|
Aswad -> RE: Young Men and Mass Violence (4/29/2013 5:07:24 AM)
|
tweakabelle,
If you weren't so busy snarking at all us "cave-dwellers-by-choice", you might have caught one of the key implications of what Kirata was saying.
For your convenience: Young men would do well to have these "outdated and obsolete notions of masculinity" instilled in them, as the troubles you're referring to are contrary to such notions, and indeed appear to (in many cases) stem from the lack of such mores. For instance, Norway's Breivik was raised much as you suggest. Fat lot of good it did anyone. I would note that one of his grievances was precisely being out of touch with his male heritage, though I'm not ready to credit that with making much of a difference either way.
Now, pause to ponder that for a moment. The Norwegian culture has moved very far in the direction you suggest (indeed, women here complain about it constantly), and its most violent person yet has been a model example of what you suggest. That's not evidence against what you say, but it's certainly something that bears considering, at the very least. Particularly since we cave-dwelling folk consider what he did to be unmanly (I'd like a good translation for nidingverk if you have one), and are apt to deem him effeminate (the forensic psychiatrists even made a note of it, because it was quite notable).
Yes, there is a difference between armed thugs and warriors, and as Kirata rightly states, that difference lies in the codes by which they live. If we'd been more eager to teach young men to be warriors, with all that entails, they might not be so keen on killing. I'm no warrior, myself. But I know something the warriors know, nonetheless: there's a time and a place for violence. If we deny that, refuse to tangle with the beast, then we leave violence to chance, because violence can and will happen. At minimum, a time always comes when the wolf preys on the sheep. And if we don't have some sheepdogs around, the word for what happens then is "massacre".
Violence is a part of me. It's a part I accept and embrace, just like my sadistic side. It's also a part I control, just like that other side. I don't fuck someone without consent, and I don't whip someone without fairly explicit consent. I also don't engage in violence simply because I'm angry, disillusioned or otherwise moved in a negative direction. Nor do I direct it randomly. I engage in it when it is appropriate according to my codes to do so, and refrain when it's not. With this eyes open embrace, I have a deep seated respect for violence, its nature and consequences. And I've done less violence in my life than my age-matched peers, who have a relationship to violence more akin to what results from your suggestions.
The stoicism you reference, but fail to grasp, isn't a matter of suppressing emotion or refusing to realize when assistance is in order or any of the other simplifications. It's a matter of discipline, of control. If you don't have it, but do have parts of you that nature has honed for the purpose of violence, then you're in trouble. There's only one way to learn control, if you don't already have it, and that's to practice, to discipline yourself. And, yes, some measure of emotional discipline is part of that (I've heard it forwarded that men mature later, in which case this should go double, no?).
Note a major difference between a masculine rearing and a "macho" rearing, the latter being the misunderstood imitation of the former, much like various warrior codes have over the years devolved into charicatures and, eventually, parodies of their original content. I'm not advocating "macho" rearing. I'm advocating masculine rearing.
The "macho" parent will teach the kid never to ask for help, which is counterproductive. Ask any man that's ever had to clean up the mess after a man that didn't know to get something sorted while it was still manageable. I was taught to be self-sufficient. Part of that was learning to come to my parents when I was in over my head. Then they would not only assist me, but also teach me what mistakes I had made, how to avoid them in the future, and how to handle the problem myself the next time around.
The "macho" parent will teach the kid that boys don't cry. I was taught that boys don't whine.
Is any of this making any sort of sense at all?
If so, I'd be happy to have a go at explaining some of where I think you're completely off base with regard to the rearing of male children. If not, we're going to have to sort through these things first. And, incidentally, if we're going to delve into male rearing, I would suggest we also delve into female rearing. Like you, I have opinions on that. They may be far off base, too, but I think the opinions may be useful in illustrating gender differences in outlook. (Actually delving deeply would be a completely seperate topic, that's not what I'm suggesting.)
In the interest of not having the thread degenerate, I'll shelve my comments on misandry, if you'll shelve the snark.
IWYW,
— Aswad.
|
|
|
|
