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.