~ archived since 2018 ~

A father's responsibility

DonutFrank

August 29, 2018

2 upvotes

/r/MGTOW

Would you take part in the education (school related) process of your kids if you had one? Or if you have one?

Little insight: Father: A 3rd world country macho man, provides resources, doesn't let the wife work and doesn't want her going out, ( not only hanging out, also other stuff) overall excellent slave I mean father but with plenty of free time , tradcon. Mother: Basically a Housewife Does everything including kids education

Here's the thing: my father never really wanted to help my mother educate my brothers nor me, he provides all the money, but since I was a kid he was very clear about him letting the education in my mother's hands

They had a "fight" because he didn't want to help with my brother's homework (8 year old kid) while my mother was eating. So she confronted him, she thinks it's also his responsibility to do the "job" of helping to teach kids

Do you think that the man has to get involved in the education process? Or do you think it's a women's job since men provide food and everything else?

Archived from /r/MGTOW

r/MGTOW is a community for men going their own way by forging their own identities and paths to self-defined success; cutting through collective ideas of what a man is.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MGTOW archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	A father's responsibility
Author	DonutFrank
Upvotes	2
Comments	29
Date	August 29, 2018 1:20 AM UTC (7 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MGTOW
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MGTOW/comments/9b4svj/a_fathers_responsibility/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MGTOW/a-fathers-responsibility.501394 https://theredarchive.com/post/501394

Comments

[–]deadBeefCafe201412 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]User-31f64a4e1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MGTOW_NORWEGIAN 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]whoomprat1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DWShimoda0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (20 children) | Copy Link

Unless you want a bunch of idiot children-- and particularly idiot sons -- who moreover end up with worldviews/beliefs that are probably CONTRARY to your own...

Then every Father should not only "participate" but essentially be in charge of, and the PRIMARY instructor/mentor/tutor/model for his children; particularly his sons.

Keep in mind that's actually far LESS work than it sounds -- at least if it is done PROPERLY -- and by properly I mean more or less "unschooling" and "self-teaching"; kids are actually "pre-programmed" by biology/nature to LEARN all on their own (no one ever actually "teaches" a child how to walk or talk, how to see, listen, use their hands, etc -- they learn ALL of that on their own; mainly by observation & emulation).

In fact, arguably the WORST thing that can be done in terms of a child's "education/learning" is to lock them up in a facility that is entirely separate from the "real" world of adults, with a bunch of other (generally equally if not MORE ignorant children of their own age), and with an entirely UNrelated woman as a "teacher." Egads! That's a recipe for creating an "Idiocracy."

[–]MenGoingTOWin0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]DWShimoda0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

the school environment with kids my age taught me to develop my social skills.

No it didn't. What it taught you was (so called) "social skills with people your own age."

Guess what the real world of adults is NOT composed of?

I notice homeschool kids tend to be very lacking in this department.

First not all "homeschooled" kids are "homeschooled" in the same manner; most are definitely NOT the manner that *I* am talking about, referring to and advocating.

A lot of them are still basically "locked up" in an artificial, authoritarian, oppressive, "formalistic/formulaic" environment... with a fucked up woman as their SOLE instructor (i.e. a sMothering helicopter mom "on steroids")

What they are NOT doing, is being instructed & taught (learning from observing, working alongside) their FATHER in any "real world" activities.

If you want an example of what I am talking about, well... while it's NOT the central premise of the film -- and the circumstances are rather dire -- the kids (especially the several sons) of the main (Mel Gibson) character in The Patriot provide a fairly good example.

The modern "schooling" system is an abominable aberration -- and it's primary purpose is not actual "education" (nor even appropriate adult-level civilized world "socialization" skills -- the "social skills" learned in schools, are essentially pre-civilization "pack/herd" mentality shit).

It was also a chance to explore the world myself, without being told but learning how to tell myself by digesting what other people have put into simple terms.

That is actually what "unschooling" is about.

My parents didn't want me. It was a nice escape.

In which case you were essentially an "orphan."

And THAT is one of the additional problems with the "schooling" system -- it actually ENABLES (provides a nice pre-packaged rationalization for) parents, particularly fathers, to be irresponsible and functionally "AWOL" relative to their children's education... they can (and thus many DO) easily SHIFT all responsibility for that off onto the school; hell they'll likely even be LAUDED for doing so.

[–]User-31f64a4e0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]DWShimoda0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]MenGoingTOWin0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]DWShimoda0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]MenGoingTOWin0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You are essentially saying that the "blind" should lead the "blind"-- and moreover that they should be "kept" isolated away from any "sighted" people.

No, that is a false understanding of what I am saying. I am saying that what is most relevant to you is because you are at a much later stage in life. It is not what is most relevant to them. Trying to skip what is relevant to growing up and developing yourself leads to a lot of the social ineptitudes. They don't know what to avoid, they don't know how to get through. Your answer is 40 steps ahead of these kids' questions. That's what I think you don't understand -- you think that if they just started with the answer that they could spend all those years instead moving beyond it? Well, that's not how it works when you're still forming how you view and interpret the world.

You've been a bad bad boy and a socialist

Not a socialist at all. I was pretty naughty though, giving you my experience and hoping that you would be open to learning a different perspective. It is clear however you've already made up your mind before you even sought the answer.

[–]DWShimoda0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No, that is a false understanding of what I am saying.

No, that is EXACTLY what you are saying. That children will learn "social skills" BEST from other children in the same circumstance -- i.e. equally ignorant/blind.

I am saying that what is most relevant to you is because you are at a much later stage in life. It is not what is most relevant to them.

Children actually -- NATURALLY -- tend to gravitate to people who are OLDER and demonstrably/observably more knowledgeable/skilled than themselves.

That doesn't mean they CANNOT make/have friends their own age... but THAT (especially when it is by their own choice) is an entirely DIFFERENT thing than to forcibly isolate them from other (older more experienced people) and lump them together in an artificially HUGE, and artificially LIMITED whole "brat-pack" of dozens of other similarly aged/ignorant children (under the gynocentric "Smothering" of a non-kin, "stranger"-women who's own "social" skillset is likely equally inept; since she too has little to no experience of the actual "adult" world).

They don't know what to avoid, they don't know how to get through. Your answer is 40 steps ahead of these kids' questions. That's what I think you don't understand -- you think that if they just started with the answer that they could spend all those years instead moving beyond it? Well, that's not how it works when you're still forming how you view and interpret the world.

I think you're just projecting your OWN personal (shitty) family and life experience as if it were somehow the BEST.

I doubt you know your ass from a hole in the ground.

You've been a bad bad boy and a socialist [Note that I never wrote that]

Not a socialist at all. I was pretty naughty though,

Indeed. You were, and still are (naughty little boy {mentality of one too}; AND thoroughly indoctrinated into the "socialized/socialism" worldview, so thoroughly in fact that you're entirely unaware of it, because its the water you swim in, and you've never known anything different).

BTW, do you regularly create FICTITIOUS straw-man "quotes"? Pretty lame (but also predictable).

Why not try being honest. Or is lying and creating such fake quote "straw-men" one of those oh-so-valuable "social skills" you picked up from the other kiddies?

giving you my experience and hoping that you would be open to learning a different perspective. It is clear however you've already made up your mind before you even sought the answer.

*I* was never seeking any "answer" -- nor anything else -- from *you* (what would be the point? You have no answers, you don't even comprehend the question.).

You fatuously replied to MY comment.

[–]User-31f64a4e0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]DWShimoda0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

I still contend, though, that being socialized by peers to eat glue and give wedgies might not be the best way to go.

The problem isn't that -- kids always have been and always will be "kids" around other kids --by itself that shit don't matter.

The problem is when the sum total of their "socialization" is MAINLY, CHIEFLY, and largely ONLY other (same age) kids.

With essentially ZERO interaction with or even observation of actual "adults"; especially FULLY MATURE ADULT MEN doing actual productive things together -- "sports" and "gym" shit (which IMO gets WAY overemphasized, and ends up being fundamentally narcissistic/feminine...it is after all about LOOKS and GAMES, not WORK) -- and then of course the majority of the time under fucked-up women (or emasculated/cucked if not feminized, or worse * "male") TEACHERS and their sMothers, which doesn't count for shit (since they're virtually never actually "adults" themselves).

* Probably the WORST "male role models" are the PE teachers & sports coaches -- when they're not actual pedos (gay or straight, perverse either way) -- then they're overcompensating bottom-rung types who have chosen a career where they can feel "macho" (and play at being a "tough guy") because they're the only "man" in a room full of kids/boys.

[–]User-31f64a4e0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]DWShimoda1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

If you are saying that rising boys without exposure to healthy men causes "toxic masculinity" ... you are right!

More than merely that. "Exposure" to healthy men is in my opinion a bare minimum, akin to having just enough food so as to NOT die from starvation/malnutrition.

IMO the vast majority of problems in our society/civilization stem from the fact that boys are NOT -- as they SHOULD be -- raised while increasingly working & learning right alongside their father* and even better also alongside other older boys & adult men (whom ideally -- at least initially -- the father vets & chooses the timing & degree/extent of exposure to).

Keep in mind that a boy does not only NOT "magically" become a man at some set physical age, bot also not via any "rite of passage" (even those societies which have such things understand that the "rite" itself does NOT "confer" maturity, in merely "confirms" it, or perhaps more correctly is an outward public declaration of it) -- the process of maturation from boyhood/childishness to true "mature" adult manhood is a long/slow upward climb...one that arguably is generally NOT fully complete until one is not only a "father" but one's son(s) become fathers in turn.

* All of the other "systems" that people & societies have contrived -- whether tutors or schools or "boys clubs/organizations" -- are in fact just inferior & pale (often lame & poorly executed) attempts at creating a "substitute" or "replacement" for that** -- they are only generally "successful" to the extent that MEN truly involve themselves in the SAME manner that a father would with his own son(s).

** In fact, most "boys organizations" -- including "schools" (which actually had their roots in "Sunday Schools" at churches) -- were virtually all begun to provide literal substitute "fathers" for children who were, whether because of work or accident, death from disease or war, fatherless orphans (and/or bastards, urchins running around town); or else (in the case of entities like the YMCA) were otherwise "cut off" from direct or frequent contact & interaction with, ability to receive advice, assistance & guidance from their own fathers.

[–]User-31f64a4e1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]DWShimoda2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Back when 14 year-olds were protecting sheep from wolves, hunting and fighting the next tribe over - I suspect that male emotional development proceeded in a much more rapid manner.

Yes and no.

It was still a long/slow upward climb; but -- since the boys were NOT being raised by sMothering women -- the process BEGAN at a much younger age, most probably as soon as the boy was "breeched" (i.e. able to control his bowels & bladder, no longer in petticoats{diapers}).

And yes it likely proceeded more rapidly, in no small part because younger children are primed by biology to LEARN from the examples before them VERY quickly -- but of course ABSENT those examples, or worse having only WOMEN (and possibly one or two feminized/emasculated "males" {but not truly "MEN" not in terms of how they are seen to ACT, and what the kids observe them DOING, even if they are potentially "capable" of acting/doing real MAN tasks otherwise}).

Because the schooling system basically "blunts" (inhibits/constrains) their learning (self-teaching) mechanisms via women "teachers"who shove them into/through a formalistic, formulaic, dullard routine w/o comprehension (or knowledge of "real world" value of skills*) -- and moreover there is no need to UNLEARN/CORRECT the bullshit

Of course, in such cases they would be exposed to older men while under duress. Doing this at an early age has to have a positive effect, although women would certainly dispute that and lobby for coddling.

BINGO.

OR at least "close": because it isn't just "exposure" to older men; it's being subject to the instruction and expectations of them, which then shape the boy's own understanding of his potential CAPABILITIES, his view of the world being amenable (at least in certain ways) to his control... provided he put the effort/planning into it, acquires/develops/hones the skills necessary, and chiefly DOESN'T "whinge" about how "bad shit happens to him" and how he's a "victim" and it's all "not his fault."

Compare/contrast the likely responses from a woman versus a man (actual MAN,not mangina) to some simple problem/disaster in a boy's day; to wit boy is out riding bike and gets flat tire, has to push bike back home.

Mom's response: "Oh you poor little dear, come here and let mommy dry your tears. I told your father we needed to get you a NEW bike. We should also get you a cellphone so you can text meand I can comep ick you up if it ever happens again" and etc. (And yeah, even THAT is dated, modern 21st century single-Mommy would probably never have let the kid ride off on a bike -- certainly not by himself -- in the first place.)
Dad's response: "LOL. Well, that'll teach you. Did you check the tires before you left? Maybe you should take a hand pump & tire patch kit with you next time. Shit happens kiddo, you gotta be prepared to deal with it. BTW you get a small 'attaboy' for at least pushing/walking the bike back, instead of sitting down & crying about it..."

And yes, if necessary the Dad's response WILL very likely include some "shaming" -- done properly that can be (IS) appropriate and MOTIVATING in a very positive sense -- whereas "sympathy" (Awwww, you poor thing) and "coddling" are actually DEBILITATING (i.e. it must be someone ELSE'S fault), and likely create a state of "learned helplessness."

* Easily illustrated/proofed: Why learn "geometry" or "algebra" -- I recall many kids asking this, and no female teacher (and virtually no "male" teacher) ever had an ACTUAL "real world application" answer; it was always "you'll need it in high school/college" etc. Really? "More School"???

Gee... what about surveying? or building & construction (everything from checking that something is square & true, to cutting boards for rafters, trusses, etc; calculating the rise/run for a set of steps... much less anything to so with machining or ballistics {whether archery, or bullets, or missiles & space-rockets}, or ... the list goes on: how much feed for cattle? seed for a field? expected yield from a crop? and so on; other fields: calculating where to put ships stores so that the balance/trim isn't wonky? even calculating the load versus the {LOL} "MGTOW" of an airplane).

Why do teachers (woman AND men with nothing more than bullshit degrees in "early childhood development & educmashun") NOT answer with anything like that? (or if they do even TRY to, it's VAGUE and unconvincing, especially since they DENIGRATE any/all "blue collar" work). It's because they don't understand that, they have NO CLUE, NO COMPREHENSION; they have ZERO actual experience of the "productive working world" (of MEN), and basically NO experience of anything OTHER than "more school." They themselves have likely never USED "maths" (certainly nothing more advanced than addition/subtraction, and possibly some trivial multiplication/division) anywhere, or for much of anything OTHER than schooling.

And likewise with EVERYTHING ELSE. They themselves have essentially lived their entire life as "perpetual children" -- and with only RARE exceptions -- they cannot teach anything more, because they don't KNOW anything more (not in the sense of truly experiencing/understanding it).

[–]User-31f64a4e2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I agree, with one minor proviso:

It's because they don't understand that, they have NO CLUE, NO COMPREHENSION; they have ZERO actual experience of the "productive working world" (of MEN)

That is part of it, but only part of it.

It's not about experience, so much as innate characteristics.

It's like a cow trying to raise a sparrow - a cow can't really teach a baby bird to fly, or even know to push it out of the nest, or even realize that baby birds need to be in nests off the ground.

Men naturally compete to form hierarchies, within which every man has a place. Women form mobs, and ostracize whomever they conflict with; totally different.

Women are not just soft men, socially constructed. Masculinity and femininity are innate, although they can get twisted and malformed up when children are not raised properly (as in, today.) Men can actually raise daughters, but women are incapable of raising sons.

This is why all the school shooters who are not jihadists are from single moms; they are unable to properly develop masculinity, because they are not masculine and thus are incapable of understanding it. It's not about experience; it is about innate instincts.

Toxic masculinity is what happens when women try to raise boys without male influences.

-==-

This is a minor aside however. You make excellent points!

[–]DWShimoda1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

SIDE NOTE:

In your previous comment you mentioned:

Back when 14 year-olds were protecting sheep from wolves, hunting and fighting the next tribe over - I suspect that male emotional development proceeded in a much more rapid manner.

Made me think of a little book by Gary Paulsen* which is innocuously titled "The Haymeadow" Read the description and you'll know why I thought of it:

Fourteen-year-old John Barron is asked, like his father and grandfather before him, to spend the summer taking care of their sheep in the haymeadow. Six thousand sheep. John will be alone, except for two horses, four dogs, and all those sheep.

John doesn't feel up to the task, but he hopes that if he can accomplish it, he will finally please his father. But John finds that the adage "things just to sheep" is true when the river floods, coyotes attack, and one dog's feet get cut. Through it all he must rely on his own resourcefulness, ingenuity, and talents to survive this summer in the haymeadow.

Highly recommended... pretty simple plot, but good story, excellent subtle description/illustration of character growth & development, transformation of a boy into a MAN... and (after starting out a bit slow in first chapter or two) it's both a quick and compelling, enjoyable read.

* Best known for what are called the "Brian" series of books. (Which are also HIGHLY recommended, and "good reads".)

MAIN REPLY:

That is part of it, but only part of it.

It's not about experience, so much as innate characteristics.

True. Though it's almost a chicken/egg thing. But you're correct in that the innate characteristics of females are what lead to (among other things) the inherent/inevitable lack of experience and thus lack of comprehension.

I emphasize the "lack of experience/comprehension" though,because this isn't SOLELY a "gender" thing...

What I mean is that sticking some "soyboy" (or urban woman & school raised) GUY up in front of the classroom -- heck you could replace ALL women teachers in the entire schooling system with such "males/guys" (but not actually MEN) -- and it wouldn't really make much of a difference (probably not one damned bit in most cases).

Men naturally compete to form hierarchies, within which every man has a place. Women form mobs, and ostracize whomever they conflict with; totally different.

Men also cooperate and work as/with TEAM to BUILD. (For example: think Amish "barn raising" -- which BTW is nothing unique that the Amish came up with {though one could argue they have "mastered/perfected" the teamwork}, that's how ALL barns used to get raised -- there's little "competition" there {or at least certainly not in the sense we generally THINK of "competing": sports where there are winners & losers} it's more "iron sharpens iron" where everyone "wins" at least to the extent that they put effort into it).

This is why all the school shooters who are not jihadists are from single moms;

Indeed... and filling the jails and prisons from a whole array/host of crimes. The vast majority raised by "single mom"; and the rest usually by a "sMother" with an absentee/AWOL "father" (he might or might not be around much {workaholism is one excuse;alcoholism another way}, he may even be "in the home" and still married to the mother, but invariably he's not really "there" -- is distant/remote in terms of involvement {much less caring control} of his son(s) education and maturation).

they are unable to properly develop masculinity, because they are not masculine and thus are incapable of understanding it.

Ayup.

It's not about experience; it is about innate instincts.

Ah, but again it is also lack of experience... that's why "maginas" (beta bux guys, "cucks" or soyboys, or whatever else you wanna call them, use to describe them). They too are not really "masculine"; don't actually understand what REAL masculinity even is (and so among other things, via lifting, "hodling frame" and assorted other PUA/TRP bullshit, try to PLAY/PRETEND and put on an act that appears to be "masculine"in a superficial manner)... and thus they too CANNOT teach it...

Even though they may (still) have a "twig & berries" and various other innate "masculine" traits (mental capacity to engage in "spacial thinking" etc).

Toxic masculinity is what happens when women try to raise boys without male influences.

I'd amend/correct that:

Toxic masculinity is what happens when boys are NOT chiefly raised by MEN.

Stick boys in "Schools" -- even with ostensibly "male influences" as teachers,and with a lot of "male" competition -- and you STILL end up with the same "toxic" thing...

Per example, how many "star" football players -- who all but worship their "Coach" (and assistant coaches, etc) -- nevertheless end up as rapists, druggies, drunks, thieves, criminals of other types locked up in jail, prison.

[–]User-31f64a4e2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DWShimoda1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]User-31f64a4e1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DWShimoda0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I imagine it has a lot to do with how civilized the parents are, and also (secondarily) how much action the kids have via sports, etc.

Seems to be to what extent they ISOLATE the kids from the real (adult) world.

Especially prevalent with those who try to duplicate a regular "school" -- particularly if/when they have multiple kids -- and they set up a formal "classroom/teacher" arrangement (ala one room schoolhouse; problem is in this case all the kids are from one family, so the older ones are not generally a good "model" for the younger ones).

The more they insulate & isolate the kids, and/or the more they try to copy the school system "experience/environment", the more the kids end up being "weird."

Sports in and of themselves are no panacea... in fact these days, they're often a BIG part of the problem -- too much "interference" (hovering) by the parents -- after all "sports" are really NOT a normative "adult" activity, they're a "kid" activity. But they've been turned into something else (forced exercise, BS "everybody gets a trophy" self-esteem nonsense, or worse... parents trying to live{or relive their "glory days"} vicariously through their kids, etc).

And because the adults interfere/govern/hover/control it, the kids are then even deprived of learning any "problem solving" OR "self-motivation/teamwork" OR even "conflict & resolution" skills on their own.

[–]MenGoingTOWin0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rockorbe20020 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SaltTax0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]DWShimoda0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

A father's responsibility

Comments

The problem is when the sum total of their "socialization" is MAINLY, CHIEFLY, and largely ONLY other (same age) kids.

BINGO.

Toxic masculinity is what happens when women try to raise boys without male influences.

Toxic masculinity is what happens when boys are NOT chiefly raised by MEN.

PLEASE DO SO!

;=)