http://www.infowars.com/articles/nwo/rockefeller_admitted_elite_goal_microchipped_population.htm

http://infowars.com/infowars.asx

In reality certain males are larger, have more energy and more boisterous than others. Sir Henry Cooper has recently mentioned once again how effective boxing is at keeping boisterous males on the straight and narrow- a comment made by Brendan Ingles, the Sheffield boxing coach. Amir Khan’s Father took him to the boxing club because he was a handful. Part of the problem is that there are inadequate activties and jobs for tough, strong, energetic and bositerous young males . If there are such clubs then the trainers can become Father figures to the young boys. In society , it is unlikely that a single action controls events. When boys started work at 14 they entered the adult World and had to become responsible for their actions. and therefore tended to become more responsible. A combination of a lack of demanding work ( physical and./or mental and physically tough exercise is the perfect mix for fulfilling the situation of ” The devil finds mischief foir idle hands”. If a single Mother can find an outlet for hers sons boisterous energy such as boxing, rugby, rowing , athletics or martial arts which require training 3 or more times a week for 1.5-2 hrs a session, then problems are far less likely to develop. Teen age boys can be like young working dogs: they thrive on good training and plenty of hard exercise out of doors : keep them cooped up in a small home and they can turn nasty.

Ignorant nonsense. In the early 20th C., Society was far more poorer than most of us can imagine and large section of the population lived in overcrowded and digusting slums. Yet we didn’t have adolescent boys stabbed to death almost weekly in London.

As you seem to know what your doing blogging wise, do you know what the best time of the week is to blog and have them read?…

No.

Those families which opt for marriage are more likely to be stable. Simply forcing couples to marry will do nothing to change the quality of those relationships.

Marriage follows, not reflects or creates, stability

there was a need , perhaps, for such a person in the past, whether that be to do manual work or as cannon-fodder.

But now? No. So, traditional ways of socialising and rearing boys may have to change. If not, plenty of square pegs for an ever growing number of round holes.

Being ‘boisterous’ and ’strong-willed’ is largely learned behaviour and whilst we still rate that sort of behaviour as desirable in young boys, then expect teenage thugs and adult criminals.

You have a lot of ifs and buts, and I would suggest that all of them can be matched with counter examples. Here’s a radical notion for you: why not treat EVERY person as an individual? Gender lines are only ever an approximation.

I take my daughter climbing, she is itching to be big enough to ride pillion on my motorbike, and the person who is teaching her to cook is her granddad (who was a chef, as well as a rugby player ;)) My fiance is several stones heavier than me; I can lift and carry him, but he can only just lift me. And you know what? We are ALL happy with this situation.

Not all women are delicate flowers of physical incapability, and not all men are lumbering idiots, only capable of physicality, and I really wish we would stop trying to enforce a model of society in which both men and women are diminished by being expected to fit into these stupid and restrictive gender roles.

I don’t think I can agree with this.

“Very few women have the strength to cope with say 2 or more large stroppy sons over the age of 12.”

I think you’re entirely sexist personally, you don’t need “strength” to keep your sons in check you just need discipline and a good relationship. People have long been “put in their place” not because the person in power is the strongest but because they’re the most ruthless or dominant.

You slightly do hit on a point though, and that is that there is not enough of an outlet for kids in some areas. I feel quite privileged in that I was able to roam around my town with enough space to play. I could go up to the local fields and play on the war monument, or go to one of several parks or football pitches, or even run around my school grounds after hours. My school did participatory lunch and after school clubs and there were other groups and hobby clubs that you could join readily.

Now compare that for “letting out energy” to what some kids have in inner-city locations, maybe a run down park, certainly no green space to run about and play in, certainly not for free. Schools seem to have a varying level of engagement with extra-curricular activities and all of this just adds up to people being frustrated, bored and feel their aspirations and imaginations drained.

It’s as Graham says, this causes families problems, especially when those parents also suffer from being stifled by the lack of opportunities or impoverished society around them, not mothers being too weak to control their sons.

Statistics which show a correlation between family ‘breakdown’ and social problems are fairly meaningless without further analysis. If anything it is more likely that social problems cause family problems, not the other way around.

Having said that - totally support the freedom of people to access IVF and to raise a family how they see fit. The idea that every child needs a father and mother is not only nonsense it is also counter to the experiences of children since the dawn of time. Fatherless families are not a 21st century invention.

The answer, Woobegone, is that they may be stupid, and they may be lazy, but in reality they just aren’t that powerful any more.

Well then it’s amazing that this overwhelming majority living in a democratic country haven’t worked out that they could easily just vote to stop this happening isn’t it? They must either be stupid, or lazy, or both - which is it?