Mom: Why raising my son made me question what female empowerment is doing to boys

[*Nately120*]

(03-30-2018, 11:24 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Boys need to be taught they have a role and that is to take care of and protect the family.   They need to respect women but also know it’s their job to ensure women are respected and protected.    They need to grow up knowing their job and knowing they are being counted on to do that job to ensure a successful family.

If it's men's job to make sure women and children are protected why do I hear so many men complaining about having to fork over their hard-earned pay to support welfare hag baby-machines and their rotten offspring? 

[CKwi88]

I feel like people who feel the need to raise a child with a specific agenda other than teaching pretty basic moral values like respect, empathy and compassion are mostly compensating for real or perceived inadequacies with themselves or their own upbringing. Not that they do it out of malice, more out of unawareness.

It's all I can think of when I see these moms that push their daughters toward beauty pageants. Or dads who push their sons into more "masculine" sports like football and wrestling over gymnastics or other sports seen as "less manly." Most are probably just insecure with themselves and project it onto their kids.

Kids just need to learn respect, empathy and compassion. For themselves and for others. The rest will sort itself out.

[StLucieBengal]

(04-02-2018, 01:32 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There are differences between men and women, but there should be no difference in the values you teach each of them as a parent.


What does this even mean? 

If I make both my girls and boys play football and box then I am raising my boy to be like a girl? 

No one is questioning the values you raise your children with, that differs family to family. We are talking about raising them with purpose related to their role in life.

[StLucieBengal]

(04-02-2018, 04:44 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: I feel like people who feel the need to raise a child with a specific agenda other than teaching pretty basic moral values like respect, empathy and compassion are mostly compensating for real or perceived inadequacies with themselves or their own upbringing. Not that they do it out of malice, more out of unawareness.

It's all I can think of when I see these moms that push their daughters toward beauty pageants. Or dads who push their sons into more "masculine" sports like football and wrestling over gymnastics or other sports seen as "less manly." Most are probably just insecure with themselves and project it onto their kids.

Kids just need to learn respect, empathy and compassion. For themselves and for others. The rest will sort itself out.

Or maybe boys need physical sports because they in fact physical by nature. Also you give them an avenue to learn how to deal with frustrations.

Football is the greatest life lesson for boys. Wrestling is also good, especially for the loner types.

Girls need more strategic and less physical sports.

Btw you can teach respect, empathy, and compassion and still raise boys and girls differently. Football teaches all those .....

[StLucieBengal]

(04-02-2018, 02:00 PM)Nately120 Wrote: If it's men's job to make sure women and children are protected why do I hear so many men complaining about having to fork over their hard-earned pay to support welfare hag baby-machines and their rotten offspring? 

Maybe they didn’t have a father in the home. I was always told I had one job, take care of your family above all else, the rest is just to make sure the primary objective is done.

Lots of boys missing out on a lot due to no father in the home or their Father having their own issues, which just places all that baggage on their son. Messes a lot of boys up which just ruins it for generations ahead.

[HarleyDog]

(04-02-2018, 09:56 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Listen to what you just said.

Women are too weak and stupid (naive?) to protect themselves.

This just is not true.  If you are just depending on your physical strength to defend yourself and your family then you are probably in trouble.  I would have been able to fight off some guys when I was in my 20's or 30's (maybe), but I am 54 and in no shape to fight my way out of anything.  Plus even in my 20's and 30's I would have gotten beaten up by bigger guys or anyone who had a friend with him.

And I have no idea what you are talking about with "wisdom".  How do men have more "wisdom" when it comes to protection.  Women have to constantly think of protecting themselves in situations that men take for granted like simply walking alone at night.

 FRED! That's not what I said at all? Imagine if you would, a dog. You can visualize the one in my avi if you wish? You are sitting across the table from the dog and he has a nice shiny orange pistol. Inside the barrel of that pistol is a plastic rod (although I know you prefer the term shaft) with a blue suction cup on the end. He point's it at you and pulls the trigger. As you slow motion view this plastic shaft barreling at your forehead, you have no time to reflex. Then, it sticks! Not saying I want to shoot you  but that would be funny as hell.

Ok, so to reply to your statement. I never said women were weak or stupid. You left out the part where I said women are much stronger than men in some aspects. I also said it's in our nature to want to provide wisdom and strength. In addition, in the relationships I have encountered, I have had much more life experience than my female companion and they have relied upon my experience and knowledge of certain things to feel safe.
Where did I say physical strength in my comment? Although in ALL my relationships that has been the case, it was not implied. Also, many women do want a man who can make them feel safe and secure. Except in a feminist mind (as I also added). 

By trying to defend feminism, your kinda acting like a guy who tries to provide wisdom and strength because you feel she needs it? I guess it's in your nature? LOLOLOL!

[THE Bigzoman]

(03-30-2018, 11:41 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Boys need to be needed. They need a role.   You can not treat them the same as a girl.   Nor can you treat a girl the same as a boy. They think and act differently.   This is why they have specific roles within the family.    

Currently we are on a path where men become disposable.    That will have major repercussions for us as a society.

lolwut?

Men have ALWAYS been the disposable sex. We're not just now getting on the path. We've always been on it. You can see this in gender norms as basic as the husband going to check out a broken glass in the middle of the night in a house. You can see it in bigger things like war and the draft.

[StLucieBengal]

(04-02-2018, 10:19 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: lolwut?

Men have ALWAYS been the disposable sex. We're not just now getting on the path. We've always been on it. You can see this in gender norms as basic as the husband going to check out a broken glass in the middle of the night in a house. You can see it in bigger things like war and the draft.

That’s a reference to Karen Straughn. But yes you are correct we have a role, but if these guys had their way the woman would go sounds in the middle of the night.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(03-30-2018, 11:28 PM)GMDino Wrote: I wonder how there are still men who think their role is to "provide and protect" their family as if a woman can't do both also.

It makes mes sad that that thought is still around let alone prevalent.

And I grew up in a home where my mother stayed home and my dad worked.  I'm just wise enough to know that isn't the only way to do it and boys should be raised to consider women their equals...not someone the have a "job" to protect.

With that said, you'd be surprised at how many women take for granted the "provide and protect" male part of a the family model. They want equality, but 90% of the time its just a cop out to get their way.

[*Nately120*]

(04-02-2018, 05:32 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Maybe they didn’t have a father in the home.  I was always told I had one job, take care of your family above all else, the rest is just to make sure the primary objective is done.

Lots of boys missing out on a lot due to no father in the home or their Father having their own issues, which just places all that baggage on their son.  Messes a lot of boys up which just ruins it for generations ahead.

So then isn't it our job as men to take care of the women and children that our fellow men have failed to protect and provide for? 

[StLucieBengal]

(04-03-2018, 08:39 PM)Nately120 Wrote: So then isn't it our job as men to take care of the women and children that our fellow men have failed to protect and provide for? 

A man is responsible for his family. Many men step up to take care of children that aren’t their own.

[*Nately120*]

(04-03-2018, 08:48 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: A man is responsible for his family.  Many men step up to take care of children that aren’t their own.

Ok, but not women who aren't their own?  I'm not singling you out specifically, I just find societal norms and expectations to be interesting.  If I'm at a bar and some guy starts slapping his wife/girlfriend around, it's a societal expectation that I stand up for her and interject myself into the situation.  If that same woman is home with her 3 kids and can't pay the rent because her man buggered off and left her high and dry we can say "Sucks to be you, freeloader" and hate the idea that our government would dare to reward her poor life choices with  portion of our hard-earned paycheck.


Again, stuff like this just intrigues me.  What counts as defending a woman and her kids and what counts as enabling societal leech?  I mean, if a woman is going to take some lumps from her husband and I step in and save her, isn't that going to just lead her to stay with that guy and then expect someone like me to bail her out every time he gets loaded and gets punchy? 

Either it's honorable to provide or it isn't, right?  I haven't read about the Knights of the Round Table in a while.  Maybe there are  bunch of amendments to their code, as well.

[*michaelsean*]

(04-03-2018, 09:24 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Ok, but not women who aren't their own?  I'm not singling you out specifically, I just find societal norms and expectations to be interesting.  If I'm at a bar and some guy starts slapping his wife/girlfriend around, it's a societal expectation that I stand up for her and interject myself into the situation.  If that same woman is home with her 3 kids and can't pay the rent because her man buggered off and left her high and dry we can say "Sucks to be you, freeloader" and hate the idea that our government would dare to reward her poor life choices with  portion of our hard-earned paycheck.


Again, stuff like this just intrigues me.  What counts as defending a woman and her kids and what counts as enabling societal leech?  I mean, if a woman is going to take some lumps from her husband and I step in and save her, isn't that going to just lead her to stay with that guy and then expect someone like me to bail her out every time he gets loaded and gets punchy? 

Either it's honorable to provide or it isn't, right?  I haven't read about the Knights of the Round Table in a while.  Maybe there are  bunch of amendments to their code, as well.

Well one of them is you acting, and the other is demanding others act.

(This is not an opinion on the merits or lack thereof of the welfare system.)

[*Nately120*]

(04-03-2018, 09:28 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Well one of them is you acting, and the other is demanding others act.

(This is not an opinion on the merits or lack thereof of the welfare system.)

Good point.  I would say, however, that there is a decent chance that an able bodied male who witnesses a man beating on a woman is likely to be demanded to action by our society.  Same with adults of both sexes when kids are in danger.  I recall a few weeks ago that I was one of the few people who wasn't sure he'd run into gunfire if kids were in danger, and so on.

Either way, society can twist your arm in many ways.

[*michaelsean*]

(04-03-2018, 09:37 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Good point.  I would say, however, that there is a decent chance that an able bodied male who witnesses a man beating on a woman is likely to be demanded to action by our society.  Same with adults of both sexes when kids are in danger.  I recall a few weeks ago that I was one of the few people who wasn't sure he'd run into gunfire if kids were in danger, and so on.

Either way, society can twist your arm in many ways.

Certainly on a societal level. And I definitely agree about the bullets flying. None of us know what we would do if we’ve never been there before. It’s virtually impossible to know.

[StLucieBengal]

(04-03-2018, 09:24 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Ok, but not women who aren't their own?  I'm not singling you out specifically, I just find societal norms and expectations to be interesting.  If I'm at a bar and some guy starts slapping his wife/girlfriend around, it's a societal expectation that I stand up for her and interject myself into the situation.  If that same woman is home with her 3 kids and can't pay the rent because her man buggered off and left her high and dry we can say "Sucks to be you, freeloader" and hate the idea that our government would dare to reward her poor life choices with  portion of our hard-earned paycheck.


Again, stuff like this just intrigues me.  What counts as defending a woman and her kids and what counts as enabling societal leech?  I mean, if a woman is going to take some lumps from her husband and I step in and save her, isn't that going to just lead her to stay with that guy and then expect someone like me to bail her out every time he gets loaded and gets punchy? 

Either it's honorable to provide or it isn't, right?  I haven't read about the Knights of the Round Table in a while.  Maybe there are  bunch of amendments to their code, as well.

Yes we step in..... as for welfare ..... the single mother should be finding the best husband she can so her children can grow up in a home with a mother and father.

The welfare option doesn’t solve the problem of not having a married mother and father in the home.

[*Nately120*]

(04-03-2018, 09:45 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Yes we step in.....   as for welfare ..... the single mother should be finding the best husband she can so her children can grow up in a home with a mother and father.  

The welfare option doesn’t solve the problem of not having a married mother and father in the home.

Neither stepping in on the abuse nor providing welfare solve the problem of the woman not having the best husband she has.  Both are temporary fixes that solve an immediate need without treating the underlying issue.  I'm just asking why we put out our suit of shining armor and gleefully play the hero in one case but get all "your fault, womp-womp" in the other.

 

[THE Bigzoman]

(04-03-2018, 09:37 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Good point.  I would say, however, that there is a decent chance that an able bodied male who witnesses a man beating on a woman is likely to be demanded to action by our society.  Same with adults of both sexes when kids are in danger.  I recall a few weeks ago that I was one of the few people who wasn't sure he'd run into gunfire if kids were in danger, and so on.

Either way, society can twist your arm in many ways.

I'll also add that on situation is protecting someone from an external force that's victimizing someone through no fault of their own (in most cases anyway) while the other is a situation where the victim is almost entirely at fault (or they were a victim of their own actions)

It's not like people at large are these Venus flytraps that change at the drop of a hat. (He was sooo great but then suddenly they just bailed like...wtf) Whenever I see a single parent spout the story in your example I immediately question their judgement in character, their character (because birds of a feather flock togheter), or both.

Note: when I say question, I don't mean I literally ask them. I mean that these are the questions that come to mind.

[*Nately120*]

(04-03-2018, 10:28 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: I'll also add that on situation is protecting someone from an external force that's victimizing someone through no fault of their own (in most cases anyway) while the other is a situation where the victim is almost entirely at fault (or they were a victim of their own actions)

I'd argue that in both cases the woman is a victim of her own actions of being with a man who would hit her and the kids/ditch her and the kids.  That's what is interesting about it.  If I say the woman on welfare should have picked a better man to be her husband and father her kids I could get some support on that one.  If I see a woman getting hit by her husband and I shrug and say she should have picked a better man, I'd expect to get less support.

If there is one thing I've found about this culture it is that we are amazingly good at looking at people who are in bad situations and convincing ourselves that they deserve to be there.

[StLucieBengal]

(04-03-2018, 10:22 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Neither stepping in on the abuse nor providing welfare solve the problem of the woman not having the best husband she has.  Both are temporary fixes that solve an immediate need without treating the underlying issue.  I'm just asking why we put out our suit of shining armor and gleefully play the hero in one case but get all "your fault, womp-womp" in the other.

 

Actually her father and mother should be ensuring she has a good husband.

It’s a cycle that can’t be broken. And why we are in the place we are today.