Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The teenage-ification of manhood
National Post ^ | 17 Oct 2009 | Robert Fulford

Posted on 10/20/2009 7:31:51 AM PDT by AreaMan

National Post

Saturday, October 17, 2009

Presented by

The teenage-ification of manhood

Robert Fulford,  National Post 

Parents often complain that kids grow up too fast these days. But many adults, it seems, aren't growing up at all. In an ongoing series, the National Post comment pages have been probing this annoying phenomenon. In today's final instalment, Robert Fulford explains the social construct we now call "the teenager."

---

The word "teenagers" appeared in the late 1940s, signalling the arrival of a new tribe of young people, the replacements for what were once called adolescents. These self-important newcomers were not just adults-in-training, as young people had been through history. They had a unique identity and some independence. They had money to spend and they wanted to spend it as they chose.


(Excerpt) Read more at nationalpost.com ...


TOPICS: Canada; Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: childhood; manhood; philosophy; society

1 posted on 10/20/2009 7:31:52 AM PDT by AreaMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: AreaMan

It’s not a speedy ‘growing up’ but rather a pseudo-sophistication that teenagers have these days. They have way more knowledge of the world, of technology and of sex, but very little maturity. There’s a difference between growing ‘up’ and being mature. Some people are mature at 18, others aren’t mature at 40. It’s a sense of society, of responsibility and some people just never get it.


2 posted on 10/20/2009 7:38:16 AM PDT by ktscarlett66 (Face it girls....I'm older and I have more insurance....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AreaMan

The current admin perfectly illustrates the theme of this article.


3 posted on 10/20/2009 7:41:14 AM PDT by HerrBlucher (Over, under, sideways, down, backwards, forwards, square and round.....when will it end?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AreaMan

I think it’s really very simple.

Historically a boy became a man by assuming the roles of husband and father. These gave him a place in society. He was needed and felt the responsibility to those who needed him. He was respected by others for assuming this responsibility.

Today a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle, and often tells him so. Why should a man assume responsibility that doesn’t really exist? The government is always there to be substitute husband and father.

The basic “natural” family is mother plus children. The idea of having a man around as husband and father appears increasingly dispensable.


4 posted on 10/20/2009 7:45:30 AM PDT by Sherman Logan ("The price of freedom is the toleration of imperfections." Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan; AreaMan
I would be remiss if I let this thread slip by without mentioning this book...

It's about a father's role in helping a son transition from boyhood to manhood, setting goals, and marking achievements along the route.

5 posted on 10/20/2009 7:49:17 AM PDT by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: HerrBlucher
The current admin perfectly illustrates the theme of this article.

*****************

Good point!

6 posted on 10/20/2009 7:49:19 AM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: AreaMan

Thanks to Obamanomics, there will be less jobs out there to help turn boys into men. Thank you, Zerobama.


7 posted on 10/20/2009 7:50:46 AM PDT by Nonstatist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Destroy the concept of “man”,
and you destroy the concept/role of “father”.

Destroy the father,
destroy the family.

Destroy the family,
destroy the society and nation.

The commies (and Satan) know this.


8 posted on 10/20/2009 7:51:04 AM PDT by MrB (The only difference between a humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: AreaMan

Excellent article. Years ago I used to detest the working class little did I realize that they were the core of our civilization.


9 posted on 10/20/2009 7:53:30 AM PDT by Soothesayer (The United States of America Rest in Peace November 4 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AreaMan
A good article, the final paragraphs of which could easily become a book-length discussion.

In many respects, "teenage-ification" is a mark, not just of great wealth, but probably also the harbinger of societal decadence. Leisure is a wonderful thing, but great wealth has a way of allowing leisure to become an end in itself, which is poison.

We have, indeed, belittled "the value of craftsmanship and manual labour," not least by insisting that a college education is an absolute necessity.

10 posted on 10/20/2009 8:05:29 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AreaMan

I have often remarked that this country required a serious wake-up call from its periodic idiotic dalliances with leftist “leaders” and suggested that we needed a dedicated Marxist in the White House to rub our noses in the REAL DEAL. We got one with Obama and he may prove to be the best thing that ever happened to the cause of freedom here.

While making that suggestion, my fingers were crossed. On one hand, I feared that the majority of modern-day, government schooled folk and welfare leeches would come to embrace Marxist philosophy and practice and America — the IDEA — would come to an end. On the other hand, I held out hope that my fellow citizens would reject this alien ideology and rebel in a demonstrable way. I thank God that the latter is happening as I write this. The anger and outrage are palpable to even the hard-core leftists now infesting the White House. Barring some catastrophe — which malignant Machiavellians like Rahm “A crisis is too good to waste” Emanuel are fully capable of orchestrating — they will be shown the gate at the next election.

But what has puzzled me most through the run-up to this point (with some notable exceptions of which Georgia’s Dr. Broun and Dr. Price are but two) – is this: WHERE ARE THE PRINCIPLED MEN — REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS ALIKE — WHO SHOULD HAVE BEEN STANDING UP TO THIS GUY?? In order that they might avoid the tough questions inherent in governing this nation, have they shipped so much of THEIR power down Pennsylvania Avenue that they are now AFRAID to reclaim it? Why has it fallen to Mark Levin, Michelle Malkin, Rep. Bachmann, Glenn Beck, Rush, Boortz and a handful of others – in Washington and without — to do the job of those we elected to office – and swore an oath — to guard the Constitution from “...all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC?” They have largely been MIA!

And, while they have been missing, Obama has appointed more czars than the Russians had through their entire history. I asked Chambliss and Isakson (REPUBLICANS from Georgia) if they were just a tad worried that Obama was forming a politbureau here to replace THEM. I’m still waiting for a response that makes sense.

And one final thought as we look forward to replacing the Marxist-n-Thief come 2012: What sort of people have we elected when a small, attractive mother from Alaska named Sarah has BIGGER CAJONES than the alleged MEN now warming seats and wasting expensive space on that hill at the eastern end of Pennsylvania Avenue?

I’m just asking the question we all should be asking.

Have YOU asked the question?


11 posted on 10/20/2009 8:14:30 AM PDT by Dick Bachert (FREEDOM HAS AN ADDRESS:WWW.JBS.ORG)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AreaMan
What a sucker I am!

When I got out of high school, I left home to join the Marine Corps. As soon as I was discharged, I got a full time job and my own apartment. Within a few years, I had gotten married, purchased my first home and started raising kids - all this while working 60+ hours a week in my job while twenty years of weekends were spend running endless errands, taking kids from here to there and doing yard work, etc.

Now I'm in my late 40s and I look around and see some of those "kids" I grew up with back in the 1970s. A good amount of them are still living at home with mom and dad and well, living the good life.

One childhood friend in particular comes to mind. He never married and never left his childhood home. He was never charged rent by his parents (who seemed to just love having him around) so virtually all his income was disposable. Always had a new car in the driveway. Had season tickets for all the local sports teams. Got to vacation wherever he wanted whenever he wanted.

He didn't even really have to work that hard. While he usually (claimed) to have a full time job somewhere, I never actually saw him at it. Everytime I ran into him, he always seemed to be out on some sort of disability, workman's comp, etc. When it comes to getting paid for doing nothing, this kid knows all the angles!

Do I need to tell you that he's pretty much seen every movie ever made and is an expert on video games? Last time I was in his house, he had bookshelves full of "cheat guides" for pretty much every computer game ever made and he's got the time on his hands to make full use of them.

Now his last remaining parent passed away this past summer and he inherited the entire house (which was paid off by his parents some 10 years ago) free and clear. It's a pretty large house for a 48-year old kid and it's valuated (as he proudly announces) at $420,000. So he's pretty much set for life and never really had to lift a finger!

I guess the bottom line here is that many of our "kids" don't have the drive and energy to succeed on their own in life because quite frankly, they don't have to. I believe that true maturity can only be achieved when you are forced to attain success by the sweat of your own brow and not on the backs of others.

12 posted on 10/20/2009 8:16:40 AM PDT by SamAdams76 (I am 11 days away from outliving Laura Branigan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

“A good article, the final paragraphs of which could easily become a book-length discussion.”

It already has. Read “The Death of the Grown Up”. Really interesting stuff...


13 posted on 10/20/2009 8:29:45 AM PDT by Pessimist (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ktscarlett66
"It’s not a speedy ‘growing up’ but rather a pseudo-sophistication that teenagers have these days."

I am not sure this is an explantion. It seems to me that they are simply indulged with what they don't deserve. They are actually TOLD that they are more sophisticated in technology (as if pressing buttons were synonimous with understanding how to use the technology); that they should master mechanics of sex as if that all there is to loving and even making love; that their FEELINGS are paramount and nobody has the right make them feel badly...

In a word, they are simply spoiled.

Remove these entitlements and make them contingent on work and sucess, as it was done for millennia. All the "problems with youth" will disappear.

14 posted on 10/20/2009 8:34:34 AM PDT by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dick Bachert
WHERE ARE THE PRINCIPLED MEN — REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS ALIKE — WHO SHOULD HAVE BEEN STANDING UP TO THIS GUY??

You're really asking the wrong question, you know. It's not "where are they," but rather "why aren't they?"

When you put it that way, the matter becomes a great deal more tractable, in that you can begin looking at the cultural dynamics that allow such a thing to happen in the first place.

The first answer to "why" is that, over time, "government" has become a profession in itself. Some people go into business themselves, or work for major corporations ... and some people go into government.

Government, in that formulation, is no longer a matter of duty and responsibility; it is more a matter of career selection. And of course, the people who go into politics as a career, tend to be rather narcissistic and self-serving. (I once saw a psychological study that purported to show that trial lawyers and politicians were clinically indistinguishable from sociopathic criminals....)

15 posted on 10/20/2009 8:36:49 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams76

Ever hear of “Demographic Winter”?


16 posted on 10/20/2009 8:41:45 AM PDT by thulldud (It HAS happened here!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: AreaMan
He went on to say that it's a good thing to play video games with them. He's annoyed when anyone suggests that this might not be a bright idea.

Why not?

Would it not be a bright idea to play Monopoly with them? or is there something unique to video games that wouold make it a bad idea?

Game play is useful, probably vital, exercise for the mind, and many good video games are just as challenging and stimulating as more traditional ones.

17 posted on 10/20/2009 8:48:35 AM PDT by Trailerpark Badass (Happiness is a choice!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TopQuark
Remove these entitlements and make them contingent on work and sucess, as it was done for millennia. All the "problems with youth" will disappear.

No, they wouldn't. For one thing, you've got to find something for them to do that involves actual "work and success."

How do you propose to provide that?

18 posted on 10/20/2009 8:49:05 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams76

What a sucker I am!”

I have a feeling that there’s no way you’d wish to trade places with him.


19 posted on 10/20/2009 8:50:24 AM PDT by tired1 (When the Devil eats you there's only one way out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Soothesayer
Years ago I used to detest the working class

Expand on that a little.

20 posted on 10/20/2009 8:50:34 AM PDT by Graybeard58 ( Selah.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

Excellent points.

And you offer yet another reason why lawyers should be barred (pun intended) from legislative positions.

I fear that many of our problems today stem from the fact that far too many of our legislators are LAWYERS. Further, I believe that we need more DOCTORS – and engineers in those positions – and NO LAYWERS!!

Lawyers as legislators pose a very, very serious problem for an ostensibly free people: They LOVE making laws and the more complex and incomprehensible the better. Think about it: In the private sector – to which many of them return (hopefully in HUGE NUMBERS IN 2010!!) – they, and their buds who remain behind in the private sector, earn their often obscene incomes (in addition to the obscenely generous, COLA congressional pensions and tax subsidized HEALTH CARE!) wading through that Byzantine labyrinth of rules and regulations they, themselves, constructed. It’s a process that prompted Otto von Bismarck to remark that “Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.” Can I get an “AMEN?”

While there ARE exceptions (Bill Frist toward the end of his term, Phil Gingrey — who strays from time to time) my rule that physicians and engineers make better legislators than most lawyers generally holds true. I attribute that to the fact that doctors and engineers are trained in the SCIENTIFIC METHOD and rely more on FACTS and EMPIRICAL DATA for their decisions. Ron Paul, Larry McDonald, Paul Broun, John Linder, Tom Price are (or were) all doctors. I’m sure you can think of other examples/exceptions. The poster boy for the exceptions is “Screamin’ Howard Dean, MD.

Unfortunately, far too many of these guys are ATTORNEYS.

Our late friend and author, composer, conductor, Nashville music producer, lover of Bach, pianist and all-around Renaissance man, Tupper Saussy, who somehow dodged the family tradition of becoming one, traced the term “attorney” back to the Sanscrit word “torwa.” And what does “torwa” mean? TO TWIST! And twist they do. Unfortunately, it’s not in the wind.

While SOME of these attorney-legislators are conservatives, their law school moot court training forced them to argue BOTH SIDES OF THE SAME CASE. I rather suspect that experience allows them to rationalize voting against the Constitution when expediency and/or their political survival/favor with their party leadership dictates. It is textbook moral relativism and we all pay for their perfidy.

Let me tie that attorney-legislator problem into the current health care debate: I might have missed it but I don’t believe there was one mention of TORT REFORM from the lawyers who cobbled together that 1,000+ page monstrosity now dividing the nation.

I’ll give you three guesses as to why — and the last two don’t count!

And here’s something to think about for the primary elections to the 2010 general election: If the attorney-legislator representing your district does not pass muster at www.gradegov.com, if you can, find a NON-LAWYER for whom to vote after grilling him on the first principles near and dear to those who cherish freedom and the Constitution.

Too hard, say you?

No. SLAVERY is hard.
BTW, FREEDOM HAS AN ADDRESS: IT’S HTTP://WWW.JBS.ORG


21 posted on 10/20/2009 8:51:23 AM PDT by Dick Bachert (FREEDOM HAS AN ADDRESS:WWW.JBS.ORG)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
"you've got to find something for them to do that involves actual "work and success." How do you propose to provide that?"

That depends on the circumstances, but opportunities exist in every family. Yes, begin with cleaning the table, buying groceries, paper routes, babysitting or cleaning a mechanic's shop, summer jobs at McDonald's, etc.

In 1980s, Oprah had as a guest Malcolm Forbes, a flamboyant "rich" man that lived up his wealth. She asked him an intelligent question, to wit: "With all this wealth, with all those boat parties, how do you raise your children with any sense of normality?"

He replied: "Boat parties? My children HATED boat parties. They were the ones cleaning the boat after the parties."

That alone answers your question.

22 posted on 10/20/2009 8:59:20 AM PDT by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams76
You, and others like you, have the advantage of being a man in a world of boys.

This is one of the things that men, some better than others, bear.

You grow up, take on responsibilities, put the welfare of others before your own wants & desires, play by the rules and then are regarded as a chump by modern standards.

The eternal frat-boy or 80's style Master of the Universe is lauded and marketed to and held up as an ideal.

23 posted on 10/20/2009 9:02:07 AM PDT by AreaMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: TopQuark
In 1980s, Oprah had as a guest Malcolm Forbes, a flamboyant "rich" man that lived up his wealth. ...

It is a miracle that Steve Forbes turned out as normal as he did considering Malcolm was busy riding side-saddle on his Harley.

24 posted on 10/20/2009 9:04:44 AM PDT by AreaMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: tired1
You are correct, I was just being sarcastic, no way would I want to trade places with a loser like that!

Ironically, the childhood friend I was referring to above would probably NOT want to trade places with me. However, if he could only know the self-esteem, happiness and satisfaction gained by achieving success on one's own, he would never have chosen to waste his own life.

That is what is wrong with our welfare-based society. By removing hardship, you take away the initiative to get out there and make something of yourself. Has anybody ever seen a welfare recipient who truly was happy? True happiness can only be derived from within and nothing feels better than to overcome some adversity to make something of yourself.

25 posted on 10/20/2009 9:08:04 AM PDT by SamAdams76 (I am 11 days away from outliving Laura Branigan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
"you've got to find something for them to do"

In the previous post, I forgot to mention volunteering if everything else fails.

When my daughter was 12 she volunteered to babysit at a church during Christmas services. As you know, it's hard to find a babysitter for those days, since majority of people in this country are Christian and celebrate that holiday themselves. My daughter thought that she can fill the need because she is Jewish, and she would help our Cristian neighbors celebrate their holiday. So she babysat at a church (free of charge). I was really, really proud of her because she came up with this idea by herself.

So even one does not need the money (it was not the case in my family, believe me; I was in graduate school at the time), our children can always find work and take some responsibility.

26 posted on 10/20/2009 9:08:54 AM PDT by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: AreaMan
"It is a miracle that Steve Forbes turned out as normal."

As you can see from that post, it's not a miracle: he is a result of a thoughtful and purposeful child-rearing.

Marx claimed that a person's values depend on his economic position. This has been repeated so many times that we think that there is at least something to that; "rich" cannot be normal, like the rest of us. In fact, the opposite is true: morality of a person has nothing to do with his position. It has something to do with his/her parents, going to church of synagogue, principled teaching in schools, but not wealth.

This reminds me. The same Malcolm Forbes said, "The only difference between the rich and the poor is that the rich have money."

Meaning, they have the same chance to be moral or immoral. It's their choice.

27 posted on 10/20/2009 9:14:06 AM PDT by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Dick Bachert
And you offer yet another reason why lawyers should be barred (pun intended) from legislative positions.

Welll..... I can't agree with you on that. There are lawyers and then there are lawyers. Most lawyers are actually good, honest folks whose professional training is a positive asset in crafting solid legislation, and also in understanding the legal ramifications of the activities over which Congress has legitimate oversight. Those sorts of folks are good to have around.

Unfortunately, there is also that class of lawyers who have figured out how to make a good living by finding the cracks and gaps in the law.... and those are the ones who tend to be attracted to Congressional careers; and who (I agree) need to be cast into the outer darkness.

As to needing more engineers in Congress .... well, speaking as an engineer, I'd have to say that's not a good plan. In my experience, engineers tend to be folks who are comfortable with things that behave predictably, and that can be arranged as necessary to accomplish a specific task.

For the same reason, engineers tend to be incredibly naive about the interpersonal dynamics that govern actual politics; people just don't work that way.

28 posted on 10/20/2009 9:18:00 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: TopQuark
He replied: "Boat parties? My children HATED boat parties. They were the ones cleaning the boat after the parties." That alone answers your question.

Only if I owned a boat, and gave parties on it.

Family chores are all well and good ... but they are not careers, nor are they training for same.

I'm all for those things .... but when it comes to the point of making a living after leaving home, the present structure of our economy is not particularly well-suited to providing opportunities to teenagers who want to take jobs with more than nominal responsibilities. Many of those low-end type jobs are held by people in places like China....

29 posted on 10/20/2009 9:25:30 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

Your description of our fellow engineers portrays folks who possess what is sorely lacking in government today: COMMON SENSE.

I’ll trade doctors or engineers who might lack some of that information about personal relationships (and ain’t it working grand so far) but who possess that common sense for every one of those Machiavellian scumbag lawyers now legislating America out of existance.

And as for having a few “twisters” around to “craft legislation,” they’re up there already. They’re called STAFFERS and, if they screw up or try to “craft” legislation that runs longer than 10 pages — DOUBLE SPACED — and only they can understand, THEY CAN BE FIRED!!!


30 posted on 10/20/2009 9:37:34 AM PDT by Dick Bachert (FREEDOM HAS AN ADDRESS:WWW.JBS.ORG)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
"Only if I owned a boat, and gave parties on it."

That is an almost COMPLETE misreading of what I said. The point was that you TEACH VALUES to your children and can easily find avenues for PRACTICING those values. The example of Forbes shows that you can do that even when you seemingly don't need anything.

"Family chores are all well and good ... but they are not careers, nor are they training for same."

And who on earth told you that it is your responsibility as a parent (or uncle, or grandparent) to provide, or prepare your child for, a career? What a novel notion.

Your child takes values from you, or absence thereof if they are not provided. Based on these values and primary education, (s)he CHOOSES a career on his/her own. A preparation for that career then takes place outside the family (with rare exceptions). One goes to college, becomes an apprentice or helper at a body shop, etc. Parents play practically no role at this point.

Narcissism of the present-day youth that is discussed in the article is absolutely unrelated to careers or jobs. It stems from the lack of values, their parents' failure to instill traditional Judeo-Christian values.

31 posted on 10/20/2009 9:40:09 AM PDT by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ktscarlett66
Probably why I'm still single. The guys where I'm at are nothing more than 35-40 year old 18 year olds. Getting drunk every weekend and sleeping with as many women possible. Oh, and when its warm, doing all that on a boat.

No thanks.

32 posted on 10/20/2009 9:43:07 AM PDT by rintense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
"the present structure of our economy is not particularly well-suited to providing opportunities to teenagers"

C'mon. Let your teenager come to my town. I'll drive him around and find him a job in an hour.

(S)he can't get a job ONLY if (s)he expects to be paid $20/hour. But expectations are a function of information and vales they themselves have, not the structure of the economy.

If YOU explained to your child that the way to the top is not a one-day trip, your child will find his way very easily.

Most people show a bad example nowadays by weekly trips to the mall in search of the latest LCD TV rather than taking a course in a nearest community college and expanding the set of their skills. And then, like you, they blame some kind of economy for their inability to compete. No wonder their children can do little and expect a lot.

33 posted on 10/20/2009 9:46:33 AM PDT by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: TopQuark
That is an almost COMPLETE misreading of what I said.

No, actually, it's not. It is precisely what you did say.

I'm not willing to continue this discussion with you. You're obviously one of those who hold yourself up as an example for the rest of us.

34 posted on 10/20/2009 9:51:18 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
"I'm not willing to continue this discussion with you."

That is your choice and your right, of course.

Have a good day.

35 posted on 10/20/2009 9:53:17 AM PDT by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ktscarlett66

Nicely state, kt.

Regards,


36 posted on 10/20/2009 9:53:47 AM PDT by VermiciousKnid (Grab your gun and bring in the cat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ktscarlett66

Charlton Heston played Julius Ceasar at 28 and Moses at 33. Leonardo DiCaprio is currently 35. Jes sayin’...


37 posted on 10/20/2009 9:54:21 AM PDT by Deb (Beat him, strip him and bring him to my tent!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: VermiciousKnid

state = stated. **note to self: check spelling of third grade words before posting. **


38 posted on 10/20/2009 9:55:02 AM PDT by VermiciousKnid (Grab your gun and bring in the cat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

I was an arrogant liberal college freshman who believed that the ‘undereducated’, less ambitious, and religious were subhuman. At the top were the scientists and elite statesman and at the bottom were the “less sophisticated” mongrels who could only “imagine” day-to-day living and supporting their families. I considered them to be “ignoramuses” fit only to clean the toilets of their superiors, pitiful animals who were more interested in feeding worthless babies than witnessing the glory of the scientific universe.

This is how pompous liberals think.


39 posted on 10/20/2009 10:38:53 AM PDT by Soothesayer (The United States of America Rest in Peace November 4 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
"Historically a boy became a man by assuming the roles of husband and father."

Or, a boy became a man when he had to provide for himself. His own income, his own home/apartment, pay his own insurance, etc. And because girls weren't easy to get into the sack, the fellow married young (thereby becoming the husband and father you reference, with the additional duties of manhood).

I wasn't a perpetual student but was in college for 6 years and got a master's degree in engineering at age 25. I remember calling my father "Daddy" at one point at that age and he looked at me strange and almost got angry. He muttered that "today's society let's men be children waaaay too long." It took another 15 years, with me having my own three children, to realize how right he was.

Mark Steyn addresses this issue, in the European context, in his book "America Alone."

40 posted on 10/20/2009 10:42:55 AM PDT by tom h
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Soothesayer

Thank you for your honesty. I’m glad that you changed.


41 posted on 10/20/2009 10:54:52 AM PDT by Graybeard58 ( Selah.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Historically a boy became a man by assuming the roles of husband and father.

Which, nowdays, one is encouraged to delay as long as possible (not just by women being told they don't need a man, but by society at large saying "not yet").

Get a degree. Get another degree. Get a job. Nurture a career. Wait until you're thirtysomething. Get a home. Buy. Travel. More. ... by then, the poor schlep is almost old enough to be a grandfather (pushing that maybe, but still!).

Moving into my forties, I'm realizing that husband-and-father IS what, deep down, most males need be for fulfillment. Following society's "not yet" imperative does not satisfy this, leaving him to fill time with undirected amusements and urges - to wit, prolonged adolescence. Yes, he should wait long enough to "discover himself", establish independence, and find Miss Right (not hyphenated with -Now), but he should do so with husband-and-father as a goal, not something drifted into via/despite time-filling amusements & indulgences.

...and to achieve this at a suitable age (about 25, given that he really should get a degree, job, and real estate), he needs to know that there is someone else out there waiting for him to achieve such readiness (instead of merely prolonging teenhood) - lest she give up on finding him and go to another who is ready.

42 posted on 10/20/2009 10:59:27 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (Mr. Obama, I will not join your plantation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2

I agree.


43 posted on 10/20/2009 11:05:25 AM PDT by Sherman Logan ("The price of freedom is the toleration of imperfections." Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: AreaMan

2 Timothy, chapter 3

“1”: This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

“2”: For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

“3”: Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

“4”: Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

“5”: Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

“6”: For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,

“7”: Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

“8”: Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.

“9”: But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was.

“10”: But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience,

“11”: Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me.

“12”: Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.

“13”: But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

“14”: But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

“15”: And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

“16”: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

“17”: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

[The Christian era, the days of the Messiah, are the last dispensation - ‘the last days’. These things were occurring at the time this was written. They are occurring now.
When man draws nigh to God, God draws nigh to him. The things mentioned here are what happens when men do not have God in their lives. We have a choice as individuals and as a nation. How we choose determines our fate,and the fate of our nation.
One has only to read the Bible to see the evidence of it from the beginning of time, and to understand the evidences of history repeating itself today.
The prophets of old were warning the people by the authority of God. Today we have the inspired written word of God.
The prophet Hosea said back then, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee...” (Hosea 4:6).
We either choose God, learn of Him from His Holy Word, and obey His Will and Way, or we are destroyed. “LJ”]


44 posted on 10/20/2009 11:30:41 AM PDT by LucyJo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson