April 17, 2008
April 7, 2008
A Chicken With Its Head Cut Off
I agree with Chavette’s post against you, Simple Scholar. Women are the only ones who can create good males; however, I do not think the masculine persona that is aligned with sex, violence, drugs, or weapons is as dead as you would like to think it is.
Men are not men without a female counterpart. The cliche applied to women that they have been called man’s better half is for a definite reason. That is because man, by nature is a hooligan. He is the body that is unthinking, and all doing. The woman is the head that comes to direct his every action, assuredly for the better. Without such a marriage of mind and matter man could not function. He is, by nature, a brute animal with only base needs and motivations. His pursuits are mainly the achievements of sex and violence, and while one may too readily resurrect the crude adjective of “cave man” to explain such behaviour, I assure you it would not be inaccurate.
I say this not without a sense of irony, being a man myself; however, that does not mean that I should deny what I know is inherently true, [i][b]and[/b][/i] have had backed up by strong scientific research. You see, colleague, anything and everything has been and is proven by scientific endeavour. For every study concluding that smoking kills, there is a counterpart study suggesting quite the opposite.
Men are hooligans by nature; and though I am adamant when I say that a father will never change this fact, I could certainly accept the conclusion that a woman can. What is the one thing which is most conspicuously absent from a gang setting? What is the one thing that is never seen amongst a group of gang members? Not even I will say that the answer is a father figure, because on occasion even that phenomenon may be witnessed. Within certain gangs an older man claiming responsibility as the effective leader can be seen not uncommonly. So, there you have your father figure. What is missing is a woman, and a mother at that. Granted, certain gang members have their “honeys” and their girls, but none of them have ever dealt with a mother figure. Why? Because it would fix them. It would change their gang into something productive, and that is the last thing the want. As brutish as a man is, the last thing he wants to part with is that animalistic pleasure of his, the violence and the sex. He wants to remain a hooligan, and the only thing that will ever change that he spurns away like the devil.
Men are not men without a female counterpart. The cliche applied to women that they have been called man’s better half is for a definite reason. That is because man, by nature is a hooligan. He is the body that is unthinking, and all doing. The woman is the head that comes to direct his every action, assuredly for the better. Without such a marriage of mind and matter man could not function. He is, by nature, a brute animal with only base needs and motivations. His pursuits are mainly the achievements of sex and violence, and while one may too readily resurrect the crude adjective of “cave man” to explain such behaviour, I assure you it would not be inaccurate.
I say this not without a sense of irony, being a man myself; however, that does not mean that I should deny what I know is inherently true, [i][b]and[/b][/i] have had backed up by strong scientific research. You see, colleague, anything and everything has been and is proven by scientific endeavour. For every study concluding that smoking kills, there is a counterpart study suggesting quite the opposite.
Men are hooligans by nature; and though I am adamant when I say that a father will never change this fact, I could certainly accept the conclusion that a woman can. What is the one thing which is most conspicuously absent from a gang setting? What is the one thing that is never seen amongst a group of gang members? Not even I will say that the answer is a father figure, because on occasion even that phenomenon may be witnessed. Within certain gangs an older man claiming responsibility as the effective leader can be seen not uncommonly. So, there you have your father figure. What is missing is a woman, and a mother at that. Granted, certain gang members have their “honeys” and their girls, but none of them have ever dealt with a mother figure. Why? Because it would fix them. It would change their gang into something productive, and that is the last thing the want. As brutish as a man is, the last thing he wants to part with is that animalistic pleasure of his, the violence and the sex. He wants to remain a hooligan, and the only thing that will ever change that he spurns away like the devil.
In Reply
Dearest Chavette,
While it is true that we have ascended (note we have ascended and not descended, or simply come into) to an era of ever increasing equality, but to compare men to High Fidelity’s Rob is a slap in the face to any self-respecting male. It is true that the new rite of passage for males is based largely on female approval but Rob is a failure as a masculine man. He is pathetic, and the only way he can salvage his life is to completely submit to Laura. This is not a success as you claim, it is simply an admission of his failure. I agree that the model of masculinity has changed drastically over the centuries and I would by no means endorse or glorify thuggism in any terms other than masculinity. My purpose was to highlight the traits that remained from the glory of Stalky. Our co-blogger Eaglet agrees, having said: “I do think that modern gangs have become the latest menifestation of the Stalky model, albeit a very violent and negative one.” Yes they are violent and criminal but they come as close to Stalky-esque masculinity as you can find in today’s society. Many people go about their daily lives in a manner similar to Rob, eking out a sub-par existence, slaves to the fairer sex. But the poindexters and creampuffs that live in a world where their only validation comes from females, who they fear and don’t understand, are only males in the sense that they have the correct chromosomes.
The times they have changed, and the definition or model of true masculinity has become muddied; and to insult males by implying that Rob is the new model is wrong. Thugs and gangsters are by no means the ideal, but in their rebellious, tightly-knit groups they are as close as any modern males come to the glory days.
So while I agree that the female has a new heightened role in masculinity, I do not agree that “women are the only ones capable of creating good males.” Because accepting defeat and bowing completely to female control like Rob is shameful. The lives of adolescent males do tend to revolve around females but males today compete by being appealing, in order to ‘get’ or ‘get-with’ females. And in many cases males don’t get females by surrendering their testicles (if they do then they fail as males). Females want masculine men which is probably why thugs and gangsters never have a shortage of attractive women to ‘get with.’
Sincerely,
--SS
While it is true that we have ascended (note we have ascended and not descended, or simply come into) to an era of ever increasing equality, but to compare men to High Fidelity’s Rob is a slap in the face to any self-respecting male. It is true that the new rite of passage for males is based largely on female approval but Rob is a failure as a masculine man. He is pathetic, and the only way he can salvage his life is to completely submit to Laura. This is not a success as you claim, it is simply an admission of his failure. I agree that the model of masculinity has changed drastically over the centuries and I would by no means endorse or glorify thuggism in any terms other than masculinity. My purpose was to highlight the traits that remained from the glory of Stalky. Our co-blogger Eaglet agrees, having said: “I do think that modern gangs have become the latest menifestation of the Stalky model, albeit a very violent and negative one.” Yes they are violent and criminal but they come as close to Stalky-esque masculinity as you can find in today’s society. Many people go about their daily lives in a manner similar to Rob, eking out a sub-par existence, slaves to the fairer sex. But the poindexters and creampuffs that live in a world where their only validation comes from females, who they fear and don’t understand, are only males in the sense that they have the correct chromosomes.
The times they have changed, and the definition or model of true masculinity has become muddied; and to insult males by implying that Rob is the new model is wrong. Thugs and gangsters are by no means the ideal, but in their rebellious, tightly-knit groups they are as close as any modern males come to the glory days.
So while I agree that the female has a new heightened role in masculinity, I do not agree that “women are the only ones capable of creating good males.” Because accepting defeat and bowing completely to female control like Rob is shameful. The lives of adolescent males do tend to revolve around females but males today compete by being appealing, in order to ‘get’ or ‘get-with’ females. And in many cases males don’t get females by surrendering their testicles (if they do then they fail as males). Females want masculine men which is probably why thugs and gangsters never have a shortage of attractive women to ‘get with.’
Sincerely,
--SS
Re: Bad Boys Last Good Males.......More like Women are the only ones Capable of Creating Good Males!
Dear Simple Scholar,
You must remember that our societal age is ‘post-patriarchal, where women are now capable of success where once men held sole proprietorship. Therefore, even though these thugs and gangsters are actually capable of living the lifestyle boasted through their conversations, the definition of masculinity has changed, moving further away from having to constantly showcase a ‘masculine’ persona’ that is aligned only with ‘sex, violence, drugs, or weapons’. Thus, we can either glamorize a fast-fading model, or catch up to the new model which is centered around the woman because the new rite-of-passage is achieved when the new post-patriarchal woman no longer thinks of the man is pathetic. That, Simple Scholar, is the new masculinity--where all male performance is concerning or centered around Women.
As we see through Nick Hornby’s Rob, his success only occurs with complete submission to Laura--the new Sapient Head.
However, you may be right to some degree, for Gang Culture does in a sense, provide “a space for active masculinity, a site in which to play warrior”. However, like the quotation states, this is merely ‘play’-time--an escapism from the impending post-patriarchal world, where man is a constant target for emasculation, more often than not, at the hands of the New Woman.
-Chavette.
You must remember that our societal age is ‘post-patriarchal, where women are now capable of success where once men held sole proprietorship. Therefore, even though these thugs and gangsters are actually capable of living the lifestyle boasted through their conversations, the definition of masculinity has changed, moving further away from having to constantly showcase a ‘masculine’ persona’ that is aligned only with ‘sex, violence, drugs, or weapons’. Thus, we can either glamorize a fast-fading model, or catch up to the new model which is centered around the woman because the new rite-of-passage is achieved when the new post-patriarchal woman no longer thinks of the man is pathetic. That, Simple Scholar, is the new masculinity--where all male performance is concerning or centered around Women.
As we see through Nick Hornby’s Rob, his success only occurs with complete submission to Laura--the new Sapient Head.
However, you may be right to some degree, for Gang Culture does in a sense, provide “a space for active masculinity, a site in which to play warrior”. However, like the quotation states, this is merely ‘play’-time--an escapism from the impending post-patriarchal world, where man is a constant target for emasculation, more often than not, at the hands of the New Woman.
-Chavette.
Appeal of Gangs and the Stalky Model
I realise that today is the due date of this project, and that to post on both the second-to-last AND last days looks rushed and disorganised, but I realised I had never posted the following information. I think it's relevant to our overall discussion, and Step 2 is connected to our in-depth debate about parenting and fulfillment of the father role. (I know that we as contributors had planned to commit to critically discussing each other's posts for the remaining time, but as I forgot to post this earlier in the semester, I am doing so now.)
FROM:http://www.ehow.com/how_2032607_.html
How to Understand the Appeal of Gangs:
Step 1:
Gangs deal in such blatant brutality that it's difficult to understand how anyone could be sucked into them at any age. People want to believe all kids are coerced or frightened into membership and though that's true for some, there's a deeper truth. Gangs exist and are growing, simply because gangs are meeting genuine human needs that appeal to young people, albeit in a dangerous and pathological way. Gangs provide for those needs, yot kids don't realize the dangers.
Step 2:
What do gangs offer? They provide an immediate promise of belonging to something. Gang allegiance depends on members trading individuality for community. For a lonely young person, the feeling of belonging is very powerful. Suddenly, they aren't alone anymore. The gang becomes mother, father, brother and friend. Family, friends, church, sports, academics, and hobbies are suddenly set aside, as allegiance to the gang is all-consuming.
Step 3:
Gangs maintain a sense of mystery and secrecy, and this is extremely appealing to young people. While gangs operate outside the law, the sheer excitement and mystery surrounding gang life is a huge draw for young people. It is human nature to want to be "in the know" and to be privy to inside information makes people feel important. Gang members have secret hand signals, tattoos, neighborhood grafiti and colors that show everybody that they belong, similar to the exclusivism seen in lodges, sororities and country clubs. It's natural for anyone to feel better when chosen to be a part of something, when others were not.
Step 4:
Easy money is a lure for kids to join gangs. Kids as young as 5 or 6 are given great wads of money and the promise of more to come if they join. Money is a powerful incentive for anyone, but to a child or young teen, it is practically irresistable.
Step 5:
Gangs foster a sense of power that is very appealing. Young people feel invincible anyway, so gangs deliberately foster the myth of invincibility that only age and experience can normally dispel. Power is addictive, and many young people like the rush.
Step 6:
As soon as possible, recruits are expected to perform a home invasion, rape, murder or carjacking as a form of initiation. Gangs do this for several reasons. First, it makes the recruit cross an inner psychological line. The new member’s own innocence is shattered and he’s now a like-minded participant. Once a new member does something like this and gets away with it, there's usually some kind of tangible reward, such as money or stolen goods, as well as the applause and praise by other members for their courage and loyalty. When a young person is the center of a hero party atmosphere, it's difficult to resist.
Step 7:
Eventually, real danger becomes a plaything to gang members. Guns no longer seem like things that can kill, but as tools to get what they want. Running from the police, carjacking, rape, and all the rest become games of power—proving grounds for rank in gang activity. Young people lack the discernment to really see the consequences of these actions.
Step 8:
After a while, this participation into brutality for sport robs the young person of any sense of goodness he may have had and replaces it with a sense of shame. The gang becomes the justifier, an agent of salvation making wrong seem right. The gang provides members freedom from moral obligations and shame.
Step 9:
Unfortunately, the gang member eventually becomes an important and powerful person in the organization. The gang member is ruled by mindless obedience and follows a group mentality. For all intents and purposes, the original young person, won by shining promises and street savvy power talk has been obliterated as an individual who thinks and chooses for himself.
Step 10:
It is a very hard battle to reform a gang member—never impossible, but very difficult. Why? The gang member, now feeling dehumanized and undeserving of redemption into normal society, usually doesn't feel he deserves another chance. After brutalizing innocent people, turning from family, church and friends, and knowing what the gang members are capable of doing to someone who left, getting out seems impossible. The gang has won--now the individual is his own taskmaster and a better way of life seems to belong to a better type of person.
Step 11:
The only way to undermine the appeal fo gangs is to start meeting the person's needs. Kids need to belong to something beigger than themselves. Getting them involved in community, church, sports or other organizations is a start. Knowing where they are and who they're with is also critical. Many schools, churches and community organizations have programs to fight against gang membership. There are no easy answers but keeping track of your kids and knowing their friends, activities and whereabouts is considered one of the best preventative steps to deterring gang membership.
In Analysis:
I realise that this is not a critical article, but it does represent the popular view of gangs, and explains them in a simplistic manner, which I found useful.
Step 3 parallels with #10 of the Stalky Model: exclusive and shared code of speech.
Step 6 parallels with #8 of the SM: centrality of performance, rite of passage.
As a final thought from me, I do think that modern gangs have become the latest menifestation of the Stalky model, albeit a very violent and negative one.
FROM:http://www.ehow.com/how_2032607_.html
How to Understand the Appeal of Gangs:
Step 1:
Gangs deal in such blatant brutality that it's difficult to understand how anyone could be sucked into them at any age. People want to believe all kids are coerced or frightened into membership and though that's true for some, there's a deeper truth. Gangs exist and are growing, simply because gangs are meeting genuine human needs that appeal to young people, albeit in a dangerous and pathological way. Gangs provide for those needs, yot kids don't realize the dangers.
Step 2:
What do gangs offer? They provide an immediate promise of belonging to something. Gang allegiance depends on members trading individuality for community. For a lonely young person, the feeling of belonging is very powerful. Suddenly, they aren't alone anymore. The gang becomes mother, father, brother and friend. Family, friends, church, sports, academics, and hobbies are suddenly set aside, as allegiance to the gang is all-consuming.
Step 3:
Gangs maintain a sense of mystery and secrecy, and this is extremely appealing to young people. While gangs operate outside the law, the sheer excitement and mystery surrounding gang life is a huge draw for young people. It is human nature to want to be "in the know" and to be privy to inside information makes people feel important. Gang members have secret hand signals, tattoos, neighborhood grafiti and colors that show everybody that they belong, similar to the exclusivism seen in lodges, sororities and country clubs. It's natural for anyone to feel better when chosen to be a part of something, when others were not.
Step 4:
Easy money is a lure for kids to join gangs. Kids as young as 5 or 6 are given great wads of money and the promise of more to come if they join. Money is a powerful incentive for anyone, but to a child or young teen, it is practically irresistable.
Step 5:
Gangs foster a sense of power that is very appealing. Young people feel invincible anyway, so gangs deliberately foster the myth of invincibility that only age and experience can normally dispel. Power is addictive, and many young people like the rush.
Step 6:
As soon as possible, recruits are expected to perform a home invasion, rape, murder or carjacking as a form of initiation. Gangs do this for several reasons. First, it makes the recruit cross an inner psychological line. The new member’s own innocence is shattered and he’s now a like-minded participant. Once a new member does something like this and gets away with it, there's usually some kind of tangible reward, such as money or stolen goods, as well as the applause and praise by other members for their courage and loyalty. When a young person is the center of a hero party atmosphere, it's difficult to resist.
Step 7:
Eventually, real danger becomes a plaything to gang members. Guns no longer seem like things that can kill, but as tools to get what they want. Running from the police, carjacking, rape, and all the rest become games of power—proving grounds for rank in gang activity. Young people lack the discernment to really see the consequences of these actions.
Step 8:
After a while, this participation into brutality for sport robs the young person of any sense of goodness he may have had and replaces it with a sense of shame. The gang becomes the justifier, an agent of salvation making wrong seem right. The gang provides members freedom from moral obligations and shame.
Step 9:
Unfortunately, the gang member eventually becomes an important and powerful person in the organization. The gang member is ruled by mindless obedience and follows a group mentality. For all intents and purposes, the original young person, won by shining promises and street savvy power talk has been obliterated as an individual who thinks and chooses for himself.
Step 10:
It is a very hard battle to reform a gang member—never impossible, but very difficult. Why? The gang member, now feeling dehumanized and undeserving of redemption into normal society, usually doesn't feel he deserves another chance. After brutalizing innocent people, turning from family, church and friends, and knowing what the gang members are capable of doing to someone who left, getting out seems impossible. The gang has won--now the individual is his own taskmaster and a better way of life seems to belong to a better type of person.
Step 11:
The only way to undermine the appeal fo gangs is to start meeting the person's needs. Kids need to belong to something beigger than themselves. Getting them involved in community, church, sports or other organizations is a start. Knowing where they are and who they're with is also critical. Many schools, churches and community organizations have programs to fight against gang membership. There are no easy answers but keeping track of your kids and knowing their friends, activities and whereabouts is considered one of the best preventative steps to deterring gang membership.
In Analysis:
I realise that this is not a critical article, but it does represent the popular view of gangs, and explains them in a simplistic manner, which I found useful.
Step 3 parallels with #10 of the Stalky Model: exclusive and shared code of speech.
Step 6 parallels with #8 of the SM: centrality of performance, rite of passage.
As a final thought from me, I do think that modern gangs have become the latest menifestation of the Stalky model, albeit a very violent and negative one.
April 6, 2008
Parenting Styles Are Important, But So Are BOTH Parents
I hate taking the middle stance on a topic, but I agree with parts of busogre, Chavette and Seven Tense's arguments regarding the impact of parenting.
To begin, parenting styles are changing, and this does have a significant impact on a child. Academics of child psychology have consistently proven that different parenting styles result in different children. Authoritarian parenting teaches a child rebellion, they have problems with authority figures and social relationships; passive parenting results in children who have no self-control; uninvolved parenting results in children who disregard rules and laws; and authoritative parenting results in children who are sociallly responsible and competent, self-reliant and have good self-esteem. This authoritative parenting style is the one that child psychologists have labeled as ideal. This parenting style involves having clearly explained rules, and provides emotional and psychological support for their child. Therefore, the father is someone who "watches from a distance…give[s] security" which results in a successful childhood and for a boy, masculinity as an adult. Thus parents do "encode hooliganism" into the brains of their children by their parenting style. Also, did you notice that the three other types of parenting styles result in children who have characteristics that could potentially land them in a gang? (rebellion, no self-control, disregard for the law). Any Child Psychology text will tell you more about these parenting styles and their effects on children as they grow up and into their adulthood.
I agree that every child needs a father, and I take that assertion a step further: every child needs a parent of both sexes. How can a woman be a masculine role model for her son? How can a man be a feminine role model for his daughter? How can a mother relate to their son about the changes their pubescent body is going through (and visa versa)? To go back to the beginning of our supposed evolution as humans, families had both father and mother millions of years ago, and families still need a father and mother now.
Boys search for men to be their role models. When they do not have a father in their home, they turn to men in other places of authority to fill this void: athletes, actors, fictional characters, etc. Children do not always know what is best for them, and so will sometimes choose poor role models for themselves. And what is the purpose of a role model? They serve as a goal for their lives; when children have achieved the quality (or qualities) they admire in their role model, they believe they will have success in life.
The role of parents is to teach their children what is right and wrong. If parents teach a child that acting out, violence and gang culture is acceptable, a child will accept that as true. If parent teach the opposite, a child is less likely to see gangs as an option in their life.
To begin, parenting styles are changing, and this does have a significant impact on a child. Academics of child psychology have consistently proven that different parenting styles result in different children. Authoritarian parenting teaches a child rebellion, they have problems with authority figures and social relationships; passive parenting results in children who have no self-control; uninvolved parenting results in children who disregard rules and laws; and authoritative parenting results in children who are sociallly responsible and competent, self-reliant and have good self-esteem. This authoritative parenting style is the one that child psychologists have labeled as ideal. This parenting style involves having clearly explained rules, and provides emotional and psychological support for their child. Therefore, the father is someone who "watches from a distance…give[s] security" which results in a successful childhood and for a boy, masculinity as an adult. Thus parents do "encode hooliganism" into the brains of their children by their parenting style. Also, did you notice that the three other types of parenting styles result in children who have characteristics that could potentially land them in a gang? (rebellion, no self-control, disregard for the law). Any Child Psychology text will tell you more about these parenting styles and their effects on children as they grow up and into their adulthood.
I agree that every child needs a father, and I take that assertion a step further: every child needs a parent of both sexes. How can a woman be a masculine role model for her son? How can a man be a feminine role model for his daughter? How can a mother relate to their son about the changes their pubescent body is going through (and visa versa)? To go back to the beginning of our supposed evolution as humans, families had both father and mother millions of years ago, and families still need a father and mother now.
Boys search for men to be their role models. When they do not have a father in their home, they turn to men in other places of authority to fill this void: athletes, actors, fictional characters, etc. Children do not always know what is best for them, and so will sometimes choose poor role models for themselves. And what is the purpose of a role model? They serve as a goal for their lives; when children have achieved the quality (or qualities) they admire in their role model, they believe they will have success in life.
The role of parents is to teach their children what is right and wrong. If parents teach a child that acting out, violence and gang culture is acceptable, a child will accept that as true. If parent teach the opposite, a child is less likely to see gangs as an option in their life.
April 4, 2008
Society is My Daddy
I agree with Chavette. The chances of a son becoming a hooligan is significantly decreased when they have an actual father to guide them. On the other hand there are those who do become hooligans even though they do have fathers. My argument for that is that the father is not fulfilling their role and therefore the child is left to find examples in the media, as there millions of examples of males in the media. Thus the child may find themselves influenced by things like gang culture as it is displayed in the media. This would obviously promote hooliganism.
As for males who lack fathers completely, I argue that has to do with economics of the household. Without a father there is a significant gap that needs to filled in terms of household income. It's unfortunate but women do earn less money then men in general. This means the mother is unable to fill this gap. Therefore it is up to the children, both the males and the females, to attempt to fulfill the place left by the absentee father. This prematurely exposes children to society before they are ready. I argue that this is the greatest factor in creating hooligans. When the sons are not able to fulfill this role, as this immaturity stops them from earning the money needed, they turn to alternative sources of income. This could very well be something like theft or drug dealing. However they are not true hooligans at this moment. As their lack of experience is what leads them to being caught. It is when they are in prison that they become true hooligans. Being in prison is a sort of rite of passage for them. Here they learn the skills they need to cause true destruction. Instead of stealing from convenience stores, they steal cars, steal from houses and the like.
Thus without a father figure at home, they are forced to look for them elsewhere. In some cases they turn to the media, which teaches them that violence is cool. In others, they are forced in to an unbearable situation. This situation that society has forced them in corrupts them forever and leads them to becoming true hooligans. So there are my two cents. Feel free to object.
As for males who lack fathers completely, I argue that has to do with economics of the household. Without a father there is a significant gap that needs to filled in terms of household income. It's unfortunate but women do earn less money then men in general. This means the mother is unable to fill this gap. Therefore it is up to the children, both the males and the females, to attempt to fulfill the place left by the absentee father. This prematurely exposes children to society before they are ready. I argue that this is the greatest factor in creating hooligans. When the sons are not able to fulfill this role, as this immaturity stops them from earning the money needed, they turn to alternative sources of income. This could very well be something like theft or drug dealing. However they are not true hooligans at this moment. As their lack of experience is what leads them to being caught. It is when they are in prison that they become true hooligans. Being in prison is a sort of rite of passage for them. Here they learn the skills they need to cause true destruction. Instead of stealing from convenience stores, they steal cars, steal from houses and the like.
Thus without a father figure at home, they are forced to look for them elsewhere. In some cases they turn to the media, which teaches them that violence is cool. In others, they are forced in to an unbearable situation. This situation that society has forced them in corrupts them forever and leads them to becoming true hooligans. So there are my two cents. Feel free to object.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)