HNewsWire: This should be self-evident, right? Links Between Mental Illness and Shootings, and Homosexuality in Homes Without Dads
"Dad starved" guys are more likely to suffer from mental illness, substance abuse, and suicide, according to Warren Farrell, author of "The Boy Crisis: Why Our Boys Are Struggling and What We Can Do About It."
There are major shootings in 53 industrialized nations that are linked to the absence of a male role in the lives of children and young men, and he particularly cited six mass shootings from this century.
When asked about the current spate of school shootings that have claimed more than ten lives, Farrell responded, "From Sandy Hook right up through to the Texas massacre, every single one of those six has been carried out by boys, and every single one of those boys has been 'dad deprived.'"
Mental Illness and Mass Shootings are Linked to Broken Families: Warren Farrell is the author of the book I'll go with Warren Farrell. Mass Shootings Are Linked to Absent Fathers. Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, and the Robb Elementary School shooting in Uvalde, Texas, were mentioned by Farrell.
He said that, despite growing up in the same media, video game, and firearms-rich milieu as males, girls aren't carrying out any of the mass shootings.
For Farrell, educating legislators about the significance of father figures in children's lives is a personal mission. His efforts have resulted in the adoption of legislation in Florida and Kentucky that recognize the importance of the father's participation in divorce proceedings.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the number of single mothers living with their children has increased by 50 percent in the last 50 years.
When it comes to children, the percentage of those who live with their mother alone has increased from 11 percent to 21 percent since 1968.
While speaking during a news conference at West Palm Beach, Florida's Cox Science Center & Aquarium with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on June 8, 2022, Gov.
Legislators in Florida recently approved HB 7065, which allocates $70 million in financing for a broad range of family and kid support services via the Department of Juvenile Justice and the Department of Children and Families (DCF).
On April 22, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed into law a plan that would help more than 18 million children in the United States who do not have a father in their lives. When this happens to youngsters, the consequences may be dire: school dropout, criminal behavior, and drug misuse. Sadly, there are those who question the value of fathers and the traditional family unit. This will not be tolerated in our state. I'm glad to report that we're doing all we can to promote Florida's growing trend of father involvement."
Matt Bevin signed into law a measure in 2018 that automatically presumes that both parents would share equal custody of children in the event that they divorce, but also allowing courts to restrict joint custody if one of the parents is unfit.
Farrell praised Florida and Kentucky for taking these efforts, but he argued that the problem of fatherlessness was still being evaded on the whole. Farrell agreed.
Children who spend time with both their mother and father after divorce had better long-term results, according to psychologist Richard Warshak, who discovered that the presence of the father was more essential than time spent with their mother.
He stated Warshak discovered that all the experts agreed that children reared without a daddy had the most difficulties.
reading together as a family "I'm in line with Democratic thinking on these issues," said Farrell, who sat on the board of the National Organization for Women (NOW) in New York City and has lectured all over the globe on women's problems.
John Hickenlooper and Andrew Yang both agreed with Farrell when he traveled to Iowa to meet with the Democratic contenders in the 2020 presidential race about father absence.
Because they were afraid of alienating the feminist base, their campaign managers approached me and said, "Warren, we can't afford for our candidates to speak out on the importance of boys having fathers and a lot of father involvement, because we're afraid to alienate our feminist base,"" he writes in the New York Times.
He had seen this sort of thinking and the marginalization of dads before, having worked in a leadership capacity for a feminist group. According to Farrell, the interests of the mother are more important than those of the children.
For children to function better after a divorce, Farrell recommends that both parents share parenting responsibilities and spend equal amounts of time with their children. Mothers tend to establish limits and praise their children, while fathers impose boundaries and enable their children to take chances, according to Farrell, a researcher in the field of child development.
When parents set limits and enforce them, they teach their children patience, concentration, and an eye for detail, according to one expert. As a result of having to pay attention to what they're doing, children raised mostly by dads are less likely to suffer from attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
Smiling,Young,Caucasian,Father,And,Little,Preschooler,Son,Sit,On These school shootings were caused by the lack of a loving, strong male role model for the perpetrators. In addition, guys are often informed that their emotions don't matter, which causes emotional poison, according to Farrell.
When a child is raised without a daddy, they are more likely to lack the delayed satisfaction that comes with enforcing boundaries. Consequently, kids begin to fall behind academically," Farrell said. Toxic masculinity and "the patriarchy," as well as the sacrifices that men have made to achieve this state, are concepts that boys in high school, Farrell claims, are taught as a result of conversations he's had with students. The Ideology of Modern Feminism Is Harming Boys
Boy abuse is a real problem in today's society, according to Farrell.
There was no patriarchy in the globe at the time. Males and females were equally confined in their duties to ensure survival, according to Farrell, who also argues that feminism places the burden for social ills squarely on male shoulders while neglecting to acknowledge the sacrifices men make for their families. Because of the poor self-esteem and compensatory needs that result from this, he believes that we're doing harm to young guys.
In honor of International Women's Day, on March 8, 2020, demonstrators gather in London for the "March4Women".
For the last three years, Farrell has been a board member of the National Organization for Women (NOW), where these harmful feminist ideals that harm boys and eventually girls were disseminated. In the beginning, Farrell supported women's equality because he believed in the credo, "I am woman, I am strong." However, he has now changed his mind and says he no longer supports feminism since the feminist movement has shifted to, "I am woman, I've been mistreated." A father's complete involvement in the lives of both his sons and his daughters must be restored if this way of thinking is to continue to harm males. In his advice to all single moms, Farrell says, "It's important that you make it clear to your biological father that you need him."
Dads are more likely to return to the scene if they are told, "I understand now what the good benefit of your roughhousing, you're taunting, you're encouraging our kid or daughter to take a risk of stepping into a lake and perhaps being lost," said Farrell. Farrell proposes enrolling boys in clubs or team sports where other male role models may assist develop their behavior if the biological father is unable to be part.
He encourages parents to spend time with their children, to listen to their concerns rather than attempt to solve them, and to have media-free dinners as a way to improve their listening skills and their bond with their children.
Empathetic parents who exclusively care about their children's needs "produce children who are self-centered, believing that only their needs are being taken care of," he said. Because of this, you need to be both empathic and demanding of your children that they also listen to your point of view."
It's important to listen to your spouse or ex-spouse, Farrell says, so that you may have a respectful and healthy relationship with your family. According to Farrell, couples who are co-parenting must understand that neither parent means any harm to the other. Children should be taught by their parents and other caregivers "to accept criticism without getting defensive," as outlined by Farrell in his book Growing Up in the 21st Century.
There have been two additional mass shootings, Immediately after the incident, the search for a scapegoat began. What is white nationalism? What about video games? 8chan? The National Rifle Association? Is it mental illness?
In the initial search for blame, the biography of the shooter in El Paso provided a lot of low-hanging fruit. His hate-filled, anti-immigrant screed appeared and, predictably, provided many with what they were seeking for: a smoking gun linking the assault to extreme right-wing discourse, notably Donald Trump's. Here was a young guy who supported firearms and Trump, as well as bigoted ideals and vile reasons. God and country — just the kind of person one would expect to act out in our present political context.
The biography of the Dayton gunman, however, called this oversimplification of the weekend's carnage into question, with reports revealing a Skylla in Dayton who was the near-photo negative of the Charybdis in El Paso. Here was a young guy who backed gun control, Elizabeth Warren, Satan (! ), and Antifa, whose whole existence is defined by its hostility to Trump's leadership.
Two young men, influenced by almost opposing philosophies, committed comparable acts of cold-blooded mass murder – one now dead, the other in detention, likely facing the death penalty.
What sort of guy are you?
Following these increasingly regular mass shootings, the majority of the public debate has been devoted to discussing American gun regulations, or, more accurately, the underlying ideology in whose names such senseless acts of murder are committed. Often, the commentariat attempts to justify such awful acts of violence by blaming one's political opponents, resulting in shallow explanations that fail to address the underlying societal sickness. This proclivity for politics pays much too little attention to what sort of nation, culture, and society produces not a few boys who grow up to be the kind of men who would commit such things.
What type of guy thinks about such hate-filled, stupid actions, or the beliefs that allegedly drive them?
There is certainly a place for debating sensible gun legislation, and insofar as hateful, anti-American ideologies are gaining traction, we should counter them and perhaps even treat their purveyors as state enemies, to be dealt with in the same way that the FBI has dealt with ISIS supporters, the KKK, and other existential threats to American society in the past.
But I am convinced that, more often than not, these ideologies — which, again, should be taken seriously and seriously opposed — are merely "a flag of convenience," a "carapace," and that beneath these shells are not ideological turtles all the way down, but rather disenfranchised, ill-formed, virtue-less little boys. And, although significant elements like as gun legislation (red vs. blue states) and terrible ideology (extreme right vs. left) are often different, the constant denominator in each of these killings is almost always a male offender.
As a result, I was shocked to see California's leftist governor, Gavin Newsom, speak out so forcefully against this issue when few others have:
"Men, boys, and men are predominantly — almost solely — the victims of these killings." That, I believe, is absent from the national debate. "I don't think there's anything more evident than that."
Newsom notices it, yet people who research mass shootings for a livelihood seem to be oblivious to it. Something is wrong with American men.
"Values" against "Virtue"
The underlying issue at hand is, "How are we teaching our boys to be men?" Are we, in fact, raising our sons to be men? Governor Newsom acknowledges that the root of the problem is how we raise boys to become men:
"I believe it speaks to how we teach our boys to be men, and it speaks to ideals that we tend to hold dear — power, domination, violence, above empathy, compassion, and teamwork."
Is the remedy, though, actually in the path Newsom suggests? Trading "values" for "empathy, compassion, and cooperation" instead of "power, domination, and aggression"?
Allan Bloom cautions against the empty emptiness of "values" discourse, referring to it as "the extreme subjectivity of all belief about good and evil," which serves "the easygoing pursuit for comfortable self-preservation." Values are subjective and only culturally deep, and there is no deeper well to draw from than contemporary American society.
While male "power, dominance, and aggressiveness" may be part of the issue, describing "power, dominance, and violence" as male is virtually a tautology. Replacing all of them would be equivalent to replacing men. But how should "power, dominance, and aggression" be channeled? We've finally gotten to the crux of the problem: virtuous male "power, dominance, and violence."
C. S. Lewis's The Abolition of Man is a collection of lectures he gave in response to his concern about how the British education system, which was only one manifestation of a larger societal disease, was instilling subjectivity and "values" that were unmoored from any objective notion of value, order, and virtue. Lewis saw this development as a danger not merely to British civilization, but to humanity as a whole. Lewis wrote on the abolition of man in his day. However, I am concerned about the eradication of males for similar reasons.
Lewis could compose in the 1940s,
"Hitherto, educationalists' plans have achieved very little of what they attempted, and indeed, when we read them—Plato would have every infant 'a bastard nursed in a bureau,' and Elyot would have the boy see no men before the age of seven and, after that, no women, and Locke wants children to have leaky shoes and no turn for poetry—we may well thank the beneficent obstinacy of real mothers, real nurses, and (above all)
Thank you, Lord, for moms. But it was back in 1947. Have we done well? America's full-service daycares and creeping mandated pre-K mimic Plato's aspirations; chronic absent-featherless approximates Elyot's; and the pragmatists' assault on the Humanities approximates Locke's. And what do educators do with our boys once they have them?
Adapting Lewis's worry to contemporary American childhood, which is more than ever nurtured at the heart of the state, we are producing men without virtue and expecting sacrifice and initiative from them. We mock chivalry and are astounded to discover brutes and misogynists among us. We emasculate the geldings and wish them well.
At its core, we have lost sight of one of education's basic goals. As Lewis puts it.
What causes good and evil?
Aquinas defined virtue as "the disposition of an agent to perform its proper operation or movement." But then we'd have to agree on what's appropriate. What does contemporary American boyhood, modern American schooling — in its broadest sense — teach the American boy? What has he been trained to love? What has he been trained to despise? Is there even a shared vocabulary for such discussions anymore?
From Plato and Cicero through Ambrose, Aquinas, and Calvin, Western civilization has traditionally acknowledged four cardinal or inherent virtues. Justice. Prudence. Temperance and bravery. When compared to Newsom's appeal for "empathy, compassion, and cooperation" - a fine summation of America's aspirant "values" — the gap is clear. What causes good and evil?
In his Reformed Ethics, Herman Bavinck mentions the Greek derivation of the fourth cardinal virtue, Courage, and cites "manliness" as a synonym. He describes this masculine virtue as "based on self-respect, dignity, and self-worth, which manifest themselves in big and honorable actions." Today, the only thing we hear about manliness is how poisonous it is. Manliness has been demoted from one of the four cardinal qualities to something comparable to chlorine gas.
Newsom advocates for "empathy, caring, and partnership." But would he have us sacrifice sentiments for the greater good? Which of these "values" will, God forbid, confront the next gunman in a school corridor, a Walmart, or a city bar? More importantly, which of these "values" will the next shooter inside confront?
Lewis mentions various technical breakthroughs in The Abolition of Man that he believed had contributed to the social collapse he was watching all around him, prompting him to warn of man's abolition. He referred to the aircraft, radio, and contraception as examples of technological developments that had paved the way for greater social and moral degeneration. We may update Lewis' criticism for the twenty-first century by looking no farther than community-destroying hypermobility, relationship-stunting the Internet, and sex's divorce from reproduction — a disunion hastened by legalized abortion and ubiquitous contraception that has decimated families. These unchangeable aspects of contemporary life may and should be fought, limited, and even reversed in any attempt to heal our shredded social fabric.
But woe to the man who does so without seeking to retrieve virtue, particularly the masculine sort. For it is a vision of manhood that calls him away from self-indulgence and libertarianism and toward self-possession and discipline, embracing his God-given manliness in the service of right vs. racist wrong, good vs. existentialist evil — the kind of community-protecting, relationship-building, family-forming manhood that must be characterized by virtue that could re-energize American boyhood.
For there are dragons - demons — to contend with, both outside and inside a man. As a result, we would be wise to oppose the eradication of males.
What is clear is the vast majority of shooters came from broken families without a consistent biological father throughout their rearing and development. Very few had good, stable, present dads. Yes, pick apart those previous two sentences if you would like, but most readers will get the point.