Men's Group

Last edited Wed Sep 4, 2013, 07:44 AM - Edit history (2)

. . . is a valuable trait for kids (and adults) to possess. Developing self-confidence goes hand in hand with that trait. If a kid is burdened with a sense of inferiority, he will have a difficult time not worrying about what others think.

My religious views are not the same as yours, but that doesn't matter in the realm of interpersonal relationships. At least it shouldn't. I don't go around thinking I'm superior to those who don't happen to share my beliefs. I've made plenty of mistakes in my own life; so, why should I look down on others for simply disagreeing with me? In fact, there are perfectly understandable reasons why they believe what they believe. That's where empathy comes in. I can disagree with the beliefs of some people and still treat them the way I'd want them to treat me. I also recognize that someone whose religious views differ from my own may have strengths that are far greater than mine. Dr. Sakharov, who (unless I'm mistaken) was an atheist, is a hero of mine. I never could have done what he did. I probably would have been content to remain silent and not antagonize the authorities serving a totalitarian regime. He was quite an honorable man.

As far as more power to cool, funny, smart people who like sports, they get all the power they want and then some. We live in a society that is dominated by the culture of school sports. I have no problem with decent fans. But I do have a problem with fans who don't believe that individual school athletes should be held accountable for the way they treat others away from the game. A good example is Steubenville, where a cover-up was well under way and would have succeeded had it not been for Anonymous. I was stunned that there was even a guilty verdict at the trial. I could give more examples, but this post is going to be too long as it is. Of course, the rapists among school athletes are a relative few; but they're often able to get away with it. I've also wondered how many high-school football coaches are morally opposed to any of their players bullying other students at their schools. Machismo has no problem with bullying. In fact, it promotes it.

I get sick and tired of the insinuation that boys who chose to not participate in sports miss out on a great deal and are somehow deficient. Whatever became of respecting the preferences of others? (Well, in this case, it was never there!) Because the popular culture of our society is virtually saturated with sports, boys who have no interest in sports are likely to be marginalized (sometimes by their own parents!) and even bullied. Who speaks up for those kids? Next to no one!

And what has mandatory phys ed always been about, historically speaking? Yes, today there are some decent P.E. programs around such as PE4LIfe, which I happen to support; but the old P.E. is still around in some school districts. There are still boys' P.E. coaches who demand that all boys participate in team sports -- including those who are physically weak or scrawny, those who are fat, and those who simply have no interest in sports. Precisely those who are likely to be bullied. In fact, historically speaking, P.E. has been a bully's paradise; but how many of the coaches have ever been opposed to the bullying that goes on? Honestly, I have to laugh whenever I hear talk that sports are socially inclusive. Just take a look at traditional mandatory P.E. classes and see the way nonathletic boys are treated. It doesn't look very inclusive to me, to put it mildly. Even some DU members (who happen to be sports fans, by the way) support the "old P.E." while showing no interest in innovative reforms. They have no problem with this sort of bullying. To the contrary, they seem to endorse it.

I've not been dwelling on my childhood ever since I last had to set foot in a school gym. The issue was actually at the back of my mind for decades until my first physical trainer at the local health club inadvertently showed me that the P.E. coaches had provided no instruction whatsoever as to how to throw a football or a baseball, how to toss a basketball, etc., etc. So, for example, if a boy didn't know how to throw a baseball properly (which, after all, is a skill, not a natural ability) because he was never taught how, he was still said to "throw like a girl," with the insinuation that he was one of them homos. (By the way, you wouldn't believe the radical difference between my boyhood mandatory P.E. experience and my currently ongoing very positive health club experience. Completely different social dynamics. Most physical educators should hang their heads in shame!) My older daughter had a calculus teacher like that during her senior year in high school. She actually did no teaching in the class, but expected the students to teach themselves! Fortunately, my wife (the mother of our daughter) had taught high-school math classes, including calculus, for about ten years; so, she was able to fill in for the "teacher," who was FIRED at the end of the academic year for not doing the job she was supposed to do. That is precisely the way mandatory P.E. was "taught." But mandatory P.E. was different somehow; so, this nonsense was overlooked and tolerated. The coaches had no use or sympathy for the nonathletic boys, anyway. They viewed these boys with contempt or indifference. At least this was my personal experience. But I've heard the same sad story from other nonathletic guys over the years.

The only justification for a mandatory P.E. class is to encourage students to be physically active and to become physically fit. The traditional approach to mandatory P.E. fails completely with regard to the students who are the most in need. Did I get any exercise in my P.E. classes? Are you kidding? No, I didn't! (I get more exercise in a single workout session with my personal trainer than I ever did in an entire year of mandatory sports-exclusive boys' P.E.) The great tragedy about traditional mandatory P.E. is that sedentary boys could have been helped a great deal. As a man now in his early 60s, I've gained more self-confidence since I took up bodybuilding. I would have benefited greatly from this self-confidence when I was a teenager. Bodybuilding and other exercise programs, as opposed to mandatory sports, could have been a great blessing to sedentary boys. But the sports culture didn't care about them. At best the nonathletes were the nonpersons in their world. Having a winning football or basketball team was far more important. The nonathletes were just losers, nerds, geeks, wimps, sissies, fags, "feminized males," etc, etc., and were undeserving of any consideration. All that the sedentary boys ever learned was that supposed physical exercise was associated exclusively with team sports and that an intolerant form of machismo was very much a part of the culture. Well, a guy can develop his physique or attain high levels of physical fitness without participating in a sport. In fact, a demanding exercise program is far more efficient! Whenever I hear people blather about how much we need mandatory P.E. but offer no support for programs that actually help the nonathletic kids, I sneer with derision. (Again, many of these very same people have absolutely no problem with bullying in the schools. In fact, they condone it!)

Again, I have no problem with sports fans, as long as they don't impose their preference upon others. The problem is that more than a few of them don't respect those who happen to not share their preference. You may not believe this, but I have never looked down on any guy for participating in a sport. But respect is a two-way street.


My mother once told my best friend's mother that sometimes I talked too much.