Post by: seeker_two on January 31, 2008, 01:25:40 AM
Quote from: Dallas Morning News
Rod Dreher: What child-men need is some tradition
What these men need is some authoritative tradition, says ROD DREHER
12:00 AM CST on Sunday, January 27, 2008
Some years ago, a young painter about to complete art school complained bitterly to me about his education.
"They told us all that we were geniuses the first day we showed up," he said. "They never taught us the basics. Whatever we wanted to do, our teachers thought was brilliant. Now I'm about to graduate, and I don't know much more about being an artist now than when I started."
The young artist's point was actually more profound than I realized then and helps explain the pathetic phenomenon of child-men those woebegone males who seem stuck in perpetual adolescence.
This unhappy student rightly recognized that the preceding generation the baby boomers had failed in its responsibility to pass on to him a tradition. Had his art teachers only drilled him in tradition, they likely would have bludgeoned his creativity with mannerism. Instead, they declared tradition irrelevant and made each student's individual desire the only necessary standard. Without a tradition against which to measure oneself as an artist, there is nothing to learn, no impetus to learn it and no penalty for not learning it.
The student asked a question What is an artist? for which his culture no longer provided an authoritative answer. But if you ask a far more important question What is a man? the culture comes up equally short, and for the same reason.
To be sure, the definition of manhood is culture-bound and has been talked about since time immemorial. The first-century Roman teacher Quintillian warned against spoiling boys. "If the child crawls on purple," the tutor wrote, referencing the imperial color, "what will he not desire when he comes to manhood?"
"We have no right to be surprised," he continued, speaking of boys who don't know how to be men. "It was we that taught them: They hear us use such words, they see our mistresses and minions; every dinner party is loud with foul songs, and things are presented to their eyes of which we should blush to speak. Hence springs habit, and habit in time becomes second nature."
Today's child-men have been formed by a culture that has lost or, rather, thrown away a relatively fixed standard of manhood. It used to be that virtue was the measure of a man. Was a man just? Was he brave (and not necessarily in terms of physical courage)? Was he honorable in his dealings with those weaker than he? Did he respect women? Did he believe in something higher than himself? Did he submit to the concepts of duty and respect?
It's not that all men, or even most, lived by this general code. It's that they recognized that they would be judged by it, and judged themselves by it.
That's mostly gone, replaced by a therapeutic model in which the autonomous self is its own judge, and personal satisfaction is the measure of a life well lived. For 40 years now, we have been living through a cultural and psychological revolution that has rendered young men (indeed, most people) incapable of recognizing and submitting to authority. As social critic Philip Rieff foresaw at the dawn of this revolution, the loosening of traditional constraints would make man free, but it would be a liberty fraught with anxiety, even psychological paralysis.
Which brings us to our latter-day child-men, the wayward sons of a generation that crawled on purple and never got over the experience. Quintillian and his successors through the ages knew that the process of becoming a man requires a juvenile male to subordinate his own desires to an objective code of conduct which is to say, some sort of higher authority. In this sense, the self could only be understood and realized in relation to one's community and its values.
The culture warriors of the previous generation were not wrong to question conformity, but they went too far. They have deprived their sons of authoritative tradition, both in word and example, and with it the ability to transcend the adolescent state. Much in our dominant culture conspires to keep young men in a permanent state of adolescence: conscious only of their desires and the impulse to fulfill them. This dependency is tailor-made for a consumerist economy built on creating and exploiting wants. Making the world safe for big business, no doubt, wasn't what the '60s generation had in mind, but it's a little late for do-overs.
The fathers of today's child-men gave to their sons the freedom to choose their own paths through life. But how to choose and what to choose? On that, the gray ponytails must remain silent. All they have is the hope that, having turned their sons loose in the world without a map, habituated to the idea that their maps are useless, that the young men find their way out of the wilderness.
Rod Dreher is a Dallas Morning News editorial columnist. His e-mail address is rdreher@dallas news.com.
What these men need is some authoritative tradition, says ROD DREHER
12:00 AM CST on Sunday, January 27, 2008
Some years ago, a young painter about to complete art school complained bitterly to me about his education.
"They told us all that we were geniuses the first day we showed up," he said. "They never taught us the basics. Whatever we wanted to do, our teachers thought was brilliant. Now I'm about to graduate, and I don't know much more about being an artist now than when I started."
The young artist's point was actually more profound than I realized then and helps explain the pathetic phenomenon of child-men those woebegone males who seem stuck in perpetual adolescence.
This unhappy student rightly recognized that the preceding generation the baby boomers had failed in its responsibility to pass on to him a tradition. Had his art teachers only drilled him in tradition, they likely would have bludgeoned his creativity with mannerism. Instead, they declared tradition irrelevant and made each student's individual desire the only necessary standard. Without a tradition against which to measure oneself as an artist, there is nothing to learn, no impetus to learn it and no penalty for not learning it.
The student asked a question What is an artist? for which his culture no longer provided an authoritative answer. But if you ask a far more important question What is a man? the culture comes up equally short, and for the same reason.
To be sure, the definition of manhood is culture-bound and has been talked about since time immemorial. The first-century Roman teacher Quintillian warned against spoiling boys. "If the child crawls on purple," the tutor wrote, referencing the imperial color, "what will he not desire when he comes to manhood?"
"We have no right to be surprised," he continued, speaking of boys who don't know how to be men. "It was we that taught them: They hear us use such words, they see our mistresses and minions; every dinner party is loud with foul songs, and things are presented to their eyes of which we should blush to speak. Hence springs habit, and habit in time becomes second nature."
Today's child-men have been formed by a culture that has lost or, rather, thrown away a relatively fixed standard of manhood. It used to be that virtue was the measure of a man. Was a man just? Was he brave (and not necessarily in terms of physical courage)? Was he honorable in his dealings with those weaker than he? Did he respect women? Did he believe in something higher than himself? Did he submit to the concepts of duty and respect?
It's not that all men, or even most, lived by this general code. It's that they recognized that they would be judged by it, and judged themselves by it.
That's mostly gone, replaced by a therapeutic model in which the autonomous self is its own judge, and personal satisfaction is the measure of a life well lived. For 40 years now, we have been living through a cultural and psychological revolution that has rendered young men (indeed, most people) incapable of recognizing and submitting to authority. As social critic Philip Rieff foresaw at the dawn of this revolution, the loosening of traditional constraints would make man free, but it would be a liberty fraught with anxiety, even psychological paralysis.
Which brings us to our latter-day child-men, the wayward sons of a generation that crawled on purple and never got over the experience. Quintillian and his successors through the ages knew that the process of becoming a man requires a juvenile male to subordinate his own desires to an objective code of conduct which is to say, some sort of higher authority. In this sense, the self could only be understood and realized in relation to one's community and its values.
The culture warriors of the previous generation were not wrong to question conformity, but they went too far. They have deprived their sons of authoritative tradition, both in word and example, and with it the ability to transcend the adolescent state. Much in our dominant culture conspires to keep young men in a permanent state of adolescence: conscious only of their desires and the impulse to fulfill them. This dependency is tailor-made for a consumerist economy built on creating and exploiting wants. Making the world safe for big business, no doubt, wasn't what the '60s generation had in mind, but it's a little late for do-overs.
The fathers of today's child-men gave to their sons the freedom to choose their own paths through life. But how to choose and what to choose? On that, the gray ponytails must remain silent. All they have is the hope that, having turned their sons loose in the world without a map, habituated to the idea that their maps are useless, that the young men find their way out of the wilderness.
Rod Dreher is a Dallas Morning News editorial columnist. His e-mail address is rdreher@dallas news.com.
Your thoughts?........
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 31, 2008, 01:42:35 AM
Post by: mtnbkr on January 31, 2008, 02:09:13 AM
Chris
Post by: Jamisjockey on January 31, 2008, 02:14:05 AM
Boy's Passage, Man's Journey
Post by: K Frame on January 31, 2008, 02:48:29 AM
Crock o'crapola comes to mind...
Post by: Jamisjockey on January 31, 2008, 03:04:15 AM
My generation and the one's coming after have been raised on everyone is special, everyone gets a trophy even when you lose, instant gratification and that food comes from the grocery store.
Post by: seeker_two on January 31, 2008, 03:06:32 AM
Post by: Jamisjockey on January 31, 2008, 03:10:31 AM
Name a "tradition" in today's society that marks a boy's transition to manhood.....
There is none. Today everyone thinks that getting laid, getting drunk, using drugs, entering military service or learning to drive makes them a man. Then, they put Truck Nutz on thier lifted 4x4, expect everyone around them to bend to thier will, and let thier children play video games for 8 hours a day while sucking down Mt. Dew and stuffing cheetos in thier pieholes.
Most of the "sane" men my age I know grew up doing things with thier fathers. They learned traditon from them.
Post by: Joe Demko on January 31, 2008, 03:22:49 AM
Don't romanticize the past into something it wasn't. That article is stuff and nonsense.
Post by: K Frame on January 31, 2008, 03:43:59 AM
The author is saying that there's no ritualistic passing of traditions along to the next generation...
But his young artist is saying this: "They never taught us the basics. Whatever we wanted to do, our teachers thought was brilliant. Now I'm about to graduate, and I don't know much more about being an artist now than when I started."
Basics are NOT traditions! Basics are the fundamental foundation of something. Case in point, a basic tenet of art that needs to be taught is vanishing point perspective.
That's a basic, but it's NOT a tradition, at least not the kind of tradition that would magically turn a boy into a man.
Everything else sort of collapses around this crucial misinterpretation.
Post by: Manedwolf on January 31, 2008, 04:04:48 AM
I mean, literally, they'd tear your work in half and give you a dressing-down worthy of a drill sergeant, telling you just what was wrong with your work, what the flaws were that you didn't see. You learned to accept criticism that way.
Very important job skill for commercial graphic designers, because the CEO/art director/etc will figuratively, if not literally shred your "masterpiece" and tell you to start again.
If someone thinks they're special and everything they do is wonderful, they're going to fail out of the corporate creative world nearly instantly. The real world hires artists, not artistes.
Post by: Racehorse on January 31, 2008, 05:36:51 AM
I don't know what art school this guy went to, but the art classes I had, the professors were tough.
I mean, literally, they'd tear your work in half and give you a dressing-down worthy of a drill sergeant, telling you just what was wrong with your work, what the flaws were that you didn't see. You learned to accept criticism that way.
Very important job skill for commercial graphic designers, because the CEO/art director/etc will figuratively, if not literally shred your "masterpiece" and tell you to start again.
If someone thinks they're special and everything they do is wonderful, they're going to fail out of the corporate creative world nearly instantly. The real world hires artists, not artistes.
I mean, literally, they'd tear your work in half and give you a dressing-down worthy of a drill sergeant, telling you just what was wrong with your work, what the flaws were that you didn't see. You learned to accept criticism that way.
Very important job skill for commercial graphic designers, because the CEO/art director/etc will figuratively, if not literally shred your "masterpiece" and tell you to start again.
If someone thinks they're special and everything they do is wonderful, they're going to fail out of the corporate creative world nearly instantly. The real world hires artists, not artistes.
I have to agree with this. I had several art classes in college, and my experience was similar. All I can say is that this kid must have gone to a pretty crappy school or not paid attention to what his teachers were telling him. Either that or he was a no-talent hack and blaming it on the school and society is his way to make himself feel better.
Post by: mtnbkr on January 31, 2008, 05:40:52 AM
I still disagree with the point of the article.
Chris
Post by: K Frame on January 31, 2008, 05:48:58 AM
Of course, maybe had he had someone to pass man reporter traditions on to him...
Post by: Racehorse on January 31, 2008, 05:50:56 AM
I think you guys are focusing on the wrong portion of the article. The artist's story is a parable and not the point by itself.
I still disagree with the point of the article.
Chris
I still disagree with the point of the article.
Chris
Actually, I think the last part of my comment is relevant to the point of the article. Blaming it on society is always a great cop-out to avoid personal responsibility. Yes, society plays a role. Yes, the quality of parenting plays a role. But each individual is still responsible for their own actions. If someone is stuck in adolescence, blaming it on others is a natural. But in reality, it's their own fault. Plenty of boys had crappy parents or no parents and became men just fine.
Post by: Jamisjockey on January 31, 2008, 05:52:27 AM
Post by: charby on January 31, 2008, 05:55:20 AM
Okay...crapola, Why?
My generation and the one's coming after have been raised on everyone is special, everyone gets a trophy even when you lose, instant gratification and that food comes from the grocery store.
My generation and the one's coming after have been raised on everyone is special, everyone gets a trophy even when you lose, instant gratification and that food comes from the grocery store.
Well I'm one in that generation that thinks differently and I get looked down a lot by my peers because of it. I've been call cold hearted and not a team player because of it. I try to explain to my peers that there are clear winners and losers in life, once you see that you can succeed. I use a lot more words and examples but you get the point.
Post by: Dntsycnt on January 31, 2008, 06:02:08 AM
Post by: Marvin Dao on January 31, 2008, 07:04:21 AM
Post by: Bogie on January 31, 2008, 08:10:27 AM
Post by: charby on January 31, 2008, 08:35:55 AM
learning how to create page layouts that look "interesting," but which do not communicate for squat.
No truer words have ever been spoken....
Post by: Tecumseh on January 31, 2008, 08:53:56 AM
Name a "tradition" in today's society that marks a boy's transition to manhood.....
I assume you mean American society. I would say getting your first car, going off to school, getting your first gun, getting laid for the first time, having your first beer, or a mulitude of other tings. It depends on what you define as a man and what you think. It is a highly subjective topic.I would agree though that the older generation should not be blaming the younger generations for the younger generations faults as they look to their fathers and ancestors for guidance. We need only look at the children of the 60s and 70s to see why our generation is screwed up. They need to take the blame for what happened to this country.
Post by: Manedwolf on January 31, 2008, 08:55:34 AM
As a working artist, what I see are a lot of kids who go to kollidge for four years, and spend it doing political enlightenment, wearing black, attending orgies, deciding that they actually _are_ smarter than everyone else, and learning how to create page layouts that look "interesting," but which do not communicate for squat.
Most of that sort got their ass fired when the dotcoms fell, thankfully. Look at how many companies have gone from pretentious, ridiculous web pages to simpler, useful ones.
Most all companies now want something called a "successful campaign" on your resume.
Post by: wooderson on January 31, 2008, 09:14:51 AM
Quote
"They told us all that we were geniuses the first day we showed up," he said. "They never taught us the basics. Whatever we wanted to do, our teachers thought was brilliant. Now I'm about to graduate, and I don't know much more about being an artist now than when I started."
This has a ring of truth to it. I never heard a professor demolish a piece in critique. But I never did either - most of the time the work wasn't laughable or godawful, it just wasn't inspired enough to merit comment.
But this is the way of art (and arguably everything) - 99% isn't going to be spectacular. As it has always been.
Quote
The young artist's point was actually more profound than I realized then and helps explain the pathetic phenomenon of child-men those woebegone males who seem stuck in perpetual adolescence.
I am gleefully stuck in my "perpetual adolescence." Don't want a family or responsibilities, enjoy the theoretical ability to pack up and haul butt out of town when I choose.
I didn't actually read beyond that, though. People whining about the DECLINE OF CIVILIZATION/MANNERS/MANHOOD/etc. just bores me to tears.
Post by: Manedwolf on January 31, 2008, 09:30:03 AM
This has a ring of truth to it. I never heard a professor demolish a piece in critique. But I never did either - most of the time the work wasn't laughable or godawful, it just wasn't inspired enough to merit comment.
Then you didn't go to a real art school or real art classes.
I'm sure there's some "Everyone is special" PC academies out there, but they don't prepare you for reality at all. Someone who had that sort of "art" education would be fired the first time an art director shredded their piece and they talked back and told them they "didn't understand it".
Post by: wooderson on January 31, 2008, 09:41:41 AM
Never saw the point of getting into graphic design or photography where I'd be reporting to or appeasing an art director/advertising scumbug/etc.. If the goal is to grind it out in the bidness world, there are easier, more lucrative paths that I would choose.
Post by: Tuco on January 31, 2008, 10:54:53 AM
Your thoughts?........
Garbage, Balderdash, Tripe - 1989 psychobabble ala Sam Keen / Robert Bly.
It is up to each man to come to terms with what it means to be a man before he dies. Some do, some dont
Some join the Marine Corps;
Some read Kipling;
Some work in a Steel Mill;
Some become a Physician;
Some abuse cocaine and alcohol;
Some go to Art school.
Some find out and some never do. It is not the fault of our fathers. The responsibility falls squarely upon the shoulders of the individual.
Soakers, a man.
Post by: JohnBT on January 31, 2008, 04:15:58 PM
I can't explain it, but I know one when I see it.
John in Richmond
Home to the VCU art school and world famous sculpture department. Hi Joe.
Post by: doc2rn on January 31, 2008, 04:49:56 PM
Post by: LadySmith on January 31, 2008, 11:32:09 PM
Besides, if you really want to get the measure of men, you ask their women.
Post by: seeker_two on February 01, 2008, 01:05:11 AM
Art, I had to take one of those classes. Between 40hrs/ wk and 15 credit hrs, I get maybe an hr a day with my daughter. Before that I was working 2 full time jobs, one to pay the sitter the other to put a roof over our heads and food in our bellies. If companies salaries had kept up with inflation we wouldn't be in this recession. Instead of treating employees better things just got better at the top.We have become so accustomed to take the meager scraps we have been given, that we have deprived ourselves of the right to be paid an honest wage.
The only problem with trickle-down economics is when the top doesn't let it trickle down.....
....human beings have morals......corporations do not.......
Post by: MechAg94 on February 01, 2008, 04:28:13 AM
Art, I had to take one of those classes. Between 40hrs/ wk and 15 credit hrs, I get maybe an hr a day with my daughter. Before that I was working 2 full time jobs, one to pay the sitter the other to put a roof over our heads and food in our bellies. If companies salaries had kept up with inflation we wouldn't be in this recession. Instead of treating employees better things just got better at the top.We have become so accustomed to take the meager scraps we have been given, that we have deprived ourselves of the right to be paid an honest wage.
The only problem with trickle-down economics is when the top doesn't let it trickle down.....
....human beings have morals......corporations do not.......
I don't see what you are seeing apparently.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 01, 2008, 05:08:03 AM
Art, I had to take one of those classes. Between 40hrs/ wk and 15 credit hrs, I get maybe an hr a day with my daughter. Before that I was working 2 full time jobs, one to pay the sitter the other to put a roof over our heads and food in our bellies. If companies salaries had kept up with inflation we wouldn't be in this recession. Instead of treating employees better things just got better at the top.We have become so accustomed to take the meager scraps we have been given, that we have deprived ourselves of the right to be paid an honest wage.
The only problem with trickle-down economics is when the top doesn't let it trickle down.....
....human beings have morals......corporations do not.......
They don't need them. Corporations exist for profit.
If they treat their employees badly, their products will be shoddy. If they put out shoddy products, consumers will buy someone else's products. That's how the marketplace works.
Post by: Jamisjockey on February 01, 2008, 05:18:39 AM
Art, I had to take one of those classes. Between 40hrs/ wk and 15 credit hrs, I get maybe an hr a day with my daughter. Before that I was working 2 full time jobs, one to pay the sitter the other to put a roof over our heads and food in our bellies. If companies salaries had kept up with inflation we wouldn't be in this recession. Instead of treating employees better things just got better at the top.We have become so accustomed to take the meager scraps we have been given, that we have deprived ourselves of the right to be paid an honest wage.
The only problem with trickle-down economics is when the top doesn't let it trickle down.....
....human beings have morals......corporations do not.......
Bullshit.
Wife and I did pretty good last year. And we're already doing better this year.
You wanna know how we spend our money?
Private preschool.
Housekeeper
lawn service
3 office staff.
So, by our hard labor in building a successful business, we're employing 3 people directly. And we're pumping money into 3 other businesses. Not to mention the amount of money we spend in the economy for things like office supplies. If we werent running a business, none of that would happen.
I challenge you to employee three people. Our payroll liability for this year is going to be around 100k.
Post by: seeker_two on February 01, 2008, 06:45:49 AM
Art, I had to take one of those classes. Between 40hrs/ wk and 15 credit hrs, I get maybe an hr a day with my daughter. Before that I was working 2 full time jobs, one to pay the sitter the other to put a roof over our heads and food in our bellies. If companies salaries had kept up with inflation we wouldn't be in this recession. Instead of treating employees better things just got better at the top.We have become so accustomed to take the meager scraps we have been given, that we have deprived ourselves of the right to be paid an honest wage.
The only problem with trickle-down economics is when the top doesn't let it trickle down.....
....human beings have morals......corporations do not.......
Bullshit.
Wife and I did pretty good last year. And we're already doing better this year.
You wanna know how we spend our money?
Private preschool.
Housekeeper
lawn service
3 office staff.
So, by our hard labor in building a successful business, we're employing 3 people directly. And we're pumping money into 3 other businesses. Not to mention the amount of money we spend in the economy for things like office supplies. If we werent running a business, none of that would happen.
I challenge you to employee three people. Our payroll liability for this year is going to be around 100k.
Your example is the way it's supposed to work....the way Reagan meant it to work. The problem today is that the corporate top is taking the tax breaks and profits and investing them off-shore or into areas that don't benefit the national economy. As a result, we're losing our manufacturing base, our skilled production workers, and our thriving middle class.
Trickle-down is supposed to benefit American workers.....not Chinese slave labor or illegal aliens.....
Post by: Jamisjockey on February 01, 2008, 08:16:30 AM
Post by: Tecumseh on February 01, 2008, 12:14:31 PM
I agree with what Two Cold Soakers wrote.
Besides, if you really want to get the measure of men, you ask their women.
Some of us have two or three women though...
Besides, if you really want to get the measure of men, you ask their women.
Post by: Tecumseh on February 01, 2008, 12:17:39 PM
Art, I had to take one of those classes. Between 40hrs/ wk and 15 credit hrs, I get maybe an hr a day with my daughter. Before that I was working 2 full time jobs, one to pay the sitter the other to put a roof over our heads and food in our bellies. If companies salaries had kept up with inflation we wouldn't be in this recession. Instead of treating employees better things just got better at the top.We have become so accustomed to take the meager scraps we have been given, that we have deprived ourselves of the right to be paid an honest wage.
The only problem with trickle-down economics is when the top doesn't let it trickle down.....
....human beings have morals......corporations do not.......
Bullshit.
Wife and I did pretty good last year. And we're already doing better this year.
You wanna know how we spend our money?
Private preschool.
Housekeeper
lawn service
3 office staff.
So, by our hard labor in building a successful business, we're employing 3 people directly. And we're pumping money into 3 other businesses. Not to mention the amount of money we spend in the economy for things like office supplies. If we werent running a business, none of that would happen.
I challenge you to employee three people. Our payroll liability for this year is going to be around 100k.
Your example is the way it's supposed to work....the way Reagan meant it to work. The problem today is that the corporate top is taking the tax breaks and profits and investing them off-shore or into areas that don't benefit the national economy. As a result, we're losing our manufacturing base, our skilled production workers, and our thriving middle class.
Trickle-down is supposed to benefit American workers.....not Chinese slave labor or illegal aliens.....
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 01, 2008, 01:02:26 PM
"Doing things with dad" is a pretty new idea itself. Men my father's age, if you talk to them, will mostly tell you about their father being at work in the mines/factory/farm for long gruelling shifts. When dad got home, he was tired. He ate and rested for the next shift. Those were absolutely the glory days of children being seen and not heard. Do stuff with the kids? Yeah, right. When working class men had any leisure time to "do stuff" they did it with their buddies. Typically, it was not family-friendly activity.
"Doing things with dad" described a typical boyhood, prior to the Industrial Revolution. In those days, boys typically followed their fathers to the fields, or worked with them all day in the family business (black-smithing, weaving, what-have-you). Notable exceptions would be those who were apprenticed at an early age, to someone other than their father.
I would guess things were similar in pastoral or "hunter-gatherer" societies.
Post by: Strings on February 01, 2008, 01:51:52 PM
Doesn't matter: all mine have the same opinion of me...
Post by: Caimlas on February 01, 2008, 02:26:23 PM
As far as the artists' gripe about being hung out to dry, that's precisely what has happened to us. We've been told, from a very young age, that the path to success is to go get good grades, go to college, and then "rake in the big bucks". Never mind the fact that most college and college preparatory information has been increasingly targeted towards women; never mind that there is no emphasis whatsoever in schooling on deductive problem solving, or on 3-dimensional analysis and thought processes (ie anything to do with the real world) - because those are, predominantly, male traits and skills. (Though thankfully, there's still some inductive problem solving discussed - albeit not much.)
I grew up in a family with a grandmother who was a public school educator; she retired when I was about 12. I was told - and still am told to this day - that the road to success is to go through the motions of school, excel, get into a good college, excel in a field that pays well, and then get a good, comfortable job - preferably with a big, stable company that you can stay with until you retire or with the government. This is the same basic message I received from many teachers while in school. You're not told that there's a glut of college graduates these days, or that any job you get directly out of college will pay only marginally more than an entry level position not requiring a degree, or requiring something like an associates/trade degree. You're not told that there's a complete glut of people out there with business degrees, various art-related degrees, and anything to do with the humanities. You're not told that the utility of a masters or doctorate degree is fairly marginal, or that research positions (in industry or education) are slim to nil.
They basically lead you to assume that a college degree, regardless in what it is, will provide you with a free lunch ticket, regardless of your talent (because you're special and unique, of course), and that the environment you'll be entering into will be one where your school hands you a job in a 1950s business environment, with 1980s-1990s innovation, and 1990s money. From where I sit, they're basically setting up students for "socialist disillusion", what with the excessive helping of such dogma received in colleges and their push for young minds to enter such environments. Simply put, I think they want there to be a burgeoning class of young, educated, inexperienced, and motivated people with a conceited sense of self. It fits in well with the whole Marxist dream.
And no, I'm not entirely bitter (a bit angry, but I'm not saying I was outright wronged): I don't fit the generational trend. I was home-schooled for much of my life; I've found tradition by looking back several generations (I'm 25, married, and have 2 children); and I've learned to not only think for myself but to think creatively and solve problems. But I know I'm the exception, not only because I'm aware of the fact that I am particularly bright, but also because I can see that most people who are approximately my age - and upwards of 35-40 in urban areas - are still children, failing to take responsibility for their actions and living for the moment.
Post by: Caimlas on February 01, 2008, 02:51:11 PM
"Doing things with dad" is a pretty new idea itself. Men my father's age, if you talk to them, will mostly tell you about their father being at work in the mines/factory/farm for long gruelling shifts. When dad got home, he was tired. He ate and rested for the next shift. Those were absolutely the glory days of children being seen and not heard. Do stuff with the kids? Yeah, right. When working class men had any leisure time to "do stuff" they did it with their buddies. Typically, it was not family-friendly activity.
Don't romanticize the past into something it wasn't. That article is stuff and nonsense.
Don't romanticize the past into something it wasn't. That article is stuff and nonsense.
I don't know when this was you speak of, but I'm guessing it was during the industrial or post-industrial age, which was the rotten crotch from which the hippy generation dropped (and no, I'm not humiliating any person specifically here, just a generalization). There were some certain inadequacies with those generations, as it pertains to raising sons properly. Prior to that - and the great depression - there was an ethos which had not yet been corrupted by modernization, government, and the wanting of excess which extreme poverty and need (the great depression) brings on.
In that day and age, men would go out and work in the fields, farms, and shops. They would see their sons (and daughters - the importance of a righteous father for growing women can not be neglected mention) daily, and family was the center of importance. When their children reached a level of maturity which allowed them to perform chores, they did; and often, those children would work alongside their mothers and fathers, learning first-hand the qualities of a father and a man which should be emulated. It took several generation for this ethic and way of life to be completely (or at least, mostly) drawn out of our society, but it has been drawn out.
There are still some people who live by this ethic, when they're able. They work from home, or they work on the ranch, and they try and provide some sort of guidance to their children; having leisure time to do so isn't even remotely what it's about. It's about showing a concern and a focus on your family; part of that is working hard to put meat on the table, but another part is being involved when time allows, and guiding them to adulthood - manhood - when there is a moments' respite.
All the time spent with your children in the world won't make a bit of difference if you never impart wisdom to them. Will they remember playing Xbox with you, camping, or "doing things" or will they remember the things they've taught you about being a man (or woman), like: how to behave in polite company; how to treat the opposite sex; how to treat others, regardless of how they treat you; and the general effort and manner with which to conduct one's self.
Post by: Lee on February 01, 2008, 03:44:25 PM
Quote
To be sure, the definition of manhood is culture-bound and has been talked about since time immemorial. The first-century Roman teacher Quintillian warned against spoiling boys. "If the child crawls on purple," the tutor wrote, referencing the imperial color, "what will he not desire when he comes to manhood?"
So this question has been around for a while? LOL
Now, as then, I'm sure it depends on the parents and how a kid is raised.
In the hood, we see a lot of violent boy/men who substitute violence, and other vices, for character and perseverance. Unfortunately, that culture also invaded the burbs and small towns to a degree. Too much spare time seems to be the culprit to me.
Post by: Jamisjockey on February 01, 2008, 04:22:25 PM
Post by: Paddy on February 01, 2008, 06:02:04 PM
Quote
I don't know when this was you speak of, but I'm guessing it was during the industrial or post-industrial age, which was the rotten crotch from which the hippy generation dropped (and no, I'm not humiliating any person specifically here, just a generalization). There were some certain inadequacies with those generations, as it pertains to raising sons properly. Prior to that - and the great depression - there was an ethos which had not yet been corrupted by modernization, government, and the wanting of excess which extreme poverty and need (the great depression) brings on.
Yeah, well the 'hippy generation' left you a prosperous world, where you know neither fear nor want.
Post by: Strings on February 01, 2008, 06:50:24 PM
Post by: wooderson on February 01, 2008, 07:15:10 PM
Quote
I can see that most people who are approximately my age - and upwards of 35-40 in urban areas - are still children, failing to take responsibility for their actions and living for the moment.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Post by: seeker_two on February 02, 2008, 03:21:29 AM
Art, I had to take one of those classes. Between 40hrs/ wk and 15 credit hrs, I get maybe an hr a day with my daughter. Before that I was working 2 full time jobs, one to pay the sitter the other to put a roof over our heads and food in our bellies. If companies salaries had kept up with inflation we wouldn't be in this recession. Instead of treating employees better things just got better at the top.We have become so accustomed to take the meager scraps we have been given, that we have deprived ourselves of the right to be paid an honest wage.
The only problem with trickle-down economics is when the top doesn't let it trickle down.....
....human beings have morals......corporations do not.......
Bullshit.
Wife and I did pretty good last year. And we're already doing better this year.
You wanna know how we spend our money?
Private preschool.
Housekeeper
lawn service
3 office staff.
So, by our hard labor in building a successful business, we're employing 3 people directly. And we're pumping money into 3 other businesses. Not to mention the amount of money we spend in the economy for things like office supplies. If we werent running a business, none of that would happen.
I challenge you to employee three people. Our payroll liability for this year is going to be around 100k.
Your example is the way it's supposed to work....the way Reagan meant it to work. The problem today is that the corporate top is taking the tax breaks and profits and investing them off-shore or into areas that don't benefit the national economy. As a result, we're losing our manufacturing base, our skilled production workers, and our thriving middle class.
Trickle-down is supposed to benefit American workers.....not Chinese slave labor or illegal aliens.....
However, if you read the history of the early US, you'll see that international trade was regulated heavily by the government to protect national and economic security. No trade agreement was approved unless the US got the greatest benefit. Kinda like China dictates trade policy to us.....
We need to get back to that kind of trade policy.....before we become the slave market....
Post by: Joe Demko on February 02, 2008, 04:21:29 AM
Quote
"Doing things with dad" described a typical boyhood, prior to the Industrial Revolution.
In that context, doing things with dad meant laboring alongside dad.
Post by: Joe Demko on February 02, 2008, 04:25:28 AM
Quote
I don't know when this was you speak of, but I'm guessing it was during the industrial or post-industrial age, which was the rotten crotch from which the hippy generation dropped (and no, I'm not humiliating any person specifically here, just a generalization). There were some certain inadequacies with those generations, as it pertains to raising sons properly. Prior to that - and the great depression - there was an ethos which had not yet been corrupted by modernization, government, and the wanting of excess which extreme poverty and need (the great depression) brings on.
My dad was born in 1938. He was about as far from a hippie as it is possible to be. His father, born 1914, had a parallel experience with regards to dad's place in things. The only difference was that my grandfather left school at 12 to go to work in the mines whereas my dad completed high school. Their experiences were far from unique.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 02, 2008, 07:55:40 AM
Quote
"Doing things with dad" described a typical boyhood, prior to the Industrial Revolution.
In that context, doing things with dad meant laboring alongside dad.
And? "Doing things with Dad" is still a very old idea.
Post by: Joe Demko on February 02, 2008, 11:28:42 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 02, 2008, 05:27:50 PM
Post by: Joe Demko on February 03, 2008, 08:00:18 AM
Quote
Most of the "sane" men my age I know grew up doing things with thier fathers. They learned traditon from them.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 03, 2008, 09:11:13 AM