hate the expression boys will be boys

[caelacoo]

This seems to be the excuse for the rough and tumble boys do...and when its a girl she's a tomboy.

Why can it not just be a child being rough who may need telling to calm down when too rough instead of referring to its sex?

I don't mind it. Boys compared to most girls are more rough and boisterous and I say that as a total tomboy myself but I grew up with 5 older boys. There are of course exceptions but for the most part rough and tumble seems to be inbuilt into boys. It's just bullshit, though.

My girl is tough as shit and an only so not socialised into it by DBs. Of her friends (and of course her friends tend to the louder, crazier end) there are twin boys; one of whom is quiet and likes Elsa and the other is like DD. Another girl who is tiny and pretty and butter wouldn't melt but she's a very physical kid who runs and shouts all the time. And her best mate, who is softer emotionally than her but very rough and tough; he's a boy.

"Boys will be boys" patronizes boys and limits girls and boys.

Loathe it. It's like telling boys right from the start that they have permission to behave badly while girls are responsible for policing their own behaviour and keeping out of the boys' way.

"Boys will be boys" pulling pigtails in the playground is the first step along the path that passes through "girls in short skirts will be sent home from school to avoid distracting the boys from their work" and leads on to "what did she expect, wearing a dress like that/drinking that much/walking home alone?".

Boys will be a "ladies man", girls will be sluts. Boys will enjoy a bit of banter, girls will be bitches. Boys will be excused from being empathetic or considerate because their male brains aren't wired for it , girls will be told "smile, it might never happen" by strangers in the street who are uncomfortable with seeing a girl who doesn't look warm and friendly.

I think "rough and tumble" is fine. Rough doesn't have to mean violent, but some children are physically more active than others (not necessarily boys) and need an outlet where they can test their physical boundaries, run and around and be noisy and daft.

Agree that it should be "kids will be kids".

I remember being in trouble on a school trip and being scared how angry my mum would be and a female friend said "oh well boys will be boys" only about 14 years old.
At the time I was extremely happy and wished my mum knew this new wisdom, it was definitely an excuse for me acting without thinking.

I've only heard it (by parents) to excuse shit behaviour. Such as the time I raised with a mother about her son (12) coming (chasing) into my garden hitting my daughter (6) because she said no to him wanting to borrow her scooter.
That boy I am sure will learn to be a wo deeful young man with that attitude at home

Hear hear, TheImpracticalCat.

Hmm whilst I agree rough behavior is rough behavior I have worked in nurseries and schools and I would say there is a general way boys behave and a general way girls behave.

Also boys get surges of testosterone which makes them act differently from girls as girls get estrogen. (yes I know girls get testosterone to but it's not in the same levels)

I say: 'children will be children'.
And then, when it's beginning to get out of hand, rein it in.
Most children enjoy a bit of rough and tumble, some more than others.
It's not based on sex, not at all.
It's nothing to do with 'boys' or 'girls'.

'boys will be boys' is lazy and sexist - bad for girls and not great for boys either.

Because, if you make the promotion of calm and responsible and kind behaviour something that boys are 'less' able to do 'naturally' then you end up with adult men behaving very badly indeed, and their families saying:
'oh, that's just him - it's just he way he is'.

Er, no, it's the way he has been allowed to become.

SonceyD0g But by letting them be rough and get away with it because they are boys are you just telling them that violence is ok? But only if you're male? Do they later go on to think they can push their partners around?

wow, that escalated quickly! Being boisterous doesn't mean being violent or abusive, calm down!
The majority of boys are more exuberant, it's a simple fact. Put a group of kids together, with various activities, and the boys tend to go kicking football/ whilst most girls are happy playing dress up.

What does it have to do with lazy parenting? Try raising boys and girls exactly the same way, you'll see. Much better respecting the differences.

Agreed that it does seem to be used in a way to excuse behaviour that is bordering on unacceptable.
I get that some people just roll out cliches as unthinking small-talk:
"Boys will be boys"
"I'm sure x would love a little sister or brother?"
"Are Mummy and Daddy coming along to x?"

but these are actually insensitive things. What about the child on the receiving end of the boy's roughness/aggression? what about those with fertility issues? what about those in single parent families/in care/with LGBT parents?

I've learned to think before speaking. And not to excuse brattish behaviour.

I think rough and tumble is fine, if by that you mean running round, climbing, jumping, a bit of wrestling, getting dirty and a lot of noise. What's sad is so many girls are constrained from expressing themselves physically in the name of being 'nicely behaved and quiet'.

There has been loads of research done on the school system being more geared for girls and that's why boys are failing. I'm not sure whether it's because from a young age the boys will be boys clichy has been touted or if there's something in it.

In general (of course there are exceptions) boys are more active where as girls traditionally are quite happy to sit down and find concentration easier.

I have two one of each. I've brought them both up the same, my ds had a dolly and my dd has been encouraged to climb trees and all that gender bullshit. But yet my daughters always been a top set sort of child and my ds has always been a stereotypical boy.

YANBU

It should be "kids will be kids". I have 2 boys and have been a pre-school supervisor, I've seen as many boisterous girls as I have calm, gentle boys. Children have different personalities and like different things. When someone says "boys will be boys" to me it means "I don't give a toss that my boy(s) is running riot and leaving a trail of destruction".

the only time it's been said to me is when one (or all 3) are being little terrors while I'm trying to get things back under control.

It's just a phrase. A sentence filler. Shooting the breeze. A mindless comment like so many little sayings in our language.

I remember going to see a cousin who had a DD of 7 and a DS of 4. When we got there the son was there by not the girl. I asked "Where's [name]?" and the mother said "Up in her room calming down, she was getting noisy and silly, I'll get her soon" and the boy said "She was being girlsterous" - which I liked, obviously he had been told off for being boisterous and was just using the obvious word!