Why Women Struggle with Rowdy Youth Group Boys
Or, why we need both male and female youth leaders
In one of my former positions, we had a grade full of particularly rowdy middle school boys that aged into the youth group while I was working with the middle school ministry. They had a reputation in the church of being a group that the children’s ministry Sunday school teachers had simply been glad to have survived when they moved onto the next class.
It was truly an example of the way that chaos ensues when you get lots of boys together. On their own or in a group of 2 to 3, these boys were pretty well-behaved, and many of them came from great families within our church. But most Sunday mornings were a battle for their respect and attention during Sunday school, and the girls in those Sunday school classes who wanted to take the time seriously were often pretty exasperated by it all.
I taught roughly half the time in that middle school Sunday school class, and I instinctively knew that I didn’t have the volume nor the commanding presence to tame this group of boys. What was more helpful was extra male leaders sitting amongst the students or times when the male leaders talked with these boys after class.
I’ve heard other women in youth ministry talk about their struggle to be respected by the boys in their youth group, so I know I’m not the only one who has faced situations like this. They, too, seem to instinctively know that these boys respond better to the authority of male leaders. What’s behind that dynamic?
I mentioned recently that I’ve gleaned much from Shelley Taylor’s The Tending Instinct. While the book primarily focuses on women’s tending instincts, one chapter delves into patterns in male groups, arguing that male groups, just like female groups, are tending systems. It’s just that tending looks very different for boys and men than it does for girls and women. The chapter helped me understand some of the dynamics at play that make rowdy boys respond much better to male leaders. Here’s what I learned from her:
Groups of boys are notably more active, energetic, rowdy, and aggressive than groups of girls. They also often organize around tasks, such as a sport or game, as opposed to girls’ tendencies to form groups for their own sake. (Sometimes in youth group this just looked like boys running around and chasing each other with anything they can throw at each other!)
Boys’ groups instinctively form hierarchies in ways that girls’ groups don’t. Their organization around tasks goes hand in hand with this, as skill in the task can naturally sort out the order of hierarchy.
The way that aggression plays into the boys’ hierarchies is important.
Boys may attempt to gain dominance in the hierarchy through aggression, but in a healthy environment, this strategy won’t work: “Rather than encouraging lawless aggression, the hierarchies of all-male groups, particularly the presence of experienced males at the top, often manage and control [aggression]. The hierarchies that are so ubiquitous in male groups may be [a way] to control conflict, reduce the frequency of aggression, and limit the likelihood of escalating violence.”1
Those that rise to the top of hierarchies are those with social skills and social intelligence. They learn to manage problems with these skills rather than through aggression. In hierarchies with such leaders, two things happen: aggression is not rewarded with dominance and is thus reduced, and those within the system learn social skills needed to manage problems by watching the leaders.
However, in the absence of a socially skilled leader who rises to the top of the hierarchy, aggression can ensue. As a result, boys in these systems don’t learn the social skills needed to manage problems in healthier ways.
Taylor’s writing helped me name some of the dynamics and needs amongst the boys. Boys instinctively are paying attention to dominance and hierarchy, and they often will act out in order to prove their dominance. However, the presence of a healthy male leader can provide the leadership that the boys need, thus reducing their drive to “act out” and teaching them better ways to lead others. No wonder the rowdy boys respond better to male authority.
Women, on the other hand, know the female experience, and these dynamics are very different than the ones that female leaders navigate with teenage girls. Often, we’re worried about drama amongst the girls, not about dominance. At a weekend retreat, we’re worried that girls’ feelings and relationships will be damaged, not that property will be destroyed.2
In the end, I think Taylor’s insights prove further that our youth groups need both male and female leaders. The boys need male leaders to tend to their needs (by providing and modeling this leadership for the boys), while the girls need female leaders to tend to their needs (in less hierarchical ways that look more like connecting through conversation).
As I’m looking into this topic more, I’d love to hear your perspective. Do you have stories of times when the boys didn’t respond well to your leadership as a female in youth ministry, or when male leaders stepped into to help in these scenarios? Have you found strategies to gain more respect from the boys?
Page 135-136.
At the same church, we hosted an annual in-town weekend retreat in which church families would host groups of students overnight in their homes. We had dealt with so many issues with the boys groups (destruction, vandalism, and more) and gotten so many requests from host homes to not be given a group of boys that we decided to begin each weekend with a warning and appeal to the boys: if you don’t behave, we may not be able to provide host homes for boys in the future; so please help us out here!