Wimps and Barbarians

[ozemu]

still haven't read it all. busy.

 

makes me recal a quote that goes something like;

 

"we are a generation of men raised by women".

 

Not to say that dads are non-existant - just busy or not expected to take an active and primary role in raising boys to become men. Young men have always needed raising. Is BSA doing this? Is Scouting where it is coed doing this?

 

Speaking for my Troop - yes that is the aim and we direct efforts there specifically. Similarly raising young women. Different needs and requires men to do arrange both. Needs women too I might add but to me (male that I am) the rearing role from about Scout age up is primarily mens. Women are undoubtedly the primary raisers prior to that age. Not sole raisers but primary. My opinion here but I think that is what we are discussing.

 

In the rest of Scouts Australia I think that the deliberate inculcation of manly virtues (womanly too - but the topic here is manhood) is fairly hit and miss. There are no specific program initiatives at either gender. We treat the two as being the same except in the fine print. That works to a point. So I think that we are not focussing on this issue. We are raising good citizens and good people but to me that is a bit bland.

 

So - is BSA raising men, barbarians or whimps? How do you know? Or is it just your earnest hope that you are?

[Fat Old Guy]

Man from Oz siad, "In the rest of Scouts Australia I think that the deliberate inculcation of manly virtues"

 

Don't you know that manly virtues are no longer Politically Correct?

 

Shell, how do you know that Natalie Wood had an awful singing voice if you never heard her? The fact that they used a voice double is meaningless. Audrey Hepburn had a voice double for My Fair Lady but I've heard the original soundtrack with her singing and her voice was nice.

[packsaddle]

I don't read or speak Greek so I must be a barbarian. Therefore I wonder if anyone could please respond with a list of the manly virtues, separate from the womanly ones, and a brief description of the differences?

[LovetoCamp]

For Real Barbarians, it's simple.

 

Conan, What is best in life?

 

"To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of the women."

(This message has been edited by Trail Pounder)

[Adrianvs]

'Saddle,

 

I think that Ozemu was implying that the virtues are the same for men and women (which is correct). Perhaps he was referring to different means of training and education which may allow these virtues to be attained by men and women. It may also be a case of mistaking different behaviors of men and women ruled by virtue as different sets of virtue. In such a case, the specific traits of virtuous men (as opposed to virtuous women) might be considered manly virtues (as opposed to womanly virtues). I don't know. If you really want the virtues, here they are:

 

Prudence

Temperance

Fortitude

Justice

 

Those are the classical virtues. The ecclesiastical or theological virtues are:

 

Faith

Hope

Love

 

And no, you aren't a barbarian just because you don't know Greek; Latin will suffice perfectly.

[packsaddle]

I can tell...you're a Mediterraneanist. At least Greek is not a dead language.

OK, so what about Charity, Chastity, Gambling, Greed, Sloth? Wait a minute....I may be thinking about someone else.

[ozemu]

sorry all - was inexact and this discussion is set at a level where precission is needed.

 

I meant the method of achieving virtues rather than saying that the virtues are different. Rather they are manifested differently.

 

(Wonders if that statement helps?)

 

More important to me is the methods used to develop virtues in boys as opposed to girls.

 

Boys being generally less skilled in communication need doing methods of learning. The school of 'hard knocks', experiential learning and adventure education are examples of appropriate delivery methods for boys particularly providing the facilitation (interpretation, debriefing etc) is not solely verbal.

 

Girls like the discussions about behaviour, right, wrong and compassion etc.

 

Boys prefer the living example, role model, clarity of general rules/truthes etc. It can be much more painful for both student and mentor than the abstract discussion that girls are okay with.

 

Does BSA and your Troop take this path or do you just talk about the virtues? Are they practiced, tested and experienced?

 

Do you talk about the wrongs they have done or do you have them fix those wrongs, apoligise, explain their reasons, teach others the errors they have done, practice better ways of dealing with things etc?

[Fat Old Guy]

Women also expect us to be their defenders, going forth into the night armed with a 5 iron. We also are supposed to be the ones who deal with all forms of technology. It is a plus if we can dance, sing and recite poetry but only if have calluses on our hands.

 

Men expect us to be honest and loyal unto death. Women expect us to lie when necessary to protect their feelings.

[Adrianvs]

"I can tell...you're a Mediterraneanist."

 

 

Is that a compliment, Pack? Seriously though, I don't think I am. It's just that the discussion at hand was about virtue. Virtue is a Greco-Roman concept that was later adopted by Europeans under Roman influence. If we were talking about karma, I would be quoting Siddhartha Gautama and Patanjali. I don't speak Greek, Sanskrit, Latin, or Bengali. It doesn't have anything to do with barbarism. Nor does having a beard, surprisingly. Your Latinist friends may disagree, of course.

 

If by dead languages, you mean those that are no longer spoken by entire peoples, then I suppose that Latin is dead. Queen's English is dead too, of course, but that doesn't stop English teachers from emphasizing its importance, despite the protestation of youngsters everywhere.

 

"Da bizitch's wak," asserted Randall. "True dat," replied Jameson, "S'all like bob n'schtuff."

[packsaddle]

Adrianvs, yep that was with tongue firmly in cheek. Anyway, an example: A scientist (whose identity I feel the need to protect) who was revising a comprehensive taxonomic index for an obscure taxonomic field once remarked that he was frustrated by the fact that taxonomic entries seemed to have exceeded the ability of Latin to describe them. He implied that all the available Latin descriptors and their permutations had been exhausted with species left over. He was exaggerating a little but I appreciated his point. As anyone can see in these posts, for example, our ability to invent new words and descriptors using English seems boundless. That's how I distinguish the dead from the living - at least as applied to language.

 

As for the term 'barbarian', I refer you to Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary:

 

"Barbarian

a Greek word used in the New Testament (Rom. 1:14) to denote one of another nation. In Col. 3:11, the word more definitely designates those nations of the Roman empire that did not speak Greek. In 1 Cor. 14:11, it simply refers to one speaking a different language. The inhabitants of Malta are so called (Acts 28:1,2, 4). They were originally a Carthaginian colony. This word nowhere in Scripture bears the meaning it does in modern times."

 

Please note that most of the time I really do attempt to live in the current century.

 

Edited part: Hey, I just found another source, sort of smacks of an urban myth though.

http://cal.jmu.edu/sherwork/Word%20Fun/etymolog.htm

"Barbarian: From Attic Greek. Attic Greek was the Green vernacular spoken around Athens, in the province of Attica. They thought they spoke the proper Greek. Everything else just sounded like a babble of nonsense to them, literally as if everyone were going around saying 'bar--bar--bar--bar--' So anyone who didn't speak proper Attic Greek was considered a foreigner who could only speak 'barbarian.'"(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[OldGreyEagle]

Semper Ubi Castus Sub Ubi(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[Shell in WA- USA]

FOG, it's a fact from the Movie trivia that I read about the movie. While NAtilie was singing, they didn't have the heart to tell her she wasn't very good (or maybe not good enough for their movie) so after all was said and done, they hired a singer to dub over her singing parts. We still hear her speaking but someone else is singing. Yes, A Hepburn is the same way.

[Fat Old Guy]

"FOG, it's a fact from the Movie trivia that I read about the movie."

 

The point is that all of your evidence is hearsay. You have no firsthand knowledge of her singing ability.