What about the boys?

[Ivhon]

Don't think Ive seen this topic debated, so perhaps something fresh? Or maybe it was and I just forgot.

So. Ive been watching a bit more tv than I used to (still not much) and I was reminded of some things that Ive discussed with my mother. Mainly, the harm we may have done to a generation or two of boys and men with the stereotypes that are presented to children of the sexes. Now, much of this is in response to the June Cleaver reaction (but even June plays to my argument here) and we certainly don't want girls growing up thinking that there expertise is only in matters inside the house.

However, I would posit that we have taken this much too far. If you pay attention to commercials it is not hard to see that the overwhelming majority of the time, men are portrayed as stupid, lazy couch potatoes OR arrogant assholes. Women are ALWAYS right in commercials. Men are ALWAYS wrong - and charicaturically wrong at that. The same phenomenon exists in sitcoms, albeit to a slightly lesser extent. Women are always teaching men the error of their ways and what is and isnt appropriate.

Couple the message that boys AND girls grow up with - namely that men are wrong, pigheaded and stupid (really only worth having around to laugh at and lift things) they need to be taught to dress, behave, etc etc etc - with the complete non-existence of any kind of support for boys while growing up, is it any wonder that so many of us turn out to be exactly how we are portrayed on TV?

I mentioned that there is no support structure for boys growing up - I should clarify that. There really isnt much structure for either sex, but girls definately receive the lions share of what is out there (granted, the physical changes in puberty are a bit more traumatic for girls). All boys have is the possibility of having a positive role-model in a good father, older brother, teacher (not that there are many male teachers) or somesuch. There is next to nothing formal for them. And if none of these role-models exist then they have to rely on their peers to figure it all out. Girls, on the other hand, have support and counselling at many schools - certainly at the university level - and a lot more attention is paid to the issues that they could confront (date rape, rape rape, pregnancy, etc.)

I wonder what would happen if a generation of boys (and girls) were allowed to grow up being actively taught what is appropriate behavior. What it means to be a man, what it means to be a woman. Being exposed to pop-culture messages that don't put them on the defensive (anyone who has male-bashed or been bashed as a male might relate) about their identity. Maybe once in a while seeing on TV that men can be right and women can be wrong - even on emotional issues, because men are allowed to have and express them (a message STILL not taught to boys in general).

Kinda rambling...and I dont mean to trivialize women's issues in this thread at all - they most certainly exist. But I think that there is such a thing as "men's" issues out there - sometimes more subtle, sometimes directly impacting women - that dont get any attention at all.

[Davian93]

3rd Child Syndrome is a wonderful thing eh? All guys are allowed to do now is be the 3rd child who gets his "Mancave" so he can be safely contained in the basement as the woman is in charge (rightfully) of everything else because "Mom is always right!!!"

Its such BS that I can barely watch tv anymore.

[Brita]

Ivhon- I agree 100%.

I got a book when my son was born called "Real Boys" about rasing boys and the unique needs that boys have. The book was in response to a book written for girls called "Reviving Ophelia". Not that a book shouldn't be written for girls, but that boys are so often forgotten. In fact the foreword is by the author of "Reviving Ophelia". Anyway, "Real Boys" is a great resource for parents with boys. It has encouraged me to keep a close bond with my son (age 9) even though society generally implies that I should be withdrawing- no one wants a momma's boy. And interestingly enough- he naturally gravitates toward his dad now- even though we are still very close.

Commercials are especially bad a portraying men as dumb oafs that are always wrong or useless. It is very unfortunate, and there will probably be a backlash in the future.

If it is any consolation, I am a big fan of maledom and despise the negative portrayal media has stooped to for a cheap laugh.

[Davian93]

Does anyone else ever notice that older and older kids are sitting in shopping carts these days at places like the grocery store...I'm seeing kids at least as old as 8-10 years old sitting in the main basket of the cart(where the food is suppsoed to go) and the parents think its normal. What happened to kids trying to act older? All the kids I ever see seem to want to be babies their whole life. I noticed this in the Costco in Montreal as well...(Note: they have Europpean candy there that you can't get in Vermont which is so so good...all the Cadbury products for one)

[Uno]

Not a lot of disagreement from me on this issue, but I feel compelled to point out that worrying about an alleged crisis of masculinity and its effects on boys is something you can trace back at least to the closing decades of the nineteenth century. Hell, there's an interesting argument out there that persistent worry about decaying masculinity contributed to the outbreak of WWI, as a number of people in the preceding decades quite seriously believed that a new great war was needed to reinvigorate the manhood of the race. The most extreme example of this cultural trend was probably Teddy Roosevelt.

[Ivhon]

Not a lot of disagreement from me on this issue, but I feel compelled to point out that worrying about an alleged crisis of masculinity and its effects on boys is something you can trace back at least to the closing decades of the nineteenth century. Hell, there's an interesting argument out there that persistent worry about decaying masculinity contributed to the outbreak of WWI, as a number of people in the preceding decades quite seriously believed that a new great war was needed to reinvigorate the manhood of the race. The most extreme example of this cultural trend was probably Teddy Roosevelt.

Im not at all talking about a loss of masculinity - much of what is traditionally masculine should be tempered (such as the idea that a man doesn't need help, ever, for example - or that boys don't cry). What Im concerned about is that (seemingly) more and more ALL we see are the portrayals of the negative masculine stereotype - clueless, tasteless, overbearing, arrogant, etc. This can cause boys and men (I feel it myself, sometimes) to feel embattled when everywhere you look is another supposition that you need to be put in your place, taught who is smarter and taught how to dress (granted, Im obstinately wrinkled and mismatched...but its a CHOICE - not because I dont know better).

An equal concern is what might be accomplished if more books/classes/resources such as the one Brita mentioned were available instead of boys only having their peers to learn from. Much of the dangerous and stupid things boys do can be linked to having way too much testosterone in their systems, Im sure. But I think that if we and they know HOW, a lot of that can be tempered. Incidentally, this would make teenage/young women's lives much safer as well I think AS WELL AS perhaps adding a much-needed jolt of self-esteem into the girls (basing this off the thought that if BOYS start respecting women as people, rather than objects [societal lesson] girls will start having some social pressure to present themselves as confident, intelligent classy people instead of trashy whores. I know that last bit comes off as sounding like girls aren't capable of defining themselves on their own terms. They are, of course. My point is that teenagers in general conform to what their society expects of them. Sadly, boys have more influence on both boys and girls than girls do, it seems. I could be wrong).

Again, to clarify my position on the last paragraph. I think that the aim of feminism has sadly been corrupted in many ways. A prevalent idea seems to be that if boys are allowed/encouraged to be boorish, rude, promiscuous, slovenly, etc then by God girls should be too. When in fact we should be trying to elevate the boys to higher standards of comportment. Boys should be taught to respect girls, not to objectify them or disrespect them because they are physically weaker. Honor (if not ludicrously zealous), chivalry (no, it is neither dead nor chauvanistic - god hope it never is), integrity, respect and propriety should be held up rather than dominance, righteousness and the like. Not that women can't display these virtues in equal measure...I've just picked a few traditionally masculine values that still have a place and should be emphasized.

My Lord, Im old-fashioned sometimes.

[Ozymandias]

Well, given that women are the largest household consumers, and in fact generally represent the vast majority of a household's disposable income, it makes plenty of sense that commercials play to that demographic. If they make women feel like they have an ability and resposibility to dress or whatever their husbands or sons, it will help them sell product.

Its amazing, because women rail against the stereotyping of females while encouraging the stereotypification of males. Its more subtle for men, but just as damaging, in a lot of ways.

However, mainly I'd consider it economic motive. Women watch more non-sports TV, spend more money, and are generally a more valuable group for advertisers to reach out to.

[Crispin's Crispian]

Women are always right in the commercials because women make the majority of the purchasing decisions (or, at least, the advertisers want them to) for the household. It's never a good idea to bash your target demographic.

This discussion always makes me think about the "fat husband-hot wife" sitcom motif, which seems really common. Usually the men are portrayed not only as fat, but also rather primitive and gluttonous. But don't forget that the women are portrayed as, well, hot, but also jealous, overly emotional, and often dependent on the man (as stupid as he is).

As for "mom is always right," that whole concept also pigeonholes women into the homemaker role. Although, I think a lot of women work full-time and still come home to be the housekeeper. :(

Just one more random note, than a question. A lot of guys I know are perfectly happy NOT being responsible for the household. They work all day, and are content to come home, crack open a beer, and play video games. The wife (usually a mom) on the other hand, takes care of the kids, the house, the food, etc. I'm not prepared to say that the media is deliberately portraying men as lazy couch potatoes, as much as they are portraying reality in many situations.

The question: Davian, what do big kids in shopping carts have to do with anything? Just curious. You've brought it up before, so it must be a pretty major pet peeve. I myself still like to ride in the cart from time to time, so I can't blame those kids. ;)

[Ozymandias]

My point is that teenagers in general conform to what their society expects of them. Sadly, boys have more influence on both boys and girls than girls do, it seems. I could be wrong).

This actually isn't true. Teenage girls are now the lead catalysts in language change... learned that in an otherwise useless class this semester.

Outside of that you may very well be right, though.

[Davian93]

The question: Davian, what do big kids in shopping carts have to do with anything? Just curious. You've brought it up before, so it must be a pretty major pet peeve. I myself still like to ride in the cart from time to time, so I can't blame those kids.

It really annoys me is all...I mean seriously...the cart is for food...not your 9 year old to sit in. Kids are babied far far too much these days. Parents act they are precious snowflakes that might melt if anything bad happens...

[Ozymandias]

Just one more random note, than a question. A lot of guys I know are perfectly happy NOT being responsible for the household. They work all day, and are content to come home, crack open a beer, and play video games. The wife (usually a mom) on the other hand, takes care of the kids, the house, the food, etc. I'm not prepared to say that the media is deliberately portraying men as lazy couch potatoes, as much as they are portraying reality in many situations.


Ummm... kind of a weird argument to bring up, because objectively I would have to think there are roughly as many responsible men as there are responsible women, and visa versa. The point is that the way its portrayed in popular media is statisticlly skewed.

I barely watch television, except the Mets and Giants games, but when I do I tend to agree with Ivhon. Men are often portrayed as charming buffoons while the women are witty and sassy and generally have a pretty firm grip on everything that goes on in their home and their life, whereas the husband/man stumbles through whatever scene it happens to be and ends up all right.

You could also take a very strange position and say that all of it is a conspiracy to keep women in the household and dull them to their oppression. By feeding their vanity and portraying women as smart and in control, and their husbands and whatnot as reliant on them to get through the day, it blinds them to their true powerlessness in society at large; rarely breadwinners, not many female politicians, etc etc.

[Uno]

That's fine, but I'm still saying that people have been worrying about negative portrayals of men for a long time. Clearly, the current negative imagine of masculinity (the boorish and/or childish man) is a reaction to the idea that men are becoming effeminate. Indeed, it's a constant theme in entertainment that men react to fears of being perceived as womanly by (for instance) starting to fart and burp. In other words, boorish behaviour represents an assertion of gender identity. That's in itself pretty disturbing, at least to the extent that young males emulate that stereotype, but I (at least) find it somewhat comforting to know that the problem isn't exactly new.

Personally, I've always found the ideal of the self-composed man in control of his emotions to be a more attractive image of masculinity. But that's essentially a Victorian ideal.

[Sinistrum]

Ivhon, I totally agree with you on the content. But I think you need to consider the source. Where is the vast majority of tv programming produced? Why that would be Holleywood. What characteristic about Holleywood would lend itself to portraying men in that negative fashion? The overwhelming tendancy of the people in it to be, not just liberally, but extremely liberal. What sub-characteristic of extreme liberalism would lend itself to portrayals of men as stupid, ignorant, lazy, uncaring, emotionally retarded, ect.? I'll take the various strains of radical feminism for $100 Alex. When the people responsible for putting the kinds of portrayals of men that you usuaully see in popular media adhere to a philosophical view point that generally views men in a negative light, it should be no surprise that this view point is the center piece of those portrayals.

The people who control the media control the content. You saw the same thing in the 50's with the conservative good old boys club and misogynistic portrayals of women. The wheel has just swung back around to the other extreme now. Bottom line is that both messages and the people who promote them have their heads up their nether regions.

[Brita]

Honor (if not ludicrously zealous), chivalry (no, it is neither dead nor chauvanistic - god hope it never is), integrity, respect and propriety should be held up rather than dominance, righteousness and the like. Not that women can't display these virtues in equal measure...I've just picked a few traditionally masculine values that still have a place and should be emphasized.

My Lord, Im old-fashioned sometimes.

I am just in the middle of mini crisis in this department. Please, everyone, tell me what you think:

My son's bus driver has reported him as being sullen, rude, obstinant and full of attitude. (It bears noting that his teacher has none of these problems with him.) This bad behaviour has stemmed from a rule his bus driver has: that all boys must let the girls on first. Unfortunately, I did not know this rule, and as I got my kids on the bus a told them to take turns getting on first (since it seems to be a big deal to them- go figure :confused: ).

I also don't teach "chivalry" along gender lines, but equally to my son and daughter. In other words, I expect both of them to hold the door for those behind them, to give up their seat to an elderly patron, and to treat others with respect. Period. Regardless of gender.

So he has received mixed messages and has become sullen and resentful towards his bus driver for a rule he thinks is unfair.

I have asked him to obey the rule as she is in authority and has had this rule for years and years. But I think she has overstepped her boundaries as it doesn't relate to bus safety, but an outdated code of etiquette that many households no longer teach.

Also, what is my daughter learning? She now gloats everytime she gets on the bus first, which is causing my son to resent her rather than respect her. I am trying to teach her respect and chivalry, and she is learning that she can get everything first by playing the girl card.

I have had open communication with them both and hopefully they will take the lessons they need, and still both want to be kind and giving no matter what gender is involved.

[Davian93]

that all boys must let the girls on first. Unfortunately, I did not know this rule, and as I got my kids on the bus a told them to take turns getting on first (since it seems to be a big deal to them- go figure ).

What kind of F@*(#ed up illegal rule is that? That's complete BS.

[Ivhon]

Ivhon, I totally agree with you on the content. But I think you need to consider the source. Where is the vast majority of tv programming produced? Why that would be Holleywood. What characteristic about Holleywood would lend itself to portraying men in that negative fashion? The overwhelming tendancy of the people in it to be, not just liberally, but extremely liberal. What sub-characteristic of extreme liberalism would lend itself to portrayals of men as stupid, ignorant, lazy, uncaring, emotionally retarded, ect.? I'll take the various strains of radical feminism for $100 Alex. When the people responsible for putting the kinds of portrayals of men that you usuaully see in popular media adhere to a philosophical view point that generally views men in a negative light, it should be no surprise that this view point is the center piece of those portrayals.

The people who control the media control the content. You saw the same thing in the 50's with the conservative good old boys club and misogynistic portrayals of women. The wheel has just swung back around to the other extreme now. Bottom line is that both messages and the people who promote them have their heads up their nether regions.

I disagree that this is an example of radical leftists subverting society yet again. Hollywood does not call the shots for commercials...Ad Agencies do. And Ad Agencies are, I think, safely apolitical in their chase of the almighty dollar. "Hollywood" may supply the actors, directors and even writers...but I can promise you from first hand experience that there is nothing that goes into a commercial that the client (Ad Agency) does not expressly want. Nor is there anything deleted. You say the exact words written - no more no less - the way they want you to say them. There is always some Producer (read...Ad Agent) whispering in the director's ear.

TV might be a little less restrictive, but Hollywood is a business. The folks you see making silly extreme liberal rants and raves are NOT the ones calling the shots (maybe a few actors can bankroll an indie here and there for a message - but they dont hold a candle to studio power) The ones calling the shots are concerned about only one thing...money.

[Brita]

What kind of F@*(#ed up illegal rule is that? That's complete BS.

That's what I thought :(

I kinda feel like I sold my son out by just telling him to bow to authority. But at the same time, his behaviour had turned so sour that I couldn't just back him up either, he had gotten to the point of being very disrespectful.

Maybe I should tyalk to her behind the scenes. I already did briefly, but more about his behaviour, and only a little about the rule.

[Uno]

I don't much believe in conspiracies, but if you want to talk about the actual backgrounds of the people making entertainment, you could make the argument that there's a strong class bias here. By that I mean that it's often working class men that are potrayed as boorish idiots in popular entertainment, which means that we've got elite individuals producing negative images of the lower classes. Now, I don't think that means that anyone is consciously setting out to hurt lower social strata, but it may be symptomatic of a negative attitude toward those people.

The funny thing is, we had something very similar going on in the Democratic campaign this year, as Clinton (in particular) felt a need to assert her working class credentials by going to bars and guzzling beer on weeknights.

[Davian93]

That's what I thought :(

I kinda feel like I sold my son out by just telling him to bow to authority. But at the same time, his behaviour had turned so sour that I couldn't just back him up either, he had gotten to the point of being very disrespectful.

Maybe I should tyalk to her behind the scenes. I already did briefly, but more about his behaviour, and only a little about the rule.

Be an American...Sue the School, sue the busdriver, sue the manufacturer of the bus, sue the district, sue everyone!!!

[Brita]

LOL!

"Son, I want to teach you respect and responsibility. Always treat others as you would have them treat you. Now let's go sue that B!t(h!"

Thanks Dav- very helpful :rolleyes:

[Hopper]

Be an American...Sue the School, sue the busdriver, sue the manufacturer of the bus, sue the district, sue everyone!!!

Sue Davian . . . . :D

[Kurtz]

I have to say i'm rather oblivious to this apparent male bashing in the media. What I do notice though and what makes me cringe is not examples of simple male buffonary but the representation of women as shopping-mad, chocolate-obsessed, vanity-driven, let's-kick-the-men-out-and-watch-Desperate-Housewives-while-drinking-West Coast Cooler, callous, frivolous idiots.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

Yeah, at least the buffoon gets the heart of gold.

[John Snow]

Ok, gonna disagree just a bit, Sinistrum - most advertising is programmed out of NY, from ad agencies, where people tend to be conservative. Now, take that and restate your argument.

[John Snow]

I'd be inclined to blow off the bus driver's reports unless there were some kind of real consequences attached to them. In which case, maybe a chat with the principal. But if the busdriver's giving you or the teacher these 'reports' of sullen behavior, who gives a flying fig. My son claims one of the most valuable things I ever said to him was "School allows you to learn how to deal with assholes who have power over you."

[Gilshalos Sedai]

How about this? They're pandering. Pop culture has tended to utilize the depiction of the buffoonish male and ad agencies jumped on the bandwagon because, frankly, women buy stuff for the house and no one can handle an equal relationship.

[JSUCamel]

That's what I thought

I kinda feel like I sold my son out by just telling him to bow to authority. But at the same time, his behaviour had turned so sour that I couldn't just back him up either, he had gotten to the point of being very disrespectful.

Maybe I should tyalk to her behind the scenes. I already did briefly, but more about his behaviour, and only a little about the rule.

Here's my opinion. You should always respect authority to its face. You're absolutely right to tell your son to obey the bus driver, as she is the authority figure at that point. If you had told your son NOT to listen to her, then you would essentially be telling your son that he only has to obey rules he likes, and that would just lead to more trouble.

On the other hand, it IS an outdated, bullshit, antiquated rule. Your son should NOT have to follow it on general principle. Don't get me wrong, he should follow it because his authority figure said to follow it, not because it's a good rule.

You've already explained to your kids your point of view. I imagine you told them you thought it was a stupid rule too, but that they had to listen to the driver.

Now your next step is to show them how to respond to a stupid rule. You don't disobey, you change it.

Approach the bus driver, with or without your child (preferably with, so they can witness the exchange), and explain your point of view. If she refuses to listen, then talk to her supervisor. If they refuse to listen, then... well, I guess you explain to your son that sometimes stupid rules can't be changed, and you have to follow them anyway.

And make sure he understands that you follow stupid rules too. Make sure he understands that most people follow these rules. And make sure your daughter understands that what he's doing is respecting her, not letting her walk all over him.

You're a pretty intelligent person, so I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume your son is pretty intelligent too. If he is, he should understand where you're coming from.

I applaud your efforts and your teaching your children the right thing.

Let us know how the whole thing works out.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

Actually, one of the bigger problems is your daughter's attitude about this. One should not get a big head over an accident of genetics and a crummy rule.

[caladanbrood]

All boys have is the possibility of having a positive role-model in a good father, older brother, teacher (not that there are many male teachers) or somesuch.
I would just point out, a majority of my teachers (probably 65-70% were male. And I went to co-ed schools, so it wasn't like there were mostly male because it was a boy's school, either...

[JSUCamel]

I would just point out, a majority of my teachers (probably 65-70% were male. And I went to co-ed schools, so it wasn't like there were mostly male because it was a boy's school, either...

In the States, that's pretty rare. Public schools are predominantly taught by women. The public school systems in America are taught by about 75% women and about 25% men, as shown by the NEA (http://www.nea.org/teachershortage/03malefactsheet.html).

I think further analysis of the facts will show that most of that 25% will be concentrated in the area of sports rather than focusing on education, although many schools require that the coaches have secondary positions within the system (as history teachers, science teachers, special ed teachers, vocational rehab teachers, bus drivers, etc).

Bottom line is that there aren't enough positive role models for boys in the education system, and like Ivhon said, there isn't a clear mode of education regarding how to act like a man.

Additional problems arise when you consider how single mothers there are these days, the divorce rates, and the number of fathers who take no interest in their child's upbringing (too busy with work, or whatever reason they want to give).

[Terez]

I'm amused by this notion that boys need to be taught how to act like men...

[tworiverswoman]

I'm amused by this notion that boys need to be taught how to act like men... But they do. Well, at least they need to be taught how to act like CIVILIZED men. Biology will no doubt teach them to scratch their crotch and spit (j/k) but where do they learn the codes of behavior that teach them how to behave in society at large? This sorta applies to girls, also -- but there really ARE fewer resources available nowadays for boys. If it's not a sports team, he's out of luck.

Once upon a time, when the population was MUCH smaller, they learned this kind of thing by observation of the adults around them, and by deliberate and semi-structured instruction by their parents and neighbors, educators, religious groups, etc. I can remember growing up in a neighborhood where the neighbors ACTIVELY took a hand in telling a kid when and how he/she'd stepped over the line. And the kid did NOT mouth off to that person and the parents of that kid did NOT demand to know what that person thought they were doing. If you tried to complain to your parents "Old man Pearson yelled at me for walking across his lawn again," they'd demand to know why you were walking across his lawn in the first place!

TV had sitcoms that may have been stereotyped in a lot of ways, some of which are horribly old-fashioned now -- but every show came with some kind of moral lesson. Sure, they were sugar-coated and showed mostly problems that could be solved in 24 minutes (or 48, for an hour show...), but I really think they helped implant a lot of unconscious ethical beliefs in a couple of generations of kids. Then the 60's happened.

No system of raising a child is perfect -- and there's no "one size fits all" method, either. But with both parents working in more than half the families with children these days, and little but other kids to turn to for learning "what to do next," I'm just astounded that so few of them have grown into useless adulthood.

"Peer Pressure" is a lousy way to learn modes of behavior.

[Mort]

The public school systems in America are taught by about 75% women and about 25% men, as shown by the NEA (http://www.nea.org/teachershortage/03malefactsheet.html).


Hehe, it felt like there was a small portion of third option gender in that statistic :)
First I read "taught by 75% woman and about 25% men..." - Is it about 25%, or exactly 25% :P

Public schools, are they counting up to high school then?

I've had mostly female teachers during my schooling, a little less so when I started high school (16-18 yrs old here) and I can't say I found it to be a negative thing (dunno if it would have been more positive with male teachers though, but I doubt it).

There is just so much that goes into coding a cultural behavior of gender roles (and behavior in general) that I don't think just one thing can be held repsonsible for someones lack of manners (in lack of a better word).
Parent's have some control, especially the younger years, then it becomes more and more about looking around you and seeing how your peers are doing it, following the alpha male/female of their social group etc.

I think media might have a slight influence, but I think that as long as kids have other factors that keep them in line, media doesn't matter as much.

I think that as long as you, Brita, actively seek to raise your kids in the best ways you know how, your kids won't get skewed gender roles because of an incident like the school bus thing.
Sibling rivalry will never die, next week it'll be who gets more macaronis on their dinner plate etc :)

[JSUCamel]

Hehe, it felt like there was a small portion of third option gender in that statistic

It's actually something like 75.6% women and 24.4% men, so.. ;)

As far as terez's amusement goes, it's like Ivhon said. The media doesn't portray men in a very positive light, and kids are growing up thinking that's how they're supposed to be. More and more parents are parking their kids in front of a TV set or video game console because they're too tired from working all day to deal with them.

I take after my dad a LOT, a lot more than I used to think I did. It's because he took such an active role in my life and made sure, even after the divorce, that I saw on him on a regular basis. It was by following his examples that I learned how to be the man I am today. Unfortunately, I picked up some of his negative qualities as well, but that's how these things work.

For a kid whose father doesn't pay attention to him, he has to find another role model. Sometimes he's fortunate, and there's another decent man in the area that he can emulate. Sometime's he's not so fortunate, and he picks up the behavior of a gangster on TV or the druggie down the street.

There are things that girls learn how to do from other women: cross your legs when you sit down wearing a skirt, birth control, wear a bra, etc. Guys don't really get much of that. There's no one who really sits down a guy and says "Okay, kid, here's how a condom works..." or "Make sure you open the door for the ladies" or "When you go out on a date, walk to her door to pick her up and walk her back to her door when it's over" and such.

If you watch the media, it's easy to think that guys are supposed to be lazy assholes who demand everything of their wives, and if they happen to cross the line, the wife will dutifully tell them what they did wrong and all ends happily ever after. And that's just now how real life works.

In medieval times, a boy was apprenticed to a master craftsman. Some of this had to do with being taught a trade, but most of what the master craftsman taught had nothing to do with the trade. The craftsman was responsible for teaching the boy how to dress, how to eat, how to behave in public, how to shop, how to address others, etc. Look at Rand, for instance. Notice how close he is with Tam. It's no accident that Rand is a gentleman (albeit misguided sometimes.

From a slightly different perspective, there's a reason why I'm against home-schooling, and this is part of that reason. Most of what we learn in school doesn't come from textbooks, it comes from interacting with those around us. We learn how to behave by repeatedly crossing the lines of acceptable behavior. As we grow up, we learn where those lines are and what's acceptable and what's not. Without social interaction, you don't learn where the line is.

As such, it is very important for boys and girls to have role models that they can follow. Men like Will Smith and Michael Jordan, Bill Gates and Robert Jordan. Men who exemplify what we think good men should be like. Women need the same kinds of role models. Fortunately, women have a lot more access to these role models in the form of teachers.

People whose parents have a history of crime are more likely to commit crimes themselves. People whose parents abuse them are more likely to abuse their own children (unbelievable, but true). Our first (and primary) role models are often our parents. But in this day and age, many fathers simply aren't around enough to be a good role model.

[Brita]

Thanks everyone for your advice, I really appreciate it.

Camel- thank you for such a well thought out reply- I am going to act on it and speak with the bus driver. She is a reasonable person. She also knows I back her up as an authority, and so I hope she will respect my concern over this rule.

Snow- you sound so much like my dad- he was always telling me stuff like that (he still does) :) I remember him telling my son when he was 6 that school was just a place where adults could pretend they know everything, when they actually don't know anything. Haha!

Gil- you are absolutely right- it's easy to focus on my son, but the lesson my daughter is learning is just as crucial. I need to have a talk with her, just so she knows how I feel about it.

Sibling rivalry will never die, next week it'll be who gets more macaronis on their dinner plate etc

:D So true Mort! Perspective is always a good thing! Thanks :)

[Davian93]

Mmm...macaroni...

[Brita]

Dav- you have been decidedly unhelpful in this conversation :p

[Davian93]

Dav- you have been decidedly unhelpful in this conversation :p

Sorry. Its just that I already had this discussion very recently and it gets me too riled up to deal with again. Its mainly a stress factor on my part...

~plops back on ESC couch~

It is fun to read though. ;)

[Gilshalos Sedai]

Brita: I work with a couple of women who actively see themselves as superior to men in all ways. I find that attitude just as dangerous as men thinking they're superior to women. They see chivalry not as manners and not as something they should practice, but as their due. I find myself biting my tongue around them a great deal, it would be unprofessional to tell them off. ;)

[Sei'taer]

Look at it this way. Who is left that you are allowed to make fun of in these times of rampant political correctness?

1. Bubble-headed women, but this can be a sticky situation and has to be done with some subtlety, and even then they are portrayed as better with the catlike comebacks on men they are allowed to have at times.

2. Men, Mostly white men, although there are times when a black man is put in this position, but at those times, the black women are the ones who tell them that they have their heads screwed on backwards.

3. Christians, but this is only when christianity is allowed in the situation.

4. Can't think of a number 4...anyone else?


As an aside, there was a commercial on the radio here for a while that had a man talking about some awning that you could buy, and a woman was in the background nagging him, saying "tell them about the discount Jim." It got literally thousands of complaints for painting a picture of women as nagging men, so it was changed to have a man saying "Tell them about the discount Jim" just to make everyone feel better. It was a dumb commercial the first way and was only made worse by all the controversy.

[Brita]

there was a commercial on the radio here for a while that had a man talking about some awning that you could buy, and a woman was in the background nagging him, saying "tell them about the discount Jim." It got literally thousands of complaints for painting a picture of women as nagging men, so it was changed to have a man saying "Tell them about the discount Jim" just to make everyone feel better. It was a dumb commercial the first way and was only made worse by all the controversy.

There is a valuable lesson here. What this story teaches us is that women are whiners, and will whine whenever the slightest insult is perceived, and men are too lazy and occupied with sitting on the couch drinking beer and watching sports to complain about it.

(:p)

[Terez]

But they do. Well, at least they need to be taught how to act like CIVILIZED men.
Why not just civilized people? Gender roles are socially constructed anyway, and I don't think society would fall apart if a new generation of kids isn't taught those gender roles.

[Davian93]

~sighs~

[Terez]

What, Dav?

[Crispin's Crispian]

I have to agree with Terez, and just ask an additional question: what makes anyone think that boys can't "learn to be men" from women, and vice versa? All it really means is that children need to be taught and guided into behaviors that will make them successful adults.

I fully agree that having both parents active in the life of their children is ideal, but the general message I'm seeing here is that, without role models of the same gender, kids get all fucked up. That's ridiculous. Why couldn't a mother sit down with her son and tell him how a condom works, or how to walk a woman to her door, or whatever?

Plus I'm fascinated by the idea that children were somehow raised better in the past, because men were more active with their families. Really? Is that really true?

[Davian93]

That's ridiculous. Why couldn't a mother sit down with her son and tell him how a condom works, or how to walk a woman to her door, or whatever?

Not really, they've done tons of studies that a child is much more emotionally stable if he/she has both their mother and fathre in their life.

~sits back on ESC~

[Crispin's Crispian]

Not really, they've done tons of studies that a child is much more emotionally stable if he/she has both their mother and fathre in their life.

~sits back on ESC~
Cite some, please.

Or as they say elsewhere:

"Quotes or it didn't happen."

[Davian93]

Cite some, please.

Or as they say elsewhere:

"Quotes or it didn't happen."

This is exactly why I didn't want to start this again...too lazy to start researching...


...I'll see what I can do.

[Mort]

Not really, they've done tons of studies that a child is much more emotionally stable if he/she has both their mother and fathre in their life.

~sits back on ESC~
Sounds very much like an argument against homosexual couples adopting children. And that gets me thinking of christian right motivated studies.

So the ESC couch has one seat over at least then? I'm not gonna sit on it, I just wanted to put the keg somewhere.

[Terez]

*waits patiently for Davian to do some real work*

[Crispin's Crispian]

So the ESC couch has one seat over at least then? I'm not gonna sit on it, I just wanted to put the keg somewhere.
Dav's not really on the ESC couch, Mort. He likes to pretend that he is, but he knows apathy is the bane of existence.

His arse is firmly planted on the WTF couch, though.

[JSUCamel]

Why couldn't a mother sit down with her son and tell him how a condom works, or how to walk a woman to her door, or whatever?

She most certainly can. And they most certainly do. The point is that most women don't, and on top of that, I'd say that most adolescent boys don't listen to their mothers about those kinds of things -- but they'll imitate their father's mannerisms.

It's not about sexism, it's about identification and who people choose to emulate. Boys tend to emulate the male role models around them, while girls tend to emulate the female role models around them. Fact is, girls have more opportunities for female role models than boys have ops for male role models.

Let me put it this way: if a hair salon manager and a car mechanic came to you and told you how to fix your car, which one's opinion are you going to weigh more heavily? The mechanic.

He may not be a genius, but he knows about cars. The hair salon manager may know about cars, but you'd much rather take hairstyle advice from her than car advice.

As a kid growing up, I was familiar with only a handful of men: my father, my neighbor's father, the coach at school and my little league baseball coach. Fortunately, they're all good men, and I learned my mannerisms from them.

My mother taught me a lot of things, but they meant more to me if I saw my father do/say them.

A few threads back, we talked about insecurity and I told my story of how I overcame stage fright and the lessons I learned from it. Anaiya thanked me for my story and said that it meant more coming from me -- more than from other people who have told her in the past. She identifies with my fears and knows that I went through such an experience. The teachers that gave her the advice before, well, she didn't identify with them because... i don't know. Maybe that's what they're supposed to say, or maybe they said it in such a way that it came across as a lecture rather than a true story, or maybe she just didn't respect them in that department.

And that's what it boils down to: who do you look up to, Crispy? And more relevant to this conversation, who do you think an adolescent boy is going to look up to?

EDIT: Let me clarify something. I'm talking about "fathers" because that's usually the most obvious male role model in a child's life. Children need male role models PERIOD, not just fathers. They need coaches and teachers, friends and professionals. They need to see from the media, from family, from friends, from being in public how men are supposed to behave, and they need someone they respect to show them.

I am personally not against same-sex marriage, and I don't have a problem with same-sex couples having children -- so long as they let their children have proper role models. I DO have a problem with women who teach their children that all men are evil and such... and I know several women that are like that.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

I'd like to point something out. Fathers (or male role models) are just as important to little girls as other women are. The idea here is to make a well-rounded human being, not a stereotype.

[Davian93]

Enjoy:

http://www.nebraskaprevlink.ne.gov/therightstuff/parents/sectiona/fathers.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080212095450.htm

[Terez]

"Children who lived with both a mother and father figure had less behavioural problems than those who lived with just their mother. However, it is not possible to tell whether this is because the father figure is more involved or whether the mother is able to be a better parent if she has more support at home." I'm not really interested in the first link...

[Gilshalos Sedai]

By the way, Father's Day is June 15. Go give your old man a hug.

If you ain't got one anymore, hug the nearest facsimile thereof.

[Davian93]

I'm not really interested in the first link...

State govts aren't legit anymore?

[Gilshalos Sedai]

They might be controlled by Baptists!

[Terez]

State govts aren't legit anymore?
I'm not interested because I'm in class and it looks like I'll have to follow a few links to get to any actual scientific studies.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

Actually, they all link to SAHMSA.

[Crispin's Crispian]

Thanks Dav. The second article is better--the first seems to give a bunch of stats but not really back them up (the link they provided for one of them was to an organization's website, not a study).

For instance:
...fatherless children are up to 10 times more likely to be economically disadvantaged, twice as likely to drop out of school, more likely to commit crimes or to behave antisocially, and 2 to 3 times more likely to have emotional problems.

I would question the idea of causation for some of these, and I'd like to see the actual studies that backed these up. But then, we're not running a research firm at Theoryland.

Let me make something very clear. I want fathers to be involved with their children, and I want all children to have good male and female role models. I'm sure that children do better when they have both, but what I don't like is this idea that children cannot be successful, happy, or balanced without both. Or the idea that you can blame the lack of appropriate father figures for all today's social problems.

[Terez]

Actually, they all link to SAHMSA.
It will probably be the same sort of study that was in the sciencedaily article anyway - studies that show that children in single-parent homes suffer. That doesn't mean they need a father figure - it just means that single parents don't have as much time to spend nurturing their children, nor do they generally make much money. It's easy to see how poverty can make a latchkey kid into a delinquent.

[JSUCamel]

Let me make something very clear. I want fathers to be involved with their children, and I want all children to have good male and female role models. I'm sure that children do better when they have both, but what I don't like is this idea that children cannot be successful, happy, or balanced without both. Or the idea that you can blame the lack of appropriate father figures for all today's social problems.

I agree. It's definitely possible for children to be happy, successful and balanced without a father. I would argue, however, that boys will always adopt a male role model, whether it's their father or someone else. If there is not a prominent male role model in their daily life, they'll pick one that's not so personal -- like a movie star or musician or politician or whatever.

The point Ivhon and I were trying to make is that television and mass media aren't generally portraying men as positive role models, but rather as lazy slobs. If there is no father or male role model in a child's life, but he thinks R. Kelly or Bill Clinton or Richard Scrushy are worth looking up to, then we might run into a problem.

[Terez]

I would probably have been a much more balanced, stable child if I had been deprived of my father figure...and my brother would no doubt agree...

[Davian93]

I would probably have been a much more balanced, stable child if I had been deprived of my father figure...and my brother would no doubt agree...

So one bad father figure thus negates the millions of positive father's?

[Terez]

Did I say that? lol...

[Davian93]

Did I say that? lol...

hehe...well you did kinda imply it...;)

[Gilshalos Sedai]

Some fathers are good, some are bad. I doubt anyone's saying the bad ones are necessary.

[caladanbrood]

The importance of a strong father-figure is invaluable in a boy's development. State inaccuracies of studies or whatever the hell you like, but as anyone who had one can tell you, it's damn true.

It's important to note though, this isn't to say that all father-figures are strong, at all. Some fathers (I hesitate to say "a lot" though this is the impression you get sometimes) are certainly not strong in the right sense, and that varies between actively bad and just simply not helpful.

[Terez]

hehe...well you did kinda imply it...;) What I implied is that you can't say that kids need one of each gender parent to be balanced, stable, kids just because you've got statistics that say kids from single parent homes have harder lives than kids from two parent homes. This has to do with that correlation/causation thing that BB was going on about not long ago. There are too many other things to consider.


Hint: I didn't read your sciencedaily article either. I just skimmed through it looking for the quote that I knew would be there, in some shape or form.

[Terez]

Cross-post
The importance of a strong father-figure is invaluable in a boy's development. Why does it have to be a father, though? Are all those kids out there with dead fathers, fathers that abandoned them, etc. just screwed? Why can't it be a nice, diverse group of adult role models?

State inaccuracies of studies or whatever the hell you like, but as anyone who had one can tell you, it's damn true. Of course a lot of people will tell me it's damn true. Does that make it true? People believe things for all sorts of reasons. Maybe forcing Europeans to take sociology at uni wouldn't be a bad idea after all. :D

It's important to note though, this isn't to say that all father-figures are strong, at all. Some fathers (I hesitate to say "a lot" though this is the impression you get sometimes) are certainly not strong in the right sense, and that varies between actively bad and just simply not helpful. Why do you hesitate to say "a lot"? Because it's bad for your argument? Virtually all fathers are "bad fathers" in one way or another. There are some nice degrees of that, of course, and of course a lot of things are subject to a great deal of interpretation. But this is why the nice diverse group of adult role models is important. Have you ever heard the phrase, "It takes a village to raise a child"? I think Hillary wrote a book about that or something...

[Davian93]

Virtually all fathers are "bad fathers" in one way or another. There are some nice degrees of that, of course, and of course a lot of things are subject to a great deal of interpretation. But this is why the nice diverse group of adult role models is important. Have you ever heard the phrase, "It takes a village to raise a child"? I think Hillary wrote a book about that or something...

I'm sorry...What?!? Am I missing some major context here...


P.S. Hillary sucks!

[Gilshalos Sedai]

I dunno what she means. All fathers are bad fathers to one degree or another?


Um, so are mothers, for that matter.

[Terez]

I dunno what she means. All fathers are bad fathers to one degree or another?


Um, so are mothers, for that matter.
Yup, the same definitely goes for mothers.

[Crispin's Crispian]

I would argue, however, that boys will always adopt a male role model, whether it's their father or someone else. If there is not a prominent male role model in their daily life, they'll pick one that's not so personal -- like a movie star or musician or politician or whatever.

I disagree. At least, I don't think all boys will adopt male role models to the degree that they overshadow the female role models, if their primary caregiver is female.

The point Ivhon and I were trying to make is that television and mass media aren't generally portraying men as positive role models, but rather as lazy slobs. If there is no father or male role model in a child's life, but he thinks R. Kelly or Bill Clinton or Richard Scrushy are worth looking up to, then we might run into a problem.I know, and I see it too. As I said above, I don't know how much of it is "evil media" and how much of it is either a reflection of reality or a reflection of consumerism.


I'm a bad father sometimes, though I wish it weren't true. No parents are perfect.

[caladanbrood]

Why does it have to be a father, though? Are all those kids out there with dead fathers, fathers that abandoned them, etc. just screwed? Why can't it be a nice, diverse group of adult role models?
I said "father-figure" didn't I... this doesn't mean it has to be the actual father, so that part of your post is irrelevant.

Of course a lot of people will tell me it's damn true. Does that make it true? People believe things for all sorts of reasons. Maybe forcing Europeans to take sociology at uni wouldn't be a bad idea after all. :D
How can I say "you have to experience it to know it" without you crying foul?

Why do you hesitate to say "a lot"? Because it's bad for your argument?
No, because it's only the bad fathers that get the press coverage. 95% of the boys I knew as a kid, for example, had great fathers. The fact that 5% had fathers who were abusive, abandoned them, drunkards, generally moronic or suicidal or a combination of the above doesn't mean that it's "a lot", but I will bet that would still be the way every sort of report would spin it. A newspaper or website would much rather run "Parent murders entire extended family!" than "Parent takes kid for a picnic and spends quality family time investing in their emotional development!"

Virtually all fathers are "bad fathers" in one way or another.
My bovine residue meter just went haywire... 'nuff said. And to sarcastically put the nail in that coffin, care to cite a study for me?

[JSUCamel]

I disagree. At least, I don't think all boys will adopt male role models to the degree that they overshadow the female role models, if their primary caregiver is female.


Then we'll just have to agree to disagree. As far as I recall, neither of us are sociologists. I'm willing to admit my ignorance to the actual statistics and studies and say that I'm speaking from anecdotal evidence versus scientific studies.

I hope you're right. But honestly, I think you're wrong.

[Crispin's Crispian]

Then we'll just have to agree to disagree. As far as I recall, neither of us are sociologists. I'm willing to admit my ignorance to the actual statistics and studies and say that I'm speaking from anecdotal evidence versus scientific studies.

I hope you're right. But honestly, I think you're wrong.
I'm not a sociologist, but I play on on the Internet. (My wife was a sociology major...I'm sure that counts for something.)

Seriously, you're right--I have nothing to backup what I'm saying either.

Plus we're both arguing from a position of ignorance, because any boy we observe would automatically make us his role model and skew the research. ;)

[Ivhon]

I disagree. At least, I don't think all boys will adopt male role models to the degree that they overshadow the female role models, if their primary caregiver is female.

I know, and I see it too. As I said above, I don't know how much of it is "evil media" and how much of it is either a reflection of reality or a reflection of consumerism.


I'm a bad father sometimes, though I wish it weren't true. No parents are perfect.


Been away from the thread for a while. As much of what I was trying to get at aside from pop-culture portrayals of the lovable oaf/corporate asshole/not-so-lovable oaf (which I agree are probably economically driven) is the fact that there is so little in place for boys to turn to with questions. This is not really a question of good daddies/bad daddies/no daddies - although that certainly plays.

What Im not so eloquently trying to get at is that there is a much stronger formal support structure for girls/young women than there is for boys/young men. Obviously, some of the issues women face are much more in-your-face and scary (rape, pregnancy, violence, etc). However, there are women's centers in most colleges (don't know of any "men's centers"), support hotlines and organizations most places. Opportunities that girls and women can pretty easily find and take advantage of if they need help. Boys have a much harder time with this and if they are unfortunate enough to have inattentive parents (both sexes) or no positive male role models to identify with...where do they turn? Their peers (scary)? Pop culture (just as scary)?

Im a 36 year old man who had good parents - although certainly not perfect - who were at least moderately sucessful in helping me through those tough adolescent years. But even now, I feel defensive around groups of women (love being in the company of women for the most part...but it can get ugly quick if someone was jilted :D ) because I feel this pressure to prove that Im not like the jagovs on TV. I can cook. I can clean. I cry. I can match my socks if i feel like it. If I feel this way as an adult who, by my own estimation, is more perceptive of the influences around me and emotionally aware than average (hell, thats the reason I started the thread) - how is a 10 year old boy supposed to handle that? Especially when at the age of the "cootie wars" what he sees on TV and commercials indicates that the girls are right?

[Terez]

I said "father-figure" didn't I... this doesn't mean it has to be the actual father, so that part of your post is irrelevant.
No it isn't, because you're implying that boys need role models that are specifically male and presumably also manly. :p I'm saying it's not necessary...
How can I say "you have to experience it to know it" without you crying foul?
You can't, because everyone's experience is different, and everyone's opinions are based on what we learn from society, much of which is not necessarily valid.

And I don't need to cite studies to show that all fathers are "bad fathers" to one degree or another, because it's obvious to anyone with half a brain. :p

[Crispin's Crispian]

And I don't need to cite studies to show that all fathers are "bad fathers" to one degree or another, because it's obvious to anyone with half a brain. :p

Good argument, T.

[Terez]

lol...somehow I am unsure whether or not you are being serious, Crispy. That's usually not a problem...

[Crispin's Crispian]

Should have written...

"Good argument, T. :rolleyes: "

Though it should have been obvious to anyone with half a brain.

[caladanbrood]

And I don't need to cite studies to show that all fathers are "bad fathers" to one degree or another, because it's obvious to anyone with half a brain. :p
Well, everyone's experience is different, and everyone's opinions are based on what we learn from society, much of which is not neccessarily valid, you see.

[Sei'taer]

I'm agreeing with you Ivhon.

I think that it works better when both parents are there to raise a child. I have no evidence of it except what I have seen with my own eyes. My 17 yr old daughter spent the first 8 years of her life very close to me (not that we aren't close now, but girls change and fathers don't like the boys they hang around, and after puberty they don't like to discuss things with you anymore, menstruation is a good one, but there are others). I taught her how to play soccer, hit a baseball, play rough, take pictures, draw, read, spell, multiplication, general things like that. I also taught her, that sometimes, in order to lead, you have to follow first. I taught her about teamwork, and I taught her that the only person she can always, always, always rely on is herself (I am here now, but I won't be here forever). That is something I have tried very hard to instill in all my kids. Independence. But there are a ton of things, that as a man, I couldn't teach her...because I couldn't even relate to them. I couldn't teach her that a lady crosses her legs (I never would have thought of it, other than knowing she was doing something wrong), how to apply makeup correctly, how to wash and keep certain parts of her body clean, how to handle a situation that only a female will experience (like the high school drama that girls are so fond of)(yes, boys handle in a much different way, belee dat y'all), go with her to the ob/gyn the first time, be able to explain sex from a female perspective (and the perspectives are different, men and women feel emotionally different about it, no matter what anyone says). All of these things I taught her were from a mans perspective. You cannot, in all honesty, tell me that I can possibly teach her from a womans perspective. It's not possible. I'm not a woman. I don't see the world as women do (not that I'd want to...hairy pits, hairy legs, bad breath, fucked up hair, no makeup...I'd be one hell of a bad woman). It's not my fault and its not her fault...it's just the way it is.

There are a lot of things that I teach my son that a woman could not teach him. Don't get me wrong, she can tell him all day long how bad it hurts to get kicked in the balls, but until you experience it, there is no way possible you can feel any sympathy, or even understand what it means to a male. Same for a female, like I said.

[Terez]

Well, everyone's experience is different, and everyone's opinions are based on what we learn from society, much of which is not neccessarily valid, you see. Do you think there are fathers out there who never make mistakes? Does anyone here think that? I can't imagine it being a widely-held view...
Should have written...

"Good argument, T. :rolleyes: " Yeah, emotes help. I couldn't imagine you being serious, because making that comment in response to my comment would have been strange for you. But it was still a good argument, despite my refusal to cite studies. :p

[caladanbrood]

Do you think there are fathers out there who never make mistakes? Does anyone here think that? I can't imagine it being a widely-held view...
There's a difference between being a good parent and never making mistakes, especially from the kid's point of view. Also it depends on the level of mistake.

[Sei'taer]

I need to watch Breakfast Club again...substitute Terez for Bender and see where it goes...

John Bender: Sporto.
Andrew Clark: What?
John Bender: You get along with your parents?
Andrew Clark: Well, if I say yes I'm an idiot, right?
John Bender: You're an idiot anyway. But if you say you get along with your parents, well, you're a liar too.

[Terez]

Like I said, there are degrees of it. The point at which you become a "bad father" is highly subjective to individual opinion. You might think your parents are horrible parents when you're young, and grow up to realize they were actually great parents. You might think your parents are great parents when you're young, only to grow up and realize they're just human.

The point that I'm getting around to is that this push for the traditional family, at least in the US, is not really all that productive in the current age, because too many people can't make a marriage work when they're not forced to like they were back in the day. But there is a tremendous amount of pressure on single parents already - why add this guilt factor into it? Because that's what it amounts to.

Every parent should try to provide their children with a diverse group of adult role models, because it benefits the children of married couples just as much as it benefits the children of single parents, or the adopted children of homosexual parents. Because even in married couples or couples that would probably be married if they were allowed to be, there are weaknesses. Yeah, there are going to be weaknesses in that diverse group of adults as well, but it's the diversity that's healthy. Parents often don't hang out with people that aren't like them, but that doesn't mean you can't get to know people's kids through other means. That's what makes the parents who lock their kids up and homeschool them so scary. :)

So try to pretend for a minute that this ideal traditional family doesn't exist any more, if it ever existed, because a lot of kids get left out from some of the perspectives I've seen in this thread so far.

[Sei'taer]

So, you mean to tell me that it doesn't matter if a kid has one parent or no parents? They are who they are and there is no influencing or changing that? You were born with your particular set of values already there? 2 parent families, with loving supportive parents, is not an ideal situation because of the day and age we live in? I totally disagree with that.

[Terez]

So, you mean to tell me that it doesn't matter if a kid has one parent or no parents?
That it doesn't make any difference at all? No. That it's not necessarily a bad thing? Yes...though a lot more people realizing that it's not necessarily a bad thing would help. ;)

[JSUCamel]

Well, you're a pretty big loser, so you're proving Taer's point just by existing :D

[Terez]

Well, you're a pretty big loser, so you're proving Taer's point just by existing :D
I know you are, but what am I? :p

[JSUCamel]

Pee-wee Herman? Is that you?

[Terez]

No, but Pee Wee Herman was one of my male role models as a child. :D



just kidding, jeez

[Gilshalos Sedai]

That explains so many things.

[Davian93]

That explains so many things.

It certainly does.

[Brita]

What Im not so eloquently trying to get at is that there is a much stronger formal support structure for girls/young women than there is for boys/young men.

Who creates these social structures for women though? Mostly other women.

Perhaps due to social programming, perhaps genetically, perhaps both- men (in general) just don't seem to step up to the plate and create these social networks as readily as women. It can't be done by women- we don't fully understand the issues.

The networks used to happen naturally in old society (apprenticing, farming communities, villages raising the children etc). But the times have changed, and if women have banded together to try and fill the gaps more than men- then men (just one person at a time) need to start promoting and supporting these networks. Big Brother, Boy Scouts, Organized Sports, Drop-In Centres, Call Centres, Web Sites- the possibilities are endless.

And maybe men need to start complaining about the poor portrayal of their gender in media. If women can get commercials changed by taking action- so can men. It just doesn't come as naturally to men to raise their voice against the media- because it might seem whiny or sissy.

What I am trying to say is the only people who can really change this trend of poor support for boys and men is other men. That is why the author of "Real Boys" wrote the book. He saw "Reviving Ophelia" and thought why isn't there something like that for boys? And then went and wrote it. If every man who noticed the gap in support (or the unfair trend in the media) did something about it, things would start to change. Once those few men start speaking up and making changes, other men will start to notice the problem, start speaking up and making a difference and so on.

That is all. ~~steps off soapbox~~

[Davian93]

And maybe men need to start complaining about the poor portrayal of their gender in media. If women can get commercials changed by taking action- so can men. It just doesn't come as naturally to men to raise their voice against the media- because it might seem whiny or sissy.

The major problem with that is if it were attempted the men doing it would be accused of being sexist pigs and quickly ridiculed by the press and society.

[Sei'taer]

That it doesn't make any difference at all? No. That it's not necessarily a bad thing? Yes...though a lot more people realizing that it's not necessarily a bad thing would help. ;)


I think it is a bad thing. I think that kids do make it in these situations, but is it as easy for them? Definitely not. I understand that you can pick up any kid anywhere and teach them how to wipe their ass, but you can't teach them how to do other things...and learning some of those things on your own is very hard if you don't have any help. Not to say it can't be done, but it puts you at a disadvantage, and that means its a bad thing.

[JSUCamel]

What I am trying to say is the only people who can really change this trend of poor support for boys and men is other men. That is why the author of "Real Boys" wrote the book. He saw "Reviving Ophelia" and thought why isn't there something like that for boys? And then went and wrote it. If every man who noticed the gap in support (or the unfair trend in the media) did something about it, things would start to change. Once those few men start speaking up and making changes, other men will start to notice the problem, start speaking up and making a difference and so on.

The major problem with that is if it were attempted the men doing it would be accused of being sexist pigs and quickly ridiculed by the press and society.

Here's the thing. I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the author of "Raising Boys" is a sociologist or a psychologist. He's someone who is an authority figure in that arena and can do it in a way that won't be ridiculed. If the average man were to speak up and start trying to organize a "Men's Support Organization", it would be ridiculed by the press and called chauvinistic, pig-headed, sexist, and discriminatory.

You can't have an all-whites-only group without being sued for (though you most certainly can have an all-black group, or all-Hispanic group), and you can't have an all-male group without an equivalent reaction.

[Brita]

You are both probably right to that there will be some bad press. But there was when women started fighting for their rights as well. There will be unfair accusations, but that is exactly what you are trying to combat by doing so. JUst because it won't be easy doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

If women just threw their hands in the air and said "Forget it" when they were branded extremists and loose and feminism became a curse word, then we would still be shackled to one role and not allowed to vote.

And yes, he is a trained psychologist. Obviously not everyone can write a book, but if each man can pitch in where his talents lie (i.e. acting ;).

[Davian93]

Brita, the key difference with this issue is one of perception. The men involved in such a movement would be viewed as trying to turn back time not make a progressive stride forward. They would be branded as trying to suppress women's rights instead of merely helping boys out.

[Brita]

But there are already organizations that have been "grandfathered in" without controversy- what if there was a huge swell in the Big Brother organization, or in Boy Scouts? All of a sudden their numbers were exploding.

Or what if the church started a "Men's Breakfast" (which a lot of churches have and no one has said boo, at least not around here) and just included the boys of the church.

Or what if an internet movement created helpful (and safe)website forums about boy's issues. I don't think anyone would complain about sexism on a website addressing boys issues growing up. And if they did, just pointing out the female sites should shut them up.

I agreed there will be bad media, and I still say that shouldn't cause men to just give up and say it's hopeless.

[Gilshalos Sedai]

Um.. Brita.. in a culture where just going to the doctor for a cold that won't leave is considered sissified... how is a support group going to be seen?


Ya gotta admit to the problem before there can be help.

[Crispin's Crispian]

Um.. Brita.. in a culture where just going to the doctor for a cold that won't leave is considered sissified... how is a support group going to be seen?


Ya gotta admit to the problem before there can be help.
Is it really that bad, Gil? I just don't see a "father's group" or support organization being frowned upon that much. Certainly I doubt anyone would call them sexist.

Now, if you started a media watchdog group to call out unfair potrayals of men in the mainstream media, then yes, I could see some backlash. But as Brita said, there is always going to be backlash and you just have to work through it.

[Brita]

Um.. Brita.. in a culture where just going to the doctor for a cold that won't leave is considered sissified... how is a support group going to be seen?


Did I say support group anywhere in my post? There are MANY other options than forming traditional "Support Groups for Men". And probably much more effective too. I've listed several.

In the book "Real Boys" he talks about how boys open up while doing an activity. You don't go up to your son and say "What's the matter son? Tell me about it" He'll probably just clam up. Instead you take him fishing, spend the day in the boat in comfortable comraderie and he will naturally open up when he's ready.

That is the kind of group I'm talking about, active groups that allow boys to bond with mentors and gain insight through that realtionship. Not a sit-around-the-circle-and-discuss-you-feelings group.

[caladanbrood]

Or what if the church started a "Men's Breakfast" (which a lot of churches have and no one has said boo, at least not around here) and just included the boys of the church.
The Men's Breakfast that was set up in our village was eventually forced to include women too. There weren't even really any women who wanted to join, it just seemed to be the principle of the thing :(

[Brita]

That is beyond stupid- OK maybe people are more moronic than I realized....:(

But still- nothing ventured, nothing gained.

[Ozymandias]

People are stupid and suspicious, Brita. I absolutely agree that men would be blasted for attempting to form all-male groups or societies or something.

In order to make an exclusive group, you need to have been oppressed at some point. Thats basically the reality. And white males don't really fit the bill.

[Davian93]

People are stupid and suspicious, Brita. I absolutely agree that men would be blasted for attempting to form all-male groups or societies or something.

In order to make an exclusive group, you need to have been oppressed at some point. Thats basically the reality. And white males don't really fit the bill.

What about the Irish?

[Sinistrum]

Heh, Davian, you bringing them up means a caveat needs to be added to the requirements to form "special" exclusionary groups. You need to be oppressed at some point in the past and continually whine about it in the present. :p

[Gilshalos Sedai]

Yeah, the Irish don't whine. We drink.

[Ivhon]

Sadly I can't play the oppression card AT ALL

Im White.
Im Male
Im Episcopal
Im not Irish
Im not Italian
Im not *ese, *ite, *akian or any other kind of *ian

/bends over and spreads

[DeiwosTheSkyGod]

So are you another kind of *ish?

[Gilshalos Sedai]

WASPish.