Quote from Diogenes

I still have difficulty understanding why exactly boys have more delinquent outcomes than girls if there's no father in the family. It can't just be solely the reason, I would think that a boy born, say without a father because he died before he was born, would not be as bad as a boy who's family got divorced

logically a child shouldn't grow up to become delinquent just because they never knew of their parents, such as if one of the parents died before their birth

and it's still unexplainable as to why a boy would become delinquent just because there's no father in his life, it doesn't make any sense. I know that girls are at risk for greater teenage pregnancy if they don't have a father, but they're not more significantly at risk for becoming delinquent and joining gangs and terrorizing others

why would boys be driving to such delinquency just because there's no father? Are they innately more indisciplined or something that they require a father or else they'll somehow begin committing crimes? Why would they be driven to terrorize others in gangs and do self-destructive delinquent acts? It doesn't make any sense, why would boys be so much less able to self-control and regulate than girls without fathers?

I thought boys were smart and could think logically and rationally like older men, so why the greater risk for boys?

Without a father around children are living in a mother-headed household. This is the state of matriarchy, how humans lived before we became civilized. As such, with only a mother's guidance children do not grow up to become civilized persons, they simply do what comes naturally to them. What comes naturally to girls is to whore around and whelp bastards of their own. What comes naturally to boys is to fight each other over status in order to become the alpha males that get to father the next round of promiscuous, slutty girls and angry, criminal boys.

Most of our crime comes from ''Welfare Matriarchies''. These are those council estates where nobody has a job and nobody knows who their father is. These are like miniature models of what humans were like before patriarchal civilization was developed. We only interpret their behavior as criminal because we expect them, futilely, to conform to the same standards of behavior as the rest of civilized society. But understand that these are feral humans, the gang is the new tribe.

The parenting given by mothers is based on biology, motherhood is always present. The parenting given by fathers is socially constructed, it ultimately is up to the father to prepare children to be civilized human beings.

Quote from Billy

Girls do get in trouble more without a Dad.

yes but not in so much more self-destructive ways

It's boys aggressive nature they causes them to stray without proper role models.

there are other role models in his life, i.e. scholarly and philosopher men in history, male scientists, athletes

Think about what it takes for a boy to be appreciated by the opposite sex or to be popular. Money, or fame. They seek those one way or the other to get female attention or feel like somebody.

are you saying that boys are unable to use male logic to understand that they shouldn't be looking for approval from others and that their identity isn't based on the approval of others? Are you saying that boys are unable or for some reason don't know about say, the archetypal male celibate philosopher, the one that is able to think and act for himself and not pay attention to the egotistical vanities of other people?

in my own experience, I became familiar with the archetypal male celibate philosopher at around age 18-19 without any guidance from my dad, and my parents didn't have any conflict or divorce issues or anything like that. In fact my dad wasn't really part of it at all, I just realized it through my school experiences and it was in me

Quote from TheOldOligarch

Without a father around children are living in a mother-headed household. This is the state of matriarchy, how humans lived before we became civilized.

from my study there has never been a matriarchal society at all. Humans have always lived with family-centered structures including fathers

As such, with only a mother's guidance children do not grow up to become civilized persons, they simply do what comes naturally to them.

hmm... Are you saying that the vast majority of mothers cannot instill basic morality to their kids? I'm sure there are many who can...

most kids in full families aren't really taught basic morality to a full level anyway, but they don't grow up to become delinquents

What comes naturally to boys is to fight each other over status in order to become the alpha males that get to father the next round of promiscuous, slutty girls and angry, criminal boys.

but even in full families real hardcore morality isn't taught in most cases, but they don't grow up to become more delinquent

These are like miniature models of what humans were like before patriarchal civilization was developed.

there has been no matriarchal society at all in history. All historical societies from ancient times had full family structures including fathers

We only interpret their behavior as criminal because we expect them, futilely, to conform to the same standards of behavior as the rest of civilized society.

but why is it futile? Again, most intact families don't really teach full-on morality, but they don't end up delinquent either

The parenting given by fathers is socially constructed, it ultimately is up to the father to prepare children to be civilized human beings.

but it doesn't make sense for boys to randomly just join gangs just because there's no father, that doesn't make sense. It's not like, "hmm I have a parent at least that gives me food and shelter, and I go to school. Oh look I'm 14 years old I guess I should now go to some screwed up gang now and find a gun and do some random vandalism and assaults."

boys don't just randomly go out and do traumatizing violent behaviour. It's not like when they're 9-13 years old they don't know that violence is not a good thing. Boys and children still have an instinctive revulsion towards violence when they're young, so what gives?

from my study there has never been a matriarchal society at all. Humans have always lived with family-centered structures including fathers-Diogenes

Well you need to get out of your pot more Diogenes, for placing the family unit as never being matriarchal run is just plain silly. Read the link below to bring you up to speed:

http://www.honornetwork.com/Roots_Of_Medusa.html

Quote from Diogenes

from my study there has never been a matriarchal society at all. Humans have always lived with family-centered structures including fathers


hmm... Are you saying that the vast majority of mothers cannot instill basic morality to their kids? I'm sure there are many who can...

most kids in full families aren't really taught basic morality to a full level anyway, but they don't grow up to become delinquents


but even in full families real hardcore morality isn't taught in most cases, but they don't grow up to become more delinquent


there has been no matriarchal society at all in history. All historical societies from ancient times had full family structures including fathers


but why is it futile? Again, most intact families don't really teach full-on morality, but they don't end up delinquent either


but it doesn't make sense for boys to randomly just join gangs just because there's no father, that doesn't make sense. It's not like, "hmm I have a parent at least that gives me food and shelter, and I go to school. Oh look I'm 14 years old I guess I should now go to some screwed up gang now and find a gun and do some random vandalism and assaults."

boys don't just randomly go out and do traumatizing violent behaviour. It's not like when they're 9-13 years old they don't know that violence is not a good thing. Boys and children still have an instinctive revulsion towards violence when they're young, so what gives?

I am interested to know why you think Matriarchy has never existed. You mention studies, what period are you talking about? While we have no real records from anyone earlier than the Sumerians, it only takes a look at surviving primitive cultures to see how insignificant fatherhood is to nature peoples. There are numerous accounts written by Christian missionaries outlining the flimsiness of family structure amongst primitives in Africa and central America. Where husbands exist they are temporary, the reproductive unit is the mother and her offspring. Males may enter this arrangement but they seldom stay long enough to form any real bond with the children, even if they are the biological father.

Also, it is not necessarily about instilling ''hardcore morality'' as you put it, although there can be no real doubt that fathers provide much more in the way of discipline for their children. It is more the fact that a boy who grows up with a father sees his father's life and expects that for himself. He expects to have his own family, his own job, his own children. Where the father is absent, the boy has no real expectations for himself and just drifts. As I said, where his environment does not teach him differently he will simply do what comes naturally to him. This is to fight for status amongst other males. The hoodies you see stabbing each other in the streets are just like stags rutting, they're determining who will be the alpha male. It is what males are for, it is what we do.

As a side question, why do you seem to find it surprising that the lack of a father affects boys differently from girls?

Quote from Percy

Why women are to blame for killing off real men

By CAROL SANDLER - More by this author » Last updated at 07:53am on 8th May 2008

When we longed for the coming of what we once liked to call the New Man, don't you sometimes think we should have been more careful what we wished for?

Back then, we thought we knew what we wanted. Moreover, what we thought we wanted didn't sound unreasonable.

Every time, women think they know what they wanted, and every time they change their mind. What they were so friggin' certain of was 'right' was ever screwed up and fanciful.

Put-upon women - run ragged by Neanderthal demands that we perform in the office, kitchen and bedroom - believed that if our partners could just be kicked up the backside of their latent sensitivity, they'd graduate from cavemen to soul-mates, and our lives would be that much easier for it.

Neanderthal demands. What? Like being just a little grateful for all the back and soul breaking work we put in supporting them and providing everything for them. They could not even do that. And putting up with women's ingratitude wasn't 'sensitive' enough?

And so we taught them the merits of changing their socks and soaping their armpits.

While women shaved the natural hair from their armpits just because a Gillette salesman hit on an idea to increase his friggin' turnover.

Perhaps we bought them style magazines, the odd designer label and a dab of face goo, too, that we might enjoy a kiss without our faces being rubbed raw.

Poor widdle faces. Can't spoil all that goo that the women were painting themselves with, now can we.

We forced them to learn one end of a nappy from another so that they might bask in the admiration of friends when they demonstrated their dexterity with a safety pin.

They might? She means she might. "See what a slave I have made of him. Even Delilah couldn't do that. Admire me, girlfriends"

We patted them on the back for donning a pinny and cooking a four-course evening meal.

Like every first class chef has been a woman? Yeh, right.

Especially if they'd shopped for it, too.

Ooooh him doing the shopping is such a turn on and what a saving on her feet. After a hard days work he has to get something or 50 on the way home.

We preached to them the importance of equality, within and without the workplace. We harangued them for their "sexism", real or imagined.

Imagined is right. Fanciful and False, along with accusation of course, and ruination.

We praised them beyond measure if they managed to shed a public tear.
We belittled the essence of masculinity. Even when, on the face of it, we meant no harm.

Meant no harm? All men are rapists is just a throw away line? What does 'on the face of it mean' to the two-faced.

We've even turned the tables so much that today it's men, not women, who are often the objects of naked physical desire.

To gays, that is. Women don't express desire. They express entitlement and demand. "Touch me there. NO NOT THERE. There."

Take, for example, Germaine Greer, who this week told a gathering of 200 boys at Winchester College that she had rarely been in a room with so much masculine beauty.

As a rule, Dr Greer has no greater fan than myself.

Why? A paedophile harridan, man-hater, who is frightened of adult men? And this woman is a fan? A FAN ?

Nevertheless, I have some sympathy with the student who put it to her that if a man of her 69 years had similarly addressed the "beauty" of young female students, there would have been outrage.

Sympathy, is it? I doubt from the tone here that she even knows what sympathy is.

Critics would have said, correctly, that he was demeaning them by reducing them to the purely physical.

Lets get physical, physical. Do a work out. Tone our buns and boobs. Most women know only the physical world, as provided by men as per the woman's entitlement.

By the same token, I have always felt uneasy with the Diet Coke adverts, where women executives rush to drool over the flesh of a half-naked building site worker. Again, reducing him to an object of lust.

Hah! But you drooled anyway. And made demeaning remarks.

After all, it took us decades to stop building site workers doing the same to women.

And now they don't bother. 'Stop' them did you? Beat them with Laws and Blue uniformed and black robed thugs more like.

You could call it turning the tables...but two wrongs don't make a right.

Try harder, Lady. You ain't convincing me.

And now, after all these years of our efforts to "retrain" men, up to and including ridiculing them, what have we really achieved?

Tell us the half of it.

We have achieved a generation of women who still earn, as a national average, only 70 per cent of men's wages, and who still do five hours of housework to every measly hour's contribution from the man of the house.

Hah ! She learned to repeat the lies. Whooda Thunk !

Yet we have also achieved a new generation of men who, worrying signs suggest, are turning into a bunch of sissies. So well done, ladies. Take a look at your handiwork now.

Ahh. Good old name-calling. Isn't that where she and her sistas started ?

Appearance has become an obsession to men.

Pnly actors, singers and boys. This woman doesn't even know what a man is.

What we started when we gave them their first style magazine is now a massively profitable publishing industry.

Oh dear.

Sales of male cosmetics are at an all-time high and women are being elbowed out of the queue for cosmetic surgery by lads desperate to have their chins tightened, their eye-bags removed or that vital breast reduction to get rid of their "man boobs".

God Almighty, what circles does ahe move in. I don't know, personally, ANY man who has had more than a tooth filling.

We begged them to weep; to show us their "feminine side".

Oh, we cry, Lady. When our children are taken away. Funny that you haven't mentioned anything about Family yet. Nothing about 'Laws'. Just whine.

Now we're awash with Paul Gascoigne moments, enhancing nothing more than the share value of Kleenex, as the slightest hint of pressure induces collapse into girly tears, leaving us to pick up the pieces of their problems as well as our own.

The tears of a million men, abused by you, madam, will wash our society away.

And worse is on the way.

The latest casualty of our well-meaning efforts, research says, is a huge decline in male libido. It's not that they can't have sex (we've got Viagra for that). No, it's that they won't have sex. Not interested.

Can't be bothered.

Yep. You blew it. You became totally undesirable. But hey, keep on blaming men. Carry on.

One Relate counsellor, Nina Bryant, says that when she started 18 years ago, it was rare for a man to admit to a lack of interest in sex. "Now," she says, "it makes about a third of my case-load."

She follows funerals too, as a hobby.

We told men we wanted them gentle and undemanding - and they gave us what we asked for. Bit of an own goal, I'd call that.

Own goal? No goals at all, ladies. We took our balls and left the field.

I am not suggesting we return to a time of smelly thugs or undomesticated louts; nor that we encourage men to revert to domineering bullies.

But you leave behind millions of smelly female thugs and undomesticated louts and infected industies with them.

Most women, sensibly, loathe the company of bullies.

Ah, that because we all love 'difference' amd most women are the same. Bullies.

But, then, they also loathe the company of men they can bully - because it brings out the worst in us.

And has it, ever !

If we can, we do, and then we end up loathing ourselves as well.

The new female influenced world that you promised would be all sweetness and light has been covered in loathing. Yours.

So, we are not attracted to the sissies, and, according to this new drop in male libido, the sissies aren't much attracted to us either.

Believe me, sweetie, it ain't just the sissies that aren't attracted to you. hailry guys like me don't care for you either.

"I need a hero," sang Bonnie Tyler.

"I'm holding out for a hero till the end of the night.

"He's got to be strong, he's got to be fast, and he's got to be fresh from the fight."

Tough. Fuck off. The heroes don't want YOU.

Re-release that record, I say.

Let's hear it for testosterone.

Revive, celebrate and applaud the things that the best of men are best at doing - and which those of us who can remember them miss: courage, honour and daredevil escapade among them.

Again, TOUGH. We''re keeping those things to ourselves.

Because as long as there are dragons - and God knows, there still are - we don't need some sensitive poet cowering in the corner. We need grown men slaying them.

Slay'em yourselves. You didn't appreciate us doing it before. In fact you called us friggin' neanderthals when we rescued you the last 50 friggin' times.

And with a warm-up like that, the libido, I suspect, will take care of itself.

You wish.

But look at what you wished for last time.

Bravo my good man, you have nailed it right on the fucking head, you should take this post and sent it to her, who knows maybe she'll get a clue, not going to hold my breath over that though but what the hell, at lest she's trying to think inseady of just spewing the same old shit full force.

Percy I am impressed with you, I like your style, I can only hope to be as elquint with words as you are someday

Quote from TheOldOligarch

Most of our crime comes from ''Welfare Matriarchies''. These are those council estates where nobody has a job and nobody knows who their father is. These are like miniature models of what humans were like before patriarchal civilization was developed. We only interpret their behavior as criminal because we expect them, futilely, to conform to the same standards of behavior as the rest of civilized society. But understand that these are feral humans, the gang is the new tribe.

The parenting given by mothers is based on biology, motherhood is always present. The parenting given by fathers is socially constructed, it ultimately is up to the father to prepare children to be civilized human beings.

You may be interested to peruse this little hidden gem, TheOldOligarch: http://www.fisheaters.com/garbagegeneration.html.

It explains in quite thorough detail why it is that a), the primitive state of humanity before the advent of civilization (i.e. Sumeria and the Fertile Crescent) was characterized by what we today would refer to as a matriarchy, and b), why it is that said matriarchy not only prohibited the establishment of an organized civilization, but was also the cause of a brutal and violent existence.

To anyone who doubts the inherently self-destructive nature of a matriarchal society, one need only look at the many afflicted nations of Africa.

I am interested to know why you think Matriarchy has never existed. You mention studies, what period are you talking about? While we have no real records from anyone earlier than the Sumerians, it only takes a look at surviving primitive cultures to see how insignificant fatherhood is to nature peoples. There are numerous accounts written by Christian missionaries outlining the flimsiness of family structure amongst primitives in Africa and central America. Where husbands exist they are temporary, the reproductive unit is the mother and her offspring. Males may enter this arrangement but they seldom stay long enough to form any real bond with the children, even if they are the biological father.-OO

Exactly right OO, if we are going to play historical revisionism for female matriarchy we can do so for patriarchy too.

You may be interested to peruse this little hidden gem, TheOldOligarch: http://www.fisheaters.com/garbagegeneration.html.

It explains in quite thorough detail why it is that a), the primitive state of humanity before the advent of civilization (i.e. Sumeria and the Fertile Crescent) was characterized by what we today would refer to as a matriarchy, and b), why it is that said matriarchy not only prohibited the establishment of an organized civilization, but was also the cause of a brutal and violent existence.

To anyone who doubts the inherently self-destructive nature of a matriarchal society, one need only look at the many afflicted nations of Africa. -IA

I was going to reference that too, as OO was going down that road quite well, BUt IA beat me to the punch. We are really starting to get some wise MRAs now.

Quote from Diogenes

but it doesn't make sense for boys to randomly just join gangs just because there's no father, that doesn't make sense. It's not like, "hmm I have a parent at least that gives me food and shelter, and I go to school. Oh look I'm 14 years old I guess I should now go to some screwed up gang now and find a gun and do some random vandalism and assaults."

boys don't just randomly go out and do traumatizing violent behaviour. It's not like when they're 9-13 years old they don't know that violence is not a good thing. Boys and children still have an instinctive revulsion towards violence when they're young, so what gives?

Even at my most delusional I don't consider myself an expert in human psychology, but if I were to wager an educated guess based solely on what I can (and have) observed, both in myself and my fellow Y chromosome bearers in modern society, I'd say that the distinct correlation between fatherless homes/poor fathering and violent male youth has to do with the teaching of honor and pride; a strong male role model usually instills a sense of personal pride and duty in his male offspring, which often serves to act as a psychological ward against the potentially less noble expressions of masculinity.

Quote from I.A.

I'd say that the distinct correlation between fatherless homes/poor fathering and violent male youth has to do with the teaching of honor and pride; a strong male role model usually instills a sense of personal pride and duty in his male offspring, which often serves to act as a psychological ward against the potentially less noble expressions of masculinity.

you're saying boys and young men aren't smart enough to know about personal honour, pride and duty?

and what about males who didn't really have a strong relationship with their intact families including fathers, but didn't have a bad relationship either, but turned out fine, they didn't have any "instilling of a sense of personal pride and duty"


but then when you look at fatherless daughters, they too have problems, though they may not be criminal gang delinquents, they will have higher rates of teenage pregnancy, hang out with gangs, drug use, teenage sex, not having any discipline, very permissive and undercontrolled... I know a girl who lives entirely with her mother at some subsidized house or something, and she is like 16 and probably has had sex since 13, does drugs alot, smokes cigarettes, and not very disciplined, her mom was just very permissive and not very monitoring at all

but then you ask, what about the single moms that aren't permissive? Wouldn't there be SOME, or at least a GOOD NUMBER of single moms that would prohibit smoking cigarettes, lots of early teenage sex, drugs, for their daughters and sons?

Apart from all that, women have the preferred option on teaching positions..

Name me ONE SINGLE SCHOOL IN THE WESTERN WORLD THAT HAS MORE THAN 10% MALE TEACHERS ?

They have been hounded out of schools, sexist female teachers will deny this as if they were actually concerned..

It is all a major joke..

Boys do not have roll models at schools and that causes a lot of issues..

Quote from christianj

Apart from all that, women have the preferred option on teaching positions..

Name me ONE SINGLE SCHOOL IN THE WESTERN WORLD THAT HAS MORE THAN 10% MALE TEACHERS ?

They have been hounded out of schools, sexist female teachers will deny this as if they were actually concerned..

It is all a major joke..

Boys do not have roll models at schools and that causes a lot of issues..

I didn't have any "role models" and I didn't end up becoming a gang member

the problem with lack of male teachers is not lack of "role models" but the lack of real education that consequently occurs in schools, women teachers are more conformist and totalitarian and will stick to the rubbish curriculum at the expense of critical thinking, intellectual content, etc...

males and boys are more concerned with the actual content and its truthiness whereas most girls just want social bonding and social "harmony" i.e. ignore the harsh facts of reality and of the miserable state of society

but we're increasingly seeing more boys and males in their late teens, 20s, and 30s becoming more and more feminine, like women, where they shun intellectual pursuits and prefer womanly things such as going to parties, getting drunk, having sex, talking about nonsense, going on facebook for hours, etc...

it's hard to know whether this is particularly a feminine thing or just a human thing, since so many men are afflicted by it, it's like as if they're really just woman inside

I think it's a combination of curriculum and role models, both. The curricula are very skewed towards girls -- everything from the substantive subject matters being taught to the way that "harder" disciplines, like maths, are being taught. It all goes completely against the way that boys learn, and advantages girls immensely, particularly in the early grades. By the time boys are ready to catch up, they can't -- the girls are too far ahead. This is not because girls are smarter than boys, it's because the schools are rigged, right now, for girls to outperform boys.


The role models issue is very important as well, however. Boys need male role models to help them navigate the transition from boys to men. Can some boys manage this without male role models? Sure. But a *ton* of boys can't, and won't, and will fail to transition (becoming kind of man-boys) or will make a very messy transition at best. Women can do a lot of things for their sons, but one thing that they cannot do is teach them how to be men. It's obvious to everyone, but noone likes to talk about it, because to do so undermines the PC meme that women can do it all -- well one thing they can't do is teach males how to be men. They can teach them how to be un-men, feminized shells of men -- but not how to be men.


So to the extent the article in the OP makes sense it's this: women have created the problem we have by taking fathers out of the lives of their sons. It's to be expected that the generation of men that has been raised by women will be more superficial, more concerned about their appearance, and so forth, as well as more directionless in terms of what it means to be a man for them. They haven't had significant male guidance about how to be an adult male -- and the messages that they have gotten about that -- from their mothers, from the media -- are both very mixed and unauthentic in that they are not male messages coming from father figures.


It's true that the absence of fathers also negatively impacts girls in their own maturing process -- but nothing nearly as significant as the impact on boys. Think of how it would be if things were reversed, if we had a generation of young women who had been raised by men? That would create a crisis of sorts for these young women similar to the situation that many young men find themselves in today. The problem won't go away until familial units become more stable, and familial units won't become more stable until a modus vivendi is reached between men and women in general, and we're nowhere particularly close to that, I'm afraid. So in the meantime, it's on us, as men, to do whatever we can for our sons and the other young men in our lives -- they need our help.

Quote from novaseeker

It all goes completely against the way that boys learn, and advantages girls immensely, particularly in the early grades.

and how do boys and girls learn differently?

From what I'm seeing, the subject matter is becoming more superficial which doesn't actually "advantages girls" in the sense of teaching them anything, it only raises their grades because they like doing superficial things

Boys need male role models to help them navigate the transition from boys to men.

what do you mean by "being a man" though? What does that entail?

Sure. But a *ton* of boys can't, and won't, and will fail to transition (becoming kind of man-boys) or will make a very messy transition at best.

but there are plenty of boys in intact families whose fathers didn't really "navigate" them from transition to boys to men either, the problem with this view is that many have different ideas of what it means "to become a man"

but one thing that they cannot do is teach them how to be men

what do you exactly MEAN by "teaching them how to be men"? What does "how to be a man" entail to you? People have different ideas about this concept

They haven't had significant male guidance about how to be an adult male -- and the messages that they have gotten about that -- from their mothers, from the media -- are both very mixed and unauthentic in that they are not male messages coming from father figures.

plenty of fathers in intact families don't provide "male guidance about how to be an adult male" also... And many have different ideas about what this entails, including fathers

Think of how it would be if things were reversed, if we had a generation of young women who had been raised by men?

how would things be exactly if a generation of young women were raised by only their fathers?