Boys: They Need Fathers, Not Medication, Not Gender Neutrality, Not Feminism

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

For your consideration:

I agree wholeheartedly with the article and it well illustrates why the Church (and the Lord) does what it does (priesthood, scouts etc.) and why it's opposed to what it's opposed to (feminism, homosexuality, divorce, etc.). I also think it illustrates in part why women don't have (and will never have; yes I've been to the temple recently) the priesthood conferred upon them. It was made for boys.

I know I needed my Father...the one who took us in and gave me purpose after my bigamist bio-father left us alone and homeless. My last name was Nation when born...but since 8 years of age, proudly "Lee". Albert "Lee" took in my mother and three children and made us his own. All that is good in me as a man is because of the good in him. His example allowed me to adopt my daughter and give her my name. Now my daughter has given my new grandson my name...not his last of course, that is his father's. Adopting my daughter is the greatest thing I have ever done, and why I will go to heaven...she served a mission and has given me 4 grandchildren...and today I welcome my son home from his mission. All of these blessing are due to my earthly and Heavenly Father, not to mention I have the world's greatest Mother.

[thesometimesaint]

Pa Pa:

As one good father to another. Thank You.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Surely it would be a stretch to jump that far. But the theory that there is a causative effect related to the absence of an appropriate father figure in a boy's life, in that a larger number of such boys grow up to become violent criminals is not disproven by the fact that not all do so.

I have heard it said that a large majority of men in prison for violent crimes did not have a father in the home. If this is supported by statistical fact, are you willing to affirm that it is still a stretch? This is the idea behind the OP, that there is a tendency towards greater violent acting out in young men who do not have a paternal guiding hand.

This is worht repeating and you are exactly right.

[KevinG]

I researched the role of fathers in their children's growth for a book (never published).

The #1 factor in a child adopting their parents values (the behavioral measurement used to determine "effectiveness" of parenting) was that their father showed them affection at a young age.

What that tells me is a father must show love towards his spouse and children. That can come through fishing trips, ballet recitals and/or cooking dinner on family home evening. But it must come to insure a child becomes a fully developed and secure human being.

[thesometimesaint]

Surely it would be a stretch to jump that far. But the theory that there is a causative effect related to the absence of an appropriate father figure in a boy's life, in that a larger number of such boys grow up to become violent criminals is not disproven by the fact that not all do so.

I have heard it said that a large majority of men in prison for violent crimes did not have a father in the home. If this is supported by statistical fact, are you willing to affirm that it is still a stretch? This is the idea behind the OP, that there is a tendency towards greater violent acting out in young men who do not have a paternal guiding hand.

You are mixing cause and effect in your first statement. The vast majority of young men without fathers in the home don't become violent criminals. However while your second statement is factually correct. The vast majority of young men that become criminals don't have a father in the home.

[Walden]

You are obvioulsy failing to see my point or the point of the article. No one is saying every boy without a father, for whatever reason- that they all will turn out badly and in a life of crime.

What is being said is that the way society has attempted to deal with the issue is faulty.

But by all means keep condemning the male instincts in boys, feminize them, and fill the full of zombie drugs. Keep telling them that being male is bad and something to be repressed.

But don't curse the consequences of those actions.

(My last post in this topic)

While I agree that there is a very real problem when it comes to absentee fathers, the correlation between absentee fathers and/or the feminization of boys and the resulting violence is without merit.

Both England and Canada have similar rates of single-parent households as we do in America (roughly a difference of 5 percentage points, but still in the same ballpark). Parenting techniques in these countries is very similar to the parenting techniques used here in America.

Yet the rates of gun violence in those countries is absolutely miniscule in comparison with the United States. With regard to gun violence in those countries, the main differences are that they have tough gun control laws, and their TV programming contains approximately 80% less instances of violence than our TV programming here in the United States.

Fill children's heads with violent imagery and make access to guns easy, and then wonder why our society has such high gun violence rates?

[thesometimesaint]

With the exception of the CBC, and we have PBS, I don't see a great deal of difference in violent imagery in the media between Canada and the US. I don't know enough about the Brits to comment on their media.

[Stargazer]

You are mixing cause and effect in your first statement. The vast majority of young men without fathers in the home don't become violent criminals. However while your second statement is factually correct. The vast majority of young men that become criminals don't have a father in the home.

Actually, I don't think I am mixing cause and effect. I think you misunderstood me. And then you went ahead and stated exactly what I stated. I don't see a disagreement.

[Mark Beesley]

So, what I take from all of this is that single parents and children of single parents should not be allowed to own guns. I'm good with that.

[DavidB]

So, what I take from all of this is that single parents and children of single parents should not be allowed to own guns. I'm good with that.

There you go again, blinding yourself to the root cause(s). The root cause(s) is single parent families and the dangers they pose; and/or the danger males in general pose to society.

The conclusion you need to understand is a total ban on single parent families and males. Single parent families and males are a clear and present danger to the safety of others.

[Mark Beesley]

The conclusion you need to understand is a total ban on single parent families and males.

How would that work exactly?

(You were kidding, right?)

[DavidB]

How would that work exactly?

(You were kidding, )

I propose A Brave New World.

[thesometimesaint]

I propose A Brave New World.

Sounds more like Lord of the Flies to me.

[The Nehor]

I propose A Brave New World.

Can we get rid of idiots while we are at it?

[DavidB]

"Idiot" is a subject term, while a noncommitted actor may not think noncommitted activity is idiocy, others do. So there isnt any real way to weed out idiots, as it is a matter of perspective.

[Nathair/|\]

With the exception of the CBC, and we have PBS, I don't see a great deal of difference in violent imagery in the media between Canada and the US. I don't know enough about the Brits to comment on their media.

As much as I like to annoy the English (It's my duty as an ethnic Ulster Scot), I have to give them credit for creating the most inspiring show on TV, and co-starring one of my kinsmen (my g-grandmother's maiden name was Harkness.)

[BCSpace]

"I blame my father, ‘cuz he left me. My real father was a Black Panther. But when I was growing up, I never knew who my real father was, for sure. My stepfather was a gangster, a straight-up street hustler. My mom got a kid, but he didn’t even care: ‘Oh that’s my son.’ He took care of me, gave me money. But he was a criminal too—out there doing his own thing. And he came and brought me money and left. I know for a fact if I had a father, I’d have some discipline. I’d have more confidence. Your mother can’t calm you down the way a man can. Your mother can’t reassure you the way a man can. Your mother can’t show you where your manhood was. You need a man to teach you how to be a man."

-Tupac Shakur

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

For your consideration:

I agree wholeheartedly with the article and it well illustrates why the Church (and the Lord) does what it does (priesthood, scouts etc.) and why it's opposed to what it's opposed to (feminism, homosexuality, divorce, etc.). I also think it illustrates in part why women don't have (and will never have; yes I've been to the temple recently) the priesthood conferred upon them. It was made for boys.

ETA:

One of the saddest things I ever heard was on the first day of school, all Project Managers were required to be at each school that had summer work. We were just there to make sure all things were working, but had to be in suits any time we met with Admin types. The head of this minority school saw me in the hallways, and asked if I was a new teacher. I told her who I was, she interrupted and asked do you have any teaching experience? I replied, yes 20+ years in part time Adult education; she replied I will hire you on the spot, she went on to say she needed a man at this school (in her words) any man that these boys can lookup too! I could see the concern in her eyes.