What Outlets do Young Men Have for Aggression These Days?
Reader David sent me a long question and his analysis of what he thinks about the problem of violence in our society, especially given the recent Colorado killings. I am posting his whole letter because I found it of interest and thought readers would also. Here it is:
Dr. Helen:
I’ve long had a thought (not factually based or formed enough to call it a “theory”) that to a certain extent some of the seemingly senseless violence we see in modern society is, in fact, a result of the general peacefulness in that society.
Throughout history and the world, a young man’s experience (and even many not-so-young men) has more often than not been tied to violence. Going to war, even as recently as the early 20th century, was routinely seen as a normal rite of passage. For most of recorded history, old men would gather the young men, bring them together and let them kill each other. Even in non-lethal circumstances, an argument between two men often ended with fisticuffs, the victor raised and the vanquished leaving beaten, but accepting of the outcome. Life, even when long, was still a brutish experience for a man.
Following the horrors of WWII, and accelerated in the ’60s, American society became increasingly a “no-violence zone.” Children are severely punished for a harmless schoolyard fight. Medals are no longer given to those who kill the most enemies, but are reserved almost solely for those who die saving others’ lives. In the midst of this, though, there is still the natural drive of male aggression. This is, I believe, expressed today in the ascendance of dangerous extreme sports and in more and more extreme violence in TV, movies, and video games. These act as surrogate for the violent expression of aggression that, before, was reserved for the battlefield. Without the experience in low-level violence once provided by scuffles and fist fights, today’s youth turn, instead, to the only sort of violence they know, the lethal ultra-violence seen and experienced in TV, movies, and video games.
While I am certainly not pro-war, I believe that the more frequent lethal conflicts experienced in past history provided a social mechanism for young men inclined to violence to sate this in a venue that was socially acceptable, and, in many cases, to even be recognized and rewarded for their effectiveness. Without that “release valve” it is only to be expected that some will still turn to violence, seeking any thin justification or provocation.
I’m certainly not advocating restarting the 100-year war as a solution, but given your work in youth violence I was curious as to your feelings on this line of thought.
My reply to him was short:
I think your analysis makes complete sense. One of the problems with our society, rather than “too much violence” is too little in some areas (like not being allowed to fight at school) and too much in others that are fantasy. Now they are talking about banning football, what will that do to further the lack of outlets for aggression in young men? It’s an interesting question.
I am interested in if readers think aggressive outlets are necessary for young men and if so, what do you propose?
I raised two boys, 15 months apart. It was necessary for them to try their muscles against one another so wrestling and rough housing was encouraged, though not in the house. And deliberate injury was not allowed. Encouraging more casual tests of strength allowing the natural competitiveness an outlet that prevented serious harm, I believe, would allow boys to learn restraint.
Thank you peggy, but we don’t appreciate your insight.
Kendo. Controlled aggression which starts and ends with reiho (manners politeness). Rules prohibit displays of high fiveing etc. Perfect outlet for young men and women. As you get older there is more of a metaphysical aspect as well. Highly recommended.
What you are describing sounds useless for the purpose discussed, although it is excellent exercise, surely.
“I am interested in if readers think aggressive outlets are necessary for young men and if so, what do you propose?”
Yes, athletics and video games.
I am reminded of an old adage from down in Texas, the earliest reference I’ve seen puts it in the 1930′s: “God gave us Football so that the young men could have something to do between wars.” I’ve always felt there was more than a grain of truth in that.
Do any of the young men in the news strike you as the type that would have been the steely-eyed, barrel chested freedom fighters of years past? Did the young men/boys show an active interest in proving themselves in masculine ways prior to their horrid acts? If they had a natural calling to something like that, wouldn’t it have come out sooner in lower “doses?”
I don’t see it. I see kooks. Now, there may be a pathology behind what is going on, but it’s not that those guys were bursting at the seams with masculinity and lashed out because they couldn’t handle their raw virility.
Totally agree but I wonder if because some of these boys lacked masculinity or a healthy outlet for anger and frustration and instead, took it out in the most horrendous of ways.
I am interested in if readers think aggressive outlets are necessary for young men and if so, what do you propose?
I’ve given this some thought, because I have two boys who are at the age before puberty hits them like a freight train. I’m not a “natural dad” type. You know the guys who love bouncing kids on knees and can’t wait to take them to the park for a game of catch. Not me. So, a little over a month ago, I decided to make a plan to develop my sons. I consider there to be nine characteristics that I need to help my sons develop. They are: integrity, rationality, self-awareness, charisma, confidence, communication skills, assertiveness, optimism and presentation.
I address this particular issue under “confidence.” You can go over to the blog, but I’ll summarize here. Find low cost activities that can provide healthy outlets for the energy they have. Keep a list of five or so, since not all boys will like all activities. The low cost activities can be: take him to a shooting range, fishing, wall-climbing, driving, low cost construction projects, and sports (specifically martial arts).
If we focus on just one area of development, we could neglect the other areas. What happens if you raise a son who is assertive, confident, but lacks genuine integrity or can’t communicate effectively?
I don’t have a quick and easy answer. If you’re not naturally inclined to be a parent, you have to double efforts to get the same results. The problem, as I see it, is that my generation (I’m 40) and subsequent generations were never taught at an early age how to be a parent or the weight of that responsibility. So, we’re trying to use the same techniques our parents used and it’s not working. In fact, it’s a flipping mess out there.
If we want to keep this experiment going, we will need to parent in a way our parents never did and, frankly, I don’t think enough people can see why we’re failing.
Dr. Helen,
Might it be that the real – albeit low level – violence that was once a part of the lives of young males served not only as an outlet for masculine aggression, but also as a lesson in the personal consequences of violence?
Movies and video games may – or may not – provide an outlet for aggression, but IMHO they completely fail to provide the needed negative feedback present with real violence.
Schoolyard fights, contact sports, war, etc. rarely occur without pain – physical and psychological.
The simulated pain – and death – in movies and video games occurs without any real consequences to those watching/playing.
Maybe all the consequence-free simulated violence is part of the problem.
That is exactly why the kendo “sparring” i have seen would do no good.
To my recollection, schoolyard fights were almost inevitably one-sided beatdowns–there were virtually never any physical consequences for more than one of the combatants. And later on, though football put the players’ talents for physical aggression to good use, it certainly never sapped or diverted their enthusiasm for indulging it off the gridiron. In fact, the prestige of playing a sport served as a blank check for physical aggression in other realms, and a spur … thus REMOVING its consequences, if anything.
So I’m not sure the “negative feedback” argument holds water.
Are you still mad about that old hang ‘em by the jock strap over the door knob gag? Sorry man, really. XD
Aggression can be corrected with the proper understanding of when and where it is acceptable in a polite society by the child. This starts very young and can be added at a later date with difficulty. As far as an outlet to let off steam, well that is just so much pseudo psychology imho. Children have an immense capacity for chaos and violence and unhindered by morality or even a sense of responsibility and you get what is collectively known as OWS and the New Black Panther party.
Paul,
I think you’re exactly right about low level violence teaching a lesson about consequences. I’m always amazed by people, reporters, politicians, etc. who say and do truly outrageous things and then are flumoxed when someone pops them in the nose.
If you had spent enough time looking at WWII, Pacific campaign pictures as I have you would have noticed old man heads stuck on skinny boy bodies. Many are not even what we call cut. Today’s soldier doesn’t look any different. They’re all strong as they could be made to be.
Lack of sleep, filthy living conditions, constant stress and mortal danger, inadequate rations, and (for those in the Pacific) debilitating tropical diseases — all were sufficient to take guys who were in pretty good physical shape at the end of basic training and make “old men” out of them.
And toward the end of the war (late 1944 onward), the demand for replacement troops meant that training was shortened somewhat, resulting in troops sent out before they’d been fully conditioned.
My four year old loves rough and tumble play. He was introduced to pretend WWF wrestling this summer with his cousins. At first I almost had a heart attack and hovered over him, then I realized he was having fun. Both of my boys have the energy that their father has. An outlet is essential. I worry about sending them to school. Our school district has an anti-oppressive litmus test for hiring, we all know what that really means. The little guys will probably get their balls chopped off from day one.
Outlet for aggression? Two words: box lacrosse. Hitting starts at 6 years old (in my area anyway). The kids all come off the floor tired, sweaty and happy. Sure there are a few bumps and bruises but they learn to shrug them off.
Dr. Helen, if you want to pursue this topic, you should read Konrad Lorenz’s groundbreaking work, On Agression. Lorenz demonstrates through field study and observation that aggression has a specific role or purpose in animal behavior.
It also has a specific definition in ethology that most people do not understand. Aggression is not violence, rather it is a display, a pattern of behaviors directed against members of the same species.
For example, when a cheetah attacks and kills an antelope, that is not aggression. It’s predatory behavior.
Aggressive displays rarely lead to physical confrontation. Examples would be when a gorilla thumps his chest and adopts a stance, or when a bird spreads its wings and makes a call, or when a wolf crouches and growls. The purpose of these displays is not to injure, but rather to establish dominance over a territory, or in social animals rank in the hierarchy, to ensure access to food or females.
In the rare instances when aggressive displays do lead to physical confrontation, when one animal does not submit to or recognize the dominance of the other, it doesn’t go beyond a slap or a quick bite. This is not a fight to the death. It’s merely a confrontation to demonstrate which is stronger. Once that is established, one animal will display submissive signals and the confrontation is over.
Think of two battering rams. They rear up and slam their horns together. They’re not trying to kill each other. It’s a territorial dispute. One is simply trying to establish dominance, or superior strength, over the other.
It doesn’t benefit either animal, or the species as a whole, for aggressive displays to escalate to violence. One or both could be injured or killed.
It’s the same with humans. There are various postures, facial expressions, stares, shouts, etc., we use in aggressive displays to establish dominance. Most often, the other will back down. If the confrontation does get physical, it usually doesn’t go beyond a slap, a punch, a kick, before the fight is over.
Your response to the reader’s letter is on point. Sports are the cultural mechanism by which we channel aggression into productive activities. One team establishes dominance over the other, but they both go home safe and healthy or with only minor injuries, bumps and bruises, which are part of the game.
In the case of football, the greatest, most aggressive sport, yeah, there’s a lot of hitting, blocking, tackling–it’s the only sport in which men can go all out. But they’re not trying to injure or kill each other. That wouldn’t do either team any good.
The reader’s letter does raise an important point though. War is violence. However, aggressive displays always precede the violent confrontation. If we as a society, a culture, do not allow, much less develop, displays of aggression, then we will be unprepared for the violent confrontation that will surely follow.
As the old saying goes, peace through strength. Strength is developed and demonstrated by displays of aggression.
Aggression is part of a male’s chemical makeup. It’s called testosterone! Some males have more than others, but it is still something with which we are born, and it is one of the primary components of aggression. We were created/evolved as hunters/gatherers, and it was this hormone that allowed us to face down those sabre-toothed tigers. Over time, most have learned how to control the aggression, but an outlet is still needed for those times when it surfaces. Banning football to control aggression is like re-electing Obama to improve the economy – guaranteed failure! We need these outlets as reasonably safe methods of blowing off steam. For those who say it is too dangerous, then look for bicycling, soccer, boxing, running, rodeo riding, baseball, basketball, and almost every other sport you can name to be banned, too (bicycling has over 500,000 injuries, including 700 FATALITIES every year!). In my book, if you really want to reduce aggression, stop selling behemoth SUVs to soccer moms!!
You have made two important points that have been somewhat overlooked
- aggressiveness is normal and natrual in men; it has always been a societal hoal to either channel or constrain that aggression.
- very few men in our modern culture ever experience military service, much less combat. The historic normative experience for channeling, and very often diminishing (those that have served, especially in combat, usually wind up losing some or all of any desire to see it again) natural male aggression is gone.
> quite agree tilting against football loses the larger point, but also support rules to reduce / minimize serious injuries.
Finally, I’ll add that simple physical exertion, whether it be from manual labor, exercise, or actual physical competition (say wresting or soccer), combative sports (boxing, football, rugby) to actual phsical violence (fights, combat)are ALL outlets for aggressiveness.
- most men know that if you are pissed off at someone, a good way to work it off is to literally work it off via exercise.
- as the extent of manual labor in our culture has dramatically decreased, men wind up working off aggression in other ways. The smart ones, or maybe simply those that are well socialized trend towards exercise or highly constrained mock combat or ‘martial arts.’
Sports, martial arts, shooting, and music. About the music, playing guitar loud is one of my aggression releases. Crank it to 11, and play loud enough to put the exterminator out of business! Shooting is great too, not for the physical release that martial arts gives, but for the joy of sticking an arrow in a target or putting a bb or bullet in the bull’s eye. My 9 year old boy’s love that, they just wish they were as good a shot as their 9 year old sister!
Trey
Glad you brought up that ol’ time rock ‘n’ roll, TMink. My son has found his outlet in shrieking, growling, and roaring (“singing” is most emphatically not the word) for a metal combo. Keeps him off the streets and out of trouble.
Agreed!
Back when I was in grade school (1970′s) after-school fistfights were pretty common. Injuries were seldom worse than a black eye or bloody nose. You learned, rather quickly, that there were consequences to your actions. Fights on school property were, er, discouraged, but once outside the fence things happened.
Let me offer an example. When I was in fifth grade my parents got me a crew cut. One of the kids in another class (this was NYC public school, so there were LOTS of 5th grade classes) thought that was funny and would constantly squeeze my head like a melon. Coming back from lunch, on the stairway, one day I had enough, turned around, and punched him in the mouth. He never bothered me again. That same day, at recess, my teach (Mr Santangelo) said “Mark, I heard you punched a kid.” I didn’t DARE lie to him, and I figured I’d end up in the principal’s office, but he said “Good job” and shook my hand. Today I’d have been suspended, sent for counselling and given Ritalin.
I can also recall when boys were taught “the manly art of self defense”.
Yes! Young men need an outlet for the violence and aggression that nature instilled in us. During my first enlistment in the Marines I was taught to control and direct aggression. I still wouldn’t have made it through college without outlets like rugby, the weight room, long hikes, and other club sports.
My 11-year-old son starts another season of Pee Wee football tomorrow. I’m not a sports-dad who pushes him to play – he signs up for the sports he wants to play (and isn’t allowed to quit on his team once the season starts). Like me in my younger days, he is noticeably calmer and more focused on his school work after an exhausting practice that includes some hitting.
Thank you for your service to our Country
Quite agree. Yet nowadays very few young men go through the normative experience of boot camp, much less significant military service.
Very Best Regards,
PS: full disclosure, I retired from Navy Reserves and as a ‘Cold War’ vet Submariner never saw combat.
I’m really, really surprised that so few people are mentioning weight lifting and other strength “sports.” Talk about a way to relive stress and tire a kid out!
I don’t really understand why more fathers don’t get their sons (and daughters, although I think it’s less important for them) into weight training at an early age (around 9-11, depending). The physical effects are undeniable. The carryover to sports performance is huge. The benefits to personal confidence (sexual and otherwise) are outstanding.
I think most men have a really weird, confused attitude toward bodily strength, and it definitely impacts how they raise their sons. In the relatively short time (2-3 years) that I’ve been dedicated to increasing my strength (and therefore gaining weight as a result), I’ve come to a conclusion: basically, the only men that seem to have any real interest in discussing strength are men that are currently above-average strong (or working to become above-average strong). Everyone else seems to get pretty damn uncomfortable pretty quick. Men obviously have ideas of masculinity and how physical strength relates to that, and the majority of men seem to find themselves lacking, yet so few actually do anything about it. Why is that?
I’m not going to make that mistake when/if I have a son. A man will be judged on his strength/size no matter what, and we are doing a disservice to our sons when we, their fathers, are not the ones that teach them this little fact. It’s not the only way he will be judged, and I’m certainly not saying that I think weak men are not “real men” or something ludicrous like that. But we can’t just pretend that strength and size (and the provider/sexual connotations that are wrapped up in these attributes) are not important components of being a man. I just want to figure out how I can allow my son to reap the positive benefits of being strong without him turning into an uber-macho meathead.
A fascinating post. Just coincidentally last night I saw a movie (Secondhand Lions) in which Robert Duvall as a septagenerian loner is attacked by four teenagers. He dispatches them quickly; they draw knives; he defeats them again and tells them how to hold a knife properly and says “Now try it again,” after which he defeats them yet again. In the next scene, Duvall is driving them, bloodied, in their own car up to Duvall’s house where he gets them some steak to put on their bruises. Then he says “You wanna stay for dinner?”
If we ever had that attitude, we’ve lost it. We seem to have descended into a phase where all battles (rhetorical, ideological or physical) seem obsessed with destroying an enemy rather than defeating an adversary. Following along Dr. Helen’s research and interests, I wonder if also has to do with the feminizing of our society?
The point I’m making here (purely sepculative on my part) is that women and children rely on the men to defend the tribe. When women must fight, it’s because the men’s defense has failed and the women become the defense of LAST resort. That being the case, would it not be reasonable to assume that any fight that a woman must undertake is a primal “last measure of defense,” i.e., a fight to the death?
In an increasingly feminized society (cooperate, don’t compete; fighting is barbaric) does this attitude translate into destroy your enemy rather than, as Robert Duvall does, defeat your adversary?
You are correct, most if not all displays of aggression are between males of the same species, for the purpose of establishing territory. Males do not display aggression against females, because they do not have any reason to.
Males establish a territory, or a rank in the hierarchy, and use aggression to defend it. Females choose males based on their territory or rank, then move in and build a nest. It does not benefit the male in any way to demonstrate aggression against the female. She’s on his side.
But you are correct, the female is the last line of defense of the young. Should the male be defeated, injured or killed, there is nothing more ferocious than a female in defense of her young. She doesn’t fight to prove something; she fights to kill. And she is vicious. If you thought you had a problem with him, wait till you get a hold of her.
Yes, there are aggressive displays between females, postures, stares and the like, mainly for the purpose of gaining access to a dominant male. But these rarely escalate to violence. Females are perfectly willing to share a dominant male–they want the best genes for their offspring. It’s when she or her young is threatened, that she becomes violent. She doesn’t make a display. No, she becomes violent and deadly real quick.
Aggression is one thing. Violence is another. Aggression occurs between males, and less often between females. It does not occur between males and females.
The problem today in this culture, in this society, is that the line between aggression and violence has been blurred. When men can attack men, when men can attack women, when women can attack women, when women can attack men, it’s no longer displays of aggression; it’s violence all around. And that is the end of civilized society.
Gawain’s Ghost,
You wrote: “She doesn’t fight to prove something; she fights to kill.”
I’ve been thinking about that for the last couple of days and came to this conclusion (I know, I’m a little slow on the uptake).
Women fight to kill when men can’t or won’t fight. Thus, men’s sparring is not only to establish real or metaphysical territory, it’s also to demonstrate that the men WILL fight if called upon to do so.
In a society that demeans such agression as barbaric, it actually neuters it’s men. By demostrating that they’re less likely to fight, one is actually inviting a challenge from a stronger adversary and also making it more likely that the resulting contest is viewed more as a struggle to the death (a last resort) than a sparring of strength or ideologies.
On a global scale think Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and Israel. Under Geo W Bush the world knew that the U.S. would mobilize it’s forces as it has traditionally done. Under Obama, the world sees a desire to retreat, retract, apologize and bow submissively at every level. It’s no surprise, then that Iran has basically ignored the West’s demands to halt their nuclear program; what do they have to fear, a strongly worded letter?
Israel is the converse. Is there anyone on the face of the earth who doubts Israel’s resolve in defending itself? Is there anyone who thinks that Israel will refuse to attack Iran if it finally assesses an existential threat?
“Males establish a territory, or a rank in the hierarchy, and use aggression to defend it. Females choose males based on their territory or rank, then move in and build a nest. It does not benefit the male in any way to demonstrate aggression against the female. She’s on his side.
But you are correct, the female is the last line of defense of the young. Should the male be defeated, injured or killed, there is nothing more ferocious than a female in defense of her young. She doesn’t fight to prove something; she fights to kill. And she is vicious. If you thought you had a problem with him, wait till you get a hold of her.”
We should not confuse humans and animals or warfare and sport. Women are a lot less likely than men to fight to the death and a lot more likely to be carried off by the conquering army. Women are as vicious as men, but it is generally not in a physical way. Any man worth his salt would laugh at a woman’s “ferocity.”
Aggression and posturing are natural to an extent, but they are not to be confused with warfare or self-defense. Too many people conflate the two. They want war to be a game between chivalrous players who really have each others’ best interests at heart. As a boy in Southern Idaho the dominance games usually escalated into fighting. Once some older neighborhood boys brought rocks and chains, stood at our property line and taunted us. My brother and I picked up our garden hoes and our buddy grabbed my dad’s pick (which he could barely lift – it was adorable). We planned to kill them if they came into our yard. We were sort of let down when our mother broke it up and deprived us of a heroic last stand.
My father taught me never to use more force than was necessary to defend myself and only to go for the throat if my life was in danger, otherwise he would support my arrest and imprisonment. The assumption was that rules to fighting were based on God’s law, not on group expectations. I was supposed to walk away from any fight if possible and only fight if they forced my hand. The funny thing was that after moving to the Pacific Northwest the boys seemed to be full of tough talk, but none of them backed it up. Pathetic. Pea-cocking is for savages and cowards.
Look at how civilized people like the Puritans ordered their society. Strict, but relatively weak hierarchy, organized and violent sports, severe physical punishments for criminals, and a doctrine of total warfare. I would not want to live there, but it was superior to what we have now. They were more peaceful at home and more effective in war.
Lets keep it simple, “sports”. The ball and competition has left physical education class. It’s all about fitness (aerobic activities). Fitness is good but competition with fitness is better. Another aspect is that students today do not get physical education everyday at least in Los Angeles. You have a boy in a classroom all day. Then they go home and lay on the couch. When I grew up in the 70′s we had physical education everyday all the way through high school.
Sports I remember from grade school:
- four square; while not nominally violent it was intensely competitive
- kickball; safe, and boooring
- tetherball; which I loved. novice play is kinda tame; it quickly escalated to a very physical almost violent competition (those tethered balls knocked down more that a few, including me once or twice)
- *Dodgeball!* all time great fun outlet for youthfull energy and aggression.
Sports have been the traditional activity, and I think that there are good reasons for that. I was, to put it mildly, not very good at sports, but, looking back, I can see that they taught me many important lessons: that it’s important to play by the rules, that competition can bring out the best in people, and that you try as hard as you can (within the letter and spirit of the rules) to win while the game is on, but you act differently once it is over.
Games that don’t have winners and losers don’t teach these lessons, and I think that the replacement of games that have winners and losers with games that don’t is part of the problem. Another problem is that coaches and parents of players are all too frequently mis-behaving by abusing game officials and coaches and, in a few incidents, attacking players on the opposing side, giving a lesson precisely opposite to the one that the players should be receiving.
I do have some reservations about football and boxing, because of the likelihood of brain damage, but, other than that reservation, I’m all for participation in sports – but there need to be swift and severe penalties for those who engage in unsportsmanlike behavior, and those penalties should be especially swift and severe for those who, by virtue of their ages if not their behavior, qualify as adults.
I, b. 1949, and most of my friends, relatives, and classmates would be either still incarcerated or drugged to senselessness were we subject to the standards imposed on young males today. By today’s standards, we were brutish and it is truly remarkable that we never killed each other; it wasn’t for lack of trying. Quite a few of us did ultimately manage to kill ourselves; Vietnam took a few, but cars, drugs, and risky sex took more. Testosterone is far more lethal than the substances we get all twisted about.
We still had recess in those days and the recess fight wasn’t uncommon, though it was consistently and severely punished. There was no inquiry into the merits of the respective positions or who started it; you both just got your butts paddled. The after school fights were ritualized like a gunfight scene in a Western movie; they still had those back then. The adversaries had their “seconds,” arrangements were made, and a bloodthirsty crowd encircled the juvenile combatants. Often, however, these events proved the truth behind the quip about how, “one’s scared, and the other is glad of it” and the fight could be avoided much to the chagrin of the onlookers.
When my stepsons came into my life in the ’90s I really wasn’t attuned to the world they were living in. My parenting experience was an only daughter who pretty much went straight from diapers to adulthood. I treated the boys the way I’d been treated and, frankly, turned them into brawlers. Fortunately, I could direct their brawling into sports and they were both pretty successful jocks. My backyard was pretty much a free-fire zone though we had to take more care than my and my peers’ parents did because you really didn’t want to give your house and your income to somebody because some kid got hurt in your backyard; that really wasn’t a factor in the ’50s and ’60s.
Both of my boys got in trouble with both the schools and the law, though neither got into anything serious enough to significantly mess up their lives. Basically, I’d taught them not to take any “stuff” from people and neither would, and were willing to back it up with their fists.
The irony was that in their non-violent world, they were far more prone to violence than I had ever been because they could be violent with impunity. If I hit somebody, I knew to a certainty that I was going to get hit back. That certain knowledge moderated your behavior. They were big, strong, tough guys who knew to a certainty that they weren’t going to get hit, and they both got scary a few times. Ultimately, the older one learned in his 20s the lesson my peers and I learned when we were under 10; there’s always somebody who can kick your a**, and it cost us a lot of expensive dental work. The younger one got in trouble with the law for being violent and a general a**hole and we got him out of town and into military school. A couple of turns in scenic spots in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Kosovo kinda, sorta got the propensity to violence out of his system, but there are only a few bars here that he’s allowed in; he’s still pretty easily “offended.”
So, to sum up; the violent world I grew up in restrained me from violence because I learned at a very young age that that stuff hurt. I don’t know if I helped or hurt my boys by bringing them up pretty much the same way I was brought up. They’re pretty peaceful guys now but when they were younger, they were pretty scary predators because they knew the other guy wasn’t really prepared to fight back.
Great post, I was intending to something similar based on my life experiences, but beat me to it.
Frankly, I think most all of the posts are at least partially correct. Boys need to rough-house and fight in order to learn several things. Pain is transitory, the anticipation is usually worse than the experience, how to show compassion, that there is always someone tougher, how to lose, and how to submit.
Many of these can be learned in other settings, but nothing gets at it like a good old fight.
The old movie stereotype of the Catholic priest or sister encouraging the boy to box in order to overcome his fears has a great deal of truth to it. In fact old movies usually contain more truth about human nature than most “stuff” they are teaching children these days.
Great question Dr. Helen. BTW I have started your ebook about school violence. I encourage others to get it and read it.
Glad you found my book worthwile. I will have another book coming out next spring on the war on men in our society and it should be available as a kindle book as well as a hardback.
at the Naval Academy we had to take PE every semester, and every mid had to go through introductory ‘martial arts’: boxing (twice!), wresting, judo . . .
- it was *not* ever abouut learning how to fight
- it *was* about learning how to:
. . . take a punch, and not quit
. . . fall down, and get back up
. . . win graciously; surprisingly easy, just don’t gloat
. . . lose graciously; a very hard lesson
. . . lose, and come back and do it again, w/o hesitation
The Boy Scouts of America has a great program when the methods are properly applied. As a man I was shocked to discover the “sissification” of our boys. I have had boys tell me that climbing a tree was dangerous, going on an overnight hike without adult supervison was dangerous, and perhaps worst of all, we have moms going on scout campouts. It is not just violence and aggression that need to be worked out, it is experiencing hardship and overcoming it by resourcefulness. I’m just sayin.
Boys have lots of energy and need to be out running, jumping, yelling and pounding stuff every day. Sports are not the answer for all boys; many dislike the over-organization of their actions and time by adults. Bicycles, toy guns, plastic swords, climbing devices on playgrounds, and lots of room to run to run are what is needed. Dodge ball allowed kids to throw harmless big balls at one another and to dodge them. Play-fighting with toy guns and swords allowed them to “kill” others harmlessly. Tag allowed them to chase one another endlessly until they fell down from fatigue.
Boys need to be so tired at night that their 9:30 to-bed time is almost welcomed by them. Organized sports where half the boys are just sitting around while the more athletic/skilled ones play in front of them is useless for about half the population of boys. Sitting around playing video games between 4:00 and 6:00 every day does not wear boys out.
Let the kids out of the house; let them figure out how to play with one another; stop adults from constantly organizing and interfering with their natural desire to just run and play with one another. Get the experts out of their hair and out of their parents’ hair. Before we had experts telling children how to play, they figured out how to do it themselves and they didn’t go around killing one another.
Gloria,
You are correct. Growing up in the 20 years following World War II, we frequently played army. I “killed” my childhood friends many times over and likewise they “killed” me. Not one of us grew up to be a serial killer or a domestic terrorist. Likewise we knew the difference between Wile E. Coyote being hit by a falling safe and the real injury caused to a real person hit by a falling heavy object. We played dodge ball, tag, release and wiffle ball on the back street (urban area) and the only organization we had was running from frend’s house to friend’s house asking “ya wanna play?”
Kendo, Ju-Jitsu, and other martial arts allow for a young man to learn not only discipline, but also self control. When I was younger I put someone in the hospital by losing my temper – the more I hit him, the more I wanted to destroy him for having the unmitigated gall to take a swing at me. My father did the sensible thing and enrolled me in several martial arts courses so that “if you need to kill someone you can do it quickly and effectively, without anger and without injuring yourself”.
I took his advice to heart and while I have had the need at various times in my life since then, I have approached it as a simple proposition – violence is my last option, but when it is necessary, I make sure that all opponents are removed as quickly as possible. That usually can be accomplished via broken joints, and other types of injuries. But I have never lost my temper again – knowing beforehand what I would do and simply doing it.
Society – which is increasingly geared toward what women find socially acceptable – casts violence and aggression in a negative light, failing to see that it is sometime necessary and can accomplish more than any other means. Instead of teaching boys how to harness the result of the testosterone coursing through their bodies, more and more I see women (especially single mothers) turning to medicating their male children into mindless drones, then they wonder why they fail at school and life…
Males are aggressive, driven, and goal oriented – that is why we have achieved the level of society we have, and why, it is increasingly breaking down as the drives of men isn’t allowed to channel itself, and the fact that most boys do not have a strong male figure to guide them and teach them that sometimes violence IS THE BEST OPTION….
” . . . what women find socially acceptable – casts violence and aggression in a negative light . . . .”
The classic rejoinder is “violence never solves anything,” but that is categorically untrue. At the very least, it can stop the schoolyard bully from bullying you. In a larger sense, it ended the Nazi extermination of the Jews, it has stopped Al Quaeda from successfully carrying out large scale terror attacks the likes of 9/11, it ended slavery in the U.S., and perhaps most primally, it puts meat “on the table” (those bulls and cows don’t willingly turn into steaks).
This is all ignored for the narrative of a “civilized” (i.e., feminized) society in which there is no violence, no aggression, no poverty and no inequality of any kind; nice in theory, but in reality an idealistic dystopia.
And the full rejoinder is the quote from LTC Dubois in Heinlein’s Starship Troopers.
“Anyone who clings to the historically untrue — and thoroughly immoral — doctrine that “violence never solves anything” I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms.”
Let me make one clarification. I do not dislike women or their feminity; I truly enjoy their company and insight. I’m not whining or complaining about feminine tendencies here, I’m simply pointing out that if we have engaged a discussion of the paucity of outlets for young men’s agression and physical “roughness” then the pendulum has probably swung too far.
And Hacksaw, thanks fro the full quote.
I don’t know if it is necessary, but it certainly looks inevitable.
I am 50, and so old enough to remember when beating up a bully got me a talking-to, followed by a congratulation, from the Vice Principal.
I believe that, unless we are willing to sedate our boys and young men, some constructive channel will be needed for their energies. Our society has become soft, due to a long period of prosperity and a shift in parenting from “raising a child” to “raising a Kobe Beef calf”.
My fear is that our comfortable existence will end before we can make a positive change in how we raise young men. As I always point out to my wife, I may be old and fat, but I will do a lot more good in hard times than the wispy slackers in skinny jeans and complicated haircuts that I see every day. Irony, pop culture references and emo bangs won’t do much good if you have to start a fire, fire a shotgun or purify water.
“Sedate our young boys”
Too late. Cf. Ritalin.
Ice Hockey. Fast, hard and punishing. And it teaches a strong sense of camaraderie.
Football sucks.
Not because it’s violent or encourages aggression but because it leverages the physics manifested in the head-on collision. People who let their sons play football are just asking for trouble for the very humans in their care.
Martial arts = good. Squash = good. Ice Hockey = good. Even Lacrosse is not so bad.
But Football? Evil and designed to generate severe, long-term, permanent injuries.
We are discovering that American football has a built-in injury hazard that is far more dangerous than we knew (the problem of cumulative brain trauma).
There doesn’t seem to be any way to fix this within the structure of football as we know it.
Football does absorb a certain amount of male aggressiveness, but it is not and never was the only such outlet, nor is it (or was it) a universal outlet. Baseball used to be far more common as a boy’s sport, and nowadays it’s basketball. In Hispanic countries and Europe, it’s soccer. In India, it’s cricket. None of these other sports seem remotely like football as channels for aggressiveness.
But if a football-type game is necessary, there’s rugby football, which is just as physical as American football, but doesn’t have the continual full-on collisions that cause brain trauma.
Dr. Helen:
NO, NO , NO.
We live in a very controlled society that offers little in the way of genuine political expression. We are free to go to the store and buy what we want. On other issues things are MUCH more precarious.
Go to ‘Whiskey’s Place’ for a great analysis of this issue.
Growing up in a dense, urban city like Bombay with little elbow room, boys and girls played together until about age 8-10, after which we naturally segregated into boys with team sports like football and cricket, and girls into gossiping and occasionally trying to get into the boys’ team sports (it starts early). Boys would sometimes let us in but put in special rules to allow for our lesser athletic abilities. What was funny was that this arrangement made both happy – the girls felt special due to receiving ‘special discount’ and boys felt special for being able to exercise magnanimity. Similar ‘discount’ was also given to mixed-age games when a parent insisted on their little one playing with slightly older kids because there was no one else of a similar age to play with. Games were mostly variations of tag such as chain-tag, one-legged-tag, played on a tiny playground about 25′ x 25′. Sometimes the playground was ‘enlarged’ out to include trees, so you could escape being tagged if you could quickly climb a tree. It made the game more of a challenge.
I agree with Gloria and T regarding organized games. On the few occasions when we played them, most kids were bored because they ended up on the sidelines awaiting their turn.
The whole thing sounds rather sexist in the light of increased violence and aggression among women and reduced aggression among men. The writer makes it look like only men are aggressive and as if their aggression has been increasing while in fact the truth is the opposite. I think you yourself have highlighted incidents of violence by women in your earlier blog which will effectively counter this writers theory.
A thought-provoking post, to be sure.
I remember an incident on the schoolyard in 1966, or thereabouts. A boy’s voice was heard, “Mrs. Davis, he hit me!” Mrs. Davis’s wise reply, “Hit him back.”
My wife has blessed me with four sons, and that is more than any couple could hope to micro-manage. We had one effective rule for rough play – “If any of you get hurt, you’re ALL in trouble.” We had to enforce that rule once, then they figured out not to hurt each other, or to suck it up when they did get hurt. We never knew which.
Credentials: mother of a 17yo young man. Boys don’t need “aggression.” What they DO need is vigorous physical activity on a regular basis. Problem: the only place I know to find this in this day and age in suburbia is organized sports … and if the boy or the parents can’t swing this kind of organized activity, it’s a problem … the only (poor) substitute I know of is video games.
Hockey!
Helen, et al,
What you all are saying may well be necessary, and though I certainly agree that there is a general over-suppression of schoolyard fistfights and that the Boy Scouts, in a program run with masculine values, are excellent thoughts, I think that we are responding to an over-illumination of problems that may well never be answered. The near-instantaneous response of the new networks and their thirst to have something to say that will keep our attention keep these events in our face.
Events like the movie theater shootings, Columbine, and the movie theater terrorist attack in Russia a few years ago are horrendous and we need to seek solutions to the problems that cause them. But as a society, I think we also need to develop better filters when watching the news.
Just a thought…
Our coaches allowed us to box in the school basement when social conflicts arose. Sometimes we took it upon ourselves to arrange clandestine boxing matches. It taught many lessons. Not the least of which was that some guys had way more kick ass in them than they looked. The real lesson was that disrespect or aggression towards the weaker was sometimes a big mistake in judgement. Then there were the alliances that formed, tilting the balance of power as societies also do with the police.
Due to liability concerns I believe there is no solution in this day in age.
We are caging a wild animal instead of taming him.
Boys need to practice physical aggression, but not necessarily hostility. Many sports provide an excellent. My youngest son has played football for 10 years. He now plays in college. It’s amazing to me how the players can go at each other so hard, and, when the game is over, with only rare exception by bad sports, they are friendly, talking, shaking hands, even joking. My son is good friends with guys he’s creamed on the football field and vice versa. Plus, under the right coaches they learn about teamwork and fair play.
one other perspective.
the difference between theoretical and practical.
theoretically fighting is exciting and fun.
in practice it is exciting and scary, at best painful, at worst deadly.
a serious fight is something one never forgets and most often reduces the urge to engage in combat.
our society is filled with surrogates for real fights.
boys often fight to sort things out.
adults (mature and developed) fight to destroy their enemy.
society doesn’t do a good job of helping youth sort it out, nor do most of the mentors…
Sports would be good but for the fact that they’ve been corrupted by public popularity and a hype-competitive spirit at the top levels that produces such morally stunted figures as Joe Paterno, who can cover every statistical iteration of their players but not follow up on trifling issues like whether their assistant coach is safe to leave alone with children.
It’s the trades and manual arts, not sports, that truly lacks good advocates (and requires much more discipline to practice effectively, yet brings lifetime rewards for even amateur efforts. Think basic home repair/carpentry/pest extermination/plumbing/gardening/landscaping.) Plus they’re tiring enough to take off any hyperaggressive edges while still being useful for training. Non-productive games tend to be much fairer, more educational, and more interesting when the kids make them up/pay for them themselves. But I have a sneaking suspicion that theres a great fear of teaching the skills necessary for independent life, thought, and action among both our elites and those of us who profit from a general ignorance in society.
It’s Minecraft, the game about being thrown into a hostile world and building whatever you want out of its pieces, that’s the new breakout game hit, not Madden Roster Update 2012 or Street Fighter Flashy Fantasy Moves MCCLVCXDIV. The solutions to our problems are uncomplicated and straightforward, yet all shudder at their implementation.
Dr. Helen, I just wanted to add my own experience from HS. I attended a boys’ private school and here’s how it handled boys’ aggression. In 10th grade I got into a scuffle with another kid in my class, Craig. A couple of teachers broke us up and took us to the gym. We put on 16 oz. boxing gloves, the ones heavy weights use. We were told the rules. Rounds would be 3 minutes. A whistle was blown, and we went at it. For those of your readers who have never boxed let me tell you that 16 oz. gloves feel like 10 lbs. after a half minute of flailing at the other guy. Plus, for non-heavy weights like us these gloves were like pillows. Craig and I lasted one round. We then had to shake hands, and I remember we each grinned at one another. That was the end of it. And, BTW: Craig and I became good friends. Can you imagine any school doing this today?
Hi Dr. Helen,
I came across this yesterday and I thought it fit well with this subject. It is from a book “Man’s Search For Meaning” by Viktor Frankl and he is addressing the subject of aggression. He writes:
“..let me cite an experiment once conducted by Carolyn Wood Sherif. She had succeeded in artificially buildiing up mutual aggressions between groups of boy scouts, and observed that the aggressions only subsided when the youngsters dedicated themselves to a collective purpose – that is, the joint task of dragging out of the mud a carriage in which food had to be brought to their camp. Immediately, they were not only challenged but also united by a meaning they had to fulfill.”
Challenged and united….a wonderful outlet for a natural phenomena called aggression. This is what we need to provide for our boys and young men imho.
There are a number of good posts above although the point in this post is the point of civilization. There have been a number of different civilizations over the years, all with different goals and rules to unite those within. The more we fracture ourselves, the more our civilization disappears.
Right now female on female violence is up 3X over the last 20 years (going off memory, you can see it on the FBI crime statistics). The point is we are not only hurting our sons, but our daughters as well. In fact we are hurting our daughters not only by teaching them the worst of male behavior, but also by removing a pool of trained gentlemen and husbands.
We used to be comfortable acknowledging that boys and girls are different. A great reference is “Spark, the link between exercise and the human Brain.” We are taking boys who have tremendous energy and not giving them an outlet. This hurts their overall ability to learn and their desire to learn. I don’t believe it is a good thing for girls either.
As to some of the other discussions above, aggression is a normal part of male behavior, but some will cross the line into violent behavior. People make mistakes. The old saying “Good decisions come from experience, and experience comes from bad decisions.” When boys cross the line, they must be punished quickly (quick is more important than severe). You have to train them. There must be rules, and they must be followed. Pain okay, injury not okay. Never hit a girl, etc.
With respect to jocks picking on non-athletic kids, I was one of the non-athletes. However, I was encouraged to stand up for myself. Yes, I got beaten on and I discovered if you get back up and wade back in they learn what having a tiger by the tail feels like and not to do it again. It is a life moment, are you going to roll over or are your going to meet the challenge. Not fair, not nice, but it is male and it is life. The football player I tangled with my freshman year always remembered our fight fondly, and no one else every challenged me again (fortunately I don’t bruise easily). [As an aside, strangely enough I was called a jock in college because I was in ROTC and we worked out a lot due to the physical requirements of our chosen profession. I was upset and confused at being called a jock because I considered myself anything but, and the jocks in college behavior was abhorrent. One of our defects is we do tend to let our star jocks get away with behavior no one else does. This is a defect and not a feature]
I’m close to 50, I remember reading an article about a study in high school that female teachers rewarded boys for female behavior and punished them for male behavior. We need men in schools teaching boys how to be men. I have been in Martial Arts for the 25 years I’ve been married and my wife can’t understand how my friends and I treat one another or why any one would keep coming back or why we think it is fun to beat one another up. If we judge and treat boys based on a female baseline then confusion reigns. The sexes are hardwired differently and the operating system needs to account for that.
People are not perfect and you can not have perfect behavior. You must choose which problems you will have. By trying to create a civilization that does not allow masculine behavior we are disenfranchising 50% of our population and doing harm to the other 50%. I think when we used to let boys be boys and tried to teach our children how to be adults. Now we want perfect childhoods, ones without risk, pain, failure or the bad things of life. Few high-school graduate are prepared to leave home and be adults (society problem, not school problem – schools are a symptom of a deeper problem).
A great definition of a man I once read was “Someone who does something grossly unpleasant at least once a day.” I remember my father and his friends giving me “Character Building Exercises.” At the time I read that as they are screwing me over, but now I realize that they taught me to handle adversity and roll with the punches. We are not teaching this to our young men anymore. Every kid is now a special snow flake and every excuse is a good reason why the snowflake couldn’t get his homework done. Try hiring these kids, good ones now seem to be the exception instead of the rule.
We have also removed man’s work from our vocabulary. A man used to conquer barbarians, or build a farm out of wilderness, or work like a dog in a factory to keep his family fed and was acknowledged for the sacrifice he made.
We need a civilization that is ok with boys and girls being different. We need to teach our boys to be men, and it needs to be men who do it, because women don’t understand. We need manly goals for our boys to pursue, and we need to laud them when they reach those goals.
Hey Mark C,
You bring up some great points. I was going to bring up then point about the rise in female aggression, but didn’t so I am glad you did.
But your post made me think of my dad. He used to coach little league and two important things he taught. 1. How to be a gracious loser 2. How to be a gracious winner. He used to take the kids for hamburgers afterwards regardless of whether they won or lost, as long as they played a fair and honest game and gave it their best shot. He believed that there were many lessons to be learned within the subject of competition. I think we have lost a large part of that.
Thanks for reminding me of Man’s Search for Meaning, It is a great book.
I couldn’t agree more about the martial arts. As a female martial arts instructor, I love teaching the boys. They have so much energy and joy that goes into their practice.
There is something profoundly beautiful in the relationship between the adult men and adolesent men at our studio. The boys get moved into adult class and are treated well, at first. Then, they get a little full of themselves and start being more agressive. The adult men take it up a notch and knock them down. And the boys LOVE it. It is their acceptance into the world of men.
That’s a wonderful post, Mom in AZ. Just spot on and I thank you for it!
Now that I think of it, aggressive activities are really important for girls and women too. I encourage all the people I work with who were abused to learn self defense, martial arts, or shooting. The progression of healing seems to go from being afraid to being angry to being wise. It is wise to be able to protect yourself, and it helps you to feel less angry when you know you can incapacitate anyone who tried to perpetrate you again.
Trey
I am reminded of Kim du Toit’s 2003 seminal essay, The Pussification of the Western Male. I remember the outpouring of revulsion that piece inspired among the Left, but nine years later, it seems to be vindicated.
I think a lot of the problem lies in our feminization of men. I was dating a chic a few years ago when she came down with the flu. No big deal, but she spent all of her not-at-work time in bed and I made sure to prep her some soups and such so she had plenty of nutrition and fluids to help her body fight the bug.
She thought it was kind and such, and made the comment that it was “nice to see me embrace my feminine side.”
This really thew me for a loop because it was an unintended insult. I proceeded to tell her that my taking care of her when she was sick wasn’t me “embracing my feminine side” but me doing my job as any man should. Taking care of a problem, working to fix it, is what men do. When she fell ill, it was my responsibility to help her until she could get over the flu. Nothing feminine in that, but it does serve to illustrate how inundated this anti-male jive is in our society.
The violence we see in people like the Colorado killer is a direct result of feminization of our society. We tell people that breast cancer is a dire concern and everybody runs around wearing pink to show everyone else that they are supporting research…. but not a word about men dying of testicular cancer and prostate cancer. Football players wearing pink on the field? Really?
You wonder why a child goes ape when his entire gender is decried as perverts, oppressors, drunks, idiots, etc in every tv show? Remember that old song children are taught… girls are made from everything nice, but boys are made from rats and snails? Girls are taught that they are princesses and that men should hold the door open for them and pull their chairs out for them. Women can join the YMCA and the Augusta Nationals, but men aren’t allowed to join Curves Gym or interview female athletes while they are getting changed in their locker rooms. Women reporters are allowed in male locker rooms but women athletes are sacrosanct.
Misandry has done more harm than can be measured.