Kids running riot - a modern PC disease?

chrisjsmith

That was when the police came out. I was nearly stabbed in Leyton by a 14-ish year old black girl a couple of years ago and I got a letter 2 weeks later from the police saying "sorry we couldn't come out".

She wanted my phone (a Nokia 3510i - nothing great!)

rustychisel

aaaaah FUCK!! Send 'em to the colonies!!!!

chrisjsmith

You lot send them back again

rustychisel

Well yes, but only after they've grown up a bit and learned to play cricket.

chrisjsmith

Indeed

portuguese mike

Girofan, are you Mussolini in disguise?

girofan

Girofan, are you Mussolini in disguise?

No, I'm more Bertrand Russell. Mussolini was hung, (upside-down along with his mistress) that stopped HIS thuggish behaviour!
He dictated to the Italians. Yobs dictate to us!!!!

richardjallen

I think you've said it there. This country has allowed itself to be dictated to by thugs.

The loonies have taken over the asylum.

But then after being invaded by almost every other european country this nation has always been a nation of thugs anyway. Built an empire from enslaving millions, followed it up with child labour, creators of fraction reserve banking. Bit of a chequered past all round.

Jon G

richardjallen wrote:

This country has allowed itself to be dictated to by thugs.

But look at the way the ban on smoking in pubs has settled in. If the country really was being dictated to by thugs surely there would have been no end of disturbances due to aggressive smokers refusing to stop smoking and turning violent when anyone insisted. In reality, smoking drinkers seem to have gone in for law abiding behaviour on masse, which suggests to me that thugery is not as bad or as widespread as we might suppose.

Jon

spen666

Jon G wrote:

richardjallen wrote:

This country has allowed itself to be dictated to by thugs.

But look at the way the ban on smoking in pubs has settled in. If the country really was being dictated to by thugs surely there would have been no end of disturbances due to aggressive smokers refusing to stop smoking and turning violent when anyone insisted. In reality, smoking drinkers seem to have gone in for law abiding behaviour on masse, which suggests to me that thugery is not as bad or as widespread as we might suppose.

Jon

you are assuming that smokers are thugs

chrisjsmith

In certain parts of Nottingham, they still smoke in the pubs and the police dare not tell them otherwise.

That's the law of the community versus the law of the land.

nasahapley

chrisjsmith wrote:

In certain parts of Nottingham, they still smoke in the pubs and the police dare not tell them otherwise.

That's the law of the community versus the law of the land.

Not too sure what your point is here Chris; in another soapbox topic not a million miles away from here you seem to condone mob violence against convicted/suspected paedophiles - i.e. the 'law of the community' taking precedence over the 'law of the land', but here you seem to be saying that the law of the land should be paramount.

I don't wish to conflate the two issues (and you could argue that this post belongs on the other thread), but it does seem as if you're saying that everybody should obey the law of the land, unless it's one that you don't agree with. I just read your posts within a minute or so of each other and they don't sit well together.

portuguese mike

girofan wrote:

Girofan, are you Mussolini in disguise?

No, I'm more Bertrand Russell. Mussolini was hung, (upside-down along with his mistress) that stopped HIS thuggish behaviour!
He dictated to the Italians. Yobs dictate to us!!!!

Would that be Bertrand Russell the pacifist philosopher and member of the Fabian Society? Well, at least you have a sense of humour.

Jon G

spen666 wrote:

Jon G wrote:

richardjallen wrote:

This country has allowed itself to be dictated to by thugs.

But look at the way the ban on smoking in pubs has settled in. If the country really was being dictated to by thugs surely there would have been no end of disturbances due to aggressive smokers refusing to stop smoking and turning violent when anyone insisted. In reality, smoking drinkers seem to have gone in for law abiding behaviour on masse, which suggests to me that thugery is not as bad or as widespread as we might suppose.

Jon

you are assuming that smokers are thugs

I am not. I am making the point that if lawless violent behaviour was as common aong the population in general (including, of course, smokers) as has sometimes been suggested in this and similar threads then it would follow that the smoking ban could have been expected to have led to a large number of disturbances as those smokers who were part of said lawles tendency resisted the ban in lawless and violent ways. That this does not seem to have occured suggests that either smokers in particular (which seems unlikely) or the whole pop. are less inclined to violent crime that has been suggested.

Jon

chrisjsmith

nasahapley wrote:

chrisjsmith wrote:

In certain parts of Nottingham, they still smoke in the pubs and the police dare not tell them otherwise.

That's the law of the community versus the law of the land.

Not too sure what your point is here Chris; in another soapbox topic not a million miles away from here you seem to condone mob violence against convicted/suspected paedophiles - i.e. the 'law of the community' taking precedence over the 'law of the land', but here you seem to be saying that the law of the land should be paramount.

I don't wish to conflate the two issues (and you could argue that this post belongs on the other thread), but it does seem as if you're saying that everybody should obey the law of the land, unless it's one that you don't agree with. I just read your posts within a minute or so of each other and they don't sit well together.

I think you forgot the reading part. I was just outlining the fact that people smoke in pubs in Nottingham against the law of the land. Local law as it were prevails! Nothing conflicting there.

SteveR_100Milers

passout wrote:

Yep..let's blame the kids, that's constructive isn't it??

Are you lot actually going to do anything about this?? If you did, like me, and go into teaching you'll soon realise things are afar from easy - there are no simple solutions.

For the record most kids (of whatever background) are decent.

You havent read the OT. It's not about the kids, it's about letting young boys/men (not girls / women) to grow up with an increasingly dominant female non physical approach to barrier setting. You don't have to be a qualified psychologist to realise that young boys need a older "alpha" male influence. Our modern approach to dealing with unruly young males is to avoid physical conflict at all cost, as this is deemed to be negative, even inhuman. Since I don't think that the majority of fathers think this way, one can only assume it is a result of an increasing influence of the role of the mother. Males need to understand that older males will cause them pain if they dont fit into the group, and to think that we are somehow fundamentally different from any other animal species on the planet is perhaps either gross arrogance or stupidity. You are right there are no simple solutions, but things like banning smacking is perhaps yet another wrong turn.....

spen666

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

...

You havent read the OT. ........

What is the OT?

SteveR_100Milers

sorry, the OT (or maybe OP) is the original thread I posted (or original post)

spen666

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

sorry, the OT (or maybe OP) is the original thread I posted (or original post)

Cheers for that. I was aware of Op meaning opening post - never heard it called OT before

Jon G

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

it's about letting young boys/men (not girls / women) to grow up with an increasingly dominant female non physical approach to barrier setting.

What is particularly female about the a "non physical approach to barrier setting" ?
What evidence is there that girls respond more readily than boys to it?

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

You don't have to be a qualified psychologist to realise that young boys need a older "alpha" male influence.

The active involvement of a father seems to be beneficial for girls, too.

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

Our modern approach to dealing with unruly young males is to avoid physical conflict at all cost, as this is deemed to be negative, even inhuman.

Or just ineffective - most unruly schoolboys found long boring detentions more fearsome than being caned. It was teachers who preferred canes, because they were less effort, even if less effective.

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

Males need to understand that older males will cause them pain if they dont fit into the group, and to think that we are somehow fundamentally different from any other animal species on the planet is perhaps either gross arrogance or stupidity.

Is the punishing of imature males by mature ones for anti-social conduct common, and the punishing of anti-social conduct in general more common among males than among females, in non-humans?
In many species the equivalent of childhood socialisation is carried out mainly or wholly by females and conflicts between males of different age groups mainly arise when young post-pubertal males (rather than immature ones) clash with older ones over access to fertile females (not over behaviour harmful to a group). While the question of whether any non-human species can really be said to develop group norms is open to debate, the violent imposition of the nearest equvalent seems to occur normally among females of several (e.g. cattle, poultry, pigs).

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

You are right there are no simple solutions, but things like banning smacking is perhaps yet another wrong turn.....

It seems to me that smacking is more commonly carried out by mothers than by fathers, but I've never seen any proper research on the subject.

Jon

Jon G

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

Males need to understand that older males will cause them pain if they dont fit into the group, and to think that we are somehow fundamentally different from any other animal species on the planet is perhaps either gross arrogance or stupidity.

Further to the above, one way in which humans are distinctly different from many other specis is the absence of conflict between young post-pubertal males and older ones over access to females (very common among many mammal and bird species, but when did you last hear of a teenage boy and a man in his 40's having a punch-up because both wanted sex with the same woman), and another is the frequency of conflicts between young post-pubertal males and fathers trying to prevent these young males from mating with their daughters (not all that rare among humans, but completely unknown among any other animals, except in situations where the father is competing for sexual access to the daughter rather than protecting her).

Jon

SteveR_100Milers

Jon G wrote:

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

Males need to understand that older males will cause them pain if they dont fit into the group, and to think that we are somehow fundamentally different from any other animal species on the planet is perhaps either gross arrogance or stupidity.

Further to the above, one way in which humans are distinctly different from many other specis is the absence of conflict between young post-pubertal males and older ones over access to females (very common among many mammal and bird species, but when did you last hear of a teenage boy and a man in his 40's having a punch-up because both wanted sex with the same woman), and another is the frequency of conflicts between young post-pubertal males and fathers trying to prevent these young males from mating with their daughters (not all that rare among humans, but completely unknown among any other animals, except in situations where the father is competing for sexual access to the daughter rather than protecting her).

Jon

Depends on your interpretation of fundamental differences. An 18 yr old and a 40 yr old dont resort to fighting because generally thats not how human society resolves conflict, and because for most parts of the world society is based around single partner relationships. In the overall heirarchy of needs however, is there really that much difference? It is hidden by man's ability to manipulate his environment to such a degree that fighting for survival (including conflicts you refer to) are simply not required.

SteveR_100Milers

Jon G wrote:

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

it's about letting young boys/men (not girls / women) to grow up with an increasingly dominant female non physical approach to barrier setting.

What is particularly female about the a "non physical approach to barrier setting" ?
What evidence is there that girls respond more readily than boys to it?
I think most people would agree that generally males are more physical than females.

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

You don't have to be a qualified psychologist to realise that young boys need a older "alpha" male influence.

The active involvement of a father seems to be beneficial for girls, too.
I'm sur you're right, but to the same degree that a boy does?

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

Our modern approach to dealing with unruly young males is to avoid physical conflict at all cost, as this is deemed to be negative, even inhuman.

Or just ineffective - most unruly schoolboys found long boring detentions more fearsome than being caned. It was teachers who preferred canes, because they were less effort, even if less effective.

Where is your evidence for this? I only have my own anecdotal school experience to go on, and this was not mine nor my peer groups view in the lates 1970's and early 80's. Frankly detention was a riot, whereas the cane hurt like hell, so waas to be avoided at all costs.

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

Males need to understand that older males will cause them pain if they dont fit into the group, and to think that we are somehow fundamentally different from any other animal species on the planet is perhaps either gross arrogance or stupidity.

Is the punishing of imature males by mature ones for anti-social conduct common, and the punishing of anti-social conduct in general more common among males than among females, in non-humans?
In many species the equivalent of childhood socialisation is carried out mainly or wholly by females and conflicts between males of different age groups mainly arise when young post-pubertal males (rather than immature ones) clash with older ones over access to fertile females (not over behaviour harmful to a group). While the question of whether any non-human species can really be said to develop group norms is open to debate, the violent imposition of the nearest equvalent seems to occur normally among females of several (e.g. cattle, poultry, pigs).

Fair point, I can see it's easy to lose the disticntion between per and post pubertal males. I was referring to post when making those comments, or at least young males who are in the process fo change. I agree that in younger childhood the mother probably plays a more dominant role in boundary setting than the father.

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

You are right there are no simple solutions, but things like banning smacking is perhaps yet another wrong turn.....

It seems to me that smacking is more commonly carried out by mothers than by fathers, but I've never seen any proper research on the subject.

But again anecdotally, when you father smacked or at least threatened to you knew it was serious because he rearely did it, and you also knew it would hurt (whereas your mother never did).

Jon

Jon G

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

Depends on your interpretation of fundamental differences. An 18 yr old and a 40 yr old dont resort to fighting because generally thats not how human society resolves conflict, and because for most parts of the world society is based around single partner relationships.

Pretty fundamental differences between humans and most other species. We do handle conflicts differently from others, and most non-humans are lifelong monogamists only in childrens storybooks.

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

In the overall heirarchy of needs however, is there really that much difference? It is hidden by man's ability to manipulate his environment to such a degree that fighting for survival (including conflicts you refer to) are simply not required.

Exactly. Humans and other species have some similar needs, but quite different ways of obtaining them.

Jon G

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

Males need to understand that older males will cause them pain if they dont fit into the group, and to think that we are somehow fundamentally different from any other animal species on the planet is perhaps either gross arrogance or stupidity.

Jon G wrote:

Is the punishing of imature males by mature ones for anti-social conduct common, and the punishing of anti-social conduct in general more common among males than among females, in non-humans?
In many species the equivalent of childhood socialisation is carried out mainly or wholly by females and conflicts between males of different age groups mainly arise when young post-pubertal males (rather than immature ones) clash with older ones over access to fertile females (not over behaviour harmful to a group). While the question of whether any non-human species can really be said to develop group norms is open to debate, the violent imposition of the nearest equvalent seems to occur normally among females of several (e.g. cattle, poultry, pigs).

SteveR_100Milers wrote:

Fair point, I can see it's easy to lose the disticntion between pre and post pubertal males. I was referring to post- when making those comments, or at least young males who are in the process fo change. I agree that in younger childhood the mother probably plays a more dominant role in boundary setting than the father.

"Boundary setting" being imposed upon post-pubertal males by older ones, especially in the sense of imposing conformity to group norms, seems very rare among non-humans. As above, it often occurs among females in herding or flocking species where individuals commonly accept a low position in a 'pecking order' in preference to leaving the group. In most species, older males confront young ones over access to females, not over their compliance with group norms, and these conflicts tend to result in the loser leaving rather than submitting (conforming). (There are also conflicts over territory, but these are not gender-specific). I don't think studies of other species can help much in seeking ways of obtaining pro-social behaviour in young adult human males.

I'd suggest that boys being socialised into having unrealistic expectations, leading to frustration when these are inevitably not realised, combined with a weak consensus definition of acceptable behaviours, is a significant factor. Another is the massive shrinkage of work opportuinities for older teenagers combined with a lasting cultural tendency to regard vocational or academic achievements as vital social acceptability indicators for young men.

Jon