The Briefing Room
General Category => Editorial/Opinion/Blogs => Topic started by: mystery-ak on February 20, 2018, 04:01:22 pm
-
Are boys 'broken'? Another mass shooting renews debate on toxic masculinity
Alia E. Dastagir, USA TODAY Published 12:52 p.m. ET Feb. 19, 2018 | Updated 1:18 p.m. ET Feb. 19, 2018
After 19-year-old Nikolas Cruz was accused of gunning down 17 people at a Florida high school last week, comedian Michael Ian Black started a thread on Twitter that sparked a vitriolic debate about the role of gender in gun violence. It began with the tweet, "Deeper even than the gun problem is this: boys are broken."
Black's tweet has been liked nearly 65,000 times. In an interview with NPR on Sunday, he elaborated.
"I think it means that there is something going on with American men that is giving them the permission and space to commit violence," he said. "And one of the main things we focus on correctly is guns and mental health, but I think deeper than that is a problem, a crisis in masculinity."
Many people on Twitter praised Black for his take.
more
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/02/19/boys-broken-another-mass-shooting-renews-debate-toxic-masculinity/351125002/ (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/02/19/boys-broken-another-mass-shooting-renews-debate-toxic-masculinity/351125002/)
-
'Toxic masculinity' - an invented liberal feminist term to slur any man that doesn't yield to their belief that they should dominate and control all of society.
-
Actually, the OPPOSITE is true.
When I was a kid, if you had differences with another student, you'd slug it out, someone would get a bloody nose or lip, and everyone would move on. That was that. In fact, after each fist fight I was engaged in, my opponent and I either gained respect for each other or outright friendship.
Nowadays, zero-tolerance policies have made it so the rage gets pent up. Boys don't know or understand the value of a fist fight, so - when it comes time to hurt someone - they are ALL IN and ready to shoot. We've pussified boys so that they are afraid to fight, and unable to get their frustrations out through fighting.
Bottom line, there is wisdom in letting us punch one another every now and then.
-
Liberals would like all boys to be beta, metrosexual males subservient to female masters who would effectively emasculate them. Most arch feminists would certainly like to do so.
The problem is too many young males are delaying becoming men and taking control of their lives. The fact is most women don't want weak, spineless males no matter how loud the leading feminist harridans shriek about "toxic masculinity."
Beta males eventually find out that alpha males still get favored by most females. We have subsconscious things at work here that don't obey modern, liberal-invented rules of how males and females are supposed to act and react.
-
The guy was just "bad seed" period...nothing more, nothing less.........people who try to attach more to it than that are missing the boat.
-
The guy was just "bad seed" period...nothing more, nothing less.........people who try to attach more to it than that are missing the boat.
I can disagree with that statement on some pretty simple grounds: a culture will dictate how certain bad seeds will act.
Evidence: Our culture doesn't have its bad seeds strapping explosives to their chests screaming Ballyhoo Snackbar in a marketplace and blowing themselves up. The culture of the 50s was more about bad seeds roughing people up a bit and moving on.
There is a cultural component to this, believe me, and it is steeped in what liberals are doing to society - diminishing the value of life, removing God, refusing to talk about the eternal consequences of your actions, and preaching moral relativism over the existence of absolute good and evil.
-
Actually, the OPPOSITE is true.
When I was a kid, if you had differences with another student, you'd slug it out, someone would get a bloody nose or lip, and everyone would move on. That was that. In fact, after each fist fight I was engaged in, my opponent and I either gained respect for each other or outright friendship.
Nowadays, zero-tolerance policies have made it so the rage gets pent up. Boys don't know or understand the value of a fist fight, so - when it comes time to hurt someone - they are ALL IN and ready to shoot. We've pussified boys so that they are afraid to fight, and unable to get their frustrations out through fighting.
Bottom line, there is wisdom in letting us punch one another every now and then.
It is only those "We're all the same" jackwagons who have ignored that most little boys are wired different from most little girls. Boys will naturally sort out dominance through the time honored means of displays and conflict, like the males of any other species. This is perfectly natural, even within the confines of ordinary societal mores even a half century ago, when they knew they'd get the paddle for the fistfight on the playground, even if they were in the right.
It is only since authorities and social scientists (I hate using those two words together) started with the program to get little boys to act like little girls that we have had these incidents, massive "ADD and ADHD" (because the little boys won't sit still), widespread pharmacology which would have been resisted by any means in the "paranoid" Cold War era by parents concerned about "mind control", and blood in the hallways.
It isn't "toxic masculinity" that is the problem, it is the effects of toxic feminism which has demonized masculinity and its normal development that has created this problem and many others.
-
It is only since authorities and social scientists (I hate using those two words together) started with the program to get little boys to act like little girls that we have had these incidents, massive "ADD and ADHD" (because the little boys won't sit still), widespread pharmacology which would have been resisted by any means in the "paranoid" Cold War era by parents concerned about "mind control", and blood in the hallways.
It isn't "toxic masculinity" that is the problem, it is the effects of toxic feminism which has demonized masculinity and its normal development that has created this problem and many others.
You've described a certain member of my extended family to a T. She was a primary school teacher in the 60s and disciple of Dr Spock, and went all in on every trendy child rearing scam that came down the pike. Neutered her husband early on (he allowed it). His kids never saw him as an authority figure, more of a peer.
Years ago I asked her why she allowed her son to pin up the most rancid porn all over his bedroom, she replied 'better at home than on the street'. Whatever that meant. And she was sold on the utility of antidepressants.
As a consequence of his upbringing he has spent a good chunk of the last twenty years in the federal pen.
Just an anecdote but totally supportive of your point.
-
I can disagree with that statement on some pretty simple grounds: a culture will dictate how certain bad seeds will act.
Evidence: Our culture doesn't have its bad seeds strapping explosives to their chests screaming Ballyhoo Snackbar in a marketplace and blowing themselves up. The culture of the 50s was more about bad seeds roughing people up a bit and moving on.
There is a cultural component to this, believe me, and it is steeped in what liberals are doing to society - diminishing the value of life, removing God, refusing to talk about the eternal consequences of your actions, and preaching moral relativism over the existence of absolute good and evil.
Good post, BB! Yes, our culture is broken. And, it's easier to blame boys, much like many blame guns, than to look at the actual problems.
-
I can disagree with that statement on some pretty simple grounds: a culture will dictate how certain bad seeds will act.
Evidence: Our culture doesn't have its bad seeds strapping explosives to their chests screaming Ballyhoo Snackbar in a marketplace and blowing themselves up. The culture of the 50s was more about bad seeds roughing people up a bit and moving on.
There is a cultural component to this, believe me, and it is steeped in what liberals are doing to society - diminishing the value of life, removing God, refusing to talk about the eternal consequences of your actions, and preaching moral relativism over the existence of absolute good and evil.
Amen and AMEN!!!!
-
It is only those "We're all the same" jackwagons who have ignored that most little boys are wired different from most little girls. Boys will naturally sort out dominance through the time honored means of displays and conflict, like the males of any other species. This is perfectly natural, even within the confines of ordinary societal mores even a half century ago, when they knew they'd get the paddle for the fistfight on the playground, even if they were in the right.
It is only since authorities and social scientists (I hate using those two words together) started with the program to get little boys to act like little girls that we have had these incidents, massive "ADD and ADHD" (because the little boys won't sit still), widespread pharmacology which would have been resisted by any means in the "paranoid" Cold War era by parents concerned about "mind control", and blood in the hallways.
It isn't "toxic masculinity" that is the problem, it is the effects of toxic feminism which has demonized masculinity and its normal development that has created this problem and many others.
Father of 50s-60s boy, called to task for fighting. they knew they'd get the paddle for the fistfight on the playground,
My father was mad for the humiliation of having to deal with the Vice Principal, effectively calling him to task over his sons' propensity to duke it out. Then on the way home, asking me what happened, and if I won. (...for me, the single swat was well worth the status and warning it sent. My brothers and I all wrestled, lower middle weight, and rarely if ever lost fights. Dad was more proud, than mad.)
-
I can disagree with that statement on some pretty simple grounds: a culture will dictate how certain bad seeds will act.
Evidence: Our culture doesn't have its bad seeds strapping explosives to their chests screaming Ballyhoo Snackbar in a marketplace and blowing themselves up. The culture of the 50s was more about bad seeds roughing people up a bit and moving on.
There is a cultural component to this, believe me, and it is steeped in what liberals are doing to society - diminishing the value of life, removing God, refusing to talk about the eternal consequences of your actions, and preaching moral relativism over the existence of absolute good and evil.
Culture determines what is an "unthinkable act".
In the past 50 years our culture has morphed to the extent that acts of violence and contempt for human life which would have been considered intolerable in media except as studies of horror are commonly piped into the living rooms and culture of America hourly. There is a lot of material which would have been considered 'X' rated (or worse) and definitely not the fare we raise children on. Even video games have kids routinely performing electronic slaughter (no, I'm not demonizing video games, as long as people are aware that that is just a game).
We played 'Army', too, without such aids, with dirt clod grenades and everything from sticks to toy guns, but maybe that more rough and tumble version emphasized that real humans can get hurt, and that pain isn't pretty--especially wen it is yours. Such things teach compassion as well as provide a venue for sorting out leadership (like pack order in wolves).
But 50 years' ago the list of unthinkable acts was considerably longer, and there were more gradations of solutions to problems between people. Confrontations had a spectrum pf possible outcomes, but few things were seen as cause for taking another life, not like today when somehow 'dissing' the wrong person can get you shot and killed. That all or nothing polarity, live or die, with us or against us mentality has crept in to the point where simple and civil disagreement is off the table for many, even older people because of the mindset developed in pop culture and entertainment which spills over into real life.
Those of us who watched John Wayne had the thought that "He can't learn nothin' if ya kill him.', instead of the Boyz in the Hood mentality of thet MF'er has to die. But one of the first cultural taboos to fall around the time prayer was eliminated from schools (with the idea that there is an ultimate authority we all will answer to in the end) was the sanctity of human life. With Roe v Wade, the door was opened to the greatest slaughter mankind has known, perpetrated not upon a vicious enemy, but upon our own flesh and blood, the most innocent of whom were the target.
What good can come of a culture thus corrupted? The only surprise is that much good prevails and these incidents aren't far more commonplace. .
-
It is only those "We're all the same" jackwagons who have ignored that most little boys are wired different from most little girls. Boys will naturally sort out dominance through the time honored means of displays and conflict, like the males of any other species. This is perfectly natural, even within the confines of ordinary societal mores even a half century ago, when they knew they'd get the paddle for the fistfight on the playground, even if they were in the right.
It is only since authorities and social scientists (I hate using those two words together) started with the program to get little boys to act like little girls that we have had these incidents, massive "ADD and ADHD" (because the little boys won't sit still), widespread pharmacology which would have been resisted by any means in the "paranoid" Cold War era by parents concerned about "mind control", and blood in the hallways.
It isn't "toxic masculinity" that is the problem, it is the effects of toxic feminism which has demonized masculinity and its normal development that has created this problem and many others.
"It isn't "toxic masculinity" that is the problem, it is the effects of toxic feminism which has demonized masculinity and its normal development that has created this problem and many others."
:thumbsup: Radical feminism has been the most pernicious force in American society for the last fifty years.
-
If only all boys could be Male figure skaters the world would be all candy and nuts.
-
If only all boys could be Male figure skaters the world would be all candy and nuts.
What?? You don't like Johnny??
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/11/58/88/1158883a3cac27a2066ba587d8b058ca--johnny-weir-ice-skaters.jpg)
-
Father of 50s-60s boy, called to task for fighting. they knew they'd get the paddle for the fistfight on the playground,
My father was mad for the humiliation of having to deal with the Vice Principal, effectively calling him to task over his sons' propensity to duke it out. Then on the way home, asking me what happened, and if I won. (...for me, the single swat was well worth the status and warning it sent. My brothers and I all wrestled, lower middle weight, and rarely if ever lost fights. Dad was more proud, than mad.)
Used to be if two boys were caught fighting, they would give both a pair of boxing gloves and they'd go at it. And usually what ended up happening afterwards was the two came out with respect for each other, and in many cases, became friends.
-
Somehow we ought to be able to come up with a happy medium. I grew up on the border, surrounded by the culture of boys who were the little kings of their households, who could do no wrong. Boys certainly weren't allowed to hit their sisters, but their sisters were expected to do their laundry and pretty much "serve" them. That was obviously one extreme, and it was really unhealthy. Now I see boys who are made to feel bad for acting "naturally". But I also still see a lot of "grown-up" boys who think they're God's gift and women should be thrilled to be groped by them. Another extreme, yes.
I think boys' natural ways of dealing with their aggression, physical and immediate, are much healthier than girls' passive-aggressive backstabbing. But girls have been _trained_ to behave that way, and it will take time to unlearn those habits of mind and expectations.
For a long time, we've spent so much time labeling kids as behaving like boys or girls, marginally acceptable tomboys or effeminate. Rather than just letting each kid be who he is. I'm afraid that's a large basis for the trans movement, when people feel like they have to change their bodies because they don't "fit" what they think a man or woman should be.
I think the pendulum is going to have to swing back, and it will take a while.
-
We played 'Army', too, without such aids, with dirt clod grenades and everything from sticks to toy guns, but maybe that more rough and tumble version emphasized that real humans can get hurt, and that pain isn't pretty--especially when it is yours.
@Smokin Joe
We played with toy guns CONSTANTLY when we were kids. And if it wasn't an actual toy gun, it was a gun-shaped stick. The key differentiator is that we fought bad guys. That was always clear in our head: cowboys and indians, playing war, space ranger - whatever - there were good guys and there were bad guys. The GOOD guys stood up for certain ideals. These ideals were largely a reflection of Truth, Justice, and The American Way.
Liberalism has eliminated that. There are no more good guys. Everyone is a racist. Cowboys were genocidal maniacs. The American soldier is a perpetrator of war crimes. Aliens are smarter and more advanced than us - we're morally inferior to them and likely to kill them just because we are so horribly stupid and prejudiced.
When you infect society with this notion that we are all such common rotten racists, greedy jingoistic capitalist pigs, and that any crime our ancestors committed is a direct reflection of who we are now, don't we all just deserve to die?
Enter Nikolas Cruz...
-
Somehow we ought to be able to come up with a happy medium. I grew up on the border, surrounded by the culture of boys who were the little kings of their households, who could do no wrong. Boys certainly weren't allowed to hit their sisters, but their sisters were expected to do their laundry and pretty much "serve" them. That was obviously one extreme, and it was really unhealthy. Now I see boys who are made to feel bad for acting "naturally". But I also still see a lot of "grown-up" boys who think they're God's gift and women should be thrilled to be groped by them. Another extreme, yes.
I think boys' natural ways of dealing with their aggression, physical and immediate, are much healthier than girls' passive-aggressive backstabbing. But girls have been _trained_ to behave that way, and it will take time to unlearn those habits of mind and expectations.
For a long time, we've spent so much time labeling kids as behaving like boys or girls, marginally acceptable tomboys or effeminate. Rather than just letting each kid be who he is. I'm afraid that's a large basis for the trans movement, when people feel like they have to change their bodies because they don't "fit" what they think a man or woman should be.
I think the pendulum is going to have to swing back, and it will take a while.
A wise post, Laura. Culture has forced both boys and girls into small boxes so that artistic boys and adventurous girls were completely ostracized. The left took hold of culture and ripped down any natural differences and tried to blend both into one.
Neither system works. If we could only raise children to be who they actually are rather than to fit into a stereotype, or force one to behave as the other, we would have a healthier society.
But I don't see that coming any time soon.
The solution is not to let boys beat each other up, but it is also not to say that the urge to hit someone is entirely out of bounds.
-
A wise post, Laura. Culture has forced both boys and girls into small boxes so that artistic boys and adventurous girls were completely ostracized. The left took hold of culture and ripped down any natural differences and tried to blend both into one.
Neither system works. If we could only raise children to be who they actually are rather than to fit into a stereotype, or force one to behave as the other, we would have a healthier society.
But I don't see that coming any time soon.
The solution is not to let boys beat each other up, but it is also not to say that the urge to hit someone is entirely out of bounds.
@LauraTXNM @musiclady
Once again, though, the problem boils down to liberals: they HATE and are INTOLERANT of whatever they don't consider their ideal.
So, if you WANT to be a mom, who runs a clean and organized house, who cooks delicious meals for her man, and doesn't seek a University degree, they belittle you.
If conservatives were in charge of the culture, we COULD have both, because conservatives actually find value in BOTH roles. Liberals - not so much.
Finally, I wouldn't say that the solution is the Hunger Games for our children. But I would say that getting into a scrap every now and then shouldn't be treated as the end of the world. Oh, yeah, you're gonna get detention, but let kids understand the consequences of violence when the most they can do is scrape up their opponents a little.
-
Used to be if two boys were caught fighting, they would give both a pair of boxing gloves and they'd go at it. And usually what ended up happening afterwards was the two came out with respect for each other, and in many cases, became friends.
My father's instructions: a) Don't fight, b) If you fight, don't lose.
-
@LauraTXNM @musiclady
Once again, though, the problem boils down to liberals: they HATE and are INTOLERANT of whatever they don't consider their ideal.
So, if you WANT to be a mom, who runs a clean and organized house, who cooks delicious meals for her man, and doesn't seek a University degree, they belittle you.
If conservatives were in charge of the culture, we COULD have both, because conservatives actually find value in BOTH roles. Liberals - not so much.
Finally, I wouldn't say that the solution is the Hunger Games for our children. But I would say that getting into a scrap every now and then shouldn't be treated as the end of the world. Oh, yeah, you're gonna get detention, but let kids understand the consequences of violence when the most they can do is scrape up their opponents a little.
I'm sorry, but I call BS. Boys who were effeminate used to have the sh-t kicked out of them frequently, often by their dads. I would call this a traditional rather than a liberal or conservative issue, though my friends who had the sh-t beaten out of them mostly grew up in more conservative households. The idea that you had to be a certain way to be "a real man" who didn't cry, demonstrate emotion, all the stereotypes, is an old-school notion. From John Wayne to "The Godfather" -- "women and children can be careless, not men."
And you all really need to look at women today, who can be homemakers or working professionals or both. No one is telling us we can't, except for a few voices saying that children can't be raised right without a parent in the home, or that women should have careers to the exclusion of childbearing. I am a liberal, and a feminist, and I don't believe in that BS. Neither do my friends, the women I went to college with in an old-fashioned "girls school".
Once again, this does not need to be a liberal vs. conservative issue. It is a matter of rcognizing traditions and history, keeping things that work and letting go of things that don't.
-
@LauraTXNM @musiclady
Finally, I wouldn't say that the solution is the Hunger Games for our children. But I would say that getting into a scrap every now and then shouldn't be treated as the end of the world. Oh, yeah, you're gonna get detention, but let kids understand the consequences of violence when the most they can do is scrape up their opponents a little.
I absolutely agree with you here. Everyone should make mistakes as a kid, so they learn. Now, A kid who fights all the time, that is someone who needs some help.
-
The question should be, are our children broken, and the answer is that too many of them are thanks to the liberals indoctrinating them at school, and in the media. Boys are emasculated and feminized, girls are butched up and family values and morals are demonized.
Children are told they can be any sex or mix of sexes they want and the children that have their heads on straight are punished berated if they don't accept the freaks and freakish ideas pushed by educators.
-
@LauraTXNM @musiclady
Once again, though, the problem boils down to liberals: they HATE and are INTOLERANT of whatever they don't consider their ideal.
So, if you WANT to be a mom, who runs a clean and organized house, who cooks delicious meals for her man, and doesn't seek a University degree, they belittle you.
If conservatives were in charge of the culture, we COULD have both, because conservatives actually find value in BOTH roles. Liberals - not so much.
Finally, I wouldn't say that the solution is the Hunger Games for our children. But I would say that getting into a scrap every now and then shouldn't be treated as the end of the world. Oh, yeah, you're gonna get detention, but let kids understand the consequences of violence when the most they can do is scrape up their opponents a little.
Completely agree that the problem is with liberals because (most) conservatives are more tolerant of different ideas.
I speak as a girl who used to use her fists to solve problems (mostly with boys, but not all), and who grew up to be what I wanted to be....... a Mom, who stayed home with her kids and never found more fulfillment in anything than doing so, but who took the barbs of a leftist culture who wanted to deny me the choice, or give me the choice and then mock me for it.
What I object to is that there are still those on the right who say boys must be this way and girls must be that way, when the TRUTH is that God's creativity makes us all individuals, and any human attempt to force us into little round holes (especially those of us who are square, because God created us to be unique), is bound to harm a lot of people.
Perhaps, if conservatism had stood up more strongly for individuality than imposed social expectations, the left wouldn't have been able to get such a strong foothold and destroy not only our boys, but our girls....
@bolobaby
-
Boys are emasculated and feminized, girls are butched up and family values and morals are demonized.
THIS is part of the problem. Children should be free to be individuals, without the tomboy and effeminate labels. When boys are told for years that they're not "manly" enough, I'm not surprised that some of them come to believe they're in the "wrong body".
-
Completely agree that the problem is with liberals because (most) conservatives are more tolerant of different ideas.
I speak as a girl who used to use her fists to solve problems (mostly with boys, but not all), and who grew up to be what I wanted to be....... a Mom, who stayed home with her kids and never found more fulfillment in anything than doing so, but who took the barbs of a leftist culture who wanted to deny me the choice, or give me the choice and then mock me for it.
What I object to is that there are still those on the right who say boys must be this way and girls must be that way, when the TRUTH is that God's creativity makes us all individuals, and any human attempt to force us into little round holes (especially those of us who are square, because God created us to be unique), is bound to harm a lot of people.
Perhaps, if conservatism had stood up more strongly for individuality than imposed social expectations, the left wouldn't have been able to get such a strong foothold and destroy not only our boys, but our girls....
@bolobaby
I'm sorry you ran into liberals like that -- my sense is that some women reacted with intolerance in the 1970s/1980s maybe, because they felt they were having to fight so hard. I assure you, that the women I know combine all kinds of different types of work and childrearing. We still are trying to find that balance, but we are trying to be respectful of each other while we do it. I hope maybe you can take me as an example of a "non-evil" liberal ;).
Funny, that I would have said the stereotype is that liberals are more tolerant of different ideas ;).
-
What I object to is that there are still those on the right who say boys must be this way and girls must be that way, when the TRUTH is that God's creativity makes us all individuals, and any human attempt to force us into little round holes (especially those of us who are square, because God created us to be unique), is bound to harm a lot of people.
Perhaps, if conservatism had stood up more strongly for individuality than imposed social expectations, the left wouldn't have been able to get such a strong foothold and destroy not only our boys, but our girls....
@bolobaby
This is so BEAUTIFULLY put. Kudos!
-
I'm sorry, but I call BS. Boys who were effeminate used to have the sh-t kicked out of them frequently, often by their dads.
So what? ALL boys got the shit kicked out of em around here...
MALES FIGHT. It;s what they do.
Males compete. It is how it works.
I would call this a traditional rather than a liberal or conservative issue, though my friends who had the sh-t beaten out of them mostly grew up in more conservative households. The idea that you had to be a certain way to be "a real man" who didn't cry, demonstrate emotion, all the stereotypes, is an old-school notion. From John Wayne to "The Godfather" -- "women and children can be careless, not men."
Yes, it's more of a reality v fantasy argument. Remove the boundaries of polite society (which is happening even now) and everything reverts back to the norm.
And you all really need to look at women today, who can be homemakers or working professionals or both. No one is telling us we can't, except for a few voices saying that children can't be raised right without a parent in the home, or that women should have careers to the exclusion of childbearing. I am a liberal, and a feminist, and I don't believe in that BS. Neither do my friends, the women I went to college with in an old-fashioned "girls school".
As if 'today' is so blessed by comparison. Children aren't being raised right - that is evident on it's face.
They are dumb as hell by comparison... And without initiative or constraint.
Once again, this does not need to be a liberal vs. conservative issue. It is a matter of rcognizing traditions and history, keeping things that work and letting go of things that don't.
And who, pray tell is to be the arbiter thereof?
As I said, what is being removed is only polite society - those constraints that men tolerated for the purpose of a safe place for their women, and by extension, for their children.
Removing those constraints has a very predictable end.
Either men will become intolerant of them and revert to form,
Or other men will find them weak and conquer them.
Simple as that.
-
I'm sorry, but I call BS. Boys who were effeminate used to have the sh-t kicked out of them frequently, often by their dads. I would call this a traditional rather than a liberal or conservative issue, though my friends who had the sh-t beaten out of them mostly grew up in more conservative households. The idea that you had to be a certain way to be "a real man" who didn't cry, demonstrate emotion, all the stereotypes, is an old-school notion. From John Wayne to "The Godfather" -- "women and children can be careless, not men."
And you all really need to look at women today, who can be homemakers or working professionals or both. No one is telling us we can't, except for a few voices saying that children can't be raised right without a parent in the home, or that women should have careers to the exclusion of childbearing. I am a liberal, and a feminist, and I don't believe in that BS. Neither do my friends, the women I went to college with in an old-fashioned "girls school".
Once again, this does not need to be a liberal vs. conservative issue. It is a matter of rcognizing traditions and history, keeping things that work and letting go of things that don't.
I'm not sure where and how you grew up, but no one kicked their own boy's butt as part of any tradition in any family I knew.
I was fortunate enough to grow up in a family where my father made enough that mom didn't have to work and was free to be a homemaker. By no means did that constrain her from being politically active, and it gave her the freedom to not only raise and educate us (because what you learned in school wasn't always correct, nor complete) and encouraged us to take advantage of the rather large library we had at home. Without her counsel, wisdom, and care, I think we would have all turned out far worse, and had she bought into the often blatantly materialistic quest for unneeded income (because that second income was often optional in those days) and worked outside the home, as children we would have been deprived of that guidance and mentoring, not to mention not eating nearly as well.
What I saw happen as women became 'liberated' was inflation to the point where few households could afford to not have both parents working. The price of housing and automobiles, the two serious big ticket items, went up as the economy transitioned from single wage-earner to dual wage earner, and the term 'single parent', whether widowed or divorced usually meant some level of impoverishment, to the degree that along with the "Great Society", welfare rolls and subsidized housing expanded, not just along the oft assumed racial lines.
There have always been women who went into professions, or who had jobs, and that was plenty acceptable back then, despite the whole myth of "barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen", and farm/ranch wives have been some of the hardest working of all, but the nurturing roles in our culture went to those who, traditionally (and biologically, at least for the first year) are better equipped to do so. As kids get older, they have learned from their fathers and their grandparents (because back then, the extended family was often involved). But I cannot honestly recall women being held back from any of that, at least not since Marie Curie, with the exception of the priesthood.
But the question isn't one of keeping women from pursuing professions they want to pursue. My question is one of (aside from economic necessity) whether women prefer working to being mom. The latter, well done, can produce lifelong rewards, and is imho, the most important job of all.
-
This is so BEAUTIFULLY put. Kudos!
Thank you, @LauraTXNM .
(It's going to make some of the "boys will be boys" and shouldn't be tamed gang mad, though. They don't like uppity females. ^-^)
-
I'm sorry, but I call BS. Boys who were effeminate used to have the sh-t kicked out of them frequently, often by their dads. I would call this a traditional rather than a liberal or conservative issue, though my friends who had the sh-t beaten out of them mostly grew up in more conservative households. The idea that you had to be a certain way to be "a real man" who didn't cry, demonstrate emotion, all the stereotypes, is an old-school notion. From John Wayne to "The Godfather" -- "women and children can be careless, not men."
And you all really need to look at women today, who can be homemakers or working professionals or both. No one is telling us we can't, except for a few voices saying that children can't be raised right without a parent in the home, or that women should have careers to the exclusion of childbearing. I am a liberal, and a feminist, and I don't believe in that BS. Neither do my friends, the women I went to college with in an old-fashioned "girls school".
Once again, this does not need to be a liberal vs. conservative issue. It is a matter of rcognizing traditions and history, keeping things that work and letting go of things that don't.
No. When you are talking about gender roles not being concrete, you're making sense. When you're talking about genders not being concrete you're spewing ignorance.
Boys who do laundry, girls who start a lawnmowing business, bookworms versus jocks, princesses versus tomboys - that's all fine... with a caveat.
The caveat being that men and women ARE different. That translates to certain stereotypes existing FOR A REASON - namely, because boys acting *like boys* is the most natural state of affairs. Girls acting like girls is equally natural. Boys like to fight. Girls like to gab (and gab and gab and gab). And so forth and so on. Oh, sure not ALL boys and girls, but MOST tend to fit more closely to their stereotypical role. It's actually WHY stereotypes exist. If it makes you feel better, we can call then archetypes. Maybe that word doesn't offend you as much.
Liberals want the world to discard archetypes, including the archetype that actually exists between your legs. It validates some deep held belief of theirs that conforming=bad and being different=good. Sorry, but being different isn't always everything it's cracked up to be. Sometimes conforming to certain norms (like, say, "we don't shoot up schools") is a pretty good thing. Conservatives also believe that extends to "men don't wear pink tutus."
So sue me if I believe that gender roles exist for actual, natural reasons and that they aren't wholly a construct of society. Because they aren't. If you need further proof, just look at nature. Every species seems to have roles for their genders that is more or less followed on a whole. Why? Because it works. It helps them to survive as a species. And - surprise - it's imprinted in their brains. Like us.
So, just to clarify, I started by saying that gender roles don't HAVE to be concrete. That's the things like homemaker vs breadwinner, because we are higher, thinking beings - it allows us to be somewhat flexible. On the flipside, stupidly ignoring and throwing away gender roles - and gender itself - is outright silly.
-
I'm sorry you ran into liberals like that -- my sense is that some women reacted with intolerance in the 1970s/1980s maybe, because they felt they were having to fight so hard. I assure you, that the women I know combine all kinds of different types of work and childrearing. We still are trying to find that balance, but we are trying to be respectful of each other while we do it. I hope maybe you can take me as an example of a "non-evil" liberal ;).
Funny, that I would have said the stereotype is that liberals are more tolerant of different ideas ;).
The problem is with people who think that allowing men and women to be treated as individuals and not just part of a group, who believe that is somehow a conservative position.
Just because leftists have destroyed freedom doesn't mean freedom should be denied.
What we have here is classic liberal "groupthink." Women are one way, men are another. Men fight. Men cuss. Men spit, and not only in the corner. Women sew. Women cook. Women shut the heck up when men are around.
It's a liberal ideology to refuse to admit God's phenomenal creativity in making us each individuals, and in instructing us to raise our children "in the way they should go." Not as a cultural stereotype, but according to their gifts and strengths.
Liberals aren't tolerant of ANY idea that they don't agree with, and obviously neither are a minority of conservatives.
-
I'm not sure where and how you grew up, but no one kicked their own boy's butt as part of any tradition in any family I knew.
I was fortunate enough to grow up in a family where my father made enough that mom didn't have to work and was free to be a homemaker. By no means did that constrain her from being politically active, and it gave her the freedom to not only raise and educate us (because what you learned in school wasn't always correct, nor complete) and encouraged us to take advantage of the rather large library we had at home. Without her counsel, wisdom, and care, I think we would have all turned out far worse, and had she bought into the often blatantly materialistic quest for unneeded income (because that second income was often optional in those days) and worked outside the home, as children we would have been deprived of that guidance and mentoring, not to mention not eating nearly as well.
What I saw happen as women became 'liberated' was inflation to the point where few households could afford to not have both parents working. The price of housing and automobiles, the two serious big ticket items, went up as the economy transitioned from single wage-earner to dual wage earner, and the term 'single parent', whether widowed or divorced usually meant some level of impoverishment, to the degree that along with the "Great Society", welfare rolls and subsidized housing expanded, not just along the oft assumed racial lines.
There have always been women who went into professions, or who had jobs, and that was plenty acceptable back then, despite the whole myth of "barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen", and farm/ranch wives have been some of the hardest working of all, but the nurturing roles in our culture went to those who, traditionally (and biologically, at least for the first year) are better equipped to do so. As kids get older, they have learned from their fathers and their grandparents (because back then, the extended family was often involved). But I cannot honestly recall women being held back from any of that, at least not since Marie Curie, with the exception of the priesthood.
But the question isn't one of keeping women from pursuing professions they want to pursue. My question is one of (aside from economic necessity) whether women prefer working to being mom. The latter, well done, can produce lifelong rewards, and is imho, the most important job of all.
"There have always been women who went into professions, or who had jobs, and that was plenty acceptable back then,"
When I started working at a Fortune 500 corp in my hometown in the early seventies, there were about twenty women working in my work group (paper pushers). Many of them had been there twenty years already meaning they had been hired shortly after WWII when the company expanded but well before the era of supposed female emancipation.
A few years after I started, the company started promoting many of the female office workers to positions in management.
What liberals and feminists miss is the arc of history.
The simple fact is that before WWII only a small pct. of the nation's males had "important" jobs i.e. white collar professionals and big shots in business.
Many men were still slogging away on the farm. A very large pct. of men were factory workers or worked non-professional jobs in a variety of physical labor-intensive positions. Like they do now.
It was only after the war that both males and females started attending college in large numbers. Even during the forties only about half the nation's schoolchildren graduated from high school.
So after WWII when both sexes graduated from high school in larger numbers and started attending college in large numbers, it was inevitable that many educated females would start being employed more by businesses and private firms.
The growth had nothing to do with the feminist "emancipation" that really didn't start until the late sixties. Well before that millions of women had been employed by many businesses and such.
So the idea that women had to wait for the feminists to gain their "emancipation" is balderdash. It had been happening well before they came around and nearly wrecked everything.
-
@goatprairie Makes sense, thanks for the perspective.
Kinda trashes the whole sainted victim narrative though.
-
Father of 50s-60s boy, called to task for fighting. they knew they'd get the paddle for the fistfight on the playground,
My father was mad for the humiliation of having to deal with the Vice Principal, effectively calling him to task over his sons' propensity to duke it out. Then on the way home, asking me what happened, and if I won. (...for me, the single swat was well worth the status and warning it sent. My brothers and I all wrestled, lower middle weight, and rarely if ever lost fights. Dad was more proud, than mad.)
My dad's rule was simple. If you fight at school, I am going to give you 10 licks with the belt. If you lose, your going to get 10 more. I only got into one fight, after taking several punches and finally getting fed up with it I landed on punch straight to the mouth. Two teeth later and lots of blood in front of half of the school. Never had to fight another day in my entire school life. I was the geek with the jab.
Got 3 licks from the principle and 10 from my dad.
-
Got 3 licks from the principle and 10 from my dad.
I never got the paddle for fighting. One time I picked a fight, and that was the only time my ol man whipped on me for fighting... and he thumped me good.
Thereafter, I would always take the first hit. Thereafter I would fight with abandon, and within the right of self defense. Likewise, I was never first to get dirty - Always let the other guy try that first... Once he went dirty, I was absolutely free - Never was any good with boxing and Queen of Marksbury stuff...
But never the paddle. If I was in the right, my ol man was 100% behind me, and damn well no one was going to punish me for doing the right thing. And self defense, or defense of others, was always the right thing.
Different thing the first time I hit jail. Bailed me out once, with the warning of 'never again'... And never again it was. Thereafter, I sat it out, waiting on the judge.
-
Actually, the OPPOSITE is true.
When I was a kid, if you had differences with another student, you'd slug it out, someone would get a bloody nose or lip, and everyone would move on. That was that. In fact, after each fist fight I was engaged in, my opponent and I either gained respect for each other or outright friendship.
Nowadays, zero-tolerance policies have made it so the rage gets pent up. Boys don't know or understand the value of a fist fight, so - when it comes time to hurt someone - they are ALL IN and ready to shoot. We've pussified boys so that they are afraid to fight, and unable to get their frustrations out through fighting.
Bottom line, there is wisdom in letting us punch one another every now and then.
I strongly agree with your assessment but didn't know how to say it. Well said.
-
Completely agree that the problem is with liberals because (most) conservatives are more tolerant of different ideas.
I speak as a girl who used to use her fists to solve problems (mostly with boys, but not all), and who grew up to be what I wanted to be....... a Mom, who stayed home with her kids and never found more fulfillment in anything than doing so, but who took the barbs of a leftist culture who wanted to deny me the choice, or give me the choice and then mock me for it.
What I object to is that there are still those on the right who say boys must be this way and girls must be that way, when the TRUTH is that God's creativity makes us all individuals, and any human attempt to force us into little round holes (especially those of us who are square, because God created us to be unique), is bound to harm a lot of people.
Perhaps, if conservatism had stood up more strongly for individuality than imposed social expectations, the left wouldn't have been able to get such a strong foothold and destroy not only our boys, but our girls....
@bolobaby
I would argue that conservatism at its heart is about individual liberty and responsibility. Liberalism in the modern usage is to deny the individual both liberty and responsibility - the opposite of conservatism. Liberalism is about hammering the individual into a Utopian cog "for the greater good". The goal is a better Utopia, not a better cog. We are the cogs...
-
I would argue that conservatism at its heart is about individual liberty and responsibility. Liberalism in the modern usage is to deny the individual both liberty and responsibility - the opposite of conservatism. Liberalism is about hammering the individual into a Utopian cog "for the greater good". The goal is a better Utopia, not a better cog. We are the cogs...
I agree that conservatism at its heart is about individual liberty and responsibility, and that is exactly why I believe that anyone who tries to force men and women into specific cultural roles and behaviors is not being conservative.....just traditional. And there is a big difference between the two.
There is also a great distance between saying that there is no difference between men and women, and saying that men and women shouldn't be forced into some one else's idea of what they should be, or worse yet, that saying that if you don't behave in a certain manner you are not masculine, or are not feminine.
A lot of folks don't understand that God indeed created us as individuals, and there is nothing wrong with that. Some boys are non-violent by nature, some girls come out of the womb swinging their fists.
It's not as simplistic as some would have it be.
One of the reasons I have always been conservative is that conservatism is a thinking, reasoning ideology. Saying "boys fight. It's what they do"..... is not conservative. It's reactionary.
-
Related:
13 Ways Public Schools Incubate Mental Instability In Kids
The correlation between public school environments and the deteriorating mental health of children has been intensifying for decades.
By Stella Morabito
February 21, 2018
Why doesn’t anyone investigate the toxic effects of today’s bureaucrat-run mega-schools in the wake of a school shooting? It’s high time we place a share of the blame there.
Apologists for these noxious systems continue to shift blame for their failures using the media, various left-wing lobbies, and the kids themselves as programmed mouthpieces for statist agendas like gun control. Meanwhile, they keep feeding the beast by mass institutionalizing kids.
The correlation between public school environments and the deteriorating mental health of children has been intensifying for decades. We ought to consider how these settings serve as incubators for the social alienation that can fuel such horrors. ...
Read the rest at The Federalist (http://thefederalist.com/2018/02/21/13-ways-public-schools-incubate-mental-instability-kids/)
-
I agree that conservatism at its heart is about individual liberty and responsibility, and that is exactly why I believe that anyone who tries to force men and women into specific cultural roles and behaviors is not being conservative.....just traditional. And there is a big difference between the two....
This whole post is so well expressed!
-
This whole post is so well expressed!
I'm quite sure some of the traditional fellers around here disagree. ^-^
(But thanks!)
-
I agree that conservatism at its heart is about individual liberty and responsibility, and that is exactly why I believe that anyone who tries to force men and women into specific cultural roles and behaviors is not being conservative.....just traditional. And there is a big difference between the two.
There is also a great distance between saying that there is no difference between men and women, and saying that men and women shouldn't be forced into some one else's idea of what they should be, or worse yet, that saying that if you don't behave in a certain manner you are not masculine, or are not feminine.
A lot of folks don't understand that God indeed created us as individuals, and there is nothing wrong with that. Some boys are non-violent by nature, some girls come out of the womb swinging their fists.
It's not as simplistic as some would have it be.
One of the reasons I have always been conservative is that conservatism is a thinking, reasoning ideology. Saying "boys fight. It's what they do"..... is not conservative. It's reactionary.
Well I agree with the vast majority of what you said. But nature is nature. Males do fight. Does that cover ALL males, no. By fighting at a young age most males work out cause and affect with social interaction and the limits of force. Preventing those lessens can be deadly later is the point that is trying to be made. And I agree that people shouldn't be pounded into fixed roles but some guidance isn't a bad thing. I'm mostly a live and let live kind of guy but don't force your way on me (not talking about you here).
-
Well I agree with the vast majority of what you said. But nature is nature. Males do fight. Does that cover ALL males, no. By fighting at a young age most males work out cause and affect with social interaction and the limits of force. Preventing those lessens can be deadly later is the point that is trying to be made. And I agree that people shouldn't be pounded into fixed roles but some guidance isn't a bad thing. I'm mostly a live and let live kind of guy but don't force your way on me (not talking about you here).
I'm not sure about one thing you've said here. Are you suggesting that boys who are not inclined to fight, but are perfectly "male," should be encouraged to fight? (As in "some guidance?")
My perspective is that standing up for yourself is an important part of being nurtured by parents, and that being taken advantage of is always a bad thing, but I don't see that handling problems with your fists is something that should be "guided" for boys.
That's different than being able to protect yourself, which should be taught to both male and female children. And if a child of either sex is inclined to hit people when angered, he or she should be encouraged to solve problems in another manner. (Remember that I, as a child, used to hit other children who made me mad. Not a good way to solve things, IMO... ^-^).
Again, I see the Proverbs instruction as coming into play here. Raise each child as he or she should go, not in a groupthink behavior that is not one whit conservative, nor in my view, Biblical.
Not really arguing with you here, @DB . I think this is a good conversation, and an important one to have. :beer:
-
Let me add another point here. I have seen many parents who have not discouraged their adolescent daughters from acting out in inappropriate ways because it was just "hormones." I strongly disagree with that idea, because a child, male or female, should be instructed to behave appropriately regardless of the "feelings" they may be having.
Thus, boys, "feeling" like having sex or molesting a girl shouldn't do it because it is not right. Girls shouldn't lash out at others because of "feelings," because it is not right.
In the same manner, I believe that boys should be instructed not to use their fists to solve problems, regardless of their "feelings," i.e. nature.
As parents, we are to help our children (especially as Christian parents) to behave in the best possible manner, not give in to "nature," which may not be kind, loving, decent, Christ-like.
-
THIS is part of the problem. Children should be free to be individuals, without the tomboy and effeminate labels. When boys are told for years that they're not "manly" enough, I'm not surprised that some of them come to believe they're in the "wrong body".
Actually I have noticed just the opposite about what is happening to boys and men too. When I was in my late teens and was injured I was told by a nurse to "stop being a man about it", with my son and now my grandson I see teachers and others guilt them for not crying or being over emotional, they are in effect saying don't be a male. I have no problem with girls being tomboys, my daughter could with the best of them but she knew she was a girl and was and is capable of being very feminine. Now they punish boys if they God forbid behave like boys rough housing, competing, keeping score or sin of all sins take interest in guns or the military.
-
No. When you are talking about gender roles not being concrete, you're making sense. When you're talking about genders not being concrete you're spewing ignorance.
Boys who do laundry, girls who start a lawnmowing business, bookworms versus jocks, princesses versus tomboys - that's all fine... with a caveat.
The caveat being that men and women ARE different. That translates to certain stereotypes existing FOR A REASON - namely, because boys acting *like boys* is the most natural state of affairs. Girls acting like girls is equally natural. Boys like to fight. Girls like to gab (and gab and gab and gab). And so forth and so on. Oh, sure not ALL boys and girls, but MOST tend to fit more closely to their stereotypical role. It's actually WHY stereotypes exist. If it makes you feel better, we can call then archetypes. Maybe that word doesn't offend you as much.
Liberals want the world to discard archetypes, including the archetype that actually exists between your legs. It validates some deep held belief of theirs that conforming=bad and being different=good. Sorry, but being different isn't always everything it's cracked up to be. Sometimes conforming to certain norms (like, say, "we don't shoot up schools") is a pretty good thing. Conservatives also believe that extends to "men don't wear pink tutus."
So sue me if I believe that gender roles exist for actual, natural reasons and that they aren't wholly a construct of society. Because they aren't. If you need further proof, just look at nature. Every species seems to have roles for their genders that is more or less followed on a whole. Why? Because it works. It helps them to survive as a species. And - surprise - it's imprinted in their brains. Like us.
So, just to clarify, I started by saying that gender roles don't HAVE to be concrete. That's the things like homemaker vs breadwinner, because we are higher, thinking beings - it allows us to be somewhat flexible. On the flipside, stupidly ignoring and throwing away gender roles - and gender itself - is outright silly.
With proof that you are correct current conservative superstar Prof. Jordan Peterson likes to relate the situation in Scandinavia. Most Scandinavian countries were the world leaders in eliminating laws and customs that supposedly held back women from attaining the positions and jobs of what were considered mostly male.
So what happened after the Scandinavian countries equalized just about everything and both sexes were free to choose whatever occupation they wanted? What happened was the preferences for certain jobs became even more pronounced.
Men still mostly preferred what were considered male occupations and women still chose professions that were mostly thought to be for females.
Scandinavia proved that the sexes are wired differently, and no matter how hard people try to make the outcomes the same, they will never be the same because of hard-wired differences between the sexes.
Left to their own devices, without being forced by law or society, males and females do different things.
It's just very difficult for radical feminists to accept that fact.
-
I'm not sure about one thing you've said here. Are you suggesting that boys who are not inclined to fight, but are perfectly "male," should be encouraged to fight? (As in "some guidance?")
My perspective is that standing up for yourself is an important part of being nurtured by parents, and that being taken advantage of is always a bad thing, but I don't see that handling problems with your fists is something that should be "guided" for boys.
That's different than being able to protect yourself, which should be taught to both male and female children. And if a child of either sex is inclined to hit people when angered, he or she should be encouraged to solve problems in another manner. (Remember that I, as a child, used to hit other children who made me mad. Not a good way to solve things, IMO... ^-^).
Again, I see the Proverbs instruction as coming into play here. Raise each child as he or she should go, not in a groupthink behavior that is not one whit conservative, nor in my view, Biblical.
Not really arguing with you here, @DB . I think this is a good conversation, and an important one to have. :beer:
"Are you suggesting that boys who are not inclined to fight, but are perfectly "male," should be encouraged to fight?"
No.
I don't encourage anyone to fight short of self defense. You do need to know how to defend yourself and how and when to apply it. By "guidance" I mean basic morality including sexual activity with others. Part of learning is experiencing consequences. Young boys aren't likely to do much damage to each other if it comes to fists. For many what they learn from that prevents later adventures when real damage can take place and that fights aren't like what Hollywood or a video game portrays.
-
Let me add another point here. I have seen many parents who have not discouraged their adolescent daughters from acting out in inappropriate ways because it was just "hormones." I strongly disagree with that idea, because a child, male or female, should be instructed to behave appropriately regardless of the "feelings" they may be having.
Thus, boys, "feeling" like having sex or molesting a girl shouldn't do it because it is not right. Girls shouldn't lash out at others because of "feelings," because it is not right.
In the same manner, I believe that boys should be instructed not to use their fists to solve problems, regardless of their "feelings," i.e. nature.
As parents, we are to help our children (especially as Christian parents) to behave in the best possible manner, not give in to "nature," which may not be kind, loving, decent, Christ-like.
Agreed! It makes sense to explain to middle schoolers that they will have hormonal shifts that may affect their mood, etc., but that they need to behave despite that awareness. But it can be helpful for them to know that it's natural for them to have mood swings, etc. Not an excuse, just information.
-
Actually I have noticed just the opposite about what is happening to boys and men too. When I was in my late teens and was injured I was told by a nurse to "stop being a man about it", with my son and now my grandson I see teachers and others guilt them for not crying or being over emotional, they are in effect saying don't be a male. I have no problem with girls being tomboys, my daughter could with the best of them but she knew she was a girl and was and is capable of being very feminine. Now they punish boys if they God forbid behave like boys rough housing, competing, keeping score or sin of all sins take interest in guns or the military.
That's interesting. I think it is possible for teachers et al to go "too far" in letting boys know it's okay to cry if they're hurt, let people know when they're sad, etc.
-
With proof that you are correct current conservative superstar Prof. Jordan Peterson likes to relate the situation in Scandinavia. Most Scandinavian countries were the world leaders in eliminating laws and customs that supposedly held back women from attaining the positions and jobs of what were considered mostly male.
So what happened after the Scandinavian countries equalized just about everything and both sexes were free to choose whatever occupation they wanted? What happened was the preferences for certain jobs became even more pronounced.
Men still mostly preferred what were considered male occupations and women still chose professions that were mostly thought to be for females.
Scandinavia proved that the sexes are wired differently, and no matter how hard people try to make the outcomes the same, they will never be the same because of hard-wired differences between the sexes.
Left to their own devices, without being forced by law or society, males and females do different things.
It's just very difficult for radical feminists to accept that fact.
All of this makes perfect sense. It is simply important for individuals to be able to make their own choices. (I do NOT mean that physical strengths and limitations shouldn't be part of the calculation -- 4'11" me is not going to be a heavyweight boxer or firefighter.)
-
In the same manner, I believe that boys should be instructed not to use their fists to solve problems, regardless of their "feelings," i.e. nature.
You will regret that idea when the time comes for men to rise up to defend. Having been indoctrinated to believe that fighting is bad, they will have no inclination, and certainly no ability.
-
You will regret that idea when the time comes for men to rise up to defend. Having been indoctrinated to believe that fighting is bad, they will have no inclination, and certainly no ability.
Well, I think all kids should learn how to defend themselves, with words or if necessary physically. But we did not make a point of telling our son, "Don't hit girls." We taught him not to hit -anyone- unless he was defending himself or someone else. Diplomacy first; war at last.
-
Well, I think all kids should learn how to defend themselves, with words or if necessary physically. But we did not make a point of telling our son, "Don't hit girls." We taught him not to hit -anyone- unless he was defending himself or someone else. Diplomacy first; war at last.
Don't hit girls. Yes.
Don't hit anybody. No. That is a ridiculous naïve idealistic idea in a REAL world among male humans.
-
You will regret that idea when the time comes for men to rise up to defend. Having been indoctrinated to believe that fighting is bad, they will have no inclination, and certainly no ability.
Do you think that I regret that our son, who was taught not to fight indiscriminately, chose to join the military at the age of 17, and served two tours in Iraq, being awarded a Bronze Star?
Your idea that boys have to be encouraged to fight each other to prove they're brave is pure bunk. My son has more courage in his pinkie than most macho men have in their entire bodies.
Maybe you should read the words of Jesus instead of relying on your traditional cultural feelings, and stop telling people what they will "regret" after having raised four strong, intelligent, independent, caring, polite and decent children, two male and two female.
You don't know what you're talking about.
-
That's interesting. I think it is possible for teachers et al to go "too far" in letting boys know it's okay to cry if they're hurt, let people know when they're sad, etc.
What teachers are doing if they tell boys they MUST cry is the same as telling them they must never cry.
They are not allowing boys to be who they are. Some cry. Some don't.
It's not feminine to cry. It's not masculine to cry. Why is there a need (clearly on BOTH sides) to put boys and girls in boxes whether they fit or not?
Actually, I have a thought about that. It takes more intellect and more work to deal with people as individuals, and not put them in little slots marked boy or girl. Just as legalism is the easier route than making good ethical choices based on theology and morality, forcing all people to fit in a simple-minded role is easier than the work it takes to treat them as individual human beings.
Stereotypical gender roles are for the lazy.
-
Well, I think all kids should learn how to defend themselves, with words or if necessary physically. But we did not make a point of telling our son, "Don't hit girls." We taught him not to hit -anyone- unless he was defending himself or someone else. Diplomacy first; war at last.
I largely agree with what you said.
But defense falls almost entirely upon the man.
It's fine to pontificate in hallowed halls and all, but it is true without a doubt that a woman will be safer hanging onto the arm of a man, and the bigger and badder the man, the more that applies... If for no other reason than the bare fact that his presence discourages the opportunist inclinations of criminals (almost always men themselves). The risk v reward ratio plummets.
So it is that men are encouraged to fight. So it is that women instinctively look for protective ability in a man. It's all instinctive. And beyond all the feminist rhetoric, instinct remains, even yet. And yes, the sexes are profoundly different.
Maybe it's the cowboy way that has so effected me. I was raised up not to hit girls, to help girls as the weaker sex, to treat men squarely, and to rise to defend those that can't defend themselves (which invariably and primarily includes women).
And that big Bailey hat, big silver buckle, and shitkickers turns me into a walking billboard for women. It's been that way all my life. Whenever a woman has need, she comes arunnin to find a big, strong, redneck boy. Whether to tote something heavy, or get directions, or get her car fixed, or stand directly in the way of whatever is scaring her, she knows that boy will do. Many's the time I have stood in the way of it for a woman... A woman I don't even know.
The conversation on this page and in this forum generally since the Moore debacle makes me regret that profoundly...
-
Don't hit girls. Yes.
Don't hit anybody. No. That is a ridiculous naïve idealistic idea in a REAL world among male humans.
EXACTLY true.
-
You don't know what you're talking about.
The hell I don't.
-
The hell I don't.
You don't. Boys raised to be polite and decent, without slugging each other, can be as courageous as anyone alive. (I gave our son as an example, which you conveniently ignored).
I know scores of brave men who didn't get into brawls to prove their masculinity. SOME boys understand that masculinity has nothing to do with fighting. SOME boys know that being a man doesn't mean hitting other people.
You want all men and all women to be the way YOU want them to be.
My husband and my two sons are some of the bravest men I know, who would protect anyone in need, and NONE of them have gotten into fist fights....... even as boys.
They're too secure in their masculinity to need such a primitive way to prove they're somebody.
It's possible to raise sons to be brave without being gorillas, and that is proven over and over again in the Christian world.
I say again, look to Jesus.
Then you will start to know what you're talking about.
As of now............ you don't.
-
Think what you will. Rough, primitive men spilled their blood to give you a society where that is possible.
And since men are no longer taught to stand up to bad men, soon enough, rough, primitive men will take it away from you again.
-
@musiclady
I don't believe anyone here is advocating teaching their sons to be violent. But... Boys often have to face a bully that is threatening violence if they don't do what they demand. That making peace is not always the best option. Learning to stand your ground and not avoiding violence at the cost of basic principle is also important. It is fundamental to how many boys learn to grow up and be protectors of their future families.
I have no doubt that you raised an honorable son. It is unlikely you know whether he got in any fights at school or elsewhere as part of growing up. I certainly didn't tell my parents about the fights I got into unless there was too much evidence to avoid it...
-
You will regret that idea when the time comes for men to rise up to defend. Having been indoctrinated to believe that fighting is bad, they will have no inclination, and certainly no ability.
My SIL has one rule for my grandson, you don't start fights but if someone attacks you physically, you defend yourself. He's told my grandson that as long as he follows the rule he will defend him in the school office.
-
Don't hit girls. Yes.
Don't hit anybody. No. That is a ridiculous naïve idealistic idea in a REAL world among male humans.
Don't hit girls? Even back when I was in junior high that was obsolete, there were Hispanic girls that were every bit as violent and prone to group attacks as their male counter parts and they didn't stick to fighting other girls. If you are attacked you defend yourself with as much force as necessary, the only rule is don't start it.
-
@musiclady
I don't believe anyone here is advocating teaching their sons to be violent. But... Boys often have to face a bully that is threatening violence if they don't do what they demand. That making peace is not always the best option. Learning to stand your ground and not avoiding violence at the cost of basic principle is also important. It is fundamental to how many boys learn to grow up and be protectors of their future families.
I have no doubt that you raised an honorable son. It is unlikely you know whether he got in any fights at school or elsewhere as part of growing up. I certainly didn't tell my parents about the fights I got into unless there was too much evidence to avoid it...
I disagree. There are some here who DO advocate violence for boys with the excuse that it's just the way boys are. It's just part of being male...... or so they say. That's an excuse for bad behavior.
As I have said before, I am NOT talking about defending yourself, nor knowing how to fight. I am talking about the idea that in order to be a male, one must be a fighter, or not be truly male. That's poppycock.
As for my son's hiding being in fights, again......... you need to have spent time with him as a child to know that he was honest, almost to a fault. He was a kid who never needed to be punished because he cried if we raised our voices. He was a compliant child (which actually helped him be a good soldier, and he was as courageous as they come....thus, the Bronze Star).
Sports is a great way to get out aggression, and all four of our kids were involved in sports (the most aggressive among them is our youngest...... a girl). Rough housing is another way to get out aggression, and our sons AND our youngest loved doing that. But they did not fight at school. (I was an involved Mom and spent much time at school and talked with teachers a lot).
The bottom line for me here is, stop forcing boys into a stereotype and stop allowing them to do things that are inappropriate just because they're boys. Again, I am NOT talking about allowing them to be bullied, nor not teaching them to defend themselves. I am talking about teaching them about the Fruits of the Spirit........ kindness, gentleness, self-control.
Teaching boys about how to be Christ-like is not making them sissies. It's making them real men.
It takes a lot more courage to NOT throw a punch than to throw it.
@DB
-
Think what you will. Rough, primitive men spilled their blood to give you a society where that is possible.
And since men are no longer taught to stand up to bad men, soon enough, rough, primitive men will take it away from you again.
And my son was a soldier who helped keep YOU free.
But he was raised to be like Christ (who DID stand up to bad men, if you know your Scripture).
You are conflating your own (very ingrained) cultural stereotype with the way things ought to be and it doesn't work.
Sorry that I kind of lost my temper in my last post.
If I were 11 and we were in the same room, I probably would have thrown a punch.
You can be glad I'm 68 now, and we're thousands of miles apart, because it spared you some physical pain that you wouldn't be enjoying right now, Mr. Macho Man. :smokin:
-
Okay,
Who here is advocating that?
Why don't you ask your son sometime instead of assume? The results might be interesting.
-
And my son was a soldier who helped keep YOU free.
But he was raised to be like Christ (who DID stand up to bad men, if you know your Scripture).
You are conflating your own (very ingrained) cultural stereotype with the way things ought to be and it doesn't work.
Sorry that I kind of lost my temper in my last post.
If I were 11 and we were in the same room, I probably would have thrown a punch.
You can be glad I'm 68 now, and we're thousands of miles apart, because it spared you some physical pain that you wouldn't be enjoying right now, Mr. Macho Man. :smokin:
You are jumping to conclusions regarding things said here not in evidence. You are going way to far with your assumptions. It isn't a binary choice.
-
Okay,
Who here is advocating that?
Why don't you ask your son sometime instead of assume? The results might be interesting.
The poster above is.
Actually, I'm not assuming anything. Why do you want him to have been in fights when he wasn't?
My husband never got in fights either (and don't you dare imply he's lying about that, or this very polite conversation will end), and our younger son's personality is a lot like his in most ways. Competitive, VERY strong physically, totally masculine, but caring and self-controlled.
You don't think men like this exist? Seriously???
-
You are jumping to conclusions regarding things said here not in evidence. You are going way to far with your assumptions. It isn't a binary choice.
I haven't jumped to a single conclusion. I've read the words on the page.
Now I'm beginning to wonder if you're trying to pick a fight, because until your last two posts I thought this was a polite conversation.... :shrug:
You're free to disagree with me all you want, but there's been a whole lot of assuming on your part based on your last two posts....
-
I haven't jumped to a single conclusion. I've read the words on the page.
Now I'm beginning to wonder if you're trying to pick a fight, because until your last two posts I thought this was a polite conversation.... :shrug:
You're free to disagree with me all you want, but there's been a whole lot of assuming on your part based on your last two posts....
I was polite.
Could it be you that is trying to apply your view of what a perfect male is on others? Just maybe?
You are going off the deep end - yes, assuming things not evidence. Including me "trying to pick a fight with you". You are free to assume whatever you like. It is pretty clear we can't discuss this without you being emotional about it going far beyond what was said.
So I'll let it be.
-
I was polite.
Could it be you that is trying to apply your view of what a perfect male is on others? Just maybe?
You are going off the deep end - yes, assuming things not evidence. Including me "trying to pick a fight with you". You are free to assume whatever you like. It is pretty clear we can't discuss this without you being emotional about it going far beyond what was said.
So I'll let it be.
I appreciate that, and enjoy your jab that I was being "emotional" after you implied that my son had to be hiding the truth about his fighting as a young boy because my position couldn't possibly be right. (Cute ploy to make me look bad).
But I do understand that in order for you to win the debate here, given that I am giving truthful information about my family, that you have to imply that either they are not truthful, or that I am mistaken. You have forced yourself into arguing this from a position of weakness and not strength.
You could have said that we just disagree, but you had to accuse......... and as I said, I understand that, given the untenable position you put yourself in.
As for that "perfect male" thing....... that's pretty imaginative on your part. What I've been trying to communicate here is that there IS no such thing as a "perfect male" (if you had read my posts, you would know that). Boys, just like girls, are unique creations of God, made in His image, but with differing personalities. The position I have been arguing against is the traditional (again, not conservative, but merely traditional) view that boys are aggressive and they have to fight because that's what boys do (scroll back and you will see that voiced here).
I understand that much of what is being said is reactionary (you boys are so emotional! ^-^) against the evil left, which has distorted gender and tried to remove all masculinity entirely. But what I am saying here is that just because the left has destroyed an issue (as it has race), doesn't mean that we have to swing back to "primitive" masculinity.
How about we do what I have suggested, and look at human behavior based on Scriptural guidelines and the example of Jesus? HE was the only perfect male. (And he didn't get in any fights, even as a boy).
Now I will leave this with saying that the men in my family are extremely masculine (my husband was a terrific defensive back and a HS wrestler, one son a soldier, and the other a highly successful ultra marathoner who has run 100 mile races through mountains), and none of them got into fights because they knew how to behave themselves from a young age. The idea that a male has to fight is a weak attempt to prove some "perfect male" myth that the other side of this argument is making. NOT me.
So as I swim in the shallow end, I shall throw you a life preserver in your deep end, and call it a day.
Peace. :beer:
@DB
-
"But I do understand that in order for you to win the debate here, given that I am giving truthful information about my family, that you have to imply that either they are not truthful, or that I am mistaken. You have forced yourself into arguing this from a position of weakness and not strength."
Just more assumptions. I didn't imply your son wasn't truthful, you obviously took it that way and keep expanding on it. You assume you know everything about your son. You don't. Just because you don't know everything about him doesn't mean anyone was being dishonest or dishonorable. All I said was to ask him and find out. I didn't imply or even slightly suggest he would lie about it. Simply to ask and find out what you may not know. But you took it way beyond what I said - making it an emotional response that you are certain is implying this and that - which was never said. It isn't even possible in your mind that you don't know everything about your son. And that's putting it very kindly. And in addition you not knowing everything doesn't make you a liar nor did I ever suggest that. Your responses are filled with assumptions all the way to including your husband's character and me attacking it some how. You are simply looking at whatever is said on this subject in the worst possible light and lashing out.
-
Let's try not to make this personal, and return to discussing the article itself. Thanks.
-
"But I do understand that in order for you to win the debate here, given that I am giving truthful information about my family, that you have to imply that either they are not truthful, or that I am mistaken. You have forced yourself into arguing this from a position of weakness and not strength."
Just more assumptions. I didn't imply your son wasn't truthful, you obviously took it that way and keep expanding on it. You assume you know everything about your son. You don't. Just because you don't know everything about him doesn't mean anyone was being dishonest or dishonorable. All I said was to ask him and find out. I didn't imply or even slightly suggest he would lie about it. Simply to ask and find out what you may not know. But you took it way beyond what I said - making it an emotional response that you are certain is implying this and that - which was never said. It isn't even possible in your mind that you don't know everything about your son. And that's putting it very kindly. And in addition you not knowing everything doesn't make you a liar nor did I ever suggest that. Your responses are filled with assumptions all the way to including your husband's character and me attacking it some how. You are simply looking at whatever is said on this subject in the worst possible light and lashing out.
Actually, I'm not doing any of those things, but as I said in my last post....
Peace.
Our whole culture is broken because we have thrown out everything that keeps it together. There is absolutely nothing "toxic" about true masculinity, but as I have said repeatedly, on topic, btw, masculinity doesn't fit into a little box, and the greatest sign of strength in men can be gentleness.
One more time for good measure........... boys are unique creations of a Holy and Awesome God, and they do not all behave the same way...... nor SHOULD they.
I'm sorry that some can't, or just don't want to, accept that basic Biblical truth.
Culture is broken, but it is also a sign of brokenness that some are excusing violent behavior in boys (or excusing immoral behavior, as has been done before on this forum), and claiming that it's just the way boys are made.
2nd Corinthians 5:17 - Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: the old has gone, the new is here!
We are not bound to behave badly because it is our "nature." It doesn't matter that for some boys, violence is "natural."
There is a way out, and that way is Christ Jesus.
@DB
-
I largely agree with what you said.
But defense falls almost entirely upon the man.
It's fine to pontificate in hallowed halls and all, but it is true without a doubt that a woman will be safer hanging onto the arm of a man, and the bigger and badder the man, the more that applies... If for no other reason than the bare fact that his presence discourages the opportunist inclinations of criminals (almost always men themselves). The risk v reward ratio plummets.
So it is that men are encouraged to fight. So it is that women instinctively look for protective ability in a man. It's all instinctive. And beyond all the feminist rhetoric, instinct remains, even yet. And yes, the sexes are profoundly different.
Maybe it's the cowboy way that has so effected me. I was raised up not to hit girls, to help girls as the weaker sex, to treat men squarely, and to rise to defend those that can't defend themselves (which invariably and primarily includes women).
And that big Bailey hat, big silver buckle, and shitkickers turns me into a walking billboard for women. It's been that way all my life. Whenever a woman has need, she comes arunnin to find a big, strong, redneck boy. Whether to tote something heavy, or get directions, or get her car fixed, or stand directly in the way of whatever is scaring her, she knows that boy will do. Many's the time I have stood in the way of it for a woman... A woman I don't even know.
The conversation on this page and in this forum generally since the Moore debacle makes me regret that profoundly...
@roamer_1 I think I have some understanding of what you're saying. Bottom line is boys that have never fought don't know how to fight if/when the need arises. That is true for any skill that a person may need.
I am truly sorry that some women here have made you regret taking on the responsibility you have. The role of protector is important and I appreciate you and all the other men that understand that importance.
I have an acquaintance that honestly believes that eating meat creates aggressive men. There's some phrase she uses for it that makes my eyes glass over; I can't remember it, probably "meat aggression" or some other such nonsense.
-
@RoosGirl
Some women HERE?? Who?
No one is diminishing the male instinct to protect. It is not at all the same thing as the instinct to solve problems with violence.
That's not what ANYTHING I've said is about. If anyone..........ANYONE........... interprets what I've said as diminishing men's desire to protect women, they have misread badly.
btw, I don't think @roamer_1 needs your protection here. I have a great deal of respect for him. We just disagree on this subject. Almost nothing else.
I can disagree with folks and still be friends. I hope @roamer_1 can too.
(And you too, @DB ).
I don't want to make enemies because I believe I have more respect for men than some do for themselves.......
-
@RoosGirl
Some women HERE?? Who?
No one is diminishing the male instinct to protect. It is not at all the same thing as the instinct to solve problems with violence.
That's not what ANYTHING I've said is about. If anyone..........ANYONE........... interprets what I've said as diminishing men's desire to protect women, they have misread badly.
btw, I don't think @roamer_1 needs your protection here. I have a great deal of respect for him. We just disagree on this subject. Almost nothing else.
I can disagree with folks and still be friends. I hope @roamer_1 can too.
(And you too, @DB ).
I don't want to make enemies because I believe I have more respect for men than some do for themselves.......
I wasn't talking about you. I know at least one person that I believe roamer was referring to and that's who I was talking about.
-
I wasn't talking about you. I know at least one person that I believe roamer was referring to and that's who I was talking about.
Whew........... OK. Thanks!
I didn't think my communication skills were THAT bad! ^-^
-
@roamer_1 I think I have some understanding of what you're saying. Bottom line is boys that have never fought don't know how to fight if/when the need arises. That is true for any skill that a person may need.
@RoosGirl
That's right. Boys tussle. It's what they do - As a father to two sons, and a grandfather to four more, it is an obvious statement, and no more wrong than male goat kids trying each other out, or the pecking order in a wolf pack. It is what it is.
I am truly sorry that some women here have made you regret taking on the responsibility you have. The role of protector is important and I appreciate you and all the other men that understand that importance.
Aw, s'alright darlin'... You make up for it all by yourself :beer:
-
What's Toxic is the lack of Adult Masculinity in the family.
Kids need Dads.
Our Welfare Society has made them disposable.
-
What's Toxic is the lack of Adult Masculinity in the family.
Kids need Dads.
Our Welfare Society has made them disposable.
Yep.
-
What's Toxic is the lack of Adult Masculinity in the family.
Kids need Dads.
Our Welfare Society has made them disposable.
It is welfare that also makes Americans unwilling to do certain jobs, thus opening the door for illegals to enter the country and find employment.
-
Yep.
You can track the disintegration of the Black, Nuclear Family, on a time line right back to LBJ's Great Society.
In the 40s black illegitimacy rates, one parent households, were only a fraction of a percentage point or 2 higher than white families.
Today it's only 3 out of 10 black kids with a 2 parent home.
-
Related:Read the rest at The Federalist (http://thefederalist.com/2018/02/21/13-ways-public-schools-incubate-mental-instability-kids/)
@mountaineer, I finally got time to read this. Good article!