, what does this book has to offer?

Again, this is not the rant of a boomer against the new generation. The author actually defends it as the expected product of the past ones. This is not, either, a call to revert back to a view of manhood entrenched in bygone era, and, surely, idealised and caricatural. At its core, it's merely an observation; a state of things as they came to be.

Manhood is no longer the opposite of childhood but an extension of it. Men refuse to let go of their boyishness. Their humour is toddler's humour, their idea of entertainment is a quest for thrills ranging from addictive video games to gawking in front of shallow action movies with no substance. They are kids trapped in grown up bodies, but it's ok since they can still live with their parents and delays what for previous generations were expected milestones in terms of maturing (settling down, starting a family). The shallowness expands even to fashion and appearance -whereas men used to embrace ageing as a sign of maturity, they now fear losing their hair to indulging in using Botox. The culture of cool has replaced refinement in taste, and, there seem to be nothing left but 'slaves of instant gratification and in rebellion against an adulthood that doesn't exist'. Should we worry? That's a question this book won't answer.

[M · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's funny this is currently rated 2.7; I think it hits a sore spot with a lot of immature manchildren who lash out with a low rating because their ego is bruised. This is a fantastic contribution to modern sociology and perfectly assesses and summates the devolution of the heroic, disciplined, hard-working, fatherly men of previous generations down to the modern video-game addicted cartoon-watching failure to launch incelibate male of today, including a long session on the self-indulgent, nostalgia-chasing, toy-coveting, responsibility-fearing boomer male who was a failure in every aspect of manhood as much as boomers were failures in the generational chain to pass down an intact civilization to their progeny. My only criticism is that the pile of pop culture references and movie titles is hard to follow for anyone under the age of 40.

In short: incels seethe, boomers cry out in pain. The author has nailed them to a board and dissected their mental, social, emotional, spiritual, and physical shortcomings. Faced with such a merciless mirror, no wonder they ratings bomb this title. Perhaps unhappy readers should heed the message and learn to grow up.

[Matt · Rating 2 out of 5]

Gary Cross proposes some interesting theories about why the standards of adulthood and maturity are changing. One intriguing idea is that advertising and consumerism are increasingly encouraging us to to indulge in the present moment instead of strive for long-term achievement-based status icons. After all, men who focus on saving and providing for their families make much poorer consumers than those who remain in a prolonged adolescence marked by obsession with appearance and product-based self-identity.

Yet, while these ideas are briefly mentioned early on, they are not discussed in detail until the final chapters. Everything in-between is mainly descriptions of popular movies, television, and entertainment, along with some analysis on how they have changed over the previous century. Unfortunately, the author provides far too many examples and does not provide enough analysis to drive them back into his main points. As such, much of the book reads like an unorganized rambling about pop culture. It would have been much more valuable for the author to provide fewer examples but spend more time explaining how they represented the culture, and then back it up with actual evidence.

The author's conclusions are also very subjective. There's not really a way to prove or disprove his theories- they are really just thought-provoking observations about the way things were and how they are now. Because there's nothing to prove, the author could have communicated his ideas in far fewer words. This would have kept the book more focused and more engaging.

[baggyparagraphs · Rating 4 out of 5]

My grandmother used to tell me to enjoy my youth, because the fun stopped with the coming of adulthood. “Men to Boys: The Making of Modern Immaturity,” by Gary Cross, defines the phenomenon of “basement boys” or “boy-men”—the guys who move back in with mom and dad to play video games and watch violent adventure movies. Cross’s thesis is that men’s traditional roles were transformed because there were no longer farms or home workshops that enabled the father to participate in child-rearing; mass industrialization made men into mere breadwinners and turned over child-rearing to the mothers. Dads were to be pals and engage their sons through hobbies or Boy Scouts, this way teaching manly values. But boys, having already won the Oedipal struggle by default, rejected traditional masculinity. This fostered first the aimless howling rebellions and boyish Hefnerian self-indulgence of the 1950s, followed by 1960s radicalism. Cross cites a number of sources from the time that pinpointed the root of this activity in individual narcissism. He actually mentions the Weather Underground; an acquaintance of mine who, believe it or not, dated Bill Ayers in college here in Ann Arbor, says he had a smoldering hatred for his parents—his father was a busy executive at Con Edison in New York—and this contributed to his radicalism. Anyway, all the ���New Man” stuff of the 1960s degenerated into consumerism. Meanwhile, cultural models such as “Gunsmoke” and “Father Knows Best,” as well as rugged John Wayne westerns and genteel Spencer Tracy comedies, became obsolete. Cynicism prevailed, and we’re left with gross-out humor, fools like Homer Simpson, and the comic-book violence of “Rambo” and “The Terminator.” Not to mention “Doom” and the whole culture of violent video games. Magazines like Maxim assert that it’s cool to remain an adolescent.

“Men to Boys” is quite absorbing. (But for a book from Columbia University Press, there sure are a lot of typos.) Cross’s explorations and analyses of popular culture are awfully persuasive. Once or twice I thought he would be unable to make his argument hold together, but he manages to do it. In answering a lot of questions, this book is particularly timely, as the 22-year-old son of some friends has just moved back home, into the basement, after flunking out of college. I told my wife that the kid will live with his mother till she dies. Or he dies. (The father isn't going to make it that long.) And in my own family, there’s always the example of my Uncle Mike, who was lifted along on that first wave of 1950s teen culture and has devoted himself to preserving his youth by salvaging 1930s cars and generally espousing hot rod culture(my profile picture on this site is a shot of some of his cars); he never married, nor even dated seriously, and lived at home with my grandmother until she died. He remains in that same house. My grandma was right, and Uncle Mike, now in his late-60s, continues to heed her advice by not growing up. “Men to Boys” makes me glad I never lost myself in hobbies such as model railroading or muscle cars. It affirms the instinct that kept me away from the action-adventure movies and the video game consolesof the 1980s. And I can now say I was right to have turned off “The 40-Year-Old Virgin” after fifteen minutes and sent the disk back to Netflix.

[Alice · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book got too personal to the author; he often compared his own experiences to the subject of the book. The subjectivity detracted from the research, I think, though his heart was in the right place. But overall, it was a good read and brought up some important questions, social contexts, and problems Gen X and later faces: what happens when eternal youth fades? Even more timely now that the boomers are hitting retirement age.

[Axmed Bahjad]

I don’t know whether to laugh or feel sorry for the modern (electronic) man. Because he goes back to childhood in terms of thinking and activities even when he is married, manager at a big corporation or a small supermarket, a teacher or principle or something else. In his behaviour, he is a boy-man; not a male. Gary Cross is a cultural historian. He argues that we’re experiencing this boy-man phenomena because of the celebrity culture: advertising, consumerism and lack of good role models in religion, politics, movies and sports. In other words, these professions don’t offer us a better concept of maturity. These are some signs to identify immature males. I learnt them through hard work and disappointment in dealing with males in business, chasing females, at the workplace and sharing coursework at higher education.

1) He is right. In many ways, he is narcissistic. I’m not sure whether he likes himself or not, he defends the indefensible ideas and actions he makes. Facts do not mean anything to him.
2) He’s indecisive. He is the father of procrastination. He uses careful excuses whenever he was supposed to do work: “I didn’t sleep well last night.” “My wife is pregnant,” “I’m having a hard time with my wife.” “I don’t like walking with so-and-so!” “I don’t have money to start a business,” “I’m not there because of this-or-that.” The list of excuses is long.
3) He has low self-esteem. Even though he appears tough and confident in public, he is shallow and insecure in private. In order to go beyond the public mask, you must pay attention to his words and body language.
4) He’s an opportunist. He has no principles. He does whatever it is convenient for him. If you are a hard worker, he’ll take advantage of you; if you’re nice, he’ll smile at you until he gets what he wants from you.
5) He’s a deceiver. Whatever he does, he wants to do something for himself. And the best way he wants to get what he wants is to deceive others who work so hard to get their wants.
6) He’s a hypocrite. What he says and what he does are two things.
7) He’s irresponsible. He can watch five hours of football, basketball, boxing, concert or TV dramas and never spend three hours planning his dreams and goals in life. He can indulge pleasures; food, sex, holidays, conferences and entertainments. He cares about the FUN now.

Of course I can include other traits of an immature male, I think, these are enough. In conclusion, I say that an immature male can be 30, 40 or 50 year-old. He can be married or unmarried; he can be a plumber, clerk, professor or a taxi driver. Watch out. Age and education may not produce a mature male. I highly recommend this book!

[Moshe Hollander · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book makes some interesting points, but struggles to maintain a consistent 'storyline'. Would have definitely been better if it was formatted as a series of essays.

[Joshua Nolan · Rating 2 out of 5]

Old man rambles and meanders about arrested development.

Ok boomer.

[Quincessential]

(DNF@7% on November 2nd, 2025)

[Paul, · Rating 2 out of 5]

Not a good book, though it does occasionally have its moments. Gary Cross shines when he is analyzing his own culture/generation and experience (and maybe his parents' generation). At least I think he does. But he has very little idea about the culture that follows. He uses roller coasters to function as a representative of modern trends like paintball (maybe), extreme sports (doubtful) and raves (what the heck?!!?) Or seeing the Simpsons' primary influence on TV as the switching of gender roles for Bart and Lisa ... huh? What about the social commentary?

I also find it HILARIOUS how badly that Gary Cross seems to want to recommend a "better" culture of manhood, but he can't because he has embraced cultural relativism! Too funny!

All in all, any research that is based primarily on media (tv shows and movies) and ads will be biased because it is based on second-order sources. The most fascinating (to me) part of this book was the story of Hugh Hefner's self-portrayal as a sophisticate. I've never heard of playboy as anything more than porn, but evidently it used to contain long philosophical discourses, etc, etc. Weird dichotomy. Also interesting was the story of the quick transition of the hippie culture to consumerism.

[Miroslaw Aleksander · Rating 4 out of 5]

Despite my liking of Cross's work, I was afraid that this book will be a rambling attack on newer generations for not being like the older. Luckily, it's not like that. The book looks at the changes that masculinity underwent as a result of popular media, consumer culture, etc. in the 20th century. Cross does not give into nostalgia about past generations. He rather sees the current situation as the result of a multi-generational development, including the myths of 'true' masculinity that these generations tried to live up to.

[Mary Frances · Rating 1 out of 5]

I gave up on this book. Thought it would hsve an interesting thesis but never really found a focus to his arguments. I got lost in endless academic ruminations about Howdy Doody and old cars. Boring and showing signs of being all about a middle aged man working out his issues of loss and encroaching old age.

[Anna · Rating 2 out of 5]

Too much summary, too little analysis. I was initially intrigued by this book's premise--that the rise of consumerism in the U.S. has especially contributed to the "Peter Pan" man-boy phenomenon common among many (that is, many white, straight, middle-class, able-bodied) men today--but the lack of insightful analysis was disappointing and pretty much wrecked the book.

[Weavre]

OST NEW NON-FIC 1ST FLOOR 305.31 CRO

[Erin · Rating 2 out of 5]

Interesting social trend, but too heavy on the details making for a dense read.

[Katy · Rating 1 out of 5]

I thought this was going to be an awesome book full o'men bashing but really it's just the author talking about his experiences growing up. Weird.

[Martha · Rating 3 out of 5]

not much on solutions, but an interesting historical overview of the american trend of increasing number of immature men