In Danger From the Outside World*

I love where your heart is Partricia. This post is wonderful and speaks to the general breakdown of the family unit in our society. However, I wonder if people here might be able to agree that Western Culture is at a much bigger crossroads on this issue than one of say, absent father syndrome. You see, I believe that our whole concept of 'family' is being tested and I also think it is a good thing. I feel that western thought promotes the conjugal family as an ideal and that a patriarchal presence is essential for optimized rearing of young boys (and even girls). I guess this is where my lack of social conservativism rears its ugly head because I simply don't buy into that notion. I believe that in other societies, matrifocal and consanguineal familial configurations have proven their worth. And in these types of families the male is not as dominating a factor in a child's upbringing as the strength of the extended family or social circle. I'm sympathetic to Max Weber's (among others') thinking that modern marriage and thus family structure was a product of religious-cultural values provided by Christian and Roman Catholic Canon Law which dictated a family structure. One could argue that religion has killed any thought that other ways of rearing children might actually work. I'm not posting to argue religion as a reason for the propagation of a faulty family structure, but it certainly is a potent idea. Ok, so I hope people don't misunderstand, because I really think that a male presence is definitely necessary to any child. If I thought otherwise I would be saying that male's weren't necessary; which I'm not. I'm simply saying that as western society stress-tests the historical and moral constraints of Christianity, Judaism, and Roman Catholicism we, as a whole, need to start taking responsibility for finding alternatives to providing positive male influence in our children's lives. Why do we assume that a father is the only means by which a young boy (or girl) can receive valuable physical and emotional support and guidance. Not every child will have the benefit of that one positive male influence. In fact I would say even in traditional conjugal families that is a rarity- so how? It must be possible. So lastly, one thing I think would help is if we at least began by concentrating on broadening and strengthening our familial kinships as well as working at 'community' and better community strength. If we did at least that might have the beginnings of something powerful. Men will be men, and as animals we are still set up like hunter and gatherers (to be cliché). We can choose to fight evolution or we can work with it. No? Ha! Well, perhaps in this way-too-big-of-a-comment I've had something thought provoking to say, or perhaps I'm simply full of it. Hopefully it's the former- LOL!!!

This is a great post and you indicate very well how boys and men have to follow certain stereotypes ordinated by society. Even though I live in a Greek family where my mother still hugs me and shows me her sentiments, my father lives up to the "role-model" of The Man with some exceptions. For an instance, it's common knowledge that in the Meditteranean countries, we express our feelings more openly than other "civilized" countries. I know I do, because in the end what counts more? A "sanitized" life or a full one?

I could never keep my emotions a secret, yet I have kept my manhood. Being a man doesn't mean that I have to live without emotional expressions. Yes sometimes I haven't shown my fear, but only to protect the people I love and due to a certain sense of responsibility.

I believe that a man is mostly defined by his lifestyle and how he keeps up to his obligations, his responsibilties and his dreams. A man is the person who makes a statement with his life, who makes things work his way and is not afraid of his emotions. Embracing our sentiments can make us full and it has nothing to do with being a macho man, a metrosexual, a retrosexual, a homosexual or an asexual.