If Schools Won’t Form Boys, Social Media Will

By the time college students reach my classroom, much of their formation is already in place. College can refine judgment, but it rarely supplies a foundation that was never built. Which is why, when we talk about young men, we have to start earlier—with boys. Most of my students came of age watching masculinity get fought over—loudly, constantly, and without resolution—generating heat, but little guidance. In the meantime, boys have kept searching. What they are searching for is not complicated. They want to know what is expected of them. They want to know what a good man looks like. Increasingly, the clearest answers they encounter are not coming from schools, families, or coaches, but from the manosphere. That should concern us—not because boys are uniquely susceptible to bad ideas, but because they are actively seeking formation when many institutions have little to say. A quarter of young American men report feeling  lonely on any given day . More than half say their lives lack  meaning and purpose . They are trying to answer fundamental questions in the wrong places, with the wrong guides. That is why a recent reflection from Dr. John Botti, the head of The Browning School,  stands out . At a moment when many educators are either silent on masculinity or uncomfortable addressing it, Botti does something rare: He takes the question seriously and meets it directly. His core insight is not simply that the manosphere exists. It is that boys are vulnerable to it because they are searching and because too few trusted adults are meeting them there with clarity and care. Botti distinguishes between the manosphere’s harmful substance and what he calls its “corrupting irresistibility” as spectacle—a fantasy world algorithmically targeted at lonely, disconnected boys who have legitimate worries about their futures and are desperate for belonging and direction. In a digital environment that pulls boys toward exaggerated and often harmful models of manhood, the answer is not withdrawal or denunciation alone. It is engagement. A vacuum does not remain empty. It gets filled. For years, schools have operated as if boys would simply “figure it out.” Provide academics, offer activities, and trust maturity will follow. But in a world shaped by algorithms and constant comparison, that assumption no longer holds. Boys are not drifting into adulthood. They are being formed, whether we like it or not, by the loudest voices they encounter. Botti identifies what makes those voices so effective: They name expectations, provide a script, and in doing so meet a real developmental need. On one side is the hyper-performative masculinity of the manosphere, reducing manhood to dominance, status, and grievance. On the other is an institutional discomfort with masculinity itself, where it is flattened or treated as a problem to manage. Neither serves boys. What boys need—what Botti emphasizes—is not less attention to masculinity, but better attention. They need adults who are present, clear-eyed, and willing to guide them. They need relationships that ground them, communities that challenge them, and institutions that take their development seriously; not just academically, but morally and socially. The task for schools is not simply to critique that script. It is to replace it. That means offering a vision of manhood that is both demanding and humane. Strength, yes—but governed. Ambition, yes—but directed beyond the self. Independence, yes—but rooted in responsibility and connection. Not a performance, but a formation. Tocqueville observed that democratic societies depend not only on laws but on habits formed in families, associations, and institutions. When those institutions fail to form character, other forces step in. We are seeing that now. Too many schools retreat into abstraction. They speak in the language of well-being and belonging but hesitate to articulate expectations. The result is not neutrality. It is silence at precisely the moment boys are listening most closely. Botti breaks that silence not with slogans, but with seriousness. His approach is rooted in relationships: knowing boys, challenging them, and guiding them toward purpose. This work has never belonged to schools alone. It has also lived in families, religious communities, and civic institutions—from teams to youth organizations to service groups that once provided structure, mentorship, and a sense of earned belonging. When those institutions weaken or withdraw, boys do not stop searching. They simply search elsewhere. Botti understands this; he’s calling on the adults closest to boys to reclaim that responsibility rather than cede it to the internet. More educators should do the same. The question is no longer whether boys will be formed. It is who and what will do the forming. Right now, the answer is too often the loudest voice online. It should be the adults who know them and expect something of them. The post If Schools Won’t Form Boys, Social Media Will appeared first on American Enterprise Institute - AEI .