In Fighting for Life, Walter Ong states “Boys will be boys” (52). Of course, he is right to a degree, but this statement is used all to often to legitimize dangerous, aggressive, antagonistic behavior from boys to other boys and girls. It’s outrageous to accept this statement. Ong states that we cannot ignore rough play and boisterousness. I agree, but we cannot say “boys will be boys.” We need to teach our boys how to be respectful boys, how to use aggression in good ways, and not in harmful ways.
Before I get off on too much of a rant, I’m going to get back to reading some Ong. Perhaps I’m beginning to see why Lisa Ede told me he was a bit contraversial. He does seem to have a fairly genderized version of the world that could be used to legitimize agonistic behavior (perhaps; I haven’t finished the book).
When I hear the phrase “boys will be boys,” from people I meet, I’m tempted to hear it as a way to excuse behavior based on biology. Or rather, that’s often my interpretation. But I think the speakers utter it more as just a sort of “what are you going to do” kind of noise meant to just turn the conversation on to other things. How a given parent actually deals with their boys versus how they use that phrase might be entirely different things. I’m thinking that seeing a phrase as the tip of a giant pyramid does as much damage as letting it go. In other words, if you ban that phrase or shame people out of using it (like the whole he/she thing), does it change how people raise boys? Maybe it only allows us to imagine things have changed?
Anyway, what I really wanted to comment on was Ong’s use of that phrase. He’s an old guy, sure, and maybe that’s really all it is, but he’s also smart. “Boys will be boys,” coupled with your earlier quote from him, “We should not be afraid of our biology,” makes me think he’s not using the phrase as an excuse for boyish aggression, but, rather, as an acknowledgement that it does exist. In other words, not dismissively.
What worries me is how much the words people use are assumed to be their identity. For instance, if I just decide to use “he” rather than the variations, have I taken a grammatical stand, and that’s just crazy, cranky Keith, or am I a sexist pig, conservative, throw-back who just doesn’t get it? In the one case, we can still be friends, in the other, I’m a monster. Because of a word. (Actually, I use “he or she” and don’t even notice it, whereas using “she” where a traditionalist uses “he” always strikes me as patronizing: but we all have our crosses to bear.)
Hm. This leads me to a comment on another of your entries.