Social Media Musings... page 4
Just stuff, posted from time to time, not necessarily in any chronological or topical order, but fitting with the general theme of this website.
PAGES: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Boys Will Be Boys
|
|
First, let's acknowledge that this is not a non-complex subject. Between biology and psychology, nature and nurture, there are layered and overlapping factors to consider, and anyone thinking they have a complete handle on the subject is likely wrong. But there are a few things we can say.
We can appreciate that, biologically, for the most part, boys and girls *are* what they are - there are some very basic traits and tendencies that are physically hard-wired (exceptions? of course there are exceptions; just like some of us bipeds are born with only one or no legs... but exceptions don't *make* rules, they *prove* them). Any of us who purports to be driven by science at all, should be able to acknowledge and appreciate that. Nature matters.
But we can also acknowledge that not every tendency or trait that we attribute to a particular sex is natural or inherent, and not all of them (even the inherent or natural ones) are good.
There is nothing wrong with questioning the characteristics that come to us through nature. As quoted above, “the natural man is the enemy of God.” We can’t presume that just because something exists in nature, it is necessarily a good thing. On that level, a phrase like “boys will be boys” is just an excuse and a misdirection. In some cases, when boys are being boys they need to be corrected, challenged, disciplined and redirected, or else they will never become the kind of people who ought to be called “men”.
Likewise, we can and should question the traits that are the gifts of tradition and culture, the patterns of personality and behavior that are delivered through education, art and exemplars, even from our heroes. Often, when we use phrases like “boys will be boys” all we are really saying is the cultural equivalent of “well, he did it, so why can’t I?” It is the infusion of childish excuse making and avoidance of accountability engraved into the aphorisms of the ages.
The hullabaloo over the Gillette ad is just that: excuse making and avoidance of accountability.
Yes, we can argue over whether, from a commercial or cultural point of view, it is Gillette’s place to be making pronouncements about character (though there was never as much objection to it when Dove undertook the same kind of campaign for women); but what we miss, if we argue too much, is that what Gillette is saying is actually right.
The time is long over when “boys will be boys” is a tolerable excuse for misbehavior. (“Girls will be girls” needs to be treated exactly the same way; but that’s a conversation for another day.)
So the question, what is it to be a “man” – to what character should a boy be directed and drawn?
As a Christian, I am grateful for standard that Jesus Christ sets. Not every saint who has sought to follow him has done so well; so I rely not on them, but on him; not on their words, but his. And in them I find the character of a good man, a “true” man, the ideal man, is described in at least the following terms:
And, as it turns out, the Gillette ad actually does point us in that direction. So I’m not going to gripe about it. I’m not going to be concerned if it is somehow, in some way, some kind of over-reach for a cosmetics company to offer a lecture on good character. I think that what they are saying is right. It won’t make me buy their products (so tough luck for them if that was their sole intention), but I’m also not going to join the chorus of complainers who want to defend mistaken ideals of manhood that, in the end, only weaken and demean us all.
We can appreciate that, biologically, for the most part, boys and girls *are* what they are - there are some very basic traits and tendencies that are physically hard-wired (exceptions? of course there are exceptions; just like some of us bipeds are born with only one or no legs... but exceptions don't *make* rules, they *prove* them). Any of us who purports to be driven by science at all, should be able to acknowledge and appreciate that. Nature matters.
But we can also acknowledge that not every tendency or trait that we attribute to a particular sex is natural or inherent, and not all of them (even the inherent or natural ones) are good.
There is nothing wrong with questioning the characteristics that come to us through nature. As quoted above, “the natural man is the enemy of God.” We can’t presume that just because something exists in nature, it is necessarily a good thing. On that level, a phrase like “boys will be boys” is just an excuse and a misdirection. In some cases, when boys are being boys they need to be corrected, challenged, disciplined and redirected, or else they will never become the kind of people who ought to be called “men”.
Likewise, we can and should question the traits that are the gifts of tradition and culture, the patterns of personality and behavior that are delivered through education, art and exemplars, even from our heroes. Often, when we use phrases like “boys will be boys” all we are really saying is the cultural equivalent of “well, he did it, so why can’t I?” It is the infusion of childish excuse making and avoidance of accountability engraved into the aphorisms of the ages.
The hullabaloo over the Gillette ad is just that: excuse making and avoidance of accountability.
Yes, we can argue over whether, from a commercial or cultural point of view, it is Gillette’s place to be making pronouncements about character (though there was never as much objection to it when Dove undertook the same kind of campaign for women); but what we miss, if we argue too much, is that what Gillette is saying is actually right.
The time is long over when “boys will be boys” is a tolerable excuse for misbehavior. (“Girls will be girls” needs to be treated exactly the same way; but that’s a conversation for another day.)
So the question, what is it to be a “man” – to what character should a boy be directed and drawn?
As a Christian, I am grateful for standard that Jesus Christ sets. Not every saint who has sought to follow him has done so well; so I rely not on them, but on him; not on their words, but his. And in them I find the character of a good man, a “true” man, the ideal man, is described in at least the following terms:
- faithful
- knowledgeable
- virtuous
- kind
- honest
- temperate
- patient
- long-suffering
- gentle
- meek
- (not driven by lust, but) full of pure love and charity toward all.
And, as it turns out, the Gillette ad actually does point us in that direction. So I’m not going to gripe about it. I’m not going to be concerned if it is somehow, in some way, some kind of over-reach for a cosmetics company to offer a lecture on good character. I think that what they are saying is right. It won’t make me buy their products (so tough luck for them if that was their sole intention), but I’m also not going to join the chorus of complainers who want to defend mistaken ideals of manhood that, in the end, only weaken and demean us all.