Feminization of American Boys

Off Topic
81

[quote]TrainerinDC wrote:
Correct. Totally.

However, the mans job is not more important than the women’s job. Having society function correctly is on both shoulders, male and female. This is what I mean by equality. Women should not be beaten, abused, raped, mistreated or undervalues. But neither should men. Some people fail to see that we are different, but equally important to the end goal. Both gender roles are necessary, important, and valuable to society. Due respect should be given to both roles.

Women were treated as lesser than equal for a long time. Now men are, neither practice is correct.[/quote]

I agree. Great post.

82

[quote]ConanSpeaks wrote:
GaMeOvEr305 wrote:

Article shows how American boys are being molded to be less manly, and more asexual. Home schooling becomes a more viable idea everyday.

Thoughts?

Interesting article. Although I realize that the intent of the article was to hightlight the educational systems impact on the masculinity of boys I can’t help but to wonder. If the fathers of these young boys spent more time molding these boys into a proper image of manhood would our educational system and society in general have this much influence?

It seems to me that parents are no longer raising children in the sense that they focus on instilling values and principles in them. From what I see people in general focus on providing for their childrens material needs and keeping them entertained rather than raising them in the true sense of the word.

We all want to be successful in a material sense but it appears that our capitalistic culture has caused people in this country to sacrafice their childrens future in order to maintain their lifestyle. What we ultimately fail to realize is that our financial success is not as important to our children as our time and attention.

Most parents I know indulge their children out of guilt because they do not spend enought time with them or give them their full attention. Wake up America! It means more to junior that you spend a half an hour a day throwing a ball with him in the back yard than it does to buy him an XBox to pacify him and create free time for yourself.

Then we read an article like this where some scholar tries to figure out what is wrong with our children and society in general. Why are our little boys growing up to be illiterate or bullies or worse yet little faggots. It’s not the schools, it’s not society, it’s not the feminazis. It’s our failure as fathers. Because we are not taking advantage of our opportunity to mold our boys into the men they will become. We are deferring that responsibilty to our schools and society in general.

[/quote]

Words of Wisdom. Children with parents that take interest and are actively involved in their childrens lives grow with values that they were around. School simply reflects on how those values are interpreted by the child and put to use.

83

[quote]ConanSpeaks wrote:
GaMeOvEr305 wrote:

Article shows how American boys are being molded to be less manly, and more asexual. Home schooling becomes a more viable idea everyday.

Thoughts?

Interesting article. Although I realize that the intent of the article was to hightlight the educational systems impact on the masculinity of boys I can’t help but to wonder. If the fathers of these young boys spent more time molding these boys into a proper image of manhood would our educational system and society in general have this much influence?

It seems to me that parents are no longer raising children in the sense that they focus on instilling values and principles in them. From what I see people in general focus on providing for their childrens material needs and keeping them entertained rather than raising them in the true sense of the word.

We all want to be successful in a material sense but it appears that our capitalistic culture has caused people in this country to sacrafice their childrens future in order to maintain their lifestyle. What we ultimately fail to realize is that our financial success is not as important to our children as our time and attention.

Most parents I know indulge their children out of guilt because they do not spend enought time with them or give them their full attention. Wake up America! It means more to junior that you spend a half an hour a day throwing a ball with him in the back yard than it does to buy him an XBox to pacify him and create free time for yourself.

Then we read an article like this where some scholar tries to figure out what is wrong with our children and society in general. Why are our little boys growing up to be illiterate or bullies or worse yet little faggots. It’s not the schools, it’s not society, it’s not the feminazis. It’s our failure as fathers. Because we are not taking advantage of our opportunity to mold our boys into the men they will become. We are deferring that responsibilty to our schools and society in general.

[/quote]

Very well said. I agree 100%. However, I would add that part of the problem is/are school rules that inhibit normal boy behavior. Talk to the principal about why the kids are expected to eat lunch in total silence. Ask the teacher why the boys aren’t allowed to play football at recess. Why did my kid get in trouble for defending himself? You do need to keep an eye on the schools. But the most important factor is a strong father figure. The more fathers distance themselves from their children the more “others” start to fill in the void.

84

Schools are run for the convenience of teachers and administrators, and not for the welfare or advancement of the children. At least, the latter is only a secondary concern.

In middle school, if we were “too loud” at lunch, we were forced to eat in silence. There was no recess. Why would any rational individual think that a child would be able to sit still and concentrate for 6-8 hours, without any sort of break for exercise or recreation? It boggles the mind.

85

[quote]PGJ wrote:
MikeTheBear wrote:
When public worship of God is forbidden because we don’t want to offend the satanists or athiests, that is political.

Well, there is that pesky First Amendment that gets in the way of anyone pushing their religious beliefs.

Oh, and it’s not as black and white as you make it sound. I am neither an atheist nor a satanist. I just can’t stand organized religion. I have my own beliefs and keep them to myself. You have yours, keep them to yourself. It’s simple really.

And last time I checked, there is no law that prohibits you from worshipping any way you like in private. Why must it be public? So you can show everyone how holy you are? Please.

Why doesn’t public freedom of expression (First Amendment right) apply to religion? You tell me. The First Amendment doesn’t say I can’t “push” my religious beliefs, it simply prevents the federal establishment of an official religion. Meaning, there can be no government sponsored “Church of America” as was the case in England and the rest of Europe. Why is it OK to put a Pittsburgh Steelers flag in my yard, but a 10 Commandments display would have people calling the cops? Why are liberals always so selective on what constitutes freedom of expression? I can openly and loudly support abortion but I can’t say Jesus Christ in public. It’s really hard to figure out what the problem is, isn’t it?

[/quote]

I mainly took offense at your suggestion that someone who doesn’t like to participate in Christian prayer MUST be a satanist or atheist. That’s not always the case. I don’t like organized religion, which means I also don’t care much for organized prayer. I am neither an atheist nor a satanist. I just have my own beliefs, is all.

As for your other points, I am aware of no law that says you can’t put a display of the Ten Commandments on your lawn. That’s private property, and you can pretty much put up whatever you want on your own property within reason, e.g., if your display is 10 stories high in a residential neighborhood, that’s a problem. If someone was forced to take down a religious display that was on their property, that is wrong and violates the First Amendment.

My point is that private religious action is largely unrestricted. A good example is the school prayer issue. In my opinion, there is no law that prevents a child from praying silently to himself or herself in school. Anyone who says otherwise is misinterpreting the law, and unfortunately, that happens A LOT. Back when I was somewhat religious, I prayed before tests all the time. You know what? I never got called to the principal’s office. In fact, nothing happened at all. So, if a kid can say a silent prayer before a test, what more is needed for religious freedom?

86

As a mother of two five year old boys I realize boys are boys are boys. I cherish the fact that I have boys. I love when they do ‘boy things’. But I see this as not being the norm even among my friends. Especially if women have girls first…especially then. In fact, I’ve had this conversation with friends of mine who only have boys as well. Is it bad to say we secretly get excited when they get caught doing something exceptionally boyish? Boys get dirty, throw dirt, stomp in puddles and stick their hands down their pants. At least mine do.

87

(trying to bring thread back on track to feminization of men):

Title 9 is the worst thing to ever happen to american manhood.

88

Where are you getting this from?

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Schools are run for the convenience of teachers and administrators, and not for the welfare or advancement of the children. At least, the latter is only a secondary concern.[/quote]

89

[quote]Sonny S wrote:
Where are you getting this from?

nephorm wrote:
Schools are run for the convenience of teachers and administrators, and not for the welfare or advancement of the children. At least, the latter is only a secondary concern.

In middle school, if we were “too loud” at lunch, we were forced to eat in silence. There was no recess. Why would any rational individual think that a child would be able to sit still and concentrate for 6-8 hours, without any sort of break for exercise or recreation? It boggles the mind.
[/quote]

This is like my son’s elementary school. The kids eat lunch in near silence. If they do good (remain silent) they get some stupid reward. If some kid acts up just a little, the whole class gets punished. If my son doesn’t get his busy work done in class, he looses recess. If he acts up and doesn’t sit at his desk perfectly he looses recess. They only do PE about 2 times a week.

The system is set up for girls. Boys can’t sit at a desk all day. Teachers don’t do much teaching either. Everything is computer based. Read a book and go to the computer for the test. Math homework is ALL fill-in-the-bubble and run the answer sheet through the automatic grading machine. EVERYTHING is teaching to the standardized tests. Teachers have become merely classroom supervisors.

90

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
PGJ wrote:
MikeTheBear wrote:
When public worship of God is forbidden because we don’t want to offend the satanists or athiests, that is political.

Well, there is that pesky First Amendment that gets in the way of anyone pushing their religious beliefs.

Oh, and it’s not as black and white as you make it sound. I am neither an atheist nor a satanist. I just can’t stand organized religion. I have my own beliefs and keep them to myself. You have yours, keep them to yourself. It’s simple really.

And last time I checked, there is no law that prohibits you from worshipping any way you like in private. Why must it be public? So you can show everyone how holy you are? Please.

Why doesn’t public freedom of expression (First Amendment right) apply to religion? You tell me. The First Amendment doesn’t say I can’t “push” my religious beliefs, it simply prevents the federal establishment of an official religion. Meaning, there can be no government sponsored “Church of America” as was the case in England and the rest of Europe. Why is it OK to put a Pittsburgh Steelers flag in my yard, but a 10 Commandments display would have people calling the cops? Why are liberals always so selective on what constitutes freedom of expression? I can openly and loudly support abortion but I can’t say Jesus Christ in public. It’s really hard to figure out what the problem is, isn’t it?

I mainly took offense at your suggestion that someone who doesn’t like to participate in Christian prayer MUST be a satanist or atheist. That’s not always the case. I don’t like organized religion, which means I also don’t care much for organized prayer. I am neither an atheist nor a satanist. I just have my own beliefs, is all.

As for your other points, I am aware of no law that says you can’t put a display of the Ten Commandments on your lawn. That’s private property, and you can pretty much put up whatever you want on your own property within reason, e.g., if your display is 10 stories high in a residential neighborhood, that’s a problem. If someone was forced to take down a religious display that was on their property, that is wrong and violates the First Amendment.

My point is that private religious action is largely unrestricted. A good example is the school prayer issue. In my opinion, there is no law that prevents a child from praying silently to himself or herself in school. Anyone who says otherwise is misinterpreting the law, and unfortunately, that happens A LOT. Back when I was somewhat religious, I prayed before tests all the time. You know what? I never got called to the principal’s office. In fact, nothing happened at all. So, if a kid can say a silent prayer before a test, what more is needed for religious freedom?[/quote]

I didn’t mean to imply that if you didn’t pray you are an athiest. I posted several other ways to let boys be boys in this thread, most of which included fathers getting more involved. No one has commented on those ideas, but my comments regarding the importance of faith in raising children received a hurricane of criticism. Interesting.

91

[quote]AG1 wrote:
As a mother of two five year old boys I realize boys are boys are boys. I cherish the fact that I have boys. I love when they do ‘boy things’. But I see this as not being the norm even among my friends. Especially if women have girls first…especially then. In fact, I’ve had this conversation with friends of mine who only have boys as well. Is it bad to say we secretly get excited when they get caught doing something exceptionally boyish? Boys get dirty, throw dirt, stomp in puddles and stick their hands down their pants. At least mine do.[/quote]

Good to have a Mom’s input. One of the biggest problems I see with boys and their mothers (and this is my perspective as a youth sports coach for 5 years) is that EVERY TIME the kids crys, there’s Mom to hug him and baby him. I suppose it’s a Mom thing. It’s not bad, but sometimes you have to make your kids shake it off. There’s a difference in real pain and just a little scared. A parent can tell the difference. I know it’s hard as a mom, but sometimes you need to just let him figure it out and don’t go running onto the field everytime he trips and gets a boo-boo. Dealing with physical pain is all part of growing up. Moms are the exact opposite. I’m 36 and my Mom is still worried about me hurting myself in the gym.

When one of my players gets a non-serious injury and is crying, I always try to make a joke. If they hurt their arm I shake it a little and say “does this hurt?” Then I do something funny like stick it straight up in the air and ask if it hurts (it never does and the kid is starting to laugh a little). Then I yell to the assistant coach “go get the knife, I think we have to amputate!”. That normally gets the kid laughing out loud and back in the game.

92

[quote]PGJ wrote:
AG1 wrote:
As a mother of two five year old boys I realize boys are boys are boys. I cherish the fact that I have boys. I love when they do ‘boy things’. But I see this as not being the norm even among my friends. Especially if women have girls first…especially then. In fact, I’ve had this conversation with friends of mine who only have boys as well. Is it bad to say we secretly get excited when they get caught doing something exceptionally boyish? Boys get dirty, throw dirt, stomp in puddles and stick their hands down their pants. At least mine do.

Good to have a Mom’s input. One of the biggest problems I see with boys and their mothers (and this is my perspective as a youth sports coach for 5 years) is that EVERY TIME the kids crys, there’s Mom to hug him and baby him. I suppose it’s a Mom thing. It’s not bad, but sometimes you have to make your kids shake it off. There’s a difference in real pain and just a little scared. A parent can tell the difference. I know it’s hard as a mom, but sometimes you need to just let him figure it out and don’t go running onto the field everytime he trips and gets a boo-boo. Dealing with physical pain is all part of growing up. Moms are the exact opposite. I’m 36 and my Mom is still worried about me hurting myself in the gym.

When one of my players gets a non-serious injury and is crying, I always try to make a joke. If they hurt their arm I shake it a little and say “does this hurt?” Then I do something funny like stick it straight up in the air and ask if it hurts (it never does and the kid is starting to laugh a little). Then I yell to the assistant coach “go get the knife, I think we have to amputate!”. That normally gets the kid laughing out loud and back in the game.

[/quote]

Great points. I’m sympathtic but only to the actual degree needed. I’ve definately pulled the “Do we need to see the doctor” statement. Works everytime. I think have two boys similar in age helps then to brush things off. That and to not ‘mother hover’. Got that term from a friend. Many women these days feel the need to entertain their children 100% of the time but that could be another thread.

93

[quote]AG1 wrote:
I’ve definately pulled the “Do we need to see the doctor” statement. Works everytime. [/quote]

Gee, so this really IS the reason “white coat syndrome” exists.

94

[quote]AG1 wrote:
Great points. I’m sympathtic but only to the actual degree needed. I’ve definately pulled the “Do we need to see the doctor” statement. Works everytime. I think have two boys similar in age helps then to brush things off. That and to not ‘mother hover’. Got that term from a friend. Many women these days feel the need to entertain their children 100% of the time but that could be another thread.[/quote]

Nice to see mom’s on this thread. I agree.

Although I am more of the “just rub some dirt on it and take a salt pill” type. we just don’t see the need torun to the doctor everytime they get a cut or a sniffle.

Honestly - it seems that our friends’ kids have been to the doctor more times than I have in my entire life.

I think kids need to be sick and hurt to a certain degree just to build up their own immune system. Our kids ( 1 boy - 14, 1 girl - 12) have only been on antibiotics a couple of times their entire life.

95

[quote]Magarhe wrote:
Screw this - I say let’s bring up the GIRLS to be MORE MANLY.
[/quote]

Couldn’t agree more. I’m mom to a daughter(10) and a son(8), and I try to get them both to be ‘more manly’ all the time … you know, tell 'em to quit their whining and suck it up … lock 'em out of the house so they get dirty, play basketball, hunt for frogs and shoot their slingshots.

As AG said, avoiding ‘mother hover’ is key. Overbearing moms create wussy kids, IMO. That said, I spend way more time with my kids than my husband does, so some of that is inevitable (plus I admittedly have a strong personality). I’ve often had to bite my tongue - especially with my son - and let my husband do the correcting so they don’t grow up thinking women run the show.

In fairness, I don’t think most women realize the effects their hovering might have on their sons or that they’re hovering to begin with. Regarding schools, the principals/teachers I’ve seen in action put the nix on roughhousing, etc. not to keep boys from being boys but because they desire calm in their schools, and they don’t want parents (moms) calling to complain.

96

From the article:
“Feminists argue that we only have two models of masculinity to pick from. On the one hand, we have the self-centered, win-at-all-costs, barbaric, macho mentality portrayed by the stereotypical high school football coach.”

For the record, I like high school football coaches; my brother happens to be one.

In my experience, most women prefer masculine men. They may be societized to ‘think’ they want a feminized version of a man, but in the end they desire a manly man - the ones I know anyway. True manly men are compassionate, respectful and responsible along with dozens of other traits.

I’m curious as to what young, single women ‘think’ they want in a guy these days. I’ll have to ask my nieces.

97

[quote]rainjack wrote:
AG1 wrote:
Great points. I’m sympathtic but only to the actual degree needed. I’ve definately pulled the “Do we need to see the doctor” statement. Works everytime. I think have two boys similar in age helps then to brush things off. That and to not ‘mother hover’. Got that term from a friend. Many women these days feel the need to entertain their children 100% of the time but that could be another thread.

Nice to see mom’s on this thread. I agree.

Although I am more of the “just rub some dirt on it and take a salt pill” type. we just don’t see the need torun to the doctor everytime they get a cut or a sniffle.

Honestly - it seems that our friends’ kids have been to the doctor more times than I have in my entire life.

I think kids need to be sick and hurt to a certain degree just to build up their own immune system. Our kids ( 1 boy - 14, 1 girl - 12) have only been on antibiotics a couple of times their entire life. [/quote]

We don’t run to the doctor with every sniffle or cut. Its something to say so they realize they aren’t injured and its not a big deal.

I agree with the need to get sick. I’ve never lived off of antibacterial gel. I’ve spent alot of time with moms and young children over the past 6 years. The fear of germs is almost overwhelming. There is a time and place to have concern but most of it is overkill.

98

[quote]Professor X wrote:
AG1 wrote:
I’ve definately pulled the “Do we need to see the doctor” statement. Works everytime.

Gee, so this really IS the reason “white coat syndrome” exists.[/quote]

You got it!

99

Haha, I was raised by a single mother and when I was pretty young I was getting tossed around by older kids. My mother said to talk to the teacher about it. I did, nothing happened. I asked my mother what I should do. She said when one of them tried to slam me into a door (as they would do walking into class), I should hit them first. I was bigger than everyone there, I just never used any real physicality in anything other than a sporting activity. I hit the main offender so hard that I damaged the door and one of the hinges had to be replaced. Never got tossed around again. :smiley:

Good moms = awesome

[quote]mikeh3 wrote:
That is incorrect. The Bible is very clear that sex between two married people is great (and it is, I might add - read the Song of Solomon.) Sexual attraction to one’s wife is healthy and good. Fantasizing about other women is not, and detracts from God’s purpose for sex.[/quote]

I don’t know what world you’re living in where you don’t fantasize about other women, but every married man I’ve known has, and the ones who don’t suppress that seem to have a more healthy relationship.

You’re going to be attracted to other women, because as long as you have a sex drive women are attractive. Married women are going to get attracted to other men. So long as you don’t start running up and dry humping them, there’s nothing wrong with it. Never being attracted to anyone else but the person you’re married to is nice and sterile, but does not fit reality.

Being attracted to other women is fine, and completely natural, and denying it is wrong. Acting on it when you’ve dedicated yourself to someone else, also, is wrong. You’re defined by your actions, and you shouldn’t supress something that is completely natural, and harms no one.

I hope that’s not really God’s plan on sex, or I’m going to have to give him a stern talking to.

100

[quote]AG1 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
AG1 wrote:
I’ve definately pulled the “Do we need to see the doctor” statement. Works everytime.

Gee, so this really IS the reason “white coat syndrome” exists.

You got it![/quote]

I’ll just have to charge extra for kids that won’t stop screaming before they are even touched.