Sorry if this has been posted but I haven’t see it. This is a really interesting take that’s getting some national attention out of a guy in BFE Oklahoma. Definitely food for thought.
Have any of the “anti-bullying campaigns” of the last decade done a thing to combat the radically violent nature of mass shootings in schools?
People hate generalizations, but here you have a fairly undeniable one. School shootings regularly are perpetrated by almost exclusively males, either boys or young men, who have had severe socialization problems. I’m not even aware of a single female shooter in the lot. Following Columbine, schools began implementing “anti-bullying” campaigns, attempting to target everyday violence and general mean behavior among kids. Did that solve anything? Anything at all?
I have two stories, one where I was beaten up pretty badly in the sixth grade, followed by another event a few years later when I finally stood up to my bully. After the first fight, I experienced a drastic decline in my popularity, not that I was very high up to begin, along with all the suffering that came with that. Next was a prolonged period of intense bullying. Rarely did this involve physical violence, but it was still hell. The initial fight didn’t cause that. The fact that I didn’t have strategies to adapt to other boys, to navigate and understand them as a group, caused that. It was the result of the other boys making clear that my character didn’t meet their definition of masculinity or something they wanted to be a part of their tribe. No amount of telling the teacher would have solved that, in fact, if we’re being honest, it would have made it far worse. I needed to be respected. To be respected by the other boys, the only real way to make the abuse stop… I had to change. Harsh as that may sound, I adapted. I was able to eventually knock my own bully down a few pegs as I rose from the depths of hell myself. One day I finally said, “I don’t care about the consequences,” meaning that I knew I would get in trouble for “fighting” even though any objective witness could clearly articulate the relationship I had with my bully. Most adults of my town even confessed how happy they were that someone finally taught that kid a lesson. Still, rules are rules so my school and my mom punished me. My mom smiled as she did it though. That’s because she knew that I had made the first manly choice of my life, to place my own personal honor before the fear of getting in trouble. That was what got me accepted into the tribe.
In that moment, I learned how to stand up for myself, as well as others. I went from being a nerdy wimp to a path that eventually led to the United States Marines, to speak of the importance of such as a transformation. And here’s what really matters; I even grew to become friends with my bullies. By working to attain physical dominance I gained the respect of my aggressors and peers.
The second fight changed my life for the better, placing me on a much more healthy, productive, and happier life track then the boy I was devolving into. It also taught me I never wanted to be the guy at the bottom again. To make that clearer:
… I became anxious, nervous, paranoid and mean, none of which helped me at all build relationships that would have improved my lowly station. A stutter I developed around the time of my father’s death and mother’s first bouts of cancer became pronounced after the fight and it became almost impossible to read aloud in class. I was in collapse. It is not a good place to be at the bottom of the Middle School dominance hierarchy. I want to be honest and upfront here. I understand why boys commit suicide at far higher rates than girls and I understand why boys commit school shootings and girls don’t. I fantasized about killing my classmates like what I had seen in video games and also about the atom bomb following a school project. This was mixed with thoughts that the world have been better if I was never born. The homicide and suicide rates disproportionate to boys is misery is a thing that is objectively measurable. It’s not because of bullying. It’s because no one taught them how to be men in a society where an understanding of both masculine and feminine value structures matter. I say again, it is not good to be at the bottom.
The problem with being at the bottom is that there are many barriers to prevent you from exiting it, but few to climb back up. There simply aren’t many ways to overcome your oppressors. Fighting my bully was how I did it. This was how I was able to right my situation.
Does it sound extreme? Well, not so much if you were born before the 1980’s. And if you born after, it probably sounds barbaric. After three years as a teacher, I saw a culture that acts very foreign from my own. Almost no one gets into fights. At first, I thought this was a good thing, but then I started seeing what was missing. The boys are almost completely incapable of competing academically besides the very few with parents who are very motivated, mostly teachers themselves. They lack motivation and a sense of purpose or meaning. Obviously there is more going on then a lack of the schoolyard tumble, but that seemed to be part of it. I found that many longed for the presence of an authoritative male figure. With two Iraq deployments under my belt, I fit the mold. I was surprised the authoritarian routine worked. Everyone said it wouldn’t, but it was all I knew, and it was like they craved it. But the darker thing I noticed was that it seemed very hard for my personal success story to work today. Those who started off losers stayed losers, forever. There was no climbing the hierarchy as I had. As I said before, it is not good to be at the bottom, especially for long.
I pieced together that this had a great deal to do with the anti-bullying policies put in place since I graduated. Again, I thought it was fine to avoid problems and keep the peace so that students could learn. But they weren’t learning. At best, it felt like they were being herded. What’s worse, “bullying”, at least the far more pervasive and much more common forms of bullying I experienced, the non-violent kind was just as present. Ironically, bullies now used the system to bully others. The worst bullies manipulated the system, claiming to be victims of bullying to get their intended targets in trouble with third-party administrators who themselves are compelled to act. And they were compelled. Finding out that a teacher had “warning” would place guilt on their head if something happened. All the while, I saw these same kids guilty of unimaginable cruelty while still convinced that they are somehow justified by some self-diagnosed victimhood. Multiply this, by a new dynamic where all it takes to appear to be right is a phone call to a news agency on a slow day or an emotional vlog on social media telling a completely one sided story millions would share with the righteous outrage of an ill-informed internet mob. All that is really needed for a clever bully is a good story and a smartphone.
According to a 2015 study Microaggression and Moral Cultures, this is textbook victimhood culture. Victimhood culture is when a culture evolves to handle slights against them through responding to each of them, not directly, but leverage third party intervention. These third parties could be parents, school authority, police, voters, or political donors. What makes victimhood cultures dangerous was that it incentivized “victims” to catalog and broadcast every conceivable slight against them, no matter how trivial or unintentional the insult. They need to build cases and this encouraged to exaggerating or falsify harm they received to create a case against the accused satisfactory enough to warrant some desired or demanded action. That said, I sympathize with schools. To stand up to a mob and say, “You don’t have all the facts,” is hard. So I understand why schools gravitated in this direction.
But victimhood culture does something else to the character of its members. It causes them to value victimhood as a form of virtue itself. That means that those within such cultures seek to gain the short term benefits of being perceived as a victim, such as pity or advocacy, but at the cost of long term appreciation from the culture, as classic (and more healthy) character traits, such as self-reliance and self-respect are ignored and allowed to atrophy.
This matters to those concerned about the development of boys. The reason that victimhood culture is dangerous is because it short-circuits natural boyhood development by specifically contradicting with the nature of boys. Boys align themselves in the same way as anyone else, through dominance hierarchies. The adolescent male dominance hierarchy is one which is attempting to collectively define what being a man should look like, and it socializes its members to this archetypal masculinity identity. Every group of boys is different, but usually the character of this archetypal male is one who is self-reliant, can defend himself, is attractive to girls (women if you prefer, but we are talking about adolescents here), is trustworthy, and loyal to his friends. Likewise, they’re reactionary, and will attempt to challenge even the slightest attempts to shame themselves, their family, or other groups they are loyal to. This makes the dominance hierarchy of young males an “honor culture” according to the same study above.* A part of this is that schoolyard fights are common, even normal form of social interaction for boys. In many ways, they are necessary to create an ordered hierarchy, establish norms, set ideals, and importantly, provide a vehicle for boys to climb the hierarchy. So that I am not taken out of context, schoolyard fighting is in no way the same as the violence that is the subject of this question. They are categorically different. The fighting among boys was not intended to cause permanent physical injury or death. It is a simple non-lethal duel by two unarmed combatants until one of them gives up. The fighting provided a means for all boys to attain respect across the local microculture, even those at the bottom of the dominance hierarchy, so long as they proved to the collective that they were willing to take their lumps.
Victimhood culture disrupts this process and is contrary to honor cultures. Both are reactionary when slighted, but honor cultures seek to handle matters personally without intervention of third-party authority. With victimhood culture, third-party intervention is the goal. In this way, one playing by the rules of a victimhood culture can undermine the entire adolescent male dominance hierarchy, disrupting its ability to socialize males, preventing the establishment of positive male ideals, and removing a means for the boys at the bottom to rise to a healthy middle.
The last element is important for the subject of school shooters. Without the normal processes of restitution, such as fighting, boys at the bottom of the school’s dominance hierarchy may have no means to gain respect in their local community, relegating them to the bottom of a very brutal hierarchy for a very long time during many of their formative years. In this way, the banned behavior of schoolyard “violence” may actually be what immunizes boys from murderousness later in life. Obviously, letting a student rule through fear and intimidation is something that can’t be encouraged and prevented when possible. In my experience, though, when there is a healthy culture that respects boyishness, there is usually someone who has enough of it and knock that bully out of his place of tyranny (which is of benefit to everyone) But banning this process may have contributed greatly to accelerating the process of school shooter evolution.
I want it illustrate the importance of the dynamic nature of the natural boy dominance hierarchy, where boys can move up or down based on their ability to model their behavior to the collective norm. Virtually all boys see themselves as at the bottom sometimes (all people do, I’m sure), but the ability to move up or down allows for something important — hope. If you’re a guy, you know that hope in the form of the fantasies you played out when you were young, or likely still do even today. Most boys fantasize about beating up the boys who pick on them. I say beating them up, but rarely murdering them. They want their oppressors to know that they are not to be messed with and to give them peace. If you murder someone, you haven’t really “beaten” them, at least not to boys. Murder achieves nothing, as the goal is really about respect from the other boy and everyone who saw it.
Even if you haven’t experienced this personally, you’ve seen it many times. Think about successful stories marketed toward boys. They’re successful because something about them touches their target market in ways you can’t force with other demographics. They’re archetypal. These great stories feature a hero, defined as one who fights for manly reasons like protecting others, often who overcomes some great adversity, and beats up the bad guy, one who often cheats or hurts innocents. But the hero rarely kills the villains. You think this pattern is just to pass muster with the censors? No, we have many comic books that feature killing, primarily the bad guys, but it’s rare for the good guy to kill. That’s because a strong hero simply subjugating the villain, without killing, is the real fantasy of the demographic of young boys longing to attain a place in the tribe, to climb the male dominance hierarchy.
Think of Superman. We all know his unimaginable powers as a hero, but his other form is that of a timid, meek, doormat of a man Clark Kent. But remember, Clark is the real identity of Superman, not the other way around. Clark is special as he can transform at will into an undefeatable paragon of justice. Tell me that story is just about an alien with superpowers and isn’t one hardwired into the imagination of boys on a subconscious level. The same is true of Spiderman, whose real identity is that of the meek and socially awkward genius Peter Parker. This is hardly an American universal, as Japanese imports like Dragon Ball Z and Naruto are also rife with the theme of the underdog rising to the occasion to defeat the tyrant monster. What they all have common… the good guy almost never kills. It isn’t an element of the boyhood fantasy to kill their enemy. They want to be acknowledged by their enemies. They want to be loved by them and accepted as part of the masculine tribe. Naruto, a coming of age Shonen (martial arts) comic book and animated series goes even further in demonstrating this. A common theme in that story is that, like other shonen, the protagonist constantly faces unbeatable odds but rises to the challenge and defeats his enemies through hard work, martial prowess, and determination. But what makes Naruto special is that in nearly every single case, his enemies are moved by his goodness and sincerity to reject their evil motivations and become his friends.
We all know the success story of Superman. Social pressures have tried to recreate it with other heroes or heroines, but none are able to stick. It took how many years for Wonder Woman to get a movie? This isn’t because the industry is willfully sexist. It is because Wonder Woman is not a female Superman. That’s what many people want her to be. She isn’t. Wonder Woman just doesn’t mean to girls what Superman means to boys. She has evolved to be a great character, but she doesn’t personify everything that most young girls want to be in the way that Superman does.
This is why we need to accept there is a reason that Superman and Spiderman are the most popular franchises of the two most popular comic book companies in America, and have been so for decades, and it’s the same reason that Naruto has regularly been regarded as one of the most popular anime and manga since it first entered print in 1999. They stumbled on themes that affect their target market in ways that can’t be replicated elsewhere. In these cases, that is targeting boys coming of age.
Boys crave these outlets and to place themselves in fantasies such as those experienced by Clark Kent or Naruto. I’d ask why would they long for it so desperately if they were fulfilled by their own lives? I’d argue that system of discipline we have in place short-circuits this all important process of childhood adolescent development. To prevent “bullying” we have prevented this necessary outlet for boyhood socialization and replaced it with one where real bullying, the manipulation of those in power or who know how to game the system, continues to take place. Without the outlet, the means to settle the score, the tyrants have no means of being humbled, as the only power they respect is prevented from reaching them. By that, I mean a truly self-righteous boy. But worse, those who are their victims have literally no means of recourse… unless of course they want to taddle and increase their suffering tenfold in the days to come.
I say this is worse because we believe we have protected the boy who is being bullied by preventing only one form of conflict - physical violence. Because we have conflated a schoolyard tussle with a school shooting, we’ve made all forms of violence evil. I’ll say this to make it clear, there is a need for the Marines to kill people. There is a need for the justice system to sometimes take a life in defense of others. Sometimes, violence is necessary, but in making the idea of violence taboo — “there’s never a reason for violence” — we’ve short-circuited that all important understanding of the world where we teach kids what kinds of violence are acceptable, what kind is not, and what kind is necessary. Yet we tell ourselves we have prevented bullying, but if we look at all evidence, this child — the victim — is far more likely to become not just a bully, but a repressed monster. By removing the most observable conflict method, we removed from him the ability to rectify his own situation through that ancient of means, and I’ll add, the means most common and most widely respected among boys. At the same time, we interfered in socialization through friends and peers, a form of solidifying social norms which the data is clear on, is far more powerful than teachers and schools. And worst of all, we never taught him about violence, so he’s teaching himself.
Now, look at many of the cases of school shooters. I see disturbing similarities to my own story. What was different, was that I figured out how to move up a few notches, so that no matter how bad it got, I was never the guy on the bottom. It needs to be understood that the difference between the least popular kid and the next to least popular is enormous. For mathematicians (many of whom probably understand this personally) the pattern follows somewhat of a pareto distribution. The kid at the bottom doesn’t just have it worse than the kids above him in the dominance hierarchies, he has it exponentially worse. They start off on the wrong foot, then stress causes them to make mistakes which causes them to fall further. Continued stress causes their grades to slip, which causes problems with parents and future outlook. Stress amplifies. Eventually emotional regulation becomes a problem and eventually, even their immune system is weakened. Logically, these children are more likely to need medication to cope or adapt normally to the world, either in the form of antidepressants or through self-aid, in the form of illegal drug use. The former may help or it may only exacerbate their problems, while the latter will surely only provide short term relief at the expense of long term suffering. Maybe other things are factors. Perhaps divorce of the parents, or someone with cancer, or a recent death is part of the story. All of these make it harder and as unfair as that may be, make it easier to fall down the dominance hierarchy. Maybe they seek help by playing up their victimhood status for a while, and maybe it will help for the short term. Pity can feel very good for a little while. However, if they do it wrong, they risk revulsion because neediness is repulsive. There is a point where you can become so bad off, that even asking for help makes others resent you more. These people are in complete collapse.
I want to be fair here, stress is good for kids. If you are in that 98% range of “normal” kids, stress is something to be desired because it serves as an incentive, and overcoming that stress builds resilience and other positive character traits they will need once they leave the nurturing and protective environments of their parent’s homes and their schools. But those kids on the bottom, that bottom of the hierarchy, they are categorically different than anyone else in the hierarchy. Stress causes them to crumble and worsen their lowly station. So it doesn’t solve the problem to remove stress from the total population. All that does is make the population weaker and less able to reach their potential later in life, or even handle the stress coming their way. But those kids at the bottom, we need new strategies to recognize and deal with them. Of course, we shouldn’t get too full of ourselves. No matter what strategies we develop, their internal culture will always be a more powerful catalyst for their behavior than anything adults do. Providing healthy means for them to self-heal their situation means that an adult can’t fail in this task, and that the cracks fix themselves before someone falls through. This is also why it is so very important to maintain pathways for kids to escape the bottom of the dominance structure that don’t require adult interference.
As I said, these kids are categorically different than their peers. I mean that. They are nothing like their peers if left alone long enough. Multiply their experience at the bottom by years, the collapsing stress I described two paragraphs ago. When you do that, you start seeing the world very differently. You start taking influences from irrational sources and coming to dangerous conclusions. To them, it isn’t just the individual bullies who are at fault. It is all the bystanders who do nothing. It is an authority that does nothing. It is even a God who does nothing or who would be so cruel as to create a world with such suffering as theirs. We can look at the Columbine Shooters to understand that much. One of the shooters left us a great deal of evidence about what was going on in his mind before the massacre. He communicated visions of the world that was corrupted and evil, where he was a victim of a flawed creation, and his self righteousness was such that he placed himself in the role of the judge for all of that flawed creation. This meant that he had lost complete hope in the world and was justified in lashing out against not only his aggressors, but the whole system on an existential level. He wasn’t just out to punish his aggressors, but even God for creating something so terrible as creation.
He said all these things, placing himself in the position of arbiter of cosmic justice, even as he failed to correct the problems in his own life that held him back. Perhaps he wasn’t able to recognize what his own problems were. Perhaps he was told too often that he was fine just the way he was when the world communicated to him a very different message. Regardless, this kid lacked hope for climbing out of his hole, so he wanted to drag everyone and everything into his hole with him. I don’t think his story is in any way unique to just his case.
Put all this together, and I think we have a much better understanding of what makes a school shooter. They aren’t just bullied kids. Everyone faces some degree of meanness from time time, but they are kids who absolutely cannot escape the bottom rungs of the adolescent social structure. Over a period of years they absorb abuse by other kids using them to climb their own dominance structures. They never develop strategies to deal with this, but instead, attempt and fail at other strategies which exacerbate their position, such as retreating into isolation or seeking to accentuate their own victimhood to the revulsion of everyone else around them, even adults. Given all of this, claims that they are suffering from mental disorder due to long-term sustained trauma seem warranted, however, as these symptoms are only beginning to manifest, it’s doubtful there would be much of a record for anyone to know to watch their behavior. Finally, they absorb some negative influences that begin to place a predictable set of ideas in their head about the nature of people, the nature of the universe, and their role within it. Then the final evolution is to embrace that hatred for the world, hatred for themselves, and sense of meaninglessness to the point of suicide. Many simply stop at that tragedy, but some take it even further, wanting to take as much with them before they go. Maybe they’ll use a gun, maybe arson, maybe a bomb, but those few will stop at nothing to express their resentment of Creation.
So I want to return to the question I started this discussion off with. Are the anti-bullying programs we started implementing following the Columbine Massacre helping to prevent more like them?
No. Kids are still mean, and most of the behavior associated with “bullying” is far more than physical bullying. It is often social manipulation or similar targeted persecution. These leave little evidence of the crime committed or the residual effects of enduring them for years. Often, the advice they need to hear, “You need to stand up and take care of yourself,” comes far too late, at the point when they actually needed more than affirmations, but professional help and to be removed from the situation. They need strategies to deal with people who can be told a million times, “Don’t be a bully,” and not even see themselves as such. Remember, no one thinks they are a bad guy… Even the shooters believe themselves justified. The one thing we know for sure, there are still people trapped at the bottom, and we’re also seeing that being at the bottom is a terrible place to stay. And as much as schools are trying to resist this message, it’s becoming clearer with every instance of young men and boys massacring their peers, that all the ad-hoc programs cooked up by our “Anti-Bullying Committees” aren’t helping. At best, they are patronizing programs intended to communicate a child’s uniqueness and individual value, diluted by the fact it is exactly like the message given to all the other kids. Like the message of the Syndrome in the Incredibles, “When everyone’s special… no one will be.” At the same time, these programs seem to do little more than categorize many of the behaviors necessary to escape the bottom of the social hierarchy are the same as the violence it evolved to replace. Throwing these behaviors out has left a hole in how we socialize boys, not just in preventing them from committing massacres, but in how we they define their own identities and how they become healthy men in society.
As an appendix, I’d like to talk about two other elements that come up when trying to understand the motivations of school shooters — violence in entertainment media and infamy.
Many conservatives say that violence in video games leads these sorts of killings. Their arguments are that graphic violence is glorified in movies and with games, and furthermore, that kids are incentivized with points systems designed in such a way that it encourages further gameplay and hold interest. The arguments are that they desensitize children to the weight of killing and in fact, make it seem fun. One psychologist Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, a former Army Ranger and the author of the books On Combat and On Killing, both clearly articulated the body and mind’s remarkable behaviors when engaged in combat, wrote another book Stop Teaching Our Kids to Kill. You can judge that book by its title, as Grossman lays out his arguments that the incentive systems in games act as a form of classical conditioning (Pavlov’s dog) rewarding kids for carnage and training kids to desire the bloodshed. He makes compelling arguments and I would recommend people take his work seriously, if for no other reason than the brilliance of his work breaking down the psychology and physiology behind combat from his other two books.
That said, I am skeptical as with most of my generation who grew up playing such games. I don’t believe video games are a danger to the vast majority of gamers. Many people have followed this belief and provided mountains of data to support this counter. That said, I don’t think that the counter-arguments are totally correct either.
I think that we need to always keep the fact that the bottom of the hierarchy kids are categorically different. They are stressed in ways better off kids aren’t. Their cognitive defenses are weaker than their peers. They are susceptible in ways that other kids aren’t. I’ve even felt this. When I was young and deep in the bottom of my own pit, a game that wasn’t particularly graphic inspired me to draw pictures on the computer of my classmates as characters in the game being killed in the same ways one of the main characters. I thought nothing of it at the time, but my mother found them and we had “a talk” about them. I stopped drawing the pictures. Later, after I rose up out of that pit, I could play video games and never fantasized about the deaths of real people or any people. This is true even today, where I am completely unaffected by the games I play. That is to say that while I was on the edge of the abyss, it would take very little to push my mind over to very dark places, but now that I am normal, I am resistant to the shadow. I think this is true for many kids, the vast majority are simply manipulating pixels, while a very small minority of players are in such a weak place in their lives, that they are affected.
That’s saying that I think conservatives need to reframe their arguments. It needs to be understood that almost no one is being affected by games so censoring them is a bad direction to take the argument. But gamer culture needs to accept that there are those who will get ideas, a very small minority, but they are there. Working together, they might be able to do something pretty interesting. One such example is the creation of a hotline or website where gamers can report dangerous things which other players say beyond the normal reporting systems inside the games themselves. This might flag it for someone with the FBI to investigate and perhaps get help to someone planning on doing something very dark. I can see this being a tool of victimhood or even a tool of trolls, but I think it is better that the gamer community acknowledge a problem exists and conservatives acknowledge that only a small minority of gamers fall into this category.
The next thing to talk about is infamy. Many, many people circulate an idea that the motivation of the shooters is fame, or at best infamy. “They weren’t successful in life, so they want to go down in a blaze of glory.”
I just don’t see any evidence to support this idea. Some, like the Aurora Theater shooter, the deranged looking clown haired guy, maybe. But the majority of people, I think they are just in a state of collapse where wrath overcomes reason and suicide is their primary motivation. Maybe a lack of reason isn’t even correct to say. Maybe they are completely reasonable, assuming a hatred of existence and absolutely none of the social barriers preventing murderous behavior remaining in their souls. Either way, I don’t think they care about your opinion of them. I think they would murder you too if they thought their killing spree could last long enough. I’d like to see if someone can provide some hard evidence, but I’ve done a lot of research on this subject and never stumbled on an argument that convinces me that people shoot up schools so that their names will be remembered.
* I mentioned that honor cultures were masculine, and many may see a juxtaposition of victimhood culture as implying that to be nature of the culture of women. It isn’t, if anything, another type of culture mentioned in the essay, “dignity culture” seems to describe the culture of women more accurately. Victimhood culture seems to borrow from the worst elements of both but is not representative of masculine or feminine in nature. I’d encourage readers to read the report. I found it fascinating, but going in too deep to explain that goes beyond the scope of this question.
I share some of your beliefs about bullying. Its a natural socialization process among young males in most mammal species I can think of from primates to predators, apes to zebras. LOL. I’ve seen Wild Tom Turkeys bullying Jakes, for God Sakes. Among mammals the hierarchy (pecking order) gets sorted out pretty much without interference by adults though (with exceptions for young in dominant family groups in some species) not all. I think bullying has a function in juvenile male development. However, bullying is now a prohibited normal socialization process. Problem (1)
In todays schools, great emphasis placed on encouraging and helping little girls to achieve their potentials. This influences the different ways teachers interact with male and female children. Most Grade School girls are quite comfortable in school, willing to participate and excited to learn. Some boys may fit the description, but not most; boys are harder to motivate and the more outgoing their personalities, the more likely they are to present behavior problems in the classroom. Boys can be set aside in this environment in favor of Girls that are prioritized by mandate and easier to work with by far. Problem (2)
There’s a concerted effort among academics, sociologists, political strategists and feminist activists to de-emphasize the male role in society. The primary target for this social engineering process is the White Male which also is the majority male demographic. Males are attacked as unworthy of their accomplishments (white privilege), unintelligent (movies, commercials, comic routines), sexually abusive, and toxic to society. In the Schools and later in our Universities, boys are forced to adjust to these absurd, Politically Correct, imaginary truths and are expected to feel guilt for being males. They are branded as troubled if they resist. Problem (3)
Boys left to themselves will horseplay, simulate battles and pretend violence like animal young. Traditionally, boys wrestled, climbed things and played with toy weapons like swords, knives, guns, rifles, ray guns etc. I’m convinced that this tendency is natural, evolutionary and genetic; and not just a cultural phenomenon. But these activities are discouraged these days. There is a cultural obsession with deprogramming males to be less male, less masculine, softer, more emotional, and more effeminate. Boys are encouraged to consider adopting female personas even before they have reached puberty. Our ancestors, our recent ancestors would not have condoned this sociological experimentation on our boys. And I, as an elder living citizen, protest these atrocities which are being perpetrated on our male youth by people or who are unscrupulous, unethical, unsound and unjust. I can imagine what my Grandpa and my Dad, Uncles, and Father in Law would say if they were still living. Preventing boys from playing with toy weapons, fighting and wrestling around is very possibly depriving them of essential stages required for normal, healthy mental and emotional male development. Denying this process in some cases may result in dark consequences when they grow into young confused men. Problem (4)
In the adult world, the political Left has declared open season specifically on White Males and generally on All Males. Every criticism that can be synthesized by Marxist Strategists is quickly scripted and deployed to arm the Politicians, Activists, Media Journalists and Special Interest Groups fighting to sway the Public against Conservative Political Opponents and Programs, and to destroy freedom and democracy. Recently, the main thrust was against Sexual Harassment and Abuse by Males in the Workplace and in Politics. Many men have been brought down most often by allegations alone. Any accusations of Sexual Harassment (no matter how old or unsubstantiated) are sufficient to generate Public Outrage ending the carriers of successful men. The only lull in the War Against Men has come from the diversion of Media attention to the Mass School Shootings and the issue of the 2nd Amendment, but this too is a Sociological Problem and a Threat to Safety and Security blamed directly on White Males. It’s almost too convenient, aye what? Boy are undoubtedly subconsciously aware of the Social Pressure being applied to men even though they are too immature to understand; so, it’s not too surprising to me if some Boys look forward to their futures with hopelessness and brooding anger. Problem (5)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk