On raising boys *UPDATED*

Boys playing cops and robbersOn my Facebook page today, two of my friends put up links with advice for parents raising sons.  One link came from an ultra liberal friend and the other link came from a solidly conservative friend.  There is a vast chasm between the two sites when it comes the types of men each post is trying to create.  I therefore thought it would be interesting to offer the two sets of advice side by side.  Please note that I’ve only included the headings.  You should visit both sites to see the specifics behind each heading.  (My comments, which I hope clarify the more cryptic headlines, are in parentheses.)

First, from “Raising Boys,” a subset of “The Good Men Project”, comes a post entitled Seven Memes That Will Change The Way You Think About Raising Boys:

1. We Need To Teach Boys That Being “A Girl” Is Not An Insult.
2. All Boys Are “All Boy” (e.g., it’s not just rambunctious, athletic boys who are “all boy”).
3. But They Should Not Get Away With Bad Behavior Just Because They Are Boys.
4. We Believe In Men, Their Maturity And Compassion
5. Teach Your Son to Respect Women
6. We Need to Showcase More Multi-Dimensional Boys and Men in the Media (e.g., not just vampires)
7. And One Day Soon, We Will Be Using the Expression “Boys Will Be Boys” To Describe This: (followed by a picture of a trio of boys sitting quietly on the floor pretending to give bottles of milk to dolls)

Second, from “Belief Net,” comes a post entitled Ten Things Every Dad Should Tell His Son:

1. Do Courageous Things
2. Work Harder Than Anyone Else
3. Hang with the Wise
4. Stay Away From Porn
5. Reflect True American Character (i.e, fulfill the Founder’s vision)
6. Assume a Gift Is Hidden (i.e., you have to work to get the good things out of life)
7. Remember that Everything Counts (i.e., don’t live your life making careless choices because you assume something isn’t important)
8. Know that Marriage is a Covenant
9. After You Screw Up, Step Up
10. Focus on Stewardship

I’ve often said that the Left wants to feminize boys, while conservatives should have as their goal taking boy’s behaviors (their energy, their loyalty, their drive to leadership) and channeling them into virtuous values and conduct. These two lists seem to exemplify those different ways of thinking about transitioning boys to men.

This is not to say that I reflexively disagree with the first list. Indeed, I strongly believe in several of the items on that list. It’s just that the list’s purpose doesn’t seem to have as its primary purpose taking ordinary, generic boys and turning them into ordinary, generic, and good men. Instead, its primary purpose seems to be to validate those boys who don’t have an excess of what I call “boy energy” (and I live surrounded by lots of very boy energy) and to insinuate that the best boys are the ones who, rather than channeling their boy energy to a more noble way of being, simply sublimate it altogether.

I probably would endorse the first list if it were merged into the second.  If one successfully raised a boy with all of those principles, what would emerge would be a fully-rounded man perfect for romance novels:  tough, but sensitive….  Back in the real world, however, which is where I live, if I were parenting a completely generic boy (which I actually am) and could pick only one list to use to raise my child, I’d pick the BeliefNet list.  I like that list because it recognizes the reality of boys, rather than trying to force boys to conform to a theory.

I’d also pick the BeliefNet list because the good parts of the “Raising Boys” list can be incorporated as subsets of the ideas in the BeliefNet list.  For example, items 4 and 8 from the BeliefNet list (“stay away from porn” and “marriage is a covenant”) incorporate within them the notion that “girl” is not an insult, that men should be compassionate, and that men must respect women.  Likewise, items 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 10 readily encompass “believing in men, their maturity and compassion,” because guys who step up to the requirements in the BeliefNet list will be mature, reliable, honorable and, one hopes, compassionate.

In sum, for me the BeliefNet list looks at boys as they actually are, and prepares them to become the men that they should be.  Meanwhile, the “Raising Boys” list looks at boys as girls are, and prepares them to become the men that, without being homosexual, nevertheless most closely resemble girls.

UPDATE:  With perfect timing, one of my “real me” Facebook friends posted this on his wall today:


UPDATE II: You may also want to read Kay Hymovitz on the damage single motherhood does to boys.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Eidolon

    I find all the talk about the idea of “girl” being an insult to be frustrating. People don’t seem to understand why it’s an insult.
    The kind of guy who would use it as an insult generally likes women a lot. Besides, it’s not a compliment to tell a woman that she’s manly either, that just doesn’t get covered because we don’t criticize things that women do. There’s no shame in being girly if you’re a girl. The point is that we should strive to be a great example of what we are, rather than being a mediocre example of what we’re not.
    Imagine a pine tree, only it stopped growing at 3 feet and filled out with branches. It’s pretty much the same as a bush would be, but it isn’t the same as one. It hasn’t succeeded at being a bush, it has failed to be a tree.
    A man can be outstanding as a man, but he can never be much of anything as a woman. If he tries, he fails to use his God-given strengths (physical strength, logical thinking, willingness to take risks) but he lacks the feminine ones as well (physical beauty, elegance, nurturing, childbirth). He hasn’t become a woman, he has failed to be a man.
    Calling a man or a boy a girl indicates that he is failing to live up to his masculine virtues and potential. There’s nothing wrong with being a girl if you’re a girl. If, on the other hand, a man screams and runs away from a spider then he needs to develop his masculine virtue of courage. I think it comes from an innate understanding of Natural Law, and is not, as stupid and shallow people have taken to saying, an expression of sexism or hatred of women.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    A man cannot protect a girl if he does not have qualities she lacks or isn’t stronger or better in physical violence than her. Thus if a girl is equal to a man, the man is considered useless and shiftless. To respect a girl in that fashion is not to exert the will to protect, but the same as a mirror image of respecting yourself. Since she is equal to you, it is not better or worse to respect yourself, as respecting a girl is the same, given you have the same strengths and abilities as a girl.
    Thus if a serial killer is chasing after a girl, there’s no need to use your greater speed or abilities or strength to cover for her, as she is supposed to be “another you”. Being another you, and because you are not in any way superior to her ability, your job is now to save yourself. Because “another you” is busy distracting the threat. And respecting girls is the same as respecting yourself.
    The concept of manhood was based in ancient times on being a shield or resource or power for the females of a tribe, so that they don’t have to take unnecessary casualties in a war. A tribe that uses their females at the front will not produce as many future warriors, no matter how many battles they win, they will lose the war. Some barbarian tribes, such as horse archery users, created units of virgin horseriders and archers. They could not marry until they had a first kill in a battle. Thus the tribe’s warrior blood would flow true, and the casualties would be kept to a minimum because horse archers are notoriously hard to catch by anyone, including heavy or medium cavalry. So some casualties may result, but that was a worthy sacrifice to boost a tribe’s warrior attributes in the next generation.
    Thus if you are considered a girl, there’s no point in your status as being a man. You can’t be someone’s shield. You can’t support them as they fight either. If you are weaker than a girl, then that means the females should be doing the fighting and heavy lifting. It’s a kind of guilt, like hoarding food while the children of the tribe starves. It may be good for you, but it’s not good for the continuation of the tribe. Genetically, males have been conditioned over time to feel shame about this. Only in modern or warped societies has this shame disappeared, as males have been conditioned to think they are equal and no better than females in everything and anything.
    If someone thinks being a girl shouldn’t be taken negatively, then why don’t you teach your kids to say “Don’t be an Obamacan” or “Don’t be a Demoncrat”? It means pretty much the same thing. Clueless humans have no choice but to follow society’s dictates and terminology. Those who have awakened, ascended, or separated themselves from the social chains of conditioning and ignorance, have other options that do pretty much the same thing.
    If an Authoritarian Leader or Elite Class Ruler like Obama or John Fing Kerry were told to “respect girls” because “you respect yourself”, why would they ever respect the peons below them? The peons aren’t “themselves”, right? They don’t qualify for the same luxuries, rights, or powers. They definitely aren’t “Do you Know Who I Am?” John Kerry. They definitely isn’t Mr President of the United States Barack Hussein.
    Males, due to their superior innate genetic and physical powers, are taught to respect authority and those more powerful, but more importantly they must also be conditioned to respect and protect those weaker than they are, those who hold a lower social class. Males that merely respect others because “they respect themselves”, will never respect those who they deem unequals. And you can’t make them “equal” either. Does the Left consider Barack or John Fing Kerry equal to a Sarah Palin? We don’t, so why should they? So teaching people to respect others on an equal basis means they are not being taught to respect those on a lower or higher position. If our culture were related to the Japanese, we would have a fine instinct for social positions and relative differences in strengths, but our culture is based on freedom; it is much easier to think of equals and equality than of superiors and inferiors. The Left understands this very well because their culture isn’t based on freedom.
    Only a strong person can put their life at risk to protect those who are not equals or superior, but considered weaker and helpless. Barack the magic negro can step on failed post abortion projects and consider that mercy, but a man conditioned in the ancient warrior virtues and the ancient manhood rites, would be crushed by social pressure and challenges to a duel, because crushing the defenseless exemplifies weakness and weakness means the death of the tribe. In a society where strength is a top virtue, somebody will get rid of the weaklings if only to promote their own status as a warrior. Whether girls are or are not weaker than men, doesn’t matter. What matters to the ancient ways was to have a source to push and suppress male violent urges, monkey dance intimidation games, into more positive things. Society doesn’t care about making better individuals, so society has never cared whether a person grew up with a right view of women, only that a man is conditioned to be a useful resource to the tribe, to ensure the human tribe can survive. Only in modern times as luxury has given people the benefits of the Tree of Knowledge on Good and Evil, have people begun to question the ways of the ancients.
    American culture has degraded to the point where girls bully other girls, and nobody, including the parents, expects the boyfriends or male friends of the girl to defend her. This is your “Equality” at work, socialized citizens of Utopia. This is the result of “equal respect” for “equal classes”. In a warrior culture, a male protector would protect his charge against all enemies, foreign or domestic, female or male, upper or lower social classes, because his loyalty and his pride only exists so long as she is safe. This becomes a mutual contract or beneficial alliance. Alliances aren’t born when everyone is equal and has everything they want.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    Look at number 5. Kathryn Bright, use of weapon: knife.
    I saw an interview with the family of the victim where the narrator told about how this happened. She was in a car with her boyfriend. The BF was stabbed, and then played dead outside the car, while Mr. BTK went to stab the girl in the car.
    Hey, here’s an interesting question. Is that the kind of behavior one would expect from a warrior, a samurai, or a man or is that the kind of behavior one would expect from a defenseless girl? Saving your own life by playing dead that is, while the bear takes out your tribe’s reproduction source.
    In a warrior culture or even just an ancient culture, no man would ever do something like that, not even if it cost them their life. Why? Because even if he survived, people like me would always be constantly in their face reminding them of their shame. The Japanese had to develop a ritual suicide, cutting open of their own guts and eviscerating themselves without making a single sound, and then having their second cut their head off when the pain is too much, to dissolve the “dishonor”. A warrior society will actively get boys like that boyfriend in the BTK, killed or suicided or destroyed. One way or another. They cannot tolerate such people as males. Women would be fine if they were stabbed and pretended to be dead to survive, that’s what is expected of women, to survive and carry the tribe further in the future. But a man that tries to play dead so his lover, his girlfriend, gets it in the belly instead… such a person might as well be dead. And that’s why boys and men will risk their lives to protect their charges, when conditioned properly. Because if they don’t, they are going to be FORCED to suicide anyways by us. So they might as well spend their lifeforce doing something productive. They are going to die anyways if they fail, so might as well risk it all for a good reward.
    But modern society says, “well, it’s not the responsibility of the man to do anything in this situation, just sit back and rely on the police and Barack’s magic negro civilian security forces”.
    Just sit back, livestock. We don’t expect anything out of you animals over there. It’s just another BTK fetish. The government is going to serial kill you and torture you at their leisure, just like BTK. What’s the difference? What difference does it make at that point?
    A society or a tribe’s best warriors, best soldiers, best berserkers are never around when you need them. Because predators won’t attack you where you are strong. So a society makes it paramount to harden itself against external attack or invasion, by training men and women to take care of themselves. So society had to find ways to put some steel in even the weakest man.  Because only when the weakest man dies on a spear trying to protect the village’s women and children, do we then have to worry about teaching women how to fight.
    In American society, guess why we are teaching women how to fight?

  • Danny Lemieux

    As the French would say, “Vive les différances!” The current societal trend of trying to force-fit boys into feminist concepts of what manhood should be is causing huge amounts of social distress and confusion.
    Sexual identity is both imprinted and learned: without good male role models, boys deteriorate into…mush! Bring back the protector/warrior ethos, I say. 

  • Mike Devx

    Those two lists bring home just how wide the cultural divide is in this country.  And people wonder why we’ve become so polarized?  There really doesn’t seem to be *any* middle ground.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    Mush would be the better result. What tends to happen though is that they decay into rape gangs, gang terror squads, and “knock out game” roving groups.
    The weaklings, the weak dogs, gather together so that they can feel empowered to do things that are “right”. The lone wolf that can survive alone, with no pack, is too independent to need a pack to authorize actions. Weak animals die. Animals that are alone die. Animals that are alone but strong are special. And dangerous.
    The US military couldn’t protect all Iraqis from terrorists. Not even when they disarmed the tribes of AK 47s (Diversity Casey, thank him for that). Yet people think the TSA and their friendly neighborhood police officers are going to protect them. When the command comes down, the TSA are going to call your neighbor, have them lead the SWAT death squads to your children’s school, and put an end to that rot once and for all. When the order comes down, it will be obeyed. That’s how weaklings are, they are under authority all the time and can’t wipe their own backsides without being told to.

  • expat

    I agree with men protecting women and children when it is a question of physical strength, but I do think we sometimes overlook the need for women to protect their men. Think of how Scout protected Atticus as he sat outside the jail to protect his client. Scout didn’t even realize what she was doing, but in connecting with men she knew in the mob, she reminded them of their better selves. Or think about It’s A Wonderful Life when Donna Reed waives her honeymoon money as people in the bank were demanding their savings. Then she managed to get people all over town and out of town to help her husband. Men and women are different, but we all have the responsibilty to take care of one another. Sometimes men’s skills are required, and sometimes women’s skills can save the day. It’s time for women to stop whining and act like grownups.

    • Oldflyer

      Well, there was a time when people actually understood boys.  School teachers and Administrators  were generally hard, but not overly judgmental.  They did not try to squash boyishness, but rather tried to channel and direct it.
      I recall in the 5th grade, I was sent from the room because I blurted out an unwise comment that reflected on another boy.  The Principal saw me in the hallway and told the teacher to return me to class and keep me after school because I seemed to be content with my recess.  She did; and as a result I missed the team’s ride to the 5th grade city basketball championship.  So, she kept me for a token time, then put me in her car and took me to the game; and I was able to play at least the second half.  I fear that today I would be expelled, or worse, because the other boy could be defined as a “minority”.  She understood that there was no evil intent, just a boy who had not learned when to keep his mouth shut. She also understood that punishment should not exceed the bounds of the offense; and she understood that a boy’s priorities were not necessarily aligned with the Administration’s.   There was nothing in life more important than that game; and if I had been forced to miss it, I might have gone in another direction..
      The same teacher administered my first paddling in 6th grade.  About a half-dozen boys were lined up in front of the class.  No girls of course.  We were suitably punished in  a very matter of fact way, but there was also a small badge of honor to accept it like a man.  No hard feeling on either side.  We learned that there were consequences, and maybe we learned just a little about tempering our behavior without breaking our spirit.
      I moved out of town a few years later; but wish I had the opportunity to thank that teacher for her wisdom in dealing with boys once I understood the value of her firmness, tempered with understanding.
      I was very fortunate.  Growing up during World War II and the years following, the qualities of manhood were held in high esteem; and attempts to live up to the ideal were rewarded appropriately

  • jj

    I had no idea being male is so tricky.  It’s a shock to discover what a delicate balance of conflicts I apparently am.  I never woulda guessed. 

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    1. Do Courageous Things
    2. Work Harder Than Anyone Else
    3. Hang with the Wise
    4. Stay Away From Porn
    5. Reflect True American Character (i.e, fulfill the Founder’s vision)
    6. Assume a Gift Is Hidden (i.e., you have to work to get the good things out of life)
    7. Remember that Everything Counts (i.e., don’t live your life making careless choices because you assume something isn’t important)
    8. Know that Marriage is a Covenant
    9. After You Screw Up, Step Up
    10. Focus on Stewardship
    1. Protect your younger sister or neighborhood girls from wild dogs and their pack. Prepare mentally, get armored up or a stick. Even if nothing happens, taking action based upon courage etches a pattern in the heart and soul that will bloom in the future. Even if nobody appreciates it, you know you had what it took to face a dog bigger than you are.
    2. Hard work will never betray you with its results. For those that want an authority or something to rely on, rely on your own hard work and its fruits.
    3. Hang around with people who you want to become. Avoid people who are weak, because you’ll just become like them. If you wish to become strong, seek out strong opponents, adversaries, rivals, and friends. Ancient warriors went on Mugyou Shugyos because their local village didn’t have the strength they needed to face.
    4. You’d avoid funding porn too if you knew what I know of what they do for profit.
    6. People consider those with ADD, Asperger’s, and various other issues to be “defective humans”: those that can’t live a full quality life and should be aborted or terminated for their own good. Well, I’m here to tell you that such individuals have talents which are hard to manifest in a modern, weak civilization. A person with attention deficit is designed and created to become a close quarters warrior by their DNA sequencing. Like an idiot savant, the brain minimizes things that aren’t necessary for fighting, while prioritizing motor control and body awareness. Keep your kids on ADD drugs and they’ll grow up screwed up, exactly as they told you, and made it so, that they would become. Nature didn’t design your kid to be on drugs. Those drugs didn’t exist back in the day when berserkers were shaped and created for war and survival. Sarah Palin made the right decision. Her family is structured the way normal human tribes are. The older “children” are already training for the job of a family spouse by taking care of their siblings. The stress of raising children doesn’t stop after 18 years. In 12 years your child is able to take care of themselves and others, that should be the standard. 13 was the age of “manhood” for most ancient tribes. You spent more than 12 years in formal education, probably.
    9. If you did something really bad, falling on your sword (suicide) or hara kiri (self evisceration and assisted suicide) is something you have to be prepared to face. Good thing we live in a modern culture and “atonement” through living is preferred over that. But always remember that atonement really does require the same resolve as killing yourself. Because nobody can change themselves without the ability to also kill their old selves.
    New Age Wisdom
    5. The picture says for the son in the hoodie (wtf…) that he is “awaiting instructions”. What the hell is that boy, a serial killer just waiting for the state to tell him when to kill? What kind of myrmidon “awaits for instructions”? Doesn’t he have a mind and will of his own? What the hell is the point to growing a warrior that only does what you tell him to do? That’s not a son, that’s just another cog in the war machine. Go rape that village over there, authority says and your son will be “awaiting instructions”. Obama tells families to inject ObamaCare in Thanskgiving and people are like “okay, obeying command”. A bunch of boys obeying the instructions of their mother authority may not turn to crime right now, but just wait until the Democrats start telling them what to do. Authority and command can always be corrupted.
    6. Not even going to say anything about Twilight being the standard for forming male social doctrine.
    3. Um… shouldn’t this read “girls shouldn’t get away with sex and rape just because they are girls in US civilian and military academies, while boys are punished instead?” Huh? Right? No?
    Isn’t this an issue with sexual inequality and not with boys getting away with stuff… I mean Clinton and Ted Kennedy got away with things, not because they were boys, but because they are fing Demoncrats okay? Eh? Understand? Rule by demons, for demons. The Kennedy clan has been raping women all the time, and they get away with it, not because they are males, but because they are Kennedies and political elites. Not just any regular “boy” can get away with such things. A boy can bring a waffle shaped like a gun and they’ll shatter his backside to hell, cause he is poor and powerless. Not a Kennedy.
    That Hollywood rapist director, the child abusing teachers in school, homosexuals and heterosexuals, don’t get away with “bad things” because they are male. They get away with it because they are part of the Political Elite or allies there of. Jocks in high school athletics don’t get away with stuff because they are males, they get molested in Penn State because the AUTHORITIES like it that way. They are making a profit selling kiddie porn or something. They then use this to fund the athletics clubs. So everyone benefits, right?

  • Pingback: News of the Week (December 15th, 2013) | The Political Hat()

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    expat, didn’t you ever watch the movie High Noon (1952 something)?

    It’s difficult for someone who has spent a significant amount of time training to become independent of stuff, to speak of how women should act. Femininity and social roles are better enforced on women, by women. Same with males.
    It would be very easy to start appearing like a hypocrite if any man were to start speaking about how women should act. Because they have no personal authority to speak on such matters. Many people won’t take them seriously. Sarah Palin has the personal authority to speak on women careers and family matters, what the optimal mix is. If I were to do so, I would have to borrow the authority of other people. That never goes well and is tactically indefensible. The Left does it all the time by stealing the authority of victims and giving it to themselves. It only works because of their cultish and slavish devotion to Utopia over truth. That kind of tactic doesn’t work for people who seek real strength.
    One story I heard sometime ago was the personal story about one person who came for self defense training. In his past, he and his girlfriend was walking along a street and was accosted by 3 youths. The leader of the pack ordered the male victim held down by his subordinates, and told the female victim to get on her knees and use her mouth. After it became obvious to the male victim that they weren’t going to leave him alone because of her, or leave her alone either, he tried to fight them off and got in what one might call a “murderous rage”. More strength than is normally safe for a single person to utilize (I’m making guesses here). Beyond the 80% muscle fiber maximum output allowed by the body’s neural spine structure. The adrenaline response that allows a woman to lift a car up to save her child, at the expense of her entire spinal column and back muscles rupturing. They couldn’t hold the male victim down, so the leader of the pack got out his knife and was fighting this guy, stabbing him. The male victim, armed with high pain tolerance but low fighting ability, was losing. So the female victim got on the pack leader’s back and started immobilizing him, thus saving her boyfriend’s life.
    But to do that, she took a fatal stab in the neck from the struggling pack leader. In the process of doing so, this caused them to fleet (I suspect). But while the male victim was alive, the female victim bled out before an ambulance arrived or perhaps it was after the ambulance arrived. (Stabs to the neck are notoriously fatal, even with amateur strikes)
    Stories like this is certainly not the worst thing I experienced in my training adventure, road, slash journey. But it was stories like this that motivated me. It was easy to harden one’s resolve when hearing such things. Death becomes far less scary when you consider the alternatives of having to live with such things. A person can never forget such things. I haven’t forgotten and it didn’t even happen to me. I wasn’t even there. I hadn’t even met the guy face to face. This was a story relayed to me via third person. But if I did sit there as the guy told it first hand, I’m sure I would notice it in his eyes. This is something that etches a brand of fire upon your soul. It will never go away. You may ignore it, but I suspect that because he came for training, he wasn’t able to ignore it like most people would have tried.
    Stuff like this happens all the time. People who get their news from California papers, NYTimes, or cable news, have no idea what’s really going on in the world. No idea. They think they are “informed” because they read the newspaper or some such ridiculous notion.
    The Japanese have an expression which most people don’t translate in the subtitles. It would be “carve this into your heart”. In English the localization version would be “take this to heart”. As in take this message, put it on a dagger, and stab it into your chest/heart. You know how much it hurts when people you love die on you or when lovers break up, that sinking, heavy feeling in the chest? When a person uses that and carves a lesson of life constructed of logick, it stays with them. Even external authorities, pain, and punishment isn’t enough to erase it. That’s because the external authority has to inflict enough emotional pain equal to what you suffered, to re-carve your heart’s primary coding. That’s very hard to do unless they are slaughtering your family in front of you. This is beyond the self help method of self hypnosis. Because it is not a command from your mind, but from your spine and your nervous system tied to the gut and organs. Not something your conscious, or even unconscious mind, can control easily.
    It’s very hard to externally control people like that. Even for something as hardcore as the military, they find it hard to wrap their Special Forces killers into standard Army ROEs and regulations. Remember Blackhawk Down, when the Delta guy on base would say that his “trigger finger” is his safety, when an officer lectured him on going around base with a loaded weapon that wasn’t safed? This is how these people think, who can pull the trigger without someone telling them to. The Army finds them useful, but also annoying to deal with. Same thing with the beard regulation in Afghanistan. SF were known to ignore that because the locals wouldn’t respect clean shaven “kiddie boys”. As an individual trains themselves to wield fearsome powers, they become harder to control, because they have to control themselves more and more. The instinct, the spinal drive, the internal motivation that drives such individuals, has to be more powerful than social pressure, if these individuals are ever to fight above normal. If merely training time and experience makes a unit elite, then anyone can become elite with enough experience and training. But military elites, as an objective quantified function, doesn’t break even if they take 50% casualties. Even 70 or 90% casualties does not break the morale of an elite unit, they will continue to fight, they will continue to pull the trigger, they will not surrender often times even when ordered to do so. That is why Leonidas’ unit and allies, what is why the Theban band, who fought to the death were considered the elite of the elite. Because they were able to fight effectively until no one was left. You cannot order someone to do that. Because most of the time, the person giving the orders is the first guy to die.
    Btw, as a historical rule, if normal newly formed army takes 20% casualties, it breaks apart and surrenders. That’s not even fatalities, that’s just wounded + fatalities. Most of the people who got killed in the olden times, were killed after fleeing and the cavalry rode them down with sabers. So often times society, not just modern society, doesn’t like elite warriors. They are dangerous, not just to the enemy, but to their allies politically too.

  • Libby

    What’s so striking about BeliefNet’s list is that it’s universal, there’s nothing in that list that isn’t equally appropriate for a girl. It also focuses solely on the behavior & qualities of a boy without having to reference girls or women. I definitely prefer this list.
    Meanwhile, The Good Boy Project list seems determined to shape boys’ behavior in relation, or in reaction, to girls – don’t offend them (#1), be more like them (#5 & #7), and don’t be too different from them (#3). And based on the full list (especially #7), I’m guessing that their goal with attacking what it means to be “all boy” (#2) and depicting more multi-demensional males in the media (#6 – since many claimed the Twilight vamp was domineering and controlling), what they’re really getting at is a redefinition of  boys & men as more Beta male, less Alpha male. Ick!

  • Charles Martel

    Seven Memes That Will Change the Way You Think About Raising Girls:
    7. And One Day Soon, We Will Be Using the Expression “Girls Will Be Boys” To Describe This: (followed by a picture of a trio of three 120-lb. fire girls leaving a burning building carrying a 200-lb. man between them.)
    (Pity about the two other 200-lb. men the boy-girls had to leave behind.)

  • expat

    Yes, I’ve see High Noon. The movies I mentioned just popped into my head. They weren’t intended to be an exhaustive list. I agree that men and women should take the lead on establishing norms for their own sex. That’s why I tend to think a lot about what single moms could do for their sons. I think the role of homemaker has been diminished by feminists. The importance of routine and attention are not considered important. Establishing a place where a man or boy can retreat from the outside world to rest a bit is a very important role for women. I think that it is in the very early years when a boy learns he can count on his mom. If he has any sense when he gets older he will look for a woman he can count on.

    • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

      3rd and 2nd wave feminists hijackers almost had to diminish the role of a woman at home. Since that was her own personal fiefdom or castle she had a stake in. People who have a stake in their lives and can improve it, don’t tend to go around looking for the State to impose laws on their family. It was only by making women uncomfortable in their homes, in their marriages, and destroying their marriage harmony (like they did with black middle class families), that they can harness the power of unmarried women for political reasons.
      A lot of people now a days seem to look down on women serving guests and males in her home. They claim it is a sign of sexual inequality. But looking at it from another way, domestication was a woman’s strength and tool. If she didn’t like you, guess what, you weren’t getting served anything. You could get up and do it yourself. No breakfast for you. Everyone else will get a second serving, but you. No dinner for you. It just becomes annoying and socially depressing. She didn’t need to nag you and tell you to do something. You’d figure out you needed to do something cause if you didn’t work in the house you didn’t eat in the house either. She wouldn’t let you in the kitchen either often times. That was a woman’s domain, her land and control.
      The role of a homemaker has indeed been criticized and demeaned, to be something like serf labor, without value. While the elite classes get to pay immigrants less than minimal wage, while fighting to increase minimal wage for Republican businesses.
      If males and females are now equal in the house, that means females do not particularly have any advantages or strengths in a relationship. If a man is expected to cook and clean equally, then it’s not a favor a woman does for him. So, she can’t use that favor to leverage value or as a negotiating tool. If she just refuses to do housework, the house becomes hell, for her as well as others. But if she had been doing favors and work specifically valued by the husband, then the husband will really feel it when you withdraw the trade value. When it comes to negotiations and trade balances, the thing you have that they cannot get, is what they people want from you. If you got something that they can get just as easily back home, there’s no reason for them to trade for it. 
      Unequal relationships provide both sides chances to leverage that unequalness for greater value. It’s a sort of closed entropy system, where work can be done and produced only if there is a heat differential between two sides of a closed box. If an engine has equal heat as it combusts, the pistons don’t move and nothing gets done. Only when something explodes and produces heat, that expands and forces the pistons to move in the shaft, that you get work out of it. Unequal areas of energy.
      When everyone is equal though, people consider that a value. But I wonder if they see the problem with that as well.

  • jj

    This society will overthink practically anything.

    • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

      Didn’t you say Americans in general don’t think about anything at all because they have an IQ problem?

  • Charles Martel

    I came across an interesting comment recently in my reading. Of course, being 65, I don’t recall where the hell I read it.
    Anyway, the writer pointed out that the vast majority of men’s efforts and struggles through the ages has been directed at making life easier for women—and by extension, the nurture and protection of children. Trains that bring fresh fruit from 2,500 miles away also bring health to growing offspring. Indoor plumbing makes life easier for homemakers, and vaccinations reduce the drudgery of tending the sick and the agony of watching young loved ones die. Manning guard towers at the ends of the earth against Muslim and Marxist savages means that the hearths of home can stand secure.
    Radical feminists, for whom I feel a deep sense of pity as well as disdain, have thrown those gifts back in men’s faces. Imagine living in a world where your ideology makes you count the turkey baster, abortion, and the casual accusation of rape among humankind’s greatest achievements.

    • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

      Given taxation, they can merely force men to pay. So when given a gun, they are fine to using it to steal other people’s work and property, all the while talking about unequal distribution of wealth and sexual inequalities. But then, feminism was hijacked sometime ago by the Left.
      The two distinct early tribal systems were the horse raiders/barbarians and the settled farmers. The horse raiders, like the Mongols and various other tribes like them, were nomadic, not semi nomadic. They weren’t herding around goats, moving sometimes. They moved all the time, they lived on the move, where ever they would stop would be their city or village.
      This exemplified the notion of hunter gatherer systems of early mankind. Domestication came afterwards. Farming came afterwards. All of that required males and leaders of the tribe to think in semi long term. They could no longer follow the buffalo around for food. The imagination that was once used for the hunt, for painting the hunt of animals, were used to project far into the future, to imagine a distant future and plan for it. This changed technological progress and the way humans thought.
      Many animals have thoughts, but do not have imaginations or thoughts of the future. To a wolf, the only thing that matters is the present, not the past or the future.
      Early tribes also had segmented branches of power, surprisingly enough from what my sources tell me. They had a spiritual leader, a military leader, and a political leader. The shaman would divine the portents and decide whether it would be wise or a good idea to do something (intuition, faith, tradition). The political leader is the one that says “okay,  I decided we’ll do this” (most trusted guy) and the military leader (most feared guy) was responsible for the preservation and usage of the tribe’s military manpower. Hunting animals and hunting humans, only difference was what kind of arrowhead one would use. The Founding Fathers made a different triumvirate, the Judicial Branch, the Congressional branch, and the Commander in Chief’s position as sole supreme military commander. The CINC, though, also handled a lot of the political decision making for foreign policy.
      Politicians, as we consider them, are neither wise, trusted, or feared. So what exactly do we keep them around for? Does anyone know? Why do we let the Demoncrat trolls and their politicians tell us what to do? So we can wait until the power aligns in our celestial benefit, and tell them what to do?

    • Libby

      CM – Your comment reminded me of something Glenn Reynolds/Instapundit often posts:
      Chivalry was a system, in which obligations fell on women as well as men. If you wish for men to behave as they did in past times, you may have to live with women behaving as they did in past times, too.
      Women have radically changed their personal behavior & many became quite hostile toward men, and yet they expect men to treat them as the always have – or with even more deference and respect than before (such as slut walks: I’ll go out barely dressed, but don’t you dare hit on me or even look at me for too long, creep!).

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    Oldflyer, one of my political science instructors told me that if he had his way, he would just let boys fight it out and resolve their differences. Instead of causing a scene in the hallways, bumping chests and always having lingering emotions over it. In his day, as he called it, the teacher would stand as judge and referee over a fight between two boys and once it was clear someone was a winner because the other side had given up, the teacher intervened and stopped it. Not before.
    The current school admin policy was to punish both sides. To me, that seemed fair. 3 days suspension for resolving a problem that might go on for 300 days. Technically it’s not resolved, people just avoid each other.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    Of course, one of the semi stupid decisions I made was to resolve a misunderstanding with a fight. That was partially because I wanted to test some techniques and problems I noticed from my last fight, years ago. The first fight I got in left me with a limp for 7+ days. But it was a generally positive experience, for me at least. But you should have seen the other guy and how the school social circles treated him. That was not good. They kept bugging me/us about it. Damn gossipers.
    I had it all figured out in the first fight. I was going to dodge to the left against this guy’s kick, cause I saw it coming and time dilation had already taken effect for me but not for him. But then my body got “stuck” doing a move I had never practiced. Thus I knew I needed more actual experience.
    Martial arts were something I saw on tv, but never thought that kids were allowed to do such things for practice. The fact that I was consciously trying to take advantage of the male fighting instinct to resolve problems based upon personal experience, while also looking forward to gaining some actual experience, should have been an indication I was not quite normal. At least common sense would have said otherwise. But the two kids I decided to fight, they weren’t bad kids. The bad kids… those were the ones that I refused to fight way back in the past, and I regret that now.
    Years later, I met the guy I first fought in a class or some such. College? Not sure. We were talking it up like good old buddies. I hoped I didn’t scare him or his parents when I said “I was about to kill you if A hadn’t grabbed my arms from behind me”. Well, unlikely I was going to do much, as inexperience and incompetent as I was back then, but I “flipped the switch” just before A had grabbed me from behind to stop the fight. I was still roaring to go, my pain threshold was still increasing and my muscle overall capacity was about ready to burst beyond the safe limits of 80% normal function. The other guy was not in the fight any more. Standing, but clearly wanted to stop. I didn’t notice that until much much later…
    At the time I was afraid A was doing a double team on me, and holding me down for me to get kicked and hit over and over by the guy in front of me. But they just wanted to stop the fight. Because they had noticed that the person I was fighting… had given up. He had taken too much damage (I only hit him in the side of the neck once, and that was a weak blow from the beginning of the fight when my muscles weren’t even supercharged). I had sensed that, that is why I went into predator mode, I flipped the switch, I was going to End him with that endless fist chain people see in movies all the time in fights that nobody stops. Now I’m grateful they did stop me. Using violence to get what you want can become a habit, as addictive as drugs. My sources informed me that people like me in school, who fought a lot more than I did and won and got respect/status that way, eventually joined the mafia as enforcers. Interesting line of work, though, for high school graduates.
    However, if I had never gotten into such fights and acquired such experience, with all the mistakes that went into it, I would have never been as good at absorbing martial techniques. Now a days, they suspend you for kissing a girl on the cheek in elementary school. I wasn’t educated in the warrior virtues as a child… but damn, nobody should be put in a meat grinder called the US education system now. That’s pretty much human torture if you ask me.

  • Danny Lemieux

    The Hammer trenchantly posts “Radical feminists, for whom I feel a deep sense of pity as well as disdain, have thrown those gifts back in men’s faces. Imagine living in a world where your ideology makes you count the turkey baster, abortion, and the casual accusation of rape among humankind’s greatest achievements.”
    As I age, I have been coming across more and more women that fit into the category. They gave all for their professional careers, lived promiscuously, disdained men, disdained families and now, in their 40s and 50s, they find themselves with failed careers, no families, no boyfriends and, often, no money and, boy, are they ever bitter and angry. I do feel great pity for them, for it is too late for them to undo their mistakes. Their anger, I believe, reflects only the first stages of a grieving process that will haunt them to the ends of their lives.

    • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

      There was a reason the ancients told women not to become old maids that missed their chance at marriage. What we consider harsh, others just considered natural Gaia.

    • LSBeene

      I have quite a few female friends I grew up with (Teens – 80’s / young adult 90’s) who were seduced by feminist theory – most have had many problems that, IMO, are directly related to the application of said theory to their lives.

      1) Feminists do not care about women – they care about advancing an agenda. When a woman is no longer of use she is, as girls will do, socially ostracized or discarded. All her sisters treat her with pity and contempt, and she’s bitter and alone. That’s IF she realizes the angry feminist mindset is getting her nothing.

      2) They are told that all that ails them is from men and patriarchy and society and [whatever], and never learn to look inward. Double standards in relationships, blaming others for one’s actions, constant chip-on-shoulderism, and a constant acidic anger burn one out. Any of these is bad – in combination they are toxic.

      3) These women hit their forties and have the same “mid-life-crisis” that men do, but again, it’s a euphamism called “she’s growing and changing” and “he wasn’t” – so using the violence by proxy of the courts she dumps her hubby, who she’s not built up, but instead worn down, and hwo she now has contempt for (as he became what she claimed she wanted) and dislikes, and, oh, it’s his fault they broke up.

      4) Then the loneliness sets in. She’s “alone by choice” of course, and only because “that no good loser did [x], [y], and [z]”. The idea of self-reflection MAY finally dawn.

      And this is where I’ve seen SO MANY unecessary lives of women I knew growing up. Most realized that some PART of the feminist ideology was wrong, but still cling to other parts – because, hey, who wouldn’t like to think all your failures are due to [x], [y], and [z] and play the victim instead of owning up to your actions.

      A FEW realize how they got lied to and used, and they can change.

      The really sad part is so many men and boys are left behind in that swath of damage on her “journey of self-exploration” and her being “a strong independent woman” (self-justifying non-stop criticism machine).

      Men who grew up without a male figure to guide them, and mothers who gave sh&*ty advice on how to have relationships.

      • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

        Remember when feminists and their psychologists programmed a bunch of women in the 1980s or so with false memories of being raped by their fathers as children?
        Yea, I’m sure that didn’t contribute to crime and social instability.
        The Left says, “look at all this crime, we need the TSA and a civilian security force as powerful as the US military to set things right”.
        All the while, most of that crime is because of the Left’s constructed operations.

  • Pingback: A bouquet of stuff from all over()

  • Pingback: Complaining about Boys being Boys | The Political Hat()