The Energon Pub

Leonardo wrote:

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.

Nobody's saying chavs aren't all socially retarded scumbags, just that they were bred and not born to be that way

shockwaveuk wrote:

Leonardo wrote:

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.

Nobody's saying chavs aren't all socially retarded scumbags, just that they were bred and not born to be that way

Yes, that's very true.

Shockwaveuk wrote: Nobody's saying chavs aren't all socially retarded scumbags, just that they were bred and not born to be that way

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

Shockwaveuk wrote: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.

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.

No one is born to act a certain way. Granted there are some traits that may be genetic, but for the most part people turn out the way they are through their upbringing, the way they are bred. Ultimatly, it's because the state is undertaking the parental responsibilities that teh chavs are so rampant, sa you said Shockwaveuk.

Does anyone know any chavs intimately? I mean, are the parents of chavs also chavs?

Leonardo wrote:Does anyone know any chavs intimately? I mean, are the parents of chavs also chavs?

I'm still not clear on the meaning of that term. You wacky brits and your words.

Brakethrough wrote:

Leonardo wrote:Does anyone know any chavs intimately? I mean, are the parents of chavs also chavs?

I'm still not clear on the meaning of that term. You wacky brits and your words.

An example of some chavs, though these ones seem to lack the Burberry accessories.

Take a look on wikipedia for a quick definition. But imagine this:

Imagine someone who might have personal issues, family problems and other things, who is obsessed with image, being 'hard', getting as much sex as possible and enjoys overpowering people (Sound familiar to those of you who think a man is a burly Neanderthal who gets his belt out at the slightest sign his boy's showing even the slightest bit of pain)

I've been on the recieving end of chav's 'fun', and beleive me, it's no fun at all. They have no respect, no remorse for spreading misery onto those that get in their way or don't comply with their narrow view of the world. They escew responsibility and consider their views to be the most important, and screw everyone else.

Now, i'm not sure America has a sub-group of youths with this sort of attitude (certainly not with all the aspects of it), but this is a result of the 'might makes right' ideology that alot of people here are espouging.

However, i DO agree we are getting too soft on individuals, but at the same time, there is no use in inflicting pain on someone without them knowing exactly why it's happening to them.

For example, little Joe has scuffed his knee badly, and is bawling his eyes out. Lets consider this in two approaches:

First, the tough guy, no crap attitude: His dad walks over, ignoring the fact Joe is in pain and smacks him, telling him that it's wrong for a man to cry, no questions asked or answered.

Secondly, the 'liberal' way of doing it: His dad comes over, takes him over and treats the scrape for him. All the way, he encourages him to be brave, that it isn't really that bad and he should be more careful to prevent it from happening again.

In my view, these two approaches will bring about two seperate outcomes. The first: The child will learn that crying about his problems will get him nothing but his child's scorn. If this is similar to how his dad normally approaches his problems, he will grow up potentially with severe psychological problems, mostly stemming from an inability to vent negetive emotions out in a constructive way. In addition, his relationship with his father will be weakened, either due to fear or hate, and may well encourage him to be rebellious, though maybe not so much in the 'screw you dad' way (because he might be terrified of the consequences), but will disreguard alot of society as a means of defience (humans i think have a natural urge to 'get their own back', the means at which they do it can be varied and vastly different). Getting hideously drunk every night, sexual promiscuality, they could be pure rebellion or merely negetive means of getting out their fustrations. Perhaps, another thing humans are prone to doing is learning that enforcing one's views by force and violence is a POSSITIVE thing (learning it from their dad), so they may go on to beat their wives, bully others and generally be a bastard.

The other way, however is good for several reasons. The dad showing concern and 'helping' Joe, their bond is reinforced even further. Joe is told that it isn't a good idea to scrape his knee whilst the pain is still, and is encouraged not to whimper and be 'weak' (as in, being suseptable to the pain), but be able to take it to the best of his abilities as it is not entirely necessary. By direct extrapolation, it means that Joe, perhaps when he is 15 accidentally crashes his car and breaks his arm, instead of berating himself as he screams in pain, accepts that it's a part of life and works on getting himself out of the wreck before it explodes, proving to be a much more capable individual.

A true man is not one who takes things laying down, but neither is he one who imediately starts on anyone who angers him. A true man is in control of himself, acting with decorum and a general respect for all. He should not allow his emotions to get the better of him, but at the same time, should not be afraid of letting them show. For example, a man should not be belittled for crying or even getting tearful when he has learned something horrible has happened to someone or something he loves. Being strong doesn't not necessarily mean being a brute. Being strong is acting in the best possible manner in the most situations possible.

As for men and women, whoever in this thread has said they should be treated in different ways just because of their physical attributes and sexes is stuck in the dark age. A woman has every right to be whoever the heck she wants to be, even a big, burly, dirty, quick to anger trucker, whilst a man can be effeminate, 'sophisticated' if they want to be. But i wouldn't be surprised if both have the same propensity for showing emotion or just getting up and bottling someone.

Uhm well....i guess you can still act like a man but have emotion. My father used to hit me everytime i cried too much. But hell, i was BLEEDING godammit!

He said it was ok to cry if it was really bad (Like if you break your leg), cuz no one will think your a sissy....broken leg, everybody cry or scream!

As per the original question. Yes, definitely.

We are a generation of men raised by women, and a great many of us are damaged because of it.

When I was in school the female teachers would do nothing if someone was bullying you, but as soon as you did anything back they'd grab you and make sure you knew, via a long drawn out lecture, that retaliating was worse than starting it. This clearly is not true, but they only picked on people who already obeyed the rules anyway.
The male members of staff were always much more forthright, and would deal with problems as they arose, since they had no interest in avoiding confrontations or silly politics.
Of course, try finding a male teacher in a state school nowadays.

On television men are almost constantly portrayed as useles whelps, constantly requiring the assistance, and clearly superior intellect, of their female counterparts. It's impossible to flick through more than about ten channels without coming across this particularly derisive form of misandry, and when it's broadcast into people's homes, where young men will see it, all day, every day, it replaces normal healthy male role models, and provides only discouragement the idea that men are somehow inferior.

Otherwise we're all portrayed as wife-beating, slack jawed, rapists, who are governed entirely by their penii. Even one of my friends accuses me of being controlled by my "little head" (as opposed to the big head) whenever I comment on a woman. I don't do it that often, and usually reserve such honorable mentions for those who have an arse that could crack walnuts, or baps like god's own earmuffs. Yet he insists that I am somehow incapable of controlling my desires.
Obviously he says such things in jest, but the fact that he always responds with such a statement betrays just how emasculated men are becoming nowadays.

These heavily skewed views of men in the media tend to force healthy, normal, male role models off the air. That's the dangerous thing, that we're allowing youg men to be constantly bombarded by the idea that they are some variety of inferior animal with nothing to counterbalance such views.
When something like this appears to be a social norm, it gets into people's heads.

Young girls very often command preferable treatment, not only in the way female dominated modern parenting instinctively treats them, but in terms of the way that education (at least over her in blighty) has engineered to provide the optimum environment for girls to study in, whilst making it more difficult for boys than it need be.
Mcourses nowadays require huge amounts of coursework, which itself requires a large amount of patience, good time-management, and dedication to complete to a satisfactory standard. All qualities that boys tend to develop at a much later stage than girls. There is no option to put the emphasis on the examinations for these courses, which would be of a huge benefit for boys in education who simply don't have the attention span to spend weeks on something that's incredibly boring, and that most of them will see as easting into time that they could be doing something of far greater value to them.

Yes, boys are being raised to be sissies, and they're being raised to be rapists and monsters aswell, because these are the only examples of manhood that are being held up for them too see. These are the only options of which a grat many of them are aware.

I don't think that young men should be forced or coerced into not crying, or that there should be any threat of physical violence against them if they don't conform to very specific social norms. That's just playing into the extremist-feminist agenda's hands by making them into unthinking ignoramii.

However, traditional concepts of manliness should always be something that are held up to boys and young men as something great to aspire to. They should feel an incentive to choke back those tears when they scrape their knees, to be strong when other people aren't, and to stand up straight even when the weight of the world come crashing down on their shoulders.
Anyone who disagrees with that every man should aspire to be someone worthwhile can get in the kitchen and make me a **** sammich, and stop trying to give the collective men of the world a ****.

^Right here is truth.

Mankind goes in a balance of cycles-- once an idea of mascocentrism is rejected, we switch to a world of femocentrism. It happens like that of a variety of subjects as we compartmentalize things and deny the whole of the matter and only see the pieces. Mankind's collective thought fluctuates between extremes as we try to find the center, like a pendulum going back and forth before falling to center. We'll fluctuate back to a weaker form of such a male-dominated someday, as I believe we're starting to here, and will eventually switch back, until we naturally realize the greater truth:

It all has to do with the social labels attributed to each gender. The social concept of the communal and the compassion of women is nothing without the same social concept of the individual and the determination of men, and vice versa-- we must seek togetherness and balance as we can, but we must realize that balance, nor happiness, is always, maybe ever, achieved by cowing down and denying to recognize individual goals-- that the denial of what one wants, and indeed what is good for the collective, is not to try to always compromise, but realize what needs to be done and stay true in the pursuit of it, while at the same time realizing that compromise may be sometimes, if not more overtly, necessary to achieve it.

Brakethrough wrote:

Leonardo wrote:Does anyone know any chavs intimately? I mean, are the parents of chavs also chavs?

I'm still not clear on the meaning of that term. You wacky brits and your words.

Chav is to Britain, what Trailer Trash is to American.

Back to the Topic at hand:

I used to cry a lot. My mom had much more influence on my than my dad, and she taught running away from, rather than facing, a fight. (An ideal which, athough I now see it as bullshit, weakened my ability to actually handle myself in a fight, although my dad always tries to give me a little combat prowess) More recently, sadness has been replaced by actual anger.

So, yes, I guess I'm a little less masculine than a man should be. But at least I turned crying (Which I have a disdain for--What's with all the big, fancy words?) into a "Masculine emotion."

Because, according to the Community of Men, it's right to be mad, not right to cry.

I mean, that's like rule #1 in the Men's Handbook. (You get that when you recieve a penis.)

EDIT: Let's fix something: Had I been taught to be aggresive, rather than running away for help, I probably wouldn't be fat and weak right now.

So, you know, thanks a lot, mom.

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.

This has to do with the PC wussification of Western society in general.

Don't even get me started on the culture of Misandry that is upheld as righteious, and fathers and father figures are shown by sit-coms and commercials to be stupid, inept, and dense, amoung other things.

This, and the legitimation of unwed mothers, and their empowerment, and subsequent status symbolic nature in today's society will lead to it's destruction.

Our enemies will eat our children and all we hold dear.

Why? because we let them, through the destruction of our society and all that makes us distinctly, American.

Just give China another 50 years. Start learning Mandarin NOW.

YouFearGalvatron wrote:This has to do with the PC wussification of Western society in general.

Don't even get me started on the culture of Misandry that is upheld as righteious, and fathers and father figures are shown by sit-coms and commercials to be stupid, inept, and dense, amoung other things.

This, and the legitimation of unwed mothers, and their empowerment, and subsequent status symbolic nature in today's society will lead to it's destruction.

Our enemies will eat our children and all we hold dear.

Why? because we let them, through the destruction of our society and all that makes us distinctly, American.

Just give China another 50 years. Start learning Mandarin NOW.

You started with a clear point, then you seemingly wandered off into sarcasm territory and then you, er... came right back around to serious? I can't really tell.

The part I underlined, in particular, just seem a tad tense and somewhat exaggerated.


I may be reading too much into this but do you think that unwed mothers shouldn't be considered equal human beings, like they were not very long ago? I have never heard anything about unwed mothers being thought of as having high status so I'm somewhat confused regarding that.

I ot the one to get into figyts, not because i´m a sissy. It´s becuse i´m very worried what i can do when i loose control. i mean when i was a kid i almost sent my consin to a hosptial and nearly broke the necks of two friends of mine.

Kjell wrote:

YouFearGalvatron wrote:This has to do with the PC wussification of Western society in general.

Don't even get me started on the culture of Misandry that is upheld as righteious, and fathers and father figures are shown by sit-coms and commercials to be stupid, inept, and dense, amoung other things.

This, and the legitimation of unwed mothers, and their empowerment, and subsequent status symbolic nature in today's society will lead to it's destruction.

Our enemies will eat our children and all we hold dear.

Why? because we let them, through the destruction of our society and all that makes us distinctly, American.

Just give China another 50 years. Start learning Mandarin NOW.

You started with a clear point, then you seemingly wandered off into sarcasm territory and then you, er... came right back around to serious? I can't really tell.

The part I underlined, in particular, just seem a tad tense and somewhat exaggerated.


I may be reading too much into this but do you think that unwed mothers shouldn't be considered equal human beings, like they were not very long ago? I have never heard anything about unwed mothers being thought of as having high status so I'm somewhat confused regarding that.

All you need do is watch an episode of the View, or Grey's Anatomy, or Friends in order to see our downward spiral. See the glorification of someone who lacks responsibility for their own actions. It takes TWO to raise a child best: a father, and a mother. Neither is better than the other, but both are different, both fulfill a seperate but vital role, and both are equal.

Yes, single mothers are still human beings under Almighty Galvatron, btw.

I was only drawing the end conclusion to the topic in advance, as well as demonstrating the origin of the problem of wussy boys: lack of a father figure. I heard that nearly 2/3rds of all children born now are to unwed mothers.

A truly sickening figure. I feel for our sons and daughters, as they must suffer for the stupidity and selfishness of their immature parents.

I tend to get cynical and/or intense when something moves me to speak. Forgive me, those I may offend.

Ah, the bit that confused me was "unwed". I take it you rather mean "single"? I agree that there is a lack of good male role models. There's a bit of a lack of good role models, period, though...

General Magnus wrote:I ot the one to get into figyts, not because i´m a sissy. It´s becuse i´m very worried what i can do when i loose control. i mean when i was a kid i almost sent my consin to a hosptial and nearly broke the necks of two friends of mine.

Time was a lad would learn restraint from getting into a few scuffles as a kid, and then understanding violence better for it. Nowadays people are typically mroe violent because they're shielded so completely from violence at a young age, and chastised so harshly if they are involved in anyhting violent, that they have no appreciation of what they are capable of, or what can be done to them.

I personally don't want to join the army because I don't want to be used as a burecratic tool for causes I don't agree with. That's individualism right there, probably the greatest virtue man has-- self cognation.

Doesn't mean I don't think of others-- in society today, we rely on each other specifically for the case of survival, and., if the individual has to work with others, they might as well be 'nice' to get the most out of it. Humanity's social standards that are considered the ideal today essentially come from that-- libertarianism, goodwill, justice, etc.

Don't bother me, I don't bother you, but if we meet I'll generally act in a way beneficial to you and you'll do the same, so we each keep a friendly mood and each generally act in a mutually-beneficial manner. Even looking at it mathmatically, 2 forces working in the same direction achieve more than the 2 in any other arrangement, especially directly against eachother. This sense of "justice" in modern society stems from 2 forces of generally equal power. In sacrificing what we can live without-- some social freedoms, say the freedom to kill-- we gain that which we most desire-- say freedom from being killed. If something is trespassed, reparation restores balance and provides an incentive not to be crossed again.

The death of nationalism and the rise of individuality is largely in part what you describe, and I personally welcome it. Chaining ourselves to a group or institution just because we were born into it is no reason to support it, and that mentality in itself allows for a better functioning individual-- one that sees purpose beyond the state. Individuality. And thus Humanity.

I have to be a male role model to my nephew.

I found this out a few days ago, but I should've realized it when I noticed his dad was BATSHIT INSANE.

So, if he were to come home, suspended, it might go a little something like this.

Him: I got into a fight today.
Me: Did you start it?
Him: No...
Me: Did you win?
Him: Yes...
Me: Ah, you little scamp! Let's go to Burger King.

Shadowman wrote:I have to be a male role model to my nephew.

I found this out a few days ago, but I should've realized it when I noticed his dad was BATSHIT INSANE.

So, if he were to come home, suspended, it might go a little something like this.

Him: I got into a fight today.
Me: Did you start it?
Him: No...
Me: Did you win?
Him: Yes...
Me: Ah, you little scamp! Let's go to Burger King.

If i was a father, that would de the speech i would use.

General Magnus wrote:

Shadowman wrote:I have to be a male role model to my nephew.

I found this out a few days ago, but I should've realized it when I noticed his dad was BATSHIT INSANE.

So, if he were to come home, suspended, it might go a little something like this.

Him: I got into a fight today.
Me: Did you start it?
Him: No...
Me: Did you win?
Him: Yes...
Me: Ah, you little scamp! Let's go to Burger King.

If i was a father, that would de the speech i would use.

Same-- where's the problem?