The Energon Pub

Are little boys being groomed to be men or sissies? When I was a little kid (29 years ago) I was told by my father to act like a man (I was only 5 at the time). But if you utter those words today, you'll receive harsh looks. Being a man has taken on such a perjorative meaning these days.

I remember my father telling me to stop my crying and act tough. He taught me to play fair but not to the point of being a sissy either. I remember wrestling and getting into slug fests when I was kid. Nowadays that is absolutely forbidden.

I feel like boys (in general) nowadays are missing a manly zest in them. Instead, their heads are being filled with ideas that everyone must be sensative. The boys must be in touch with their feelings, instead of acting out their agression.

I think it has to do with the fact that "being a man" back then consisted of being more or less utterly insensitive and left no room whatsoever for deviation before you were considered un-manly and a lesser human being.

Basically, that was one extreme. Acting out your agressions isn't always the wisest thing to do anyway. Denying that you have them isn't a good idea, either, but the "macho man" as the only ideal should by all accounts be somewhat outdated. There are more ways to be a man, after all.

Kjell wrote:I think it has to do with the fact that "being a man" back then consisted of being more or less utterly insensitive and left no room whatsoever for deviation before you were considered un-manly and a lesser human being..

Ah, yes.... the good old days.

Its the PC environment we live in. God forbid you do anything that might possibly, in the smallest way, offend some one else.[/i]

I think things have definitely gone the way of the jessies.

Just look at how young men respond by crying like a baby when a judge on a TV talent show is mean/nice to them.

I'm not so sure that those who want to be pop stars belong to the "macho" group anyway... So saying that it's somehow a disgrace that they actually show negative emotions is perhaps out of place.

What about the women who cry in the same situations, by the way?

I don't know about other countries, but the young uns around here have too much backbone. They run around acting like they rule the roost, with their hats at stupid angles. Yes, I'm talking about Charvers. Look at one and they start on you. Are they becoming a bunch of sissies? no. Do they need to get some respect and be put in their place? Definatly.

Insurgent wrote:I don't know about other countries, but the young uns around here have too much backbone. They run around acting like they rule the roost, with their hats at stupid angles. Yes, I'm talking about Charvers. Look at one and they start on you. Are they becoming a bunch of sissies? no. Do they need to get some respect and be put in their place? Definatly.

Sure, but your also not allowed to give 'em the kick in the ass they need.

It is clear that we are indeed raising a bunch of gun-shy, timid overly-girly boys who are afraid of skinned knees, competition, and offending the majority liberal lefty powers. Everything is PC and softened, everyone wins a trophy and kids get time outs and lame talking tos when all they need is a smack on the butt. Not abuse or cruelty, just consequences of actions, reinforcement of a negative act through punishment. Thus little Billy wont throw rocks at cars again because he knows dad will smack his butt purple, very logical lesson. Nowadays we shake a finger at him and tell him her hurt the peoples feelings when he threw rocks. Kids are drugged and sent to counselling when all they need is military school or the belt. Its not abuse if its geared to teach a lesson that every action has a cost. Anyone defending the new status quo is going to have soft, pathetic whiner boys for sons who you will have to bail out of trouble for life because they have no balls. Dads, dont let your sons go this route! If you love them, spank them. They will remember that long after a lame timeout ends. Anyone here ever seen Supernanny? Ever see a better example of kids needing a good smack, or a belt? All the logical, negotiating fluff talk those shows do is meaningless to a child, they laugh at you. Smack him and tell him why you did it, and tell him you will do it again if he makes you. Dont be afraid to be a real dad, I love my dad and am a successful man myself and I got smacked when I deserved it, I respected my dad because he clearly defined action=reaction rules. Show your kids weakness and you get weak adults one day. KER-SMACK!!!

I do have to say that I agree with Moff-V8 on this subject. I pretty much loathe and dispise my dad. He punished me when I did stuff wrong. Thats probably the only good example he ever set in front of me. As for a role model all I have are bad habits from him but at least I have respect for my elders, manners and morals. Those are building blocks to make yourself a good person. This whole time out crap and leash on your kids and trying to reason with them has gotten way out of hand. The parents are supposed to be the leaders and role models who make the rules. Yes little or young people are people too. But they have no idea what they need or want and when they get older they will learn it the hard way making impulsive mistakes when they could have been taught not to even try certain things because it is wrong with a paddle coming in to make them understand why. You see pain teaches people what not to do but thats not the reason why parents used to use it. Parents are really trying to teach kids with physical punishment to repect their authority. Not authority like King and Queen who say do it and when you ask why they say "because I said so", but, authority of people who have lived life and made all the same mistakes, so pain is the only real way to reason with somebody who cant understand reason. LIberalists need to think again before they create a bunch of monsters or people who when they smart off to the wrong person and get beat to a pulp or they will possibly get shot because they think they can do whatever they want. They dont know any better because they know no pain so to them there is no pain.

Are girls being trained to be sissies?

Are we discussing parenting here, or are we discussing how people should be based on their sex?

As a child, I received one unit of punishment for each minute I cried, regardless of cause. My sister received no such treatment. I had clear and corporal punishments early on, followed by laissez faire policies as a teenager, whereas my sister received more generalized social authority all the way through college. In our 20s, we've both turned into very independent people in different ways.

What warped double-standard has led millions of parents to raise their children so differently? Why does the previous poster think that "girly-boys" is a perfectly acceptable way of describing males who aren't tough enough? Why equate clealry defined parameters for children with physical violence?

Rules and parameters without threat of discomfort through spanking or a belt-slap wont stick with a child, sit him in the naughty corner, take away his XBOX, or have a deep-thoughts talk and hes laughing at you inside. Either he rules you or you rule him. Spare the rod, and you get a pushy, snotty teen or adult who has no concept or respect or restraint. They feel untouchable, then they step up to the wrong guy one day and they get smacked. Surprise surprise, not everyone talks it out kiddo...

You want to reason with an immature child? Go ahead, but he will have no backbone, he will want to reason with the bullies and have a group discussion when they want his lunch money, and he will end up pulverized. Spanking classified as violence? Thats super-lib everybody love each other talk. Now no one can discipline their kids because people see it as violence and we will get generations of idiots, sheep, and public menaces who think no one will ever touch them. Have psychology class with adults who understand it, not the kids.

And girls are not sissies, they are female and should act accordingly, while boys pushed in that direction by enlightened parents become effeminate, girlish. If you dont think males and females should act differently according to their gender then you have other issues. They are salt and pepper, and whats right for one isnt necessarily what you want to see in the other. The lefties will soon be running things and I fear for the children this society produces, sheep in the face of the wolves other nations will raise.

Be less sensetive and more demanding of children.

Ironhidensh wrote:Sure, but your also not allowed to give 'em the kick in the ass they need.

If we could, there wouldn't be a problem.

I don't think I was ever physically hurt by anyone who helped raise me, and I have no delusions as to being untouchable. Maybe I was just different, though.

How should a woman act, then?

While my own personal views fit accordingly that males should be raised to know when to rise up in the face of adversity, and to stand up for and have a general pride in one's self; I can't help but think in a lot of cases the concern for a male child's bravado comes from a deep rooted psychological fear of potential homosexuality. Regardless of how society these days champions itself on progressively accepting those of a homosexual lifestyle, the fear still lies dormant. Either that, or there's just a general disdain for a man to show any type of emotion other than anger. God forbid.

Certain aged males today blame a slew of scapegoats for this percieved threat of the "sissfying" of America's male youth. Every thing from liberal parents to political correctness is to blame; that there is a general lack of instilled machismo that's endangered for this new-age way of thought that males should be emotionally sensitive push-overs and is completely detrimental towards manhood altogether. I, however happen to believe the contrary; that the old way of thought is still rampant today and is the one that is damaging.

By being raised with the view that anger is the only acceptable emotion to be publically displayed, and that what makes a man is to be the macho, tough, "don't-take-no-shit" type, the principle that's being reinforced is, "Might makes right." The rationale that all problems can be solved through confrontation only advocates violence which in turn only begets more violence. From a psychological standpoint, I could only assume how many male children, adolescents and teenagers feel utterly confused and conflicted with their gender roles.

All this time I thought males were supposed to pride themselves on being the "logical" sex, yet we're preoccupied with how 'tough' we have to appear. It's completely absurd.

Who the hell are you talking about anyways? Are you talking about males raised in the trailer park. Yes I know that is a cliche and its not like that for everybody in the trailer park, and they also have it in the moddest lower class, all the middle classes and even high class people have Fathers that train their sons to fight at any sign of altercation. Its like a show of dominance, and the fathers want their sons to fall in those same foot steps. Thats because they dont know how to use their brain to defend themselves verbally. I was physically disciplined and I am respectful, I have morals and try to use fighting as the last step of self defense. And maybe you were different as a child as many others who havent been disciplined physically and werent a problem. I am glad that worked out for you but I think it just depends on the parents and what kind of reasonability the child posesses. I just dont agree that their is only one way to parent children unlike most liberals but think what you want.

Your in a Transformers forum sounding like Freud. Whats with this deep rooted subconscience psychological homosexual fear males have for themselves that you speak of. I dont know about you but I dont have a fear of being a homosexual and am very comfortable and confident in my sexuality. You can argue with me about my sexuality all you want but all I will do is laugh. So what is your thought exactly about machismo. You sound like there are only 2 ways your way and the wrong way which is something you need to change if you want to debate reasonably, if not nobody will take you seriously.

There is a middle point where good role models can show a male how to act and behave as a man when he grows older. And there is more than one way, its not just the way I was raised. Yes males are supposed to know when to rise up and fight for their family and face adversity to protect because mails were created to be the protectors. Uh oh, I just said something that is politically incorrect, I shall be shunned now. Its not about pride, its about self preservation and instinct to be the dominant male whether your doing it for the right reasons in self defense or instigating a challenge with your fellow man to show off who the bigger badder male is. Were more like animals then anybody ever sits down and thinks about. We think just because we can write and talk languages that we are nothing like animals.

Look, it doesnt matter if I write a whole book prooving you are wrong or you need to re think your veiws but are on the right track. If you are human even if you are female your subconcience instincts will kick in and you will rebel to prove that one person is not dominant over you even in verbal conflict with context. You are going to think how you want, whether you agree with me reasonably or not reasonably and illogicly and visa versa. So all I am going to say about this (cause I am sick of this subject now) is that males lack propper role models and their perception of respect is soiled. Stop trying to get them to not fight when its appropriate. If somebody punches me I sure the hell am going to hit them back. If you want to call me immature for defending myself I want nothing to do with you or any more of your opinions. Teaching people they cant defend themselves is just plain dumb especially when you teach a male who was born to defend and pretect themselves and more importantly the other important people in their lives. This is Assinine.(sp*)

Bravery and sensitivity are not exclusive opposites. Backbone and empathy can exist in the same person.

There is a concept: psychological androgeny. (Or something like that.) A male is allowed to have "masculine" and "feminine" features without impacting his sexuality. Likewise for females. The "masculinity" and "femininity" of personality traits is all cultural BS anyways.

Raise your children well. Reinforce the personality traits you value, regardless of gender-role humbug. Before you actually have your kids, maybe take a few paretnting and child/adolescent psych classes. Be a responsible parent. Don't raise your children to be craven cowards or overbearing nitwits. Unless you want to.

OptimusPrive wrote:Bravery and sensitivity are not exclusive opposites. Backbone and empathy can exist in the same person.

There is a concept: psychological androgeny. (Or something like that.) A male is allowed to have "masculine" and "feminine" features without impacting his sexuality. Likewise for females. The "masculinity" and "femininity" of personality traits is all cultural BS anyways.

Raise your children well. Reinforce the personality traits you value, regardless of gender-role humbug. Before you actually have your kids, maybe take a few paretnting and child/adolescent psych classes. Be a responsible parent. Don't raise your children to be craven cowards or overbearing nitwits. Unless you want to.

If anything, the rejection of any side of a person's psyche will make it become more prevelent at the a later point when the fear of the parent's authority is finally nonexistant.

Flamemaster Galvatron wrote:While my own personal views fit accordingly that males should be raised to know when to rise up in the face of adversity, and to stand up for and have a general pride in one's self; I can't help but think in a lot of cases the concern for a male child's bravado comes from a deep rooted psychological fear of potential homosexuality. Regardless of how society these days champions itself on progressively accepting those of a homosexual lifestyle, the fear still lies dormant. Either that, or there's just a general disdain for a man to show any type of emotion other than anger. God forbid.

Certain aged males today blame a slew of scapegoats for this percieved threat of the "sissfying" of America's male youth. Every thing from liberal parents to political correctness is to blame; that there is a general lack of instilled machismo that's endangered for this new-age way of thought that males should be emotionally sensitive push-overs and is completely detrimental towards manhood altogether. I, however happen to believe the contrary; that the old way of thought is still rampant today and is the one that is damaging.

By being raised with the view that anger is the only acceptable emotion to be publically displayed, and that what makes a man is to be the macho, tough, "don't-take-no-shit" type, the principle that's being reinforced is, "Might makes right." The rationale that all problems can be solved through confrontation only advocates violence which in turn only begets more violence. From a psychological standpoint, I could only assume how many male children, adolescents and teenagers feel utterly confused and conflicted with their gender roles.

All this time I thought males were supposed to pride themselves on being the "logical" sex, yet we're preoccupied with how 'tough' we have to appear. It's completely absurd.

What he said.


My father had a temper problem. More than is normal for a dad, anyway. I was never physically abused, but I have enough traumatic memories anyway.

He's the result of a society that wouldn't let men show their sensitivities, or admit them even.

I hate all this "be a man" nonsense. Be an adult maybe, or be a responsible person. Men and women should think about logic and reason more than overwhelming emotions, but sometimes it's all too much. Holding it in will just make it worse down the road.

Of course, I was always the wimp growing up. The guy who plays Harry Potter is more muscular than I am. So what do I know?

More a case of the "in my day" crap. Ask the people moaing about sissy boys now and they probally heard the same old sh*t too.
Things change from generation to generation and its the change that unsettles the stuck in their way idiots.

my dad is emotionally crippled by his 1960 upperclass bording school upbringing and this has had a very detrimentally his relationship to my sister, she just can't connect with him, as he finds it near impossible to show emotion, he just doesn't know how to act with a young woman(more so than the rest of his sex).

it's really very sad, and i can tell he resents it(he was adamant that his children weren't going to get the same education), and he really dotes upon my sister, and is very supportive of me.

as to be being a sissy becuase i'd rather talk things out than smash someone's face in if that makes that makes me a sissy then maybe i'm a sissy, but to be honest i'm 260 lbs, 6'1", and my job is intensely physical, almost anyone i'd beat up would be weaker than me, and beating up someone weaker than you is definetly sissy.

and i don't understand why anyone wouldn't try anything to make a screaming child shut up.

personally i think showing anger is a sign of weakness, a sign that something has got you ruffled.

Tammuz wrote:personally i think showing anger is a sign of weakness, a sign that something has got you ruffled.

It depends on the context. Letting people get under your skin is one thing, but a man who never displays anger is just as crippled as a man who can't display other emotions. Controlled anger can be very powerful, and positive, thing, just like keeping your cool under pressure.

OptimusPrive wrote:Bravery and sensitivity are not exclusive opposites. Backbone and empathy can exist in the same person.

Well put. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Stormrider wrote:Are little boys being groomed to be men or sissies? When I was a little kid (29 years ago) I was told by my father to act like a man (I was only 5 at the time). But if you utter those words today, you'll receive harsh looks. Being a man has taken on such a perjorative meaning these days.

I remember my father telling me to stop my crying and act tough. He taught me to play fair but not to the point of being a sissy either. I remember wrestling and getting into slug fests when I was kid. Nowadays that is absolutely forbidden.

I feel like boys (in general) nowadays are missing a manly zest in them. Instead, their heads are being filled with ideas that everyone must be sensative. The boys must be in touch with their feelings, instead of acting out their agression.

Bullsh*t!

This maybe your (and other's) personal experices-but it is quiet far from the truth, accually it is possibly the opposite of the truth. There are no sensitive male role models, and any theere are are dismissed as sissies.

it is a fact that men have the greater capasity from sensitivity of feeling between the two genders, but culture completely demies them any oppertunaty to express or come to terms with there feelings. it is no suprise that suicide and acholism is most domanant in males (suicide is particularly noticealbe between the 15-30 male age bracket) these are obvious pointers to a crisis in our young males.

one could also extrapolate that violent behavoiur (even spousial abuse and rape) can be linked back to these feelings of inadiquacy and pain brought through an imablity to cope!

Insurgent wrote:I don't know about other countries, but the young uns around here have too much backbone. They run around acting like they rule the roost, with their hats at stupid angles. Yes, I'm talking about Charvers. Look at one and they start on you. Are they becoming a bunch of sissies? no. Do they need to get some respect and be put in their place? Definatly.

Chavs are a result of parental responsibilities being undertaken by the state rather than the parents. Everything is given rather than earned which leads to no understanding of value and social responsibilities. Different topic altogether though.

shockwaveuk wrote:

Insurgent wrote:I don't know about other countries, but the young uns around here have too much backbone. They run around acting like they rule the roost, with their hats at stupid angles. Yes, I'm talking about Charvers. Look at one and they start on you. Are they becoming a bunch of sissies? no. Do they need to get some respect and be put in their place? Definatly.

Chavs are a result of parental responsibilities being undertaken by the state rather than the parents. Everything is given rather than earned which leads to no understanding of value and social responsibilities. Different topic altogether though.

As a teacher i totally agree with shockwave-there is a definate lack of parenting being done in the western world, it is a huge problem-and what is worse is that it is something which will grow exponentially...meaning that each sucessive generation is parented less and less. Ultamitely i am unsure what the end result of this will be-when it will reach its event horizon, but it will happen eventually and it will propably be unpleasent

shockwaveuk wrote:

Insurgent wrote:I don't know about other countries, but the young uns around here have too much backbone. They run around acting like they rule the roost, with their hats at stupid angles. Yes, I'm talking about Charvers. Look at one and they start on you. Are they becoming a bunch of sissies? no. Do they need to get some respect and be put in their place? Definatly.

Chavs are a result of parental responsibilities being undertaken by the state rather than the parents. Everything is given rather than earned which leads to no understanding of value and social responsibilities. Different topic altogether though.

Joke or not, I happen to agree with Insurgent's view.