No way to raise a boy

[Gonzo1]

FGoodwin,

 

By no means, no. I think Pack''s observations are his and only his (for the context here).

 

There is a great amount of debate about the "feminization of America" and I think there''s some validity to it. I''m not bashing men, I think men need to get up off their duff and get moving.

 

"Back in the day", I would never even have heard of a backpacker''s espresso make for use on a pocket rocket. But, I saw one in action this past weekend on the AT. I almost laughed outloud.

 

I wish for some of the opposite things Pack does. I wish there were more male school principals, male firemen instead of firefighters, etc.

 

My opinion is that in today''s society of unwed mothers and high divorce rates, junior is left to feminization because mommy isn''t a male figure. The world of left oriented books "Heather has two mommies" and "Daddy''s boyfriend" is hogwash too. Studies show that children do better in two parent male and female homes.

 

I''m not intending to really enter this debate (though ya''ll know I love to debate), but rather to let you know that Packsaddle will make a comment here and there as if to pop you (or someone) on the nose and see how you respond.

 

You know what we say to our kids today, something like ** when I was a kid, I would ride my bike 5 miles from home, my parents had no idea where I was as long as I was home when the street light came on **

 

I''d say he succeeded.

[fgoodwin]

Maybe packsaddle is into self-loathing -- if he thinks men are such losers, maybe he should look into gender-reassignment options.

[Gonzo1]

I disagree.

 

[packsaddle]

At least we now have some idea on how to get Fred fired up to write more often, heh, heh.

While I am glad to bask in all this attention to my personal psyche (as completely pointless as the endeavor is), I remind everyone that what I did was to state some ideas and opinions.

 

I don''t expect ideas and opinions to make all people feel good. I expect disagreement. And those who disagree must realize that...(and here you need to pay close attention)...I don''t care if you like me or not. Are you getting this? It''s really nice if we all like each other, and there''s not one person on these forums whom I dislike. But to me the IDEA is the important thing. Not people''s feelings, certainly not mine. You have noted that I am insensitive (at least I think that''s what you noted). And sometimes I am.

So maybe I am insensitive, mean, self-loathing. So maybe I have some deep personality disorder. So what! It isn''t relevant to the problem.

 

If you disagree with an idea, that''s good. Tell us your alternatives and your reasoning. I love to learn new things. I think everyone does (or should at least). Enlighten me.

 

But so far, in this thread, the respondents are cluttering the discussion with ME, not the ideas. I invite you to enter into a debate on the ideas. Step over my carcass (give it a kick if you want) and get on with discussions on the topic.

Hey, after all, I shouldn''t be the only one having fun around here.

 

So back to the topic: One of the first lines asks a question,

"Do boys have to be bored, fat and dumber than their sisters?"

That, in case anyone didn''t notice, was the real shot across the bow of maleness. Actually it was a dead-center, down the stack, blow it out of the water, direct hit. The Hood meets the Bismark.

 

The obvious answer, for rhetorical purposes, is NO. They don''t have to be. Followed by the question of whether there is much truth in the question''s premise.

I responded with agreement and some possible explanations. If you think I was being mean, that''s OK. Stick out your lower lip and run to mommy about the mean old man, heh, heh.

 

Maybe this thread was started to address a real problem or perhaps to discuss whether or not this problem is real. I took the approach that it is real, I gave some real observations, and some stimulating explanations.

I may have been in error, and I now admit it. In fact this thread MIGHT have been started in order to allow respondents to engage in pointless hand-wringing and whining about all sorts of things that might provide rationalizations to justify (and acknowledge) the fact assumed by that first original question. If THAT was the reason for the thread, sorry I misunderstood. I don''t think I did misunderstand though, and I give the forum members more credit than that.

 

Or am I wrong?

 

Edited part: I almost forgot about that 'gender reassignment' comment. I have tried on several occasions to get some discussion on this topic to see how BSA would view the issues surrounding it. It is an interesting topic that's still unexplored....but I've already been under the knife enough times in my life, no thanks.

H'mmmm...or did I just pass on a tantalizing proposition...? Wow, just imagine the possibilities...(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[fgoodwin]

gonzo, I''m not sure what packsaddle "succeeded" in doing.

 

You said his interest is tweaking noses; from what I can tell, that appears to be his sole reason for commenting in this thread -- to be provocative merely for the sake of provocation.

 

With respect to the issue of how boys should be brought up: his comments indicate his mind is already made up. That doesn''t leave much room for discussion, does it?

[Gonzo1]

Fred,

Perhaps not.

 

I suppose there are times when he irks a few people.

 

I don''t see the big deal.

 

I know I have irritated some folks. They have either chosen to ignore me or just don''t respond. I have chosen to not respond to one person, I''m not offended either way.

 

The problem with these posts (which BTW, I love this forum) is that the typed word doesn''t express the tone, hand gestures, brow wrinling, etc. though we do EMPHASIZE some things, it''s not the same.

 

I wouldn''t be offended if I were you.

 

 

[Aquila]

"I wish for some of the opposite things Pack does. I wish there were more male school principals, male firemen instead of firefighters, etc.

 

My opinion is that in today''''s society of unwed mothers and high divorce rates, junior is left to feminization because mommy isn''''t a male figure. The world of left oriented books "Heather has two mommies" and "Daddy''''s boyfriend" is hogwash too. Studies show that children do better in two parent male and female homes."

 

Offended? Quite the opposite! It''s nice to see someone stand up and say they''d like men to be men.

 

I think we''re seeing a polarization, though Men who want to be men vs. men who want to marry their mommies. And women who want to be ladies vs. women who want to be men.

 

[packsaddle]

Aquila, that ''men being men'' part, you want to expand on that a bit?

 

Fred, you posted the original article. That indicated that either you agreed with it or not but you definitely thought it was important enough for a new thread. But YOU seem to be obsessing on a respondent and ignoring your own topic. The topic was your topic. You chose it.

If you think I''m wrong, state your opposing thoughts and give your reasoning. Lacking that we can only speculate on the source of your disagreement.

You can begin by indicating whether you agreed with the original premise as stated in the article, or not.

 

With regard to being offended: I think you doth protest too much. What nerve did I touch with my old belt-driven dental drill? Evidently you don''t agree with me. That''s fine. What are your reasons, other than that what I wrote offends you?

[DanKroh]

"Studies show that children do better in two parent male and female homes."

 

No, they don''t. At least, not ones done by anyone other Focus on Family.

[DanKroh]

"Maybe packsaddle is into self-loathing -- if he thinks men are such losers, maybe he should look into gender-reassignment options."

 

Now who is slandering a segment of the population? MTF TGs (male-to-female transgenders) do not seek gender-reassignment because they think men are losers or because they hate men.

 

Amazing how easy it is to twist a casual comment into "slander" and take offense at it, isn''t it?(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

[Eagledad]

>>"Studies show that children do better in two parent male and female homes."

 

No, they don''''t. At least, not ones done by anyone other Focus on Family.

[DanKroh]

"Not true Dan. I am an engineer (thank goodness) but I work in a dept. of psychologist and this is a long discussed topic every spring. There are many studies that show homes with a mother and father are the most stable for raising children. What digust the folks around here is how the results of studies are manipulated to support a different conclusion then the studies suggest. Most of these folks here are liberal in their politics, but they are professional."

 

Well, Barry, I am a psychologist who actually works in that field. We''ve gone back and forth on this before, and will get no where doing so again. You say the studies supporting one conclusion are biased, I say the studies supporting the other conclusion are biased. But I can''t let Gonzo''s statement go without giving challenge that perhaps it is not a solid, accepted fact as he has presented it.

[Eagledad]

>>Well, Barry, I am a psychologist who actually works in that field. We''''ve gone back and forth on this before, and will get no where doing so again. You say the studies supporting one conclusion are biased, I say the studies supporting the other conclusion are biased. But I can''''t let Gonzo''''s statement go without giving challenge that perhaps it is not a solid, accepted fact as he has presented it.

[DanKroh]

"But because you work in the field and not in research is why I trust the folks I work with more than you. It is not politics that sway me because many of these guys are as liberal as you, but research is what they do. Also, it is not the studies I question so much, although Ive learned they should be questioned, but it is the interpretation of the results by nonprofessionals (media for one example) for personal gain like politics that nauseates me."

 

I''m not sure why you think I don''t "do research". Many of us continue to "do research" as part of our private practices. Plus there was that pesky doctoral thesis.

 

The interpretation of results by nonprofessionals (many of whom think they "know" psychology because they slept in a Holiday Inn the night before) should definitely be questioned. But aside from my own professional interpetation of the many studies I have read, the official interpretation of the APA is that the *credible* evidence out there supports that childen in households with two same-sex parents are just as successful in all measurable ways as children in households with two opposite-sex parents.

 

But, again, you''ve made your opinion of the APA incredibly clear from previous posts. However, like you, I am also nauseated by the misrepresentation of research for political gain (such as a "traditional family, anti-SSM" agenda).

[packsaddle]

Thanks Dan for pointing out that transgender twist. I hadn''t spotted it.

 

Edited part: After thinking about Eamonn's reply I think there is much merit to it. He's right about some of the girls. I probably don't see them much because they don't make it to my classes very often. If he's correct, I agree with him that we should be looking for solutions for both genders.

 

However, the numbers indicate a significant trend toward female dominance in academia, even after taking demographics into account. And to me it further indicates that the problem is a bigger one for males than for females.

To me the solution resides primarily with the parents. If the parents care, and if they understand the problem, they can control the growth environment for their children (both genders). If they don't care or if they are unaware of the problem, then the children are unlikely to do this for themselves.

I think I have read someplace that this is a mechanism of evolution at the level of society. I'll try to dig that out if I can find it.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)