"Boyhood is not a Mental Illness" article

[Aetherous]

http://spectator.org/archives/2013/10/18/boyhood-is-not-a-mental-illnes

[Flolfolil]

boyhood? no of course not

 

violence? its debatable...

[Aetherous]

Yup, people debate that.

My view is that there's a huge difference between things like: playing war, having fights with friends once in a while, being rowdy...and for instance, school shootings. Real violence.

It's more than a bit psychotic and unrealistic to try and put a stop to the former, to prevent the latter. This is how society has become, though...misguided and ineffective, as well as destructive to the natural state of the genders.

[thelerner]

I don't know if this was the case here, but there was a similar story where 'all' the boy did was make a gun with his finger and was suspended, BUT it wasn't a case of zero tolerance, the kid had priors; bad behavior, I forget the exact details but they showed a kid with problems.

 

There are rags on the left and right that salivate when they can show extreme behavior, whether its there or not. I think many stories in American Spectator typify this. Not exactly wrong, just biased to the hilt, and spinning stories to fit there tune.

[Aaron]

I wrestled, played cops and robbers, cowboys and indians, had toy guns, and ran around in a cape, I grew up fine. The article is right, the basis that they're creating for the definition of normal is one created by gender bias, in particular a feminine bias created by a primarily matriarchal institution. If more men were involved in the educational system, I don't think things would have gotten to the point they are now. That isn't a misogynistic statement, but rather a consideration of how for the last few decades there was never an argument from the other side to defend a boy's right to be a boy. It's sad really, especially when one thinks of the millions of boy's who suffered needlessly because they didn't fit into their newly assigned gender role.

 

In short, we're neutering our next generation and not very many people seem to be aware or even care.

 

Aaron

Edited October 22, 2013 by Aaron

[Brian]

I wrestled, played cops and robbers, cowboys and indians, had toy guns, and ran around in a cape, I grew up fine. The article is right, the basis that they're creating for the definition of normal is one created by gender bias, in particular a feminine bias created by a primarily matriarchal institution. If more men were involved in the educational system, I don't think things would've have gotten to the point they are now. That isn't a misogynistic statement, but rather a consideration of how for the last few decades there was never an argument from the other side to defend a boy's right to be a boy. It's sad really, especially when one thinks of the millions of boy's who suffered needlessly because they didn't fit into there newly assigned gender role.

 

In short, we're neutering our next generation and not very many people seem to be aware or even care.

 

Aaron

 

I think you are spot-on, Aaron.

[silent thunder]

balance

full feminine

full masculine

 

meeting in divine proportion

 

everything else is out of balance

[zanshin]

Boys are wired differently. I didn't properly realize that til I had kids. Things like sticks and wrapping paper tubes turn into swords at a young age. People seem to think it's problematic and drug kids so they'll stay in their seat. Chairs are no good for anyone anyway. I tried to explain kinesthetic learning to a 2nd grade teacher once, might as well have told the chair about it. When I was in grade school, boys got paddled, now they get drugged. Terrible waste of fabulous creative energy.

[Aetherous]

A lot of mothers understand this well. My cousin's wife is a superb mother, as well, raising 3 boys.

[Taomeow]

The rabbit hole is WAY deeper. The gender bias is primarily in the assumption that childhood behavior of girls is supposed to be gender specific to begin with. Girls are conditioned much stronger than boys to avoid all behaviors that are "not ladylike." But I ran around with a bunch of girls who were very un-lady-like and we did all the things that most girls are too timid to do -- every day. We were physically active, aggressive, and often reckless. In trouble all the time. The teachers' favorite line to my parents summoned to school to complain about my behavior? "She is worse than any boy!" This seemed to explain the extent of the problem -- what can be tolerated in a boy can't be tolerated in a girl. Most girls are intimidated into compliance so early that they don't even know that their "girl-like" behavior is unnatural, because they were never allowed to explore their natural behavior. I wasn't either, but the drive to behave normally -- like a child (of any gender!) was so strong that I was willing to take the punishment rather than change the pattern.

 

I distinctly remember self-policing toward "ladylike" when puberty came, when it became clear that I will be unable to get away with being normal for much longer even among peers, because everybody is conditioned to expect certain patterns of presentation of a girl, and by 13 it's drilled into every head. I distinctly remember understanding that "nobody will love me as a girl if I don't pull off the kind of girl that is expected of me." I swore to myself I will never get in a fight again. I trained myself to walk when I wanted to run. And so on.

 

I ask all ex-boys to consider that you are no ex-girls so you have no clue. Ask someone who was a girl what it was like to be conditioned as a girl, don't ass - u - me.

[joeblast]

[silent thunder]

The rabbit hole is WAY deeper. The gender bias is primarily in the assumption that childhood behavior of girls is supposed to be gender specific to begin with. Girls are conditioned much stronger than boys to avoid all behaviors that are "not ladylike." But I ran around with a bunch of girls who were very un-lady-like and we did all the things that most girls are too timid to do -- every day. We were physically active, aggressive, and often reckless. In trouble all the time. The teachers' favorite line to my parents summoned to school to complain about my behavior? "She is worse than any boy!" This seemed to explain the extent of the problem -- what can be tolerated in a boy can't be tolerated in a girl. Most girls are intimidated into compliance so early that they don't even know that their "girl-like" behavior is unnatural, because they were never allowed to explore their natural behavior. I wasn't either, but the drive to behave normally -- like a child (of any gender!) was so strong that I was willing to take the punishment rather than change the pattern.

 

I distinctly remember self-policing toward "ladylike" when puberty came, when it became clear that I will be unable to get away with being normal for much longer even among peers, because everybody is conditioned to expect certain patterns of presentation of a girl, and by 13 it's drilled into every head. I distinctly remember understanding that "nobody will love me as a girl if I don't pull off the kind of girl that is expected of me." I swore to myself I will never get in a fight again. I trained myself to walk when I wanted to run. And so on.

 

I ask all ex-boys to consider that you are no ex-girls so you have no clue. Ask someone who was a girl what it was like to be conditioned as a girl, don't ass - u - me.

*deep bow*

well said.

[Aetherous]

Taomeow,

Yes, the condition and conditioning of girls is a horrible thing. Not that I know personally, but having known quite a few girls.

We may be opposed to all forms of conditioning, but when I see traditional cultures (such as various tribes that still exist), the status of girls and women seem far better than what we have here. I miss the wisdom of the old ways.

[Coaster]

Violence is also instinctive.

 

In 1973, Jane Goodall and Richard Wrangham observed a tribe of wild chimpanzees march purposefully to another tribe's territory and attack them in order to take over their resources. This (and later other observations) is clear proof that warfare is a natural practice of primate apes, and therefore is an instinct created by evolution.

 

Like many things proven by science, if it is not flattering to people, then it is ignored.

 

The corollary of this is that racism is also instinctive - mistrust of people who do not look like you, and who do not speak your language, was a massive survival benefit, and was heavily selected.

 

So human beings are naturally violent and racist, they are wired to trust those whom they know personally ("friends and family"), and mistrust everyone else.

 

It takes spiritual practice to overcome these instincts.

 

Of course gender roles are also instinctive - if little girls did not instinctively like dolls, then the human race would have died out millions of years ago. (But modern patriarchy is actually an aberration, since female primates often get to "vote" for leader in other species.)

Edited October 22, 2013 by Coaster

[xor]

Not all boys and girls are the same, having a mold to force us into makes us sick. If you don't fit the mold you will be called a problem. What's healthy is letting them discover for themselves what they are here to do.

[Owledge]

I think the gender argument is partially a distraction from the underlying problem.
Childhood behavior on average is indicating what is healthy. Despite having been under influence of the surrounding social environment, certain natural tendencies are more prevalent than in the adult world. Social/emotional problems grow over time if not cured. Society is shaped a lot for the purpose of pampering those problems for the masses of people who don't want to solve the issue. At some point, the problem becomes so powerful that someone becomes its slave, and then natural healty childlike behavior will induce anger that should be directed inwards, but is directed outwards. It's about jealousy and being reminded of one's own weakness.
This is why, if you keep observing the big picture, you can see a war being waged on childhood. Illness-based trends in society are growing to a size where they look like they're developing a life of their own and thus become more and more disconnected from awareness of those that feed them. Metaphorically speaking it's like demons fighting angels, because they're natural opposites.
This doesn't have to do with conspiracy, because as I tried to point out, when someone becomes a servant to their inner demons, the demons are the deciders and then conscious awareness is not there.
People operate a lot on their unconscious programming (naturally they're not aware of that if they haven't undertaken a journey within), and their actions based on that perception of reality shapes future reality. That why when you observe the big picture, it might look like a thoroughly planned and structured war effort for destroying childlike purity. It is ... but unconsciously, or sometimes at least denial-based. (And continued denial leads to dumping stuff into the unconscious.)

Adults make up terms like "ADHD", but the problems they are describing are mere symptoms of THEIR problems.

The trend is that the result of a clash of adult society's sickness with healthy individuals is called sickness.

And I think there are examples of especially sick societies trying to weed out childhood like an illness.

The problem fights the solution. People have to decide which they want to support, to become an agent of. Some can be helped in that decision by others, some are far beyond help (sometimes due to vicious resistance, sometimes due to lack of mental capacity -- fear makes stupid).
This is exactly why the stereotypical wise old Chinese masters are known to show many childlike qualities. They have overcome many of the fear complexes that make people into what people associate with the negative aspects of adulthood.

Herbert Grönemeier sang a song that pointed at exactly this issue: "Kinder an die Macht" (Put children in power).

And this is also why I emphasize the importance of distinguishing between childish and immature. Acting childish is fine, it's fun and inspirational. Immaturity is based on fear. When kids fight in order to establish their dominance on the school yard, that is immaturity they have adopted due to the immature way the adult world they grew up in is designed.

Many of those things are considered "normal" because people don't know about examples of healthier societies. Either the information is kept from them, or they don't want to know.
It can be frustrating trying to make people learn inspirational and uplifting truths when the will to learn has been conditioned out of them by those that fully succumbed to their inner demons. Also, many people are so deep in inner misery that they cannot handle any negativity that comes with learning the truth you have to know in order to be able to make things better.

As the extended saying goes: "The truth will set you free, but first it will make you miserable." I've experienced many cases of people even viciously fighting the knowledge of those truths. They cannot handle them. This includes people who claim they are big optimists. Some are just kidding themselves and are in fact running away from any unpleasantness, and that's why they appear like optimists. They will condemn messengers of those truths that set you free as "negative all the time" and things like that. As always, once you pierce through someone's bullshit, they will panic out of fear that their masked truth might have been revealed, and as I stated earlier, fear makes stupid, and thus it leads to the irony that, through their panic reaction, they reveal their inner truth even more.


I guess I just wrote down the source of all human suffering. Again. Haha.

Edited October 29, 2013 by Owledge

[Owledge]

ADDITION:

When a female teacher tries to stop boys fighting in school, this is not an attempt to force unnatural, supposedly matriarchical attributes onto them. The real problem there is the irony that those teachers are not smart enough (don't have the understanding and the tools) to solve those male-dominance-borne problems with an actual feminine approach. In tragic irony, they are applying male-borne tools in their attempts, because they have learned those tools from institutions shaped by a male-dominant society. It requires a basis of actual lived female philosophy to be able to defuse those situations. Trying to stop people fighting over dominance by using dominance is folly and at best a short-term fix with growing long-term problems. You have to make them understand their folly in a convincing way, and what is usually helpful there is the authority of radiated confidence stemming from an understanding of the truth and wisdom you speak.

 

Taoist studies on a wide scale could help bring balance by enlightening people.

 

Just imagine a symbolical situation: You have a one-on-one challenge, a champion of the masculine and a champion of the feminine, and want to see who wins.

In our current society, the feminine champion would try to win this competition by proving that she can be just as fierce a fighter as the male champion is, and that is the folly of our times.

The female champion has almost forgotten what her strengths are and to cultivate those.

If the feminine energy was in balance with the male energy in our society (generally speaking), then there would be a good chance that the feminine champion wins the competition by opening the male champion's heart and making him agree to not fight. In the end, he would gladly declare her the winner, out of courtesy and admiration, because what the competition was actually about would be irrelevant at that point. The female champion would have 'totally owned' the whole thing, because the format of the competition itself can be seen as something typically male.

The Western philosophy confuses things and considers weakness bad, but what Western language would be calling a "strength" is actually the female champion's weakness, which neutralizes the male champion's strength through being its opposite.

 

A force-based feminist movement cannot succeed, because it is rooted in male principles and thus fueling those. It's one of the things where you perceive a problem and end up empowering (or outright creating) it.

Feminism should be distinguished from a women's rights movement.

 

(Be honest: How many of you were exclusively thinking of a fight when I mentioned a one-on-one competition, two champions and winning? ... If you did, then you habitually applied a male-dominant perceptual bias to a problem-solving approach.)

Edited October 29, 2013 by Owledge