At least since the 1990s, many have noted the increasingly negative narratives characterizing males as culturally privileged, economically oppressive, and sexually predatory. These various narratives are framed by a larger narrative of misandry constructed by gender activists and the Establishment. Not surprisingly, this blobbing mass of hatred has harmed young men the most – so much so that boyhood itself is under fire. But why is boyhood so important to target?

There are many reasons, I’m sure – most of them involving the flawed thinking of social constructionism. As gender activists seek to end what they call “toxic masculinity,” many have turned to radically changing or eradicating boyhood as the root of the problem. So I am determined to take these attacks on males seriously and examine more carefully how boyhood has been formed historically and whether that historical development of boyhood could reveal anything new. To begin, I’ve decided to look at how the word boy has been deployed in our language and culture. I think linguistic use will be a good place to start since it is a bedrock component of various social theories. In addition, it might help explain some of the harmful directions our culture have taken regarding masculinity. NOTE: In other posts, I will look at how boyhood has developed socially and psychologically – as well as how it has shown up in literature across time.

The Oxford English Dictionary offers some insight into the history of the word boy. From the fourteenth century to the early twentieth century, boy has carried the meaning of male servant, slave, or attendant. In addition, boy has been used by whites to describe non-white servants or slaves from the seventeenth century until the nineteenth century – after which point it was used as a racist slur of inferiority during the Jim Crow period. Over the past 700 years, the reference to boy could be used to describe a knave or an unprincipled person, a ruffian or a thug. And yet boy could also refer to a male youth, usually with hints of affection for a child, even one’s own child. So how do these Anglicized expressions of boy fit into our contemporary culture, especially given the anti-male attitudes and politics prevalent today?

Clearly, the inherent meaning of subjugation in boy is still with us. But when we contrast boy with girl of the same time period mentioned above, it becomes even clearer that boy fits more comfortably in defining a lesser person in an economic arena – whereas girl was Anglo culture’s sine qua non for childhood. Also attached to girlhood historically was virginity – hence the connotation of innocence, purity, immaturity, and thus childhood. It should be noted that although in the fourteenth century, gyrle meant “child,” it could also be applied to either sex. However, eventually girl came to be the gender-specific term for young females. And boy, with its negative connotations, came to be applied to young males.

The adverse origin for boy is significant given the current attacks on boyhood – namely such misplaced arguments by feminists that insist on an historical “toxic masculinity” nurtured in boyhood, when in fact boyhood has been the placeholder for oppressed or diminished masculinity and girlhood the signifier for purity and innocence. End of Part 1