(Apologies for the crackling/loud sound issue, turn volume down, quality will surely improve.)
The author of Reclaiming Natural Manhood (http://youth-masculinity.blogspot.com/) responded to my initial email:
Thank you very much for your mail. I actually had seen your site a few days before you sent your mail, while searching the net, and have been wanting to get in touch. I'd keep my mail short for this one, and would write more in my next mail. Basically, I was really glad to see someone who thinks so much like me, and if you hadn't started your work after viewing my site, then its even more rare to see such work. There have been quite a few western endeavours in the past, by masculine gendered males to talk about man-man love, however, none ever would touch the issue of 'gay' as a separate (third) gender -- and to my mind, understanding and taking into account the third gender factor is primary in understanding the oppression of men and man-man bonds. I see some acknowledgement of this gender, and, to me, its a good start. I'm in a hurry now, but will write more, soon. Till then, congratulations on your work, keep up the good work, and hope we can join hands on this!
First of all my apologies for writing so late. I have been very busy, plus, I've not been keeping well. Add to it the fact that I've been actively doing internet activism for years -- and now I'm mentally tired and dread writing, and would rather work. As I promised in my last mail, I'd like to give you some feedback about the issues you've written on. first of all, let me tell you that your book seems to be the work of great scholarly quality, which means that you're not only talented to do this stuff, you've done your homework well. Add to it, that you write in an interesting manner, which keeps the interest of the reader live. I'm amazed at the knowledge that you've collected and the depth to which you've done so. Your work is going to be of great use to me (as well as others), and I do hope that you can start a movement of sort in the west -- which badly needs it. But, the most important is this -- that you have pinpointed the problem correctly (well, nearly). And, identifying the problem is half-solving it. You've great clarity about the issue, and you've dealt with it in a very professional manner. And, now for some constructive analysis. 1. While I greatly appreciate that you talk about (a) universality of male desire for men, and (b) the problem of associating man-man desire with the 'gay gender,' you're still one step away from recognizing the 'gay' gender as a distinct human gender of effeminate and transgendered males --- which should ideally include all males with a female gender orientation, whether they desire men, women, other third genders or any combination of them. And, while I think that recognizing the "third gender" is crucial to understanding and addressing the problem of man-man love (and other manhood issues), I don't think that this is necessarily your drawback. I understand that the western society is not really conducive, at this juncture, to acknowledge or understand a third gender, and thus, your approach is totally appropriate to your culture (i.e. the west), and that is more important than calling a spade a spade, to the 'T.' Hopefully, one day you can take your society to that ideal point. 2. I have some concern about the solution that you're proposing to the issue of man-man love. While acknowledging and proving universal male desire for men, you're at the sametime (to my mind) making the mistake of creating another 'category' for man-man love -- the "Greros." The very idea of separation is the root of the problem. While, I understand that you live in a society where labels and categories are very important, at the sametime, the goal should be to end isolation/ separation -- not to create another category, even if 'masculine.' I am sure you know about other such attempts in the west -- that of the "G0ys" who also recognize that a majority have sexual feelings for men, however, end up creating a separate space within the LGBT for 'masculine gays.' I don't see this as something that is going to attract a number of masculine gendered males into proudly accepting their desire for another man. I've worked with males with manhood a lot, and my experience says that men detest anything that separates them from the manhood category. And, there is only one manhood category in the west, and its defined as 'straight.' Now unless "Greros" are going to be counted toegether with the 'straights' rather than the LGBT, I don't know how this is going to solve your problem. "G0ys" at best attract the masculine gendered males that are already sexually active with men, apart from the 'straight-acting' gays (i.e. non-men). The only difference in their approach and yours seem to be that you're not coming down on 'anal sex' like the "G0ys." However, if you sincerely believe in the universality of male desire for men (which cannot really come unless you experience it -- and I don't mean by personally having sex with men, there are other ways ... and you probably have experienced it), then there is no reason why you shouldn't strive for the ideal situation -- where the definition of 'straight' itself is changed from 'heterosexual' to include all kinds of desires and relationships between men. That is the only way, regular guys can ever feel comfortable in large numbers to own up their own need for men. Of course, that would mean first to fight to end all the anti-man pressures and mechanisms built to forcefully heterosexualize boys, as part of their social masculinzation. It's going to be a lifetime's task, but we need people who are willing to devote a lifetime, rather than those who expect some quick results, however minor. In fact, your goal should be to do away with all 'sexual orientation' categories, and instead revert back to the ancient (that still operates in the non-west) 'gender orientation' categories of: i. Men: i.e. males with manhood, of whatever sexual orientation ii. Women: i.e. females who are non transgendered. iii. Third genders: males who have feminine gender orientation, and transgendered females of whatever sexual orientation. In fact, the word 'sexual orientatoin' should be made obsolete. It never existed before. 3. It may be better to work upon the issues of 'manhood' for men and their overall rights (and include man-man love as part of the overall agenda), rather than to work specifically upon 'man-man love' issues, firstly because, eventually, the issue is not 'sexuality' but 'gender' (manhood ... and the need to avoid 'queerhood'). All of men's issues, problems and oppression originate from politicizing and manipulation of social manhood. Secondly, because, men are EXTREMELY wary of talking about 'sexuality' upfront, because, for long it has been associated with 'lack of manhood,' at least, in the west. Talking about sexuality upfront will only scare and alienate most men, and that is not what you want. Besides, many men will feel comfortable talking about sexual issues, if it is suitably camouflaged. I don't think you can remove the stigma of 'lack of manhood' associated with 'man-man love' just through talking about the facts. Because, even when men know the facts, they rarely feel empowered or safe enough to act on that information. It is one thing to know the truth, but to take that knowledge into action takes much more. Many men are already aware of the reality -- yet, they would rather conform, rather than confront the society. As long as the individual man is isolated he would not feel empowered to act. And, you cannot organise men unless you camouflage the issue of man-man love. Afterall, you're living in a society where men are prevented even from holding hands with each other. Remember, for many men -- probably most (if they've killed their sexuality), sexuality is not the most important thing in life. Manhood and conforming to social standards, etc. are more important to men, than being able to indulge in sex with men (or women/ third genders) freely. This could keep your reach restricted to the few sexually active men, or for whom sex is everything. Having said that, you're of course free to experiment and reach at your own conclusions. It is no doubt, possible, that if some males with manhood, fighting all odds, create a small space for man-man love, called 'Grero' -- and maybe very, very slowly, perhaps after our lifetimes, things will change, and others will join in. In the end, once again my best wishes are with you for the success of this movement, and you're welcome to discuss anything that you wish to.
My points as rambled about in the video, okay: -third gender: political correctness prevents much gender talk as it is, classifying by gender may be limiting, just like sexual orientation. -grero does not create entirely new sexual orientation paradigm per se, but rather grero is a small piece of a new broader whole -grero as a new category: grero is not necessarily a collective noun but rather a property or essence of men, also marketing demands a shorthand to describe a complicated concept. -grero is not LGBT: LGBT itself a dumpster for individuals who are not part of the artificial, biased heterosexual construct -g0ys: g0ys say gays are too anal-focused and anal=feminine, but converting gay men will not work as gays are effeminate naturally not because of anal sex -focus on gay vs third gender category: gay is the main attraction, cross-dressers and other third genders not important to main point -change definition of straight, instead of new category: straight conflation of sexuality and gender, straight = masculine & likes only feminine women, probably easier to have new term, grero supersedes sexual orientation -sexual orientation obsolete, gender-based orientation may be too simple and limiting -third gender: like LGBT, it's a dumpster for a wide variety of people -down-low, discrete: subtle has not worked for centuries, maybe bold openness can change that -down-low: ironically only about sex, maybe openness can create a space for more than just sex -grero strategy: grero not for everyone, people conform, not confront; most men will not be greros in current era, attract small percentage of those willing to confront, meet up with others, form social circle, attract others (take over world, etc)
Uh, did you just say "take over the world"? Wouldn't that be sweet!
Seriously, it may take generations to undo the damage created by the christer-dominated sexual paradigm. In the meantime I suppose there are things that could be done to promote the grero concept, to get the term (or something equivalent) into common currency. I'm thinking for example of an on-line supplier for sports clothing, underwear, ball caps, etc all with the grero logo on them. People who purchase the product would be presented with the explanation, and once the image becomes commonplace it would become the symbol for a community of like-minded men, men who are proud of achieving their full potential.
Another way might be to encourage the male-male interactions that are commonly associated with greco-roman culture, such as naked sports. Swim teams traditionally practiced )and competed?) without suits; I'm not sure when that changed or why, but it may be time to put some effort into reversing the trend.
These are just some loose ideas that float to the surface at 3am when i can't sleep. Because I identify as male-only gay (although masculine) my thoughts consistently veer off into sex so I have to leave it to others to determine how these things fit within the grero mindset.
Uh, did you just say "take over the world"? Wouldn't that be sweet!
Seriously, it may take generations to undo the damage created by the christer-dominated sexual paradigm. In the meantime I suppose there are things that could be done to promote the grero concept, to get the term (or something equivalent) into common currency. I'm thinking for example of an on-line supplier for sports clothing, underwear, ball caps, etc all with the grero logo on them. People who purchase the product would be presented with the explanation, and once the image becomes commonplace it would become the symbol for a community of like-minded men, men who are proud of achieving their full potential.
I thought of spray painting my sports bag with GRERO using stencils but that'll have to wait until grero is #1 in Google's results. Right now, some Sri Lankan politician is there.
Another way might be to encourage the male-male interactions that are commonly associated with greco-roman culture, such as naked sports. Swim teams traditionally practiced )and competed?) without suits; I'm not sure when that changed or why, but it may be time to put some effort into reversing the trend.
These are just some loose ideas that float to the surface at 3am when i can't sleep. Because I identify as male-only gay (although masculine) my thoughts consistently veer off into sex so I have to leave it to others to determine how these things fit within the grero mindset.
There is actually a site on historical nude swimming, which was common before the Victorian era: https://sites.google.com/site/historicarchives4maleswimming/
With the onset of the Internet, new generations are beginning to learn about this controversial subject and the related heated debates as to what previous generations experienced. We provide evidence that generations back to the early 18th century were often part of a culture that encouraged, if not required, boys and men to be nude while swimming or sea-bathing, sometimes even in the presence of females, although females invariably remained fully clothed in bathing costumes or conservative dress of their era.
Re the notion of gay men being a "different gender" (manifested by their shift towards "effeminacy" as well as their sexual attraction toward other men).
You know, there's another phenomenon that complicates any attempt to draw categorical boundaries among "masculine" and "feminine" men and correlate those boundaries with gender-preference in sexual partners. Back in the 80's, a book called _The 'Sissy Boy Syndrome'_ ( http://www.amazon.com/The-Sissy-Boy-Syndrome-Homosexuality/dp/0300042396/ ) noted that most (but not all) homosexual men did indeed display signs of gender-atypicality during their childhood, but that at the same time **most** gender-atypical little boys still grew up into "normal" heterosexual adult men.
Also back in the 80's, there was a psychologist named Brian G. Gilmartin (a somewhat controversial figure because he apparently took things like astrology and Kirlian photography of "auras" seriously, but when he sticks to psychology he's plausible) who wrote a book (published in 1985) called _Love-Shyness: Shyness & Love: Causes, Consequences, and Treatment_. It's out of print, but it has apparently been scanned and OCRed (or transcribed) and put on the Web as a PDF file, downloadable from http://www.love-shy.com/resources#shynessandlove
Gilmartin's point is that little boys growing up in U.S. culture who happen to have been born with certain temperamental characteristics -- he refers to them as being in the "melancholic quadrant" of the "Eysenck Cross of personality"; they'd also presumably likely score high on the Neurotic factor of a contemporary "Big Five" personality inventory -- are at great risk of life-long emotional damage being wrought by cultural biases, educational biases, and parental biases that are completely at odds with such temperaments in male children (but **not** in female children).
He's talking about the little boys who are easily startled or frightened, who have a lower pain threshold than is typical, and who therefore grow up trying to avoid noisy mobs of shouting boys pushing each other around, and who would rather stay indoors during recess and read a book. If such kids are born into cultures more sympathetic to them (Asian cultures, lets say) they can flourish, but in West (and in the U.S. in particular) these kids can suffer lasting psychological damage. These are kids for whom gym class, or forced participation in contact sports like football, is likely to be a nightmare, and who as a result suffer harassment and bullying both by other kids and by adults (**including** being disparaged by epithets implying they are homosexual -- "faggot", etc.)
Gilmartin focuses on the (substantial) fraction of these little boys who grow up to be heterosexually-oriented, but who are chronically unable to form sexual or romantic relationships with women (and who are not at all interested in having sexual or romantic relationships with other men). Gilmartin does, these days, acknowledge that **some** fraction of the men he studied would today probably also be characterized as being somewhere on the autistic spectrum (Asperger's Syndrome, etc.); he did not distinguish such a category when he wrote the book.
Re the notion of gay men being a "different gender" (manifested by their shift towards "effeminacy" as well as their sexual attraction toward other men).
You know, there's another phenomenon that complicates any attempt to draw categorical boundaries among "masculine" and "feminine" men and correlate those boundaries with gender-preference in sexual partners. Back in the 80's, a book called _The 'Sissy Boy Syndrome'_ ( http://www.amazon.com/The-Sissy-Boy-Syndrome-Homosexuality/dp/0300042396/ ) noted that most (but not all) homosexual men did indeed display signs of gender-atypicality during their childhood, but that at the same time **most** gender-atypical little boys still grew up into "normal" heterosexual adult men.
The stats I have for now is 75% turn out gay. So... are we turning such boys gay now or were they covering up their sexual orientations then?
Also back in the 80's, there was a psychologist named Brian G. Gilmartin (a somewhat controversial figure because he apparently took things like astrology and Kirlian photography of "auras" seriously, but when he sticks to psychology he's plausible) who wrote a book (published in 1985) called _Love-Shyness: Shyness & Love: Causes, Consequences, and Treatment_. It's out of print, but it has apparently been scanned and OCRed (or transcribed) and put on the Web as a PDF file, downloadable from http://www.love-shy.com/resources#shynessandlove
Gilmartin's point is that little boys growing up in U.S. culture who happen to have been born with certain temperamental characteristics -- he refers to them as being in the "melancholic quadrant" of the "Eysenck Cross of personality"; they'd also presumably likely score high on the Neurotic factor of a contemporary "Big Five" personality inventory -- are at great risk of life-long emotional damage being wrought by cultural biases, educational biases, and parental biases that are completely at odds with such temperaments in male children (but **not** in female children).
He's talking about the little boys who are easily startled or frightened, who have a lower pain threshold than is typical, and who therefore grow up trying to avoid noisy mobs of shouting boys pushing each other around, and who would rather stay indoors during recess and read a book. If such kids are born into cultures more sympathetic to them (Asian cultures, lets say) they can flourish, but in West (and in the U.S. in particular) these kids can suffer lasting psychological damage. These are kids for whom gym class, or forced participation in contact sports like football, is likely to be a nightmare, and who as a result suffer harassment and bullying both by other kids and by adults (**including** being disparaged by epithets implying they are homosexual -- "faggot", etc.)
Gilmartin focuses on the (substantial) fraction of these little boys who grow up to be heterosexually-oriented, but who are chronically unable to form sexual or romantic relationships with women (and who are not at all interested in having sexual or romantic relationships with other men). Gilmartin does, these days, acknowledge that **some** fraction of the men he studied would today probably also be characterized as being somewhere on the autistic spectrum (Asperger's Syndrome, etc.); he did not distinguish such a category when he wrote the book.
It's an interesting read.
Do you remember which chapters are particularly noteworthy?
> Do you remember which chapters are particularly noteworthy?
Well, here are some passages I excerpted a few years ago on another blog, together with some comments that I made.
-------------------- book p. 40 PDF p. 71 Chapter 2, "Love-Shyness and the Nature Versus Nurture Debate"
It is no accident that people who suffer from chronic, intractable cases of love-shyness ALL (with no exceptions) possess native temperaments which place them high up in the. . . (melancholic quadrant) of the [Eysenck cross of inborn temperament; see http://cnx.org/content/m40704/latest/figure3.jpg ].
Hans J. Eysenck has concluded that inborn introversion is a natural byproduct of high native arousal levels in the cerebral cortex, and that these high arousal levels are caused by an overactive ascending reticular formation (lower brain) which bombards the higher brain and central nervous system when social or other stimuli (perceived as threatening) are presented. This inborn hyperarousability of introverts accounts (1) for their forming conditioned patterns of anxiety and other inappropriate emotional responses all too easily; and (2) for the much greater difficulty in extinguishing maladaptive conditioned responses in introverts as compared to extroverts and ambiverts. (Ambiverts include the large majority of the population who are "in between" the extrovert and introvert extremes.) These facts partially account for the high prevalence of introverts among the ranks of neurotics and the love-shy. However, as I shall attempt to demonstrate shortly, even an extreme introvert need not develop chronic, intractable love-shyness or any other form of neurosis.
In stark contrast to the foregoing, Eysenck found that highly extroverted people tend to have underaroused brains and nervous systems. Simply put, they are stimulus hungry. This is why they are always craving and seeking excitement of one kind or another, and why they must constantly have people around them.
Emotionality (high versus low anxiety threshold) is also a byproduct of inborn differences in human physiology, and particularly in the autonomic nervous system and lymbic system. Simply put, various reactions of the body such as heartbeat, rapid breathing, the cessation of digestion to make blood flow away from the stomach and to prepare the organism for flight or fight, tend to be significantly more labile and easily aroused (and less easily stopped) in highly emotional (low anxiety threshold) people. Emotional reactions are regulated by the visceral brain, and herein lies the locus of the inborn personality dimension of emotionality.
book p. 48 PDF p. 79 Chapter 2, "Love-Shyness and the Nature Versus Nurture Debate"
In his book entitled TEMPERAMENT AND BEHAVIOR DISORDERS IN CHILDREN, Dr. [Alexander] Thomas talks at considerable length about what he calls the "slow-to-warm-up child". And he presents an impressive amount of research evidence showing how this type of seemingly "difficult" child can eventually become indistinguishable in adjustment from the other seemingly "easy", naturally sociable children when (1) copious opportunity is accorded for informal play amidst an accepting peer group that is engaged in enjoyable, non-anxiety-provoking activities, and (2) when patient, kindly and accepting attitudes are held by parents and teachers.
Simply put, when a child is accepted as he is he becomes free to grow, to mature, to change in a positive direction, and to become his true self. When a child is accorded caring and respect for his feelings and emotional needs, he inevitably becomes a caring and respecting person who gradually comes to "fit in" remarkably well. But when that same "slow-to-warm-up" child is forced to conform to parental or teacher expectations and to play amidst a physically aggressive, highly competitive peer group which he finds frightening and anxiety-provoking, he tends to withdraw. Indeed, he tends to regress and to become progressively less mature by comparison with the other children in his age cohort.
In essence, the more rigid and uncompromising the parental expectations are, the more time the "slow-to-warm-up" child will take to adjust, to mature, and to "fit in". Simply put, it is counterproductive to try to standardize human personality because the raw materials (including native temperament) differ for each child within each of the two sexes.
As Thomas has argued, there is a long-standing tradition in American society of trying to force square pegs into round holes -- of endeavoring to do whatever seems feasible to make the behavior, feelings and interests of a child fit prevailing norms and expectations. Thomas' findings show that there is a costly price to be paid for our callous insistence upon trying to standardize human personalities. A far more socially beneficial approach, as Thomas' research data have shown, is to modify the expectations of parents, peers and teachers to fit the native temperament of the child. When this tack is followed, the child flourishes, grows, matures, and is ultimately as normal in his behavior patterns as the bulk of his peers.
Modifying parental and peer expectations can be effectively accomplished through (1) education of the parents and teachers as to the nature and limits posed by native temperament; (2) the creation of support groups for parents of shy, inhibited, "slow-to-warm-up" children; and (3) providing the seemingly "difficult" child with a choice of peer groups and of peer group activities. In regard to this last point, one child's medicine is another child's poison. The typical male child flourishes in the all-boy peer group that is engaged in "rough and tumble" play. In contrast, the introverted, inhibited, "slow-to-warm-up" child flourishes best in the small sized, coeducational peer group that engages in more gently competitive activities such as volleyball, bowling, hide and seek, miniature golf, swimming, shuffle board, horseshoes, croquet, ping pong, etc.
To be sure, militant physical education enthusiasts have quibbled that these more gentle sports and games do not provide the exercise that male children need. (This objection is ludicrous inasmuch as the "gentle" sport of swimming, for example, exercises more bodily muscles than does football, basketball and baseball. Moreover, all male children are not alike in their exercise needs!) As Thomas' research data have shown, the traditional tack of insisting that all male children take part in the same "rough and tumble" activity has eventuated in two consequences that are very deleterious from the standpoint of both the individual and the wider society: (1) The melancholic child. . . withdraws from play and consequently does not get any outdoor physical exercise at all. In short, very few melancholic male children subordinate themselves to the rigid requirement they they must play "rough and tumble" games. They simply withdraw; and as a result they get little or nothing of the physical exercise which the physical education enthusiasts deem so extremely important. The point here is that something is always better than nothing! (2) The melancholic child fails to develop the interpersonal skills and the social self-confidence that are so necessary for success, happiness and adjustment in this or in any other society. Since he is mistreated, bullied, abused, and/or ignored by the peers society tells him he must play with, he quickly develops a "people-phobia". In essence, he learns to associate being around age-mates with feelings of anxiety, pain, and strong displeasure. More succinctly, whereas most people learn to associate feelings of pleasure and happiness with the idea of "friends", the melancholic boy learns to associate feelings of pain and anxiety with the idea of "friends". For him peers cause pain, NOT pleasure!
This latter point is of enormous importance. Active involvement in enjoyable childhood play has long been known to be an indispensable prerequisite (in both humans and monkeys) to competent, effective adulthood. Indeed, social and psychoemotional adjustment in adulthood absolutely requires and necessitates a long-term history of happy involvement in play throughout the years of childhood. Play is not the sort of frivolous activity some people think it is. Play represents an indispensable component of the classroom of life—much more indispensable, in fact, than the "3 Rs" that are learned in the indoor classroom. Research has shown that people can pick up the "3 Rs" and other intellectual/technical skills at any age. Unfortunately, socioemotional and interpersonal skills that are not picked up at the normal times during the course of childhood play cannot normally be picked up for the first time in later life. More succinctly, it is vastly more difficult for an adult to pick up interpersonal skills and social self-confidence for the first time, than it is for him to pick up intellectual/technical skills or knowledge for the first time.
People can cultivate and expand their intellects at any age. Unfortunately, the nature of man is such that deficits in the interpersonal/socioemotional areas cannot easily be rectified in adulthood or late adolescence. This is why education in these areas is so important throughout the years of early and middle childhood. And it is the peer group, NOT parents or teachers, who provide this indispensable education. And this is why we shall never successfully prevent chronic love-shyness in males unless and until we make sure that ALL little boys have ready access at all times throughout their formative years to a peer group and to play activities which they can truly enjoy and to which they can always look forward with positive emotional feelings of happiness and enthusiasm.
book p. 98 PDF p. 129 Chapter 3, "Societal Reactions and Elastic Limits"
Dark Crayons and Drab Drawings
Here is another example of the often very serious consequences that befall a child as a result of being enmeshed in a role from which he/she cannot extricate himself/herself. The story concerns a little boy in a fourth grade classroom comprised of about forty pupils. Several times each week all the children were encouraged to draw pictures with the crayons that the teacher provided. And after each picture-drawing session the boy would hand in a drawing that invariably was composed exclusively of dark, drab colors. All of this little boy's drawings were consistently limited to blacks, grays, dark greens, and other very drab shades. And after several months of such drawings the teacher began to become worried. She finally decided to take a large number of the boy's drawings to the school psychologist.
A few days later the psychologist called the child into his office and simply asked him why he drew all these dark, drab pictures. The child's response was that he really didn't have any choice in the matter. He didn't want to draw such dreary pictures. But the teacher always started the crayon box at the front of the room. And by the time the crayon box got back to him in the final seat of the rear row, the only crayons left were the blacks, the grays, the dark greens, the browns, and other less than "happy" colors.
The moral to this story is that society often creates pathology as a result of the situations in which it places people. Some situations are especially conducive to pathology whereas others are conducive to health, happiness and adjustment. In essence, boys with high inborn introversion and fearfulness are often required to adapt to situations which simply do not "fit" these native attributes. And because they are forced to remain in these situations they simply do not thrive; and indeed they regress as per the "wishbone effect" discussed earlier. Were society to place these boys in school situations that comfortably fit their native temperaments, they would no longer be bullied, hazed, harassed or belittled for inborn attributes over which they have no control or choice. And they would begin to thrive.
book p. 234 PDF p. 265 Chapter 10, "Love Shyness and the All-Male Peer Group"
[T]here is mounting evidence that society **creates** neurotics as a result of into a certain interest and activity mold. I believe that to the extent that we create options for children -- to the extent that we afford them a choice of more than just one type of peer group, to that extent we are likely to begin observing a sharp dropping off in the incidence of incipient neuroticism. . .
book p. 244 PDF p. 275 Chapter 10, "Love Shyness and the All-Male Peer Group"
We must put a stop to the multitudinous shyness-generating situations to which our male children are exposed every day throughout the entirety of their formative years. I believe that this can be accomplished without imposing any strain upon cramped school budgets, and without inconveniencing boys who truly prefer to select "rough and tumble" forms of play. All children should be expected to take an active part in some sports activities. But all children must be accorded a choice as to which sports activities they wish to involve themselves in. The available choices for children of all age levels must be made sufficiently varied to accommodate people of inhibited and melancholic temperament. School districts are already required by law to accommodate the blind, the deaf, and children of all intelligence levels who are slow in learning how to read. Similar accommodations must also be made for children who are exceptional in the extremely important area of native temperament. American education quite fallaciously assumes that making friends "comes natural" to all children, and that relaxed, easy-going sociability is therefore something which need not be taught. For the naturally reserved, making friends and learning "small talk" does not "come natural". Just as slow readers are given a set of learning experiences that is different from that which is accorded the majority of children, a "different" set of classroom experiences must similarly be developed for shy and withdrawn, socially handicapped children.
Towards this end I believe that a recreation and physical education program that is in harmony with the psychoemotional needs of ALL children represents one of the most promising means for the prevention of chronic and intractable love-shyness. Such a program of recreation and physical education must incorporate three basic ingredients: (1) children must be permitted a choice of activities; options other than "rough and tumble" play must be readily available; (2) coeducational sports and games must always be available for those children who want it; and (3) inhibited, melancholic, low anxiety threshold boys must never be required to play among a group of children containing bullies or rugged, "rough and tumble" oriented individuals.
This third point is of especial importance. For even if the game were tiddleywinks, if an inhibited boy were assigned to play alongside a "rough and tumble" oriented boy, you can rest assured that the inhibited boy would very soon be bullied, and would soon learn to withdraw from tiddleywinks! Boys of diametrically opposite native temperaments must never be made to play together. Lambs must never be made to play with lion cubs! Just as the mentally retarded are never educated in the same classroom as the intellectually gifted, the highly inhibited must never be thrown in with the highly exuberant, aggressive extrovert. This is true no matter what sport or game might be involved.
book p. 248 PDF p. 279
Some of my critics have charged that the above twenty-four activities do not provide the competition that boys allegedly need to a greater extent than girls. Critics have also insisted that with the exception of volleyball these are not team sports; and that team sports are somehow necessary for teaching boys how to cooperate. The usual contention is that a cooperative spirit is picked up from active participation in baseball, basketball, and football; and that this cooperative and competitive spirit somehow transfers to the business world and to life in general. I would suggest that competitive drive is essentially a function of native temperament. Boys with an aggressive temperament are highly likely to gravitate naturally towards baseball, basketball and football. And they are similarly quite likely to display this aggressive drive vis-a-vis the business world. Simply put, it is not competitive sports that causes competitive business drive. Every Sunday afternoon the bars are loaded with rather noncompetitive blue-collar men who have a great love of competitive sports. Instead, active participation in competitive sports AND active competition in the business world both reflect an inborn temperament that is fundamentally aggressive and characterized by a high anxiety threshold.
As for cooperation, girls have long grown up without being required to partake in "rough and tumble" athletics. Yet it seems to me that females display far more of a cooperative spirit vis-a-vis each other than males typically do. Quite clearly, women do not enter adulthood less capable than men of cooperating effectively with others. The notion that participation in "rough and tumble" sports is a necessary condition for inspiring a spirit of cooperation and of friendly competition appears nothing short of ludicrous.
Of course, the available research evidence has documented what is actually a far more important point. When shy and withdrawn boys are required to participate in "rough and tumble" activities they withdraw into their private shells all the more completely. By encouraging shy and withdrawn boys to participate, away from the company of bullies and other aggressive individuals, in the twenty-four activities I have suggested (in lieu of rugged calesthenics and contact sports), the shy will be accorded the opportunity to (1) make friends, and (2) to develop the interpersonal skills and social self-confidence that are crucial to success and happiness throughout life.
book p. 570 PDF p. 601 Chapter 24 "Some Recommendations Concerning Prevention"
In criminology today there is an increasing and much welcomed trend towards the assuring and protecting of the victim's rights. Bullies cause emotional scars and ruin lives by creating "people-phobes" and social isolates. Moreover, in not being swiftly, consistently, and severely punished for their mindless cruelty, bullies' tendencies to treat their fellow human beings as things (without feelings, or with feelings that do not count) rather than as people, are strongly reinforced and rewarded. . .
I strongly oppose all forms of racial and sexual segregation. But as an educator I very strongly support segregation of elementary-school-aged children on the basis of native temperament. Highly aggressive, bullying-prone male children must not take classes in the same classroom or play on the same playgrounds as naturally inhibited, low anxiety threshold male children. Wolves are not kept in the same pen as lambs, and chihuahuas and miniature poodles are not housed with dobermans. Most shy children do not need to be educated exclusively with other shy children. But they certainly must not be made to regularly interface with those whose native temperaments are poles apart from their own, and whose very presence represents noxious stimuli. ======
Here's an astonishing passage ("Some Final Thoughts", p. 662 of the PDF, p. 631 of the book):
Elementary School Children
For the present moment, I strongly recommend that all conspicuously shy, timid, socially inhibited elementary school boys be singled out for experimentation with the monoamine oxidase inhibitors and/or the tricyclic antidepressant drugs. At the very least, these drugs will operate (most probably in 75 to 85 percent of all cases) to take away the anxiety and fears. Once the social anxieties and "rough and tumble" fears are removed, the child is free to learn interpersonal skills and at least normal levels of social self-confidence. It should always be remembered that the peer group is one of the two most powerfully important socializing agents. With a mind-state that is free from social fears and timidity, interpersonal interaction in the full range of children's activities becomes permitted. Once a child is accorded full participation in the mainstream of childish play, he can be assured (as this book has demonstrated) full access to the pleasures of dating, courtship and heterosexual interaction -- once his fellow same-sexed buddies become involved in such activities.
Among high school and university students the MAO Inhibitors and tricyclics may also prove helpful as an accompanyment to practice-dating therapy. But for a smooth sail, high school (and especially college) age is far too late for such psychopharmacological medication. At such advanced ages the young person (1) must be helped to overcome long-established habits of social inertia, and (2) must be put through often very difficult interpersonal skills/social self-confidence training -- training to arrive at a level of performance and affect that his age-mates (competitors) had arrived at years before. I think that drug treatment should be used as an accompanyment to therapy for high school and college males; but such treatment may now represent a real boon to boys in the age 3 through 12 age bracket. ======
Wow, this guy was ahead of his time, in 1985. Can you imagine? Antidepressants for 3-year-olds! (And to think -- Iproniazid, the first MAO inhibitor, went on the market as an antidepressant in 1958. I started first grade that September. I wonder if **any** 5-year-old, anywhere in the world, got that stuff. Hm. Maybe if the 5-year-old had tuberculosis.)
Gilmartin spends most of the book recommending public policies (like segregating elementary-school students by temperament) that certainly haven't happened anywhere since the book was written and don't look like happening anytime soon, and **some** policies (like outlawing football) that will happen when hell freezes over. Then, at the end, he says "**For the present moment**, I strongly recommend. . . experimentation with. . . antidepressant drugs. . ." which does kind of reverse his whole program and put the onus back on the kid to take a pill to be "fixed". Apart from the fact that no one, then or now, would sanction giving an antidepressant to a 3-year-old, I can't help but fantasize about what I would do if given the choice to wave a magic wand and have the 5-year-old that I was in 1958 be put on an MAO inhibitor before being forced to attend public school for the first time. Would I do it, or not? I might be quite a different person now. Would I be better off? I find it a fascinating thing to daydream about.
Another interesting thing that Gilmartin points out is that homosexual orientation is **orthogonal** to what he calls "love shyness" (social phobia -- which turns into a lifelong inability to form an emotionally-intimate [and sexually-intimate, of course, but Gilmartin calls sex merely "frosting on the cake"] relationship with a life partner -- stemming from a cruel mismatch between a boy's native temperament and contemporary child-rearing practices). This is particularly interesting in light of some "reparative therapists'" views on the etiology of male homosexuality (e.g., Joseph Nicolosi of NARTH) -- putting aside the reparative therapists' usual religious agenda. The NARTHians and other reparative "theoreticians" postulate that male homosexuality is caused when a boy with a "sensitive" temperament is **permitted** to "run away" from masculinizing activities (like sports) and who, as a result, doesn't get enough "male bonding" (with his father and with male peers) as a child, and so who goes looking for it as an adolescent and an adult (at which time it also becomes eroticized). But the embarrassing thing for the reparatives is that while this pattern may be true of **some** homosexuals (it's certainly true of me), it fails to account for them all (homosexual **athletes** are obvious exceptions -- how do you account for Billy Bean or Ed Gallagher?). And, of course, Gilmartin explicitly focuses on the other segment of men who don't fit the NARTHian model -- the men who experienced the etiological conditions they postulate as the "cause" of homosexuality, but who turned out **heterosexual** (at least in orientation). Gilmartin, though he took pains to **exclude** homosexuals from his own studies (just so he could control the variable) nevertheless acknowledges that there are gay men who are "love shy" (and who are therefore, at least in that way, about as far from the popular stereotype of gay men as you can get).
: Re: 0013: Response to Reclaiming Natural Manhood
: JimFJune 08, 2013, 04:59:02 AM
Gilmartin wrote:
> Hans J. Eysenck has concluded that inborn introversion is a > natural byproduct of high native arousal levels in the cerebral > cortex, and that these high arousal levels are caused by an > overactive ascending reticular formation (lower brain) which > bombards the higher brain and central nervous system when > social or other stimuli (perceived as threatening) are presented. > This inborn hyperarousability of introverts accounts (1) for > their forming conditioned patterns of anxiety and other inappropriate > emotional responses all too easily; and (2) for the much > greater difficulty in extinguishing maladaptive conditioned > responses in introverts as compared to extroverts
A more recent analysis of this sort of thing (at any rate, one that ended up being marketed as a trade book) came from psychologist Elaine N. Aron, in the late 90s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Highly_Sensitive_Person_%28book%29
There's a YouTube video of an interview with a clinical psychologist named Ted Zeff that discusses Aron's notion of the Highly Sensitive Person (HSP) as it relates specifically to boys and men in U.S. culture. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nn6pTpJytgU
He's also the author of a book (which I haven't read) entitled _The Strong, Sensitive Boy_ http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004P5NVHA/ http://highlysensitive.org/371/ted-zeff-on-highly-sensitive-boys-and-men/
Zeff also asserts that this phenomenon of "sensitivity" is orthogonal to sexual orientation. In the conventional view of gender roles, though, it seems likely that "sensitivity" in a man would be interpreted by most people as a "feminine" trait.
In fact, I wonder if an "HSP" who self-identifies as heterosexual might be **more** homophobic than a non-HSP heterosexual, just because of his awareness that a lot of people might misinterpret his personality as being somehow "gay". (I wonder if the straight erstwhile work friend I developed feelings for and then fell afoul of some years ago might have been like that.)
: Re: 0013: Response to Reclaiming Natural Manhood
: JimFJune 08, 2013, 10:36:50 AM
Nothing changes. Except in this case, with 21st-century technology, the brother documented everything for the whole world to see.
Trying to force a square peg into a round hole:
"Dad, gay son, swimmingpool an[d] gay brother with cam" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOotrvIYB78
(Notice that some of the comments ignore the father's behavior and squawk along the lines of "This is what's wrong with our society. I'd **never** let a kid of mine talk to me that way.")
The father is a terrible, sadistic bully. The parents will then complain in five years, "Why don't the kids ever come home from Thanksgiving? We gave them everything!"
Get out of the pool! Just get back in! Wow, I'm so glad this video exists. In my childhood, I was not able to record the insane, contradictory directions.
"What's wrong with you boy!" Yes, how dare you use aggression to get your way! :-)
Speaking of bad parents, have you read any of Alice Miller's books, especially The Drama of the Gifted Child and For Your Own Good.
> Speaking of bad parents, have you read any of Alice Miller's > books, especially The Drama of the Gifted Child and > For Your Own Good.
Yes, I read _The Drama of the Gifted Child_ many years ago on the recommendation of a (female) friend who thought that it encapsulated her own childhood experience, and thought that it might apply to mine as well. I've since had other people recommend it to me. I'm afraid I disappointed (and maybe even offended) my friend when I found the book a little offputting -- I wasn't prepared to accept Miller's categorization of such children as necessarily "gifted" (with the usual connotations of "high-IQ", intellectually superior, what certain modern folks might call an "Indigo child" [ugh!], etc.)
I found that Gilmartin's characterization of the "love-shy" male captured my own experience in a visceral way -- but then of course Gilmartin is a man talking specifically about the experiences of boys; Miller is a woman who includes girls in her analysis, and both people who have recommended Miller to me in the past were also women.
I found myself getting both angry and sad to the point of tears when I first read Gilmartin's book. But, you know, it's not really anybody's **fault**. Calling people "bad parents" can miss the point just as much as calling the children "bad kids". It's the **mismatch** between the parenting styles (itself partly a function of the parents' inborn temperaments, and partly a function of the cultural milieu), and the child's temperament, that can lead to grief.
And of course all such analyses are terrifically politically- charged. I can't imagine public-school phys-ed classes being segregated not just by gender but by "temperament" -- the Republicans would scream that it's "coddling" (Or worse. "It's the homosexual agenda! They want to turn our boys into fags!"). There's a high school in New York specifically intended to be a safe haven for LGBTQ kids: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Milk_High_School And of course it garnered the expected reactions from the expected quarters:
"State Conservative Party chairman Michael Long criticized the creation of the school as social engineering, asking, 'Is there a different way to teach homosexuals? Is there gay math? This is wrong... There’s no reason these children should be treated separately.
Supporters contend that this school is a pragmatic solution, providing an alternative path to a diploma for students who are unable to succeed in a mainstream high school due to intolerance. Not all arguments against the school are divided along partisan lines. Independent mayor Michael Bloomberg supported the renovation of the school while Democratic N.Y. State Senator Rubén Díaz opposed it."
Yadda yadda yadda. It would be the same for "temperamentally sensitive" boys being excused from playing touch football in high-school gym classes.
Speaking of which. Some time in late elementary school or early junior high school, I had to do the touch football thing in gym class, and my strategy in such situations was to stay as far from the action as possible without literally leaving the game. I did the same thing with softball. Just try to get through the damn period by pretending to be invisible, or at least as inconspicuous as possible, and staying as far away from the ball as possible. It didn't always work -- sometimes gym teachers know perfectly well what's going on, and let it slide; and sometimes they know perfectly well what's going on, and try to force the kid to "participate". Anyway, one afternoon I was trying to fade into the grass, but there was this kid who decided to teach me a lesson -- he decided he'd had enough of my shirking my "responsibility" to put myself at risk of being mowed down. He was a **big** kid, and he went way out of his way to come after me and **tackle** me. I landed on my arm. I didn't break it, as it turned out, but I had to go to the doctor and have it X-rayed. Of course there were no consequences for the other kid. He wasn't all bad, though. I remember one day walking home from school he gave me a piece of advice for dealing with women. "If you don't have any muscles," he said, "just wear bulky sweaters." I can't say I've ever actually made any use of that, but it's stuck with me. ;->
By the way, "temperamentally sensitive" males (such as myself) -- **whatever** their sexual orientation, and even if they otherwise would have had no desire to adopt female clothes or a female role in society -- would not, from my understanding of history, have fit Greek or Roman ideals of masculinity. The Greeks idealized athleticism (and the beauty of the male form of the athletic youth); and both the warlike Greeks (the Spartans) and the Romans (or at least the Roman aristocracy) idealized the "manly virtues" -- strength at arms, fierceness in battle, and so on. In other words, the football players who **don't** run away from the ball. ;->
Speaking of football, though -- do you know the story of this poor soul? Ed Gallagher: http://www.bentvoices.org/pix/gallagher.jpg College football hero -- big, macho dude. Succumbed to his homosexual urges, then panicked, and in a fit of self-hatred tried to commit suicide by pitching himself down the face of a dam, and **survived**, but spent the rest of his life in a wheelchair. http://www.outsports.com/2011/7/29/4051618/moment-69-ed-gallagher-survives-suicide-attempt
> > "Dad, gay son, swimmingpool an[d] gay brother with cam" > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOotrvIYB78 > > The father is a terrible, sadistic bully. . . > Wow, I'm so glad this video exists.
You know, it crossed my mind later to wonder how that video came to be on YouTube. It's on a channel of heterogeneous content called "PiP media", and with 122,056 views it's the second-most-frequently viewed clip on the channel, far ahead of nearly all of the other clips.
I suspect it wasn't actually posted by the brother who cammed the incident. Maybe he shared it with friend(s) or relative(s), who may in turn have shared it with others, so that finally it escaped control altogether and ended up as one of YouTube's miscellaneous clips.
The title's characterization of the two boys as "gay son" and "gay brother" may also have been chosen by the poster simply as a kind of disparagement of their behavior (the one boy's cowardice at the pool, and the other boy's presumed lack of respect for privacy in filming an unflattering family scene without anybody else's knowledge or permission) rather than based on any accurate information about their sexual orientation. As in, they're both acting "so gay".
But I too regard at as a fascinating documentary fragment, whatever its provenance.
I have some very early memories of being a "sensitive" (easily upset, cowardly, "scaredy-cat") kid. Some kids, for example, **love** being picked up, tossed in the air, or being turned upside-down. I **hated** that sort of thing, and I have a very early memory of being terrorized by somebody (an uncle, maybe; my father probably realized early on that was a no-go) who tried to do that to me, and only succeeded in making me afraid of him. One of the things I remember we had to do in first-grade gym class (along with square dancing, which didn't bother me so much ;-> ) was "tumbling". The mats would come out, and we were supposed to do things like forward rolls, backward rolls, and handstands. I could **barely** manage a forward roll, but I never learned to do a backward roll properly, and as far as a handstand is concerned -- forget it. I could not deal with the disorientation of being upside down -- it terrified me. I also have very clear memories of the gym teacher (who was the same one in first grade as I later had in sixth grade) -- the only female gym teacher I ever had. She was married (Mrs. W.), but she was short, and stocky (her posterior stuck way out in her tight shorts), and very mannish. I couldn't help but wonder much later if she was a lesbian. In sixth grade, I was summoned one afternoon to Mrs. W.'s office for criticism on my posture (I already walked with a characteristic round-shouldered slump, with head down, which was probably as much a reflection of my social status by then as anything inherently to do with the articulation of my body). on the way back to class after receiving Mrs. W.'s critique, I passed knots of teachers gathered open-mouthed around radios. It seems that President Kennedy had been shot.
I also, as a 3-year-old, was afraid of the upright vacuum cleaner my mother used in the house. I reacted to the noise it made the way cats do to such things. Later on, I sometimes accompanied my father to the barber shop in the local suburban shopping center that served our neighborhood. That barber was outfitted in a way I don't think I've ever seen since. After your haircut, and after having the hair shaken out of the "dropcloth", instead of then having the remaining hair whisk-brushed off your shoulders and neck, the shop had a row of small cannister-type electric vacuums, with the cannisters attached underneath the shelf running behind the chairs, and a hose attachment which the barber would use to suck up loose hair off the client at the end. These made a lot of noise, as vacuum cleaners always do, and I was more afraid of having one of them used on me than I was of anything else about the process of getting a haircut. When I was first taken to that shop to get a haircut, my father had to **promise** me that the barber would be instructed not to use that thing on me. On other occasions, I'd accompany my father to the local Sears automotive service center, where there would often be lots of loud bangs and buzzes from pneumatic wrenches or tires being inflated on rims. I was always alarmed (to the point of real fear) by that, too, and I tried to keep my ears plugged the whole time I was anywhere near the garage. There were other things -- silly things, some of them. I didn't know how to blow my nose as a really little kid, and I hated having it wiped or having one of my parents hold a kleenex across my face while shouting at me to **blow**! It felt like I was being suffocated. On such occasions, my father would always lose his temper, and I remember him once threatening to use the "snuffer" on me (a rubber aspirator that you use to suck mucus out of babies' noses). My early visits to the dentist were nightmarish, despite the dentist ostensibly specializing in childrens' dentistry (I remember him as a short-tempered, sadistic SOB, but then again I may well have been his worst patient). After losing control of the drill and nearly severing the ligament under my tongue during one visit because of my trying to pull away, the dentist prescribed tranquilizers that I had to take before coming to the office. But these came in capsule form, and I always ended up biting them through and then spitting the bitter contents into the kitchen sink. So instead of being tranquilized in preparation for my visit to the dentist, those Saturday mornings would begin with my father raging at me, and threatening me with his belt, to try to get me to swallow the capsule properly. The characteristic smell of the lobby of the downtown medical building where that dentist had his office -- a blend of interior construction, floor cleaner, and the disinfectants wafting from the doctors' offices -- is an odor I would undoubtedly recognize, likely even with a familiar pang of fear, to this day. The curious thing is, I eventually outgrew all of that stuff. I have no problem going to the dentist today, or the barbershop, or the Sears automotive center. I can drive a car, even through crowded metropolitan traffic, and I have no problem with vacuum cleaners. ;-> But I've certainly been told, even as an adult, that I come across as a "wary" person. (And one personal "tic" that's lingered is that I **hate** to have to use the telephone. And I know that my being "on edge" with strangers very often comes across as hostility.)
I had an interesting experience around swimming, which in a way goes to show that "slow to warm up" kids can master something as long as they're not expected to do it at the lock-step pace required of average kids (which means that, yes, they're "more expensive" to deal with in that they take more time and attention -- something that your average Republican might well think they don't deserve. ;-> ). When I was 10-ish, give or take, my father got me a summer membership at the local public swimming pool. And that pool also offered swimming lessons, so I ended up being signed up for those. And I was my usual scaredy-cat self in the water (just like that poor kid in the video) and basically ended up flunking the course. But somehow (I can't remember how -- maybe it was the instructor's idea), I had the opportunity to take the class a second time. (Or maybe, come to think, the deal was that if I couldn't pass the course, I wouldn't be allowed to use the pool.) And the second time around, I did OK. I never learned how to do the Australian Crawl (a competition stroke, where you have to learn to keep your head underwater and gulp air by turning it sideways in coordination with your arm movements), but I could tread water and do anything else as long as I could keep my head above the water. But here's an interesting wrinkle. The second course ended with each member of the class having to climb up the pool's high-dive, at the deep end, and jump in. Not **dive** in head-first or anything fancy, just **jump** in, feet-first. Now, this would have been my chance to humiliate myself all over again, because I would have been too scared to do it if it had been sprung on me unexpectedly. But for some reason that I can't remember, I had some time earlier taken it upon myself, during one of my regular summer afternoons at the pool, to see if I could work up the courage to jump off the high dive on my own. And I had actually done it. So when I was asked to do it at the end of the course, since I'd done it a few times before, I managed to do it again. A minor, but memorable, triumph.
Apropos of things sexual (or pre-homosexual), there was a slightly off-color incident that happened during one of those swimming classes. The instructor, a grown man who might have been anywhere from his 20s to his 40s, came to the classes in a pair of swimming trunks, like the rest of us. They weren't speedos (and they certainly weren't the long "board shorts" popular today), they were just regular boxer-style swimming trunks. But one day, he was sitting in his bathing suit on the grass in front of the row of kids (it was a co-ed class, as far as I can recall), and I happened to notice that his trunks had no liner. And there it was, plainly visible through the wide-open leg of his trunks. It was only the second adult male penis I'd ever seen (apart from my own father's). Interestingly, it had no erotic charge whatsoever for me; I just thought it was funny, and I was dying to poke the kid sitting next to me with my elbow and mutter something like "Do you see what I see?", but the instructor's eyes were right on us, so I kept still. The guy's name, I kid you not, was Bob Bone. But there was no bone(r), just a big fat sausage. ;-> I have no particular reason to believe that Mr. Bone was deliberately exhibiting himself to the kids, but you never know (and it would certainly behoove somebody in his position to be a hell of a lot more careful about that sort of thing these days).
> . . ."slow to warm up" kids can [eventually] > master something as long as they're not expected to do it > at the lock-step pace required of average kids. . .
This reminds me of yet another story. ;->
I got a bicycle at the age of 3, before I was anywhere big enough to be able to ride it. But eventually, with the help of the usual set of training wheels, I was able to propel myself up and down the street and around the block on that bicycle (I skipped the tricycle stage of infant transportation ;-> ).
So far so good, but what wasn't so good is that I was the absolutely **last** kid in my age group to shed the training wheels. I might have blundered right into trying to ride a bike with training wheels to junior high school, with no doubt unfortunate consequences, if something hadn't intervened.
My father had tried a few times to teach me how to ride the bicycle properly, but predictably (it was the standard pattern between us for anything by then -- from his earliest failed attempts to interest me in throwing and catching a ball right on down the line) I dug in my heels and resisted (like the kid in that "family swimming pool time" YouTube video), and he inevitably lost his temper, and no doubt finally threw up his hands, thought "to hell with it", and turned his back on the problem. But one summer afternoon (I remember it as being summer, anyway), Harry G. (the father of the Gerry G. who lived across the street from us and who shepherded me to school in early years), took pity on me (or something) and offered to teach me to ride without the training wheels. And I accepted his offer. Either the time was just right, or I realized that this might be my last chance, but in any case he took the trouble, and within an hour I was riding without training wheels. I don't know what his "knack" was, but I suspect that, not having any ego on the line (**he** wasn't the guy with the pussy son -- well, he was, but in the "normal" way ;-> ) he just had the patience not to scare me off the way my own father always did. So I was elated that I could finally ride a bicycle, and I'm sure Harry G. was tickled that he'd done a good deed. So I came home later that night, and my father was in the kitchen, and I (not realizing I was walking into a mine field) told my parents that Harry G. had taught me how to ride my bike without the training wheels! And my father was **furious**! "Right. You could do it for Harry G. but you wouldn't do it for me. How do you think that makes me look, that I couldn't teach my own damn son how to ride a bike without the damned training wheels?" Oops. So I slunk away. But at least I learned how to ride the bike.
My Boy Scout experience must also have been rather a disappointment to my father. The town we lived near had gotten a charter for a brand-new troop, and I think I found out about it from somebody at school (this would have been 7th grade) -- in fact, I think it was the same guy who asked me one day, while we were sitting in his bedroom, if my dick ever got stiff if I happened to be thinking about certain things. So I joined Troop 603, and got the uniform, and the manual, and started going to the meetings. It lasted not quite a year, I think. The new troop was short on members, and I actually somehow got **appointed** as patrol leader of the Wolf Patrol (or Rat Patrol, or whatever the hell it was; I can't remember), even though I was only a Tenderfoot Scout, but I was soon replaced by a properly-elected leader. And I never advanced in rank beyond Tenderfoot, which is probably something of an accomplishment in itself. ;-> I stuck around long enough to go on a camping trip (accompanied by my father) and slept in a sleeping bag in a tent in the freezing cold of winter. And I spent a few weeks at a nearby Scout camp in the summer. And then I quit. I don't remember the actual quitting as being particularly traumatic, or being resisted by anybody. Maybe I used the pressures of school as a good excuse to stop spending the time. But there are a couple of vivid memories. I remember that, in order to go swimming at the camp, you had to wear a tag that indicated your swimming ability. The tags were white and circular, with a wavy black line splitting the circle in two, and if the tag was completely white that meant you couldn't swim **at all**, and if the bottom was colored-in red that meant you were a beginner-level swimmer, and if the bottom was colored-in red and the top colored-in blue that meant you were a really good swimmer. I seem to recall there was a test you had to take to get the colors. Well, in spite of the swimming lessons I'd taken at the local public pool, I was one of only two kids whose swimming badges were all white. (And the other kid was despised even more than I was. I still remember his name, but I won't write it here.) Maybe because of this, or maybe because of other petty humiliations, I remember one evening at that camp going to my Scoutmaster, Mr. Stuart, in tears. "What's the matter?" he asked. "I can't do anything." "What do you mean?" "I'm just no good at anything." "Well," he replied, making a grab for mitigating possibilities, "I've heard you're a whiz at math!" "No, not really." I remember wanting **something** very badly from Mr. Stuart. It wasn't sexual (though I can believe it might have **become** sexual if he'd been inclined that way; though, on second thought, I would have been far too naive and terrified to go there), but I wanted a real daddy at that moment, and he was willing to treat me kindly, but he was at a loss to know what to say beyond that "whiz at math" guess, and I really didn't know what I expected him to say or do. Maybe I needed to be held, or something. But it was perfectly true -- I was "no good at anything" by the prevailing standards of the guys in the camp, and I really had no business being there. So I quit, and that was that. But before I did, during that summer at camp, I did catch an eyeful of one of the other scoutmasters -- a well-built man's man much admired by my father, who lived a few streets away from us and was the father of a boy's boy and a girl's girl -- taking a shower in the nude. I think that was the second adult male penis I ever saw, apart from my father's.
I found myself getting both angry and sad to the point of tears when I first read Gilmartin's book. But, you know, it's not really anybody's **fault**. Calling people "bad parents" can miss the point just as much as calling the children "bad kids". It's the **mismatch** between the parenting styles (itself partly a function of the parents' inborn temperaments, and partly a function of the cultural milieu), and the child's temperament, that can lead to grief.
The child has infinitely less power and was created by the parents though. It's not a voluntary relationship or roommates, so I think the burden should be a lot more on the parents than anything else.
And of course all such analyses are terrifically politically- charged. I can't imagine public-school phys-ed classes being segregated not just by gender but by "temperament" -- the Republicans would scream that it's "coddling" (Or worse. "It's the homosexual agenda! They want to turn our boys into fags!"). There's a high school in New York specifically intended to be a safe haven for LGBTQ kids: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Milk_High_School And of course it garnered the expected reactions from the expected quarters:
"State Conservative Party chairman Michael Long criticized the creation of the school as social engineering, asking, 'Is there a different way to teach homosexuals? Is there gay math? This is wrong... There’s no reason these children should be treated separately.
I've heard of the school and not surprised at the commentary. Bullies bully then bully again their victims by denying the whole thing. "Why is there a need for gay schools, gee whiz. Those gays don't like equality!" The double standards are sickening as usual.
to force the kid to "participate". Anyway, one afternoon I was trying to fade into the grass, but there was this kid who decided to teach me a lesson -- he decided he'd had enough of my shirking my "responsibility" to put myself at risk of being mowed down. He was a **big** kid, and he went way out of his way to come after me and **tackle** me. I landed on my arm. I didn't break it, as it turned out, but I had to go to the doctor and have it X-rayed. Of course there were no consequences for the other kid. He wasn't all bad, though. I remember one day walking home from school he gave me a piece of advice for dealing with women. "If you don't have any muscles," he said, "just wear bulky sweaters." I can't say I've ever actually made any use of that, but it's stuck with me. ;->
HAHA, yeah it's almost 100 degrees here in Houston. That advice works for three months of the year.
Speaking of football, though -- do you know the story of this poor soul? Ed Gallagher: http://www.bentvoices.org/pix/gallagher.jpg College football hero -- big, macho dude. Succumbed to his homosexual urges, then panicked, and in a fit of self-hatred tried to commit suicide by pitching himself down the face of a dam, and **survived**, but spent the rest of his life in a wheelchair. http://www.outsports.com/2011/7/29/4051618/moment-69-ed-gallagher-survives-suicide-attempt