I'd never say it necessarily would or even probably would.

My apologies, I think I was lumping you in with other people (not necessarily people in this thread).

I wish I hadn't used the word "repression" because I feared that word would get emphasis.

My apologies again, because I only even considered that word maybe twice, I was mostly going off on a tangent, and I didn't see that until now.

Basically, my theory is this: engagement in stories and play is crucial to the development of emotional intelligence, which enables us to appropriately repress or rechannel negative emotions. Stories and play exercise our imagination, which in turn strengthen our ability to empathize. The dysfunction I referred to is the lack of empathy, which is common among sociopaths.

That seems reasonable.

No need to apologize. This conversation, like all good conversations, has helped me clarify what I think.

Can't say if it's the setting or the people but I guess there's some hope. (Seriously, this thread reads like dispatches from another world to me).

I'd never say it necessarily would or even probably would.

My apologies, I think I was lumping you in with other people (not necessarily people in this thread).

I wish I hadn't used the word "repression" because I feared that word would get emphasis.

My apologies again, because I only even considered that word maybe twice, I was mostly going off on a tangent, and I didn't see that until now.

Basically, my theory is this: engagement in stories and play is crucial to the development of emotional intelligence, which enables us to appropriately repress or rechannel negative emotions. Stories and play exercise our imagination, which in turn strengthen our ability to empathize. The dysfunction I referred to is the lack of empathy, which is common among sociopaths.

That seems reasonable.

People sure talk like it's exclusive to boys.

Some people do, on different sides of different issues.

The same people tend to say things like "violence never solves anything," to which I say, "Yeah, like Nazism."

To be fair, it didn't solve Nazism, that's still around. It did end the Holocaust though.

Indeed. I'd say the anti-Semitic aspects of it are alive and well. That supports my point, though, that evil doesn't take a holiday, and sometimes force or the threat of force is the only way to stop it.

Serious people have long recognized the need for children to grapple with issues of life and death through play (cf. Bruno Bettelheim), and I think it's ignorant to try to whitewash the world and human nature "for the children." To go further, I'd say that there are biological differences, and that there is a strong male impulse to protect the weak, but I realize some might view that as controversial.

Personally, and I would hope this is a common stance, I don't care about the controversy. If you can back up what you say with objective, peer-reviewed data-- and some biological differences have been-- I'll take it very seriously; if not, I won't take it that seriously.

To bring it back on point on a video game site, I think this impulse is behind the popularity of video games among mostly males in the 21st century, relatively safe civilized world. The need to protect and fight violence with violence is behind most video game plots that I've ever played, but to be clear: I'm NOT saying that a female protagonist can't be the protector (some of my favorite games, actually) or that women don't respond to imaginatively (or in reality) filling these roles (ask my buddy Bigarm). Regarding kids (or anyone) committing real murder, I'd submit that on some level there's been repression and the dysfunction can and often does stem from the lack of an outlet for imaginative play in which children are allowed to feel powerful.

There's data that suggests kids that play violent games are less likely to engage in real-world violence on a lethal scale, but I don't think softening a kid's environment will (necessarily) lead to them having a bunch of rage or an urge to break things or just an urge to get out their energy in a forceful way, whatever other emotion that they have to get out because... because they just have to, I guess? I don't think it'll lead to that, and even if it does....

I'd never say it necessarily would or even probably would.

People say they'll have a heart attack if they hold it in, or an aneurysm, or they'll go insane, or they'll lash out and be unable to physically control themselves, but both things that I've read and personal experience tell me even though that feels true, it just doesn't work that way. You know what happens to bottled up emotions? As long as you don't obsess over them, and you don't have some uncommon mental characteristics, they go away. That applies to anger, sadness, envy, happiness, anything. There will be traces still, and someone who is dead-set on something won't let a little thing like time get in their way, regardless of age, but any emotional response can and will go down and mostly go away. The lesson that that can and does happen, and the broader lesson that you are (or can be) in control of your emotions, is an incredibly important thing to have kids learn, independently of how much violence they do or don't see. It's a lesson I wish I could've learned sooner, a lesson I've struggled to teach my younger sister-- and I'll agree that cutting down violence and the perception of it is no substitute for that.

I wish I hadn't used the word "repression" because I feared that word would get emphasis. Basically, my theory is this: engagement in stories and play is crucial to the development of emotional intelligence, which enables us to appropriately repress or rechannel negative emotions. Stories and play exercise our imagination, which in turn strengthen our ability to empathize. The dysfunction I referred to is the lack of empathy, which is common among sociopaths.

People sure talk like it's exclusive to boys.

Some people do, on different sides of different issues.

The same people tend to say things like "violence never solves anything," to which I say, "Yeah, like Nazism."

To be fair, it didn't solve Nazism, that's still around. It did end the Holocaust though.

Serious people have long recognized the need for children to grapple with issues of life and death through play (cf. Bruno Bettelheim), and I think it's ignorant to try to whitewash the world and human nature "for the children." To go further, I'd say that there are biological differences, and that there is a strong male impulse to protect the weak, but I realize some might view that as controversial.

Personally, and I would hope this is a common stance, I don't care about the controversy. If you can back up what you say with objective, peer-reviewed data-- and some biological differences have been-- I'll take it very seriously; if not, I won't take it that seriously.

To bring it back on point on a video game site, I think this impulse is behind the popularity of video games among mostly males in the 21st century, relatively safe civilized world. The need to protect and fight violence with violence is behind most video game plots that I've ever played, but to be clear: I'm NOT saying that a female protagonist can't be the protector (some of my favorite games, actually) or that women don't respond to imaginatively (or in reality) filling these roles (ask my buddy Bigarm). Regarding kids (or anyone) committing real murder, I'd submit that on some level there's been repression and the dysfunction can and often does stem from the lack of an outlet for imaginative play in which children are allowed to feel powerful.

There's data that suggests kids that play violent games are less likely to engage in real-world violence on a lethal scale, but I don't think softening a kid's environment will (necessarily) lead to them having a bunch of rage or an urge to break things or just an urge to get out their energy in a forceful way, whatever other emotion that they have to get out because... because they just have to, I guess? I don't think it'll lead to that, and even if it does....
People say they'll have a heart attack if they hold it in, or an aneurysm, or they'll go insane, or they'll lash out and be unable to physically control themselves, but both things that I've read and personal experience tell me even though that feels true, it just doesn't work that way. You know what happens to bottled up emotions? As long as you don't obsess over them, and you don't have some uncommon mental characteristics, they go away. That applies to anger, sadness, envy, happiness, anything. There will be traces still, and someone who is dead-set on something won't let a little thing like time get in their way, regardless of age, but any emotional response can and will go down and mostly go away. The lesson that that can and does happen, and the broader lesson that you are (or can be) in control of your emotions, is an incredibly important thing to have kids learn, independently of how much violence they do or don't see. It's a lesson I wish I could've learned sooner, a lesson I've struggled to teach my younger sister-- and I'll agree that cutting down violence and the perception of it is no substitute for that.

Nowadays I have to warn Lil' Blue not to talk about it while at school. With places suspending kids for making things in the shape of guns or even pointing their fingers like guns, I don't want to go through the problems we'll have if he says the wrong thing.

So much this. Last night my 3yo saw a piece of chicken breast and called it the gun piece because of the way it split at the back made it look as if there was a handle. Heaven help me if my 6yo got this piece of chicken in his lunch and picked it up. Boys will turn anything into a pretend weapon. I think of a story one of my in-laws shared where his nephews, who were completely isolated from depictions of violence, received a lightsaber for a present, his eyes lit up and knew EXACTLY what to do with it. It was a weapon, not a magic wand or staff or cane, but a weapon.

Our society has become hostile to in-born male traits (rambunctious, boisterous, & physical among others), and because of it society is failing our boys. Not to say society isn't failing our girls too, it is in many ways, but it's acceptable to be vocal about that, not so much about how it fails our boys.

I think what you're seeing is people realizing those things aren't exclusive to boys, and people rejecting violence really hard, maybe too hard, but it's understandable when you have kids killing people.

People sure talk like it's exclusive to boys. The same people tend to say things like "violence never solves anything," to which I say, "Yeah, like Nazism." Serious people have long recognized the need for children to grapple with issues of life and death through play (cf. Bruno Bettelheim), and I think it's ignorant to try to whitewash the world and human nature "for the children." To go further, I'd say that there are biological differences, and that there is a strong male impulse to protect the weak, but I realize some might view that as controversial. To bring it back on point on a video game site, I think this impulse is behind the popularity of video games among mostly males in the 21st century, relatively safe civilized world. The need to protect and fight violence with violence is behind most video game plots that I've ever played, but to be clear: I'm NOT saying that a female protagonist can't be the protector (some of my favorite games, actually) or that women don't respond to imaginatively (or in reality) filling these roles (ask my buddy Bigarm). Regarding kids (or anyone) committing real murder, I'd submit that on some level there's been repression and the dysfunction can and often does stem from the lack of an outlet for imaginative play in which children are allowed to feel powerful.

1. Don't wear one. I do this sometimes.
2. Leave it on the seat. Could get taken. Never does, but it sits wrong with people, usually the sport bike riders who spent $300 on their helmets.
3. Put it in a saddlebag. Most people do not have saddlebags.
4. Helmet lock. Many bikes don't have these.
5. Hold it.

I know you were joking, but have we really gotten to the point in society where a male adult cannot express affection for spending time with another person's children without it having a connotation of pedophilia? Even the phrasing was pretty natural. When kids have fun, they generally call it playing. To say "I enjoy playing with your kids" shouldn't be automatically affiliated with deviant behavior.

At the same time, I understand that adult males are the chief perpetrators of the type of crime connoted. Given that, I understand why the stereotype exists for males, but it seems like we ought to have better ways to react to this without going down that road. I read North's post and took it for what it meant. Perhaps I'm naive.

I hope this doesn't come across as too knee-jerk, but it is something that has bothered me for a while about our culture's language and how innuendo limits the ability of cross generational friendship.

I understand, and agree. I'm a special case for a variety of reasons (not the least of which being that the entire sheriff's department used to patrol the route that I took home until junior high, and until I turned 25 I used to play with special needs kids at a nearby grammar school) but I still frown over how guys get looked at.

I like kids, but there's nothing sexual about it. They're full of life, vitality, and imagination. The stories they come up with are silly, but if you look past the inconsistencies of them, they're something magical and wonderful. These days, though? I only listen to my godchildren's stories. It's... not safe for me any more. And I hate every moment of them.

Nowadays I have to warn Lil' Blue not to talk about it while at school. With places suspending kids for making things in the shape of guns or even pointing their fingers like guns, I don't want to go through the problems we'll have if he says the wrong thing.

So much this. Last night my 3yo saw a piece of chicken breast and called it the gun piece because of the way it split at the back made it look as if there was a handle. Heaven help me if my 6yo got this piece of chicken in his lunch and picked it up. Boys will turn anything into a pretend weapon. I think of a story one of my in-laws shared where his nephews, who were completely isolated from depictions of violence, received a lightsaber for a present, his eyes lit up and knew EXACTLY what to do with it. It was a weapon, not a magic wand or staff or cane, but a weapon.

Our society has become hostile to in-born male traits (rambunctious, boisterous, & physical among others), and because of it society is failing our boys. Not to say society isn't failing our girls too, it is in many ways, but it's acceptable to be vocal about that, not so much about how it fails our boys.

I think what you're seeing is people realizing those things aren't exclusive to boys, and people rejecting violence really hard, maybe too hard, but it's understandable when you have kids killing people.

I really want to run it with Lil' Blue and you and your kids. He has a baseball game around those times Saturday and probably practice Sunday afternoon. We should have more time next weekend if you're interested.

Definitely! If not next weekend, let's keep trying.

Rest assured that the OP understood the meaning of your plain, ordinary language.

I'm looking forward to another round of fun with the folks in this community. Isaac will be really excited.

Nowadays I have to warn Lil' Blue not to talk about it while at school. With places suspending kids for making things in the shape of guns or even pointing their fingers like guns, I don't want to go through the problems we'll have if he says the wrong thing.

So much this. Last night my 3yo saw a piece of chicken breast and called it the gun piece because of the way it split at the back made it look as if there was a handle. Heaven help me if my 6yo got this piece of chicken in his lunch and picked it up. Boys will turn anything into a pretend weapon. I think of a story one of my in-laws shared where his nephews, who were completely isolated from depictions of violence, received a lightsaber for a present, his eyes lit up and knew EXACTLY what to do with it. It was a weapon, not a magic wand or staff or cane, but a weapon.

Our society has become hostile to in-born male traits (rambunctious, boisterous, & physical among others), and because of it society is failing our boys. Not to say society isn't failing our girls too, it is in many ways, but it's acceptable to be vocal about that, not so much about how it fails our boys.

-- Dogcow (insensitive sexist jerk)

I know you were joking, but have we really gotten to the point in society where a male adult cannot express affection for spending time with another person's children without it having a connotation of pedophilia?

Yes.

No, it's possible for someone to take it as what it is-- I know I did until iconicbanana said something, and if I had thought differently, it wouldn't have been in a serious way, it would've been "hue hue pedos oh why did I go there again, freaking Internet, freaking me with my mind in high school mode".

I experience it frequently due to my job.

I can tell you it is the worst feeling of discrimination I've ever felt. As a man, it deeply saddens me to a degree that I just cannot explain in words.

At my job we provide tech services to school districts in the area. Sometimes to provide those services, I have to make house calls to classrooms.

Security is a huge concern these days due to 'stranger-dangers' and 'active shooters' so I usually know what I'm in store for.Make sure my uniform is easily identifiable, ID badge displayed in clear view, no strange packages other than my tools, etc. But even when I prepare, it still doesn't soften the encounters much.

God forbid a student engage me in casual conversation.

Sometimes its one of the worst things that can happen.

"Hey who are you?" (They're just being curious. They usually smile or wave)

Then I have to decide if it is better to answer them or just ignore them and keep going. I've had occasions where I've said "I'm the computer guy, and I'm here to fix Mrs.____'s computer so you guys can do homework and play games" and the student gets chastised by the teacher for talking to me (maybe rightly so as a general "don't talk to strangers rule, but I'm wearing 3 different goddamn badges that express what I'm here for fuckssake) or *I* get shoo'd by the teacher.

You mentioned the stranger thing, but on top of that I don't see what badges have to do with anything, you're there to fix the computer and they're there to learn, your jobs aren't supposed to intersect, and I know from experience a lot of kids will take any excuse to get distracted from classwork and good teachers will do everything they can to prevent that.

Or I'm just walking to my destination, and I can feel the eyes of the other adults burning a hole in me, sizing me up, watching my every move. Trying to figure out what to do.

It sucks.

Years ago I had a kid run into me in a crowded hallway once- He was maybe a 2nd grader. He fell and landed hard. He cried. My first instinct, to kneel down, see if he's ok, help him up.

Wrong call.

Teacher spazes, runs over, boxes me out like I'm doing something wrong, "THANKS I'LL TAKE IT FROM HERE PLEASE BE CAREFUL WHERE YOU'RE WALKING"

I felt like shit.

I know why she reacted why she did.

I understand it even.

Doesn't make it sting any less, even if I know and they know what my intentions are.

And I think about that stuff. What if it happened again? What if it were more serious? What if a kid got really hurt and got knocked out, or was bleeding, and I'm the nearest adult?

The politically correct answer is: Find another person of proper authority and let them figure it out. Just report it and move on. Or just keep walking.

Fuck that.

I'm a person of action. I'd want the same response if it were me, or my kid.

But I'm a male.

And because of that, I have to be 200% on guard, because once that kind of accusation is out there and directed at me, there is no going back, even if you've done absolutely nothing wrong.

So if I'm ever out in public and some kid gets hurt, I have to choose to do nothing. I have to choose to be selfish, and protect myself.

It's not a world I'm happy about living in.

If I'm sitting down working on a station, and a student engages me in conversation, wants to know why I'm pulling things out of a computer, or what that part does, or anything like that, I have to force myself to ignore them.

I've been told to ignore them.

That's not how it was when I was a kid, when I could ask a visitor about their job and maybe learn something I had questions about, you know, being inquisitive?

When I was a kid my mom or my teacher would most likely tell me to get back to my homework or go play and not bother the man trying to do his job. I do think encouraging kids to ask questions is very important, though.

For a few years I had a motorcycle, and when I'd have a site visit, I'd take it out. You know what kids like a lot? Motorcycles. I might as well have had a neon sign over my head that said "free candy" when I carried my helmet it. Every kid wants to ask you about it.

IT got to a point where I wouldn't go to classrooms on days I took my bike, just so I wouldn't invite the conversation.

Maybe this is obvious to a motorcycle owner, but why would you carry your helmet with you the whole time? That just seems really inconvenient, is there not any other way to make sure it's not stolen?

Just ignore them and say nothing. Being friendly could be misconstrued as much, much worse.

This world.....BARF.

Even the phrasing was pretty natural. When kids have fun, they generally call it playing. To >say "I enjoy playing with kids" shouldn't be automatically affiliated with deviant behavior.

At the same time, I understand that adult males are the chief perpetrators of the type of crime connoted. Given that, I understand why the stereotype exists for males, but it seems like we ought to have better ways to react to this without going down that road. I read North's post and took it for what it meant. Perhaps I'm naive.

I hope this doesn't come across as too knee-jerk, but it is something that has bothered me >for a while about our culture's language and how innuendo limits the ability of cross >generational friendship.

We live in a politically correct society. The cost of tip-toeing around every subject for fear of offending someone is far too high for what it is supposedly worth.

So, don't? The thing about fear and discomfort is they're in your head. I doubt people are as scared of you as you think they are, but even if they are, that's their problem. Being careful is still good advice, especially for dealing with kids, but as long as you are careful, worrying doesn't do anyone any good, and neither does thinking again and again about how bad your situation is.
If someone freaks out about you responding when someone says "hi", that's their problem. If someone freaks out when you help a hurt kid, they're becoming a problem. If you let that stop you from being polite and helpful, then you're letting yourself become a problem. If the danger of losing your job is as real as you think it is... then you're in a difficult situation, and maybe you should be more careful than is strictly reasonable, but worrying still won't help anything.

So if I'm ever out in public and some kid gets hurt, I have to choose to do nothing. I have to choose to be selfish, and protect myself.

It's not a world I'm happy about living in.

It is easy for me to say this from an armchair, but you have to live it so take this with a grain of salt. You still have the power to choose to do the right thing. Character is often proven when doing the right thing comes at great cost to one's self. You have to choice to shape the world for the better, even if you are just making a dent. Social sanctions are powerful motivators, but only you can choose your reaction. Don't settle for what other people's fears would limit you too.

You probably already know that, but I just thought I'd name it in case...