Excellent points, as usual O.A. :)

Hello LS,
Males, boys, especially those in majority are blamed for all of the evils of the world. They have no one to blame or use as a crutch or excuse when they fail. The perpetuated perception is that they have advantage. Much is expected of them without complaint or assistance. Recognizing this they are reticent. They are not nurtured for their natural inclinations, but often chastised. The predictable result of this change of social conditioning is coming to fruition.
Respectfully,
O.A.

"But, did your wife stay home with the kids when they were little, and then start her practice once they were a bit older? I'm sure you're a great guy, and a great parent, but a wet-nurse you will never be. Is there a real value of that mother/child bond that a father just can't fill, and a bottle won't replace?"
You're right in many aspects of my personal case, but I say let every individual explore that for himself. There is more variation between each of us than between the average of our groups. It's interesting to study average traits of groups, but we must let people explore life for themselves.

"Should we compensate women for that time off as if they never left the work force? Isn't that penalizing the men that worked that time, and kept their skills sharp?"
No way should we compensate someone for work not done. It would be penalizing men who worked that time AND penalizing women b/c people would rightly question the resume of woman wondering if she earned it or received the benefit.

I think you're right in 80% of the cases, but sometimes something special that moves humanity forward lies in the 20% or the 0.01%, the outliers and freaks, the Roarks and John Galts. Let people be weird and special.

Interesting how things are similar. Grandson had a growth spurt and is now of average height. Was attacked by a bully in middle school who got him in a choke hold from behind. He flipped the kid over his head and right into a desk chair. He became the local "karate kid." All I ever asked of my kids & grandkids is that they grow up to be good people. I think that they -- succeeded and so did your son You have a right to be proud.

My son was also small for his age (turns out he had a growth hormone deficiency and I had to give him shots 3Xweek, but it worked) and enrolled him in a Shotokan karate class when he was eight. There were no kids classes then (mid 50's) so he worked out with adults. He never got a black belt, but he sure did gain self-confidence.

When he was in the fifth grade there was-of course-a bully. This kid used to taunt him until one day my son has always been slow to anger, but recess he told him to take his best shot. So the bully commenced throwing punches which my son simply blocked for several minutes before finally shoving him into a pile of trash cans. The TA came up to him and told him he was ready to intervene, but it looked like he was doing alright by himself. Nobody messed with him after that--and strangely we never got a call from the school.

I say its money well spent for both boys and girls to learn self-defense. I say self-defense = self-esteem.

He was the only one of his five best friends to voluntarily for military service (Navy) and that really helped with leadership skills. He went in a boy, but he came out a man. I am so proud.

I'll drink to that! Hic! Cheers!

Another damn diatribe. You people bring out the worst in me :-)

But, did your wife stay home with the kids when they were little, and then start her practice once they were a bit older?
I'm sure you're a great guy, and a great parent, but a wet-nurse you will never be. Is there a real value of that mother/child bond that a father just can't fill, and a bottle won't replace?
I do not preclude women entering the work force. If you look at the logistics of it, if a women starts her professional career right out of college, then waits before having children, that can be problematic, biologically speaking. Let alone, new studies show that women that wait to have kids are more likely to get breast cancer. That's another biological justification for women to have kids at a younger age.
Let's say she has kids (only she can), rears them for a time, and then tries to pick up her career where she left off, that's a significant lose of wage and experience for the time she was out.
your wife has it a bit different because she started her on practice/business. She does lose some gained experience points for her absence.

Men don't suffer that problem because they don't have to stop what they're doing to have kids. It's just biology - not society.
Should we compensate women for that time off as if they never left the work force? Isn't that penalizing the men that worked that time, and kept their skills sharp?

the better solution is that women have their kids young, keep their skills up (college, staying on top of technology, etc.) and then when the kids are a bit older, then enter the work force. Their salaries would still be less because of time not served but then they could have the benefits of a full uninterruptted career. Maybe Dad leaves the work force at that time and manages the home.
the benefit there would be overall long term salaries would be less and employers would be less likely to want to get rid of employees that are getting long in the tooth.

I have no doubt that my views might be distorted. My parents we're probably rare. My mother loved being a "kept woman" as she would say.
My Dad didn't care what she spent money on as long as the bills were paid, the kids were healthy and fed, and dinner was on the table - not really asking a lot. My dads only want was maybe a monthly visit to Burger King. Most of the time my father never knew how much he made. My mother paid the bills, and took his paycheck before he even saw it. I remember once my father actually looked at his paycheck and exclaimed, "oh, I make that much". He was an electrical engineer, and loved what he did.
My parents also never argued. Never. Outside of political debates. But that wasn't an argument because they were on the same team.

So, was/is women's lot in life Biological or Societal? Can't change biology.
Is this what's effecting or boys? Is this the cause of the over prescription of SSRI drugs, and these mass shootings? We better figure out what's better for society quick. I don't know the answer, but I do know what we're doing isn't working.

I wasn't saying it was political payback. Although, I believe politics leverages it, "war on women".
Take racism. I definitely believe there is institutionalized reverse racism.
There is no discussion of race relations in this country. the White population is told how it's going to be, and we're to shut-up, sit-down, and eat our peas.
I feel there is a similar attitude when it comes to women. they got a voice, and now they're using it, and there will be no discussion with the men regarding it.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying generally holds true, but it certainly should not be a rule. Everyone's different. You can't apply these broad rules to individuals. If you could, you'd be saying my wife never wanted to open a legal practice. It's all because men didn't value her natural nurturing ability. It couldn't be she gets enjoyment out of applying a system to help people solve their problems. It couldn't be her own special reasons peculiar to her personality that she likes this.

Similarly, when I dialed back my work when the nanny quit and her practice was taking off, we'd have to say I didn't really want to do that, which is untrue.

I strongly agree with the contentious things you're saying about groups. The problem is when we apply them to all individuals.

A real man is one who does the honorable thing.
He respects women, and if knocks one up, he either marries her, or in the very least provides for the child.
He doesn't not disappear and claim "it's her problem".
A man is there to help raise the child and support the woman.
A man doesn't go to prison.
A man doesn't shrug his responsibility on to society.

Since we have no real men anymore, we have to raise our girls to be men and carry the full burden themselves.
If that is not the definition of a man, then it's proof that men serve no purpose.

[Damn, another diatribe - advSORRYance]
I’ll preface this by saying I don’t put one gender above another.
I take acception to your use of ‘ cloistered’. Once again, that assumes intent. I’m sure there was some intent, but I don’t think that was wide spread.

Relative to a two parent household. I see this as Yin-Yang situation.
The Yin and the Yang are both different, but equal, and share a part of, and complement, each other, together they from a perfect union. The Yin recedes in favor of its Yang, and vice-versa.
Traditional Roles have been distorted. The strengths of one has been replaced by the weakness of the other.
Women are better nurturers then men. They know how to deal with children, and have the patience for it, where most men would likely lose their minds.
In the past, when I was younger, and maybe many of you, elementary school teachers were typically mothers who had the experience of raising small children and knew, by experience, how to get them how to behave. Today, most elementary school teachers are recent college graduates, who are still moist behind the ears, and in many cases do not have kids, or are just experiencing motherhood and the challenges it brings. As a result, they do not know how to deal with young ones so their solution is to medicate the boys (primarily).
If these young women were in their historical roles (I’m not saying a women’s place is in the home), she would stay at home, raise the kids, and manage the household. that, in itself is a full time job, and worthy of great respect.
Men, typically (or historically), brought home the bacon, taught the older boys to be responsible (not saying the mothers didn’t also), to provide and protect, and how to ‘man up’ when you had to.

If women married and stayed at home, instead of entering the work force, what would be different today?
The unemployment rate would be lower because you would remove a significant percentage of the workforce from the market place.
There would likely be a shortage of people to do these jobs, as such, wages would go up.
When the little ones are older, and a bit more self-sufficient, or move out, some of those mothers might then become elementary school teachers, and bring their parenting experiences to use to the classroom.
More mothers would likely be involved in schools (PTA, board of Ed), and in local politics (my mother was). There would likely be less crime, and teens would likely be causing less trouble and likely stay away from drugs. There would probably be greater community involvement.
“Dad” would actually be in the picture turning the boys into men, and preparing them for the world.
Welfare might be significantly less.

I don’t say this to imply this is the way things should be. I’m saying, look at how things were, and where we’re at today.
Whatever we did in the name of “equality”, we did it wrong.
Why did women want ‘it all’? Is it because men so disrespected their value, and contribution to the home and family??
Both are equal, and valuable. They are stronger together than separate.
I don’t have a problem with stay at home dads. I do believe there is a lot of value to having one parent managing the home (and kids), and having one working full-time.
But because of the path we took, it cut wages making it very difficult for many to survive on a single income, so we see ourselves in the downward spiral.

We can’t fully fault the schools for the situation. they are trying to address a societal problem with insufficient tools, and probably a strong dose of political correctness.
What I just wrote is taboo to discuss, as a result we avoid the conversation.

Please don’t jump on me. I’m merely pointing out that the problem is greater than just the schools.

I was/am introverted. Mainly because my interest just weren't of interest to anyone else around me. I liked electronics, computers and all things sciency
By the standards of the 70's, I was a weird kid.
I was also a horrible student. Today, they probably would have medicated me. That would have stifled my creative for sure. I'm sure it would have killed my ambition.

You are only as good as your starting salary. More men will negotiate for a higher starting salary then women.
I was offered a job at one salary, and I counter for a higher salary. I got it. The person that hired me said, "he would't have respected me if I didn't counter his offer".
Raises are typically a set increase percentage so that there is no perception of bias.
Starting salary is everything.

Perhaps it would help if you explain what you mean by "introverted." It also is important to understand that responses to shame could also result in "extroverted" aggressive behaviors that include passive aggression and obsessive defiance. I think that we agree on the existence of a problem. Specifying the parameters seems difficult.

Fighting is another example of a problematic "boyish" behavior. The child must learn that fighting is not a way to solve a problem. On the other hand, girls as well as boys can learn martial arts that teach discipline and control as well as technique. I would not excuse fighting as "boys being boys."

It actually goes to show equality is fine, once the prior minority group extracts their pound of retribution.
True, When I was in grade school, it was a male denominated era. I don't think it was be design, or intentional - it just happened. the Feminist wanted equality so that little girls could get ahead, and they got it. Now comes the payback.
The same is true with Politics. The harder they pull to the left, at some point it will be pulled to the right with at least the same energy.
The paybacks have to end.