Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Central TexasLet me guess it's southern Texas?
Oh awesome. Domestic servitude coupled with being a baby making machine, or singleness.
Nope, we can do better than that.
The MGTOW movement says marriage is no better for men and also choose singleness.
Stay out of Patagonia
This is what the article said:Of course. Anyone can and should. But the article was about teaching boys how to behave and was written in such a way as to make it sound like boys should not be taught to act violently. I say in some cases it's warranted and boys should be taught as much.
Article in OP said:Psychologists strive to reduce the high rates of problems boys and men face and act out in their lives such as aggression, violence, substance abuse, and suicide. Rationale Although the vast majority of males are not violent, boys and men commit nearly 90% of violent crimes in the United States (United States Department of Justice, 2011). Many boys and men have been socialized to use aggression and violence as a means to resolve interpersonal conflict (Moore & Stuart, 2005). Family, peers, and media often reinforce the connection between aggressive behavior and masculinity (Kilmartin & McDermott, 2015; Kilmartin & Smiler, 2015). Childhood physical and/or sexual abuse victimization has been found to be a significant precursor to aggressive behavior in boys and men (Jennings, Piquero, & Reingle, 2012; Tyler, Johnson, & Brownridge, 2008). Other risk factors for aggressive behavior include poor parental and teacher supervision, low academic achievement, frequent viewing of violent media, and living in high crime neighborhoods (Reese et al., 2008). For some men, perpetrating violence, including violence against gender-diverse people, serves to protect and enhance the perpetrator’s own masculinity (Reigeluth & Addis, 2016). Therefore, aggression may serve as public behavior wherein men can prove their masculinity, either against a worthy rival or against those considered unworthy of the label man (K. Franklin, 2004; Whitehead, 2005), in order to bolster confidence in their masculine identity. Men are at high risk of being the victims of violent crime (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2015). For African American males ages 10 to 24, homicide is the leading cause of death; it is the second leading cause of death for Hispanic youth of the same ages (United States Department of Justice, 2011). Men who have experienced violence and abuse in childhood are more likely to have higher rates of mental illness (Cashmore & Shackel, 2013). Men who are violent toward their partners are more likely to have been physically abused and/ or witnessed domestic violence as children
Can you think of any equivalent saying that's aimed at women - that's calling out their 'masculine' behavior - to "stop crying like a girl"?I dunno...this sounds like a stereotype in itself.
Self defense is not a "problem" men and boys face. This article isn't about violence as a means for self defense.
Can you think of any equivalent saying that's aimed at women - that's calling out their 'masculine' behavior - to "stop crying like a girl"?
I'd define interpersonal conflict as merely being conflict between two people.Can you define interpersonal conflict? If I'm a young boy and someone shoves me saying, "give me that toy," am I not allowed to shove back and tell them to get lost as a means of resolving this interpersonal conflict?
That was just my point.Nope...only men stereotype behavior. I've never seen men's behavior negatively stereotyped in my life.Especially not just now....
I'd define interpersonal conflict as merely being conflict between two people.
As to your scenario - the problem began with the first boy using violence instead of words in order to resolve his issue of wanting a toy. For one thing.....what makes him believe he's even entitled to that toy?
By shoving back, what does that solve? That only escalates the problem. That's not a matter of self defense.
Men's behavior isn't negatively stereotyped
....and you think that would end everything? A shove.....a shove back....and both just consider it all "even and done with" and walk away?Shoving back would be reciprocation, not escalation.
You snipped my poorly-worded comment, making it even more misunderstood.Of course it is. You're doing it now by attributing some phrases you've heard as coming from men in general as if there's a class of "men" who behave uniformly.
....and you think that would end everything? A shove.....a shove back....and both just consider it all "even and done with" and walk away?
I disagree. I believe a shove back would only escalate things.
Okay, but the whole point of the article (that I understand) is that shoving shouldn't be the "go-to" means to resolve the conflict of wanting to obtain what another person possesses. There are other ways - and children should learn that putting their hands on another isn't the way to resolve conflicts (what we learn as children - we carry on into life).I've seen plenty of interpersonal conflicts among children end that way. And even if it doesn't, it still doen't change the fact that the nature of the 2nd action (shoving back) is reciprocal in nature. If the first boy responds again by taking it further, then it's HIS action that escalates just as it's HIS action that escalated things in the first place
I think shoving back is by definition a reciprocal act. If the boy gets a baseball bat and clubs him over the head then clubs his friends just to be safe, that would be an example of [extreme] escalation.
Is there any room for reciprocity in behavior on your view?
Okay, but the whole point of the article (that I understand) is that shoving shouldn't be the "go-to" means to resolve the conflict of wanting to obtain what another person possesses.
I'm more concerned about the original action (and not so much the response). This is relevant to the Gillette ad - where the boys are tumbling on the ground and fighting. One group of men make the statement, "boys will be boys", but later on in the ad, a man goes over and breaks up the fight and says, "Hey. We don't treat each other like that." (paraphrasing). ISTM that you'd be in the first group (saying, "boys will be boys"). Like the ad says, "we can do better than that", because the boys of today are the men of tomorrow (also from the ad).
It's certainly skewed, here, compared to my everyday life. I have trouble working out if that's because the majority here are a different kind of Christian, or because they're American, or how those realities intersect (not having anywhere else where I regularly interact with Americans).
It is true that in real life, people don't say to my face the things they say to me on CF. But when it comes to actual decisions which impact me, (to do with education or employment or roles in church or the like), I encounter plenty of real problems in real life.
And people might express that slightly more politely, but the outcome is just as damaging.
I'm a bit confused concerning this part of your response, Paidiske. Are you saying that it seems that Americans are more sexist than Australians, South Africans, or other people you interact with more regularly and/or in real life? If so, do you have any idea as to why that might be? Just curious, as I don't have much of a chance to interact with Australians anymore (used to as a kid/teenager, as my mother worked for an Australian pediatrician for about twelve years before she passed; quite a nice man).
I'm saying there's more blatant sexism on CF than I encounter in real life, but I don't know whether that's because of the religious or cultural background (ie. is it because they're mostly conservative Protestants, or is it because they're mostly American, or is it some weird amalgam of both?)
Briefly to the rest of your points, because I'm in a hurry just now, in theory Australia has good anti-discrimination laws, but I have found that most organisations are able to work around them. I have faced significant discrimination in the (secular) workplace and in higher education.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?