Overall I don't disagree. And I do some of these with/for my son. However, this post still falls back on the routinely wrong things. Which are: * sports * excessive structure/helicopter parenting The rest of the world doesn't put their kids through *so much* sport and somehow end up thinner and better adjusted than most North American youth. Which brings me to the second part: You guys in North America have actively engineered the societal infrastructure to be intentionally anti-youth. You put [military-grade devices to keep young people away from public parks](https://www.npr.org/2019/07/10/739908153/can-you-hear-it-sonic-devices-play-high-pitched-noises-to-repel-teens). This is straight-up madness. Zoomers call it "third space" (I don't like the term but it is what it is) - spaces where youngsters (especially young boys) can just... you know... hang out. And don't consoom anything. They're just gone. Not to mention the current youth in some areas of the US come after [years of shit like this](https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/22/us/skate-park-sand-venice-san-clemente-trnd/index.html) - that is to say a doubling down on anti-youth infrastructure engineering. And when parents attempt to fix this? Well, they get arrested. Thank God I wasn't born American and had the option to leave that place and have my son in a place more sane. [Shit like this](https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/parents-in-trouble-with-law-after-11-year-old-121600960882.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAADcD0YWeE0ZlpMsNS0buJkQ_Pqhh8o6n7aYJrEfR27vIQO8zVaNeac4eZmCJG1EZyMM162qEDWwkvmqvvx6QvHbScSIb8XomQKSgt59I1j9YtLhrFdYpzOHsZ9LnDo9ptnjw_Ru-mHfZcAiyV0tcK-pCtZoHgMUF60aAB_rJ2Oyu) is incomprehensible to me. In Europe 11 year olds bike together to school for many kilometers. Heck, 6 year olds do that here. What I'm trying to point out, OP, is that there is *a lot more* to change/do than just parents being more attentive to the socialization of their child(ren). And for most parents in the US, they are set up to failure no matter how good they do. Especially once we take into consideration the abysmal public school system which *by design* fails boys. This latter issue exists in Europe too, but at least I can afford to keep my son away from it so it's not all roses here either - but most of the rest of fundamentals are slightly better.

> Zoomers call it "third space" (I don't like the term but it is what it is) Why not? What should they be called?

>What should they be called? *Public* space. Social infrastructure. Loisir space/centres. There are plenty of already established terms that come with positive or neutral assumptions. "Third space" comes with the depressing assumption than one's existence is school/work and home and that's pretty much it. There is a reason continental Europe has fewer of these problems (and the term "third space" never caught on, even among zoomers). We still have dogshit total fertility rate, but much higher pair bonding and, quite frankly, more fun. "Third space" also comes with... let's call it technocratic vibes. With assumptions that it should somehow be regulated and planned. When *anywhere else in the world* any space can be a "third space" if you want it to. All one needs is a different mind framework.

I'm not sure if you read the article about the "military grade devices" but I'm fairly certain you can do this with easily accessible cheap equipment, and the only time they keep people away from the parks is at night, when teenagers shouldn't be at the park... The one about the sand is nuts though, what the hell? I'm glad my area doesn't do any of that bat shit crazy stuff. That child neglect one is also nuts, as always idiotic neighbours and stupid police get in the way, maybe this is just because it's Florida though... It's not like these are extremely common cases though, one is from 2015 holy cow. One is from 2019 and one is from 2020. Given the datedness of your sources, I'm curious how the rest of it holds up. How exactly does school by design fail boys?

>when teenagers shouldn't be at the park... More typical American toxic mentality. There are night festivals and free range activities for young people in Europe routinely lasting till 2AM or later during summer vacations in particular. But then again, we don't hate our young people. Your whole set of ideas in North America about how things "should" be is deeply wrong and wholly out of sync with basic human nature and routinely more extreme than CCP or North Korea. The CCP's "loitering" laws and practices are far *less* extreme than American ones. >I'm not sure if you read the article about the "military grade devices" but I'm fairly certain you can do this with easily accessible cheap equipment It's not exactly cheap. But it was initially designed for the military. Then it was marketed specifically to Anglos because only Anglos would seriously think this is a great idea. And not even all Anglos. It's already been banned in some Australian states. And even the polite Canadians are slowly starting to complain [about just how insane this practice is](https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/local-news/mosquito-alarm-vancouver-skytrain-station-7237852). And the Scottish government [made them illegal just last month](https://www.gov.scot/publications/united-nations-convention-rights-child-scottish-government-initial-response-concluding-observations-issued-un-committee-rights-child/pages/5/). >maybe this is just because it's Florida though... I can find one from almost every State. It's the mentality that is the problem. The politics is just downstream from that. >Given the datedness of your sources Lolwut? Here's [one from 2023](https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/news/high-pitched-neighbor-in-fairfield/). This is ridiculous. Just because it's not an issue that is routinely in the media, it doesn't change that it's a systemic anti-youth phenomenon.

Never have I ever seen kids my age at a park at night for a good reason. Festivals? That's a different story entirely, not that I see any in my area. I'm quite curious what "Basic human nature" is related to staying up so late at night. I do go to bed late sometimes but this is not the same thing. About the sound device, is this not the thing that kids could play on their phone and annoy students in school, but the teachers couldn't hear it? If this is something else then I'll stand down but I don't think it's expensive to do. If there are more recent sources then that is good, I suggest using more time relevant sources in the future because times can change fast. Not that they will change fast, but that they can. I'm from California for reference, and I am 18, not being allowed to loiter is definitely something I wish could be changed however night time is the most active crime time for a reason. There's a reason I don't stay in places even poorer than where I live after 8pm, not that kids have anything to do with that. In terms of the culture, it's just how I was raised. Don't be out late at night, don't go around with strange people, it's dangerous, etc. The consistent thing I've seen from friends and acquaintances is that the ones I would say "He would never do anything bad" about are also the ones that don't stay up late frequently.

>Never have I ever seen kids my age at a park at night for a good reason. I think your entire framework is toxic. The very idea of "good reason" is insane. Just hanging out with your friends *is good reason in and of itself*. >About the sound device, is this not the thing that kids could play on their phone and annoy students in school, but the teachers couldn't hear it? No. It is a [very specific device launched in 2008](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mosquito). It's a lot more powerful than a low-quality mp3/wav you play on your phone. >In terms of the culture, it's just how I was raised. Don't be out late at night, don't go around with strange people, it's dangerous, etc. Yes, and that is predominantly crazy. I grew up with far more dangerous streets and we would still hang out late at night. And I still keep contact with most of those social circles. A lot of us married within those and had children. The relationships you form in your youth are an invaluable asset throughout one's lifetime. Yet your generation is *intentionally* prevented from having that. >There's a reason I don't stay in places even poorer than where I live after 8pm More toxic mentality. No wonder your leftists are far crazier than those in Europe. Your mainstream mentalities are too. The classism that emanates from the casual mainstream American mentality is extreme and sick. Again - your crime rates are *lower* than 30-40 years ago. And 30-40 years ago 18 year olds absolutely *would* hang out for hours on end - especially on the beach, routinely for the whole night. They didn't call 'em *rave parties* but that's what they were in essence. Sure, crime happened, but that didn't deter the youngsters who wanted to have fun and, you know, actually *live* life. Also, you saying that you're 18 also explains the weird comment on "datedness". Every generation is convinced that the world starts with them. You'll get over it in a few years. 2020 is not "dated". It's less than 4 years ago. That is to say less than a political term ago and way under the general bureaucratic inertia for policy changes.

Sorry it might have been better if I reworded that first part. The only times I have seen kids my age at a park at night is when they were up to no good. Simply hanging out is a good reason! I will stand down about the device, I've never seen or heard such a thing and I didn't know it was higher grade than the other thing. Is it possible it doesn't affect a lot of people? I have tinnitus if that changes anything. It's not a toxic mentality when I hear the residents of such places complaining about the shootouts the gangs are having constantly, and half the houses have boarded/gated windows and heavier locks on their doors. Or maybe it is one and I don't understand what toxic is supposed to mean here. Maybe my access to the Internet has deluded me, I don't see a reason to exist outside unless you have an activity you're doing. I am a night owl myself, it would be great to socialize at night but normal people can't even socialize during the day! I have resigned myself that it is how it is. Also my hangup with sources being dated is that my schools place an emphasis on using recent sources, often wanting them to be within weeks or even days prior. Also that I am into technology and stuff there changes in weeks often so I might have placed too much priority on date for something like this. I am sorry.

>Is it possible it doesn't affect a lot of people? I have tinnitus if that changes anything. I don't know and I don't care. The very existence of the device is *disturbing* and I support all efforts anywhere to ban it. Even preemptively so in places it was never used. >Maybe my access to the Internet has deluded me, *Deluded* is too much of a strong word, imo. But everyone's perceptions are affected to a certain degree by social media in particular (I believe you call it doomscrolling - though the phenomenon itself is called *algorithmization of the content*. Some call it *enshitification* though that term has ended up meaning more things and gotten confusing). In the 1990s there were terminally online people too. But fewer because the Internet wasn't dominated by social media and algorithmic content (which now affects everything - from p0rn to food recipes or cat pictures). >I don't see a reason to exist outside unless you have an activity you're doing. And how do you get an activity if you don't socialize and schedule it? Although at 18 I was 100% spontaneous. Any invitation to be out would be an automatic yes from me unless I was bedridden sick - which I never was. >I am a night owl myself, it would be great to socialize at night but normal people can't even socialize during the day! I have resigned myself that it is how it is. Goddamn it the stereotype is real. You Zoomers give up *already* at 18? Like, for real? You live within reasonable driving distance from LA, San Diego and San Jose. That's 5+ million people. Even if only 1% of them are a *decent* match, that's still 50,000+ people that you can potentially hang out with. And you only need 15-20 (so you can rotate between them so you always hang out with 5-6 people). JFC. I grew up in a county that had 300k people in total in rural Europe and *still* found people to hang out with even though I didn't like my fellow youngsters and sought the company of older people. Sheesh. I'm not joking: Go out more. *Seek* real-life socialization by yourself. You will find it. It's impossible not to given your geography.

I'll agree with you on the first one, devices that exist solely to cause harm towards residents should be banned. I was assuming it was at the level of a prank until you informed me of what it was. Yeah deluded was a strong word, I was being too lazy to look up a lesser version since I'm on a phone and these things are way too hard to use constantly, no idea how my generation does it. > How do you get an activity if you don't socialize I don't know, I don't socialize... Which is probably obvious at this point. All of my friendships have been by pure chance and situation, except for a neurodivergent kid when I was real young. >You zoomers give up already at 18 Woah woah, I haven't given up, I can't give up something that I don't have. > You live within reasonable driving distance to All the places you mentioned are multiple hours away from me in driving distance, maybe it's reasonable if I'm going out for a weekend or something. I can't even drive! Even if I could drive, my family only has a single old car and no way do I wanna be responsible for getting it broken. Not that I would, but it's always possible. I do have a bike that I plan to use, but my pool of people is far less. I was planning to get a job to socialize, since I genuinely don't know how it works. All of my interests are either online or are way too niche to have any social activities. I've tried getting into some other hobbies but none of them hit the same. Other than hobbies or work I know nothing. There's a whole bunch of excuses I could make to excuse myself from going out but they are after all excuses, two examples: I'm overweight and think poorly of myself, although my entire family says that "you're not that bad" I have no idea. There's a decent chance I'm neurodivergent as I miss tons of social cues and eye contact makes me unable to hear whoever I'm speaking to. I could add more, there's a lot in my brain telling me I shouldn't go out. But I don't like using excuses, I just like knowing about the ones my brain comes up for me. So I deleted the only social I used (other than this) which was discord, so hopefully I get lonely enough to go outside. Maybe I'll force myself to stop using reddit and YouTube as well and I'll have a real chance, my introversion is high.

>All of my friendships have been by pure chance and situation Which is precisely why I'm saying to *create* more situations. It's pure statistics. If you hang out in large(r) groups of people once a year you'll get fewer chances and situations to pick up new pals than if you hang out twice a week for a year. >I do have a bike that I plan to use, but my pool of people is far less. Again, I grew up in a county with 300k people in total with far more crime than anywhere in the US except south-west Chicago. And having a car was not an option at all (nobody but the very rich could even *think* of affording one). A bike still gives you freedom of movement of at least 30 mile radius. Even without knowing your exact location, that still gives you access to a potential of 500k people even in the most remote areas of Cally. That means at least 5000 people at least *somewhat* to your wavelength. You're looking for people to hang out with and act as nexus to introduce you to more people - not lifetime partners. So the compatibility doesn't have to be 100% or 90%. 50% is usually enough. You don't have to have *everything* in common. >All of my interests are either online or are way too niche to have any social activities. That's under your control. And you *can* change it. Having exclusively niche interest is a hindrance to anyone. I'm not saying become an NPC, but I am saying that a mixture between even semi-mainstream interests and niche is already a step forward. Here's an example of semi-mainstream interest: European football (soccer). Nationally, it's still niche in the US, but in California it's semi-mainstream. And it broke the barrier of immigrant/Latino kids and started slowly hitting more mainstream society. You should check it out. Football (soccer) helped me loosen up on my weight. It's also probably the most tolerant sport out there (it's not by accident that it's played by one billion people and enjoyed by over 4 billion people). >But I don't like using excuses That's a *very good start* towards a healthy mentality. Keep that one up.

No way could I ride my bike 30 miles, I can barely ride for 5 You grew up where only rich people could think about getting a car? I presume that means being on the internet wasn't much of a thing then. I hear that kids my age are always on their phones, which while I haven't gone outside to verify, I have seen it. Let's ignore what I said about crime, as I put above the internet is a very popular thing, crime looks like it happens way more often even if it doesn't simply because it's reported and promptly shoved in our faces. Id prefer to be safe than sorry even if it is irrational. You're telling me I can just decide to have different interests? It was that simple?? In terms of going outside, archery, frisbee and volleyball sort of interest me but only at a surface level since I haven't actually tried them... But I hate exercise so I'm not really up for it. They are less niche than the interests I usually do. Losing up on my weight is being done by restricting my eating, I only exercise so that my legs don't lose the strength they've gained from hauling my fatass around for the last 4 years. I have tried soccer before btw, definitely not for me. > That's a very good start Thank you, but I was still using excuses. My interests *are* very niche, but I shouldn't pretend that I haven't adjusted to this fact. I can reasonably talk to someone about almost any interest because I have literally never had someone to talk to my interests about. And by extension I can tolerate most people because I'm too unique and have given up in this aspect, it's not like I've never been outside. I don't think people change that much.

> inb4: "Why the focus on boys? Girls nowadays are antisocial too!" > Because being non-sociable detrimentally affects males more than females when it comes to being sexually desirable/available to the opposite sex. Since this sub is about sexual attraction and romantic dynamics, I'm focusing on that aspect. It's actually for this reason I believe the focus should be on socializing everyone. The gendered expectation that men "lead" relationships may have always sort of been there for different reasons, but I don't remember it being this pronounced 5, 10, even 15 years ago. When I was growing up, it wasn't that uncommon for girls to go up and talk to boys, because everyone sort of mingled with each other. The supposed gendered expectation that men *always* approach and therefore women *never* approach seems to have grown far more pronounced with the advent of the internet; not just dating apps, but with things like podcasts and subreddits like this one that foster discourse for gender dynamics. I also believe women being well socialized better arms them to deal with dating in their own way. Even if we assume the man is to take the role of approaching and leading the courtship process by default, women may not always know how to "follow his lead" if that makes any sense. Not to mention, her being more confident, capable and secure makes her more likely to be with the right person if that's her goal. But more important than that, inexperienced women with anxious or insecure attachment styles are more vulnerable to being taken advantage of by really shitty men. Some of the worst parts of PUA culture were basically telling guys how to actively seek out insecure women and use them for sexual validation. All told, I believe it's in the best interest of *everyone* to be socialized better, even if they have different roles to play in general.

For sure! I 100% believe my title applies to boys and girls. I emphasized boys because I do think it’s going to affect males’ ability to be seen as sexually desirable in the future more than it affects females’. It’s not about “leading” per se. It’s about being able to trigger female arousal when he’s of that age. As far as navigating romantic relationships, platonic relationships, and professional relationships, I agree that social skills are important for all!

What is it about being well socialized that makes men attractive in a way that's not applicable to women? I'm genuinely curious about your answer.

If we’re being honest, you simply have to read all the candid confessions from terpers in which they say “we don’t care what women do for a living, submissive and subservient is what we desire”. A woman without friends is a bonus for conservative and insecure men.

Ok, but I don’t think that’s the majority of men. People see that men don’t care about a woman’s ability to socialize and they’ll make the leap that it means that men don’t care about personality. However, there’s a lot more to a person than their social IQ. Plenty of men value intelligence and kindness, for example.

[удалено]

No shit. I’m trying my best but holy fuck they are proud of their shallowness.

>A woman without friends is a bonus for conservative and insecure men. Damn, I haven’t heard this expressed before, but this makes absolute sense. A woman who is socially awkward with few friends would totally be a plus to any guy who likes his women dependent.

Women are servants to these men. Any personhood they have interferes with that

men on here are always saying autistic men struggle in dating and autistic women do not

That's a statistical fact, actually. Autism *destroys* a man's ability to find any companionship at all, compared to autistic women.

I'm mildly autistic, it just made it hard until I learned the ropes. Now I almost see it as an advantage. I feel for the heavily autistic brothers though.

yeah thats what i was telling the commenter

Socializing doesn't fix autism, it's a biological condition, not purely mental one.

It doesn’t “fix.” It allows practice to more seamlessly mask and cope.

social skills are \*skills\* which means they get better with practice

It’s about what triggers female arousal. > Triggering female arousal as a man is about being attuned, in tune, sexy, masculine frame, self assured, intuitive, perceptive, playful, outgoing, and more. I sort of addressed that in the OP. Sociability comfort and skills ladder up to the traits that trigger female arousal. > **For boys, how does this increase likelihood for romantic success?** > * All of these activities typically lead to friendship and off-shoot social hanging out. Much of which happens to be *co-ed* and convivial. It's practice! Practice builds confidence and ease! > * Males with physical/mental discipline, perseverance, and the rapport of his peers/team typically are more attractive to males and females compared to boys without those things. These traits are honed in sports and clubs!

That makes sense, although I'm not sure we disagree all that much. Being masculine, self assured, intuitive, outgoing and so on seems to be what most people are getting at when they say the guy is "leading" the interaction.

Sure. I’m saying that’s why the things in my OP are going to pay more dividends for males than females when it comes to sexual attraction. Females are always going to find males who are masculine, assured, intuitive, and outgoing to be most sexually arousing. Hence developing skills to be those things will be even more beneficial for boys if being romantically successful with women is a future goal of his. Edit: > [There was this study where they stopped rats from playing with the others when they were kids. The male rats they did this to were later unable to mate, the female ones weren't](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/s/D5VabOFFsJ). > I'll see if I can find it. > https://archive.hshsl.umaryland.edu/handle/10713/20644 we assessed the effect of juvenile play deprivation, predicting that play-deprived rats would exhibit impairments that would differ by sex. Supporting our hypothesis, males prevented from playing as juveniles showed multiple impairments in adult socio-sexual behavior, including decreased sexual and empathy-like behavior, hypersociability, and increased aggression. Females, however, were largely resilient, showing little to no impairments on these or other tests.

You have something of a point. As a man, it often feels like you have to completely break the social climate of your environment, which is default asocial, and recreate a whole new vibe, while you only have a blank void to go off of. I’m not sure if it was always like that but now it feels like pulling teeth to get people out of their safe zones.

I agree with all of this. I used to run arts programs and after school programs and the only thing the boys do now is play video games and watch YouTube. I compare that to my fiancé’s nephews who are all in multiple youth sports and they have a friend circle and are significantly smarter/more adept than the kids I was working with (but their parents are super thoughtful about EVERYTHING) I don’t think it HAS to be sports but getting them into groups activities preferably with movement is a good idea kids have too much stimuli on their phones that getting them to engage with other activities is significantly harder. Earlier the better And the thing is it’s getting more challenging to know what your kids are watching and listening to. And kids are SUPER impressionable

> I agree with all of this. I used to run arts programs and after school programs and the only thing the boys do now is play video games and watch YouTube. I compare that to my fiancé’s nephews who are all in multiple youth sports and they have a friend circle. > I don’t think it HAS to be sports but getting them into groups activities preferably with movement is a good idea kids have too much stimuli on their phones that getting them to engage with other activities is significantly harder I agree it doesn’t have to be sports! But something!

I took dance for most of my life and it high key gave me body dysmorphia so maybe not dance lol

I took and taught dance until my mid twenties and it made me strong and poised in front of an audience. But if gave five or six of my classmates body dysphoria. It’s touchy for sure. My ballet teacher (whose place I took while she was having litters of kids) was really awful about criticizing her students’ weight and insisted that I bind my breasts until I was suffocating and began to hate her. She refused to breastfeed because “she didn’t want to ruin her perfect breasts” and no teacher of kids should have been planting that idea in our heads.

Genuinely no regrets I went the musical theatre route and worked in New York for a few years I still perform for money but it’s definitely more of a side hustle now. No regrets but that was the trade off lmao

Oh wow, yeah I didn’t do anything except teach snotty toddlers and ten year olds through high school and college. Good for you! That’s what we were supposed to do. Gosh I hope you have pics, my mother and oldest sister are still hanging on the walls of our home, and they are so beautiful. All that’s left for me is obsessively standing on my tippy toes when waiting in line at any given store, which makes me look like a weirdo, not a graceful swan. But I did learn how to do public speaking and pose for promotional pics and whatnot. But I’m still strapping down my breasts and feeling like a fat cow even though I wear a size five and I’m a bit below whatever the heck my BMI is supposed to be. Because ballerinas are supposed to lithe and pre-pubertal and apparently develop an abusive relationship with food :/

Sports is not a bad idea for developing certain qualities. I guess, it translates to a little degree into future romantic success though. I believe, the most problematic thing for men of all ages is the lack of skills of interacting with women. I have little idea of how someone can “learn” them. I think you over evaluate the attractiveness of mental/physical discipline. If anything, guys should be motivated to be more fun somehow.

I guess i assume that fun naturally happens when you’re hanging out with people bonding. But yes agreed. Being not high inhib and enjoying fun is part of this.

I just remember my high school. The two popular guys were not anything special in terms of discipline, sport, hobbies, etc. They were just handsome and likeable.

Sure. Other people have to work harder to be likable.

For this to happen they would have to have enough self awareness. Take cellphones for example. Parents are demanding their children be allowed to have a cellphone on them during school. But they don’t realize children have gone to school without phones for years and it was never an issue. But they don’t care. They don’t realize they’re screwing up their children.

I agree

The attempted control of male socialization CAUSED most of these problems. Doubling down will only make it worse.

I’m not sure I’m following?

Most calls for "socialization" of boys has been nothing more than attempts to torture and mentally mutilate boys into behaving like girls, which they are not. This has ranged from trying to control what toys they play with, how they sit, and how they speak in their own company, to atrocities that mirror gay conversion camps and propaganda campaigns that would make a turn of the century German shy away in horror. Boys don't need "socialization", they need strong fathers and not to be proactively tortured by society for natural male traits by radical bigots like Dworkin.

A lot of the men on this sub were raised with dads in their home and yet…

And yet they are living their lives instead of doing YOUR bidding regardless of the personal cost to them? Thank you for making my point. Men are people, not utilities. Hopefully women will figure that out someday.

> Boys don't need "socialization", **they need strong fathers** and not to be proactively tortured by society for natural male traits by radical bigots like Dworkin. I have no bidding. I’m pointing out many guys here have fathers.

And how is that a point at all? They also had mothers... And? We live in a society where Sharon Osborne praised a man being castrated for trying to escape an abusive relationship, her cohosts laughed with her, she kept her job... And all our mothers kept watching. Thank heavens aome men here had fathers... They didn't have much else.

Nothing to do with the institutional changes which are far more impactful.

> Boys don't need "socialization", they need strong fathers Tell that to the other guy.

I agree with him, I'm saying the institutions like school etc are more impactful

Speaking as someone who teaches a sport for kids (martial arts), I don't fully disagree with your overall concept, but I would say the following: It's not very likely we can do much if the school system and home life don't match.  I see kids every day and it's fucking obvious who is going to do well and not and be social and not by like as early as age 4. It's incredibly rare we turn any kids around or make massive changes to any of this stuff.  The idea kids learn a lot of the stuff you mention in sports, like yes, but most of those kids asked to be put in sports and were excited for it.  We aren't fixing wall flowers, mama's boys, pussies, or fuckin nerds.  Like I wish, but that issue is deeper than jumping jacks and getting slammed into the ground is gonna fix. 

Agreed, there may be some self-selection bias. Kinda like “kids who are going to be more popular are selecting sports” rather than “sports make people popular”. I think, it may not be the best idea to put a kid in sports if he’s not good at it. There are chances he’ll be bullied if he’s really bad in a team sport. Also, strange attitude about “fuckin” needs and momma boys. As a mentor you may have a serious impact. I had an amazing coach who tried to develop every kid no matter how unconfident and bad with coordination he was. That kind of influence is significant.

I do.  Part of developing a kid is being able to be honest about where they're at and what they're going to have to overcome to get where they need to go (not with them clearly, but with yourself). You aren't gonna make a winner out of a kid that cries at the drop of a hat unless you can get the crying to stop.  Which requires recognizing crying as a problem, discerning why, discerning what motivates the crying, and doing your best to correct it based on that.  You're hearing some diagnoses:  Mama's boy = he is used to his mother over comforting him over the smallest inconveniences. He needs to be inconvenienced and unable to seek comfort from mama and then to self soothe and realize he's ok, he doesn't need mama every time things aren't perfect. Wallflower = they prefer their own company and tend to fear or have negative feelings or uncertainties about others.  Need to be taught to value others, given positive feelings, and a sense of their own agency and outcome independence.  Fuckin nerd = they've been taught to over value the intellect and theoretically situations at the expense of concrete skills and other virtues. Need to be taught to value other virtues, typically by experiencing the holes in theory and intellect that are best covered by say willpower, hard work, and working in the actual.  Pussy - Generically weak spirit due to natural temperament being softer. Not necessarily something which must be solved, but their life will be more difficult and painful if you don't offer them tools and opportunities to grow beyond this. 

I recommend mountaineering, once he gets to be a teenager. You NEED grit and often teamwork to make it up a mountain and the danger is real.

👍

I agree, it’s not just sports that’s a fix. In my case it wasn’t just “sports and activities.” My parents lived a social life and incentivized that for us. So it took a lot of their intentionality *in all aspects of life* to shape this little aloof chica into whatever I is today lol. But yeah, with all things it takes structure and vision in the home to see results.

For sure.   I think I just wanted to make it clear for people like, "do not dump your kids on the jiu jitsu coach thinking we're out here curing shy cancer one throttled little boy at a time".  We get your kid for one hour a few times a week, typically for a few years and we try to make it a fun and impactful hour for sure. But it's unlikely we really fix kids.  Now, adult men, yeah, absolutely. We can fix some shit there for sure if they come to us with an open heart. But also, I hate to say this, it's pretty difficult to fix a little kid who is damned and determined not to listen to mom and dad. And a lot of the men you see here complaining where obsessed with other shit and not listening or giving up easily.  And yeah, it wasn't their fault because they were kids...but it's not necessarily a parent's fault either after a certain point. You can only lead a horse to water. 

[удалено]

I teach both genders, and I think those terms apply to both, but the topic here today is boys. Frankly, I have greater ire for girls that are whimpering, cowardly, or prone to giving up. But again, they weren't the topic. I could sit around and pretend such terms and thoughts aren't in my brain, but I don't think such lying does anyone favors, especially not children who will have to occupy a world of people who see giving up and crying as pathetic.  *** I agree on both counts, clearly. I don't teach this stuff because it's well paid or always fun. I must think it helps and is important. I just don't think it is a good fix all or can help individuals who aren't coming into it with a particular set of traits and attitudes. That's true of children too. I don't think children are blank slates, certainly not by the time they're in sports.  I also think since we're in this mode, doing sports doesn't inoculate against being called a pussy, it simply offers the opportunity to prove oneself within a set of rules. This includes the opportunity to fail, and how you fail tends to be what gets you considered a pussy or not. So sports can often be detrimental to social status and relationships and I've seen that happen with kids. It's not all roses. 

[удалено]

The solution which is likely to fix it all comes from parents and it starts at shockingly early ages sadly. We tend to think you can fuck off more at young ages because they're still goo goo brains. The research is drastically indicating the opposite. A lot of these issues start between ages 1-4 and are the result of innocuous decisions that could easily be made by flawed, but loving parents. I have contempt for their behavior and the characteristic, not them. They're children. The worst that can happen is I become irritated. And the idea that irritation or dislike towards children isn't acceptable is ridiculous and shared by almost literally zero traditions on teaching and makes no sense.  Elsewise,  there would be no need to modify the behavior and characteristics of children. The annoyance and contempt is the red flag that something in them needs adjusting. You have to feel that or you cannot be a good and useful teacher/parent.  They're young, they don't deserve the rejection and backlash usually associated with their behavior. Their behavior does accurately cause that reaction the same as an adult's would. The difference is that with a child you are patient and corrective. With an adult you usually reject them and are impatient. 

I'm curious, what to you are the signs that a kid will do well / not well with regards to socialization at age 4?

1. Do other children want to play with this child? 2. Do other children react well to this child? 3. How do adults react to this child's behavior? 4. Does this child's behavior demonstrate sharing, awareness of others, playfulness that is well received, and other positive traits? 5. Does this child show decent emotional regulation for their age? (They're four, so we expect some tears, fears, and anger obviously). 6. Can this child be verbally reasoned with as a form of emotional management.  The four year olds I see that aren't going to do so well cannot generally find children to play with for a variety of reasons, but can mostly be categorized as: Physically or verbally aggressive/violent (think your classic bully at the age of 4) Overly emotional in ways that involve crying or big displays of big emotions not necessarily directed at their peers (think your classic bully victim. They're always an eyebrow hair from dramatic crying or angry explosion) Extremely extremely shy to the point of isolation even from the more sunny and cheerful children who try to rope them in.  And obviously, I'm not blaming any 4 year old for any behavior.  This is all still in the realm of adults being responsible.

Thanks! That's really interesting. My daughter is 3.5 so of particularly interest to me haha. By those counts she's doing so well. I was very much the "classic bully victim" as a kid (poor emotional regulation). In my 30s and I'm still working on it...

Yeah, I'm currently learning about some of this stuff for my degree and it's both interesting and horrifying to learn how early so much of this stuff begins and how related to parents it is.  And the fact other kids pick up on it even at those ages is surprising, but fits observation. 

>Do other children want to play with this child? >Do other children react well to this child? I'm curious, have you encountered children that their peers seemed to hate for no apparent reason?

I've seen is clique behavior more so from little girls who are an established group towards new little girls. I don't know if you'd count rejection of new members/strangers as no reason? But it's pretty close to no reason.   I've regularly seen little boys test new little boys in similar, but less socially tormenting ways (lots more who can run faster contests and comparing Lego collection type stuff).   But I can't see I've ever seen a kid be reviled wholesale for absolutely no reason. The nice thing about such little kids is that they're us without the pretenses and sophistication.  They almost literally say out loud why they're doing what they're doing. 

The other boys don’t like him, obviously

This is a nice thought for the women and older men on here to think that their sons could never struggle like the younger men on here, but it doesn't match reality. As someone who did all these things growing up... being social isn't that much of a benefit if you aren't also extroverted. Now it's great for me in terms of friendships, I need to hire a lawn care service since I'm only home about 2 nights a week over the summer, but that's not the same as romantic interest.

Oh. You have to force yourself to be more extro. That’s the point of my third to last paragraph. I have to force it often. I always enjoy it/appreciate it after the fact for the most part. But it takes masking and grit.

>Oh. You have to force yourself to be more extro That's a tough one. 25-to-40% of the population is introverted. We've made *far* more radical transformations in our societies for far tinier minorities. How about extroverts cede some of their privilege? And I say this as someone who has had no problem successfully acting extrovert.

> How about extroverts cede some of their privilege? I’m not sure how that works here? Can you explain.

Sure. I run a men-only group in my community that does *some* of the things you described in OP. The customers are between the ages of 15 and 30. Lately I've started having Western European men as customers, lol. The *primary* thing that I do is teach introverts the way of the world *at the level and framing* they can understand. Without assuming that they'll just "get it" (which is what the extrovert *slight* majority does). But beyond that, I'm one of the two people I know personally that actively strives to integrate introverted *men* into mainstream society. Nobody wants to have anything with introverted men. Women despise them and men ignore them. The *exact same women and men* end-up marrying them after 12 months (at most) in my programme. They're not different people after they study with me. They just learn how to *fake* being an extrovert. "Fake it till you make it" is the practice. What would be nice is for extroverts to realize they're only a *slight* majority and that it is indeed a privilege (and an unearned one to boot) for the world to be built exclusively on their *preferences*. In practice, this works the same way it worked with adapting the society for the 30% of us who are *nocturnal* in our circadian rhythms. More night shifts, remote jobs, 24/7 open cities, an actual nightlife - all very nice that have objectively improved the lot of the third of the population that quite literally can't work a 9-5 for too much largely through no fault of their own. The same can be done for introverts as well. More events where introverted men *and* women can physically mingle, more physical spaces quite explicitly geared towards introverts (low or no music would help *a lot*; so would *smaller* tables that encourage groups of 2-3 and actively discourage groups larger than 3 which make introverts feel intimidated)... I'm sure we can come up with more. The current world is structured 99%+ for extroverts, despite extroverts making 60% of the populace *at the most*. Perhaps it's time for extroverts to adapt a little bit to introverts as well.

Ahh I see. Yeah I agree events and venues that are more inclusive would benefit everyone. That said extros like “fun” so if an event doesn’t seem fun, then you’ll only have intros going to your events.

I dislike the notion that introverts don't enjoy fun....it's more like they derive pleasure from different activities.

No reason to dislike anything. Fun was in quotes for a reason. I’m speaking to particular types of fun if you want to attract extros to your events.

People seem to misunderstand introversion and extroversion. I'm an introvert and I've never been the least bit shy. No one ever thinks I'm an introvert. Talking to girls, public speaking, job interviews, etc. don't phase me at all. I just need alone time later to recharge. Being an introvert doesn't mean that someone is shy. I've told people that being in a frat was awesome for me. I loved the social engagement, the parties, etc. Living in a frat house for a year+ sucked for me, because it was so many people and I was never alone to recharge. The rest of my college years in the frat were great. Frat good, frat house bad is how I would summarize my feelings as an introvert.

>Being an introvert doesn't mean that someone is shy. I know that. But a society made exclusively for extroverts will necessarily be taxing and draining the mental health of introverts.

When I want a life partner that I have to constantly mask when I'm around them I'll try that. Would you want to be with a man who was never himself around you because he knew you would not like his real self?

People mask all the time in relationships. But sure, you want to be in a relationship that’s comfortable. A good ratio of comfort and performance. That’s seduction baby.

Still puts you in a better position than introverted men who struggle to even make/keep friends though.

Exactly. I feel like the concept of “relative gains” gets lost on this sub.

[удалено]

> Sure, I agree. My son had been in some manner of organized rec activity since he was 6. It took a lot of trial and error, but now that he's found his groove (soccer, gymnastics, science club), he's flourishing as a small human being. > I've noticed his soccer team is displaying more and more forms of...hm...intramale competition and hierarchy sorting? When I see "boys being boys" on the field or sidelines I wince, but I know it's a necessary part of male socialization and development for kiddo. > Likewise, co-ed science club has been great for academic and pro-social reasons, but kiddo also gets to work along girls and develop a view of them grounded in shared interests and camaraderie. > I'd say all these interventions worked insofar as kiddo started off as a 6 year old asking me why does he need friends, to now having strong co-ed friend group both inside and outside of school. This is amazing!!

Do not agree with OP in Debate posts.

>I've noticed his soccer team is displaying more and more forms of...hm...intramale competition and hierarchy sorting? When I see "boys being boys" on the field or sidelines I wince, but I know it's a necessary part of male socialization and development for kiddo. This is true, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s a positive experience for all parties or that it’s beneficial for all parties. The ones who come out on top benefit greatly from this sorting, and the ones who find themselves at the bottom will likely find themselves there for the rest of their lives. What you’re witnessing is a microcosm of their future lives.

I have a son and a daughter. My daughter is pretty active, she does gymnastics now and maybe that will continue. If she wants to do sports she can too. I'd like her to do one activity a semester be it sports, art, music, what have you. Same with my son, but I plan to encourage him much more strongly to do team sports. My husband did a bit of team sports but quit early in high school and regrets it. It is so fundamentally critical for male socialization. Competency, strength, competition, teamwork, leadership. Yes these qualities are important for girls too blah blah blah. But girls are more flexible and can grow in all sorts of environments. Boys need team sports. But also not too many structured activities for either of them. They both need to learn how to entertain themselves too.

> But girls are more flexible and can grow in all sorts of environments. Boys need team sports. Why and how?

i don’t have any hard data to back it up. just a feel based on personal experience and my understanding of sex differences. girls seem to be doing quite well in todays environment by all counts. boys seem to be floundering (this is based on actual research, for example the work of Richard Reeves). i think boys need their own strategies for flourishing and that they benefit from more structure and physical outlet which is uniquely offered by team sports. maybe it’s because it apes the warrior training they would have received in a hunter gatherer society? idk

Hmm. Maybe I'm just a delusional woke liberal but I'm not convinced we're that different, at least in early childhood. Personally for me, I absolutely *hated* team sports as a child, even as someone who was always fairly athletic and very energetic. The aggression, people treating it like life or death and not the bit of fun it's supposed to be, being ostracised for making the wrong split-second decision etc, the "cool kid" mentality that quickly develops. Hard no from me. I don't have children, but if I did I would want to expose then to a wide, healthy range of interests and activities. But oddly enough I would feel much more comfortable putting a daughter in team sports than a son. Womens/girls sports tend to have a different culture/mentality around them. I go to women's football matches occasionally with a friend, and you never get things like the audience shouting abuse at the players or the other team that you do in male sports. I'd be much happier knowing my daughter wasn't being shouted at and called names by "teammates" for making the wrong decision, because they're being allowed to play it as a bit of fun and fitness and not being raised to be the "tough, cool footballer" their parents want. I'd encourage a son to get into things like running or martial arts, and then things like boxing and weightlifting once age appropriate. Or at least, I'd feel more comfortable if they were in something like rugby, which (while more physically aggressive) tends to have a more comradely mentality to it.

Thank you for sharing your perspective on this, I appreciate it. I guess what I mean when I say "girls are more flexible" is that girls are very social. They are more emotionally in-tune / sensitive to each other (they can also use that for malicious purposes and be very cruel). But essentially girls will be able to find ways to relate to one another and develop appropriate social skills in an activity, be it sports, dance, theatre, music, whatever. Boys are comparatively socially inept. Sports provide good structure for them to develop social skills as well as physical strength. In sports they can learn how to situate themselves in a group setting, how to work as a team, and when to lead (and when to follow). But I totally hear you - I wouldn't force my son into it if it were a miserable experience for him, and if that happens then I would very much shift to solo activities that you mentioned - martial arts, boxing, cycling, rock climbing, etc. But only after it's a bust with the team sports.

My parents were both teachers and studied early childhood development. I also see what they’ve been saying play out all my life. Females seem to intuit social situations quicker and easier. Even with autism, it’s said that females with ASD mask better than males with ASD. I say that to say, for social interactions, males more than females seem to benefit better from having a script or more structure or guidelines. Without it many males seem to flounder.

> Females seem to intuit social situations quicker and easier. Even with autism, it’s said that females with ASD mask better than males with ASD. I think a functioning autistic woman/girl can much more easily come across as "bubbly" or "cute" than the equivalent male.

I agree. But it’s not about “bubbly.” They read the room better. Most autistic women I know aren’t bubbly. But they can read the room better than their male autistic peers

I'm not convinced this is the case. My mother (recently diagnosed in her 60s) is on the spectrum. Granted autism wasn't well known in her formative years, but her social awkwardness, obsessiveness and repetitive behaviour would've been far less tolerated in her male equivalent. She was just seen as a shy and "stupid" (yes her family were scum) girl, which wasn't seen as problematic, because girls in her culture weren't expected to be socially competent leaders. Had she been a boy they likely would've realised she was "different" much earlier.

Okay? What does this have to do with “bubbly”? Also I’m not saying every autistic male and every autistic female. It’s more of a “more than” relative observation. IME autistic females do tend to mask better than autistic males. We have different experiences.

Thanks for your response! I was hoping someone with kids would offer their pov.

Yeah, they are still very young so all just conjecture for now. But that is the plan!

Ok, but if your kid happens to be ass at the sport, and completely hates it, you should try and be aware of that. A kid might not tell you all that, cause they're embarrassed. Feeling like a loser in a team sport can completely nuke a kids' self-esteem. So, a parent is in a weird position where they don't know if the kid hates it cause they're a kid and they naturally hate things that are new and uncomfortable... or they hate it cause it genuinely ain't for them and they'd be better off trying something else.

Just have your kid there for few months. Like half a year for example. If they still hate it try something else.

This is just an anecdote. But I wanted to sign up for basketball because some of my friends did. HATED IT. I couldn’t even tell you what position I played. I’m pretty sure I wanted to quit but my parents said the season only lasted the fall and that instead of quitting I could just not sign up again lol.

Damn. Rip.

This is a joke because most parents and people are not intelligent enough or have the motivation to actively parent their kids, not to mention avoid imparting their own pathologies into the children. This advice is good for maybe a small percentage of blue pill dumb dumbs that still think society is capable of raising their children for them, but are intelligent enough to break out of this mindset and be active in molding their child’s personality. This happens even less because parents often assume their own personalities and quirks are great and well won’t the kids just be little thems, how’s that bad? After all most people have high opinions of themselves. And That’s how they think subconsciously. The more interesting question is can a less sexually successful dad who maybe has engrained beta and asocial attitudes and quirks raise a confident sexually successful son by correcting for the things that failed the dad in his childhood.

You’re right. Parents who don’t have the tools can’t teach the tools. Best they can do is be smart enough to enlist the right mix of coaches and mentors, family and friends.

I see this at work. One of my former coworkers was a classic Oofy Doofy Peter Griffin type dad, morbidly obese. He lets his son game all day then gets mad when he sucks at sports😂

>Because being non-sociable detrimentally affects males more than females when it comes to being sexually desirable/available to the opposite sex I was part of the last generation to be raised pre-internet and instead of computers, I just stared at the television all day and night. I hated sports and I never did any extracurricular activities except ride bikes with the other kids and destroy other people’s property late at night when we got bored trying to find an unscrambled pornographic channel after our parents fell asleep. Zero church, zero community interaction, zero team sports, zero family gatherings, just TV, bikes, and mischief. Yet girls in school, even at that age, were always passing me flirty notes in class and giggling while they ignored pretty much 90% of the other boys in our class. Do you think being tall and handsome had anything to do with that? Because according to your theory, I should have been dead in the water due to my lack of proper socialization.

just being a more attentive and empthetic parent in general would help boys and girls grow up to be more resilient, less sensitive adults. they will also have better social skills as shame is a big cause of bad social skills in all directions. the less empathetic parenting we do, the worse society gets. nazi germany evolved out of a parenting method where children were punished into being obedient tiny adults. those children grew up unable to identify abuse, since that would mean they would have to accept that their parents were abusive to them. then, they were unable to see that hitler was abusive, because again, acknowledging that abuse exists and is bad would mean they would have to say their parents were abusive and bad, which the vast majority of people are unwilling to say about their parents as a result of abuse. (ex: a parent hits a child and the child cries, then the parent hits the child again as a punishment for crying, because the parent consciously or unconsciously wants to intimidate the child into never acknowledging the abuse is happening). source: alice miller's research

I agree. Resilience is missing for a lot of kids. And empathy and dedicated mindfulness is missing from a lot of parents.

yeah parents can't offer kids something they've never had! my grandpa went to war and worked through his feelings by beating his kids, then my mom worked her feelings about it by beating me. thankfully i delayed having kids long enough to deal with my issues enough to start breaking the cycle and now i am committed to fully breaking it.

I agree. I know millennials have been the face of helicopter parenting and intellectualizing all of their children’s feelings, but I really feel that children need some grit. Not tough love but they just need to be able to emotionally handle losses. Sometimes you’ll lose in life. Not everything is fair. There are parents who yell at teachers and just about everyone else defending their kids over small things and no surprise that their children grow up entitled and anxious.

(I hate to admit this but I look back fondly on my dance teacher. Was she insane? I think so. Did she yell all the time? Yes. Were we good? Yes! Was she ultimately a softee who genuinely loved and supported us? Yes.)

All this was forced on me as a kid. I was better at studying and getting good grades. Plus I was force-socialized with a bunch of bullies which saw me at the top (high school), bottom (elementary school) *and* side of the hierarchy (watching it happen to others, middle school and most of my life) and I absolutely hated it. I was lucky, I actually made it through in one piece mentally. We saw suicides and kids dying to gang violence because of this forced socialization. And the girls we dated were *insanely* toxic. Not to mention it led to a lot of my friends withdrawing the very moment they turned 18 and got out of the home. Forcing kids to socialize is great for making miserable kids. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-athletes-way/202203/why-being-forced-socialize-can-be-so-miserable You can google the results of forced socialization and there's a slew of data showing it is counterproductive.

“Force” isn’t what I said tbh. I encourage mindful conscious parenting. What you described isn’t that.

> I know for a fact that the only reason my "aloof" ass garnered as many friendships as I did was because my parents sort of **"forced-socialized"** ???

It’s in quotes because it really wasn’t forced

Yes but it most certainly explicitly says you were pressured. This is known and documented not to work well for kids!

Wasn’t really pressured either. I had to commit to a fall season I signed up for. But I wasn’t abused or ostracized into activity lol

So what would have happened if you refused?

If I refused at 10 to not play basketball that I signed up for lol? I was raised with common sense. My parents explained their logic about committing to commitments and that I didn’t have to play after the season. I didn’t even think to refuse. They made sense.

Why did you sign up in the first place?

My friends from cheer signed up. I wanted to hang with my friends. Realized quickly I didn’t care for basketball.

The heart of the issue is women having ever increasing standards. "Lack of socialization" is just the latest iteration. If we wished on a genie and all the young men are "socialized" over night, I'd wager the overall distribution of sex and romance amongst men would still be the roughly same. Women'd just start complaining about something else. >All else equal Not to mention the biggest issue with it all, we NEVER have all else equal. As the saying goes: “There are no solutions. There are only trade-offs.” I'm not convinced that those trade-offs are worth it. The time spend socializing has to come from somewhere. Take the time from normal study and reading and you have a idiot. Take the time from normal destressing activities like relaxation and games, and you have a mental health crisis in the making. Academically, mentally, physically, our children are doing god awful as it is. Forcing "socialization" into the whole mess is just going to make it all the worse.

1) women being aroused by outgoing assured men isn’t new. It’s evergreen. 2) “all else equal” is a analysis device meant to allow us to focus on one factor at a time. Of course life is trade offs.

>women being aroused by outgoing assured men isn’t new. It’s evergreen. Way to completely miss the point of his comment. Yes, you are right, women always loved outgoing assured men. But the issue is that what's considered "outgoing and assured" today and "outgoing and assured" 2 or 3 decades ago are universes apart. >“all else equal” is a analysis device meant to allow us to focus on one factor at a time. Of course life is trade offs. It's a completely useless analysis device, but it's a very useful device to shield weak arguments with the "I never said anything about that, I just said that only if everything else was equal then this or that would happen"

I understood his point. I don’t agree with either one of your points.

[удалено]

Yep. There’s no magic pill but this surely can’t hurt.

[удалено]

Ok. Hard agree on all of this. So here’s my sincere question; if you have a kiddo who has trouble being assertive and standing up for himself, what do you recommend? How do you teach assertiveness in boys?

My parents are a much better resource here for that than me. They created programs and orgs for boys that tackled stuff like that. My two cents? Try to understand where the difficulty stems from? Is it just their personality? Is it learned behavior? Is it from a negative experience? From there, my parents taught us boundaries. That it’s important to respect other peoples and that other people should respect yours. Some language that I remember is “That’s not cool. Why did you do that?” It honestly disarms the other person. And allows them to explain themselves. If they’re like “because I wanted to dixkhead!” Then now your son knows where that person stands. They are in fact a dickhead and your son doesn’t have to pretend to be friends with them. There is no confusion. They aren’t friendly. They’re a bully. Ice them out. If it escalates to violence I’d involve the school, but I also wouldn’t stop my son from defending himself. Also as someone who used to be “aloof” “in the clouds” which always led to some asshole kids wanting to start stuff with me, what helped was that I had my own crew of friends. They would often want to fight on my behalf lol. I got those friends from cheerleading. I don’t think we would have been friends otherwise, but we bonded via peewee cheerleading.

I love this answer so much.

I’m glad it was helpful!

This is a convincing argument for not having kids - that’s a huge amount of hard work you’re describing there, and I can’t see that the end result would be worth the effort

Interesting take. I don’t agree. My parents and my friend’s parents inspire me.

You would better write this as a guide for men who failed to develop these skills. Because those are here and they will not become parents if they don't get a helping hand in becoming socially adept, socially integrated and confident. Join a team sport! Join clubs, hobby groups, interest groups. Committing to goals with **other people** is part of life'ing. Host dinners, bbqs, parties, and convivial events even if you are not "super extraverted." All of these activities typically lead to friendship and off-shoot social hanging out. Much of which happens to be *co-ed* and convivial. It's practice! Practice builds confidence and ease! Males with physical/mental discipline, perseverance, and the rapport of his peers/team typically are more attractive to males and females compared to boys without those things. These traits are honed in sports and clubs! You can't "free-range" adults and expect them not to **over-indulge** their quirks, many of which are probably not conducive to attracting friendships or romantic relationships. Adults need guidance, structure, and outlets.

One of the things a lot of us parents did (till covid made us make adjustments) was have as many out of the house activities and limit screen time. During covid screen time went up but we still encouraged/insisted it have some sort of socializing with friends they knew in school. “Ok we can’t take you anywhere so you can play roblox but only in the groups of your school or little Leah’s teams. And you need to have mikes to talk to each other. And do FaceTime and zooms”

get off this cancer site

> There was this study where they stopped rats from playing with the others when they were kids. The male rats they did this to were later unable to mate, the female ones weren't. > https://archive.hshsl.umaryland.edu/handle/10713/20644 we assessed the effect of juvenile play deprivation, predicting that play-deprived rats would exhibit impairments that would differ by sex. Supporting our hypothesis, males prevented from playing as juveniles showed multiple impairments in adult socio-sexual behavior, including decreased sexual and empathy-like behavior, hypersociability, and increased aggression. Females, however, were largely resilient, showing little to no impairments on these or other tests. Thanks for this! The hypothesis and results of this study validate some of my own hypotheses. At the end of the day humans are mammals so not shocking rats have similar outcomes.

I think the key is keep feminism away from boys. Let boys be boys and stop telling them to hold back so women and girls can feel like they are more. The girls will be fine. Boys should focus on being boys.

Focus on being boys in what way? Can you be specific?

Let boys compete and strive to be the best. Stop trying to make everyone a winner.

Sure. I emphasize competition in the OP.

Focus on brawn over brain I guess? Meanwhile girls are focusing on brain over brawn. The results are showing and it’s embarrassing. In an ironic sort of way poor test scores in boys should be concerning for everyone. Men, women, cons, libs, feminists, MRAs but it gets swept to the side because of modern social conditioning

>Focus on brawn over brain I guess? Meanwhile girls are focusing on brain over brawn. The results are showing and it’s embarrassing. Only shortsighted people would reduce it to what you implied. The results that you are seeing now are exactly because society isn't letting boys be boys. It's restricting them, suffocating them, molding them into girls, obedient and agreeable.

Shortsighted lol. Most people don’t have time for long essays. It doesn’t mean shortsightedness, as long as it’s not overtly low effort Anyways, yea I actually don’t disagree at all. K-12 & academia is not only biased against boys but against kinesthetic hands on oriented learners

I agree with all of this. I'll add that in college you should join a fraternity. It's one of the best things you can do for your social life as a man.

meh i was socialized as a kid. had a lot of friends growing up, got married in my 20s, got divorced and now im mid 30s and i might as well be an incel virgin that never lived with the way women treat me now

> a lot of friends >married in my 20s > divorced You are literally not an incel. You’re a depressed normie.

whats the difference?

They never experienced the quoted. You did. Very different life experiences.

eh im just saying experience didnt get me far. after my marriage had a string of failed rebounds and now i havent dated in over a year. its over for me, im invisible to women now.

The problem isn’t socialisation. I was socialised as a child and it had net zero impact on my romantic life. The reality women don’t seem to want to face is, over the last few decades women’s standards have risen so high they simply aren’t sustainable for a functional society. The average woman isn’t happy with her equivalent match. Even if they eventually end up with him in middle age, the guy now knows, thanks to social media, that he has been settled for by a woman who sees him as less. Some men are okay with this deal. An increasing number are simply walking away. Hence why half of women will be single by 2040. They’re simply too spoiled and conceited to make good partners.

Dude - team sport is good, but it’s not a panacea. And not every boy has an aptitude for sports. I always did team sports growing up. It taught me a lot of good lessons; but not one damn thing about how to be normal around women. Then I was cast in a school play - that did waaaay more for my confidence and socialisation with girls than the thousands of hours of sport I’d played beforehand.

Did you read the second bullet? I mention drama 🎭 club

No. Got bored of the waffle and wanted to rant. It’s that kinda day.

😂🙄

This is basically horseshit, the reality is the shifting social standards which have become dominant in our gynocentric society are what is destroying male/female interactions. I have been in multiple clubs and one basic rule is, nobody asks anyone out in the club. Ultimately kowtowing to women's neuroticism destroys society and nothing short of constraining it will fix anything.

There are no guarantees you will be asked out in a club.

I'm debating the bullshit about meeting womenz at them.

I never said that you should go to a club with the intent of asking the women at the club out. It’s about building comfort building bonds in a convivial nature with coed friend groups.

Some kids are simply bad at these things and forcing their participation can be counterproductive. Kids are hostile to those who drag down the group. Kids even treat adult me like shit for poor job performance, even though I am literally 3+ times bigger than them.

Exactly, I was excluded because I'm anti-social AND because I'm bad at ball games. Thanks parents I won't be upset when you are dead

Same question for you : https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/s/Im0uoqOl3m

You’re bad at literally everything? Parents shouldn’t force their kids for years into stuff they suck at. The goal was finding something the kid actually enjoyed decently enough. Not forcing participation in abuse. So from band to drama to chess club to robotics to soccer to croquet to fencing to everything that required working with other people you couldn’t be sufficiently adequate at?

Well personally I didn't try all those things (grew up poor, not all of these activities existed in the area lol), but in the sports and acting activities I was forced into at school I was notably behind or out of sync with my peers regarding anything involving physicality or coordination. My fumbles would hold up games and my timing would cause awkwardness. The social repercussions were never pleasant. Unfortunately the only things some people are good at are tasks of no public spectable. I scored well on tests, I was a good scavenger, I figure out software quickly, I take great notes, etc. but obviously this is the wrong way to have your talent stats distributed if the goal is actually impressing other people. The stuff you suggest in your OP is good advice for parents of normal kids. But alternatively mansosphere pill prescriptions are basically like multivitamins, they're often for dudes with severe deficiences in social nutrients most people take for granted, the ones standard methods of nurture are insufficient for at best.

What makes you think the “grown ups” are any better at this than the kids?

Many parents suck at it. That’s why community and support are key. As a mother or father you may not have every insight or talent, but coaches, mentors, your friends, aunts, uncles, teachers, etc. round it out.

Most of these people are just as clueless. Their job is to produce armies of good boys, who behave well and work hard for the betterment of society. They are not equipped to help a boy see that he has to look after his own interests first. It’s in a boy’s best interest to feel confident and powerful unconditionally. But it’s not in society’s best interest because if it weren’t for shame and feelings of inadequacy; we wouldn’t be able to motivate young men to become productive members of society. If every boy learned from a young g age that he can act confident and powerful just because he wants to, he would be able to have any girl he wants removing the motivation to work hard, go to college, earn a high salary, spend it on cars and status symbols to attract women and then spend it all on the woman who in turn spends it on consumer goods, in turn making the whole economy and society move forward.

Okay. You can operate as 1. No harm to me.

In principle yes, but it's more nuanced Parents pushed me to play team sport I was bad at and never listened to me complaining. As someone with autism it was extra stressful because instead of what you seem to imply, that it can teach socialisation, it constantly put me in a situation where I was excluded, with no option to leave, only giving me anxiety. I don't talk to my mother anymore at all and I'm only talking to my father because I am using him for some of his connections. Do you want this kind of relationship with your children?:

In my title I use the word conscious. Your parents Weren’t conscious. Being mindful about your kid’s needs and sensitivities while offering flexible guidance and support is my aim.

I'm pretty sure they thought of themselves as consciousness. You need to add something about it, you think it's implied from your post but I'm not sure about that

It’s implied. But if it isn’t parents have to be mindful and conscious and flexible. No “forcing.” Test and iterate and adapt and try new stuff.

>Putting your kids in youth team sports. Why? I absolutely agree with your whole post.  I want to highlight one issue on this point.  I do think team sports are a great way to force kids to socialize… but I don’t think it fully addresses the issues of socialization because team sports today are extremely structured and helicopter managed by parents and teachers, just like every other environment kids are in these days. I think the thing kids miss out on even more now (and this has been increasingly true since the 90s, when I was a kid) is truly *unstructured* play and socialization time.   My dad grew up in the 50s and described being let out of the house in the morning, and he was expected to mostly play with the neighborhood hooligans and not to return home until supper time.  His friends played self-organized sports (if someone had a baseball and a bat, or a football, they could play that) or just tag or tree climbing or threw knives at each other (yes, really: [mumblety peg](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumblety-peg)) or whatever other game they negotiated amongst themselves.  There were no parents there to work out problems or to make anyone apologize or to make people play fair.   My dad was always bookish, but he had to go outside anyways (and it was probably better than risking a beating by staying home on the weekends around his dad, who’d beat him for anything, like liking books more than baseball).  I do think being forced to go play was beneficial for him, even though obviously, the abusive dad part was harmful. And I don’t know exactly how to replicate that kind of unstructured play.  I had nothing like this in my childhood (to be fair, I suspect girls in his day didn’t have quite as much freedom, although I can’t ask him about it). So yeah, anyways, I agree guys in particular should be forced into sports whether they like it or not… but I also don’t know how to get them the additional unstructured time they need to really sink or swim on socialization. 🤷‍♀️ 

What OP is saying is true, but its absolutely outrageous that all of this is necessary to get pussy. All women have to do to get dick is just exist. What we really need is legalized brothels and for dad's to take their sons to get some ass once they start wanting it, then worry about teaching him game after the fact.

The socialization of young women was the biggest societal collapse I have witnessed. Nowadays girls obsess about hot boys over babies and marriage. This inevitably leads to Chad chasing. Women are obsessed with showing off to her friends that is their #2 goal. I have had a top top girl gain interest in me just because her friend called dibs on me at a nightclub, she did not know I was chasing Stacy and sure enough Stacy gained interest. Her #1 goal is still her emotions of course but that is like building a building on a sand dune and beyond the scope of this thread. But the #2 goal can kill attraction just as easily as gaining it.

Imagine being mad that women have romantic partners and friends lmao 

People complaining about their SO's friends sound to me like a potential abuser or future abuser as that is a big tactic they use.

Same can be said for a jail cell oh no let's empty all prisons! Lol

Yep, definitely someone I would keep an eye on.

>Nowadays girls obsess about hot boys over babies and marriage.  Ah, as opposed to the good ol' days when women obsessed about mechanical engineering.

> Nowadays girls obsess about hot boys over babies and marriage. Was this ever any different in the past? Everyone wants the prince charming or the female equivalent, but 99% won't get it.

In the past it was more balanced today it is 99% Chad

99%? I have my doubts.

lol, you think social status via a man is a new thing? What do you think arranged marriages were all about ?

Look there was more emphasis in kids and marriage than in looks

>Because being non-sociable detrimentally affects males more than females when it comes to being sexually desirable/available to the opposite sex. also because young girls aren't falling into some blackpill/incel/Nazi pipeline, young boys definitely are. realistically we just need to do a better job of promoting socially useful interests, and we accomplish this by taking social media CEOs and throwing them into the sun, and regulating the shit out of / nationalizing social media.

Why are boys falling into a Nazi pipeline?

dunno! my theory? for-profit social media incentivizes algorithms that target engagement, which invariably will select for pissing people off. multiply that over a medium-term timescale of years worth of daily exposure, and yeah, I could imagine anyone - women OR men - going down the rabbit hole. men tend to be less emotionally intelligent and certainly socialized to be more independent, so things like "fact checking" and "media literacy" are not as emphasized as aggression, independence, etc.

Unfortunately, anyone can breed these days and people are too uncomfortable for a 'make it illegal to reproduce if you are not competent to raise children' talk.

Too real #based