Although I grew up in the city, I thankfully had several friends who lived outside of it. Anyone who was one, or knew any, will know what I mean when I say that farm kids are built different. For starters, I couldn’t believe what they were allowed to do. In the city, I couldn’t even use a bow and arrow for fear of impaling Ms. Ferguson’s cat, if not Ms. Ferguson herself. In the country, there were no limits — guns, slingshots, compound bows, homemade bolas (thankfully we didn’t know how to throw them), all-terrain vehicles — we used them all.
And the flies. Good grief — the flies.
Dying on the windows, dying on the floors, dying in the bathtub, dying on a dozen flypaper strands which festooned the mudroom ceiling. To have to untangle one’s hair from one of these eldritch horrors was to learn the skill of dissassociation early.
But then, of course, death was a common occurrence on the farm. So much so that deep winter saw us pillaging mounds of hay for frozen barn cats to throw at each other. Eventually, when they would begin to thaw out, we would toss them in the pellet stove and skedaddle before the smell of burning fur aroused suspicions.
I recall these memories not to be morbid, but to illustrate the practical distance rural environments are from urban. Some say all that unsupervised space makes them dangerous places. Perhaps. But then, there are different kinds of dangers. In the country, you face the possibility of your son getting their teeth kicked out by a Clydesdale or falling down a well. In the city, you face the possibility of your son putting on fishnet stockings and singing broadway tunes under the stage name of Acid Betty.
The fact that urban dangers are less . . . tactile, doesn’t make them less dangerous. Especially for boys. Especially for boys we hope will eventually become men.
The 5 S’s of Sissification
Part of the problem is that we’re so constantly bombarded by reminders of physical danger (crime, disease, war, etc.) that any argument in favour of adopting a spectrum of danger is viewed as reckless and foolhardy.
What dangers could there even be apart from physical ones?
Take, for example, the Canada Safety Council website, which recommends the “5 S’s” when assessing the suitability of a play environment for children. It states, “There is an easy rule called the ‘5 S’s of playground safety’: Surface, Structures, Site, Supervision and Safety. Before allowing our kids to play on an urban play structure, the responsible parents must ensure all 5 S’s are accounted for.”
Notice the council’s definition of a “responsible adult.” The responsible adult is one who, before he permits his child the priviledge of play, must locate and mitigate all potential risk from the environment.
But then — we should probably have a discussion about the nature of responsibilty.
The responsible caretaker, be it the stewardship of human or animal, is the one who provides/allows for whatever is necessary for their wellbeing. And whatever is necessary for their wellbeing will differ depending on the nature of their charge. For example, chickens, lacking teeth, need to eat gravel in order to digest their food properly. Some well-meaning person who, hoping to keep the chickens safe, removes all the gravel from their enclosure, would not actually be acting responsibly. Such actions, however sincere, would result in the untimely death of his chickens.
According to urban planners, administrators, and medical experts the responsible adult is one who prioritizes a “5-S” environment. He does not allow his child to walk across the monkey bars; to climb the outside of a slide; to jump from an active swing at the point of maximum potential energy; or hang from a rope ladder by his knees. The responsible adult will forsake the traditional asphalt and concrete surface for rubber tiles, pour-in-place rubber, or artificial turf. The responsible adult will ensure the presence of at least three supervisors — all trained in the art of defibrilation. At least one must know Wing Chun and be wearing a negative ion bracelet.
But what’s the problem? Isn’t safety a good thing?
The problem is that children, and especially boys, are less like fragile eggs, and more like chickens. Not that they like to eat gravel (although some will anyway) but that if they only ever eat tender seeds and grains, they will eventually choke. Boys — and girls for that matter — that only ever exist in “5-S” world will, for all intents and purposes, stop being boys (or girls). And be handicapped, if not fatally, from becoming men (or women).
It’s good for boys to get knocked around. It’s good for them to realize that some dogs will bite them and that some kids will too. It’s good that they encounter unfair treatment, loneliness, and assignments that are too hard for them. It’s good that they fail. When we reduce the whole of wellbeing to physical safety, we ignore the host of other metrics that are just as, if not more, important: problem solving, learning from mistakes, hard work, pain tolerance, and taking risks.
The Scriptures are also clear on this point:
“And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” Matthew 10:28
“Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.” 1 Peter 5:8
“For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.” Matthew 16:25
The sum total of our lives cannot be reduced to “being safe.” Jesus makes it clear that it is possible to save one’s life, and yet lose it in the end. It is possible to bury your talents for fear of losing them, and then end up losing them all anyway (Matthew 25:14-30).
It is possible to keep your kids physically safe, only to eventually lose them to the world.
Some practical applications for parents (and especially dads)
If you’ve been following me so far, hopefully you’re starting to see that the real dangers aren’t always the most apparent ones.
So what do we do about it?
First, there’s no workaround for an absence of men and fathers in our homes and institutions. Not because women are less qualified, or in any way inferior, but because men and women are built differently. Men, if trained well, will allow and encourage their boys to take risks that may lead to injury. Women, if trained well, will supply hugs and bandages if and when the injuries takes place. If not trained well, however — and let’s face it, few of us were — the opposite will take place.
Because children are essentially dependant on their mother’s for the first few years of existence, it will feel incredibly natural — for both mom and boy — to perpetuate this dependance. Mom likes having her boy safe and close. Boy likes being safe and close next to mom. It will be mom’s ditch to want to extend this dynamic; to indefintely surround her sons with artificial turf. To want to sweep up all the gravel. To make it so his feelings are never hurt and his successes are never challenged.
If this symbiosis isn’t challenged early on, dysfunction will develop, and sooner than you’d expect. Dad’s will (rightly) feel uneasy that his boys are in the process of becoming soft, but won’t be willing to endure the conflict of interrupting it. Mom’s will be unwilling to let go of such a dynamic, even though it harmfully caters to her desire for safety and control. Again we circle back to the damnable logic that believes as long as boys are protected from physical harm, they are safe. They are not. In such a situation, they are in danger. He may avoid physical harm, but not existential harm. His duty and mandate as a man will be squashed, eventually rendering him a meek and malleable tool of the state.
Dad’s, you must intervene. You must take leadership in this area. The dynamic will not shift organically, unless perhaps your wives have a Canon + subscription (please get them one if you haven’t already).
Seedlings that are babied grow up to be leggy, listless, and languishing. Seedlings that are brushed, blown, and buffeted, grow up strong. We are thankful for the wives and mothers who bring balance, order, and beauty into our lives. Let’s face it — without them we’d be dead. But gardens won’t be tamed without a willingness to accept danger. Mom’s, for your son’s sakes, you must help your husband lead your sons to this end.
Second, if possible, get your kids into nature.
If you can afford it, buy a house with some land. If you can’t do that, do everything in your power to make sure your boys are exposed to nature some other way. Get them a hunting license. Take them fishing. Throw them in a lake. Split some logs. Let them climb trees, catch rabbits, and be exposed to activites in which the likelihood of them getting hurt is high.
Artificial environments, where one is rarely forced to reckon with an uncooperative creation, has led us directly to the path we’re at today. Where men can be women, where marriage can be between two women, and where wealth is “built” not through private labour, but by taxation and redistribution.
We are permitted these illusions because we are permitted the greatest illusion — that the world can flourish under the leadership of danger-phobic men. It cannot.
For God’s glory, and the sake of our sons, we must resist.
Excellent article Ben!
Stating the necessary, brilliantly, sir.