Why are little boys steeped in violence?

[BejamNostalgia]

Posted this on here because I thought it might go down badly on AIBU and I suspect that people on here will have some interesting thoughts on this.

I have, semi accidentally, never exposed my sons to even the mildest depictions of violence. Neither I or DH likes Action, Sci Fi, Comic type stuff like Batman, spy films, so we don’t watch it. When our kids watch TV, we’re quite careful it is very age appropriate which means no violence. Because we don’t watch that sort of thing, he hasn’t seen Star Wars or Batman films and cartoons. He doesn’t have comic type books in his selection either, we just wouldn’t think of doing it.

We made a conscious decision not to restrict toy weapons. My eldest, who is six, had one foam sword from a fancy dress outfit when he was about four and wasn’t very interested. He has one toy gun which he was bought as a present, I allowed that because it’s all silly noises and flashing lights so it doesn’t actually bear any resemblance to a real gun whatsoever. Water pistols are okay though.

I’ve noticed as he has got bigger, that he doesn’t play fight, he doesn’t see it as a game. One of his little brothers will tumble around with him sometimes, but that’s it. I’ve noticed quite a few other boys have games which centre around pretending to fight, pretending to have guns or other weapons like nunchucks and pretending to punch and kick imaginary people. Most of them seem to have watched quite a lot of stuff with violence in it like Star Wars, Batman, action films, ninja turtles etc. They also have a lot of weapon toys which they use in games of fighting, action figures who are characters who fight. I know of primary schools boys who play fortnite, and when they get older it gets even worse with shoot ‘em ups and GTA.

I was thinking about why we, as a society, do this. I guess one part of it is that governments are always going to want men who like fighting, because they want them in their armies, but at what cost?

Fighting seems to be promoted to boys as a leisure activity which can be both worthy (goodies do it) and gets you what you want (winners get their own way). So can we really be surprised when so many little boys grow up into men responsible for an epidemic of violence against women?

It’s something I’d really like to see discouraged, tougher certifications, internet age controls on games, parents discouraged from buying weapons toys, shows like Ninja Turtles scrapped to reduce exposure to violence until they’re older, more education for parents about suitability of things like Batman for younger kids.

I know this all sounds incredibly dull and worthy, but I’m not a sandal wearing, yogurt bothering hippy at all. I have no problem with boys being boisterous or competitive and adventurous, I just really, really hate violence.

It’s not just sad for women, girls, children and even men and boys who are victims of violence, it’s sad for the little boys who grow up thinking violence is okay and desirable and end up in jail or with destructive lifestyles and will probably take a few beatings themselves along the way.

Do you think this sort of thing influences later life violence in men? Is there anything we could do which would make a meaningful difference?

@mooncuplanding
Yes, completely agree and so glad that someone is willing to acknowledge the link between male aggression/violence and the biological differences between the sexes. Of course this can be exacerbated by socialisation, but fundamentally men and women are different and at a population level have different traits.

Sometimes I wonder if the idea that socialisation is the root cause for any differences between the sexes is leading people to believe that difference is intrinsically bad.

My DS has been exposed to all the usual stuff kids watch and play and he hasn’t shown any interest in violence, yet when I was his age, similarly unremarkable upbringing, I was fighting all the time. It didn’t make it through puberty with me though thankfully. I wonder, if all things are equal with proper boundary setting etc, which they obviously aren’t, but if they were then it’s just a case of some people are and some people aren’t. Obviously most girls realise when the boys hit puberty that they don’t have the strength, so learn different methods, but boys don’t have to, so the violent ones will carry on.

I think it's more personality than exposure at that age. My almost 4 year old and his friends haven't been exposed to any of the things in your list and yet all but one of them loves play fighting.

Mine barely watches any television, he prefers listening to music/reading or imaginative play at home but the second certain friends turn up, they are turning all sorts into weapons (train track as swords for example) and wrestling.

His knowledge of knights has come from books (age appropriate, fairy stories mostly) and the National Trust. They covered Remembrance Sunday at preschool so he learnt about soldiers then and came home and asked lots of question and went through a stage of wanting to be a paratrooper like his Great Grandfather. Should we restrict things like that too?

As Sarahjconnor says, sexism has suppressed women's capacity for violence. Difference in sizes and physical strength is a patriarchal excuse for disempowerment - there's an even bigger physical difference between an early hominid and a lion, but with spears and ranged weapons one species now lives only because of the others sufferance. Trying to disempower your son in the same way will not serve him well - my parents tried exactly the same things as the OP and I had to unlearn a lot of vulnerability promoting behaviours before I was accepted by peers of either sex.

I was physically strong as a child, stronger than most boys even post puberty.

But i was constantly being told that i “didnmt know my own strength” and that i had hurt boy x, even when i’d barely touched them- that roll on the floor clutching a leg thing they do in football must be in their DNA too ...

I learned very quickly not to play fight as it was always me that got into trouble for hurting the other party..

From an evolutionary point of view, there is obviously a need to be able to be violent or aggressive in terms of seeking a mate, food, or defending yourself and your young. Socialisation obviously plays a big role because neither my father nor my husband has rolled out of a pub and picked a fight or behaved in a boorish way. Neither of them was raised in a rough and tumble way or with a lot of ‘play fighting’ or video games etc but neither of their fathers enjoyed that kind of behaviour either so it’s hard to say what part is nature and what part nurture there.

I agree that children who are raised with more violent cartoons etc from an early age seem to enjoy playing war games etc. But again, that may be because their parents enjoy these type of activities too. My son (aged 8) sometimes plays ‘war’ at school with his friends and games lessons involve war games but at home he doesn’t play like this at all.

I don’t think it’s a simple link with violence as adults, or violence against women. You have some men who are not physically confident at all and wouldn’t like actually fighting playing video games with incredibly violent images and then going out and shooting women etc (incel types), whereas my son’s karate teacher is incredibly kind and encouraging to kids like my son who is dyspraxic whilst emphasising that martial arts should be about defence not agression. However he must enjoy the combative nature of them, so on some level enjoys ‘fighting’. I find the connection between real and pretend violence a really interesting one that is very hard to understand and probably more and more important to do so given how sophisticated technology and images have become.

Tough and tumble play at a young age has important connotations for understanding limits of physical interaction and consent.

Yes, there is a theory that young children (particularly boys) should actually be encouraged to play fight for the reasons above.

I used to work in Early Years and we got a new guy in who was very into all the latest fads for the EYFS (they come and they go!) and he insisted that we have a 'play fighting area' with crash mats and everything so the kids could do this. We had spent the previous few months trying to stop the kids from belting seven shades of shit out of each other on a daily basis (it was a ahem, interesting, cohort), so we were a bit I left the setting fairly soon after so never did find out if the 'Give Your Mate a Good Walloping' area was implemented!

You may take a different approach and not want your ds to stand up for himself in a physical way but all the good intentions and avoidance of even seeing cartoon depictions of fighting won’t help them when some kid starts pushing and shoving him.

But what if "some kid" is much bigger? Or there are three of them?

Surely there is a better way of dealing with bullies than telling one's children they must stand up for themselves. Unless you meant by reporting the bullies. But I got the feeling that you were advocating violence as a way of dealing with erm, violence.

People respond to stimuli in different ways.
When I was younger, my brother played with guns and swords a bit, when he got older he got into all the video nasty horror films we were told would make people violent, and heavy metal, action films, etc.
But he's never been the fighting type, in fact he used to get called a bit of a wimp.
Crucially, I think, our dad never raised a hand, nor a voice really.
One of the most violent bullies at school, I saw him out with his dad, and his dad swore at him and hit him round the head. Nice.
Later, he got sent to prison for violent crimes.

Sometimes I wonder if the idea that socialisation is the root cause for any differences between the sexes is leading people to believe that difference is intrinsically bad.

I think socialisation is totally over-stated these days and the refusal to accept the biological reality of sex differences is sad. And dangerous.

Despite all the recounting of studies with n=1 on this thread, men and boys are more naturally violent because evolution.

Surely there is a better way of dealing with bullies than telling one's children they must stand up for themselves. Unless you meant by reporting the bullies. But I got the feeling that you were advocating violence as a way of dealing with erm, violence.

Showing boys how and when to use their violence in a responsible way is part of raising them well IMO. (The least violence that is required) There may be times they are going to be relied on to use their violence. e.g. if a burglar comes into your house, would you not expect your male partner to defend you?

Showing boys how and when to use their violence in a responsible way is part of raising them well IMO.

And girls?

There may be times they are going to be relied on to use their violence. e.g. if a burglar comes into your house, would you not expect your male partner to defend you?

And what if you don't happen to have a violent male handy?

Or you do have one and when he gets downstairs there's three of the buggers?

Perhaps ringing the police would be a better option whatever the circumstances.

Why are you so pro violence?

horsewithnomane

I am not pro-violence. But I accept that part of the male human experience involves violence so I have taught my boys how to recognise and shun status-seeking displays of aggression, e.g. "what you looking at?" even though I know that boys (mine are teenagers) are drawn regularly into social dominance displays and so they need to know how to diffuse these situations the best they can with the least violence necessary.

I don't think it is helpful to deny that men have to get involved in dominance displays especially in young adulthood. That doesn't make me 'pro-violence'

And like I said, I don't have a male in the house to defend me. And I notice it. If I did have one, I am 100% certain he would be expected to defend the house /kids over me. Yes, police police, but if there is someone threatening you in your house, the police aren't going to be much help in that moment.

A friend of mine was very anti guns and she never let her two sons have a toy gun, or allowed violent films etc. Her older DS ended up joining the army! It's in the dna.

You want them to be tough and resiliant, not weak and cowardly.

Your poor children.

My dd and ds both love action, fantasy and comic-based films. Ds loves nerf guns. Bith do a martial art. Neither has violent tendencies.

You want them to be tough and resiliant, not weak and cowardly.

Your poor children

Why do you say this? What is wrong with wanting your children strong and brave? I see this sort of comment as taking gender stereotyping theories to a ludicrous extreme. The logical conclusion from your 'disgust' is that you would be fine if your children were weak and cowardly - isn't that something to pity for your children?

mooncuplanding

I feel sorry for any child that grows up in a house where male violence isn’t just encouraged, but celebrated. What happens to the young boy that doesn’t grow up to your stereotype? Is he a failure?

I stand by what I have said.

I don't think it's so much that little boys are steeped in violence as that in comparison women are brought up to diffuse and avoid violent situations.

Just been reading about Boudica and the Brits she led against the Romans. I’d put it down to socialisation. If not from you, from film and TV, from their friends and school.
Not to say that all boys are violent or that all girls are softies, just as a general rule.

I am 100% certain he would be expected to defend the house /kids over me.

I think the key word there is "expected".

I have been given the following advice:

Don't have a rounders-bat (or similar) by your bed to defend yourself because if the intruder can take it off you (which is likely if he is bigger) you're stuffed. And never go downstairs because well, like I said before, they might outnumber you. In the situation you describe surely the best advice would be ring the cops and (if necessary) barricade yourself in the bedroom until they get there; it's better to lose possessions than get hurt. Yeah?

I think that the "expectation" to go and have a go oneself because you are a man and it's a "blue-job" harms men and doesn't make sense.

Would the man be a coward if he didn't go downstairs with a golf club or whatever?

I feel sorry for any child that grows up in a house where male violence isn’t just encouraged, but celebrated. What happens to the young boy that doesn’t grow up to your stereotype? Is he a failure?

I stand by what I have said.

You have deliberately manipulated what I said so as to stand by your ideology

My son loved swords and sabres and pirates and Roman soldiers and toy guns. He was an only child and when he was playing on his own used to sword fight and charge around with toy weapons.

When playing with friends it was running around with a ball. I don't recall him ever play fighting or real fighting with other boys.

He was a very gentle and sensitive child. Anything which remotely looked like cruelty to an animal reduced him to tears. There was an Andrex advert involving a puppy getting tied up in rolls of loo paper which we had to rush to switch off if it appeared. I remember him watching a film where the swashbuckling hero jumped out of a window onto a horse's back and that really upset him because he thought the horse was hurt. He is still a very sensitive and gentle man.

I do not think little boys are steeped in violence. My son was brought up in a household where violence and aggression simply never happened. His father is almost teetotal. Neither of us swore in front of him or shouted at him or each other. Obviously he was never smacked. I'm not sure if he was ever punished- we certainly never did naughty step or go to your room. When he did do something wrong the approach was to discuss it- not punish.