WHERE'S MY DAD?
_____________________

    It is a sad reflection of the way we have allowed our society to 'develop' that produces the realism that a greater than ever number of children do not have fathers or male rôle models.
    We have allowed too many people to control us and tell us what we should and shouldn't do with our lives. We are dominated by the media of these folk, whatever their pretensions might be (usually they are selfish, since they suffer from the very gist of this article).
    We live in a female dominated world, whatever people might say before thinking seriously about it. I would refer you to the article Aren't Women Really in Control.
    Until this is rectified, things will get worse. The implications of a dearth of male figures in families and in school-teaching are far-reaching. As a teacher, especially of children with learning difficulties, I am constantly reminded of this notion.
    My policy of 'no fault, no blame' is important here. I am denigrating no-one, I am merely putting a scenario which is open-ended.
    This article relates mainly to boys but nothing precludes girls. At present, I believe that women are the better survivors. What I would like to see is a turn-around for boys and men.
    There is a great deal of research being done regarding the notion that boys are underachievers in many ways. They appear to develop later and as often misconstrued, always remain 'little boys' throughout life. This is a sad, sexist joke that has become a cliché.
    Why don't boys grow up? Because they often don't have male rôle-models with whom they can interact. Third-party models (pictures, magazines, films, T.V.) are no substitute whatsoever from 'bouncing' of a real man. It doesn't matter that the model is not a particularly 'good' one, we must all start to learn. As long as people act appropriately (and the majority of us do), they serve as models for behaviour and ways of thinking. Most people, left alone and un-interfered with, are fine.
    The notion that every other man is a paedophile or in some way wants to hurt others is spurious. It shows only the sadness of the person advocating this. I repeat, most people are fine. I have come through nearly 58 years of having lived in most circumstances (in different places throughout the world) without meeting anyone really nasty. One, I avoid those I don't have an empathy for and two, I'm a nice bloke, so I meet nice people. There is nothing strange in this.
    The modern scenario for a great number of boys is that they are often the member of a one-parent family, they go (too early) to school, they are reared at school mostly by females in their early, most informative years.
    The fact that the most important  years are the first five, is crucial to the understanding of why any one person acts as they do. It is what is learned during this time, consciously and subconsciously, that affect everything we do from then onwards. We can't erase this data but, with understanding of its nature and the fact it 'is', we can change it. That is our legacy. It's a natural one, not a man-made one.
    Boys and girls differ in most respects apart from the obvious. The move towards unisexuality is a great danger and has no survival value. In point of issue, it has the opposite effect. There are lots of things that boys and girls can do together, that's fine, natural and obvious. There are a lot of things, however, that are specific to a sex and should be. They are private. This 'I know all about you' is an infringement of personal liberty, whichever way round it goes.
    When marriages go wrong (for all the above reasons) it is often the boys who suffer most. Girls, also lose out on having a male friend and never learn to 'bounce' off a man (if the mother has particular views of her 'ex' then these will be passed onto the children, whatever). The children then make the same mistakes and the circle closes, the chains bind.
    Boys are very sensitive creatures. Any so-called 'macho' behaviour is merely a cover-up. Any cover-up by whatever child with rebellious behaviour, is a cover-up. It is a cover-up of a lack of communication; that is, sensitive communication. There is no point in discussing sex without the knowledge that feeling go with it. The mechanics are crude and are often taught crudely. They have less value since the teachers are bound by the same rules as all the above. The circle closes, the chains bind.
    It has become a truth that boys/men tend to take longer to assimilate things. This is probably a survival mechanism to prevent over-reaction or making an error that leads to a problem. You can't just rush out in front of an animal you want to kill for food; you need to do some homework first or you will be the one possibly killed. This does not infer the opposite for a woman. The notion that a woman can assimilate things more quickly, is also a survival mechanism.
    We should realise that men and women are not opposites but complementary. Given that more people recognised this, the world would have been a happier place long ago. The notion of opposites is a spurious one and contributes to the polarity rampant in the world. Good, bad, black, white and so on.
    Since we can't erase any experiences (either before birth or afterwards) but can change ourselves to accommodate them; this is the only way we can break the circle and rid ourselves of the chains that bind us. It's not up to others, it's up to ourselves. If we wish not to change, then we accept the responsibilities that go with that action.



Return to CONTENTS page