MAYBE
I had a
girlfriend when I was seven years old.
Well, I had a friend who was a girl.
Ann Travers was a tall brunette who could throw like a boy. Ann lived a couple of blocks from my home. After school I would occasionally stop and
play at her house.
I don’t
remember what we would play, probably catch and there may have been a little
“House” involved. It was with Ann
Travers that I remember having my first debate on a social issue. The debate/argument was on which was better,
being a boy or being a girl.
It was an
argument I lost when Ann hit me with the ultimate “why it was bad being a boy”
argument. Some 60 years later I think I
could find arguments to neutralize her final assertion that defeated me, but
back then I was speechless and defeated.
I remember this argument because of the silliness, and then the stark realism
that only seven year olds could share and innocently accept.
As the first
baby boomers, born in 1946, we were both keenly aware of war. We were born right after WWII and the Korean
War had just ended. Our argument went
like this:
“Boys are
better than girls, we get to play sports.”
“Girls are
better; we don’t have to go to work and boys do.”
“Girls have
to wash dishes and change diapers.”
“Boys are
dirty and they smell.”
“Girls play
with dolls and have to mess with their hair.”
“Boys can’t
cook.”
“Girls have
to cook, wash clothes and clean TOILETS!”
This was the
best I had. At seven we both knew
nothing of that “menstrual thing” or the pain of child birth. I thought I had her with cleaning toilets,
but then she hit me with the bomb.
“Boys have
to go to war and get killed!”
Today I
would respond that girls have to stay at home and worry while their “boy” was
at war. Today girls also go to war; but
at seven years old the argument was over.
I stopped
playing with Ann after that day. Not
long after, my family moved from the west coast back east. I never forgot her winning argument why being
a boy is worse than being a girl,
“Boys have
to go to war and get killed!”
Not so
innocent for seven year olds.
I was lucky
and I never went to war. Many boys my age
and younger boys that followed have gone to war and have been killed.
A seven year
old boy and girl casually accepted the fact that “boys have to go to war and be
killed.” I imagine seven year olds the
world over accepted this concept. Maybe
that is why we have wars.
Maybe the
day will come when seven year olds the world over will realize how awful is this
simple concept. Maybe these seven year
olds the world over will become nation leaders.
Maybe the day will come when these leaders of all nations will say NO!
“Boys don’t
have to go to war and be killed.”
Maybe.
Maybe Joe - it's something to strive and hope for isn't it?
ReplyDeleteIt isn't the seven-year-olds who have to reject the idea of war; it's the adults. Especially the politicians who hide safely behind their desks and play lethal games with the blood of their citizenry.
ReplyDeletetimes have changed - or have they? *sigh*
ReplyDeleteIf only we lived in a world where war didn't feature in the conversations of 7 year olds.
ReplyDeletewhat's the saying?? things change but stay the same??
ReplyDeleteWow! What a deep thought from such a young child, and we were far less "world-wise" back in those days too! I shudder to think of what horrors today's children are aware of. I have to agree with Ann, it has never made any sense to me that boys, or girls, have to go to war and be killed... every warrior was somebody's child. No mother or father should ever have to lose a child in this senseless way. I say, let the politicians who make wars go and fight them, I think we would soon see an end to war then!
ReplyDeleteAmen, Joe. I'm with you (and Josie Two Shoes).
ReplyDeleteIf that could only be...
ReplyDeleteI so wish that day would come, Joe, but I'm not holding my breath. As long as there is greed and ego and a lust for power in the world people will fight. And die. Pity.
ReplyDeleteS
In my neighborhood, we just played doctor.
ReplyDeleteProfound column, Joe. Lord help us all that some people see women being allowed into battle as a sign of forward progress. Real progress would be NOBODY being allowed into battle.
ReplyDeleteLet me amend my comment. REAL progress would be to have only the politicians who declare war allowed to fight them. If it was they, rather than nameless and faceless (to them) soldiers being sent to have their arms and legs blown off, we'd see about a 99% decrease in war.
ReplyDeleteFat chance.