Holding NFL's feet to the fire should mean getting men to throw the kitchen sink at domestic violence...What's up with the anti-violence lady using 2 violent metaphors?
... to invest millions of dollars in grassroots organizations, in going into middle schools and high schools and colleges and talking to young men about dealing with anger, about how they treat women. I think that's where you're gonna see change. Going into the school systems and the younger spaces and really reprogramming how we raise men.Rush made much of the word "reprogramming." His transcript headline paraphrases Fagan's statement as "We Must Reprogram Men." His monologue goes on to paraphrase her repeatedly like this:
We have been in the process of reprogramming men and the way they are raised for a long time... we need to reprogram the way we're raising men... it's the guys that have to be reprogrammed... I've never run across anybody who suggested that women need to be reprogrammed. I don't think I've even come across anybody who wanted to teach a girl how to throw right. They just accept it is what it is. But honestly, folks, it's always reprogramming men... this effort to reprogram men has been going on a long time.But Fagan didn't say "reprogramming men." She said "reprogramming how we raise men." Who's getting reprogrammed? Which human beings are analogized to computers and capable of programming? It's got to be those who are raising men, which is mostly women — mothers (more than fathers) and early childhood educators (mostly women). So in fact, in Fagan's statement itself, Rush was encountering what he says he never runs across: a suggestion that women need to be reprogrammed. He doesn't notice it when he sees it, perhaps because reprogramming women is so deeply embedded in the culture that it just looks natural. Feminists continually pressure for the reprogramming of women. That's what the "lean in" campaign is all about.
Maybe during the commercial break somebody pointed out the discrepancy in the paraphrase, because when Rush came back, he was more accurate, referring to "this business of reprogramming the way we raise men" (before detouring into the topic of Ohio State's description of what consent to sex means, which is funny/disturbing because it seems to demand that couples agree about "why" they are doing what they're doing), and "We have got to reprogram the way we raise men" (which relates to expecting men to "think with their brains" rather than their other "head," as Rush frat-boyishly put it).
You know, I hate all the human-as-computer metaphors, including speaking of how people are "wired." It's dehumanizing, to men and to women. Fagan was trying to talk about what parents and teachers can do to raise good children. Conservatives should agree that boys and girls should be raised into adults who have good character, who understand right and wrong, and who embrace virtue and avoid vice. That's not controversial at a high level of abstraction. As to the details, is Rush saying that the best way to raise boys to be good men is to mock them by calling them "sissies" when they do something in a way that seems stereotypically female?
Does Rush embody and project ideal masculinity? Is he a good role model for boys? Is he carrying on some fine, old, valued tradition of raising boys to manhood? He has no children of his own, and he seems to have a lot of opinions about how parents and teachers — mostly women — are attempting to do well as they shape the new generation of Americans. They're doing many things wrong, it may be presumed, because anyone who tries to do something that difficult will get many things wrong. But how do you do it right?
पोस्ट्स
६७ टिप्पण्या:
How did lean become the verb of choice for the left? Not push, not march. Lean sounds so half-hearted. Maybe it's especially nonviolent and nonthreatening.
Everybody throws the same underhand.
It's overhand that girls can't do.
Obama should throw out the first pitch in the women's softball league.
Ann Althouse wrote: You know, I hate all the human-as-computer metaphors, including speaking of how people are "wired." It's dehumanizing, to men and to women.
Well that's a red flag, right there. "Wired" is, in fact, a perfectly good metaphor for describing our innate predispositions, and they are decidedly different in many aspects, in men as opposed to in women.
The fact that you have an emotional reaction ("hate") to that, illustrates on of those differing predispositions - emotionalism and how if affects rational thinking.
Does Rush embody and project ideal masculinity? Is he carrying on some fine, old, value tradition of raising boys to manhood? He has no children of his own, and he seems to have a lot of opinions about how parents and teachers — mostly women — are attempting to do well as they shape the new generation of Americans. They're doing many things wrong, it may be presumed, because anyone who tries to do something that difficult will get many things wrong. But how do you do it right?
In order to help teach boys to become men, it definitely helps to BE a man. This is likely why there is disproportionate pathology in this area, in the Black community. Given absent men/fathers, the boys are raising the boys - the blind leading the blind. The results are tragic but not all that surprising.
Noticing that Obama throws like a girl is part of raising boys right.
I think Rush's point, although he didn't ever really get around to it, is that all men are being blamed for the criminal actions of a few. It's no secret that the feminists and others want men to be feminine -- witness what they are doing to little boys right now; punishing them for not being little girls.
You can't and don't need to "reprogram" an entire society in an attempt to wipe out criminal and/or violent behavior because it will never work. Yes, some dads set a bad example to their children by beating their wives. Others set a bad example by doing drugs, or gambling, or committing other crimes. That does not mean that all men are bad or that all men think it's acceptable to beat women or children. Whoever this chick is, she will, like her sisters and the media (including the NFL idiots) will jump on any opportunity to bash men. Rush doesn't accept the premise and neither do I.
Wired is there as a bottom turtle in explaining the mind.
It in secret means writing, which imports language and doesn't seem to need another turtle under it.
The "reprogramming" has been going on for a while and it means raising boys as less capable girls.
Thank god my sons are adults but I have a grandson. Fortunately, he, and a grand nephew of mine in Chicago, love military stuff and play sports. If we can just keep them out of the hands of the "reprogrammers" for a few more years, they'll be OK.
"Yes, some dads set a bad example to their children by beating their wives."
Mostly, these guys I read about did not have dads to teach them.
The Chaostron, in A Stress Analysis of a Strapless Evening Gown, reports on progress putting cut-up Western Electric wiring diagrams on punched cards to see if an IBM 704 can learn language.
On the 50th attempt the computer ejected the printer paper twice, but otherwise nothing much turned up.
"He has no children of his own, and he seems to have a lot of opinions about how parents and teachers — mostly women — are attempting to do well as they shape the new generation of Americans."
What the hell is [Rush] building
In there?
Going into the school systems and the younger spaces and really reprogramming how we raise men.
We need to remake society because a genetic freak with
'roid rage did something. Sounds plausible.
And if the genetic freak in question is the elevator guy, on the video it looked to me that he was attacked first by the female, which shouldn't be surprising since women commit more "domestic" violence than men.
I talk of what girls are wired to be interested in, which differs for boys.
It's a way of saying that it comes with the chromosomes.
It's worth pointing out because it suggests where you're likely to be happy.
Women doing traditional men's jobs do them grimly, no matter how much talent they have for them.
A film on which was Hatahaway and Carrel's 2008 Get Smart.
I agree. That whole monologue was pretty ham-handed. I'm still unsure about what he was trying to say. What point he was trying to make? Other than just another one of his general diatribes about the feminization of our culture.
Programming men and women on the other hand requires a designer applying the thing. Unlike wiring, it's not innate, and it doesn't come from chromosomes.
I notice Judith Curry, a famous climate scientist, is being famous by organizing conferences and conversations between the sides.
She's talented in science but there she is drawn to social work.
It sustains her interest.
A guy doesn't care. He's happy with the climate science he's doing.
Women need to be reprogrammed, so they can do a better job of teaching men to be more like women.
But Fagan didn't say "reprogramming men." She said "reprogramming how we raise men." Who's getting reprogrammed? Which human beings are analogized to computers and capable of programming? It's got to be those who are raising men, which is mostly women...
Have to disagree with Althouse here.
Fagan's metaphor suggests that we need to change the algorithms we install in young men. Even requiring your contract programmer to change from one algorithm to another (e.g., insertion sort from selection sort) is hardly reprogramming the programmer.
Hence, it's still about the algorithm "we" use to program men.
Yawn. Women have been trying to "reprogram" adult men for thousands of years. It's how women neutralize their natural physical disadvantages when dealing with men. But one thing they can never overcome: it's always been women who have been primarily responsible for raising children, including little boys. Square that circle.
"He has no children of his own, and he seems to have a lot of opinions about how parents and teachers — mostly women — are attempting to do well as they shape the new generation of Americans."
If Rush not having children makes him less credible about raising boys to be men, then what about the millions of single moms who attempt to raise boys to be men w/o a father in the house?
What are their> credentials?
I stopped being a regular Rush listener quite a few years back. But occasionally I'll tune him in when I can't take anymore of NPR's 24-7 war on gays, blacks, women, Muslims agenda.
"Reprogramming women to reprogram men." There, fixed!
In order to help teach boys to become men, it definitely helps to BE a man. This is likely why there is disproportionate pathology in this area, in the Black community. Given absent men/fathers, the boys are raising the boys - the blind leading the blind. The results are tragic but not all that surprising.
I wouldn't call it the blind leading the blind, because the boys leading the boys don't really have any interest in preparing their charges. What is missing these days is the socialization of males. The way that it has been done for time immemorial is that fathers and other adult male relatives raise the boys, teaching them right from wrong, etc., and then they are married and their wives and fatherhood do the rest, forcing them to sacrifice for their wives and families. And, as a result, the male drive that has given us all of the inventions and innovations that make our lives comfortable (and this blogging possible) is directed to positive ends, instead of negative ends.
But, what we see today, thanks to progressive and feminist theory, is that women think that they can do it all. The government will just take the money from the males, give it to the females, and the females won't have to deal with males except for mating, on the women's terms. Except that half their children are male, and most of their mothers don't have a prayer of raising them successfully, absent their fathers. Instead, the boys run in juvenile packs until they either end up dead or in prison, terrorizing their communities, and making some of them more dangerous than the war zones our soldiers fought in in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I was thinking the other day that one solution to this problem would be to kill maybe 3/4 of the boys in this country. The rest of them could marry maybe 4 women each. This would eliminate the problem of the excess males running in juvenile packs well into their early 20s. Even half might tilt the market in the desired direction. After all, the males aren't needed for reproduction of the species (because a relatively small number of males father a large number of the children in many of these disfunctional communities). And, the excess males are prevented from terrorizing the community as much.
hombre said...
"Reprogramming women to reprogram men." There, fixed!
What could go wrong?
If nothing else, hombre's pretty accurate characterization of what was being proposed is emblematic of what is wrong with the left: they really do think they can reprogram human beings.
They have always thought that.
Of course, when the left comes to power and those darn human beings don't behave the way the left demands, well then, it's time for a little planned mass murder for, you know, "encouragement".
Just remember, in the common usage "domestic violence" means only "domestic violence against women." Or are we teaching young men to call the cops any time they're threatened or struck by a woman--and teaching law enforcement to treat those reports equitably?
"is Rush saying that the best way to raise boys to be good men is to mock them by calling them 'sissies' when they do something in a way that seems stereotypically female?"
Is Rush saying we need to reinforce traditional gender roles by pointing out when a guy crosses the line? Probably.
If Rush not having children makes him less credible about raising boys to be men, then what about the millions of single moms who attempt to raise boys to be men w/o a father in the house?
What are their> credentials?
In short - they have uteri.
Still, many of those single moms are fated to fail to successfully raise their male progeny. They are temperamentally incapable of providing the sort of structure and direction needed to successfully raise boys (and their role model for girls isn't much better). Note that these problems are not nearly as bad when the single moms have a social system where they are the anomaly, and other socialized men in the family, or at least community, can step into the father role. Today, since we are maybe three generations into the dysfunctional method of single mother child rearing, those other strong surrogate father figures are missing in the communities that need them the most.
Getting back to the original point - having a uterus, presenting it a male for insemination, and then birthing the resulting child 9 months later is not qualifications for raising a child, or, indeed, for much of anything. It is behavior shared with at least the entire class of mammals. The difference though from other mammals is that our socialization is much more complex than that of even our closest genetic relatives (chimps and pygmy chimps). And, it is this socialization that came, through millions of years of evolution, to depend on both sexes, and not just the females, which is the case for most other mammals. Socialization through fathers and and then wives is still greatly advantageous for esp. male progeny, and their ultimate success in life.
But one thing they can never overcome: it's always been women who have been primarily responsible for raising children, including little boys. Square that circle.
The problem is not women raising little boys. It is women trying (and often failing) to raise middle to large boys. Their success rate is far lower than when attempted with the boys' fathers. They are not male, and are temperamentally unsuited to raising older boys, and esp. once they have reached adolescence. They also cannot serve as a role model for these young males.
Of course there's nothing wrong with wanting to train men from a young age to not be violent in general and not be violent towards their loved ones in particular. The thing is good parents have always known that and tried to impart that to their kids. The problems are with people who won't learn, or with bad parents in the first place who teach by bad example or teach nothing at all.
I'm not sure what Limbaugh is getting at here with this "feminized culture" thing--these are more examples of "civilized" culture which is what we want. I understand the desire to take a cheap shot at Obama here but what on earth does he have to do with this NFL scandal? The only connection I can see is that the NFL foolishly thought they'd earn some leftist cred by speaking out in favor of Obamacare (and of course, whenever I try to decide what I think about a major government health care initiative, I ask first "what does the NFL think of this?").
"And as in Victorian England, when suppression of sex led to an epidemic of perversity-all kinds of lurid flowers in the secret gardens of society, so the denial of male affirmation in modern life leads to pervasive distortions and perversions of healthy masculine aggression-to violence and pornography, to fear and exploitation of women, to the quest for potency through drugs and alcohol, to punch-drunk music, and to fighting at sports events." Naked Nomad by George Gilder 1974 p.121
Leftists are really into 'reprogramming' people. Sounds like Orwell's 1984 to me. Or staying in the real world:
Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao
More soccer.
The problem is not women raising little boys. It is women trying (and often failing) to raise middle to large boys
The child is the father of the man.
We need women to "lean in" on men some more. There used to a term for such women in the past - harridan.
Zeb - You like SMILE?
But how do you do it right?
It's all experimental.
Speaking of such experiments...
"But, what we see today, thanks to progressive and feminist theory, is that women think that they can do it all."
Bingo !
The fact that women don't understand this is enough evidence of the incompetence of the feminist left in matters of parenting. There are a very few studies suggesting that boys raised by lesbian couples don't do well. The rare study that looks at this is immediately attacked and suppressed.
Note the source.
I find the juxtaposition of wired and programmed interesting here. Ann apparently dislikes "wired", which may be part of why she seems to have some progressive tendencies. And, yes, her feminism.
My view is that there are certain sexual differences wired into our species. Sometimes the wiring is a bit screwed up, as evidenced by homosexuality. But for most, it is strongly compelling. And, much of it we share with other mammalian, and other parts with our closer genetic relatives. For example, the basic sexual strategies of males competing with males for breeding access to females, and females picking the males with the best genes to father their children.
Layered over this though is additional wiring and programming that is much more recent, and seems designed to guarantee strong paternal influence in child rearing. Much of the physical side of this seems oriented towards building a strong pair bond between the two parents. For example, the male is kept around between ovulations by hiding ovulation, and the ability to engage in and enjoy sex during that time. Males contribute to this too though, by, for example, supplying mood hormones in their semen, which is missing in (most?) other mammals.
Some of the reprogramming seems aimed at erasing the lower level wired sexual differences. This is esp. problematic when those sexual differences are basic enough to be shared by other species, and, esp. when shared by the entire mammalian class. You can program all you want, and those basic instincts are going to surface and triumph.
The more modern stuff, which seems to be a combination of wiring and programming, may be more susceptible to reprogramming. But, we developed it, as a species, for a good reason, and there is no evidence, yet, that the reprogramming will, or even could, help society, and much that it will hurt it.
Maybe to summarize my previous point - reprogramming basic drives and wiring is almost assured to fail. And, reprogramming more recent stuff still is unlikely to succeed. You just cannot overcome many millions of years of evolution through some sort of magical programming. And, as usual, the feminists and progressives never seem to look at the unintended consequences of their actions if they were to succeed. Do we really want a society where male drive is not subordinated into simulated combat, and society as a whole is improved as a result (by, for example, invention of all the technology that has changed human life from being short and brutal).
Bruce Hayden said...
Maybe to summarize my previous point -
'Twas a good post, but you missed your chance to use the phrase "cryptic ovulation".
reprogramming basic drives and wiring is almost assured to fail.
AKA "Job Security".
Surprised that I am the first to mention Mo'ne Davis, Little League World Series Ace. I watched a girl play high school JV baseball last spring. Pretty good infielder. It really is about being taught the mechanics.
@amie lalune 10:57 AM
"You can't and don't need to "reprogram" an entire society in an attempt to wipe out criminal and/or violent behavior because it will never work."
It will also be expensive and intrusive.
Better to quickly and firmly punish the criminals (which will have a side-benefit of discouraging others)
Why spend a billion dollars wiping out all the mosquitoes when $100 million will treat the malaria?
Women need to stop thinking everyone wants or needs to be like us.
Somehow we've decided we are the perfect ones.
(ps. Women get to make fun of men, right? We get to call them old white guys or say they mansplain. So it's ok for men to make fun of women too. But no! We want to be both the victim and the role model)
Alex@11:50/
You're only half right. You forgot "Harpy."
"We" are going to "reprogram" the way parents raise their children? How the heck is THAT supposed to work?
The traditional model (intact two parent household, with one primary breadwinner) worked pretty well in raising boys into men and girls into women. (No, of course not with 100% success.)
A different model has become increasingly common, in which a single parent, almost always a woman, is responsible for raising the children and bringing in the income to support the family. This model puts tremendous pressure on the mother, and does not appear to lead to good results as often as the traditional model. (Of course, many single mothers do a terrific job in raising and supporting the children.)
But there's no "reprogramming" that society can accomplish that is likely to increase the frequency of the traditional model or decrease the frequency of the single-mother model. Government could change the incentives, of course. For example, the government could repeal laws that prohibit job discrimination against women and laws that require that employers pay women the same as men. We could make divorce more difficult, and could put greater legal weight behind the obligation of fathers to marry the mothers of their children. But we aren't going to do those things, are we?
How about we reprogram rappers and Miley Twerker?
Women don't raise men. They can't. Women raise boys. Those boys become men by the example of other men, preferably their father.
"there is no evidence, yet, that the reprogramming will, or even could, help society, and much that it will hurt it."
Hi Bruce,
Missing from your analysis is the word "culture". This is a good example of why the word "programming" is poorly chosen: it leads toward the reductive analysis instead of the complex.
If you substitute the word "culture" into the sentence above you get:
"there is no evidence, yet, that culture will, or even could, help society, and much that it will hurt it."
It should be at once clear that a change in culture could change society; culture is the driver here. Whether or not a change in culture will help society can be debated, but a debate about culture is a much different free-for-all than the paradigmatic assertions of evolutionary psychology.
Remember that one of the triggers for this discussion is Adrian Peterson's thrashing of a four-year-old boy.
The culture has changed. The way Peterson was brought up is no longer acceptable.
Is that good or bad? Does it help or hurt society?
Roger Goodell put 7 white women in charge of reprogramming the NFL. I expect good things.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2014/09/15/league-polices-women-roger-goodell/15664335/
It's all laughably simple, really. Characteristics and behaviors that increase the likelihood of sexual success are those that will be predominate. If women really wanted to change mens' behaviors and attitudes, then they would agree on what, exactly, the desirable ones were and as a group reward those traits with sexual favors. I guarantee that the world would change overnight.
In the meantime, throwing a football, driving a motocycle and engaging in various high-risk behaviors is seemingly still the best way to go.
I'm with the lefties on this one. If you get past the fixation on the word "reprogram". what they are really saying is we need to change how we think about and react to domestic violence.
Look at MADD, for example. Their efforts changed our attitudes towards drunk driving in a very real and positive way.
If history is any guide, however, they will go too far, and the definitions of "domestic" and "violence" will expand as actual acts of domestic violence diminish.
With all the single mothers, one would think there'd be less violence.
Another advantage a man has in raising or providing a role model for boys is that he was once a little boy.
I've seen mothers chastise their sons for behaving like normal little boys. This is a major problem in our schools whereas the female teachers treat little boys as if they were defective little girls.
"Noticing that Obama throws like a girl is part of raising boys right."
I don't have any children but I wouldn't want my son to be like Obama.
It should be at once clear that a change in culture could change society; culture is the driver here. Whether or not a change in culture will help society can be debated, but a debate about culture is a much different free-for-all than the paradigmatic assertions of evolutionary psychology.
I am not going to disagree with your change of "reprogramming" to "culture". I think that we are talking about the same thing. But, my point about evolutionary psychology, or, as I put it, wiring, is that there are innate limits to what and the extent to which we can be changed, by, in your case, a change in culture. The classic nurture v. nature debate, with me coming down on the side of nature in many cases. Trying to make little boys into little girls through culture/nurture can be akin to trying to beat a square peg into a round hole.
With all the single mothers, one would think there'd be less violence.
Well, no, I would expect that boys raised to "manhood" by single mothers would tend to be more violent, not less violent. And, I think that we have seen that play out in the lower economic communities where there is a high level of illegitimacy and single parenting. Part of what fathers (and marriage) do to males is to teach them when the use of violence is acceptable, and when it is not. It is far better if that is taught by a boy's father, than by the police or an armed civilian in a fatal interaction. Moreover, the boys are going to be less violent before they either die young or end up in prison, often for their violence.
Obama's Indian name is Throws Like A Girl. Tough to shake that one.
But my girls throw correctly, like boys. It's not hard to teach.
The key is to tuck the elbow close to the ribs. You can't throw a ball with the elbow away from the body. It just goes all wrong. Tell the girl or the foreigner you are teaching: No dodgey flapper!
Extend the ball back behind the ear, pick a target, and snap the throw. Use the elbow more than the shoulder. Start using the shoulder for longer or harder throws (long football pass or pitching a baseball in a competitive way) after mastering the shorter throws.
Taught properly (reprogrammed), the girl or the foreigner can become quite adept at this manly skill quickly.
Next up: beer drinking tips.
"The classic nurture v. nature debate, with me coming down on the side of nature in many cases. Trying to make little boys into little girls through culture/nurture can be akin to trying to beat a square peg into a round hole."
It's the Stephen Jay Gould vs Steven Pinker argument all over again. If nurture worked, Lysenko would have been right and we would still have a "new Soviet man."
I'm all for raising boys to eschew violence. But, we need to raise girls to eschew the atavistic side of female lust.
You know all those violent, misogynistic, NFL thugs that everyone wants to reform? They walk into bars & beautiful chicks walk up to them and ask if they would like to have sex. NFL players & the like have many skills, but subtlety in their interpersonal relations is not one of them. Any woman around them for ten minutes knows what the attention's all about. A woman who gets into a relationship with one knows she will be sharing her man with hundreds of women who will be making themselves sexually available to him in the future. Such is the price of keeping a rich & powerful alpha male, and there are millions of women who'd be thrilled to pay that price if they could have the opportunity.
Modern feminism has taken the Victorian idea of woman as the "Angel of the Household" and projected it onto women out in the world, where women are seen as the virtuous victims of male evil. Women's moral agency consists solely in resistance to male oppression, not in the conquest of her own moral failings.
In this, as in so many other things, I prefer the ancients to the moderns, who realized that original sin infected all the sons and daughters of Eve, and that every will had to be broken & re-formed towards a virtuous life.
It's absurd to say that boys who laugh at girls who don't know how to throw grow up to be men who punch girls in the face. Boys are surrounded by rap music which calls women vile names and suggests vile actions. Punching [the bitch] in the face or dragging [the ho] around the room are nothing special in rap lyrics. That's where Ray-Rice type violence comes from. That's what these NFL guys listen to. So why not come out against rap music? Because - and this is the point Rush is making - this is all about turning NFL games into lefty sermons. It isn't about confronting Hollywood or the music industry because they are big lefty donors. It's about confronting the Little League and so throwing like a girl at a big moral issue. It makes me want to cry or scream.
""We've gotta dispense with calling guys who are effeminate or who throw like girls 'sissies.'
When I was a kid we never called them "sissies." But I thought the term we did use had fallen from favor, and we were supposed to call them "gay" now. In fact, I suspect anyone who uses the word "sissies" nowadays is probably gay.
Not true. Women have been being reprogrammed since post Title Nine. If He doesn't know this it just shows how removed he is due to never having kids. It's been going on my entire life. And it's working. You don't go from whatever was happening in the 60s to Hope Solo without some serious effort.
Somewhere there is a youtube that I don't feel like finding asking athletic women to throw like a girl. They all throw like "sissies" and then they ask them if they are a girl and is that what girls throw like. They look a bit guilty and redo it to throw how they really do as athletes.
And Gidget to Carissa Moore. Can't forget her. Totally different world.
'You know, I hate all the human-as-computer metaphors, including speaking of how people are "wired." '
In Freud's time, computers and even electronics did not exist. The dominant industrial technology was still steam. And Freud described human behavior in terms of urges that "built up" and were then "released". People are really no more like computers than they were like steam engines.
Old and Broken : Throws like a girl
New and Politically Correct : Throws like a Democrat President
There we go. Fixed it.
@Jupiter: touché
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा