Boys will be boys.

[oliviapl]

I get so annoyed by this phrase. I feel like it lets kids get away with behaviour just because they're little boys while if girls did it they'd be chastised. A friend today had a toddler who was pushing over a girl the same age at a birthday party and just laughed and said ''boys will be boys, it means he likes her!''.

I did ssd. No need to be so rude.

I agree it's lazy parenting. I know you didn't mention sons. You either aren't reading my post properly, or are misinterpreting, or i am not making my point clearly.

My point was these parents can manage to make their daughters sit nicely but not their sons. They treat the sexes differently and have different expectations.

Children running round in restaurants cant solely be lazy parenting when the parent can clearly expect the girl child to sit down while allowing the boy child to run round..,

We can debate over the root cause but I really think we have a huge responsibility to raise men that are more gentle. In some way that is a reason that our boys are not performing so well at school as they have not been used to sit still and always are given excuses for doing what they do.

I actually do think there are some differences in between how boys and girls behave but I think these are mainly to do with girls maturing more quickly so at a given age they (generally, at population level, SN excepted, other MN caveats etc) have better focus, better fine motor skills, better communication and social skills etc.

However, these factors are completely dwarfed by nurture factors. Yes, parents can combat gender stereotypes till the cows come home but there's still the rest of society. Yes, you can get stuff from the "other aisle" but the way things are marketed at girls and boys is powerful- if marketing didn't work, companies wouldn't spend millions on it. The media tells boys and girls what they should be interested in from birth and it's very damaging.

Also, the really sad things is that it's far more acceptable for girls to like boys things than the other way round, the implication being that girls things are somehow inferior. You see far more girls in blue than boys in pink, put it that way.

But then, to quote Iggy Pop "I do not think it's shameful to dress as a woman because I do not think it is shameful to be a woman"

Mysecretgarden, every word of your post is spot on

Dp and I took dd out to a playground on Sunday and there were two couples there together with two sons each. One of the four kids kept being naughty, running round the little kids play area, jumping in the sandpit when it was full of little ones, blocking up tunnels that had little ones inside and generally causing trouble. I heard the parent say "boys will be boys" at least three separate times.

reallyanotheroe, sorry, was unnecessarily snippy there to you.

My Dsis drives me nuts with this too as does my DM.
My Ds is 9 months so obviously I don't understand yet!!
I have stopped meeting her in busy public areas as her Ds 5 yrs is a nightmare. Standing on chairs, swinging off food counters and pushing my girls out of the way. All I get is "boys will be boys" and my DS will be like it too. He will be throttled if he is!

I thought of this thread this morning at work. I was in a parent and child group and there were 9 children, 8 of whom were girls. At least 4 of them were little whirlwinds, constantly on the move and had difficulty sitting for any length of time for songs or stories. I heard no comments at all thankfully but could just imagine if they had been boys, there may well have been a few 'boys are such a handful' type remarks

Just come back to thread and have read more of the posts. I think it is so depressing the way boys are raised (not by everyone of course!). I have just come back from a parents evening where my son was highly praised for being 'mature' and not getting involved in the other antics the boys in his class get involved in. As parents we must take responsibility on helping kids channel their energies in appropriate ways, be they boys or girls, letting them just run about ' blowing of steam' without any consequence when someone gets hurt is nonsense.

My son was bullied several years ago now and the parents of the person who was bullying him excused his behaviour as ' boys will be boys' and my son as being ' too sensitive'. Neither of these ' facts' were true as time has shown! Sadly his Mum was a primary school teacher herself and I actually feel slightly sorry for the boy in question because he obviously was getting no guidance at home!

As has already been said Trump feeds in to this stereotype and his behaviour excused as being just what men do ( if ?Nigel Farage is to be believed?!).

I do sometimes feel you are swimming up stream challenging these stereotypes but hopefully my two kids will have a sense of what is acceptable and unacceptable behaviour by anyone regardless of their gender!

Aaarrgh, I hate this. I have a DS that could be a body double for that Tasmanian devil and my partner's family have said that and stuff like 'he's a proper lad'. As opposed to fucking what? An improper one?!

It now seems to have dwindled down as I always comment growl at them loudly.

Yep my ex finds it acceptable when DS pushes DD about. There were many times where she got hurt. I feel like I am swimming against the tide but I will take DS to the police station to have an officer explain that trying to choke his sister for fun is not acceptable since he found it funny when I raised it.

Another parent of a boy here who is also very much against the phrase when it's used to normalise aggressive behaviour.

I have no problem when it's used to generalise objects or characteristics of boys play, much of which CAN be differentiated from girls play (hence the overuse of the word "girly", and why is boyish used so much less in comparison?).

I have no issue with a bit of tactile play. My issue comes when some parents blur the line between play and aggression and consequentially end up normalising aggressive behaviour.

Different boys have different limits, as with all situations for me the key thing is to teach a child to identify and respond to limitations and boundaries be they dictated by environment or by companion. Key thing is you need the parents to be able to see it in order to teach it and that's often where things go wrong!

Great thread. I agree wholeheartedly OP. It's a poxy phrase.

There's been a thread recently where the OP had experienced a truly appalling incident of bullying/ abuse at work. The initial response of her boss to the behaviour of some of his male employees was essentially to say boys will be boys.
This is what it leads to.

Thanks guys, all the replies have been great so far.

I also think its sad that because this phrase is used, when boys do behaved as expected they are praised whereas girls are not as they are expected to behave in this way. I read a thread recently where a boy was being praised for sitting still at dinner but they girl wasn't despite being the same age, simply because its expected. Both should be praised for acting properly iyswim.

This is what it leads to?

and Ched Evans?

'Boys will be boys' shouldn't mean behaving badly or bullying.
Surely it was meant to mean boys are boisterous?
Using it as an excuse for hitting or being horrible is totally wrong.

I think it's true that sometimes, boys are being boys. e.g when a group of pre-schoolers are asked to sit still for any length of time, there will be a much higher % of the boys who find that difficult. There is loads of literature on why boys need parenting and educating differently to girls. (with our current system/what we see an "normal" skewed very much in favour of girls)

Pushing isn't boys being boys, not least because little girls who aren't corrected do it just as much.

'when a group of pre-schoolers are asked to sit still for any length of time, there will be a much higher % of the boys who find that difficult.'

Do you think that's due to an organic difference between boys and girls, or down to different behaviour expectations of boys and girls from the very beginning?

I think there are numerous views on that and would refer you to the affore mentioned literature Lottapianos

'when a group of pre-schoolers are asked to sit still for any length of time, there will be a much higher % of the boys who find that difficult.'

I my DD's class it would be her and another little girl. When the more active outliers can be, and frequently are, the girls, this theory is clearly bollocks.

People don't understand statistics. Correlation, causation, other factors, how small effects can be. In all this noise it is actually impossible to tell if boys are significantly statistically more boisterous than girls. I know you think you can tell, but you can't. Because you are socialised in the same sexist bullshit as we all are. And so are all the children you're observing.

When people criticise the 'Boys will be boys' when it is used to dismiss boisterous behaviour the argument usually focuses on how it is used to let boys get away with bad behaviour that they would not tolerate from girls, then they summarise that we should expect better (and in this example this means less rambunctious play) from boys.

But I think that this fails girls too. Girls shouldn't be discouraged from being loud, or active, or silly or adventurous. They should be afforded the opportunity to be as every bit spirited as their boy counterparts.

I think the pressure on little girls to be quiet, still, ever compromising, compliant and invisible is dangerous and unnecessary.

Kondos, I agree, it absolutely does fail girls too. Girls should be allowed to be physical and adventurous, but also shouldn't be expected to take bad behaviour just because it comes from a boy. That's the thin end of a very nasty wedge