• http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    Have they covered spanking yet?
     
    I don’t mean the single slap to get people’s attention or to emphasize intent, but the infliction of pain as a way to force children to obey Authority. They cover that yet?
     
    Because if single mothers feel out of control in modern society and unable to control energetic boys, and resort to corporal punishment, they are merely teaching kids that might makes right. Which can be fine, unless the guy grows up around criminals and murderers and thieves. It won’t be because they slap them in the face or on the arse to get the attention of boys that are ignoring orders. Pain itself will be used as the reason alone why people should listen, because pain said so.
     
     

  • Mike Devx

    That article is stunning in its implications.  (And I’m grateful that the author didn’t engage in university gobbledy-speak, yet retained precision. Well written!)
     
    A very near relative has raised two daughters and a son in a single-mother household, with divorce in the mix.  The divorced mom and dad are on reasonably good terms but there a lot of small conflicts.  They struggle with finances.  There has never been a mentor in the son’s life that I know of.  But the mom and the older sisters have been extraordinarily supportive of the son.  And there was never any risk, in their community, of gang activity.
     
    To the best of my knowledge, this son is making it.  He may not be going to a university, but he is going to a technical school and seems highly motivated.  I think he’s going to be fine.
     
    A former co-worker married a woman with a son who at the time was about ten, I think.  That man has paid a LOT of attention to this step-son, and has been extremely supportive in all the ways you’d expect a biological father to be.  Finances were never an issue, and again, there was little to no risk of gang activity.  So far, so good, but this son is still in the early teenage years.  (Also, I have the impression that the biological father is completely absent.)
     
    The key lessons I draw from these two examples is that there must be some form of strong family support, and a strong community matters, too.  The absence of totally dysfunctional gang activity appears to me to be a key.  If there is a strong, aggressive gang in the picture, it must be very compelling for a fatherless son to end up there.  In my two examples, the lack of gangs along with, in one case, extremely strong support within the family, and in the other case, an extraordinarily devoted step-father, seems to have made the difference.
     
    For a lot of fatherless boys in much more toxic environments, including amoral, vicious “Lord of the Flies” urban gangs, I’m not surprised the situation is bleak.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    Given a choice between doing something physical or what they love, a male would be foolish to get into debt or put his family into hock, to attend a university full of anti-male, mind control indoctrinating, professors that they’ve seen and gotten sick of for more than 12 years of education.
     
    If they aren’t rich, all the more reason to “get out” of school and work. And when you start working, getting back to the unpaid debt spiral that is school… doesn’t seem so attractive any more. If they are rich and their parents pay for it, a lot of males may just flow along with the current. They then need that education to open the doors to elite halls of power.
     
    But for those just working at the bottom, they don’t need elite certificates.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    Also, bachelor graduation doesn’t count 2 year associate degrees, do they? A lot of companies prefer 2 year technical and community colleges for hiring people. Why? Maybe because unlike Harvard, you might actually get someone competent more than say, 10% of the time?

  • LSBeene

    It’s really all about PC and how everything must fit through that lens.

    Look – both men and women come with stereotypical issues, but we can only address the issues of boys & men.

    I’ll start with boys & men so this is not seen as some “hate women” post. Males tend to have stereotypical traits: hyperfocus, boundless energy, aggression, can be blunt versus diplomatic etc. We know this, talk about this, and plan for this. We give them direction, set boundaries, and realize ahead of time that we need to punish them when they cross those boundaries, explain to them how it’s wrong, and praise & reward them when they use their talents and traits for good.

    In the same way women, stereotypically, have traits that are also identifiable: empathy (especially to other women), sharing of information, asking for help instead of running into a situation, and that they are verbal gymnasts. Unlike boys you can’t even TALK about stereotypical bad female behavior without being accused of misogyny and being hateful.

    We can, and have, discussed, ad infinitum boys and why they are how they are – both good and bad. We need to be able to raise good women, and address women’s specific issues too.

    The first issue to be addressed with women is their over developed hypersensitivity to any form of criticism. Even a compliment, that is not to a woman’s liking (and I’m not talking about crude disgusting “compliments” here) is taken badly.

    Second is their way of committing violence: violence by proxy. We don’t even address it. A girl may smack you in the face, but more likely she’ll get someone to do it for her : the principle, her friend, or the police. Character assassination and the false witness are the tools, but we can’t even discuss this – while we can, and do, discuss men’s proclivity towards directed violence.

    Empathy and a willingness to help others (especially other women) is good, but when not given boundaries it becomes an excusal to ignore ethics and standing up against one’s friends when they do wrong.

    This is not a “bash women” comment – as men are equally bad. But we TALK about how males do evil, and we have remedies. With women we can’t even address the bad behavior, much less solve it.

    • http://bookwormroom.com Bookworm

      Ah, you’re pointing out the difference between dialog and monologue.  I agree — and in the old days, there were expectations for both sexes.  Nowadays, though, because women are seen as victims (despite their increasing over-representation in colleges and white-collar professions), you’re not allowed to discuss them.

      In any event, whether we’re talking about men or women, the goal is to take the lemons inherent in every person — and often more prevalent in one sex than another — and turn them into lemonade.  Empathy should extend to men, as well as women; the urge to battle should be used to protect, not bully, the weak, etc.

      • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

        Didn’t some Democrat mayor or bureaucrat shut down a lemonade stand a budding kid of an entrepreneur setup to pay for charity or school expenses? Due to it not being FDA, food packaged, approved?
         
        So make lemonade. But they’ll confiscate it in the end. What that means… is open to interpretation.
         
        LS makes some good points. In general, though, I think people would benefit from being freed from slavery first. If they are made a better person, but not freed, they don’t become a better human. They aren’t human to begin with yet.

    • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

      Women are just another slave force controlled by the Left’s feminist overseers. Same with blacks.
       
      I used to worry about being hated by people for talking about blacks and women and what not. Now a days, I don’t care. I don’t care what non humans think about me.
       
      Neat trick, eh?