Friday, January 28, 2011


By way of a foreword, let it be expressly said from the very start that the matter herein thought of, the concern hereby taken up, is general in content and common in intent. While it may readily arouse certain assumptions and easily lead to some conclusions, the subject matter of “Boys and Toys” has reference to but on the ground reality without the need of psychological profundities nor expert interventions. In substances, it merely says that toys are for boys in the same way that boys need and want toys. It is that plain. It is that simple.

Hence: it is great to be a boy. It is challenging to be a young man. It is defining to be an adult. What is disastrous is being an adult yet thinking like a boy. Thus it is that toys are meant for boys, not for adults. This is why it is not merely unbecoming but also demeaning when adults behave like boys and thereby get toys. This has special relevance the moment “boy-adults” hold tenure of influential officers, have authority and power – in a family, in a community, in a Country. Their victims are always the same, viz., their subordinates, their followers, their dependents.

What is really difficult about adults thinking and behaving like boys with their toys, finds its basis on the standard truth and pursuant fact that they are the last ones to know and accept such a self-contradiction. No, there is no hypocrisy in the case but an incapacity of some kind, an incompetence of a certain degree. In either case or for whatever reason, it is a lesser evil to be a boy but act like an adult, than to be an adult and act like a boy.

The key question in this particular issue and predicament is how come an adult feel like a boy, think like a boy and behave like a boy? A common a and tenable answer thereto is found in one or more of the following unfortunate circumstances: A boyhood that is disturbed by painful or lamentable domestic situation, that is bothered and hurt by a long angering family condition, that is mostly by itself usually without peers and friends around. In short, a dysfunctional boyhood.

Thus it is that the “boy” remains in the “man” , the “man” becomes a “boy’ in feelings, thoughts and actuations. There is no objective culpability in the case. Neither is there total responsibility in the matter, on the part of the subject party concerned. But sure, there is liability for all others relating, dealing and/or working with the individual concerned. In such a situation wherefore, all ultimately emerge as losers – except the “boy-man” himself. This is merely acting and behaving according to his psycho-emotional boy constitutional personality structure. But what a pity – just the same!

28 JANUARY 2011