Open a brothel... Oh, wait, that's illegal. Just kidding.

Great question Percy, and I don't really have an answer. The only thing I think might help is if the western countries, like America, were attacked directly on their own soil. Then both men and women would see the gruesome reality of combat, and then maybe realize that sometimes we are born into something. A prince is born a prince; he is not born a peasant. A woman is born a woman, and man is born a man. It's not that one sex is better than another, but rather each has their own place. Some people are good at math, and others are not; some people are good at writing, and others are not. As a man, I cannot have children, I do not have boobs, and there are certain things that I must do.

Well I shifted the subject a bit there, but maybe it will help stimulate this question.

A Prince is born accidentally as a Prince, and may be deposed. A peasant may become a King (look at Obama).

Our genders might well be more of a permanent feature in our identity but even that ought not determine what we are to become.

We are all born as children of God and it is toward the expression of our better selves that we must strive. That is what we must do.

But the issue is what happens when from the start we take the wrong path. How do we correct those for whom we bear some responsibility, even if that responsibility lies in dealing with the consequence of their criminal activities? How do we steer them back to the path of achieving their 'better selves'?

the brainwashing of young boys begins in the cradle Percy and is rounded off at university and then consolidated by the mass media thereafter;

unfortunately for men they are confounded very early by the mendacious feminit twang ( eg wimyn have been suppressed for 10 000 years by men - whilst the men were developing civilisation and inventing white goods to make the lives of the oppressed more bearable ) and many men ( manginas) are co-opted to implement the feminit twang on their fellow brothers much like the commissars in the USSR coerced and deceived the Russians for seventy yeras or so:

I think with the internet young men are awakening from their forty year sleep like ol Rip did, certainly wimyn are complaining bitterly that men prefer their computer games to them and more strength to that trend too - computer games do not impoverish and render men as peonage slaves to wimyn

Yuri Besmenove on you tube gives chapter and verse on how this demoralisation is managed on a national scale

In Russia, pre-1917 going to prison was regarded as "going to University (for revolutionaries)". You went in a radical and came out a real revolutionary.

In the 1970s the British government tried locking up the IRA in prisons and such institutions were regarded also as "Univeristy", and the IRA openely held courses on politics, terrorism, bomb making etc.

Thus prisions will not work - prisons are NEGATIVE socialisation.

We need positive role models for men.

What institutions and role models do men have today that they can look up to. Who or what inspires us, as men, today?

The other question to ask is if men are bad - why are they bad - is it because of their nature, or is it because of bad socialisation, because of single mothers, because of evil family courts that seperate fathers from sons, because of feminist propaganda that brand every man a rapist and sex offender?

Thus the answer not lies in men, but in the evil feminists.

And women? Are women bad? All serious studies show that women absue children as often as men. And who is resposnislbe for reporting false crimes - men or women? Do such facts make media headlines, or influence social policy?

Thus locking up boys and men in prisions is making the victim the villian. The real evil is not men, but the feminists. Hitler used the jews as scapegotats, today we use Muslims as scapegoats, while women blame men. (and sadly most men believe feminist propaganda)

Thus as long as feminist propganda rules, we can lock men up and things will still not change, nay - they will get worse!

I am happy to blame feminists for the things they can logically be blamed for, but criminality is not always their sole fault.

There have always been criminal - or mischeivious, obnoxious, holligan - little shits and we can talk until the cows come home about nature and nurture and whether feminism makes it situation worse. The issue is what to do with them that protects us (we, society, everyone of a civilised bent) and helps them get onto a better path.

Prison is but one means. I have not suggsted 'prison'. Indeed, I am simply asking and giving an example that was in a UK newspaper.

A confined sub-society, a total environment, with strict rules and expectations has been the saviour of many a young chap. The military for example.

In ages past the Monasteries provided such a means. Even the Teutonic Order had its ways, rules, conforms and duties, albeit directed towards visiting violence upon other societies. These days it is somewhet easier for a young chap to detrimentally impact on a great many people. And there are far more of them too. God help us all if they organise !!!

I support men. I have a positive regard for men. In general. But some men are neither deserving not safe to be around. Let loose they can do immense damage. It is a man's issue to recognise, acknowledge and DO something useful and effective to find such young men and put them on a better path to better themselves.

I have similar regard to young women. I see them more and more going down similar paths and I feel similarly concerned about their future . And mine. After all, I have to live in the same cities and towns as these young thugs, male and female.

So, let us not simply see it as a feminism problem.

Sure, feminism has made things worse and will continue to bugger up our children. But they are OUR children.

I can see your point of view - but:

1/Half of men sitting in prison are there because they could not afford a good lawyer - or through "strange laws" let us not forget the UK has "political prisoners" - its easy as pie to be labelled a terrorist (how many terrorist in UK and US jails are real terrorists?

In Poland we have a saying "Find me a man and I will find a law he has broken.

OK, so lets swtich the topic to the tiny minority who are violent - eg murders'. This number is quite small. And often men are violent through a reason.

What is to be done with them? Maybe nothing?

I favour a system - which is being discussed in the UK right now, that the maximumn time one should spend in prison is 5-7 years - even for murder.

Is this fair? Sure, if you kill a member of my family then you face a 5-7 prison sentence, but if I decided to "revenge" kill you I would get say 2 years in prison.

This put power back into the hands of the citizens and ensure swfit justice. If you think after killing a member of my family/clan a smart lawyer will get you off, then you will have to deal with me.

The problem is that we are asking the wrong question - not "what is to be done with them", but rather "What am I going to do with them".

And in fact it is NOT men who are dangerous - Percy - here you are perpetuating a social myth. How many people have men (as individuals) killed in last the last 100 years? It is the STATE that is the mass murderer, it is the state that causes wars. You dont say "oh look the UK government is responsible for the deaths in Iraq/Afghanistan, etc", you simply point the finger at men and say "oh some men are really dangerous".

Whats really dangers are STATES - and I am not thinking Nazi Germany or Stalins Russia, as Britiain killed similar numbers through the slave trade, colonialism. The US committed genocide against the native Indians, while Australia has its hands soaked in blood as well. But of course such murder is "legitimate" whereas if a woman killed my son and I killed her I would be a murder.

Thus the bigger villian around are not the odd homocidal manic who the tabolid press speaks of, it is the state.

Richard, you continue to talk of Gaols, where MEN are put.

I am talking of BOYS.

I am not even talking of gaols.

If you want to start a thread about men in gaols, go right ahead, but you are derailing this thread.

Can't you make some comments that are relevant and carry the thread forward?

Where are the friggin' moderators?

Let me ask you this question - do you believe the state should "correct" kids? Well in that case, the feminists have the right to have the state implement feminist policies.

My point is simple, get the state out of our lives - especially our childrens lives - have'nt all the courts, court psychologist, social workers, etc taught you one thing - the state is bad!

If a man is given a relatively free hand with his kids - as was in the past - we wont have the delinquent problems we have today.

The Daily Mail article is part of a wider issue - it allows state violence against our kids - Percy why dont you see the bigger picture - Why stop at bortals? Why not similar "short sharp shock tactics in other areas - eg if kids protest, lets use rubber bullets as wel - as is the Daily Mail article now part of the wider campaign by the conservstives to drum up support to alllow the use of such weapons in the UK?

No, if my kid did wrong I, as his father should be allowed to discpline him - not the state. Give discplinary powers back to fathers.

So my answer to yor question is re-empower fathers.

Do you have a better answer?

Percy,I can speak from a bit of experience on this.

How can father's guide or correct young men when they are powerless to do so?

Or do you think the "system" should be doing this on their own.

I do agree that training and education,along with a little hard work are far more beneficial than jail in helping youngster's.

Quote from Percy

I have similar regard to young women. I see them more and more going down similar paths and I feel similarly concerned about their future . And mine. After all, I have to live in the same cities and towns as these young thugs, male and female.

So, let us not simply see it as a feminism problem.

Sure, feminism has made things worse and will continue to bugger up our children. But they are OUR children.

Are they now?

Interesting:
Raising a child should be everyone's business

Quote from Percy

I have some sympathy with the urge to claim that raising children is everyone's business. But it can be taken too far and 'obligate' interference without due recognition of inherent human rights. It can also an unwarranted 'take-over' from parents

I have made ny position VERY clear on numerous occasions on this forum, that Both parents are WHOLLY and TOTALLY responsible for raising their children adequately.

They may have access to the help of others, but those others must NOT interfere unasked unless it can be shown that a child is in Immanent and Severe danger. (That includes criminality at that same imperative).

So, which is it: are they our children and our responsibility or is it the parents who are totally responsible?

Why is it wider society's responsibility all of a sudden? Does that change of responsibility occur suddenly when they reach some magic age at which we decide they are adults? Why not before that point, to prevent them being hooligans, or why not keep the parents the ones who are totally responsible, until the person themselves says "enough of this - from now on, I want to have the authority over myself and accept the full responsibility for my actions"?

Are we really concerned about them? Or is it US we are concerned about?

Quote from Douglas

Are they now?

Interesting:
Raising a child should be everyone's business

So, which is it: are they our children and our responsibility or is it the parents who are totally responsible?

Why is it wider society's responsibility all of a sudden? Does that change of responsibility occur suddenly when they reach some magic age at which we decide they are adults? Why not before that point, to prevent them being hooligans, or why not keep the parents the ones who are totally responsible, until the person themselves says "enough of this - from now on, I want to have the authority over myself and accept the full responsibility for my actions"?

Are we really concerned about them? Or is it US we are concerned about?

That's just too hard to answer with a yes or no.

How about a descending scale.... (like Newton's Law of Cooling - is that a descending parabola, I forget)

Parents - major share of rights and responsibilities which never actually end but merely taper off as the child grows, matures and has children of his own.
Grandparents (both sides) - watching brief on the parenting skills of their children. Giving encouragement and censure where appropriate.
Extended family - uncles, aunts and cousins may not have a direct say in parenting but they do have a role in socializing and providing a variety of credible role-models.
Wider community - a valuable role in reinforcing agreed collective norms for all children within the community.
The State - absolute last resort for dealing with a relatively tiny number of misfits.

Reason for the above: social cohesion

Doesn't it seem that the scale has been inverted? Those that have the most interest have the greatest responsibilities and the least rights - and vice-versa.

Reason for the above: social dysfunction

Well there's a surprise.

I am tired of this. I asked a simple question:

But how are we to correct the young chaps so affected, who run riot?

WE.

That is, MRAs.

We who are interested in the effects of our society's attitudes toward young chaps.

Did I ask about gaols and men?

Did I not state clearly enough who run riot.

As for 'interference' and my prior statement about parents and 'others' I made clear that unwwarranted interference was not my wish.

I stated But how are we to correct the young chaps so affected.

I did not even approach a suggestion of jailing them, nor of the 'State' doing things.

It seems few do not want to address the issue, but prefer to change the subject and then pick fantasy-fault with me.

..................

Now.

Last year I was coming out of my local news agent after buying my usual tin of pipe tobacco. A group of young lads were gathered and brawling. They had the usual gaggle of girls there too. Most were cheering on whilst one was laying into another bashing his head on the floor and thumping him. I shoved him off and read the riot act at him. I even shook my walking stick at them.

Not for long, nor excessively loud. Just long and loud enough for them to register shock. And to laugh.

Then I spent a good fifteen minutes getting them to explain the problems. They were trivial. As usual. But they did talk.

An adult man was taking an interest.

I got the strong impression that they wer just not used to that.

I firmly berated them for their failure to act like the men they thought they were pretending to be. I got the louder ones to state what they thought manliness was. Boy did that generate some laughs. Even the girls joined in. After that fifteen minutes most were sitting around chatting with me and asking questions. Occasionally I had to tell one or two to wipe the non-manly sneers off their faces. Most of the talk gained assent and support.

...........

This is my point. If YOU don't get off your arses and do something, then the State will and our boys (and girls) will be jailed.


...... I am not suggesting that other less knackered old shits try to intervene in a gang war. I am not suggesting that you put your life on the line. I assessed their 'capacity' and acted accordingly.

I can quite imagine and expect that some men here would gain the grudging respect of a bunch of teenage boys if they stood up and acted like the men I know they are.

But I do not expect those same men to act like fuckwits when I ask a simple friggin' question.

Now, fuck off and behave like men.

Now, fuck off and behave like men.

Come on, my friend. How could they ever know what behaving like a man looks like and feels like?

They don't have the benefit of your interpretations of honesty, loyalty and integrity.

To them those concepts are outdated. "Behaving liker a man" is just the same as the "manning up" feminist propaganda.
It's just another wimmin's ploy and it has "SUCKER" written all over it.

The boys just don't have viable alternatives.
I'd go further.
In the UK, South Asian young men, groomed to be patriararchs and founders of future dynasties, sought a new, bright future in the west. Didn't they also have a dream of founding patriarchal families - even if the patriarch started out as a taxi-driver? Some made it and some did not.
The failures got screwed because western governments preferred to elevate the women and disenfranchise the men. The successful males were knighted and the rest were cast adrift. The ones that didn't make it became suicide-bombers.
You surely know all this.

My eldest son knows this. My younger sons need more information.
Your personal encounters give much credit to you. But in the wider world - it might be time to move on.

What about starting a summer camp, or after-school something? It could be like boy-scouts and girl-scouts, but centered around being a man or woman, respectively. Separate camps for boys and girls.