thedrifter
01-07-05, 11:41 PM
Males, Canines, and the Lost Art of Roughhousing
January 5, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Steve Hernan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I used to envy today’s young men because they seemed to have so many opportunities that I never had when I was growing up. But I don’t envy them anymore. In fact, I feel sorry for them. Why? Because they really lost out when it came to at least one aspect of their boyhoods.
Once upon a time, practically every boy grew up in a real neighborhood. Not a “condo development” or a “gated community”, but a genuine neighborhood where everyone knew each other and interacted with one another. There were plenty of things to do and plenty of other kids to play with – provided you didn’t make everyone mad at you.
But boys always enjoyed one key advantage. They could alienate every other kid in the neighborhood and still never have to play alone. Why was this? Because every household had at least one dog. And every dog was readily available to any boy who lived in the neighborhood.
In these long-forgotten days, the world was truly a boy’s world. There were no such things as “leash laws.” People would let their dogs out in the morning and not see them until supper time (if even then). During these ten or so hours of unstructured liberty, the dogs operated with one purpose in mind – to have as many adventures as possible and to engineer as much mischief and havoc while doing so.
In other words, they acted just like boys.
Like all dogs, the ones in my neighborhood craved adventure. They had an insatiable curiosity, and they loved to explore their surroundings and “map out” their territories. They weren’t afraid to get dirty, either. In fact, they reveled in the feeling of accomplishment that accompanied any especially arduous or grimy task. So, quite naturally, all of us boys gleefully sought out the companionship of these “kindred spirits.”
And we never had to go far, either.
Wherever we would wander, be it our street, the woods – or even the infamous Empty Lot – we would without fail encounter one or more of our dogs. I say “our” dogs because we spent far more time with them than their owners ever did. Sure, our neighbors may have fed their dogs and provided them with shelter. But we sustained their dogs. Because we understood the cardinal rule of canines.
Namely, that dogs – just like boys – absolutely adore roughhousing.
If I had to list the single best characteristic of man’s best friend it would be that you can “play rough” with him and he won’t get the least bit offended. In fact, he’ll return the roughhousing with equal enthusiasm and even take it up a notch. And by “he” and “him,” I’m speaking quite loosely – because even female dogs like to roughhouse.
Not so with cats.
Have you ever tried to “play rough” with cat? Give it a shot sometime. At the very best, you’ll generate a malevolent hiss and a spiteful glare. More than likely, though, you’ll receive a pair of needle-sharp fangs in the webbing between your thumb and forefinger (trust me on that one).
There is a constant stream of comparison between the dogs and cats and how they parallel the differences between men and women. And while some of these differences have merit, none is more striking than the approach that each group takes to the lost art of roughhousing. Bottom line, dogs (and men) love it and cats (and women) hate it. This is a universal truth which shares the same prominence as the Pythagorean Theorem and the numeric constant pi.
So what exactly is roughhousing, anyway? And why is it such an integral part of boyhood?
Let’s start with the science. From a very early age, the human male exhibits a natural penchant for rough physical behavior. This is an innate and healthy form of aggression which is essential towards building what’s known as a “companionate hierarchy.” Boys establish this hierarchy through aggressive play and roughhousing. And this hierarchy – where ranks are established relative to other individuals in a group – is necessary for the proper socialization of young males.
Once the hierarchy has been established within a troupe of boys, they will very often form intense loyalties with each other and cheerfully engage in all sorts of group-directed mischief. However, this proclivity towards all things “rambunctious” often leads to another not-so-welcome adult physical response – spanking. Indeed, the careful counterbalancing between these two forms of aggression is critical towards the healthy development of the male human child.
Dogs are wired in the exact same way. They enjoy spending time and interacting with other dogs, and roughhousing is essential to their healthy socialization. In fact, dogs that are denied the opportunity to “play rough” with other dogs become poorly socialized creatures. They do not interact well with their peers and they become involved in excess conflicts with other dogs.
To put it bluntly, if you forbid roughhousing (or forego spanking, for that matter) you will be left with a maladaptive dog. And the same can be said for boys as well.
So why am I “waxing nostalgic” about dogs and roughhousing? Because there are close parallels between what has happened to dogs in our society and what is now occurring with our young boys. The sad fact is that boys – just like dogs – now have their own “leash laws” imposed upon them. But these leash laws are far more insidious.
Sometime during the not-so-distant past, “roughhousing” got a bad rap. It became equated with “bullying.” Healthy, aggressive play became known as “playground aggression” or even “school violence” by the newer educational theorists. And there were many of these types around spouting all sorts of unsubstantiated – but highly publicized – “theories.”
Quite influential in this movement was Carol Gilligan, the iconic professor of Gender Studies at Harvard University. Gilligan wrote extensively about the “destructive culture of manhood” and the need to free boys from their “masculine straightjackets.” Boys, she opined, were at a special risk in early childhood, and they needed to be liberated from the “patriarchal social order.” Male behaviors such as roughhousing and aggressive competition were deemed “unnatural” and “artifacts of culture.”
Thus began the infamous “progressive education” movement.
Boys were taught the concepts of “gender equity” and were encouraged to develop their “inner nurturers.” Normal play among little boys was met with disapproval – or banned altogether. Healthy competition took a back seat to the concept of “self-esteem.” Boys were encouraged to participate in games or sports where no score was kept and where no one was declared the winner. After all, coming in second place could easily destroy a child’s nascent “sense of self.”
And where did all this “reeducation” get us?
Let me answer this by continuing my analogy. In the “pre-leash law” days, every so often two of the neighborhood dogs would get into a little scrap. But this was actually quite rare. They all generally got along quite well once they had established their “companionate hierarchy.” But have you ever seen how a dog behaves when it has been raised in relative isolation with little to no “rough play” type interaction with other dogs? Whenever it encounters a strange new dog, the meeting is typically anything but collegial.
It’s the same with boys. You coddle them at your risk – and at theirs.
We need to recognize that many of our young men are being denied the opportunity to have the normal and healthy experiences of boyhood. Because if we don’t, we will continue to see more and more variations of “leash laws” imposed upon them. And each of these laws, rules, or “interventions” will continue to have one objective in mind – to constrain or eliminate what are essentially natural and healthy forms of young male behavior.
And if this takes place, boys will get a really raw deal indeed.
Just like dogs have – many, many years ago.
Steve Hernan
Ellie
January 5, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Steve Hernan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I used to envy today’s young men because they seemed to have so many opportunities that I never had when I was growing up. But I don’t envy them anymore. In fact, I feel sorry for them. Why? Because they really lost out when it came to at least one aspect of their boyhoods.
Once upon a time, practically every boy grew up in a real neighborhood. Not a “condo development” or a “gated community”, but a genuine neighborhood where everyone knew each other and interacted with one another. There were plenty of things to do and plenty of other kids to play with – provided you didn’t make everyone mad at you.
But boys always enjoyed one key advantage. They could alienate every other kid in the neighborhood and still never have to play alone. Why was this? Because every household had at least one dog. And every dog was readily available to any boy who lived in the neighborhood.
In these long-forgotten days, the world was truly a boy’s world. There were no such things as “leash laws.” People would let their dogs out in the morning and not see them until supper time (if even then). During these ten or so hours of unstructured liberty, the dogs operated with one purpose in mind – to have as many adventures as possible and to engineer as much mischief and havoc while doing so.
In other words, they acted just like boys.
Like all dogs, the ones in my neighborhood craved adventure. They had an insatiable curiosity, and they loved to explore their surroundings and “map out” their territories. They weren’t afraid to get dirty, either. In fact, they reveled in the feeling of accomplishment that accompanied any especially arduous or grimy task. So, quite naturally, all of us boys gleefully sought out the companionship of these “kindred spirits.”
And we never had to go far, either.
Wherever we would wander, be it our street, the woods – or even the infamous Empty Lot – we would without fail encounter one or more of our dogs. I say “our” dogs because we spent far more time with them than their owners ever did. Sure, our neighbors may have fed their dogs and provided them with shelter. But we sustained their dogs. Because we understood the cardinal rule of canines.
Namely, that dogs – just like boys – absolutely adore roughhousing.
If I had to list the single best characteristic of man’s best friend it would be that you can “play rough” with him and he won’t get the least bit offended. In fact, he’ll return the roughhousing with equal enthusiasm and even take it up a notch. And by “he” and “him,” I’m speaking quite loosely – because even female dogs like to roughhouse.
Not so with cats.
Have you ever tried to “play rough” with cat? Give it a shot sometime. At the very best, you’ll generate a malevolent hiss and a spiteful glare. More than likely, though, you’ll receive a pair of needle-sharp fangs in the webbing between your thumb and forefinger (trust me on that one).
There is a constant stream of comparison between the dogs and cats and how they parallel the differences between men and women. And while some of these differences have merit, none is more striking than the approach that each group takes to the lost art of roughhousing. Bottom line, dogs (and men) love it and cats (and women) hate it. This is a universal truth which shares the same prominence as the Pythagorean Theorem and the numeric constant pi.
So what exactly is roughhousing, anyway? And why is it such an integral part of boyhood?
Let’s start with the science. From a very early age, the human male exhibits a natural penchant for rough physical behavior. This is an innate and healthy form of aggression which is essential towards building what’s known as a “companionate hierarchy.” Boys establish this hierarchy through aggressive play and roughhousing. And this hierarchy – where ranks are established relative to other individuals in a group – is necessary for the proper socialization of young males.
Once the hierarchy has been established within a troupe of boys, they will very often form intense loyalties with each other and cheerfully engage in all sorts of group-directed mischief. However, this proclivity towards all things “rambunctious” often leads to another not-so-welcome adult physical response – spanking. Indeed, the careful counterbalancing between these two forms of aggression is critical towards the healthy development of the male human child.
Dogs are wired in the exact same way. They enjoy spending time and interacting with other dogs, and roughhousing is essential to their healthy socialization. In fact, dogs that are denied the opportunity to “play rough” with other dogs become poorly socialized creatures. They do not interact well with their peers and they become involved in excess conflicts with other dogs.
To put it bluntly, if you forbid roughhousing (or forego spanking, for that matter) you will be left with a maladaptive dog. And the same can be said for boys as well.
So why am I “waxing nostalgic” about dogs and roughhousing? Because there are close parallels between what has happened to dogs in our society and what is now occurring with our young boys. The sad fact is that boys – just like dogs – now have their own “leash laws” imposed upon them. But these leash laws are far more insidious.
Sometime during the not-so-distant past, “roughhousing” got a bad rap. It became equated with “bullying.” Healthy, aggressive play became known as “playground aggression” or even “school violence” by the newer educational theorists. And there were many of these types around spouting all sorts of unsubstantiated – but highly publicized – “theories.”
Quite influential in this movement was Carol Gilligan, the iconic professor of Gender Studies at Harvard University. Gilligan wrote extensively about the “destructive culture of manhood” and the need to free boys from their “masculine straightjackets.” Boys, she opined, were at a special risk in early childhood, and they needed to be liberated from the “patriarchal social order.” Male behaviors such as roughhousing and aggressive competition were deemed “unnatural” and “artifacts of culture.”
Thus began the infamous “progressive education” movement.
Boys were taught the concepts of “gender equity” and were encouraged to develop their “inner nurturers.” Normal play among little boys was met with disapproval – or banned altogether. Healthy competition took a back seat to the concept of “self-esteem.” Boys were encouraged to participate in games or sports where no score was kept and where no one was declared the winner. After all, coming in second place could easily destroy a child’s nascent “sense of self.”
And where did all this “reeducation” get us?
Let me answer this by continuing my analogy. In the “pre-leash law” days, every so often two of the neighborhood dogs would get into a little scrap. But this was actually quite rare. They all generally got along quite well once they had established their “companionate hierarchy.” But have you ever seen how a dog behaves when it has been raised in relative isolation with little to no “rough play” type interaction with other dogs? Whenever it encounters a strange new dog, the meeting is typically anything but collegial.
It’s the same with boys. You coddle them at your risk – and at theirs.
We need to recognize that many of our young men are being denied the opportunity to have the normal and healthy experiences of boyhood. Because if we don’t, we will continue to see more and more variations of “leash laws” imposed upon them. And each of these laws, rules, or “interventions” will continue to have one objective in mind – to constrain or eliminate what are essentially natural and healthy forms of young male behavior.
And if this takes place, boys will get a really raw deal indeed.
Just like dogs have – many, many years ago.
Steve Hernan
Ellie