Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Why are little boys steeped in violence?

69 replies

BejamNostalgia · 24/01/2019 23:51

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?

OP posts:
ClaraMatilda · 26/01/2019 08:06

Physical violence is the male domain - some more than others but the most violent humans are overwhelmingly male

Relationship violence is the female domain - bitching, maneuvering, manipulating, gossiping. Again to differing degrees but women as a group are more aggressive in the relationship domain, using techniques to break down our much needed human connections

I had to check I was actually on the feminist board.
Males are statistically more likely to be violent, but by the way women are aggressively bitchy and gossiping? Seriously?

Is this so-called 'relationship violence' a subset of the words that count as 'literal violence' and are therefore just as bad as hitting someone?

Micah · 26/01/2019 09:06

My 9 year old dd loves swords, guns, bows, weapons generally. She has a great collection of nerf, plastic and toy stuff. Light sabres too.

Dh reads a lot of historical army Sharpe type novels, and likes to think he knows how to use weapons (completely in his own imagination), but other than that we have nothing to do with weapons or fighting.

We have also had to be strict with her using physical force- she will lash out and hit if teased or pushed to her limit. She also rationalises it to herself- if someone won’t stop teasing her when she’s asked repeatedly then in her head the next step is to hit to make them stop. This is despite us never ever hitting out kids or anyone. Not even the dog.

15 yo dd has never been interested. Never tried to hit or smack anyone.

So again it’s an anecdote thing but i’m sure had younger dd been a boy and we’d followed stereotypes and allowed play fighting and rough and tumble, she’d be one of those “sort it with fists” boys.

Personally, i don't think there is any evidence for nature over nuture. Even if you subscribe to the idea that males and females are different, we are not a primitive society and men should be able to control and manage these “instincts” and keep their fists to themselves. Telling boys it’s “in their DNA”? Tell them if they get those feelings they can control them- deep breaths, count to 10, take up boxing, martial arts or something. I’m female and manage not to gossip, bitch, cry in toilets or wear skirts.

Tackytriceratops · 26/01/2019 09:06

Apologies OP for being snappy. I get tired of these it's in the dna threads on this board but I guess many people are new to it all.

I am reading your posts again and I believe that you are querying the way society does this (tv, film, toys) and the impact on their development/ behaviour.

Yes the general stereotype for boys is quite violent. There led an article somewhere called "the boys wear predators the girls wear prey." And it's true. And it does have some effect on children, probably more so girls who believe they can only be a certain way.

But it's more nuanced than this. It's not the toys or animals on the jumpers etc, it's the under lying mechanism behind it - the way stereotypes are used socially as they grow.

I recommend reading "How not to be a boy" by Robert Webb.

All that sonshinemagazine.com has to say.

The bbc documentary I linked up thread really spelt out the most dangerous thing that leads to male violence- emotional expression and regulation that boys are taught NOT to do. They're taught not to cry, express emotions, talk about feelings. They MUST be brave and the strongest.

Then they don't learn how to communicate effectively. They might mimic poor examples of men around them (they might not though.)

I can't write more right now.

Let toys be toys campaign and parenting science gang are good further sources of info.

mooncuplanding · 26/01/2019 12:28

Apologies OP for being snappy. I get tired of these it's in the dna threads on this board but I guess many people are new to it all

Your whole post is stuck in an ideology that you will literally refuse to question.

If you seriously believe that males and females are born exactly the same, blank slate, and the only difference that exist are entirely down to cultural influences, you are entirely wrong

It is in our DNA, partly. From millions of years of evolution. We are not blank slates

Micah · 26/01/2019 12:39

It is in our DNA, partly. From millions of years of evolution. We are not blank slates

Even if you believe that though, we are evolved, highly intelligent creatures whose brains can easily learn to overule basic reflexes.

Even if men are born with the propensity to hit things, they can choose not to.

You could say the same about sex. Boys are genetically programmed to want sex with many girls, frequently.

Doesn’t mean we should say “it’s in their DNA” when they are constantly pressuring girls to sleep with them, or trying to touch bums and boobs without consent.

If we expect boys brains to control their impulses to sexually touch girls, we xan also expect them to control their impulses to hit other people.

That is also evolution. We have evolved away from primal respond to stimuli beings to ones which can apply rational thought.

Rational thought to me say we should not expect to be physically hurt by any other human. Whether it’s in their dna or not.

Bumpitybumper · 26/01/2019 13:08

@Micah
Personally, i don't think there is any evidence for nature over nuture. Even if you subscribe to the idea that males and females are different, we are not a primitive society and men should be able to control and manage these “instincts” and keep their fists to themselves
There is plenty of evidence to support the biological fact (and it really is fact) that women are different to men, both in term of our physiology and our psychology. This leads to the sexes at a population level having different traits that may be desirable or undesirable.

I actually think if you're serious about addressing the undesirable traits then it is crucial to identify the role that biology plays instead of insisting that men and women are the same. If men as a class are more predisposed to violence then we need to find effective mechanisms that can be put in place so that they are equipped with the skills and knowledge to be able to manage this trait in the best way possible. It's not about giving men an excuse to behave however they want, but it's about targeting help at the group that most need it and making sure that any provision that is put in place to tackle this issue is likely to work. Just asking and expecting men to behave like women is effectively penalising men for their different biology.

MutantDisco · 26/01/2019 13:11

Neither of my DSes have ever been hitters/fighters. We don't encourage it, and never write any behaviour off as 'boys being boys'.

They have lots of energy but we help them channel it in positive ways.

Boys being violent is not inevitable.

merrymouse · 26/01/2019 13:12

Agree Micah.

The important thing about humans is that we have the ability to adapt and plan and assess the impact of our behaviour.

Bumpitybumper · 26/01/2019 13:14

@Tackytriceratops
I get tired of these it's in the dna threads on this board but I guess many people are new to it all
I suspect I'm equally tired of the biology deniers that seem to frequent these types of threads. Yes socialisation is important and has a lot to answer for undoubtedly, however pinning all of the differences between the sexes on this is just misleading and disingenuous. Biology matters and if we are serious about tackling the big issues around equality and violence then we need to acknowledge that men and women are fundamentally different and have different traits at a class level.

gluteustothemaximus · 26/01/2019 13:30

Evidence is only anecdotal here, but with DS1 I didn't allow any violent TV or games etc, the odd nerf gun fine, we did 'girly' things (picking flowers, playing with dolls, he had a buggy).

He was not into rough and tumble, hated it in fact. Went along to football, (I was the only mum) all the dad's shouting at their kids to 'get the ball!!' and various other shouts from the sidelines. They were 3-5 years old. DS1 got called an idiot for not kicking the ball correctly, and a pussy by another child.

At school he didn't really like the boys, they were pretty aggressive and violent. He got called gay regularly as he didn't behave the way they did.

Surely, the pussy/gay/idiot calling kids, that comes from their parents?

Kids that were the most shitty were the ones that watched power rangers.

Most parents of young boys (at DS's school anyway) accepted that their little angels are just normal 'boys will be boys' kinda boys. In fact, they fuelled it by letting everything go.

Low and behold the girls fight. 'Girls, that's not very ladylike! Behave yourselves'

Anyways. He is 16 now, and still a gentle soul. He does fight with his friends though, it was a case of he couldn't not do it, so he had to join in.

My DD is a good amount of feisty but never violent.

My littlest DS2 is a biter and a pincher, but so far pretty much the same as DS1. A gentle little soul, who likes 'girls' and 'boys' toys. I imagine he'll get called gay to when the time comes Hmm

Parenting, good role models, and good examples to follow. And getting rid of this 'girls need to be ladylike' and 'boys will be boys'.

Micah · 26/01/2019 13:46

I don’t believe you can prove nature over nuture though. There is absolutely no (ethical) way to prove that mens violence is in the dna and not learned. It is extrapolation and hypotheses only.

Socialisation starts in the womb. There is no way to separate learned behaviour from “it’s in the dna”. From blue for boys and the language about boy babies and girls babies, stereotypes and expectations of behaviour are learned very early on, even for parents who think they treat their kids neutrally.

Telling men and boys they are preprogrammed to be physical and violent and girls they aren’t is additional socialisation to believe they can’t help that behaviour.

My bil hits walls when he’s angry or frustrated. His excuse is always but i never hit anyone, and that he can’t help it, men need a physical outlet.

I absolutely think he can help it. I feel like hitting things sometimes, but I don’t.

From a point above- rather than accept boys will be physical, we should teach them to manage their emotions- something that isn’t done because they’re boys.

gluteustothemaximus · 26/01/2019 13:51

rather than accept boys will be physical, we should teach them to manage their emotions

THIS.

Micah · 26/01/2019 14:13

If you seriously believe that males and females are born exactly the same, blank slate, and the only difference that exist are entirely down to cultural influences, you are entirely wrong

I believe people should be treated as “blank slate”. No assumptions. Treat everyone the same, male or female. Nobody is born the same, and males and females are not two distinct and separate groups. Everyone is individual, and will have different personality traits, regardless of sex.

Whether the violence stems from dna or socialisation is largely irrelevant.

Treat the symptoms, as you cannot treat the cause. A baby boy might grow up be non physical and non violent, bit why treat him as if he is until her proves otherwise?

Tackytriceratops · 26/01/2019 14:39

Your whole post is stuck in an ideology that you will literally refuse to question

Ha! Actually no. Professionally speaking there are clear differences in some areas between boys and girls. Mainly speaking and listening and motor skills. And it's in the dna.

Go to any sen school and note the higher number of boys. A large majority of men in prison have additional needs.

But, professionally speaking, with data from my workplaces to back it up, it's nature first then nurture.

But it's pretty well recognised that there's more variation brain wise within the sexes than between the sexes.

Tackytriceratops · 26/01/2019 15:19

I was also just reminded of the guy who researched the brain structures of psychopaths. And then discovered he was also a psychopath, based on brain imaging. The big key difference, as to why he wasn't a mass murderer, was the way he had been socialised from birth.

Theswaggyotter · 26/01/2019 15:57

I’m convinced both nature and nurture play a role here. 2 of my boys are calm and rarely violent, the other is all fists and angry outbursts. He’s also very funny, loves being centre of attention, eager to help etc. This is part of his personality and not due to how he’s being brought up. We encourage lots of talking, including about how we are feeling etc and he is getting a bit better as he grows up. But from day one he’s been completely different to my other 2.
Ps I never let him have toy guns but he would create them from sticks, Lego, cardboard tubes etc, etc

Bumblebee39 · 26/01/2019 17:37

Slinks off to the corner with stash of nerf guns Blush

StartedEarly · 26/01/2019 17:53

I don't know about boys in general but I have two very close in age. I didn't allow them to watch age inappropriate stuff and they were not allowed toy guns though swords and lightsabers did creep in.
One wanted to play fight constantly and the other joined in but never instigated it. They were like a pair of puppies.

Now they are adults I would say the "fighter" is generally more interested in sport and physical activity and the none fighter is more of a couch potato.
They are both quiet and shy and certainly not aggressive.

Holowiwi · 26/01/2019 23:18

You can select for aggression in other species and you can do so in humans as well. Humans have existed for at least 200,000 years and how many of those years have we had some form of modern civility across the world? Not much, in fact less than 200 years I would say. These modern ideals would not have existed then. You are either capable of defending yourself and your people physically or you cease to exist when a another group of humans decide to take what's yours.

Maybe there was a peaceful, 0 violence and harmonious society somewhere who knows. What we do know is that none of them exist today and that is for a reason.

It is better to accept that males will be more violent than females (as it is for most mammals) and that it is not a bad thing (you don't need people to feel guilty or crap about being male) but it should be controlled and expressed in healthy ways.

Until something as basic as biology is accepted this problem will never be solved because all of your 'solutions' will be based off of only socialisation.

Well that's just my opinion I'm sure many of you will disagree. But I'm also sure this same topic will be here 10, 20, 30 etc years from now so who knows.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread