The vanishing male

[Em_in_FL]

Thanks for the post! I am sure you are doing a great job with your children and you should be proud. Generalizations are made for society as a whole, not you in particular. Where have all the men gone? Why do they leave their families high and dry? Why are our prisons full of dysfunctional boys? Cause dad has been vacated from his position through a societal paradigm shift. I believe that the shift was originally brought on by the use of ABC. You’re doing great and should be commended for it. Go get your husband and put him on the line! I want to hear from him how he is “manning” up those boys!

I wasn’t looking for a compliment.
I’m also not interested in how my boys compete athletically or how “manly” they become. I think that has no bearing on their ability to get to heaven or to have a faith-filled life.

Yes, I agree that ABC has been one *aspect *of the problem of society today… but I think the use of ABC is a *symptom *of a bigger problem - not the root cause.
The root cause is a lack of faith and a turning away from God.

No matter how hard we “man up” our boys, if they don’t have faith and turn to God, then what good does it do.

 

[ac_claire]

Yikes… I agree with Cat - way too many generalizations in this thread.
Yes, there are some valid points… but the generalizations make it difficult to sift through.

As a WORKING, MOTHER of 3, who’s income is necessary to send our children to CATHOLIC school, and who prayerfully uses NFP, and would LOVE more children when God opens that door for us… I don’t appreciate the generalizations.

I agree…the OP is speaking very generally and that’s frustrating. To have a conversation about specifics when it’s starting out as a general convo is like comparing apples and oranges.

So…if I look at the OP’s theory just as a very general statement, I agree with it 100%. Dietrich and Alice von Hildebrandhe and the late Dr. William Marra spoke and wrote a lot about this subject, and all the little side-issues that stem out of it.

(BTW you can download many of their talks at keepthefaith.org/, or just see what a google search brings up. )

 

[Cadian]

IMO opinion men are hard wired to be leaders, guiders and fixers. Only society has stripped them of all ability to be any of of the three. They are stuck now being secondary women with bigger muscles required at every bend and turn to cow tow to women, all thanks in large part to ABC.

I think that Radical Feminism is to blame in addition …

Males and Females have their roles to play … and we should be exaulting those traditional roles.

Feminists instead of attempting to gain equal respect for their Traditional roles ( which are often marginalized and taken for granted ( e.g. Mother, Care-giver etc.) ), decided that they needed to be equal by taking male roles.

We each have our part to play and we should play that part well. Males are marginalized now in society. Fathers are unimportant. Just look at commercials on television. The Male is the buffoon, the Mother is always the wise one, etc. etc. Its a “bad thing to be a mans man” one must be “sensitive” to the detriment of being Strong.

The castrated world of today is a result of over compensating for the past ( in more than just Feminism … ). There was a time when a woman was very proud to be a mother, care-giver, and home-maker. It seems today that women are chided by their own for aspiring to that role.

Just wait till secular science can clone sperm. Men will nolonger be needed.

– Cadian:knight1:

 

[deepsouthpapist]

I agree…the OP is speaking very generally and that’s frustrating. To have a conversation about specifics when it’s starting out as a general convo is like comparing apples and oranges.

So…if I look at the OP’s theory just as a very general statement, I agree with it 100%. Dietrich and Alice von Hildebrandhe and the late Dr. William Marra spoke and wrote a lot about this subject, and all the little side-issues that stem out of it.

(BTW you can download many of their talks at keepthefaith.org/, or just see what a google search brings up. )

Thanks!

 

[Bluegoat]

I think that Radical Feminism is to blame in addition …

Males and Females have their roles to play … and we should be exaulting those traditional roles.

Feminists instead of attempting to gain equal respect for their Traditional roles ( which are often marginalized and taken for granted ( e.g. Mother, Care-giver etc.) ), decided that they needed to be equal by taking male roles.

We each have our part to play and we should play that part well. Males are marginalized now in society. Fathers are unimportant. Just look at commercials on television. The Male is the buffoon, the Mother is always the wise one, etc. etc. Its a “bad thing to be a mans man” one must be “sensitive” to the detriment of being Strong.

The castrated world of today is a result of over compensating for the past ( in more than just Feminism … ). There was a time when a woman was very proud to be a mother, care-giver, and home-maker. It seems today that women are chided by their own for aspiring to that role.

Just wait till secular science can clone sperm. Men will nolonger be needed.

– Cadian:knight1:

Your idea of what feminism is is a bit outmoded. There is a tendency to imagine that it is defined by radical feminism, but that really isn’t the case, and it doesn’t bear true if you look at the history of the womens movement, which began with the desire to be considered, legally human beings, to be able to vote, to be able to hold property.

There is in fact a lot of discussion within feminism about the value of womens traditional work. Not everyone agrees with it - like the rest of society, feminists and women in general don’t have it all figured out.

 

[deepsouthpapist]

I wasn’t looking for a compliment.
I’m also not interested in how my boys compete athletically or how “manly” they become. I think that has no bearing on their ability to get to heaven or to have a faith-filled life.

Yes, I agree that ABC has been one *aspect *of the problem of society today… but I think the use of ABC is a *symptom *of a bigger problem - not the root cause.
The root cause is a lack of faith and a turning away from God.

No matter how hard we “man up” our boys, if they don’t have faith and turn to God, then what good does it do.

And your post is the reason strong fathers are needed…You are right, boys aren’t required to be anything to go to heaven. They can sit around and play video games and bake pies or they can be axe murderers and still repent and go to heaven. In the mean time, while they are here on earth, we want them to be present fathers, strong role models and good people. We want strong, capable men which requires strong capable fathers to happen. Remember, Jesus was the ULTIMATE man’s man! He was no wuss! He never backed down on what He believed, even to the point of death. Still, he was kind, gentle and forgiving. Now that, my dear friend, is a role model…

 

[jwashu]

*I think those are great points, Catholic90.

Very important to not use an entire gender as a scapegoat for one’s own individual lack of success. Everyone has an equal opportunity in the U.S. to make something of themselves. Where I work, men outnumber the women by a long shot in mgmt …so it’s not true, that women are sweeping through, and taking away jobs from men. I believe in the most able person getting the job, not a man getting it who thinks he deserves it because he is a man…or a woman getting it because of her gender. If you are the better candidate, regardless of race, gender, etc…you should get the job. Period.

And this is not Catholic doctrine…women can be educated, and work outside of the home, if that is where God is calling them. There have been many female saints who were doctors, educators, etc…

Just my two cents. *

 

[Bluegoat]

This does not agree with my experience.

Many women go back to work because they don’t want to be baby making machines for the rest of their child bearing years. After a couple of kids, they want to reclaim their identity because raising kids in this society is lonely isolating work that is looked down upon, demeaned, ridiculed. Mothers who have three or more kids are looked upon as irresponsible and their opinion is confirmed every time a mom of any more than three or four kids asks for help (help that is dearly needed at times).

But to raise another point, often times women have to work because they have demanded to keep up with the Joneses, wanting a house they cannot afford, a second car, vacations in the Caribean, all the best clothing, fine wines, etc… leaving the husband so deep in debt that the only thing that can be done is for the woman to go back to work in order to sustain this lifestyle. A lifestyle that is anything but child friendly. You can sum it up as selfish materialism.

The fact is that when there is a single income, there is a massive disparity in lifestyle compared to those who have a dual income. This is hard for women to accept, especially those who tend to define themselves based on their material possessions. Social pressures makes things worse. Unless you are surrounded by a supportive network of family and or friends, you are also hobbled from the get go.

Look. Birthcontrol is a massive temptation in this society. Even good practicing catholics are tempted by its lure. Less kids means less work, less stress, more personal income, better jobs, etc… Having multiple children is an excercise in generosity and selfless charity.

I think all of these things have become part of the reason women feel they need to work, or perhaps more generally, why families feel both parents need to work. (I know some very succesful instsnces of men being the stay-st-home parent.)

Yes, it really is a financial burden. You can’t live the way other people with two incomes do. If the “breadwinner” can’t get a well enough paying job, and a family can’t even afford housing that is safe and clean, both parents may well have to work.

It’s hard for women to identify primarily as “mothers” because society and their friends and family don’t see that as enough. (I think the tendency to see ourselves primarily as our job description is a bad thing in general for both sexes, though.) Older moms who have worked before kids have invested a lot of time, energy, and perhaps money in their job, and losing that for a no-status job is difficult.

Since not many women stay at home now, it can be very lonely too. There is no other community of moms to be friends with, and it can be very isolating. Many moms have gone back to work simply because they were so lonely. (I have noticed a bit of an improvement here since the one-year maternity leave law came in.)

And for sure, larger families are looked down upon. Grandparents and siblings are not around as much to lend a hand. (I find myself envious of my mom friend who’s sister, also a stay at home mom, lives near her; they can trade mornings to themselves and so forth.) And working moms think if you are lucky enough to stay at home, you shouldn’t complain or need help - they do it all on their own!

I’m not sure the Church really does much to try and address these things.

But this is rather an off-shoot. It affects all kids, really. I do think there are actually more absent dads than there were. In fact, it seems to me that when these video game generation boys grow up, as some have, suffering from all the problems we have talked about here, they are making terrible fathers. The young women don’t even want to bother marrying them, because they are like children themselves.

 

[whatevergirl]

And your post is the reason strong fathers are needed…You are right, boys aren’t required to be anything to go to heaven. They can sit around and play video games and bake pies or they can be axe murderers and still repent and go to heaven. In the mean time, while they are here on earth, we want them to be present fathers, strong role models and good people. We want strong, capable men which requires strong capable fathers to happen. Remember, Jesus was the ULTIMATE man’s man! He was no wuss! He never backed down on what He believed, even to the point of death. Still, he was kind, gentle and forgiving. Now that, my dear friend, is a role model…

We agree there, deepsouth…and again, gets back to EM’s point, that where has our faithfilled society gone to?

 

[deepsouthpapist]

I think those are great points, Catholic90.

On the other hand it is also equally as wrong to hide behind an individual’s success as a way to scape goat responsibility to address the issue.

 

[ac_claire]

We agree there, deepsouth…and again, gets back to EM’s point, that where has our faithfilled society gone to?

Well I think in some sense, the OP’s points are not just a symptom but also a cause of all this. Reality is not black and white, so something can be both a cause and an effect and work in a sort of self-perpetuating cycle.

I think it all fits together, all these things we’ve been talking about. As far as strong faith in society…Just off the top of my head, I think that the re-establishment of strong moral authorities would be a good place to start; because the weakening of said authorities coincides with the decline of Christian morals and the general depravity of secular culture.

(This isn’t my own idea btw, I got it from Fulton Sheen. ) The Church and the family (yes, in the traditional structure as Scripture lays out) needs to be re-established as clear, moral authorities in the lives of individuals and thus it’ll follow in families and society. As it is now, the concept of authority isn’t trendy, and so much of it is squandered and surrendered…in effect, it’s like parents sending their children out among the wolves.

Hope that makes sense, in a very general way.

 

[Catholic90]

Bike helmets are an example - no they don’t need them. I grew up in a neighborhood of all boys and two brothers. We all survived riding bikes just fine! Seat belts are another story as they should be required. The point I am making is we don’t need to over protect our boys. They need to play rough, get dirty and make mistakes when the consequences are low. That way when they are older, they know how to avoid mistakes and what hurts and what doesn’t.

You got lucky. I guess you have never seen what can happen when an unprotected head hits the ground from a height of 4 feet. I have. It isn’t pretty. Brain damage can result. I was not willing to risk that with my kids! Neither were my neighbors.

As far as playing rough…some kids like to play rough, and that is fine. Not all boys like to. Some girls do like to. Don’t generalize. I have 3 boys. 1 likes to play rough. The other 2 do not. My youngest absolutely HATES PE, team sports, and anything physical. He always has. His dad would try to wrestly with him when he was little, and he HATED it. Instead, he has books and books filled with sketches, cartoons, poems, and short stories he has written over the years. He also prefers singing in the choir, drama, drawing, and writing (he is writing the novel currently).

Nothing wrong with that!

 

[Bluegoat]

You got lucky. I guess you have never seen what can happen when an unprotected head hits the ground from a height of 4 feet. I have. It isn’t pretty. Brain damage can result. I was not willing to risk that with my kids! Neither were my neighbors.

As far as playing rough…some kids like to play rough, and that is fine. Not all boys like to. Some girls do like to. Don’t generalize. I have 3 boys. 1 likes to play rough. The other 2 do not. My youngest absolutely HATES PE, team sports, and anything physical. He always has. His dad would try to wrestly with him when he was little, and he HATED it. Instead, he has books and books filled with sketches, cartoons, poems, and short stories he has written over the years. He also prefers singing in the choir, drama, drawing, and writing (he is writing the novel currently).

Nothing wrong with that!

I think though, there is a more fundamental problem at the heart of things like bike helmets etc. which is the attempt to try and take all risk away from children’s lives. Even very small ones. This hasn’t actually been shown to improve outcomes - people with safer cars, for example, drive faster. And with children, if they never have to manage small, “safe” risks, don’t learn to manage larger ones as they get older. Bike helmets are probably a good thing, but what about helmets for sledding, playing on gym equipment, a child on a tricycle, ice skating? Or the unwillingness of parents to let their kids out to play unsupervised, even in a safe area? Despite the fact that it is safer for kids than a generation ago, overall? Kids need to try things, and fail; get in an argument with a friend or fall of the play equipment doing something foolish. Helicopter parenting isn’t good for kids, and not for their parents either, and it makes a much greater burden on parents. Part of the reason, I suspect, that many can’t imagine a large family.

But this is not, IMO, a boy issue. It is just as bad for girls.

On another note, for parents that are worried about boys: get them off to a good start by not sending them to school too early. Wait until they are six, or homeschool, starting at six. The worst that can happen is they will graduate at 17 or 18 instead of 16 or 17 - hardly a great blow in life. And it could mean their academic life starts on a much more positive note, when they have the self-control and focus that it requires.

 

[whatevergirl]

I think those are great points, Catholic90.

On the other hand it is also equally as wrong to hide behind an individual’s success as a way to scape goat responsibility to address the issue.

huh?

 

[mark_a]

So to the above problem I believe it started with a single bad decision - ARTIFICIAL BIRTH CONTROL!

That’s my premise…Any takers?

Huh!?!?!?!?

I thought *I *was the only one who blames ALL of society’s ills on contraception.

 

[Cat]

8th grade…I’m sure your study was well funded and randomized, double blind and placebo controlled! Paleeeze!

I never claimed that it was.

Perhaps I am taking your post too seriously, but it sounds to me like you are ridiculing me, mainly because of the use of the word, “paleeze” and the rolled eyes.

I don’t care how macho you want your boys to be. If you train them to make fun of and ridicule others, including little 8th grade girls who did the best they could 40 years ago to do a “study,” then you are training them to be miscreants. You can call it “manliness” if you want. But kids who make fun of other kids are behaving violently. Eventually the violent words will become violent actions, and hopefully, they will end up in prison where there is no such thing as a real man.

The best way to raise up boys and girls is to have respect for others. That is both masculine and feminine.

 

[Catholic90]

I think though, there is a more fundamental problem at the heart of things like bike helmets etc. which is the attempt to try and take all risk away from children’s lives. Even very small ones. Oh, I agree. Let kids be kids, but you can be safe about it! I have seen what can happen when a head hits the ground from a bike. It is not pretty. Two of my kids have broken bones, and 2 have had stitches. Life happens, but there is “safe” risk and “stupid” risk. IMO, risking brain damage is stupid risk. This hasn’t actually been shown to improve outcomes - people with safer cars, for example, drive faster. And with children, if they never have to manage small, “safe” risks, don’t learn to manage larger ones as they get older. Bike helmets are probably a good thing, but what about helmets for sledding, playing on gym equipment, a child on a tricycle, ice skating? Or the unwillingness of parents to let their kids out to play unsupervised, even in a safe area? Depends on the age, the children, and the history of the playground! I live in what I consider very safe suburbia. I allowed my kids to play outside, unsupervised, from about age 5. Around age 9, they could ride their bikes to the park that was about a mile from our house to play. At that same park my son’s friend found an interesting baggie of green stuff that he showed to his mother…kids were no longer allowed to play there unsupervised!! Despite the fact that it is safer for kids than a generation ago, overall? Kids need to try things, and fail; get in an argument with a friend or fall of the play equipment doing something foolish. Helicopter parenting isn’t good for kids, and not for their parents either, and it makes a much greater burden on parents. Part of the reason, I suspect, that many can’t imagine a large family.

I would agree.

But this is not, IMO, a boy issue. It is just as bad for girls.

On another note, for parents that are worried about boys: get them off to a good start by not sending them to school too early. Wait until they are six, or homeschool, starting at six. The worst that can happen is they will graduate at 17 or 18 instead of 16 or 17 - hardly a great blow in life. And it could mean their academic life starts on a much more positive note, when they have the self-control and focus that it requires. I TOTALLY agree with this. I NEVER sent my kids to preschool. They all started with 1/2 day kindergarten, which basically consisted of playing games for 2 hours. Their first “real” school began in first grade when they were each 6. Now they are in high school, taking Honors and AP classes.

 

[whatevergirl]

*Just when I thought I’ve heard it all…now we’re linking boys wearing bike helmets with the demasculinization of men.

 

[Catholic90]

Just when I thought I’ve heard it all…now we’re linking boys wearing bike helmets with the demasculinization of men.

I agree. This reminds me of the thread awhile back that asserted boys and men who peed while sitting were somehow “less male” than those who stood up.

Ridiculous!

 

[Cat]

I think that the main reason for people to wear bike helmets nowadays is that car drivers are not careful and often don’t see past the end of their hood, and sometimes, they’re just plain defiant against the law.

In the old days (back when I was a kid), car drivers respected traffic lights, stop signs, and other rules of the road, and they watched out for kids on bikes and tried to avoid hitting them. Nowadays, drivers are likely to be texting, on the cell phone, having dinner, and listening to loud music–all at once. The poor biker doesn’t have a chance.

Yes, a kid on a bike getting hit with a car will probably be terribly injured in his/her body, and be lucky to survive. But at least if he/she is wearing a helmet, his/her brain may be left intact and he/she will not emerge a totally different person. Body injuries are awful, but brain injuries are devastating because they change the injured person into a different person.

Also, bike helmets protect against devastating consequences from minor accidents. If a car “dinks” a kid on a bike, and the kid falls off the bike and hits their head, they could be brain-damaged. It’s so awful to think that such a minor accident can have such horrible consequences. A helmet is not that big a deal to save a brain. Brains aren’t easy to come by, and there’s no such thing as a brain transplant or a brain transfusion.

If an adult chooses not to wear a helmet, fine. But don’t do this to your kid. There is nothing un-masculine about safety. When you think about it, what’s one of the first rules of military combat? WEAR YOUR HELMET AT ALL TIMES!