"Let's cut to the quick. Stop overprescribing Ritalin to boys and simply castrate them. That's what you're after; why settle for half-steps?"

Because if they did that, there would be no one in the market for their services anymore.

Geez Ace, that's economics 101. Its amazing you're rolling around in all the crazy blog money with business sense like that.

Let's hope these kids are downloading enough porn when they get home from school to completely offset these activities..

They probably sprayed them with oxytocin before they handed out the pogo sticks.

OK, my comment above looks pretty bad after the update to the post. I meant that in jest.

Christina Hoff Summers wrote a whole book about this phenomenon a number of years ago. It's been going on for years, but I'm happy to say that at least out here in Jesusland, things seem to have achieved a better equilibrium. We fellas accept that the ladies have a right to be independent, strong-willed, and masters of their own destinies; and they accept that we want them to dress in lace teddies and crotchless panties and not get on our backs for watching football.

Really, it's a win-win situation.

In the original article, a member of the President's Council on Physical Fitness warned that juggling with actual balls might induce frustration and anxiety. S/he suggested juggling with silk scarves, which flutter around in a much less threatening way. What kind of environment gave rise to people who think like this?

It makes me feel distinctly odd to realize that virtually every toy I enjoyed as a kid is now illegal, and every game I played at school is in the process of being banned. "Tug of peace"!? Interesting how liberals, who are all for defining standards out of existence in most social areas, are so absolutist about emasculating boys.

In a possibly related story, some statistics on finalists in this year's (Scripps National Spelling Bee):

Public 173
Home 34
Private 38
Parochial 25
Charter 3

So, one American student is home-schooled for every 5 public-school students (173/34). Who knew it was catching on so dramatically?

Yeah, I saw a comment from Derbyshire in the Corner about the "tug of peace." I'm still curious as to how you play this game. . . what, do you cooperate pulling a rope tied to a wall or a Buick or something?

My favorite quote from the Hoff Sommers piece:

"Girls are invited to make collages celebrating themselves."

Uh, don't chicks do this already? Every girl I've ever met in my life had one of those stupid books filled with cutouts of their friends, of Scott Baio pictures, of unicorns and shit. It's what girls do.

And they never grow out of it, either. One of my best friends, she has perhaps a dozen photo albums filled with nothing but pictures of her hanging her arm around a friend's neck, beer or appletini often in hand, oversmiling at the camera.

"Here's me in Belgium. . . smiling with my friend."
"Here's me in Ireland. . . smiling with my friend."
"Here's me at the funeral. . . smiling with my friend."

Yeah, real interesting, you're a regular Ansel fucking Adams.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

"Who knew it was catching on so dramatically?"

The teachers unions that's who. Who do you think is behind torpedoing all the homeschool movements? The parents?

A teacher I know tried to sell me on this bullshit about how there should be no winners and losers, no competition, especially among school age boys. It's all about self-esteem and keeping agressive behavior to a minimum. I said that sounded great! I offered to alert our hiring rep to look for Chip and Dale to come sauntering into HR in a few years.

Raising a generation of wimps and conflicted girlie-men will keep the psychiatrists and pharmaceutical companies busy in the future.

Once again, it's military school for my kids

I would think that the liberal's version of "Tug of War" would require everybody to tug in the same direction, because to pull against somebody would still be a form of conflict.

I was going to enter a long comment, but I'm too busy working on my collage.

Actually, Dave, my book had pictures of David Cassidy, not Scott Baio...

What do you tell a 9 year boy when his teacher tells him that writing a love note to a little girl in his class who he has a crush on that it's inappropriate? My stepson used to write me love notes all the time so he thought nothing of writing one to this little girl. This was a school in northern Vermont. I've already decided that my own kids will be home-schooled.

I blame Shel Silverstein.

I always thought the "tug of peace" was what I was doing to relieve the stress of a hard days work while looking at pictures of Jusitine Bateman online...

Guy T:

1 in 5 kids are not home schooled. It's more like 2.2%, according to this.

The numbers in your comment actually show that home schooled kids are far more likely to be good at spelling than kids in public schools. (And at everything else, except maybe scarf juggling.)

compos mentis wrote:

I said that sounded great! I offered to alert our hiring rep to look for Chip and Dale to come sauntering into HR in a few years.

OK, I don't have the slightest idea what the means...

Somebody please explain the joke to this moron.

> The teachers unions that's who. Who do you think is behind torpedoing all the homeschool movements? The parents?

I was being a little bit tongue-in-cheek -- I suspect the actual ratio of homeschooled to public-schooled students in the nation at large is far lower than 1:5 -- but you're right nonetheless...

Ace subscribes to the code of chivalry?

Feminist have been trying to emasculate boys/men for decades now (I remember about 10-15 years ago, they were trying to socialize boys by making them play with dolls.)

Here's the thing, overall emasculation will never take place. Most women are attracted to the alpha male behaviors men exhibit (I would take a guy who sits on the couch grunting while he scratches himself any day over one that enjoys shopping with me to find the perfect pair of shoes).

Because these are the traits women are attracted to, men will continue to exhibit them. ...cuz they know they have a better shot of getting in her pants. It's positive reinforcement....

Eleven minutes and twenty seconds into the "Cuddle Party":

"Uh, now can I cuddle your vagina?"

> The numbers in your comment actually show that home schooled kids are far more likely to be good at spelling than kids in public schools.

Yeah, that was my reason for posting it -- I should have set up the joke better, or something. I call "loose shit" on me.

Anyone up for cuddling the ThoseShirts.com babe?

Guy, I know, but homeschooling is one of the fastest growing segment in ed, so much so that "professional" educators are really shitting bricks over it. Fewer kids, fewer bucks you see.

The old fashioned games and sports are the only way to teach some little animals about basic human interactions.
Beyond even socialization; playing within a framework of rules that have to be kept in mind, being observant, keeping focused and seizing opportunities, coping with defeat, etc etc etc.

Having them play games that isolate them from each other is robbery. It's outrageous.

I don't know how the Hell parents deal with this crap, I really don't.

Damn Hubris, give a guy a "drink warning."

There's nothing "unfair" about your analysis, Ace, it's just plain logic. The fact that it's uncomfortable having to realize it doesn't mean it's any less the truth.

If you continuously teach and indoctrinate the kids to "feel good" about themselves no matter how fucked up they are in their thoughts and deeds and, on top of that, deprive them of any way of acting out their natural energy, competitive spirit and agression, they'll eventually release all that buildup anyways and, since "everything goes", they won't feel the least bit hesitant to do so in an atrocious fashion.

Thank you, liberals. Thank you for Columbine.

You filthy Idiotarian pigs.

Lefties love to think that nurture can overcome nature; the whole Skinnerist behavioral fad of the 1960's is predicated on it. And yet the subsequent decades have shown what most people with common sense have known all along -- gender-specific behaviors are deeply wired into the human brain by evolution, and cannot simply be "trained away".

Complex social behavior is not deterministic, but there are clear differences in cognition and mental development between the sexes. This is not to say that men are smarter than women (or vice versa); it simply means that the different genders tend to specialize in different mental proficiencies. Women tend to be better at language and interpersonal behaviors; men tend to be better at spatial and abstract reasoning. There is still furious debate over how much of this difference is due to biology and how much is due to environment, but it seems clear that a significant chunk of our behavioral blueprints are hardwired by biology.

It has confounded lefties for years as to why men so badly outnumber women in the engineering fields, even when all other factors are controlled. The same is true in reverse for the caregiving fields. Why? The simple answer is that people tend to gravitate towards careers in things at which they excel. This is not to say that there aren't many excellent women programmers or male nurses, nor that these fields are "masculine" or "Feminine" in any absolute way; simply that people of a given gender find it more natural to gravitate one way or another.

Next lesson: How to curl yourself up into a defensive fetal position when you're getting your fuckin' ass Goodfellas-stomped by every non-emasculated guy out there.

Pfft, bullies are the most emasculated boys out there, Ace. They're just trying to prove they're NOT.

As to the article: this doesn't address just boys' education, this affects both sexes. While I think this PC crap is, well, crap, I personally wouldn't mind seeing some INDIVIDUAL sports being offered to those children who physically are not capable of competing in team sports. We all know the type -- the ones who are smaller and always getting picked last -- and should we ignore the psychological damage that being less coordinated (and/or, in the case of picking teams, unpopular) causes?

Am I saying liberals have a point here? Um, no, their motivations and their conclusions are ridiculous. What I AM saying is that a proper PE curriculum should offer a mix of team and individual sports where children can learn both how to work with others and how to excel on their own.

Now, if liberals really want to address the damage caused by children in PE class, they should teach PE coaches to stop playing favorites and pandering to the more athletic kids. Geez, adults are supposed to be above this sort of thing, but I guess some just don't grow out of it.

And I'm sure liberals will actually do something effective about a problem soon after pigs fly.

Later,
bbeck

Tug of Peace. No one wins. Don't ask me why but it reminds me of the riddle of the King who was deciding which son would inherit his throne. Both sons had continually bragged that he had the fastest horse in the Kingdom. The King then decided that he would have his sons in a race and give the throne to the son with the slowest horse. How was this race possible?

OK, before we tar and feather Shel Silverstein, let's look at something else he wrote: Boy Named Sue.

Is that macho enough to make up for "Hug O' War"?

The connection between this scarf-juggling wankery and that awful story about assaulting the handicapped girl is that these educators are trying to erase a basic fact of human life by fiat. It's like creating a new and improved math by declaring that pi=3.

The old rules of honor and chivalry offered a code in which some acts of violence and aggression were acceptable and some weren't. The new rules, by declaring all acts of violence and aggression to be "bad" without differentiation, don't really offer an alternative moral code. Instead, they preclude the possibility of a moral code.

PS: as far as this gang rape goes, this has much more to do with the sexualization of children than anything else. The boys deserve to have their lives ruined just as they ruined this poor girl's life, and both the parents and the principal should pay until they're dead.

Later,
bbeck

I dunno -- this dead, angry stare doesn't look very cuddly to me: http://www.cuddleparty.com/images/fckye.jpg

Kids need to find what they are good at. If they suck at sports, let them go do some math problems or something. And then the "emasculated" bullies can beat their asses. But, at least the beatdown kids can grow up to think they are better.

Monty:

I suggest that you not apply to become the President of Harvard, unless you are prepared to eat crow in order the keep the feminazis happy.

OK, that was to Monty from me, not to Monty from Monty. Sorry.

Umm, he shot the horse from under his favorite son? Beats me.

Any of you folks with young boys pretty much know we don't have to worry too much about our boys getting pussified by this crap. Bored stiff, maybe, or amused by it. Boys have a screw loose, most of them. The die is cast long before any dyke educatrix has a chance to de-nut the little fuckers. The meek ones are meek from birth, the yahoos incorrigable.

They'll walk right out of school and hit each other with sticks, and throw a frog under a car for laughs. I don't doubt the left-weinies have screwed a bunch of kids up, but I don't worry they're going to screw up my son. He's got me for that.

The king had each son ride his brother's horse, naturally.

Michael:

I knew I didn't post that to myself! The voices in my head are usually more subtle than that....

Anon - OK, I don't have the slightest idea what the means...

The Disney cartoon characters Chip and Dale. You know how they're always bending over backwards to be overly polite to one another. "You take the job!" "No, no. I insist you have it!" "I wouldn't hear of it!" etc.

And you're not a moron. The moron is the one who cannot communicate his thoughts clearly, especially to a moron. Er, somethin' like that.

Compos, you're thinking of Mac and Tosh, the Goofy Gophers from the Warner Brothers cartoons. Chip and Dale didn't have much in the way of personality, like most Disney creations.

Next lesson: How to curl yourself up into a defensive fetal position when you're getting your fuckin' ass Goodfellas-stomped by every non-emasculated guy out there.

Pfft, bullies are the most emasculated boys out there, Ace. They're just trying to prove they're NOT.

Yes, that's often said, but it wasn't my experience. The bullies in my school were quite masculine, thank you very much.

I don't mean to pick on you, bbeck, but I think this is one of those things people say as an attempt psychologically manipulate the perps and/or make their victims feel better. Kind of how they started saying everyone not comfortable with homosexuality was a "homophobe" and the reason for their fear was they had latent homosexual tendencies themselves.

I don't buy that, and I don't buy into the "bullies are really the biggest sissies" claim either. From the bullies I have known, they were not emasculated. Take almost any trait that has a masculine/feminine continuum, and they'd be way on the masculine side. Hell, a lot of them were even supermasculine in appearance (large size, big muscles, growing facial hair before everyone else, etc.).

And the old claim that if you popped them one good, they'd reveal themselves to be big crybabies? Also not true. You hit these guys, and they'd beat the living hell out of you.

The only way to claim they were emasculated is to have some theory that all this hypermasculine behavior is their way of overcompensating for an emasculated core. While that's possible in theory, has anyone proven that is the case? I'm not really big on all the "while it looks like this, it's really the complete opposite" theories when there is no proof given.

The bullies I ran into while growing up seemed to me to masculinity without the normal restraints. They often came from broken homes and so nobody was enforcing any rules, so they did what they wanted. Rather than it being a lack of masculinity, it was masculinity at its ugliest and most extreme form.

I don't know. There is a lot more BJs for kids nowadays. Rainbow parties, chicken head parties, it is good to be a boy today.

And my link didn't work (to an archived NYT article .about Lawrence Summers' apology). Let's see if this one will.

utron - Compos, you're thinking of Mac and Tosh, the Goofy Gophers from the Warner Brothers cartoons. Chip and Dale didn't have much in the way of personality, like most Disney creations.

Shit.

Juggling? Unicycling? Pogo-sticking?

They aren't turning boys into girls, they're turning them into clowns. All that's missing is the requirement for big floppy shoes and face paint.

I wonder if they get a kickback from Barnum and Bailey?

Speaking of terrible phys-ed pseudo-sports:

I remember getting lined up around a parachute with about thirty other kids, lofting up the parachute, and then running underneath it and sitting down so it was like you were in a big tent. You had to run back out fast enough to keep the 'chute from settling back down over you. Back and forth for like ten minutes. WTF was the point? Dunno. It was kinda cool the first time, then it was just dumb and boring.

Or the thing with the little crawlie-gator scooters. It was a little square plank of wood with four little wheels on it, and we were supposed to trundle around on these things and play some kind of half-assed polo with a red kickball. Only we got sick of that and started playing bumper cars, which turned into adhoc demolition derbys and always ended in tears when some mong fell off his scooter and got his hand ran over.

While I hate the anti-team-sports BS, I don't think there's anything wrong with juggling, unicycling, or pogo-sticking. I'm amazed they even allow the latter two, as they take some skill and could lead to a nasty fall. And juggling is always a fun skill to break out at parties, especially if you're drunk and juggling expensive items you picked up in the host's house.

But, yeah, juggling with silk scarves is pretty lame.

First: thank God my dad taught how to be a man. I never would have learned it anywhere else, nor should I.

Second: I clicked through to that CuddleParty site - that is one of the wierdest things I've ever seen. I'm a pretty empathic person, but I cannot put myself in the shoes of a person who would be into that sort of thing. Bizarre.

Third: when I moved to a new school in third grade, the first friend I made was the fourth grader who knocked me into next week playing Smear The Queer. Most of the other friends I made were in the course of playing baseball, basketball, football, and a game called Corners where we packed the back seat of the school bus and everyone slid into the outside corner of the bus when it made a 90 degree turn. We though we might be able to tip the bus over - ha ha. The only redeeming quality of public education is the opportunity to socialize with other kids, and now they are going to replace team sports with juggling? BS.

Maybe we can skunk 'em with European Handball.
It sounds gay, but try playing it.

I don't mean to pick on you, bbeck, but I think this is one of those things people say as an attempt psychologically manipulate the perps and/or make their victims feel better. Kind of how they started saying everyone not comfortable with homosexuality was a "homophobe" and the reason for their fear was they had latent homosexual tendencies themselves.

Bob, first of all, your analogy is misdirected, and secondly, you're confusing "bullies" with "boys."

Let's begin with defining "masculinity:" having qualities appropriate to or usually associated with a man.

Political correctness and feminist ideology promotes the idea that to be masculine is to be a natural bully, to be physically violent and pick on those weaker than you are, especially those who are women.

That's what YOU are saying, Bob, that it's normal and natural and masculine for boys to beat up on weaker boys and girls.

I, on the other hand, don't believe that PC feminist tripe. I think males are born with the natural, normal instinct to PROTECT those who are weaker, particularly those who are female, and it takes a real screwed up boy to single out the weak and prey on them...just as it takes a real screwed up man to beat up his wife.

In other words, it's not a "masculine" trait to be a bully because it's not a male's natural instinct to physically harm those who are weaker.

Now, if you want to take the PC line that it's masculine to be a bully, go ahead, but you shouldn't compare what I'M saying to PC psycho-babble because I'm saying the opposite.

But then, I just think you're confusing "bullies" -- the group I was talking about and mentioned by name -- with BOYS. If you say that boys are more physically aggresive and demonstrative than girls, then of course that's true and that's "masculine." Lots of boys get into fights and that doesn't mean they're "off," it means they're BOYS. But, that isn't the same as "bullies," who would end up beating on a kid once he's down (as Ace alluded to in his post).

Hopefully that will clear things up and you'll realize I'm not stating some touchy-feely line (designed to make victims feel better and perps feel guilty) but just simple common sense.

Later,
bbeck

In an amazing coincidence, the Sommers article that Ace cites refers to a Scientific American article on self-esteem, and that article just so happens to address the bully issue. So here's what science says:

Take the bullying that goes on among children, a common form of aggression. Dan Olweus of the University of Bergen was one of the first to dispute the notion that under their tough exteriors, bullies suffer from insecurities and self-doubts. Although Olweus did not measure self-esteem directly, he showed that bullies reported less anxiety and were more sure of themselves than other children.

Link.

As I said above, this agrees with what I've personally witnessed. Most bullies I knew routinely got away with murder and loved every minute of it. I saw little indication that they were putting on a false front to cover some inner inadequacy.

Maybe I should stop reading blogs -- shit like this has *got* to be bad for my blood pressure. I sure as fuck don't want to put a son through a public school where they do everything in their power to neuter the poor bastard before he leaves first grade. I get paranoid, too -- at this point, all they need to do is get the school "psychiatrist" (in quotes 'cause it's just some douchebag with a mail-order degree shilling for the NEA) to say he "needs" it and they can pretty much force Ritalin on him against parental wishes, or so I hear. Two words: Fuck. That.

I think I got lucky -- I got to leave high school in what was probably one of the last graduating classes before 100% admi-nazi saturation. A few minor incidents, nothing big. Guy gets a few days suspension for "bringing a firearm to school", when the "gun" in question was a fluorescent orange cap pistol. Can't use the tools we need to fix our marching band equipment without adult supervision -- and they're socket wrenches. That sort of thing. But none of this fascist crap. They want the little boys to be little girls (they're better behaved), and everybody's scared shitless of being sued. I blame teachers and lawyers in about a 50-50 ratio.

As for killing off testosterone-heavy gym activities? I'd rather they were still an option, but why are we grading kids on athletic performance? One of my biggest gripes from when I was still in the Public Institutions. I didn't mind the stuff I could do *something* in, like ping-pong, kickball, kids stuff like that that's "approachable". But when they made us run track or play football or soccer, or any of that other "real" athletics shit? Hated. It. I mean, please. As a slackish nerd, I was willing to meet the system halfway, but I couldn't stand that shit where you ended up doing anything that feels like... you know, work. Maybe that's just me.

I always thought the Giving Tree was a chump.

I always thought the Giving Tree was a chump.

I like the way you think.

LOL

But juggling, too, poses risks.

A former member of The President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports suggests using silken scarves rather than, say, uncooperative tennis balls that lead to frustration and anxiety. "Scarves," he points out, "are soft, non-threatening, and float down slowly."

Cripes. Have these idiots ever actually tried to juggle scarves? Juggling is one of my useless skills (one of many, I might add) and scarves are frickin' hard to manipulate.

The lighter the object, the harder and more frustrating it is to juggle.

What a moron.

Wow, James, your school had ping-pong? Cool! Wish we had that!

All we ever played in school was team sports, period, and the kids always picked the teams, not the coach. It was LOVELY being a girl who was not built like a tank...and I'd skipped first grade to boot and was a year younger/smaller than freaking everybody! Ah well, we all have those li'l adversities to overcome, especially the nerds in a mediocrity-worshipping society.

Later,
bbeck

And in another amazing coincidence bbeck posted a rebuttal as I was writing my last post.

Bob, first of all, your analogy is misdirected, and secondly, you're confusing "bullies" with "boys."

I don't believe my analogy was misdirected. It wasn't really an analogy, though, as much as it was saying the "bullies are really sissies" line is probably more an anti-bully tactic than a statement of fact, similar to the "homophobe" claims.

Let's begin with defining "masculinity:" having qualities appropriate to or usually associated with a man.

Sounds good to me.

Political correctness and feminist ideology promotes the idea that to be masculine is to be a natural bully, to be physically violent and pick on those weaker than you are, especially those who are women.

That's what YOU are saying, Bob, that it's normal and natural and masculine for boys to beat up on weaker boys and girls.

I'm saying it's normal and natural for boys to be more aggressive, to roughhouse more, and, yes, to fight more. I'm saying bullies are an extreme version of that. Natural isn't necessarily good. It probably is natural for powerful men to bully others, but luckily civilation has put the brakes on that impulse.

I, on the other hand, don't believe that PC feminist tripe. I think males are born with the natural, normal instinct to PROTECT those who are weaker, particularly those who are female, and it takes a real screwed up boy to single out the weak and prey on them...just as it takes a real screwed up man to beat up his wife.

That's a very noble belief, but I'm afraid it's not one history and biology would back up. Human history is filled with horrific examples of the strong exploiting and dominating the weak. In nature, most primates likewise are dominated by strong males.

You don't have to go far back to find a time where wife beating was considered not that big of a deal. Find some reruns of The Honeymooners and you'll quickly discover that threatening to one day crack your wife with a shot so hard that you'd send her to the moon was considered a great laugh line.

And you may not have noticed it, but women actually were held down by society (ie, the males who ran it). Or is my belief that women couldn't even vote in this country until 1920 some PC propaganda I've swallowed?

I'll grant that there's a protection instinct, but I think in its most base form it just involves a man protecting his own assets (and, yes, for most of history that would include his woman/women).

In other words, it's not a "masculine" trait to be a bully because it's not a male's natural instinct to physically harm those who are weaker.

Now, if you want to take the PC line that it's masculine to be a bully, go ahead, but you shouldn't compare what I'M saying to PC psycho-babble because I'm saying the opposite.

I think it very well may be a natural instinct to hurt others if it gets you what you want. I think society teaches boys and men to behave more nobly. You know, chivalry and all that.

Most parents of boys that I know have to work to teach them not to pick on others weaker than them. Odd that such a problem would have to be addressed so often by parents of boys. Where do you think they learn this unnatural behavior?

But then, I just think you're confusing "bullies" -- the group I was talking about and mentioned by name -- with BOYS. If you say that boys are more physically aggresive and demonstrative than girls, then of course that's true and that's "masculine." Lots of boys get into fights and that doesn't mean they're "off," it means they're BOYS. But, that isn't the same as "bullies," who would end up beating on a kid once he's down (as Ace alluded to in his post).

I don't think bullies typically do that either. The ones I grew up with would decisively win the fight and then stop. Maybe if they felt they had to prove a point or put a permanent stop to a persistent challenger they'd continue beyond the point necessary to win the fight, but it was actually rational in its own twisted way.

Hopefully that will clear things up and you'll realize I'm not stating some touchy-feely line (designed to make victims feel better and perps feel guilty) but just simple common sense.

Sorry, but it's not common sense. I see kids tougher than everyone else, ruling the school, putting down all challengers, getting what they want from fellow students, etc. To me it seems like these are boys showing what masculinity in its extreme, unrestricted, uncivilized form looks like. You're positing that they're secretly emasculated inside. To me you're the one making the extraordinary claim, so the burden of proof is on you. I've cited a Scientific American article that cites a study that found bullies have less anxiety and are more sure of themself. That doesn't sound like emasculated boys to me.

Do you have any proof that bullies are secretly emasculated inside? Or is it just something you'd prefer to believe? Because I'll grant you that it would be nice if it were true. You can tell poor Timmy that just took a beating that it only happened because the bully feels inferior to him. You can tell the bully that administered the beating that he's just showing everyone how weak he is inside. Yep, it would be wonderful if it were true.

But that doesn't mean it is true.

Well said, Bob

Speaking of terrible phys-ed pseudo-sports

Monty-

I played those same exact "sports" in elementary school. I thought it was just my school that played those stupid games

...or maybe we went to school together.

Actually, it was me that ran over your hand and if memory serves me correctly, you were quite the crybaby!

Anyway, who says boys are nastier than girls? Not me. Girls can be bullies to, and really vicious ones, they just go about it differently. They are far less likely than boys to be violent, and far more likely to deliver emotional beatings with their gossip and constantly shifting cliques. I think sometimes that the girls can be more wounding towards each other than the boys. When my daughter was that age, there were always a few of her female classmates that I wanted to go slap around the schoolyard.

(Fortunately, her mother threatened to slap me around the house if I did any such thing, so I kept my cool and stayed out of jail.)

Mime. Mime is a physically demanding sport. Competitive miming is the future.

All of this serves to further reinforce my theory that young boys ought to be exposed to as much pornography as possible. No lousy teacher can undo the effects of THAT.

Bob is correct. Bullies don't cry if you smack them. They beat you senseless.

Bullies are overly aggressive kids who come from abusive homes. They are looking to even the score for the slapping/beating they look last week from the old man or older bully brother.

They focus on beating up the happy, smaller kids because they know the happy, smaller kids have it a lot better.

Bullies may have certain hypermasculine traits, but I think those really are the "bad" masculine traits.

Then again, maybe not.

Inflicting cruelty and humiliation on one's fellow students ain't exactly a male monopoly. From what I hear, girls are even worse, but they're more subtle about it.

I wouldn't want to give bullies the compliment of saying they're more "manly." Look, being a man isn't about cruelty and beating up the weak.

You know,while I completely agree with the burden of what you had to say here, ace, I have to take exception to the idea that Ritalin somehow sedates children. It allows them to focus better, that's all. I have lived in the same house with three different children(not mine) who were prescribed Ritalin. They were NOT altered in their personality, far from it. One in particular still had energy to burn on any given day.

Geez, why do I try to reason with people when it results in wallowing through a ton of muck?

Bob, I tried to corral all your irrelevant junk here...It wasn't easy...

First, the irrelevant examples:

Human history is filled with horrific examples of the strong exploiting and dominating the weak.

Human history is also full of examples of the strong defending the weak. Which is "natural" and which is not? Actually, it's amazingly irrelevant because we're talking about masculinity specifically, not the notion of balance of power and/or the thousands of other reasons history is how it is.

In nature, most primates likewise are dominated by strong males.

And that would be entirely relevant if we were talking about "most primates." We're not; we're talking about humans with an entirely different social structure who are born with different instincts.

You don't have to go far back to find a time where wife beating was considered not that big of a deal.

Also irrelevant. Lynching blacks was also not considered that big of a deal but I still don't think it's normal "masculine" behavior.

Find some reruns of The Honeymooners and you'll quickly discover that threatening to one day crack your wife with a shot so hard that you'd send her to the moon was considered a great laugh line.

Irrelevant. Such lines are STILL being used. Ace just told a joke about murdering women in another thread. You know what makes the line funny? Because he wouldn't actually do it. Did someone really think Jackie Gleason's character regularly beat his wife? No.

Furthermore, if you want to cite artistic examples then where are the tons of older literature that portray the good guy as a wife beater? Strange, I can't think of any examples, and even if there were, they'd be the exception to the abundant rule.

Or is my belief that women couldn't even vote in this country until 1920 some PC propaganda I've swallowed.

More irrelevance. Uh, voting used to be restricted to land owners, too. It's PC propaganda that you believe suffrage relied upon "masculinity." It had MUCH more to do with simple politics.

Okay, now to address the complete silliness in your post, Bob…

It wasn't really an analogy, though, as much as it was saying the "bullies are really sissies" line is probably more an anti-bully tactic than a statement of fact, similar to the "homophobe" claims.

I didn't say they were "sissies," I said they were EMASCULATED. ie, they were demonstrating traits that were not masculine. Not the same thing as comparing certain people to closet homosexuals.

I don't think bullies typically do that either. The ones I grew up with would decisively win the fight and then stop. Maybe if they felt they had to prove a point or put a permanent stop to a persistent challenger they'd continue beyond the point necessary to win the fight, but it was actually rational in its own twisted way.

Aw, nice, rational, PC bullies, how very sweet! LOL. The bullies in my neighborhood woulda kicked their candy-tailed azzes across the planet! Man, Bob, you're suuuure bending over backwards to try and show bullies aren't so bad after all. Face it, they're complete scumbags and hopefully they grow up to realize they were abusive creeps before they continue their behavior.

You're positing that they're secretly emasculated inside.

No, I’m not. I’m saying that bullies are not masculine, and beating up kids is a demonstration of their perversion of what masculinity IS. That’s no secret.

To me you're the one making the extraordinary claim, so the burden of proof is on you.

Sorry, I don’t CARE what your impression is, especially when you have the wrong one. Furthermore, all you’ve proven is the ability to give a bunch of wholly irrelevant goop that doesn’t even address the topic. IF you could possibly show a direct an undisputed correlation between preying upon weaklings and being a MAN then you could make an argument.

I've cited a Scientific American article that cites a study that found bullies have less anxiety and are more sure of themself. That doesn't sound like emasculated boys to me.

Once again, I don’t CARE what it “sounds like” to you because “sounding like” isn’t PROOF of anything. What does it “sound like” to me? Of course a bully would have “less anxiety” because they aren’t the ones getting BEATEN UP, they’re the ones INFLICTING anxiety on others! And I fully believe that bullies are “more sure” of themselves because they obviously lack concern for others’ feelings. And to me, it “sounds like” this article doesn’t even come close to addressing masculinity. If that’s all you have, your proof is falling way way short.

Do you have any proof that bullies are secretly emasculated inside?

Er, why should I be trying to prove something I haven’t said?

You can tell poor Timmy that just took a beating that it only happened because the bully feels inferior to him.

Pfft, I would NEVER tell poor Timmy that the bully feels inferior. I would tell poor Timmy that the bully IS inferior.

You can tell the bully that administered the beating that he's just showing everyone how weak he is inside.

Bullies ARE weak, Bob. But, that’s quite another subject. We’re talking about being MASCULINE, remember?

Yep, it would be wonderful if it were true.

But that doesn't mean it is true.

I bet you thought that was a very poetic ending to your reaaaalll lllooonnnng post. But, I had a hard time classifying it because it was both irrelevant AND silly. So I just put it here.

And NOW, like the proverbial blind squirrel with an acorn, I point out where you nearly get it right…

I'll grant that there's a protection instinct, but I think in its most base form it just involves a man protecting his own assets (and, yes, for most of history that would include his woman/women).

But, you admit, it's an INSTINCT, and you’re partly right. You just don’t extend it far enough.

I think it very well may be a natural instinct to hurt others if it gets you what you want.

Really? Hmm. You're FINALLY getting close to the POINT...

People are BORN with a competitive instinct, to be victorious often without regard to the FEELINGS of the defeated. BUT...and pay ATTENTION...

THAT is true of both MEN AND WOMEN.

That's NOT a MASCULINE instinct. It's a HUMAN instinct. That means it can’t be classified as masculine because it pertains to both sexes. Hence it's NOT a MASCULINE trait, which means it doesn’t have anything to DO with what I’m saying.

NOW, think about it…

IF hurting others gets you what you want, then WHAT does a bully GET from beating up a weaker child?

Not a dang thing that’s normal and natural and masculine.

Feminists would wholly disagree with me. But then, feminists tend to be full of BS.

You want me to prove it? Welp, I suppose I could go and scare up lots and lots and lots of evidence with a Google search, but there are two things about that:

1. It’s been my experience that people, particularly those who think like feminists, believe what they want to believe whether God Himself came down and proved them wrong, so any evidence produced would be subsequently ignored by you

2. Considering what you listed as “proof” to back up your position, I don’t think you can adequately recognize it even if it were presented

I’m just satisfied knowing that feminists and some folks in this thread disagree with me, and some folks n this thread agree with me. In fact, that’s all the proof I need. If you need more, then do you own homework, please. It's not like I'm making this up, LOTS of people believe in the natural protective instincts of men, and lots of people believe that bullies are emasculated creeps with motivations other than trying to make victims feel good.

And uh, if you want to post more goop I can’t stop you, but I’m not wading through it again.

Later,
bbeck

Bullies may have certain hypermasculine traits, but I think those really are the "bad" masculine traits.

You need some balance. The "hyper-" in hypermasculine implies that it is out of balance.

Inflicting cruelty and humiliation on one's fellow students ain't exactly a male monopoly. From what I hear, girls are even worse, but they're more subtle about it.

Yes, we've all seen Mean Girls...

Male bullies typically do what most boys do, but they take it too far.

Look at what bbeck said about how normal, no-bully boys fight. Well, guess what, they're not fighting for the sheer sport of it ("Hey, chap, care to engage in a round of fisticuffs?" "Oh, yes, very much so!" "Jolly good! Away we go then, mate!"). They're almost always fighting over something ("Let me see that." "No!" "Come, you prick, hand it over!" "No!"...fight breaks out). Basically a difference between typical girls and typical boys is that boys will get into a physical altercation with each other much more readily.

Now take that trait, amp it up to the nth degree, and you have classic bully behavior -- somebody who will fight over almost anything he wants, so he runs roughshod over everyone else.

I wouldn't want to give bullies the compliment of saying they're more "manly." Look, being a man isn't about cruelty and beating up the weak.

Now we're getting back into the territory of what we'd like to be true instead of what is actually true.

Here's a little thought experiment for you doubters: Take a normal kid, totally average, and jack him up full of testosterone. Now tell me you really don't think there's a good chance he'll move somewhat down the bully path, become more competitive, more aggressive, quicker to fight, etc. If he does and then realizes he's also stronger than most of his classmates, and if he doesn't have firm guidance, preferably from a male role model, then you really have a recipe for bullyhood.

My guess is you'd admit it if you overcame your reluctance to "compliment" him. But, really, it's not a compliment. Having the "male" aspects of your personality in a totally out-of-control state is not a good thing. Being unable to also use your brain and your ethics is not a good thing. There's no compliment.

Being a man, a civilized man, in large part involves restraining your idiot male traits, or channeling them to good use.

I partially agree with Dogstar, and it is true that some bullies are abused at home, but I knew some that weren't. They just had parents that didn't give a damn what they did, and they happened to be really tough, and they took advantage of weaker kids. Even the ones in abusive homes seemed to me more to be doing the same thing they saw at home, but in school they were the abusers, and they seemed to enjoy it. It didn't seem to me they were doing it because they were punishing the other kids for being happier at home. It was more like it was their turn to have the power when they went to school. But of course I'm not saying that's always the case.

When I was in middle school and early high school, the immediate and consistent recommendation of the administration to any student who gave them any sort of problem whatever, was to dose the kid with Ritalin. I suspect that many of the problems with education today stem from the fact that teachers worry more about controlling and subduing their charges than about educating them--the idea seems to be that any sort of conflict or wave-making is necessarily bad, rather than an essential part of growing up.
On another note, one of the things which I enjoyed about the movie Sin City, was the idea that a man may be justified in using violence to defend women. I would suggest that feminists would do far better, in the interests of preventing violence against women, to advocate a return to some aspects of older codes of chivalry and honor among men--celebrating the ability of a man who is both strong and honorable to defend women from men who are not--rather than advocating 'feminine' passivity as morally superior to masculine assertiveness and attempting to raise boys who simply possess no aggressive urges whatsoever. It seems to me highly unlikely that such a thing is even possible, let alone desirable--there will always be men (indeed, men and women) who misuse their strength to harm others; what we should do is not to encourage children to do nothing in the face of injustice but run and tell the teacher, to assume that some higher authority will always help the weak and suffering--children should be raised with the chivalrous desire to defend each other, and if necessary, to do so forcefully. And because of the undeniable inequity in physical strength between the better part of men and the better part of women, it seems only natural, at last, to realize that if one wants to reduce violence against women, one simply cannot assume that all men and all that is male are ipso facto the enemy--if the negative aspect of the masculine nature is the problem, the positive aspect of the masculine nature is also at least part of the solution. An alliance, a recognition that each sex needs the other, is necessary.

Ha ha, four hours later, we again post at about the same time...

Geez, why do I try to reason with people when it results in wallowing through a ton of muck?

I'm sorry you feel that way.

Bob, I tried to corral all your irrelevant junk here...It wasn't easy...

First, the irrelevant examples:

Human history is filled with horrific examples of the strong exploiting and dominating the weak.

Human history is also full of examples of the strong defending the weak. Which is "natural" and which is not? Actually, it's amazingly irrelevant because we're talking about masculinity specifically, not the notion of balance of power and/or the thousands of other reasons history is how it is.

You originally said that men have a natural instinct to protect the weak, as if that settled it. I pointed out there are countless examples throughout history of men dominating and exploiting those weaker than them, including women, who only in recent times have achieved legal parity. Of course there are examples of men defending the weak. I never said that didn't happen at all. But when men for most of history treated women like property (and this isn't a PC, liberal belief, this is fact), that tends to show which way the natural inclination is. It's not a pretty picture, and it's certainly nothing to be proud of.

In nature, most primates likewise are dominated by strong males.

And that would be entirely relevant if we were talking about "most primates." We're not; we're talking about humans with an entirely different social structure who are born with different instincts.

OK. We don't need to have a chimpanzees vs. bonobos discussion. My only point is that sometimes what is "natural" is pretty ugly. Part of being a civilized man (or woman, for that matter) is overcoming bad natural inclinations.

You don't have to go far back to find a time where wife beating was considered not that big of a deal.

Also irrelevant. Lynching blacks was also not considered that big of a deal but I still don't think it's normal "masculine" behavior.

Please don't confuse "normal" or "masculine" with "good" or "right". Natural instincts can often be bad, very bad.

There is actually a ton of scientific data that clearly shows people have a natural inclination to associate with a group and discriminate against those perceived as outside that group. So, yes, it is "normal behavior". But that doesn't make it right, and we try to use reason and a system of ethics to rise above those natural tendencies and treat people fairly. That's great, but it doesn't make it true to say it is natural for people to equally love everyone of all races, colors, and conditions, no matter how different they are.

Find some reruns of The Honeymooners and you'll quickly discover that threatening to one day crack your wife with a shot so hard that you'd send her to the moon was considered a great laugh line.

Irrelevant. Such lines are STILL being used. Ace just told a joke about murdering women in another thread. You know what makes the line funny? Because he wouldn't actually do it. Did someone really think Jackie Gleason's character regularly beat his wife? No.

Furthermore, if you want to cite artistic examples then where are the tons of older literature that portray the good guy as a wife beater? Strange, I can't think of any examples, and even if there were, they'd be the exception to the abundant rule.

Yeah, I guess everything I say is irrelevant. Thanks for letting me know. You're right, that joke would go over just as well today. In no way did such a joke being a routine element of a mainstream television show indicate that anything was different with society back then. And of course my thinking that this somehow shows that men have become more civilized and learned to better control naturally violent tendencies and treat women with what is historically an unprecedented level of equality is totally and completely irrelevent. My apologies for wasting you time.

Or is my belief that women couldn't even vote in this country until 1920 some PC propaganda I've swallowed.

More irrelevance. Uh, voting used to be restricted to land owners, too. It's PC propaganda that you believe suffrage relied upon "masculinity." It had MUCH more to do with simple politics.

Of course it's more irrelevance. Why, if I won't accept that bullies are secretly emascuated, then what else can you expect from me?

Yeah, it's PC propaganda that denying women the vote had absolutely nothing to do with any form of sexism. Give me a break. What's really irrelevant here is the land restrictions. Guess what, just because they could discriminate based on land ownership and that had nothing to do with gender doesn't mean that when they discriminated based on gender that that also had nothing to do with gender.

Okay, now to address the complete silliness in your post, Bob…

It wasn't really an analogy, though, as much as it was saying the "bullies are really sissies" line is probably more an anti-bully tactic than a statement of fact, similar to the "homophobe" claims.

I didn't say they were "sissies," I said they were EMASCULATED. ie, they were demonstrating traits that were not masculine. Not the same thing as comparing certain people to closet homosexuals.

Sorry. I thought emasculated boys would tend to be sissies. The point still stands. Just replace "sissies" with "emasculated". My point is that it's basically creating a myth, based on no evidence, to use against someone. Don't like gay people? Then you're gay, something you don't like. Think you're tough because you beat up little Timmy? Well, it just really proves that you're emasculated.

Bullies are jerks. It should be enough to tell them that their antisocial behavior isn't going to be tolerated or respected. We don't need to make up stories, without any proof, that their bullying secretly reveals they're emasculated. If you can cough up some evidence for that claim, then, sure, throw that into the mix. But until then, it's just ridiculous. Anyway, I saw the same thing tried with a bunch of bullies, and it never changed their ways. I'll grant that it might have helped their victims feel a bit better at times though, so I guess if that end justifies the means then maybe it's OK to tell them a little white lie, but let's not pretend among adults that it's actually true.

I don't think bullies typically do that either. The ones I grew up with would decisively win the fight and then stop. Maybe if they felt they had to prove a point or put a permanent stop to a persistent challenger they'd continue beyond the point necessary to win the fight, but it was actually rational in its own twisted way.

Aw, nice, rational, PC bullies, how very sweet! LOL. The bullies in my neighborhood woulda kicked their candy-tailed azzes across the planet! Man, Bob, you're suuuure bending over backwards to try and show bullies aren't so bad after all. Face it, they're complete scumbags and hopefully they grow up to realize they were abusive creeps before they continue their behavior.

Ha ha. You sure are good at know what people secretly are thinking. What a skill. Bullies are emasculated. I'm secretly a fan of bullies and am defending them.

I know they're complete scumbags. The ones I knew typically would want something, and they'd do whatever they had to to get it. They'd shake kids down for money, make kids give them things, make kids do things for them, etc. They'd often torment kids just for fun. But did I ever see one attack a kid and just beat him and beat him and beat him until he was clinging to life? Not really. Usually they got what they wanted (money, sufficient humiliation) and stopped. That's why they get often away with it, because it's over quickly, especially once the bully gets his reputation and can just use intimidation.

Just as you conflate "natural" and "good" or "ethical", you also seem to think "rational" means "good". All I meant is the bullies I knew typically used just enough force to get their way, and no more. What was "rational" about it is the more force they used, the more possible trouble they could get into if caught, so they did the minimum necessary. I'm not saying that makes them model citizens.

I don't really need a "my bullies are tougher than your bullies" argument. That would be...irrelevant.

You're positing that they're secretly emasculated inside.

No, I’m not. I’m saying that bullies are not masculine, and beating up kids is a demonstration of their perversion of what masculinity IS. That’s no secret.

Well, you previously said this:

Pfft, bullies are the most emasculated boys out there, Ace. They're just trying to prove they're NOT.

So it looks to me like you said it, unless you want to start majorly splitting hairs. If it's the "secret" part, I was basing that on the fact that bullies certainly don't outwardly appear to be emasculated in the normal sense of the word, and I've often heard the theory that "inside they're emasculated/weak/cowards", so my understanding was that you were agreeing with that conventional wisdom. If not, then perhaps you should have been clearer.

I certainly have no problem agreeing with you that bullying is a perversion of masculinity. That's basically what I've been saying this whole time. And that basically cedes the point to me, as nobody would say that bullying is a perversion of femininity, would they? So then it becomes silly to say it has nothing to do with masculinity.

To me you're the one making the extraordinary claim, so the burden of proof is on you.

Sorry, I don’t CARE what your impression is, especially when you have the wrong one. Furthermore, all you’ve proven is the ability to give a bunch of wholly irrelevant goop that doesn’t even address the topic. IF you could possibly show a direct an undisputed correlation between preying upon weaklings and being a MAN then you could make an argument.

"Being a man" to me means more than just acting out masculine tendencies. In fact, it often involves restraining some masculine tendencies. If you somehow got the idea that I think bullies are the epitome of manhood, then you're mistaken.

Have you been around boys and men much lately? You said earlier that boys fight more than girls, and so teaching boys to fight less, restraining their natural masculine traits, is part of making them better men. If you don't teach them to restrain those traits, then can become bullies. Obviously, as in the case of what these schools are doing, you can go way too far, to the point that you think little boys should act just like little girls.

I've cited a Scientific American article that cites a study that found bullies have less anxiety and are more sure of themself. That doesn't sound like emasculated boys to me.

Once again, I don’t CARE what it “sounds like” to you because “sounding like” isn’t PROOF of anything. What does it “sound like” to me? Of course a bully would have “less anxiety” because they aren’t the ones getting BEATEN UP, they’re the ones INFLICTING anxiety on others! And I fully believe that bullies are “more sure” of themselves because they obviously lack concern for others’ feelings. And to me, it “sounds like” this article doesn’t even come close to addressing masculinity. If that’s all you have, your proof is falling way way short.

We're talking around each other. I never said bullies were ideal men. I never said they were an perfect expression of idealized masculinity. They're jerks.

You said they were emasculated. I don't see how you can deny it. Now I'm going to be the jerk that hauls out the dictionary. Here's the revelant definition of "emasculate": "to deprive of strength, vigor, or spirit : WEAKEN". The bullies I knew were almost all strong, they had lots of vigor, and they certainly had enough spirit to go around tormenting all their classmates. Your claim that they're emasculated certainly "seems" to fly in the face or reality. You may not care what it "seems" like to me, but I "seem" to be the one who knows what the word means, who has cited a reference to a study, and who isn't denying what I said previously. Speaking of that...

Do you have any proof that bullies are secretly emasculated inside?

Er, why should I be trying to prove something I haven’t said?

Er, you did say it. Um, see above. Er, why are you now denying it?

You can tell poor Timmy that just took a beating that it only happened because the bully feels inferior to him.

Pfft, I would NEVER tell poor Timmy that the bully feels inferior. I would tell poor Timmy that the bully IS inferior.

As would I. Apparently the bully has superior fighting skills, but he falls far short as a complete human being if he bullies people, because (yawn) if he takes the masculine tendency to be more willing to fight to such an extreme that he fights for things to which he's not entitled, he becomes a bully.

You can tell the bully that administered the beating that he's just showing everyone how weak he is inside.

Bullies ARE weak, Bob. But, that’s quite another subject. We’re talking about being MASCULINE, remember?

Here we go again....

Obviously nobody with any sense is going to deny a weakness of character or a weakness of ethics. Maybe instead of harranging me about how irrelevant and silly I am you could have bothered to clarify what you mean specifically when you say a bully is "weak".

Yep, it would be wonderful if it were true.

But that doesn't mean it is true.

I bet you thought that was a very poetic ending to your reaaaalll lllooonnnng post. But, I had a hard time classifying it because it was both irrelevant AND silly. So I just put it here.

I thought it was a pretty good ending, yeah. I know you did, too. For, you see, I also have the power to know what others secretly are feeling. Ha!

And NOW, like the proverbial blind squirrel with an acorn, I point out where you nearly get it right…

I'll grant that there's a protection instinct, but I think in its most base form it just involves a man protecting his own assets (and, yes, for most of history that would include his woman/women).

But, you admit, it's an INSTINCT, and you’re partly right. You just don’t extend it far enough.

I think it very well may be a natural instinct to hurt others if it gets you what you want.

Really? Hmm. You're FINALLY getting close to the POINT...

People are BORN with a competitive instinct, to be victorious often without regard to the FEELINGS of the defeated. BUT...and pay ATTENTION...

OK, I can't wait to see what this is! I'm so excited! Finally it will all be revealed!

THAT is true of both MEN AND WOMEN.

That's NOT a MASCULINE instinct. It's a HUMAN instinct. That means it can’t be classified as masculine because it pertains to both sexes. Hence it's NOT a MASCULINE trait, which means it doesn’t have anything to DO with what I’m saying.

My God, you're right! And by "right" I of course mean "irrelevant", with a dash of "wrong".

Would you actually claim that women are no more inclined to worry about others' feelings? I can't see how you can with a straight face. So that makes the inclination to not care as much a "masculine" trait. If you take it to its extreme, perverted, hypermasculine form, then you get someone that just doesn't care at all.

Classic bullies use force or the threat of it to get their way. Using force to get your way is a masculine trait (as you basically admitted by saying it's natural for boys to get in fights, implying that is less true for girls). Therefore bullies using force are using a masculine tendency. (And, yes, girls have their own means of gettintg what they want. But I don't think you were referring to girls when you said bullies are "emasculated".)

Therefore, someone who doesn't care about the feelings of others and uses force to get what he wants is using masculine traits.

You seem to think that if any girl, anywhere, did something once, then that means it's not a masculine trait. But that's not how it works. Something is a masculine trait if males tend to do it more than females. The tactics of bullies are masculine traits gone awry.

NOW, think about it…

IF hurting others gets you what you want, then WHAT does a bully GET from beating up a weaker child?

Not a dang thing that’s normal and natural and masculine.

They're not looking to become a paragon of civilized manliness. They're looking to get something specific, and that's what they get.

I never said it was healthy to shake down kids for their lunch money. I never said all good men should bully people. What is it going to take to get the point through already?

Look, if Joey beats of Timmy and takes his lunch money, and you came up to him and said, "You didn't get a dang thing that’s normal and natural and masculine", he'd say, "Huh?" And if you said to his classmates, "Don't you think Joey is lacking in strength, vigor, and spirit?", they'd say, "No. We wish that were the case, but no."

And, for the last time, I never said bullies were good. I never said they were normal. I said their foundation is based on normal masculine traits that are missing the normal restrictions of society. It's normal to want what other people have. It's normal for boys to roughhouse and fight. But it's also normal for boys to learn that it's not right to take everything you can get through fighting. So bullies' behavior is based on normal traits but is also missing normal traits. The end result is abnormal.

What you don't seem to understand is the traits that the bully uses are typically masculine traits, whereas the traits that don't kick in to stop him are not masculine, they are more rules for all of society. The idea that you don't take whatever you can get my force is not a masculine idea. If anything it's an anti-masculine idea, since keeping marauding males in check is probably what inspired the rule.

You want me to prove it? Welp, I suppose I could go and scare up lots and lots and lots of evidence with a Google search,

I doubt it.

but there are two things about that:

1. It’s been my experience that people, particularly those who think like feminists, believe what they want to believe whether God Himself came down and proved them wrong, so any evidence produced would be subsequently ignored by you

2. Considering what you listed as “proof” to back up your position, I don’t think you can adequately recognize it even if it were presented

I’m just satisfied knowing that feminists and some folks in this thread disagree with me, and some folks n this thread agree with me. In fact, that’s all the proof I need. If you need more, then do you own homework, please. It's not like I'm making this up, LOTS of people believe in the natural protective instincts of men, and lots of people believe that bullies are emasculated creeps with motivations other than trying to make victims feel good.

Now I think like a feminist? I'll give you points for humor.

Your issue with #2 seems to stem from you not knowing what "emasculated" means. If you think being sure of yourself is somehow compatible with "being deprived of...vigor and spirit", then I question who should be giving whom the lecture about refusing to believe the obvious.

Where did I say bullies wanted to make victims feel good? That's hilarious. More points for humor.

And uh, if you want to post more goop I can’t stop you, but I’m not wading through it again.

Oh, no! I wrote all this for nothing? I think I'm going to have to go cry my emasculated, bully-loving, feminist-thinking self to sleep. At least I can using bullying to make someone feel good tomorrow. Maybe that will cheer me up.

Anyway, you can deny it but I actually seem to have convinced you, as you have shifted from claiming bullies are emasculated in the normal sense to essentially saying they have an emasculated sense of ethics. Nobody would disagree with that, and it's quite clear I don't, so I'm glad you came around to my point of view. Later.

There was a tug of war by the Taipei city government where one guy had his arm ripped off. Don't EVER wrap the rope around your arm.

Boblahblah...

Anyway, you can deny it but I actually seem to have convinced you, as you have shifted from claiming bullies are emasculated in the normal sense to essentially saying they have an emasculated sense of ethics. Nobody would disagree with that, and it's quite clear I don't, so I'm glad you came around to my point of view. Later.

...uh, the only thing you convinced me of is your complete lack of touch with reality.

I never changed a word I said -- but you may have suddenly figured out what it was I DID say.

I SURE didn't read more of your sludge. I just caught this last bit of claiming victory, which is wholly bizarre.

Simply put, in deference to you...

Bullies are cowards.

Cowards are not masculine.

Hence, bullies are not masculine.

Got it?

Well, whether you do or not, just SPARE us another dissertation pretty please.

Later,
bbeck

FYI - an explanation of circular arguments.

Has anyone else thought about the fact that we're really just talking about St. Paul's concept of original sin?

Maybe it's just me. I'm weird sometimes.

FYI, for those who would like to know what I'M talking about, here's what a transitive argument is. It's not quite the same as a circular one, but most people are able to figure that out without this kind of help.

Uriah, atheist as I am, I'd MUCH rather talk about St. Paul right about now. But for the love of Mike (or should I say Michael?) keep it short.

Later,
bbeck

In a nutshell, Bob and bbeck disagree over the use of the adjective "masculine" when defining a bully.

Since the concepts of masculinity and femininity are so complex and multi-faceted, it is easy to see why a disagreement would arise.

Certain aspects of bullying behavior are masculine, and certain other aspects are not.

The trick of using a broad term like that is to specify that it is a limited match, rather than a complete one.

Dogstar, your summary is close enough not to argue with it. Besides, you're too level-headed to argue with. And I like you.

Later,
bbeck

Bullies are really just insecure sissies

The popular kids in school are really just shallow and insecure, and things like sports that make one popular in HS are meaningless. They are really just unhappy, and of course, living in a fantasy world.

All jocks are in reality dumb.

People that make fun of you are really just jealous.

People that buy expensive things live in a fantasy world and are a deluded subset of society......

Ahh, good old defense mechanisms. Good to see they live on beyond high school

I would suggest that there are certain 'natural' or instinctive behaviors that are called 'masculine', but also certain cultural constructs by which men have historically constrained or productively channeled these instincts--and these (honor, duty, chivalry) we also think of as inherently 'masculine'. Feminists generally do not want to make use of these historically 'masculine' social constructs, but because they consider them inherently sexist, racist, God knows what else, they prefer to create new ones of their own based on what they consider to be an essentially more virtuous social construct--the 'feminine'. They believe this will work because, on the whole, they discount the idea of either instinctive 'masculine' or instinctive 'feminine' nature and believe that a human being cannot be said to essentially be anything; they (feminists of the Marxist variety) generally assume the existentialist idea that 'I am nothing, therefore I can be anything', if not, generally, unfortunately, the existentialist idea of individual free will.
The problem in this argument, I suppose, is that bbeck assumes that because Bob does not claim that the 'natural', instinctive 'masculine' is inherently virtuous and believes it requires some social control, he is advocating, like the feminists, some new form of the 'feminine' social construct to constrain it. But the 'masculine' to which bbeck refers is not really the instinctive masculine (although, unlike the socially constructed 'feminine', which when applied to men is about as useful as trying to put a bra on a man, the socially constructed 'masculine' fits the instinctive 'masculine' like a glove on a hand) but the historic socially constructed 'masculine'. When one tells a young boy to 'be a man', after all, we are referring generally to forms of social conduct like honor, duty, chivalry--maybe a stoic refusal to cry in public--which we would never expect to find in, say, some caveman who had been living out in the wilderness apart from all human contact for years.
Bob quite rightly points out that the socially constructed 'masculine' is not the natural or instinctive 'masculine', but this does not make him an advocate of some sort of feminist application of the socially constructed 'feminine' to men.

I'm somewhat of an expert on being whupped up on by bullies, and I can tell you cowardice doesn't figure in here. Also, if you fight back you'll probably get your butt kicked, but just the once.

These two have deconstructed and reconstructed the argument every which way, to our benefit, but speaking from experience, the myth that if you pop a bully in the snoot real good he'll run home crying is a dangerous one.

I have an idea for tug of peace. Take a section of rope. Fix a large globe in the center. Dress all the kids in Green and line them up on one side. Now line up a Cheney or Bush clone on the other end of the rope. The children easy pull the world to them and defeat the evil republican menace. Now there's a game the teacher's union can be proud of...

I'm re-reading P.J. O'Rourke's 2001 "CEO of the Sofa" - probably his worst book, which means it still kicks ass, cuz it's P.J. - and just last night I read the part where he talks about the "tug of peace" game.
I assumed he was making it up. Either he was, and some fuzzy-head teacher was reading the book (already pretty unlikely) and copied the idea from him - or O'Rourke was just way ahead of the curve.

Spongeworthy, cowardice is disgraceful fear. Bullies have that in abundance. And it's been my experience that fighting back works.

Alex, I've seen the problem from the military POV, and it doesn't go against man's social engineering to permit women in combat, it goes against their NATURE to expose women to danger. That's why they're having such an incredibly hard time training the men to deal with it.

It is FAR more psychologically damaging for a man to watch a woman get hurt than for him to see a man get hurt. That isn't from training or society, that's a gut instinct a man has. The exact same is true, and even worse, for a man to see a child get hurt. And it doesn't have to be THEIR wife or THEIR child, but any woman or child.

Our enemies know this, which is why, when they have women in their custody, they use them against their fellow prisoners. Soldiers are people who are supposedly TRAINED to see women as equals and as fellow soldiers -- and yet they STILL have more problems dealing with women's torture than men. A belief that strong doesn't come from a societal norm because that's "trained" out of them, so it has to come from instinct.

When does ANYONE remember being taught to react adversely to someone's injury? When was ANYONE told to believe that a woman or a child's injury was worse? I was NEVER taught or told that, it's INSTINCT I was BORN with. And men, who are the Protectors in the human social structure, have even a stronger instinct to keep women and children from coming to harm.

Think about a picture of a dead person lying on a street. Is anyone affected more if the person is a woman or a child? I know I am. Who TAUGHT me to react like that? N-o o-n-e. I didn't learn that from society; in fact, society is trying hard to STOP people from that kind of reaction and seeing folks as 'equals.' And it's failing because the instinct in us is strong enough for us to reject the notion wholesale.

Even criminals, the misfits of society, have a strong instinct to protect children. Child molesters are treated badly by everyone in prison...and do you think prisoners, who couldn't follow the rules of society, CARE about society's norms?

To simply write all this off as uber-brainwashing by society is really disingenuous. Society doesn't teach someone's gut to twist at the sight of a soldier carrying a bloody little girl.

Every man and every soldier I've EVER had the discussion with tell me that protecting women, children, and those weaker than they is not something they learned. It's natural for them.

Evidently, some men not only believe they're born without it, they use its absence to justify behavior that just can't be justified.

Later,
bbeck

You have to remember that, no matter what, a certain percentage of the population will always be sociopathic and/or raised in cruel circumstances.

Bullies from "healthy households" are most likely genetic sociopaths, with retarded capacities for empathy, kindness, bonding, etc. Females in this category are rarely physically violent, unlike the males, but they are destructive in other (i.e. psychological) ways.

Bullies from "unhealthy households" include the ones in the previous paragraph, plus the ones who have been tragically trained to use power and violence against those they recognize as weaker than them.

And fighting back? It is usually pointless, because (a) bullies only pick on the ones who CAN'T successfully fight back and (b) bullies naturally have an affinity for violence that other kids don't have. Bullies are crude, but they aren't stupid- they size up potential victims before doing anything. If somebody looks like too much of a challenge, the bully loses interest in a hurry.

I can't believe I'm commenting on this again... Must find something more worthwhile to think about.

"I can't believe I'm commenting on this again... Must find something more worthwhile to think about."

HEH, you and me both, Dog.

Later,
bbeck