Are "Male Role Models" necessary?

[Raúl Duke]

I keep reading/hearing (even in my psych class) that children (specifically male children; but I think it's said all children need it.) who are growing up need to have male role models.

People seem to accept this assumption freely (at least in my psych class they did) yet I'm suspicious about the whole thing....

SO I ask: are they necessary or is this just some patriarchal psycho-babble?

P.S. wasn't 100% sure whether this should be in discrimination (since it could lead to prejudice against single mothers) or in Science (because its a developmental psychology type question).

[TC]

No, its completely made up, fathers just don't don't want to acknowledge the reality that they're basically superfluous to their children on a developmental level. This myth helps them feel better about themselves, like they're needed, necessary, and ought to entitled to statutory rights over their children.

Its totally bullshit, but when a large group of people have a great deal of personal interest in promoting bullshit people often accept it unquestioningly.

[Raúl Duke]

I agree with you completly...but for the sake of argument could you (or anyone else) get any scientific studies about this matter?

I always felt this assumption was false and also became suspicious about it because usually those who state these assumption do so like if it was an obvious self-evident truth or as if it was "common sense".

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Young men have "male role models".

But really, nobody actually wants to be a role model anymore anyway. The UK government tries hard to recruit male teach and male child carers and male child nurses.

But, seeing as few men work in those areas to begin with, its seems to show that no one is really bothered other than the government.

I dont think boys need male role models. I dont think girls need female role models. They just need good environments to learn and grow up it.

[Obese-Dimentia]

While I dont believe that the Male is unneccessary. The Male Role is a facade. No Scientific studies found but let me tell you from personal experience the concept of a Father toughening up his son is a load of Cowpie. It can come from either parent.

[Monty Cantsin]

I would be interesting to read about actual research done in the area - it seems to me that children need social connections and emotional support - a lot of research into and around attachment theory demonstrates this. But as to gender and sex roles socialization and role models I don’t know. I know that a lot of people argue problems surrounding boy’s education has a lot to do with a lack of favourable male role models.

I don’t know what the scientific grounding for this causal explanation is; I would like to. Vague social constructivist and tabula rasa arguments don’t do it for me.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

I grew up with a friend of mine. We've known each other since we were four. I think he wanted to know his father, but he turned out to be a great guy, confident, independent, smart with great skills in certain areas.

But for that to happen it also meant that he had a good relationship with his mother.

I think it had more to do with the mother than lack of father, and visa versa. I think a good father could raise a child without a mother, if needed be.

[Dominicana_1965]

"Male role models" are social implications made by society due to their policing. The same way a daughter's "role model" might be to be a "good wife" applies to the males. Society has adopted social norms and likes to add social essentials to social constructions, something the Bourgeoisie has historically pushed for. (privatization)

I don't think we should look up to individuals because of their social backgrounds, instead we should look into their contributions. Im for the recognization as a primary form of deconstruting identity, but once this identity is discovered and analyzed, people should break it down.

We see how in society celebrities are sometimes seen as "role models" but when one really goes in-depth with their analysis, one finds out that their actual image is more of a pseudo-Bourgeois wannabe imitation. Which can be understood as a "social normative", so in my opinion "role models" are people that have become the ideal form of what society unconciously fights to maintain.

[Entrails Konfetti]

As for mentors in general, they can't be put foward as such; people have to choose their own, otherwize it doesn't happen.

[The-Spark]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 09:10 am
I grew up with a friend of mine. We've known each other since we were four. I think he wanted to know his father, but he turned out to be a great guy, confident, independent, smart with great skills in certain areas.

But for that to happen it also meant that he had a good relationship with his mother.

I think it had more to do with the mother than lack of father, and visa versa. I think a good father could raise a child without a mother, if needed be.
My old neighbour, also never knew his father, but he also did not have any sort of good relationship with his mother, they would fight constantly etc. I think people are saying things like he needs a male romodel and shit, but really i think its just an escuse to cover up bad parenting.

Where NWOG grew up with a guy who didnt know his father but had a good relationship with his mom, he turned out to be a great guy.
Where my neighbour grew up never knowing his dad and constantly arguing with his mom, he turned out to with issues.

I believe kids just need a good parent, regardless of sex.

[counterblast]

Without role models exhibiting/imposing the constructed concepts of masculinity or femininity, boys and girls would have no model in which to imitate, and girls and boys would be free to explore behaviors based completely on free will rather than social expectation.

So yes, role models are necessary in order for boys to turn out "male" in gender, be it a dad teaching a son about "manhood", a mom buying her son a baseball patterned quilt, or a TV commercial marketing Hot Wheels cars to boys.

[The-Spark]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 02:44 am
Without role models exhibiting/imposing the constructed concepts of masculinity or femininity, boys and girls would have no model in which to imitate, and girls and boys would be free to explore behaviors based completely on free will rather than social expectation.

So yes, role models are necessary in order for boys to turn out "male" in gender, be it a dad teaching a son about "manhood", a mom buying her son a baseball patterned quilt, or a TV commercial marketing Hot Wheels cars to boys.
But what exactly, would qualify a good "male", one that has been tought how to be a "man"? Just out of curiousity, how can they sterotype sexes so much that if a boy does not grow up with a father to teach him to be a "man" he is not considersed a man?

[counterblast]

Originally posted by The-[email protected] 18, 2007 02:52 am
But what exactly, would qualify a good "male", one that has been tought how to be a "man"? Just out of curiousity, how can they sterotype sexes so much that if a boy does not grow up with a father to teach him to be a "man" he is not considersed a man?
A boy cannot actually be taught to be a man. For he is not more or less likely to grow whiskers, have his scrotum drop, or have his voice deepen because of social circumstance. A boy becomes a man by default.

A boy may, however, exhibit traits that society does not typically label as masculine. For example, a boy may enjoy baking cookies, wearing dresses, and playing with dolls because he grows up in a household in which members adhere to the traditional "feminine" stereotype.

So a boys sex cannot be affected by his upbringing, while his gender can be.


sex - either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures

gender - the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex

[Raúl Duke]

A boy may, however, exhibit traits that society does not typically label as masculine. For example, a boy may enjoy baking cookies, wearing dresses, and playing with dolls because he grows up in a household in which members adhere to the traditional "feminine" stereotype.

I understand your point and that that might be the case...

(However, what is considered masculine differs from culture to culture and also cultures can change.)

but the thing is....the people who usually accept the assumption about the necessity of "father figures/male role model" usually go on and think/say/allude(usually it is alluded in my psych class):"If you don't have one you might grow up to be a sociopath!"

I think that the idea of lacking a "father figure/male role model" makes one crazy/insane/unstable/sociopathic is crap.

All that is necessary is just good "parenting" from anyone, as others pointed out. (whether it's actually your parent/relative or not.)

[manic expression]

It's very important for kids to have male role models. That's not to say that female role models are unimportant, quite the opposite. If a boy grows up without a male role model, it's quite possible that he won't know how to behave in many situations, or that he won't have someone to look up to in certain aspects. Likewise, boys need females in their lives because if not, they won't develop any sort of emotional sensitivity.

Is it necessary? Not exactly. Is it a positive influence? Very much so. It's good for kids to have both males and females in their lives.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 18, 2007 05:40 pm
It's very important for kids to have male role models. That's not to say that female role models are unimportant, quite the opposite. If a boy grows up without a male role model, it's quite possible that he won't know how to behave in many situations, or that he won't have someone to look up to in certain aspects. Likewise, boys need females in their lives because if not, they won't develop any sort of emotional sensitivity.
What!? Are you seriously suggesting that "emotional sensitivity" is an overwhelmingly female trait, and that boys won't even develop it if they don't have "females in their lives?" That has to be the most absurd statement I've heard this week.

Males and females are born with the same intellectual and emotional capacities. The purpose of social pressures and "role models" is primarily to inhibit the expression of those traits that society considers unacceptable for people of a certain gender or class. For example, male children are strongly pressured not to cry, female children are pressured to be more submissive than their male counterparts, and so on.

Of course it's preferable for children to be exposed to different kinds of people so that they learn how to relate to them, and two parents (of whatever gender) are typically better than one, because raising children is hard work. Come to think of it, three parents would probably be better than two. But no, a child does not need gendered role models.

[Dr Mindbender]

if we didnt have an equal male/female role model balance, then over a long term period of time we would end up in a 'matriarchal society' which could be potentially as reactionary as society geared against the interests of women. I think the argument could also be extended to black, or gay role models etc.

Obviously, im not insinuating there are more female than there are male role models at the moment as that simply isnt the case.

[rouchambeau]

ME:
It's very important for kids to have male role models. That's not to say that female role models are unimportant, quite the opposite. If a boy grows up without a male role model, it's quite possible that he won't know how to behave in many situations, or that he won't have someone to look up to in certain aspects. Likewise, boys need females in their lives because if not, they won't develop any sort of emotional sensitivity.
You're essentializing men and women in a very naive manner. Men are not naturally more masculine than women (and visa-versa).

US:
if we didnt have an equal male/female role model balance, then over a long term period of time we would end up in a 'matriarchal society' which could be potentially as reactionary as society geared against the interests of women. I think the argument could also be extended to black, or gay role models etc.

That's absurd.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by rouchambeau
That's absurd.
At the moment, yes i agree.
Im talking in the far off future, if female role models outnumbered male ones.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Uh, no, because the existence of "role models" is not what gives one gender power over another. Patriarchy wasn't created by an excess of fathers.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 18, 2007 11:13 pm
Uh, no, because the existence of "role models" is not what gives one gender power over another. Patriarchy wasn't created by an excess of fathers.
parenthood has nothing to do with it. Im referring to people in influential positions. Its as true in old days as it is today that sportspeople, actors, respected artists etc Held greater sway in the social limelight than leaders, kings or politicians.

[Raúl Duke]

Im referring to people in influential positions. Its as true in old days as it is today that sportspeople, actors, respected artists etc Held greater sway in the social limelight than leaders, kings or politicians.


When I used the word "Male role models" I wasn't thinking of influential people specifically.

I was thinking more in the lines of the need for a "father figure" in general and more specifcally the need for male fathers and whether not having one did or did not make you unstable/sociopathic.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 18, 2007 09:24 pm
What!? Are you seriously suggesting that "emotional sensitivity" is an overwhelmingly female trait, and that boys won't even develop it if they don't have "females in their lives?" That has to be the most absurd statement I've heard this week.

Males and females are born with the same intellectual and emotional capacities. The purpose of social pressures and "role models" is primarily to inhibit the expression of those traits that society considers unacceptable for people of a certain gender or class. For example, male children are strongly pressured not to cry, female children are pressured to be more submissive than their male counterparts, and so on.

Of course it's preferable for children to be exposed to different kinds of people so that they learn how to relate to them, and two parents (of whatever gender) are typically better than one, because raising children is hard work. Come to think of it, three parents would probably be better than two. But no, a child does not need gendered role models.
Regardless of the rhetoric here, in today's world females are more emotionally sensitive than men. Of course it's not an eternal truth, of course it doesn't have to be that way, and of course there are exceptions. None of those things disprove my point, because we're dealing with facts and the present situation, not hypotheticals. Show me a society where men are just as emotionally sensitive as women, and I'll concede that that society doesn't need a good balance of male and female role models.

And yes, I am claiming that men will not be as emotionally sensitive if they do not have females in their lives. Without females in a boy's life, it is far more likely that they will not develop key aspects of their character that females can bring about. Oh, and of course this isn't biological law, but that is tertiary because people interact the way they do, and we need to work with that whether we like it or not.

On the concept of two same-gender parents raising a kid, I see it as a negligable factor. Why? Because some of the most impactful role models kids can be exposed to are outside the home. Parents can be role models, and usually are, but there is far more to the equation than that. Therefore, this isn't about two parents of different genders, it's about having both men and women to look up to.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 10:31 pm
You're essentializing men and women in a very naive manner. Men are not naturally more masculine than women (and visa-versa).
They are, though. That's my point.

We can all agree on how men don't have to be more masculine than women from dawn to dusk, but what does that accomplish? Right now, men are different than women, and once we accept that as the present reality, we can move forward.

[luxemburg89]

This is an interesting question but the most credible psychologists to study this (Hodges and Tizard) concluded that parental care is no more successful in raising children than daycare - and they performed the study on working-class children in Manchester. Further research, and the development of children in general, show that single parents (be they male or female) can raise children just as successfully as both-parent families. Despite what some think, and I have encountered people on this site (they were all in OI btw) who think this way, Bowlby, the most famous psychologist on development, has actually been proven wrong in his maternal deprivation theory (that if a child is deprived of a MOTHER - he stupidly did not consider the father - between 1 and 3 years old they will be damaged in later life); this has been proven wrong by both studies and society itself. In fact Kagan, and later Anderson, found that children in daycare in most countries do not differ in results from those raised at home by parents. The only diversity in results came between individual children - as most people would predict. I think you'll find the question is not is paternal care-giving necessary for development, but rather is parental care-giving necessary for development. Result show this is not the case, and that so long as an attachments can be formed to care-givers (be they nurse, day-care person, family, friends etc) then children will have healthy developments.

Saying that I was raised by both my parents and I was extremely happy and would not want it to have been any other way - but that's a personal preference.

[Ol' Dirty]

No, its completely made up, fathers just don't don't want to acknowledge the reality that they're basically superfluous to their children on a developmental level.

That's horeshit.


This myth helps them feel better about themselves, like they're needed, necessary, and ought to entitled to statutory rights over their children.

The 1st unwritten rule of paternity:

Screw the *****; he's your kid!

[Coggeh]

I used to think "male models " as it were were necessary but not anymore .

Its backwards and conservative to think that also in the case of female role models .Its like when kids are growing up boys get army men and a football and girls get barbies and a baby doll.

Its constraining society to do one or the other and engineering them to think that some things are for women and some are for boys .


Having a father figure isn't a necessary thing but boys like to have someone to look up too . But it doesn't require that person to be male . I look up to my mom more then my dad even so that theory which alot of father rights campaigners use is total bull .

[The-Spark]

Honestly i dont think they need role models, just good parents. If they want role models, they can find and choose rolemodels for themselves.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Its important to have two good role models. Gender is not important in this but teaching kids well is.

There would be less crime if kids were raised better. More discipline.

But gender is not an important factor. :)

[The-Spark]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 02:07 am
Its important to have two good role models. Gender is not important in this but teaching kids well is.

There would be less crime if kids were raised better. More discipline.

But gender is not an important factor. :)
What you say is true, but remember, sometimes crime is a neccesity, not an option.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 12:07 pm
There would be less crime if kids were raised better. More discipline.

Or if there were less poor folk? :mellow:

[counterblast]

Not to go too off topic, but doesn't the whole assumption that children are in need of stern adult guidelines on gender and sexuality, further contribute to the marginalisation of children?

For example, when I worked in a parent cooperative daycare, attempts by workers to integrate children into decision-making functions were percieved by many parents as absurd... It was expected that if children were allowed the capability to decide their daily activities, and daily functions of the daycare, chaos would surely ensue... It seems as though through all of our radical ideology; we aren't questioning whether fashioning children in ways we find "desirable" is inhibiting their freedom and creativity...

[counterblast]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 02:07 am
There would be less crime if kids were raised better. More discipline.

That is entirely untrue. Crime among children is at a historical low, while crime among adults is going up. It seems that adults are the ones who need "raising" and "discipline".

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Maybe when they were kids they were raised wrong. Not enough discipline.

[Black Dagger]

You think the best way to reduce the amount of crime is to give children 'more discipline'? :unsure:

What evidence do you have to support that conclusion?

[bcbm]

Originally posted by bleeding gums [email protected] 24, 2007 09:26 am
You think the best way to reduce the amount of crime is to give children 'more discipline'? :unsure:

What evidence do you have to support that conclusion?
He also thinks the Stasi were pretty awesome, I wouldn't waste too much time on this discussion.

And just so this post isn't a flame... crime is generally caused by economic factors and has little, if anything, to do with discipline. Indeed, plenty of criminals have had the most "disciplined" childhoods you could imagine (abuse, etc), and it didn't seem to do much good, did it?

[Marsella]

And just so this post isn't a flame... crime is generally caused by economic factors and has little, if anything, to do with discipline. Indeed, plenty of criminals have had the most "disciplined" childhoods you could imagine (abuse, etc), and it didn't seem to do much good, did it?

But generally, wouldn't it be right to say that people who had a more disciplened, structured, upbringing would do better in education/employment thus vititating economic duress to commit crime?

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 09:49 am
But generally, wouldn't it be right to say that people who had a more disciplened, structured, upbringing would do better in education/employment thus vititating economic duress to commit crime?
Disciplined and structured are two separate things. Structure is important: children with two parents tend to do best. Discipline isn't as important, although what exactly are we meaning here? Petey seems to be talking about a fairly authoritarian approach to child rearing, which I would doubt having the desire effect.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Originally posted by black coffee black metal+August 24, 2007 03:33 pm--> (black coffee black metal @ August 24, 2007 03:33 pm)
bleeding gums [email protected] 24, 2007 09:26 am
You think the best way to reduce the amount of crime is to give children 'more discipline'? :unsure:

What evidence do you have to support that conclusion?
He also thinks the Stasi were pretty awesome, I wouldn't waste too much time on this discussion.

And just so this post isn't a flame... crime is generally caused by economic factors and has little, if anything, to do with discipline. Indeed, plenty of criminals have had the most "disciplined" childhoods you could imagine (abuse, etc), and it didn't seem to do much good, did it? [/b]
stasi? Huh what I say about stasi? What is stasi?

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 10:08 am

stasi? Huh what I say about stasi? What is stasi?
It wasn't on the board, forget it.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by petey+August 24, 2007 11:08 am--> (petey @ August 24, 2007 11:08 am)
Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 24, 2007 03:33 pm

bleeding gums [email protected] 24, 2007 09:26 am
You think the best way to reduce the amount of crime is to give children 'more discipline'? :unsure:

What evidence do you have to support that conclusion?
He also thinks the Stasi were pretty awesome, I wouldn't waste too much time on this discussion.

And just so this post isn't a flame... crime is generally caused by economic factors and has little, if anything, to do with discipline. Indeed, plenty of criminals have had the most "disciplined" childhoods you could imagine (abuse, etc), and it didn't seem to do much good, did it?
stasi? Huh what I say about stasi? What is stasi? [/b]
The Stasi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi) were the East German police force. Their full name was Ministerium fuer Staatssicherheit.

[Invader Zim]

I don't know... Being born into a single parent family, I think I should have some incite into this queston, but I don't think I do really.

In some ways I obviously do wish that my father was about. But you don't miss what you've never had. I think I lack confidence in certain areas that, had I had a 'male role model' perhaps that would not be the case. But who knows, maybe I would have been exactly the same?

I do, however, think that people who take outright stances on the subject are really ignorant and probably not from a single parent family. because I think that if you are you understand the question better and are more open to the fact that you do not know how different you would have been and as such are far less willing to dismiss one side out of hand.

But thats my position.

[bcbm]

I do, however, think that people who take outright stances on the subject are really ignorant and probably not from a single parent family. because I think that if you are you understand the question better and are more open to the fact that you do not know how different you would have been and as such are far less willing to dismiss one side out of hand.

I don't think its about "dismissing" single parents, but there is a good deal of research on the subject and it all suggests having two parents is better than one. That isn't a knock against those families, or children raised with single parents, or the parenting abilities of that single parent: that's just the evidence.

[Black Dagger]

Right, and that kinda makes sense no?

I mean, raising kids isn't easy (particularly in a society where wage labour is a time burglar and kids are $$$).... so i reckon it makes sense that the whole thing would work out better if that responsibility was shared. Collectivism gets the goods!

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

In that case I never expressed an opinion on stasi either way.

However, I NEVER criticize leftist governments of any part of the world. I may not always agree with them but if their enemy is my enemy they're on good terms with me. :)

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 02:51 am
However, I NEVER criticize leftist governments of any part of the world.
Why on earth not? :huh:

Critical thinking is well... critical!

[Alexander-hellenist]

I think a male role model is absolutely needed for a growing man, not only does this give the child someone to look up to and to aspire to but someone to connect with them on there leve if your talking about a close family freind.

But in the sence of a famous male role model, unless your refering to historic terms like alexander the great, which their simply is not people around today who can acheive something on that magnitude its useless

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Originally posted by bleeding gums malatesta+August 29, 2007 04:54 pm--> (bleeding gums malatesta @ August 29, 2007 04:54 pm)
[email protected] 30, 2007 02:51 am
However, I NEVER criticize leftist governments of any part of the world.
Why on earth not? :huh:

Critical thinking is well... critical! [/b]
Their enemy is my enemy. That's why.

[Coggeh]

Originally posted by petey+August 29, 2007 05:13 pm--> (petey @ August 29, 2007 05:13 pm)
Originally posted by bleeding gums [email protected] 29, 2007 04:54 pm

[email protected] 30, 2007 02:51 am
However, I NEVER criticize leftist governments of any part of the world.
Why on earth not? :huh:

Critical thinking is well... critical!
Their enemy is my enemy. That's why. [/b]
Thats just stupid , you have to criticize left governments , just because they may not be on good terms with lets say the US doesn't mean their 100% on the ball . What nations do you define as "leftist" ?

What about the soviet union ?


Also this is a bit off topic so maybe start a thread ?

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by petey+August 30, 2007 03:13 am--> (petey @ August 30, 2007 03:13 am)
Originally posted by bleeding gums [email protected] 29, 2007 04:54 pm

[email protected] 30, 2007 02:51 am
However, I NEVER criticize leftist governments of any part of the world.
Why on earth not? :huh:

Critical thinking is well... critical!
Their enemy is my enemy. That's why. [/b]
Of course, but sharing a common enemy is superficial grounds for support.

I assume you don't refrain from criticising Osama Bin Laden? He's an enemy of the US government.

Or the christian identity movement? The KKK? Aryan Nation? These are all enemies of the United States.

The point is... critical thinking is a must (it's integral to having a genuinely revolutionary perspective of society - if someone is not approaching all of the world with a critical mindset they run the danger of becoming or supporting reactionaries) - you can't stop criticising someone merely because they're a leftist or because you share a common enemy. Being an enemy of your enemy DOES NOT make someone else a friend, that's the bankrupt 'logic' of the US government (i.e. US support for Bin Laden et al during the soviet invasion of afghanistan), not of revolutionary leftists.

[MarxSchmarx]

Its backwards and conservative to think that also in the case of female role models .Its like when kids are growing up boys get army men and a football and girls get barbies and a baby doll.

You're setting up a straw-man. The fact of the matter is there are real differences between growing young boys and young girls, and these differences have social implications. Furthermore, these differences are found cross-culturally and across time, and can be seen in primates too. So it's fair to conclude they are probably fairly innate.

Let me defend the importance of male role models.

Children learn everything from language and social mores by imitating their elders. Children also more readily imitate people they can relate to - e.g. family members over strangers, younger adults over older adults. And, for better or worse, the same applies to gender. Ceterus parabus, boys imitate grown up men, girls imitate grown up women.

Young boys have different needs than young girls. An older male figure, who has gone through the crap they're going through, can help them along and facilitate their development. And I would argue a "male role model" can help socialize young boys more effectively than female role models. This isn't to say boys can't have female role-models, or that mother's can't socialize their sons on their own if they really tried. Only that all this is a lot easier if there is a male role model around.

And in our society this IS important. Young boys are encouraged by their peers and the media to take terrible risks. Many don't intuit that they can "be a man" without being stupid. So they make horrible mistakes. I'd argue that is why young men have much much higher mortality rates than young women. If young men had older men that they could relate to and respected, it sends the message that it's ok to not be a dumbass. And since children learn by copying their elders, its quite natural that male role models are helpful for young boys.

I mean, let me put the question this way: think of all the changes young women go through growing up. What if their elders consisted entirely of men, and there were no women around who could empathize with growing up as a girl? What if a majority of daughters were only raised by their fathers? I bet you the world will be going bananas about daughters needing mothers in their lives.

[Jay Moksha]

i think children should have their rights to have their role model.....<<<(wut da [email protected]#k is he talkin) and it dont matter who they really are..<<<(he&#39;s drunk hahaha)

[Comrada J]

I come from a broken family with an abusive mother but no dad, things where pretty shit but I don&#39;t necessarily think thats because I had no father around. It would have helped though and I&#39;ve met a lot of guys who really look up to there fathers, that said I think its most important that a child needs a good parent or good parents no matter the gender.

[manic expression]

I think people might be losing sight of something here. Role models are not always parents, and some of a child&#39;s most influential role models will be found outside of the family. A teacher, a coach, a friend&#39;s parent, an older buddy, a mentor; role models can be found in all of these relationships and others.

[synthesis]

One thing that is important to recognize is that in our society, it is considered essential for males to be "men" and therefore the existence of a figure representing the positive side of masculinity is extremely important for boys to become functioning members of the society we happen to live in.

To say that it is unnecessary is specious; there are of course plenty of exceptions but one of the biggest problems facing single mother households is that the boy, seeking to be a "man", will look to the environment around them for direction, which can often lead to negative behavior.

It can teach them, for example, that it&#39;s better to spend your money on dumb shit that will impress people around you than to save it so you can pay your bills. Small example, but you get the point.

[MarxSchmarx]

I think people might be losing sight of something here. Role models are not always parents, and some of a child&#39;s most influential role models will be found outside of the family. A teacher, a coach, a friend&#39;s parent, an older buddy, a mentor; role models can be found in all of these relationships and others.

True enough. The problem is adults outside the family for young boys often consist of females. In my experience, single mothers of young children rarely have close male friends.

I also read that something like 6 out of 7 k-6th grade teachers are women. I bet the ratio is further skewed in areas like day-care, pre-school, and children&#39;s librarians.

Until these vocations are no longer seen as "women&#39;s work" I see few male role models anywhere for many young boys. Well, maybe coaches of youth sports, but coaches are discouraged from getting too involved with their player&#39;s family lives. Maybe there should be "affirmative action for men" in these professions to assure gender parity.

[counterblast]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 08:29 am
Children learn everything from language and social mores by imitating their elders. Children also more readily imitate people they can relate to - e.g. family members over strangers, younger adults over older adults. And, for better or worse, the same applies to gender. Ceterus parabus, boys imitate grown up men, girls imitate grown up women

Do you have any statistics to back these statements up, or are you just elaborating on baseless generalizations in support of the nuclear family paradigm?

You claim that children "imitate people they can relate to"; but what does that even mean?

Does the white boy who lives in an exclusive suburb really "relate" to the black rapper playing on his car radio?

Do the mostly 20-something RevLefters really "relate" to the 60-year-old communist leaders they quote all the time?

Yes and no. They don&#39;t relate to these individuals on a socially constructed level (physical/mental)... but they do relate to them regarding common ideology, values, interests, ect.

[MarxSchmarx]

Do you have any statistics to back these statements up, or are you just elaborating on baseless generalizations in support of the nuclear family paradigm?

Somebody seems a little testy. What I said doesn&#39;t hinge on supporting "the nuclear family paradigm". But as far as "statistics" go, a place to start might be:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmental_psychology

And gobs of professional books and articles. Good luck sloughing through it all.



You claim that children "imitate people they can relate to"; but what does that even mean?

Does the white boy who lives in an exclusive suburb really "relate" to the black rapper playing on his car radio?

Do the mostly 20-something RevLefters really "relate" to the 60-year-old communist leaders they quote all the time?


First, it&#39;s not a stretch to imagine what immature suburban boys have in common with immature commercial rappers or wannabe revolutionary heroes have in common with wannabe Napoleons.

What does it mean that these people you mention DON&#39;T relate to rappers or communist leaders? That seems an even less tenable proposition. As long as they perceive a relation (delusions of grandeur?) most young people say "they relate to" these groups.

So as regards "male role models", it&#39;s easier to perceive a relation to someone of your own gender.

[JoePedo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 08:31 pm
I keep reading/hearing (even in my psych class) that children (specifically male children; but I think it&#39;s said all children need it.) who are growing up need to have male role models.

People seem to accept this assumption freely (at least in my psych class they did) yet I&#39;m suspicious about the whole thing....

SO I ask: are they necessary or is this just some patriarchal psycho-babble?
Well, let&#39;s see...

...I don&#39;t believe in there being pre-scripted roles, which would sort of slant my opinion to the "babble" side.

I don&#39;t believe in gender having roles, nor in actions being gendered, so that&#39;d sort of slant it to the "patriarchal bullshit" side...

...but that&#39;s just my guesses...

[Batko]

Male role models are absolutely vital to the growth of healthy young men. Girls should learn to be women and boys should learn to be men, upstanding and free-thinking. But oh, sorry, does this go against lefty/feminist elitist social engineering of us "great unwashed"?

The honest truth is that men and women are psychologically and physically different. A war is being waged against boyhood by the liberal elite wing of the ruling class, trying to "de-masculinize" boys, beat the testosterone out of the youth. Boys are being identified as threats to social peace from an early age and targeted for a program of pasification. Meanwhile, females are flooding off to universities, making lots of money, and RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES&#33; theres your great feminist revolution - Maggy Thatcher and Hillary Clinton&#33;

- for EQUALITY of the sexes

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected]October 16, 2007 11:58 pm
Male role models are absolutely vital to the growth of healthy young men.
Sources, fuckface, produces them.


Girls should learn to be women and boys should learn to be men,upstanding and free-thinking.

What the fuck does this even mean? Excluding a sex/gender incongruity girls will grow up to be women and boys will grow up to be men whatever they&#39;re taught.


But oh, sorry, does this go against lefty/feminist elitist social engineering of us "great unwashed"?

I&#39;m sure you&#39;ve got lots to get off your incensed right-winger chest but I&#39;m afraid I&#39;ll have to stop you ther and remind you that you&#39;re full of shit.


The honest truth is that men and women are psychologically and physically different.

Physically, undeniably...but psychologically? You&#39;re stuck with early 20th psuedoscience.


A war is being waged against boyhood by the liberal elite wing of the ruling class,

:lol: Also, there is a war against Christmas and the Jews are hiding in your closet.


trying to "de-masculinize" boys, beat the testosterone out of the youth.

You&#39;re a weirdo and an idiot. No one is trying to "de-masculinise" anyone. Maybe you&#39;ve confused "not enforcing gender stereotypes" with "enforcing femininity" but that would be your own fault.


Boys are being identified as threats to social peace from an early age and targeted for a program of pasification.

You really believe this, don&#39;t you? Good fucking Allah&#33; Maybe some people are teaching boys not to be complete ****s but that&#39;s about it.


Meanwhile, females are flooding off to universities,

How dare they leave the kitchen and get an education&#33; That thar larnin&#39; is fer da menfolks&#33;


making lots of money, and RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES&#33;

HOLY FUCKING CHRIST NO&#33;


theres your great feminist revolution - Maggy Thatcher and Hillary Clinton&#33;

:lol: :lol: :lol:


- for EQUALITY of the sexes

Don&#39;t hide behind that bullshit.