Can you meet the challenge?!
The easy part is to link this to the lack of fathers.
The hard part (and where we will test your economist mettle) is to explain how the majority of victims brought this upon themselves, have only themselves to blame and the delicious irony that has resulted (and consequently sweetened our official "Enjoy the Decline" drinks!).
Your choice of a free copy of "Worthless" or "Behind the Housing Crash" will be mailed to the person with the timeliest and clearest/most correct logic.
17 comments:
Mothers focus all their attention on their kids rather than their marriage. This results in unsatisfied husbands, which leads to the breakdown of marriages. Simultaneously, it also leads to narcissistic, contemptible little shits who harass and bully others.
I posted my answer here.
Spare the rod Spoil the child. Oldest rule in the book.
Could it be that the people (meaning teachers and educational bureaucrats) that are victims of this sort of thing are the same people that support so-called "socially progressive" causes, including the feminist position that extolls the virtues of single motherhood and plays down the importance of father figures and men in general? Most teachers do have left-wing, socialist political views.
Talking about "Worthless", I inadvertently got involved with a thread (from one of Dalrock's links) on The Atlantic about women not being able to have it all. This has to be seen to be believed.
Some twit attacked another (useful)comment and proceeded to issue forth a pity-rant on how her Masters in Education isn't living up to it's name. Naturally, I responded with contempt. The spew of rationalized wrath that came forth from all corners was quite something, but my all time favorite (from a "black, female, queer, who has a bona fide disability" - I'm not kidding, that's how she describes herself. We have the ORIGINAL black, one-legged Lesbian here) is a monument to self-pity, lunatic rationalization and industrial strength delusion. In other words, it's sheer joy. Here are the links (best first):
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/07/why-women-still-can-8217-t-have-it-all/9020/#comment-565735302
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/07/why-women-still-can-8217-t-have-it-all/9020/#comment-564662326
http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/06/22/why/
I'm not sure if there is more bullying now than there has been in the past, or whether we are just more aware of it today because of all the play it gets in the media, but what I do know is that today "victimhood" is not only celebrated, it is incentivized.
Forget objectivity, all behavior is predicated, and legislated on the basis of what is subjectively true.
In this case, we have the competing interests on an old lady, who is overweight and unprepared/unqualified to handle adolescent kids versus an entitled mob of brats who most likely have never had to directly deal with the repercussions of their destructive behavior.
So what's the takeaway here?
Not only is this woman's victimhood widely published and sympathized, her "traumatic" episode is rewarded with nearly 500k in donations. Meanwhile, the little demons in this case will get nothing, except perhaps attention for creating a national/YouTube phenomenon...what an awful punishment for a teenager, right?
Despite what was objectively true in this case...yes, the woman WAS fat and unqualified and yes, the kids are little evil buggers, there is absolutely no lesson/teachable moment here. Both parties are able to play upon their victimhood to advance their separate cause. Even when both parties are in the wrong, not ONE of them is at fault...it is always society, or the teachers, or the parents who are to blame. Despite what may actually be true in this case, truth is no longer applicable to anything other than what is true on a personal basis.
As a result, both parties can continue with their destructive behavior, unimpeded and we can continue to propagate a victimhood mentality that pushes responsibility from the guilty to the innocently unaware.
Thanks,
B
My father was a seventh and eighth grade social studies teacher for 33 years in the sixties, seventies, and eighties. He felt that junior high school was a society run by bullies. When the bullies were adults with careers, education, and families,there was control in school. Many teachers of that time period were WWII vets. Someone who was on Iwo Jima has little to fear from a 14 year old. As time went by the WWII vets began to retire and the teachers lost power in the classroom. Junior high is still run by bullies but the bullies are the students who do not have the perspective of careers, education, and families.
I'll give it a shot -
The majority of perpetrators, as you allege, seem to suffer from a lack of a father figure - the symptoms being no respect for authority, a general willingness to be a little brat, and a failure to consider the consequences of their actions.
Now, because of this atmosphere, there are incidents and victims that emerge who may tend, for one reason or another, to be socialist and/or hyper-feminist.
Several reasons for this:
1) The proximal reason: such people aren't used to having to defend themselves/stand up for themselves when subscribing to a worldview of responsibility-dodging and deferring authority over their own life to others
2) The MUCH DEEPER reason is that such Marxists/socialists, over the last 60 years, have BEEN THE CAUSE OF THE REMOVAL OF FATHER FIGURES of these young villains. That is, they have systematically legislated and regulated away all the traditionally male jobs and roles, replacing the "father figure" with "the state" and producing a bunch of un- and under-employed men who are routinely convinced of their natural-born "guilt", and are therefore rationally better off not giving the effort to support such a system.
What's more is that because these socialists tend to vote themselves into employment in the education/babysitting sector, they actually have a financial interest in the existence of child deviants, because this guarantees all the "social workers" employment.
Okay, I'll bite.
My guess is: By supporting a political party whose Great Society turned the government into the de facto beta provider for women with children, thus putting lots of beta provider men out of a job in the sexual marketplace.
With women no longer needing dependable dads, they were free to chase sexy cads, and chase them they did, in great numbers.
Which in turn caused more men to become sexy cads, or at least try to, in order to gain sexual access. After all, that's who most women were "hiring" for the position of boyfriend. Would you rather be a "dad" and keep getting laid off, or be a "cad" and have lots of potential employers willing to offer you good jobs?
So this means fewer dependable dads, which means more babies made with sexy but unreliable men, which means more fatherless kids, broken homes, bullying, crime, etc. etc. etc.
Give Mike C one and I'll take the other 'cause he nailed it and I completely concur.
It's right there in the first sentence -- they need to be so entrenched in/over family life that they actually consider a "bus monitor" (whatever that is, I'm assuming it's not a dispatcher) a valid expression of taxpayer funds.
Special snowflakes go to school and get humanities degrees that qualify them to go get tormented by the next crop of special snowflakes.
It's a regular Möbius strip of special snowflakedom.
They insist on a taxpayer funded, unionized 'teaching' monopoly "for the children" which overfunds them as glorified babysitters, and the babies they are sitting turn on them AND THEY STILL REFUSE TO LET GO OF THOSE SAVAGE, PREDATORY "BABIES' and turn them loose to fend for themselves in the reality jungle!
Davers6
I sent my answer telepathically. But, you knew that. Keep the books, pour me a double.
Otherwise...Mike C. earned a book.
I'm pretty sure my dad would rise form his grave and be waiting for me at the front door of my house if he found out that I was one of the little shits that harrassed that poor lady on the bus. He made sure that we stood up for ourselves AND for those who could not and would BEAT WHOELSAE ASS for ever picking on someone that really didn't have it coming! A few of my friends were raised by single mom households and I would not be calling them friends if they were anything like those punk bitches.
Old fashioned words like respect, ashamed, and accountability have been replaced by alternative ideas of enlightenment. If you respected your mother, you would be ashamed of being caught in such behavior. If your mother was accountable to society for your upbringing, she would be ashamed of your behavior also.
If you haven't taught your child to be respectful of adults in the home, when they are out of the home, it will probably be the same.
Schoolmasters used to be men. Teaching was not a lifelong career, but a stepping stone for men until they found more serious work, and women until they married.
There have always been bullies, but never so many regulatory rules. Bullies don't care about rules, decent people do. They can pass all the laws they want, they are just making decent people finding it harder to take care of things themselves.
The lack of real men in the home and in positions of authority (which automatically includes accountability) will never be replaced by multi volume laws all intending to circumvent the masculine role in family and societal life. The masculine is about the mission, the feminine relationships. That is why women like to work for and with men. They get stuff done.
Anonymous 1217PM wins!
Post a Comment