Dave,

I agree somewhat, and you know i am an advocate for what you do.

Perhaps if it was done through schools so it was compulsory, or through the community it could be done.

I feel if kids had structured training from those that have the background, rather than through fathers (as you know, plenty of kids who need this dont have a role model) it could be similar to an initiation of other cultures into manhood.

This is an essential and overlooked part of the male psyche. For a boy to become a man, in the mind many changes will take place. its not just the three rounds, it is the feeling of responsiblity that being a man entails.

Manhood should not be given away, it is something that should be earned and boys should aspire to become. Responsibility, maturity, discipline and goals are what should be hand in hand with this experience, along with being welcomed by male friends, role models and family.

I hope you fix the 'Initiation' into Australian culture, somehow it will probably end up a pipedream though.

I'm a fan Dave done a fair bit of boxing in my young but I think you've forgotten there is more then one way to skin a cat. The key to becoming an Adult in my mind (male or female) is taken responsibility for yourself and your actions and even more importantly understanding that only you can make things happen. Fight training is a excellent way to do this but there are other ways just a valid.

Yeah Dave I like where your coming from but you will get in trouble if you dont think along the lines of a total education. The root of the word education comes from Latin and means to bring forth.

I think the ancient subjects and disciplines of mathematics, philosophy, science and ethics would be necessary to "round" the person out

"I believe the crisis in our community is with boys. It is mostly boys who are doing drugs. It is boys who are doing the break and enters and rolls. It is boys who are getting into trouble with the law and boys who are committing suicide".

This is the crux of the issue in todays society. Another stat relevant is the percentage of boys who fail at school and who are the troublemakers.

Our society has no appropriate 'Rights of Passage' for boys. Certainly your process of a 'fight club' has merit, however it still relies on one boy 'beating' another. A win-loose situation.

I see the problem being alliviated by a community of men involved in boys 'education'.

I am a facilitator with a program called 'Pathways to Manhood'.(See http://www.pathwaysfoundation.com.au/) The aim of Pathways is to bring out the potential in young men and have them full of hope and inspiration as they look to the future. This is done in a caring community of men supported by women during a 5 day Camp where dads get together as a group, have some fun and do something special to honour the beginning of their son's journey into manhood.

I agree with much of what you say, especially the need for boys to be accepted and mentored by older men. But I have a big problem with the use of violence (in boxing) as the proposed means. I don't doubt that you are achieving success with the groups of boys you deal with who, I presume, already have behavioural issues.

I have a 10 year old son, with whom I spend a lot of time. We are best friends, no doubt at all. I'm bringing him up to, amongst many other values, reject violence as anything other than a last resort to defend yourself. Not to say we don't have wrestling matches and push and shove etc.

Observing his friends (mostly middle class, white kids), I would say that the boys who have behavioural issues are often the ones whose fathers work long hours, travel on business, and are generally absent from the home (usually a choice they make to put career ahead of family). It is, I feel, these earlier years which are crucial. Those fathers will later wonder why they are not close to their teenage or adult sons, and by that stage its too late. They may have a big house, and big car but they'll have diminished father / son relationships.

Australia seems to be heading inexorably in a direction where work and material possessions are of primary importance. I predict that this means more and more men spending little time with their sons, and huge future social problems for Australia as a result.

Gotta bring home the bacon and that often means long punishing hours. If you have a family that are moderate eaters then the create opportunity to develop paternal bonds. If you have a house full of very hungry and downright insatiable dependents who more or less demand the fathers sacrifice to enable the family's material and consumer desires then you have a recipe for being kept out. Of course, not much of this happens in this age of emancipation.

AMSADL,

Read Dave's prior articles.

No voilence hey? Let your son understand himself and his inner spirit, it is not about voilence, it is about harnessing and releasing Themos in a controlled environment, and the learning and discipline involved with that (i hope i am right in your eyes Dave!).

Your son, i hope will be a well rounded individual. I just hope he is not keen to release his themos at any time in his life, as he will not know how to control it, and i hope his frustration does not get the better of him without a release.

I call kids like that time bombs. He is 10 now, i just hope at 14-17 when he goes through what most boys do, his discipline will stay intact, and he is not effected by his stance with other boys. I hope he learns not to be pushed around at school, and to respect himself and others.

Face it, your boy has something in him which we cannot control. If you do not know and understand the need for this nurturing, please, if he needs to release themos dont ostracise him.

Dear Dave Smith,

I was appalled at your recent comments on onlineopinion.com.au regarding boys' ‘rites of passage’. I have a great deal of concern when we equate physical prowess and fighting with manhood.

Nothing could be further from the truth and I'd be fascinated to know in your suggestion of a ‘rite of passage’: What happens to those boys who refuse to fight? And what happens to the boys who lose the fight? Perhaps the former become honorary girls/women, and the latter become second class men.

The Australia AsiaPacific Institute for Men's Gender & Health Studies [ http://www.mensgenderhealth.com.au ] adopts a policy that men come from diverse backgrounds including heterosexual, bisexual and gay identities; different social, cultural, Indigenous and ethnic origins; and men with disabilities. All men have to be accepted regardless of their ability to fight and be dominant. We need to adopt philosophies surrounding young men that are inclusive, non-homophobic, non-sexist and pro-feminist. We need to celebrate a wide definition of masculnitIES in our Australian culture.

What our community should be doing today is questioning and challenging the definition of manhood in Australia. The way in which masculinity is defined in our current culture is fraught with problems, especially for young men who believe that they have to relate to a very narrow definition of masculinity to gain acceptance. Part of that narrow definition is physical dominance and violence.

Many young men participate in health compromising behaviours to prop up narrow definitions of what it means to be a man in the Australian culture. The time has come to give a straight message to boys and young men that they can be the man they want to be without having to adhere to social stereotypes, such as the sentiments that you were expressing in your article.

Yours sincerely,

A/Prof Allan K Huggins
--
Director
MensOwn Counselling Clinic
Australia AsiaPacific Institute for
Men's Gender and Health Studies
Fremantle, Western Australia
Phone: (+61 8) 93355607 or 0412 109 894
http://www.mensgenderhealth.com.au/

Hey Dave,

Well written. I grew up in a time where boys were made of sterner stuff. We were required to find our place in society by means of discipline, sacrifice and hard work. The character building was done through example setting of fathers and older men in the community.

My father was not my friend he was my guide and disciplinarian. I was not his equal, that was something you had to earn when I was boy. He was my example and my strength; he showed me what it was to respect myself and others through his actions. I didn’t become his friend until I was a man myself having earned his respect through hard work and good citizenship.

I can understand what you mean when you say that boys can have those things through boxing. This must teach principles of hard work and respect through honest sweat. I was not a boxer myself but received much of my community male mentorship as a boy scout from age 5 to 25. Through that incredible organisation I learnt from other community minded men discipline, self-sufficiency, faith and honour. All in a male dominated and competitive environment that sustained itself through good Christian values. We felt we belonged to something far bigger than ourselves and that belonging combined with well adjusted and enforced boundaries gave us the self confidence and character to resist the use of drugs, the commission of crime and the flouting of community standards.

This is all so very “old fashion” and 50’s, but I am so glad I had that strong male mentorship and that rite of passage you talk about was real and strong in my culture. Modern thinking no longer seems to respect that culture and so boys physically mature but don’t always grow up to be strong men.

You have my support in your endeavours.

P.S. I have this impression that the rates of crime and drug use in boys and young men is climbing at about the rate our community is acquiring academics involved in the study of “Men's Gender and Health Studies”?!

I agree that such a rite could have beneficial outcomes for a large percentage of young men in Australia, however I do not imagine that it would be to the taste of all.

On the whole however I believe that the beneficial outcomes could include self-discipline, confidence, self-sufficiency, and of course fitness. I also believe that this could in fact contribute to a reduction inn crimes against women and others. This is because the majority of such offenders are in fact cowards, and would be less likely to commit such offences if they thought that there was an increased likelihood of being disauded by other persons with self-confidence and skill sufficient to demonstrate the error of their ways.

Perhaps in light of recent studies that show that nowadays the average person is extremely unlikely to attempt to intervene in any despute, even if manifestly unfair, brutal or gutless - such a rite could reintroduce the typical aussies willingness to intervene if necessary?

Perhaps it could also defeat the current climate of 'its not my fault - somebody else is to blame' because in the ring everything is up to you - nobody else can be blamed for your own incompetence / lack of preparation.

All in all I think it is a good thing, perhaps it could be introduced in schools for both male & female students (with serious padding etc.).

PS Dave, is it possible for an article on Israel's nuclear arsenal?

Woodyblues,

Could it be possible that the increasing rates of male suicide (81% are male), the increasing incidence of self-harm, and the rising crime and drug use/abuse rates, could just be related to the fact that young men feel, in the Australian, culture, that they can't be themselves, but have to conform to a very narrow definition of what people have described on this forum as appropriate 'maleness'? We have to give young men permission to define their masculinity in the way they want to do it, therefore, alleviating the stress that leads to a lot of problems for young Australian men.

A/Prof Allan Huggins

How shocking. Stating the blindingly obvious and taking an evolutionary behavioural perspective of human nature instead of denying the awful truth and pushing everything thru a PC ideological filter. Shock therapy is too much for most to bare, although a good dose of it goes a long way and saves a lot of time, energy, resources.

This approach isn't for everyone. l suspect for a majority of latent meesogeenuts and their rape extensions it prolly fits like a glove.

Dont like the evolutionary behvioural/human nature angle? Send the lads off for whatever re-education necessary to actually ALLOW them to be male and reclaim SELF RESPECT for their MASCULINITY. No need to rebadge and redifine 'man-ness' every 10 years on the back of an ever changing feminine side peddled by self serving marketing hacks... "you are not the clothes you wear, you are not the car you drive, you are not the contents of your wallet." There's some Fight Club (the movie) wisdom that transcends physicality and speaks to TRUE CHARACTER.

Many women are seemingly tired of being in touch with their so-called masculine sides too. Its all getting a bit tired and the old guard and their old artillery are thankfully ageing away into cynical oblivion. Some are even ageing gracefully.

If you have the patience for educating the sensitive types, then fine. Otherwise 6 months of training and a few minutes physically connecting with your fellow human in a primal and instinctual confrontation of our PHYSICAL realities would save a lot of time. So would less coddling and fewer layers of bubble wrap in childhood.

People are smart and can figure out the difference between fight training and un-controlled agression. Give humans some credit for the enormous intellectual advantage we have over our fellow animals. Sheesh, next people will be saying that watching women in bikinis having a pillow fight is gonna send men into a marauding rape rampage. Oops... that mythology has already crossed the public threshold into received fact. Maybe we should ban boyz from beaches too.

Of course "People are smart and can figure out the difference between fight training and un-controlled agression". But that does not mean that the suggestion of fight training as a "rite of passage" for males is not only a pipedream, but a completely ludicrious one. Is Dave Smith seriously suggesting that in order for a male to be considered 'masculine', or in order to become a man, boys should engage in physically violent behaviour, controlled or otherwise? And does Dave expect us to consider that fatherhood which promotes his version of masculinity is a plausible and desirable option for fathers and their boys?

Regardless of boys' and male's behavioural problems, Dave Smith's doctrine of solving a "crises in the community with boys" with fight training is totally misguided and I ask him to provide some evidence (non-anecdotal) that this view is relevant in the context of diverse masculinities in 21st century Australia. Finally, diverse masculinity is a male-positive paradigm and contributes to men's health and well-being in Australia.

I agree that men (and women) are required to fight for themselves on a daily basis, but that this fight should be a physical one and that men's masculinity predicates this is a sad suggestion.

nula

Nula,

You ask, "Is Dave Smith seriously suggesting that in order for a male to be considered 'masculine', or in order to become a man, boys should engage in physically violent behaviour, controlled or otherwise?"

Short answer - yes!

Live with it, it's reality.

1. I am new to this forum and have made 1 previous post.

2. It's disappointing that some people feel the need to abuse those who have taken the time to contribute a view, without even addressing the points being raised. No better way to put people off contributing.

3. To say that it is wrong to raise a boy to be non-violent, except as a last resort in self-defence, seems to me to be akin to the gun lobby argument: "I must have a gun in case someone else with a gun threatens me". or the big car argument: "I must have a big heavy car in case someone else with a big heavy car drives into me". The logic of these arguments centres on the individual, and ignores the fact that if everyone goes down that route, society is swamped by guns, or large cars. Similarly, if all males feel that violence is a valid approach to problem resolution, then we should not be surprised if we have a society with a violence problem. (this is not what Dave was suggesting, but it seems implicit in some of the responses).

Surely the issue that we can all agree on is the need for better fathering. We may have different views of what that means. To me, it comes down to spending time with my son. I hate the term 'quality time' -that's a cop out. What's needed is quantities of time. The boy needs to see you when you are in a good mood, a bad mood, an average mood. He needs to see how you resolve arguments, what your attitude is to less fortunate people, how you deal with bullies etc. etc. That's laying the foundations. If that's not done, and if fathers see themselves as just money producers to feed the demands of the ravenous family for more and more material possessions, then we will, I suggest, continue to produce selfish, insecure, aimless boys who see the meaning of life as being to acquire as many 'toys' as possible. In other words, they never grow up.

It seems we are still stuck in the aggression in boys good, aggression in girls bad, paradigm.
Reading this made me so glad I have daughters. I watched the film Fight Club, and if that is "masculinity" and "manhood" it is sickening. Even in Cinderella Man, an excellent film in many ways, about a very admireable man, the crunch of bone and blood in the fight scenes turned my stomach. Why would anyone want to glorify this stuff?
But, the most revealing thing to me was Dave's reaction to the young woman's t-shirt. Why was he so horrified? Why did he ask her to remove it? Here he is promoting a sport which is actually created to hurt and cause pain and he remains prudish about sex. Why? Because it is about pleasure? Has our society remained so masochistic it prefers pain to pleasure? Moreover, boxing, I daresay, would often teach that the best form of defence is attack. Well, wasn't the young woman's t-shirt just her own version of that? I am all for people owning and taking responsibility for their own power and strength, but I think Dave reveals, perhaps inadvertently, that while he is at ease with male power as symbolised by the boxing ring, he remains deeply ambivalent about female power as symbolised by the t-shirt.

I was the sole parent of three boys and I am extremely glad that the 'hard' times were in the early sixty's before today's crappy television, drugs etc.
It wasn't so hard to maintain discipline, the schools assisted in this and so did the law.
Underage drinking was really frowned upon and if a publican was caught selling grog to young ones,he/she payed a big price.
I would hate to have the job now.
I think all young ones should have training in something that entails discipline, striving for a personal goal and no let up in perservering to attain that goal. Boot camps for repeat offenders should be trialled. Perhaps directed by army or ex army.
And the media should be given a purge to clean up its act.

When I was at school, the sports which I enjoyed were swimming, long distance and cross country running and rugby union. I didn't want to fight anyone, although I sometimes found myself having to defend myself against bullies.

I had no aptitude whatsoever for boxing, but I had a natural agility and unusual strength in my hands and fingers. Because of this, in a physical confrontation my best option was to get hold of my opponent, hurt him, get him onto the ground and make sure that he didn't get up again. As I never started a fight, I had no compunction about finishing it on my terms. However, it was never my intention to seriously hurt anyone and that never happened.

If I had been forced into a boxing ring against my wishes, the likelihood was that I would have been hurt, humiliated and beaten. So I would have felt like getting my opponent on one side when the opportunity arose and fighting him on my terms. What do you this would have done? Caused possibly lasting resentment.

I had a friend who took up boxing and was unbeaten after a number of fights. Ray was almost unbelievably handsome with a classical profile. After his last fight [which he won] he realised that he had come pretty close to having his face flattened. He decided that his good looks were more important to him than his fledgeling boxing career and he never fought again. I think, under similar circumstances, that would have been my attitude.

I think that offering boxing [or wrestling or martial arts] as sporting options is fine, but surely no-one should be coerced into it. And the suggestion that it is somehow a necessary part of a young man's growing up is ludicrous.

Dave

You have become so caught up in the fight club game that you cannot see past it, and neither can those who support your views that a fight should be the initiation to 'manhood', whatever that is.

As at least one previous poster has remarked, what would you do with those who do not fight? Assign them to the role of non-citizen? Prevent them from voting, from jury service, becoming fathers and having equal rights before the law until they get their 'fight tattoo'?

I agree that there should be some form of initiation into manhood, but a fight is no more valid than making a young man prove themselves as being intellectually capable as a 'man' in an externally set academic exam.

In your role as religious you would be aware that Jesus's initiation, apart from being his bar-mitzpha, was his 40 days in the wilderness.

Maybe that is what we should be doing. Sending our young men into the bush alone for seven weeks, and those who survive are to be considered to be 'men'. As for the rest, those who didn't come back, well, they were as unworthy as those who couldn't adopt the idea of hurting someone else in a boxing ring, and therefore their lives were not worth living anyway.

And for the idea of a tattoo, talk about 'the mark of the beast'.

Dave, you have been working with the down and outs too long: too long with those who haven't had other versions of male role models other than Mike Tyson.

Take a train trip to some other suburbs, talk to the young men who haven't been trained to beat other young men's brains out and who are still being men, in all the important senses of that word.

I just realised, after taking another look at the title of the article 'Boys Must Be Boys' how true that is.

Boys must be boys - and men must be men.

Men don't need to be able to exhibit violence. Discipline and masculinity comes from being raised correctly from childhood. If the older men of the family have to lead a 'boy' to the ring for a fight at the age of 16 or 17 in order to prove their masculinity, then the older men have already failed.

'Boys Must Be Boys' - yes, but young men must be young men, and by the time they are 15 they should be young men, not boys any longer.

So the guys end up feeling more encouraged to spend their time and effort maximising their pugilism skills rather than than productive skills like bricklaying or computer programming or treating the sick?

Dave,

Thanks for the great article with which, I agree in the most part. I get the feeling though that, as some others have expressed indirectly, that the rite of passage involves a "getting to know one's self" - an understanding of what it means to prepare for something, particpate and complete that challenge.

Although I was thrust into the ring at the age of eight ( and loved it ) as my mother was intent on giving me masculine pursuits since I had few male role models after my father had died 3 month before my birth, I'm not sure boxing is really for everyone. Other challenges can work just as well and utilise the older males' influence just as well. Rebuilding an old engine, building a wooden boat or a remote controlled aircraft, learning to sail. These are just a few examples of how a boy's entry into manhood can be facilitated by the more mature men in his immediate community.

I reckon you're on the right track and many boys would learn a hell of a lot by getting into the ring, (particularly like when to keep their fat mouths shut or pay the consequences), but some blokes will never make fighters and the process would just humiliate them. Building an engine or a boat might be far better avenues for them.

Really, it's all just about learning to earn the respect of others through facing up to one's own responsibilities and the satisfaction that is gained by completing those things that you start, isn't it?

Some school reports now are aimed at boosting a child's sense of self by not truthfully marking very poor results.
This is so wrong, children must be given ideals or goals to aspire to or they are content to do what ever is easiest.
We knew that a mark of 50% meant that we had not worked or studied hard enough, anything over 75% wasn't too bad but more work was needed.
Our parents could see at a glance whether we had been slacking and we paid one way or another. Then we put a bit more effort into improving the next report.
I think the education "experts" are dumbing down Australian Youth.

Mickijo

What evidence do you have for your statement; "Some school reports now are aimed at boosting a child's sense of self by not truthfully marking very poor results".

I have a school age son, who attends a state school. I see no evidence of this.

Perhaps you can give us actual examples?

It just occured to me that there is much in Fr Daves work that draws comparison with the ancient spartan ways of upbringing or maybe just Ancient Greek culture in general.

Does anyone else get that sense?

Some more points.

A good teacher inspires and makes learning exciting and a process of discovery.

Boxing is not the only sport worth doing and has some problems with mismatching if made universal. That is why Aussie rule is such a good game. Anyone can play it.

Actually Jellyback, not everyone has the ideal body shape and skills for Melbourne Rules.

I saw the Sydney Swans some years ago doing a publicity shoot on the streets of Sydney. What fascinated me was the general uniformity of build and the overall small size of the players in comparison to those of the Rugby codes, in which players of different sizes and skills can be accommodated. Not every person in the world can kick well, not every player can mark well, however in the Rugby codes there is a place for the heavily built tight forward, the nimble half back, the fleet footed winger or centre.

The artificial nature of Melbourne Rules is also intriguing, I mean, why do you have to punch the ball instead of throwing it? Why do you have to bounce it every few metres when you are running? I know that the answer is that the ball is meant to be kicked, but that is part of that artificiality, as is the restriction on good hard clean tackling. It is okay to embed your knees in someone's back when taking a mark, but not to tackle someone to the ground when they are carrying the ball?

As you can tell I am not a fan of Melbourne Rules, and I never will be. Melbourne Rules will never be the national game that it wants to be, because it excludes too many body types from its elite.

Once again, we seem to be taking a very specific view of what masculinity is or what it means to be a man. This ideal of physical toughness as representing the aspirations of males seems to dominate in these sorts of discussions, pariticularly when those such as Father Dave cannot see outside of where they are coming from - a very narrow and traditional view of masculinity. Look around you: adolescent males and men are defining and expressing their masculinities in more ways than one. And that does not mean they are becoming feminine, it means men can aspire to more than the dominant traditional form of (hegemonic) masculinity.

One of the reasons why feminism was good for men in Australia is because it allowed men to look at their gender values. Feminism allowed women to challenge their traditional roles, and look at what it has done for them - improved outcomes in all areas of their lives, including health and well-being. Men need to be able to identify traditional roles and make up their mind about whether or not they want to subscribe. Who knows, we might even see a reduced rate of diseases and disorders associated with trad. masculine behaviour!

cheers,
nula

Sorry Hamlet-just stiring the pot with a bit of friendly parochialism.

However it does make a point. For me its the fact that my dad took me down to the Kensington footy oval when I was 6 to play for the club. Couldnt kick, couldnt mark, couldnt run. Not much has changed. But the idea is to run around having a good time following in the footsteps of our dads.

To a kid thats heaven, no matter what code he's playing-

except maybe grid-iron.

Jellyback, I was the nose tackle in the 1987 championship Bondi Raiders gridiron team......

Each play put me one on one, or sometimes one on two, against the player or players opposing me. Each play was both an individual contest and a team struggle. My primary role was to convince the opposing centre (the guy who snaps the ball to the quarterback) or opposing offensive guards, that they really didn't want to be there at just that moment.

It was one of the best sports that I ever played. The only other sport that exceeded it in terms of teamwork was rowing, which is not for everyone because it requires certain body types for optimal performance.

At least in American football different body types can be accomodated.

But I would never suggest that this type of contact sport is for everyone.

To me the best sport which has ever been invented is Ballroom/Latin dancing. A male contestant in a recent TV dancing competition remarked that holding a lightly clad girl in your arms sure beats having your face shoved up against a couple of guys' bums in the scrum. As an ex rugby union player myself, I can relate to that.

When I was 16, my mother told me that if I learned to dance I would meet plenty of nice girls. She also knew that it would encourage me to smarten myself up a bit, learn courtesy and feel comfortable in mixed company. She had enough sense not to stress these points however, she just stuck to the "meet girls" bit.

I'm 71 and I still dance 4 or 5 times a week. The sports trainer at the gym has told me that my dancing is the main reason for my good balance and flexibility. I have plenty of friends of both sexes, including many much older than me, who still enjoy dancing on a regular basis. It must be the only very active sport which includes a good mixed social life and that can be enjoyed for as long as you can get onto your feet. And it costs almost nothing to do as well.

My first wife and I parted company when I was 43. I suppose I could have gone to the pub and talked to the other guys about jobs, cars and footy. And we could have whinged to one another about how you just couldn't meet nice women. But no, I went dancing and found that nothing had changed, still plenty of nice ladies happy to meet men of moderate habits who could dance.

And still nothing has changed. There are still plenty of nice ladies at dances waiting to meet men who can dance with open arms [literally].

I have read all the posts above and I am simply flabbergasted that so few of the posters have been able to dig themselves out from under their politically correct lack of vision and understanding to read what you have actually written.

Perhaps the phrase, "God, please help me to suffer fools" is appropriate.

Most seem to have missed the point altogether and replied with disgust about violence and inane comments about equality of the sexes and other frivolous matters. The entire point of the article seems to have flown rapidly over their heads. More is the pity.

Father Dave, I thank you for expressing your opinion about this matter, I don't necessarily agree with you 100%, but I do think that you care deeply and you are willing to engage constructively on the debate about the serious matter of troubled boys. I for one welcome your opinion unreservedly. At least you have offered something real and constructive over the usual rhetoric that many attempt to use to subjugate the problem of boys.

Hey, I know that you know and I know that you really care. God bless you Father, I really mean that, if I may dare to say such a thing to one in your position. But some of us do know and like you, we really do care too. Many thanks mate.

Rex - what a wonderful post. Long may you continue to dance! I loved watching strictly dancing on ABC Friday nights. Some of the best times of my life were being swept around the dance floor by an adept man. Unfortunately many men in my generation (50) can't dance.

Maximus did you read Rex's post before posting yours? I would call it politically neutral.

Father Dave - I admire your passion and I believe that boxing is a good idea for some - but not all. Prefer Tae Kwon Do and other martial arts myself and after Rex's post, believe that dance just might be the best solution all round.

Cheers

Maximus condemns many posts (including mine I presume) as:

"politically correct", and pleads to his God,to "please help me to suffer fools"

This is where the level of debate is in Australia these days. Dismiss people's views as 'politically correct' - much easier than trying to mount a logical argument against them. Dismiss those who disagree with you as "fools" - even though they might just have given the subject a great deal of thought, and might just have a valid point of view.

A shame that some feel the need to mimic the behaviour of our political leaders, rather than conduct argument on a more thoughtful, tolerant and logical level.

There are many ways to solve a problem. As Einstein said, "For every problem there is a solution which is simple, obvious and totally wrong" (or words to that effect).

Its vital to canvas different options and different views.

Whoops, maybe I am being 'politically correct' again.

I agree with AMSADL, who adequately summarises the psuedo-argument which is often used to spuriously discredit those with differing opinions: 'politically correct' is the label and it's been used as a knee-jerk reaction in this forum a few times.

I assume Maximus is attempting to label my comments PC, e.g. feminism being good for men, being in a pro-feminist era, diverse masculinities etc., because he/she doesn't wish to or cannot be bothered mounting a logical or well-thought argument against the tripe that i was spouting?

I took a diversity line because it's not divisive. Does that mean i'm talking in PC terms, just because i don't believe in a divisive and reactionary anti-feminist return back to a singular male masculinity?

Quote Nula: ...I assume Maximus is attempting to label my comments PC, e.g. feminism being good for men, being in a pro-feminist era, diverse masculinities etc., because he/she doesn't wish to or cannot be bothered mounting a logical or well-thought argument against the tripe that i was spouting?..

I thought we'd already done that....?

Silly me, I'll just go and get my fluffy pink shoal and I'll meet you in the kitchen - then you can show me how to whip up that wonderful Soufle of yours! MMmmmm.......delicious!!

Fair dinkum, you punces should READ the thread before posting to it, many manly men have already done exactly that, (mounted logical well thought out arguements against the tripe you were spouting).

Sometimes it's like talking to a friggin wall with you academically distorted PC types. And maybe you should try getting in the ring before you comment on whether it's good or bad for anybody. You are really in NO position to comment until you have.

Deadset, if it was up to you lot, every boy's rite of passage would involve a box of tissues, a packet of Tim Tams, and watching the entire series of 'Sex And The City' with his Dad.

Give me brutal contact sports any day!

Read Rex's comment, and don't confuse diverse masculinity with stereotypical femininity, which is another indicator of the narrowness of your understanding of gender.

Nula wrote: "Read Rex's comment, and don't confuse diverse masculinity with stereotypical femininity, which is another indicator of the narrowness of your understanding of gender."

Diverse masculinity, as you term it, is probably OK in at least most forms but don't be telling me to read anything without first acknowledging that others including myself HAVE mounted logical well thought out arguements for Fr Dave's original proposition. I/we accept your proposition, please don't disregard all others, it makes you look arrogant.

I don't really mind if you want to fondle your mate in the name of diverse masculinity, just don't expect everyone to feel the same way you (or your mates) do.

Some may wish to box inside the ring, others may opt to fit engine rings, while some may prefer to get punched around the ring; it's all a question of individual choice really, isn't it?

Give 'em enough rope,

Thank you for your acknowledgement. And hopefully you can see the irony in some of your sarcasm and abuse.

If you look at my previous postings you might note that i have not made any negative comments about the fighting arts or any fighting sports. I used to train in kickboxing between the ages of 17 and 19 and i loved every moment of it. BUT, it had nothing to do with my being male. In this forum i have simply challenged some of the values and beliefs which i believe underpin Dave Smith's proposition.

Here is a summary of what i think is going on here, in regard to Dave Smith's article and some of the responses:

1.) Boys and men take up fight training to varying degrees, an entirely satisfying behaviour for mind and body, which allows them to release their frustrations etc. (this is great.)
2.) Some subscribe to the culture which says this as a very 'masculine' behaviour, and hence makes them more of a man, or as a man, it is what they should be doing, naturally.
3.) Some take to this culture so much that they subsequently generalise it out to all other males, believing the construct (experience and interpretation) of which they have been a part is the one best (or even natural) way for males.
4.) Anyone who disagrees with or challenges that value system is labelled or abused, including being called homosexual or stereotypically feminine, and other attempts at character assassination.
5.) Go back to step 2.), and reconsider why you took up the sport in the first place and what it means to you now.

Steps 1-4 look very familiar, what do you think?

I checked with my 10 year old son last night, and asked him if he thought I was a good father. He gave me full marks, I'm relieved to say. I asked him if there was any way I could be a better father. He said I could give him a bit more pocket money. Fortunately his birthday is next week, and he'll get a $1 a week pay rise.

He didn't mention a desire to go into the ring and box, though he is quite sporty, and enjoys football, cricket, T-ball, cycling etc. Not to say he might change his mind in his teens.

So I'm proud of the way I'm fathering him. Above all, I'm proud of the fact that he is learning to be tolerant of other peoples' views, to think before he decides how problems could be solved, and to consider more than just one option. These are, in my view, signs of someone who has been competently brought up. Signs which are singularly lacking amongst some contributors to this forum, who denigrate and abuse those they disagree with.

If Dave is having success with his boxing approach with his kids, good on him.

As far as my son is concerned, I believe it would do him more harm than good

It sounds like you're doing a great job as a father, well done. That your son is into sports is a great thing, whatever kind they may be.

I think this issue probably relates best to boys who have few, if any, 'good' role models. Those that have grown up in single parent (father deserts them) homes, or abusive or drug affected environs and may be inclined to stray onto the wrong side of life.

Perhaps, also to those that have been born with a silver spoon in the gilded gobs, to learn that the ring is a great equaliser of men and that nothing will excuse poor preparation in life. We should all understand the meaning and benefits of hard work.

Nulla and AMSADL, both of you raise good points about your views on manhood, or at least getting there. Nulla, I hope you know my 'abuse' as you put it, was only a sorry attempt at some humour because, in boxing parlance, you'd stuck your chin out a bit!

My memories of why I got into boxing was that my father had passed away a few months before I was born and it was my mother's desire to fill my life with as many positive male role models and activities as she could. I thank her for it regularly, as it has given me a host of strengths that I draw on regularly. Confidence, assertiveness and the ability to seek closure in situations when the opportunity presents most certainly, but also compassion and understanding from seeing the amount of preparation goes into participating in the sport and the disappointment that can sometimes be associated with losing.

All good life lessons.

Well said GEER.

I'm a great believer in trying different options in any situation. If something doesn't work, then there's no point in carrying on doing it. Clearly for much of our problem kids, leaving them in a situation where they get no direction, no boundaries, no objectives is a recipe for disaster. Whilst I am against violence per se as a solution to problems, I can see that the routine, the fitness improvement, the direction, and just being with mature men who are taking an interest in their well-being is far better than leaving them to their own devices, as long as it is appropriate for the boy concerned. For some it clearly will not be appropriate. I'm sure Dave will also be drilling into them the need to leave their punches in the ring, not to use them to 'solve' problems at home, school etc.

The challenge then is to say, for those problem boys who don't want to get in the ring, what other options can they be given.

Some have suggested the army option. My problem with this option is that I've never been able to see how training people to kill, to use guns, to take orders without questioning their validity, is good for them and for society. Especially when we see how armed forces become, not a means for validly defending the country, but a political tool, manipulated by unscrupulous men / women who would never dream of putting themselves or their own sons / daughters on the front line.

My belief is that as a society, we are heading down the path of giving fathers (and mothers) less and less time with their kids, in the pursuit of economic growth. If work is seen as the only important thing in life, and if men continue to replace time with the families with time at work, then we are going to produce more and more children who lack good parenting. Why should we be surprised when they fall off the conveyor belt and have to be picked up by the likes of Dave.