ande.banner
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Boys Need Feminization
#1
Boys and guns: Here is an article I wrote 20 years ago and it is still relevant:

Recent months have seen a series of incidents in which children have opened fire on other children, killing or wounding them. Although academic specialists who study youth violence have noted this, the press in this country generally has paid little attention to the fact that all these violent children have been boys. None has been a girl

Historically, boys have always had an interest in soldiering, guns, bombs, fires, says Delbert Elliott, who teaches at the University of Colorado. That fascination, along with a tendency toward more aggressive behavior, often results in violence. According to Elliott, the only new element is the severity of injury inflicted.

The end used to come after fists caused bloody noses and bruises -- now it's not the end until someone is shot dead, he says. Boys' fascination with weapons and violence is part of their genetic inheritance from their prehistoric ancestors. During the Upper Paleolithic, man was the hunter and warrior, and it is this genetic endowment boys have today. Males are well adapted to the demands of life in a technologically primitive tribe, but they are not so well adapted to the complexities of modern society. This is why violence is mainly a guy thing. Psychologist David T. Lykken, in his 1995 book The Antisocial Personalities, writes that the most effective way to reduce crime would be to put all able-bodied males between the ages of 12 and 28 into cryogenic sleep. 

All societies have to deal, one way or another, with male violence. This is what anthropologist Margaret Mead, in her book Male and Female, called "the recurrent problem of civilization." And now it is young boys who are picking up guns. "We need ongoing prevention strategies" observes Larry Cohen of The Prevention Institute in Berkeley, California, "but people only get worked up after a crisis." 

That crisis is now. Everyone should now realize male violence has gone too far. But what to do? Myriam Miedzian, author of Boys Will Be Boys, concludes: "If there is a biological predisposition that boys are drawn to guns and aggressive behavior -- and there is evidence that there is -- then we need to deal with the fact that boys are at risk already and design a society that discourages boys from becoming violent. It's like keeping sugar away from a diabetic." What is the sugar of violence that must be kept away from the male diabetic? It is masculinity. The masculine virtues are the military virtues. They are the virtues of the prehistoric warrior who fought for his tribe. Today, however, when we no longer live in small tribes and when our weaponry is such that it can destroy our civilization, there is no longer any place for the warrior.

Males grow up alienated from their genetic essence: They are programmed to be warriors, but our society tells them that they cannot find fulfillment that way because it is too dangerous. The problem is that our society fails to give males an alternative model, an alternative to the old masculine ideal.

There is an alternative model for males. It is one that already exists and needs no social philosopher to invent it. It's femininity. On one hand, our male supremacist society tells boys they must not be feminine, but on the other, it condemns them for following the old masculine ideal. This condemnation is unavoidable; masculinity is too dangerous to be tolerated any longer. But the male supremacists who control our society have nothing to put in its place.

There is an interesting essay on the Internet that touches on this dilemma. It is "My Son the Cross-Dresser" by Lisen Stromberg. Stromberg's son is only three-and-a-half-years old, and he likes to dress in girls' lacy panties and frilly dresses and play with dolls. She has gotten a lot of criticism from other adults for letting him dress as he likes, but she has a relevant point: "It's not just in my house that the days of 'boys will be boys' are over. A few months ago, the Wall Street Journal ran an article that claimed prescriptions for Ritalin are at an all-time high, and increasingly, boys are expected to be less rambunctious and more docile (that is, more girl-like). A guest commentator on an NPR program about youth violence expressed concern that the rise in the births of boys would result in a coming 'deluge of testosterone-laden young men' creating havoc in our society. "My mind reels: Is the conclusion that a three-and-a-half-year-old should be more like a boy but a 12-year-old should be more like a girl?"

Stromberg has put her finger on the dilemma of the male supremacist: Male supremacists do not want boys to be feminized, but it is too dangerous for them not to be. Dr. Lykken's admittedly humorous proposal to put all young males from 12 to 28 in cryogenic sleep was not meant to be a practical proposal. But the feminization of young males is eminently practical. Put them in panties, ladies before it is too late!
Reply
#2
(07-01-2016, 06:43 PM)mellonman Wrote: What an interesting article you wrote 20 years ago and how appropriate for this site.   

Now 20 years later, I think you'll agree that, the American culture has only gotten worse over time.
Reigning in bad boys would be helpful but reigning in the much bigger problem will be most likely impossible.
eom

i think you mean "reining in" not "reigning in." It's like putting a child in reins, only metaphorically.

i don't understand why you think moving to a feminine society would be impossible. Women are gaining more power every day. What we can do is feminize the boys we have control over and then see where it gets us. The more feminization the less violence.
Reply
#3
(07-01-2016, 08:29 PM)mellonman Wrote:
(07-01-2016, 07:54 PM)Julie Wilson Wrote:
(07-01-2016, 06:43 PM)mellonman Wrote: What an interesting article you wrote 20 years ago and how appropriate for this site.   

Now 20 years later, I think you'll agree that, the American culture has only gotten worse over time.
Reigning in bad boys would be helpful but reigning in the much bigger problem will be most likely impossible.
eom

i think you mean "reining in" not "reigning in." It's like putting a child in reins, only metaphorically.

i don't understand why you think moving to a feminine society would be impossible. Women are gaining more power every day. What we can do is feminize the boys we have control over and then see where it gets us. The more feminization the less violence.



Sorry about the spelling error.  

All you say is true enough and you sure are doing your part and more. 
I hope we can chat about this important subject in more detail either here on the board or using PM's.
So many institutions would have issue with large scale feminization of boys and that is why I call it almost impossible. eom

Julie.  You are so Correct.  Women need to start immediately with feminizing as many men and boys as possible.  Once women realize the great benefits of a Female Led Society, that requires complete feminiza  tion of males, the world will be much better off.Exclamation
Feminine men make the best spouses for independent women. Feminized  Male wives for Empowered women is the future!
Reply
#4
This is an interesting thread and I love discussing this subject.  A large problem as I see it is that most women have been brainwashed by our patriarchal society.  Realistically most mothers do not want to see their sons grow up into sissies.  They want them to grow into strong masculine men.  If more women would become empowered and see the big picture as to the benefits of male feminization, then the society we all want would have a chance.
Reply
#5
I'm not sure if I totally agree. I believe in equality and freedom, first and foremost. I've met wonderful strong women, but also ones that were submissive by nature. The same goes for men, although I do agree this submissive trait is much more common in men. I also agree that many men are macho boors, and fake ones at that. I know some very macho guys, and they have one thing in common: it's remarkable how caring and soft they can be. They have confidence. It's the guys that really aren't, but were somehow programmed to believe they should be, that are the problematic ones. They're not comfortable with that role, so they feel the need to constantly prove it to assert the level of confidence that's deemed macho enough.

In any case, I don't believe in the black and white separation between all women as Superiors and all men as submissives. This is in essence just the good 'ole patriarchy, turned on it's head now. With the same flaws and opportunities for exploitation it has now, reversed. It's the same top-down, rigid power structure I really don't believe in. It'll start off downright idyllic, but then most doomed utopia's do, but eventually give rise to exploitation, corruption and all the excesses we have now. It would be women doing it to the men, not vice versa... and while I personally find that idea a gigantic turn-on and fascinating concept, it simply will not work in the long run. It's always a mistake to take what works in individual situations and apply it to the whole of society. This all comes down to my view that, at it's core, societies are chaotic, dynamic and will actively resist and subvert any kind of organisation forced on them. It's been tried over and over again in history and it always fails, no matter how noble the underlying ideals are.

What I propose, is to become the society we sometimes already pretend to be. One of equality and freedom and diversity. If a boy shows sissyish tendencies, and seems more at home there, it should be engendered, stimulated and most of all, respected by society. To each his own, should be the mantra, and there really are endless varieties of people... and the way things are going this will only become more. We've gone too far in forcing equality on people. Nobody is equal.. all people are of equal worth, but hierarchies always exist, explicitly or implicitly. I don't want to be equal to my Wife, I want her above me. We make the hierarchy explicit in our household because that creates balance and makes us both the happiest. It is that simple for me, no isms or schisms needed. It's a personal arrangement, one that I believe everyone should be free to enter into.

So, while I do agree with sentiments behind the drive to feminise or at least subjugate all men. And for my personal part, I would agree. For me that will be best and hopefully my future Wife agrees too. I don't want to make the mistake of blindly applying what's good for me, to the rest of society. I would really want to have a society, though where everybody can be who they are and want to be: man, woman, something in between, strong or weak, in control or in chastity. Where mothers wouldn't have to force petticoat discipline on their wayward boys, because the boy would've been made to feel comfortable with his 'soft' side much earlier on and wouldn't have to hide it behind it the mask of a rebellious miscreant. The petticoat discipline would become a positive affair the boy would gladly cooperate with it. There would be no embarrassment because it would be normal for a boy to dress cute, rather than cool.. (pro-tip: once this becomes the fasion, I'm dead certain before long most boys will look, and want to look, like that before long... I'd give it months, lol).

It works the other way around too. If a boy has a submissive character, he will need discipline and oversight. This is also a taboo. It shouldn't be frowned upon if such a boy is raised more strictly than normal boys. Or if some force has to be used to bring out the submissive character he probably is still nervous about. I absolutely abhor child abuse, it's a crime and always will be, but looking back at my life, I honestly feel it wouldn't have been so bad if my parents had recognized my need for it, and could apply it. Even if they had, they would still have to face a society that generalises everything and equate them with deadbeat parents who just beat their kids....that's not discipline, I don't think I'll have to convince anyone here. In my situation it would've helped with my behaviour (although I wasn't a bad kid by any means), but much more so with accepting this side of my personality later on... Now, I had to go through the process of finding out I am not 'as seen on tv' at all, and then trying to find where I did belong. That was painful, terrible, shameful and I wouldn't wish it upon anyone.

Similarly for girls, who often face the inverse stigma.. where it's frowned upon for them to be willful and strong... and hammered into them that they need to become like the meek and dumb bimbo-types on tv. If a girl shows such tendencies, again.. stimulate them and allow her to become the person she really is, not some compromised watered down version of it. If she doesn't, don't force it upon her, because that's making the same old mistake. If a girl shows dominant tendencies, match her up with a submissive boy (or girl) so they can both get used to showing their true selves.

My bottom line is: let's become that society we've always promised ourselves: open, free and with room for everybody, from submissive men and boys, to strong minded Women and everything you could possibly imagine in between. Let people truly shape their lives and their relationships the way they want and which suits them best. Do away with the idea that there are templates for people to grow up in. Eventually it would be a society where labels don't matter that much anymore... they're just fluid and changeable identities and everybody is a little bit of this and a little bit of that... just what works for them. Once we all become augmented semi-androids, or finally hook into the matrix, that's what it'll be like anyway Wink

That's how a freeform, networked and extremely liberal society would still very much be open to concepts like dominance and submission. In fact, I believe, even more so than now as all relationships will be based on the free contract principle, not formalized (unless by the contract parties... I mean there are no laws governing them). A marriage contract where you'd promise full obedience and servitude to your wife and give her the right to physically discipline you as she sees fit, would be perfectly legal and hold up in court. The only forbidden type of contract is the permanent one, or the one governing anybody but you: you can't unwillingly bind others by your contracts. Permanent contracts open the possibility for abuse, feudalism and hereditary slavery. You don't want that..

In any case... this all comes from trying to find a system that would actually work for everyone, and not just people like me/us. Not wishful thinking about "How wonderful would it be if..." but "can we actually make this work.." I do very much agree that the first practical steps should be to encourage more women to find their power, and more men to accept their innate submissiveness. We should work to reduce (and remove) the stigma surrounding both... and to show other personality types than the current norm in a more positive light. A lot of my gay friends are really happy that 'being gay' is now acceptable in mainstream media, even cool to a point... but many of them don't recognise themselves in the way gays are often portrayed still, because they are not outrageous or effeminate.. Again, this curse of labels. "Oh you're gay?.. here's your pink sash, now please get in the line for gay people over there, right next to the line for butch lesbians."

This is as much to blame for our society's problems as 'male violence'. Violence isn't a product of gender so much as it is a product of power.. so it makes sense that a patriarchal, war and exploitation minded society like ours has men doing most of the violence and oppression (the threat of violence used to oppress can be more damaging than the violent act itself). Simply turning that on it's head won't work. In the very short term, yes.. but over generations I'm fairly certain women would slowly develop those same predatorial instincts and we'd have the same problems again, just running in an opposite direction. It's just human nature, just like it is to lie, cheat, steal, kill and subvert... if we know we can get away with it. A good society recognises this and structures itself in ways that balance this out. From this you can gather I don't think violence is bad by definition. Defense is necessary... if only against the millions of religious brainwashed zombies that think we (me and you for even reading this) should all be thrown off buildings and such :S That's a reality too...
Reply
#6
I don't think the exploitation of one gender is the answer. However we should start removing the wedge betwixt the genders. Females are already doing this. How they started was at the start of WW2 when women went to work in factories doing typical male dominated jobs. In these factories they found dresses and skirts impractical so they began wearing pants and shirts so they would not get caught in the machinery by wearing loose clothing. Since WW2 women have furthered their advance into male fashions such as boxer shorts or boy cut undies. Boys did war dresses from around 1835 up to the start of WW2 but never came back to it. This last statement can be verified if you search the images from the title :When Boys Wore Dresses and Skirts". these boys ranged from infancy up to their early teen years, so it should be returned with up to date styles. I even have a picture of Teddy Roosevelt on the White House lawn with one of his sons in a dress, also one of FDR as a boy in a dress. Wearing a dress does NOT inherently make a boy a sissy but does allow the boy more freedom of movement.
Reply
#7
Equality is a myth, in order for society to work one gender needs to be in control with the other feminized into submission. Look around males have screwed things up enough. It time for women to seize control, empower themselves, in order for this to happen females must take control and subjugate males into submission, Maybe after a few thousands years males will be ready for equality. Until then, females must be in complete control!
Reply
#8
(07-05-2016, 12:20 AM)RadicalFeminist Wrote: Equality is a myth, in order for society to work one gender needs to be in control with the other feminized into submission. Look around males have screwed things up enough. It time for women to seize control, empower themselves, in order for this to happen females must take control and subjugate males into submission, Maybe after a few thousands years males will be ready for equality. Until then, females must be in complete control!

Yes! I'm looking forward to the next Prime Minister of the UK... it will be a Woman! I can't wait.
Reply
#9
Interesting comment Brenda. i don't think anyone would consider Margaret Thatcher as having a softer, feminine approach to governing. To quote Wikipedia, "A Soviet journalist dubbed her the "Iron Lady", a nickname that became associated with her uncompromising politics and leadership style. As Prime Minister, she implemented policies that have come to be known as Thatcherism." Also, I would say Golda Meir was a strong, powerful leader and not soft and feminine in any way. So I can't fully understand the argument that petticoat punishment and feminizing males is a solution to the world's problems since the female leaders seem to display "male designated" traits. I would agree that the female approach to problem solution such as strong communication, teamwork and compromise should be adopted by males. Likewise, I am sure there are female traits that less than desirable.
Reply
#10
(07-05-2016, 12:20 AM)RadicalFeminist Wrote: Equality is a myth, in order for society to work one gender needs to be in control with the other feminized into submission. Look around males have screwed things up enough. It time for women to seize control, empower themselves, in order for this to happen females must take control and subjugate males into submission, Maybe after a few thousands years males will be ready for equality. Until then, females must be in complete control!

Oh, Rad Fem... you are far too clever!  Big Grin You very well know that future Female Masters are so superior that the gap of power in the hierarchy of Female to the new race of 'male girls' shall only continue to increase geometrically to the point the Female will have no fear of the girlish, docile, dutiful and dainty male Confused  at any time daring to rebel or disobey Female supremacy.  The thrust of Female Ascendance is linear forward and upward and not a pendulum, never to be reversed... but at least the male MAY if  practiced in his submission and obedience acquire and internalize more perfect feminine and ladylike deference  make itself some small use and/or amusement to Women.

After all i believe there will be a 22nd Century saying something about the way a male may have to a WOMAN's KINDNESS may be through a perfectly executed gracefully girlish curtsey. Angel  (You know - for those times when the little dear might wish to beg a slight extra allowance that week to buy that darling dress with which he saw and fell in love with at the mall...)
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

About Petticoat Discipline Quarterly

Focus MyBB Theme is designed for MyBB 1.8 series and is tested properly till the most current version of MyBB i.e. 1.8.7. It is simple, clean and light MyBB theme with use of font-awesome icons and shrinking header.

For any more information, please use our contact form.

              User Links