Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
We’re Losing Our Boys
The latest tragedies, raw and painful, seem to be reflecting a similar thread: young men. Look at the age of the recent shooter at a Walmart in Texas (21 years old,) the killer in Dayton (24), the age of the boy being accused of the murder of the young co-ed at Ole Miss. Look at the ages of the boys on a murderous rampage across Canada, the Florida school shooting, the recent California shooting at the Garlic Festival, the Synagogue in Pittsburgh. They are all young men consumed with hate and vengeance, and armed to do as much damage as possible. They leave “manifestos,” they shout, “I’m angry!”, they cease to think and feel, or see their fellow human beings as part of their world.
The struggle to find blame is next. Social media, politics, violent video games, rampant porn and the new virile push of social engineering are playing a role. Young men begin as young boys, innocent, but are being influenced by all of these things, and their core personalities, their sense of self, is being corrupted, at younger and younger ages. I am not sympathizing with the killers, these acts are beyond despicable, but the patterns are showing these similarities.
The radical group Antifa, whose network now stretches across the continent to Europe, is composed of young men mostly, very angry, courting physical confrontation, and at the very least, intimidation and control. Young women have become more fearful and maybe rightly so. I have to think that the removal of boundaries, lack of consequences for actions, monitoring what is being taught in schools, what is accessible on the Internet, the decline of the family and faith, are now all bearing rotten fruit. The family and the Church have always been the armor before sending young people into the world to live their dream and find their purpose, and to sustain them going forward.
Now social engineering is producing rampant gender confusion, separation of families, labeling any word spoken as questionable, even the words “male and female.” A baby boy is born with more testosterone, more aggression than baby girls. This is natural and trying to re-direct this physical difference (among others) into some sort of “neutral,” neutered safe expression isn’t working. Neither is labeling people as racist, sexist, homophobic, at every turn.
A mind and soul that is influenced only by a cell phone or computer screen will eventually cease to look up and see the natural world and their place in it, will not feel and relate to actual people or care. They eventually believe the simulated world is what’s real and has all the answers, and become cut off from meaningful life that brings balance and forms healthy people. They eventually become cut off from themselves, unable to think rationally and are easily manipulated. We’re losing our youth – our boys to rage and hate more each day because of this separation from real life.
The state can’t solve this, or hardening more “soft targets,” or ignoring laws, screening more social media, and expecting those things to produce more stable and balanced human beings. The human person is both body and soul – there isn’t one without the other. The fact that some “men’s hearts have grown cold,” indifferent and lifeless, is going to keep happening unless we get back to the basics. I recently read Louisa May Alcott’s Little Men – a classic. It’s simple, heartfelt, beautiful – a tiny manual in the formation of youth, the recognition that boys are boys and need guidance and love to become solid, stable, strong and hopeful adults. It’s a sort of God’s blueprint in miniature. There is no better Architect.
Boys haven’t changed, but society has. I hope we can find a way to save our boys. What can we do now?
Published in General
In that case you have to control for local costs. In a two parent and two income family, you’re less likely to be poor. However, in areas like SoCal, you can have two parent families with dual income where no parents are present in the home. These situations are worse than single parent. They’re *no parent*, and we have to take a moment and recognize this loss as well. We are losing parents to the workforce and to rising costs of living.
If I could stay home with my daughter, you better believe she’d have a much, much different life.
It is worse than that.
I had a family member whose husband was abusive (it’s how she ended up married to begin with) and on drugs and just… a bad man. Of course, he got visitation of his daughter despite nearly killing her mother (but that’s another story).
And when she went on welfare (when she escaped him), she had to take parenting classes from the state. The state determines what is good parenting. Since her kid was now in the system, she had to take orders from the government about how to raise her child. Spanking was out because it’s abusive. So when her toddler daughter was biting her, she had to say, “no! Mommy doesn’t like that!”
As if a 2 year old cares.
Parents are being prevented from parenting on threats of abuse. It’s ridiculous and it’s even worse than you imagine. Soon, I suspect that gender will be a point of abuse. How dare you dress your girl in a dress or name her something feminine! You are stifling her god-given rights of self-expression!
“If I could stay home with my daughter, you better believe she’d have a much, much different life.”
Absolutely.
Government, particularly in California ,has purposely driven up the cost of living beyond the means of the average family. It is all part of the plan to bring the poor, the working class, and the middle class to their knees to make them dependent on government handouts. The effect on the family situation has been devastating.
Today too many young women are looking for a Sugar Daddy kind of man to marry because they know the average young man cannot hope to support a traditional family in the traditional way. In turn, many young men are simply giving up for the slacker, stoner life because the chances of landing a decent girl to marry are too remote because they can’t hope to support them. So a vicious cycle has started where there are too few eligible men for eligible women their appropriate age range to marry. This has led to a lower birth rate and a huge increase in people dropping out of society. Also this leads to too many single parent households again.
It used to be contemptible to attack someone weaker than you were. I wonder if/how that stopped being inculcated somewhere along the way.
That was a good movie.
Don’t you mean young black men? Also, that number seems a little high. Can you quote from some website give a source?
But according to Steven Pinker and almost all the information with regard to the creation of wealth. Your money buys a better house, better food, and better healthcare then it did in the (supposedly) good old days when the husbands worked the 9-5 and the wives took care of the children. I understand that rising costs of living are a thing but I can’t believe that things were easier back in the fifties.
Great post. I think the part about fathers is important and that’s been hit on in this thread. For me, this above quote is what stood out. There is something about social media and the way you can choose to essentially live your life on it that is disturbing. It isn’t a real substitute for actual relationships and it might even be (probably is) harmful. A loss of real meaning combined with 24/7 access to the ability to troll and be trolled or get sucked into a toxic network and people can do all of that without ever learning how to discuss their problems like a developed human being. All of that strikes me as worrisome.
Henry – you are right 25% of young black men.
A link please. I want proof of statements.
Why not? I grew up in that era and I can tell you that lots of things were easier then. Without question it was easier for a mother to stay home with her children. We have a greater diversity of food available now, but I don’t believe it is better, and at that time we were not living with the government food pyramid and health advice that helped make us the sick, obese nation we are now. If we had more modest houses, a modest home with two parents is much better than a big house with no adults at home. Moreover, depending upon where you live, a modest house can be beyond young families today, partly because two-income families have driven up prices. I live in a modest, 1922 house with tiny closets, a small kitchen, and a leaky basement, but since it’s in the D.C. area, a young family would have to have two high incomes to afford it today. That means most young families have to move far from their jobs and endure long commutes, and that really ain’t easy. To say nothing of rotten schools, but maybe that doesn’t come in to Pinker’s calculations.