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?