A few posts ago, by co-blogger, Chavette, posted an interesting essay on the absence of men, specifically fathers, in the lives of hooligans (See "Where's Daddy" below). I thought perhaps if I rationalized it long enough in my mind I might have drawn an adequate conclusion out of the mess that it was, but I found myself sadly mistaken. You see, Chavette, I understand the likely connection you would draw given your evidence, but this post seems to lack something in the way of a conclusion, or rather a decent conclusion.
It may be possible that being fatherless can be connected to hooliganism, you've proved that adequately; however, you fail to continue mindlessly repeating questions long enough to decide whether or not having a father would make any difference. Allow me to fill in the gap and give you and answer.
What are men usually like, historically speaking? They are usually quite aggressive, and tactless, in the way they perform their actions. This was what separated men from women, and fathers everywhere were expected to encourage it in their boys, to harden them up, to make them more manly. Even today we still have the tradition continuing on. So, then you have to wonder: "what good would a father do?" A father, candidly speaking, would only end up encouraging his boy to do gang-like things.
How many times has a boy out there been taught to "fight back and stand up for yourself"? Standing up for yourself is fine, but fighting isn't. The idea that the world of men should operate on an "eye for an eye" principle was thought of by none other than men trying to raise other men.
How many times has a boy in our society been told to "show them what you're made of" and "make your mark" in the world? If you've got to show someone something, it usually means you've got something to prove. A boy doesn't start thinking about this until he's told to do so by his father. He starts to wonder what's wrong with him. What has he got to prove, and how is he going to do it? Well, he'll never "make his mark" by beating someone up. That's not going to be anything lasting. What about beating up something that isn't human, like that window, that house, or that car? Yes, the boy realizes, those would stand as lasting proof exactly what I'm made of. I'll make my marks on these things in order to make my mark on society.
The presence of a father will do nothing for the hooligan child. If anything it will make matters worse than ever. There is nothing a parent can do for their child that will help them avoid a gang's life. It is encoded into their brains whether or not they will become hooligans simply by the way they are raised and brought up by parents. And the only way to counteract that would be to completely change the way we raise our boys, teaching them that what was once masculine is no longer the way. We would have to completely alienate the concept of masculinity that generations of boys and men have grown up with. Of course, we already know that wouldn't help an ounce, because society has already done that and to no avail.
Perhaps it was always supposed to be this way. Perhaps hooligans will always exist, if only to show us the error of our species and its ways.
It may be possible that being fatherless can be connected to hooliganism, you've proved that adequately; however, you fail to continue mindlessly repeating questions long enough to decide whether or not having a father would make any difference. Allow me to fill in the gap and give you and answer.
What are men usually like, historically speaking? They are usually quite aggressive, and tactless, in the way they perform their actions. This was what separated men from women, and fathers everywhere were expected to encourage it in their boys, to harden them up, to make them more manly. Even today we still have the tradition continuing on. So, then you have to wonder: "what good would a father do?" A father, candidly speaking, would only end up encouraging his boy to do gang-like things.
How many times has a boy out there been taught to "fight back and stand up for yourself"? Standing up for yourself is fine, but fighting isn't. The idea that the world of men should operate on an "eye for an eye" principle was thought of by none other than men trying to raise other men.
How many times has a boy in our society been told to "show them what you're made of" and "make your mark" in the world? If you've got to show someone something, it usually means you've got something to prove. A boy doesn't start thinking about this until he's told to do so by his father. He starts to wonder what's wrong with him. What has he got to prove, and how is he going to do it? Well, he'll never "make his mark" by beating someone up. That's not going to be anything lasting. What about beating up something that isn't human, like that window, that house, or that car? Yes, the boy realizes, those would stand as lasting proof exactly what I'm made of. I'll make my marks on these things in order to make my mark on society.
The presence of a father will do nothing for the hooligan child. If anything it will make matters worse than ever. There is nothing a parent can do for their child that will help them avoid a gang's life. It is encoded into their brains whether or not they will become hooligans simply by the way they are raised and brought up by parents. And the only way to counteract that would be to completely change the way we raise our boys, teaching them that what was once masculine is no longer the way. We would have to completely alienate the concept of masculinity that generations of boys and men have grown up with. Of course, we already know that wouldn't help an ounce, because society has already done that and to no avail.
Perhaps it was always supposed to be this way. Perhaps hooligans will always exist, if only to show us the error of our species and its ways.
No comments:
Post a Comment