Read on Twitter
Here& #39;s a thread about the way we label boys as trouble.
We literally label boys as loud, troublesome, naughty from the moment they& #39;re born, before they can lift up their heads, before their eyes can even focus.
The high street shops peddle this message, pushing it at parents.
It& #39;s an international message too. Ubiquitous, hard to escape.
And because boys are & #39;born& #39; to be troublemakers, the logic must be that they can& #39;t help it.
So therefore adults (and little girls) need to indulge this bad behaviour, excuse it, put up with it.
Boys will be boys. (As long as they& #39;re told that they have to behave that way, have it hammered into them throughout their childhood, yeah.)
There& #39;s something proud about such slogans. & #39;Here I am, you& #39;ll just have to put up with me because I ain& #39;t gonna change.& #39;
So boys get this message very early on: they& #39;re expected to misbehave.
In many environments, it& #39;s not seen as cool for boys to behave. This creates all kinds of problems, both for them and for those around them.
If they play up in the classroom, you& #39;ll find some adults who& #39;ll excuse this. & #39;Boys need more stimulus. Boys aren& #39;t designed to sit still. Boys need more bells and whistles.& #39; Etc.
Even if it *were* the case that boys are & #39;born naughty& #39; - and I have two sons of my own and I can assure you it& #39;s not - then the way we handle them should be less indulgent of bad behaviour, not more!
I know you can get these T shirts for girls, but almost always they& #39;re in the boys& #39; section of the shop, or modelled on boys. That& #39;s because we expect girls to be more passive and compliant.
It& #39;s not helping anyone, least of all boys.
Boys do worse in schools, and are vastly more likely to go to prison later on in life.
Can we not have a serious re-think about the way we brand boy-children, and the way we deal with disruptive behaviour from boys early on?
