The Psychology of Boys

What I Researched and Why:
When I was reading about Tom Sawyer, Huck Finn and all of the mischievious adventures they got themselves into, I immediately thought of the 1986 movie, "Stand By Me." The four boys in the movie leave their town for a night to find "something" (I don't want to spoil it if you haven't seen the movie). They end up getting themselves into a situation that they might not be mature enough to handle, just as Tom and Huck did when they witnessed the act done by Injun Joe in the cemetery. Tom and Huck made a pact never to tell anyone what they saw and at the end of "Stand By Me", the boys end up coming back to town and going their separate ways without discussing what they found, much like the pact between Tom and Huck. These two works were so similar that it made me think about why when we think of "boys" and boy culture we often find them getting into situations like this, and how much boys' curiousity and big imaginations are to blame for their getting into these situations. It made me wonder what really lies in the psychology of boys, especially mischievious ones and to what extent the pranks and situations that boys get themselves into in childhood is "innocent." I also touched upon the differences between what "bad" was considered to be in the nineteenth century and how different those standards might be today.

What I Found:
I searched the internet for anything I could find about the psychology of children, particularly boys. I felt that this website "Boys Don't Cry" was the one that portrayed the characters of Tom Sawyer, Huck Finn and the boys from "Stand By Me" the best. It had a pretty interesting explanation for the supposed "mischieviousness" of boys and what might really lie behind it. I also found the website about the movie "Stand By Me", and that also includes a link on the left side of the website to view a trailer of the movie if you're unfamiliar with it.

My Interpretation:
I felt that the author of the article "Boys Don't Cry" had some really interesting points that could be valid and some that were just reading into the behavior of boys way too much. It also really showed the changing of the times in both parental ways and how seriously violence and "badness" is taken today in contrast to the past. It explained the gender roles that boys must fill by avoiding a title such as, "Mama's Boy" or by the cultural influence for a boy to grow up quickly and take on the position of manhood. Neither Tom nor Huck are "Mama's Boys" and they could be said to be culturally shaped by gender roles; they do mischievious things that most boys do. Joe Harper could be seen as a little bit more of a "Mama's Boy" though, especially when he was the first to decide to leave the island and he said in response to Tom's teasing ways, "Yes, I do want to see my mother- and you would too, if you had one" (p. 87) His response touches upon the next idea that Lawson brings up in his article "Boys Don't Cry" in that "Boys are yearning for adult connection." Neither Huck nor Tom are "Mama's Boys" like Joe, but then again, neither of them have real mothers. Huck is an outcast of society with no one to care for him but a drunken father who in fact doesn't care, and Tom, even though he has Aunt Polly, it's just probably not the same as having a real, biological mom, just like Joe claims in the story. Is it due to parental absence that Tom and Huck are so mischievious? Tom does have parental guidance through Aunt Polly, but is she too strict? These are all problems that are felt by parents, the problems of how children will develop if a parent is too strict or too lenient. Similarly in the movie, "Stand By Me," both Chris and Teddy's fathers are alcoholics, and these two boys are the ones who can be seen as the "bad influences" on Gordie and Vern. Gordie's father and mother are still mourning the past death of their older son, therefore completely forgetting about him, he's a bit mischievious, somewhere in between, and Vern's mother is so oppressive that the boy can't even stay one night out in the woods without getting nervous and upset, kind of like Joe.
The article "Boys Don't Cry" goes on to argue that violence is the result in boys like these, the mischievious boys that are always getting into trouble and just being excused by the phrase "boys will be boys." The violence is the result of depression and vulnerability hidden by a rough exterior. I feel it's a bit extreme to include all boys in this description, but it just goes to show that some behavior just can't be taken so lightly nowadays. On the other end of the spectrum was the section about "Boy Culture" by E. Anthony Rotundo in the back of Twain's book. It shows how violent boys were more a part of the cultural norm in the nineteenth century than they are today. He felt that boys acted the way they did to acheive "independence and character." Often times their games involved pain, but it was just merely "bonds that held boy culture together." If most parents today saw their children inflicting pain on another child, they probably wouldn't just pass it off as a part of boy culture. They would most likely set up an appointment for their child with a child psychologist the next day. The movie "Stand By Me" has a setting in the 1950's and goes to show that just up until recently, most things boys did were considered mischievious, not really bad, like they might seem in today's standards. Boys actions and gender roles haven't changed much, but the perception of bad surely has.

What I Think It Adds To Our Discussion:

Our whole course is devoted to looking at children's books and examining what lies within them to see not only how much they have been changed throughout history, but what lessons they are teaching children and if they are appropriate for children to read. I felt that this post sort of reversed that position and made the reader learn a lesson about parenting and teaching skills that we may one day utilize. The articles that I have presented in this have shown how both parenting skills have changed and how violence in children has taken on a whole new meaning. It presents parents with the problem of "how strict?" or how lenient?" should I be with my child. Will he actually mature one day and should I be taking his "boyish" ways more seriously? Boyhood is a complicated thing to understand, but I feel that mostly every boy will probably go through some part of this life being mischevious and curious, no matter what type of discipline or non-discipline his parents exert. It is only through experience that we learn.