Military Review

Boys upbringing

Working with difficult children provides abundant food for thought not only about these children themselves and their family environment, but also about a multitude of socio-cultural factors contributing to the shaking of an already fragile child's psyche. At the same time, it often turns out that the ideas about certain things that exist in the modern mass consciousness are pure myths. Sometimes harmless, more often - not very. But in any case, distracting from understanding the true state of affairs. And, accordingly, blocking the search for the right solutions.

Boys upbringing

Myths leading through the looking glass

In my opinion, the myth about the increased vulnerability of the male psyche is one of such harmless myths. Say, the female psyche is more stable, and men, although considered to be a stronger sex, but this is rather a misunderstanding. In fact, everything is exactly the opposite. Hyperactivity, autism, various types of addiction (alcoholism, drug addiction, computer and gaming addiction) are more often affected by the male, not female. And men live, as you know, fewer women. In general, what can I say? - An undeniable fact!
But to speak, meanwhile, can be about many things. To begin at least from the fact that men were always so weak, the human race would have stopped long ago, because the share of men at all times was the most difficult, dangerous occupation, the most difficult work. Try to fight, having a fragile, vulnerable psyche! Or even hunt for ferocious beasts, and without firearms weaponsas many generations of our ancestors did! And the life of a peasant farmer? How much grueling physical work! How many, to put it in modern language, stress and psychotrauma! The constant threat of famine due to crop failure (at least in the Russian zone of risky farming), high infant and child mortality ... No matter how convincing yourself that people looked at the death of children differently ("God gave - God took"), it was a grief that needed to be experienced. For what a lot of strength was required.

And what responsibility lay on the head of a large family! It is even difficult for modern people to imagine what a huge burden it is, because from the cradle we tune in to something completely different. For us, three children are already many children, and five or six (the average number of children in Russian families before the revolution) is almost a sign of insanity. Especially if the "conditions do not allow." And “conditions” should create a state with which we are always dissatisfied, because it is “not sufficient”. That is, citizens take the position of adolescents in relation to the state, who are fighting for their rights, but at the same time striving to evade from duties. I will not go into details in order not to go too far away from the topic. Let me just say that this world view was deeply alien to our ancestors. Years 150 – 200 ago, a Russian man would be very surprised to hear the now fashionable maxim “I owe nothing to anyone.”

But it’s absolutely clear that only strong people can withstand the burden of responsibility. And the greater the burden, the person must be stronger.

Hence, the thesis of the initially more fragile, vulnerable psyche of men does not hold water. But on the other hand, men really weakened, which proves, in particular, the statistics of the above mental disorders.

What is the matter? It seems to me that the fact is that man, if I may say so, is a more social being than a woman. For centuries and even millennia, the world of women was limited to the family circle. They did not participate in public affairs. Of course, there were exceptions, but they did not change the order of things. Men, on the other hand, formed living conditions in society, created public and state institutions, managed them, made laws (among others, concerning the family). This is probably why their psyche responds more strongly to the situation of social and cultural breakdown. They adopt new social attitudes faster, they feel more keenly where the “public wind” blows, they have less conservatism. Accordingly, if socio-cultural changes are positive, boys will strive to come closer to a positive ideal. If there is propaganda of degenerative “values” and behavior patterns in society, the male part of the population degrades more intensively than the female part.

Just a few fairly recent examples. In the 1990s, when an alcoholic president was in power in Russia and everyone knew about it, drunkenness at work (including in very prestigious institutions and departments) became almost a ubiquitous phenomenon. And it seemed that nothing could be done about it. It got to the point that the bosses, who could not be drunk for health reasons, were sent to subdue instead of themselves. So it was with a friend of our family, who occupied a very high place on the bureaucratic ladder. The poor fellow almost drank himself and was forced to change his place of work under the threat of divorce ...

But another person came to power - and heavy drinking in the workplace quickly stopped. Moreover, this did not require any special decrees! It’s just that drunkenness “suddenly” among the bosses became not prestigious, and subordinates are guided by the bosses. No wonder they say that the fish rots from the head.

Another example. In 1990, when the cry “Get Rich!” Was cast from above, many boys of preschool and primary school age, who were brought to us for a consultation, dreamed of getting rich. And to the question "Who do you want to be when you grow up?" Answered in unison: "Businessman." Now, dreams of wealth (in any case, among our contingent) are much less popular, and the profession of an entrepreneur is hardly on the list of “life strategies”. But many people want to become a football player, including those to whom this is clearly “not shining” for health reasons. What changed? Has money lost its importance? Or did business become unnecessary? - No, but there was a shift in the public consciousness. The issue of unjustly acquired wealth is increasingly being raised in the media. The word "oligarch" is already strongly associated with the label "thief", and they began to promote football (again, from the top). Football news stand out in particular, in many cafes the opportunity has appeared to watch live broadcasts of football championships. The state again slowly began to support the idea that football distracts adolescents from bad habits ... The result was not slow.

Why are there a choice of profession! Even the desire to continue the race in many men does not arise at the level of instinct, but under the influence of social attitudes. It is prestigious to be the father of a large family - they will strive for this. If, on the contrary, the image of don Juan is demanded in society, which, for obvious reasons, children are not needed, many men will breathe a sigh of relief. Notice how few of them are outraged by the gross violation of men's rights in pro-abortion legislation, according to which a wife can have an abortion without her husband’s consent. But we are talking about the murder of their common child! Hence, this situation suits men. They do not at all consider this to be an infringement of their rights, since both in the Soviet and especially in the post-Soviet times the large families were presented as something archaic, burdening a normal person with unnecessary worries, preventing them from developing, living an intense, full-fledged (now they say "quality") life. Therefore, a situation where, according to the law, the wife in fact single-handedly determines the number of children in the family, often without even informing her husband of what is happening, does not seem humiliating to many men. Although in fact it is humiliating to disgrace! But try to extrapolate the situation to something else, more valuable in the eyes of modern society. Let's say, propose a law according to which the wife will have the right to dispose of the apartment or cottage acquired during the marriage, without asking the spouse's consent to sell the property or even letting him know about it, and the spouse will be deprived of this right - this will cause all men a storm of negative emotions.

Very clearly the social orientation of men manifested itself in the difficult perestroika and post-perestroika years. The state collapsed, the clamps that held the society collapsed; the creators of public opinion began to assure the people that you can do everything that is not prohibited by law. Thus, morality was actually abolished, because many unseemly actions, condemned by public morality, are not formally prohibited by law. Meanness is not prohibited, fornication and adultery, too. Drunkenness and drug addiction are not again prosecuted by law. People were left to themselves: survive, as you know. Do whatever you want. Or do nothing. The criminal article on parasitism was canceled, the compulsory treatment of alcoholics and drug addicts was declared harmful, ineffective, violating human rights, even sobering plants - and they were closed down. The country was flooded with cheap vodka, overwhelmed with drugs, pornography and other attributes of Western freedom. And many fathers of families could not resist. Realizing that there is no governing on them, they (not to mention the unmarried guys) set foot in the wind. Of course, not every man behaved this way, however it was (and still is) a fairly widespread phenomenon. Mothers succumbed to the temptation to “throw a cap on the mill” much less often (although it also happened). A typical picture of those times: women shuttle trays with bales above their height. What forced them to strain, ruin their health, to be exposed to various dangers, deprivations, humiliations? Why they could not follow her husband away from the unbearably difficult reality? After all, alcohol was not sold by gender. And there was no rule on them, as well as on men. What prevented them, taking advantage of impunity, to quickly roll on an inclined plane?

A maternal instinct prevented them. The one who makes a little helpless bird breast protect chicks from a predator, at times exceeding its strength and size. Mothers felt sorry for the children more than themselves. And they could not imagine life without them, they did not psychologically separate themselves from the child, although he could no longer be a little boy, but a teenager. Yes, and physically they had to part with it for the time of travel for the goods, and then work in the market. But still they were one with the child, a family.

The same instinct does not allow the overwhelming majority of mothers to leave disabled children. There are exceptions, but so far, despite a more than twenty-year morale attack, these are exceptions. The situation when the father abandons the family in which the child was born disabled, is so common that it does not surprise anyone. “I could not stand the load,” they usually say in such cases. Formulation in the spirit of tolerance that is fashionable today: seemingly an explanation and at the same time a hidden excuse. What, they say, take it? Men are fragile, vulnerable, everyone knows that ...

All this I do not write to sting men and praise women. The point is not to clarify the question “Who is the most?” And not to shift the blame to the opposite sex. Just without abandoning the myths that distort reality, you will not understand how to get rid of distortions. Based on false premises, you will not come to the right conclusions. And you will not reach the goal if you wander in a fog in some other direction.

Our goal, for the sake of which the whole previous conversation was started, is to understand how to bring up boys in modern conditions. What do we have to do? What to proceed from? Agree, there is a huge difference between the idea of ​​men as initially fragile, vulnerable creatures and the statement that it is not male nature itself, but the incompatibility of this nature with the features of the so-called post-industrial, postmodern society causes the obvious weakening of men already observed with the naked eye. In the first case, fragile creatures need to be cherished, cherished, and if hardened, then be extremely careful, otherwise the tender plant will not survive and will die. In the second case, emphasis should be placed on changing installations, on reorientation of the micro- and macrosocium. To eliminate as much as possible from the child’s life the factors interfering with the normal development of his masculinity.

Of course, now it is more difficult to do. It is much easier to groom, cherish and demand nothing. But we have no other choice if we want to simply survive. Futurological reasoning about some kind of posthumanity, for which supposedly everything will be different, is shameless bluff. At least, in our country, to which so many centuries in a row all those who felt like it were opened, further weakening of the male principle is fraught with the loss of not only living space, but also life itself. It would be naive to believe that the people of the “extra country” - so, without ceremony, called Western politicians in 1990-s for Westerners - would not be superfluous at the feast of winners.

What prevents the formation of a male beginning

Well, what exactly in modern society prevents the formation of the masculine?

I think this is, first of all, the installation on hedonism. The fundamental installation of the consumer society. If the “ideal consumer” is in demand in society, if the thirst for pleasure is paramount, then, respectively, in a person egoism, individualism and infantilism flourish. He does not grow up, does not develop as a person. Only objects of lust change: adults appear instead of children's toys. But the essence remains the same. It is not a person who controls his desires, but they overflow, overwhelm him and entail, like a torrent, a light, small chip. And when a person can not resist their passions, what kind of willpower to talk about?

It is easy to see that all this contributes to the success of the enemy in the information-psychological war, the purpose of which is to weaken the potential defenders of the Fatherland (that is, men). And if now we look at this modern “problem child” from this point of view, we will see that the goal has been largely achieved. Based on our own observations, as well as on the complaints of parents and teachers, unanimously testifying that in recent years there are more and more difficult children (mainly boys), we outline an approximate portrait of such a child.

He is excitable, poorly focused, quickly tired, superficial, often does not have expressed creative, cognitive interests, but tends only to entertainment, is easily influenced by bad influence, does not know how to predict the consequences of his actions (first he does, then he thinks), undisciplined. At the same time, he is ambitious, competitive, he has overestimated claims, claims for leadership in the absence of potential for such a difficult task. He is often anxious and even cowardly, but he tries to disguise his cowardice with bravado. Feeling unpunished, such a child demonstrates demonstration and self-will. He is emotionally underdeveloped, incapable of deep feelings, treats those around him, even those closest to him, is consumer, as objects of manipulation, does not take into account other people's experiences, in the event of a benefit for himself can easily deceive, go to their heads, do not admit their mistakes , does not feel real repentance (unashamed).

It is these people who are at risk for alcoholism and drug addiction, which are very effective ways of exterminating the population in the cold war phase. And in the transition to real fighting, the army, consisting of men with a similar profile of behavior, has no chance of winning. Some of them will quickly be slaughtered, the other part will scatter or go over to the side of the enemy.

It is quite obvious that culturally and historically not only in our country, but also in the rest of the world, this type of men was a sign of degeneration, since it did not correspond to the main tasks of the stronger sex: to be a protector, creator, breadwinner, head of family and clan, support of society and the state. And the creation of conditions under which the above-mentioned negative qualities develop to the detriment of positive ones inevitably leads to the distortion of the male psyche, weakening of the mind and body, and shortening of life. It is programmed.

There is another extremely important factor. Modern consumer society seeks to erase from the life of man all the higher meanings. Meaning - in consumption and enjoyment. What else to do? The lower, more difficult and more primitive - the “cooler” you are! Mocks everything that makes a man a man. The media and other channels of influence on public opinion are making titanic efforts in order to erode — and in the long run and completely eliminate — the traditional concepts of duty and honor, patriotism, love and loyalty. Naturally, a modern libertarian who sets the tone for building an “open global society” does not believe in God. And even if he believes in one who favors Sodom in all its manifestations (that is, not in God, but in the devil). But among ordinary people, who are particularly frank ideologues, don’t even call people, but say “biomass”, atheism is persistently promoted: talk about saving the soul is ridiculous, this is the day before yesterday, fanaticism, obscurantism and - again, in the long run - religious extremism .

In our country, which in the XX century has already experienced a period of militant atheism, and not in the cold, but in the hot phase, with the destruction of churches and the murder of millions of Orthodox Christians, things are a little different. Here are two mutually exclusive trends. On the one hand, more and more people come to Christ. On the other hand, the liberals are intensifying attacks on the Church, trying to weaken it both outside and inside. The outcome of the struggle will depend on whether Russia will be able to gain sovereignty and go on its own path of development, reviving traditional Christian values ​​and decisively rejecting everything that it is trying to dilute and destroy. But by itself sovereignty will not fall on our heads. Whether we find it or not depends on each of us. Including how people will raise their children.

What to focus on in raising boys

One of the most important qualities linked to sex (those without which men can hardly be called men) is courage. The development of this quality was actively encouraged in all nations at all times. Now with this problem. Many families (not only incomplete, but often such where dad is) suffer from over-care. And then the media inflates fear. Juvenalschiki, hooked on Western grants, urge to ban children from being left unattended until fourteen years old. There are already quite a few cases when there is an abrasion or a bruise seen by a teacher in a child - and even more so an appeal to a trauma center with suspected concussion or a broken bone! - turned into a formidable evidence of "ill-treatment in the family." And my mother had to make excuses in front of the district police officer, arguing that she did not disgrace, who wanted the child to be evil. If such a practice takes root and the parents, rightly fearing trouble, will begin to shake over the children even more, guarding their every step, it will be possible to put an end to the education of courage. This can not be allowed.

Of course, courage should be brought up taking into account the nature of the child, not over-exaggerating him at an early age, so as not to cause neuroticism. But to encourage this quality in boys is absolutely necessary. And now it often happens that the parents themselves do not have an understanding of how important it is. They are much more concerned with the development of intelligence, perseverance, diligence, creative abilities - all that is needed for a good study and further placement in high-paying office work, etc.

But, first, it is far from a fact that life in comfort and coziness will continue for immeasurable times. No matter how much we would like to live quietly, peace is most likely not the test. Secondly, in the current, fairly quiet life, people are not immune from all sorts of unpleasant incidents such as attacks by bullies. And, thirdly (and in fact, firstly), since courage is one of the most important masculine qualities, on him, as a foundation, a male personality is largely built. Judge for yourself.

A brave man is a courageous man (a word that testifies for itself!). And masculinity presupposes both stamina, and endurance, and “dashing valiant,” and a craving for overcoming difficulties. And, of course, willpower, without which a male character cannot be forged. Life in the modern city significantly limits the development of all these qualities. It is no coincidence that so many boys "sit down" on computer games. The point is not only that this is a fashionable leisure and “currency of communication” among children and adolescents. Much more important is the fact that computer games make it possible for a teenager to escape from reality and pretend to be a real man, without developing male qualities in himself, but by replacing them with a game phantom. In life you have to go to the gym, do exercises every day, do exercises that you don’t necessarily give you easily, tolerate coach’s remarks and strikes at your pride when someone else is more successful. And here - he closed in the room, sat down more comfortably, launched the "comp", clicked several times with the mouse - and you are a hero, build up strength, power ... Cheap and angry! No wonder it is weak-willed, unmanly (although, perhaps, hiding their cowardice) adolescents so often become cyber-dictators. A brave, strong-willed guy will not spend all his free time on this trash. Of course, he can play, but it is much more interesting for him to do some vigorous activity, work, learn something new, go on a kayak trip, climb the mountains, fight with the opponent not on the screen, but in the ring ... Difficulties, failures it only provoke. He is not afraid of life, does not hide from her like a snail in the shell, does not give hysterical reactions so characteristic of computer games fans, does not maneuver, trying to cover up cowardice and weakness with bravado and "nap". In other words, a normal guy does not behave like a pampered, spoiled loon of a young woman, it is unclear why he pretends to be the commander in the family.

Other - no less important - masculine qualities are nobility and generosity. They do not allow animal ferocity and cruelty to roam, do not allow them to sneer at the weak, impose a veto on vulgarity and cynicism.

Modern mass culture is trying to send these valuable men's qualities in the scrap. The cutesy, hysterical "it", adorning itself with necklaces and earrings, caring for the skin of the face according to all the rules of cosmetology of the 21st century, and not even embarrassed to defile, is advertised vigorously, but only on the runway, not in the street - in a skirt. For those who do not want to obabit completely, a different option is offered: a stupid, rude dork, outwardly and internally not much different from an orangutan. I will not delve into the topic, but, as far as I can judge by expert estimates, these are the two poles of the “culture of Sodom”. Neither one nor the other has nothing to do with real masculinity.

Reflecting on the differences between boys and girls, psychologists note that boys have a developed “feeling of the pack” and willingly recognize the social hierarchy. They are competitive, fighting for leadership. Girls are more sensitive to interpersonal relationships. Their communication is more trusting, each usually has a best friend with whom they share secrets. Of course, among the girls there are weak and strong personalities, but the desire to become the “leader of the pack”, as a rule, is not peculiar to them. And it is absolutely clear. The purpose of a woman is to be a wife and mother, to give loved ones love and tenderness. A man is given the role of a superior by God. Someone - small, someone big - it depends on the potential and on how it will be possible to realize it, how life will be.

But this overriding role cannot be overlooked in the education of boys. Otherwise, the formation of a male character will be distorted. The one who is weaker will be crushed, will become passive and cowardly. The natures will begin to stubbornly, rebel. Of course, parents should not allow their son to command them (now this is often the case, since it is easier for adults to yield than to endure the scandals of their offspring). But since boys are very sensitive to hierarchy, they no longer respect adults who allow themselves to sit on their necks. And they quickly get out of control, loosen up, they are not accustomed to discipline, work and responsibility.

Without the development of the above qualities: courage, perseverance, endurance, willpower, initiative and independence, generosity and nobility, it is impossible to be a normal boss. Neither in a family, nor in a society, nor in the state. And without fulfilling his main purpose, a man does not feel happy, tries to console himself with surrogates and often gets completely confused, ineptly wasting his best years. Parents of boys should initially set a correct goal. But many people come to their senses too late, when it is already clear to even the blind that the guy is not ready for the male role. And what to do with it then is a big question.

The spiritual education of boys: the challenges of time

Sports, mastering the techniques of struggle, participation in hiking, familiarization with the work of focusing on traditionally male work, many heroic examples that abound история, literature, art, and — thank God — modern life — in the language of mathematics, conditions are necessary but not sufficient for real male education.

Nowadays, when spiritual warfare becomes harsher, a person cannot stand without spiritual support. Everything is shaky, ghostly; traditions that allow people, at least by inertia, to follow the good traditions of their ancestors, have been lost, values ​​have been disputed, the top and bottom are turned over. Overwhelmingly, fathers are not a spiritual authority for children; they cannot instruct them in faith and piety. And this means that they are not the real heads of the family, no matter how much money they earn or whatever official posts they hold. And the sons, having grown up a bit, are more oriented towards their fathers than with their mothers. In recent years, however, the men in the temples have increased, but the situation has not changed radically. But it must change dramatically, for a society in which a woman is spiritually, spiritually, and now sometimes physically stronger than men, is doomed to self-destruction.

Moreover, in matters of the spiritual education of boys, it is also important to take into account their peculiarities linked to sex. The perception of boys and girls varies considerably. Girls learn emotional information better because they are more sensitive, romantic, and set up to establish warm, trusting relationships with the teacher. Their perception is usually more specific, aimed at practical tasks: where can I apply the knowledge gained? Men's mindset is different - more analytical. Therefore, among men there are much more mathematicians, physicists, philosophers. Boys better master abstract science. In one of the studies conducted on this topic, the number of adolescent boys with mathematical abilities exceeded the number of their contemporaries in the ratio 13: 1 [1]. Boys, it is important to dig to the bottom, to see the depth and scope of the problem. They easily solve new problems and, unlike girls, do not like stereotypical ones. They are aimed at new knowledge, repetitions are boring for them.

If you look from this point of view on the introduction of children to the faith, we will see that it, like secular education, is now more designed for girls. While children are small, it is not so noticeable. Many boys are also happy to cut angels out of paper, paint Easter eggs, perform in Christmas performances. But closer to the youthful age of all this, and even wrestling, hiking, pilgrim trips, etc., are not enough. They, like many previous generations of “Russian boys” (FM Dostoevsky's expression), begin to look for a deeper meaning in life. And, not finding the understanding of others, priniyayut to other sources.

And understanding is not easy to find now. Churched adults are now mostly women. And to the adolescent and youthful age, the psychology of boys is very different from that of women. In addition, the parents of today's adolescents, as a rule, came to faith at a more or less conscious age, having managed to wander in the dark and finally come to the light. Therefore, it often seems to them that the son is frantic with fat: “Okay, we didn’t know something, but the meaning of diapers is open to you! Go to the temple, pray, confess, take communion, try not to sin, but sin, repent. And all will be well!"

And this, of course, is correct, but the boy is not satisfied. Deep, serious male mentoring is necessary for modern youths like air. To solve this issue only by the forces of the priests, who are already overloaded so that their own children are often almost not seen, is unrealistic. It is important for parents to understand this and to make sure in advance that the teenager had a chance to discuss with anyone, share his opinions and doubts. It is best, of course, that this role be assumed and adequately performed by the father himself. It is even difficult to convey what a great happiness it is for a son to be proud of his father not just as a respected person, an expert in some business, but also as a moral, spiritual authority. And what a great honor for the father in an era of demonstrative overthrow of the authorities, the triumph of rudeness.

If the understanding of these things is returned to society, many fathers will think and start behaving differently. After all, all men, even little boys, want to be respected. Question: for what? Now this is a key question. Until his decision passes into the spiritual plane, until men mature to the realization of the paramount importance of faith and begin to behave accordingly, the boys will be brought up with a limp. No matter how hard the mothers tried to fill in with the unfinished fathers.

Give the word - hold on!

Teach the boys to keep their word. Once it was considered a matter of honor and the inherent quality of a man. Even Russian merchants and businessmen often concluded trade deals in words: “they shook hands”. Not to fulfill the promise meant to lose confidence in your circle, to be considered an dishonorable, low, non-handshaking person. The society did not show any condescension in this respect. “If you didn’t say a word, be strong, but if you did, hold on,” popular wisdom demanded. Now we are told that the failure to fulfill promises is perfectly normal. In politics, this is not supposed to happen otherwise. But if you justify the dishonesty of statesmen, what then to demand from ordinary people: husbands, fathers, sons?

It turns out that there is no one to rely on. In response to your request, they say yes, but that means nothing. The mother, returning home from work, once again sees her son with lessons not done, buried in a computer, and a mountain of dirty dishes in the sink, although on the phone he vowed that everything would be all right when she arrived. Appealing to her husband is also pointless: he himself does not fulfill promises. The shelves that the husband was supposed to hang three weeks ago are still not even unpacked. Yes, and physically his presence in the apartment is not observed, despite the fact that the day before he firmly promised to return from work early and do mathematics with his son ... I will not continue this realistic sketch. Everything is too familiar. Let me just say that in women such infantile non-obligation of men causes a rapid loss of respect. Apparently, because it enters into a sharp contradiction with the archetypical image of her husband as a hope and support, behind which is like a stone wall. A wife can come to terms with many of the disadvantages of a spouse, but the loss of respect for marriage is fatal. Even if it does not formally fall apart, the wife will experience deepest disappointment and react accordingly.

Therefore, wishing the boy happiness, he is sure to - I apologize for the pun! - it is necessary to teach them to be bound, to teach them to fulfill their promises. How to teach? Yes, in general, there is no special wisdom. If a child is inclined to be cunning and manipulated, if he is begging for advances, and having received them, does not fulfill the promise, then there is no need to give advances. It must be an iron law that does not break through with any persuasion and tantrums. "In the morning, money - in the evening chairs." And nothing else. And in parallel, it is worthwhile to periodically tell the son (not a reproach, but, as it were, just so) that real men can keep their word. It is worth reading the story of A.I. Panteleyev "Honest Word" and discuss it. And also give examples from life. Including from the life of great people, life stories. Say, recall the episode from the lives of the holy martyrs Adrian and Natalia or the martyr Basilisk. Adrian was released to his wife so that he would inform her about the day of his execution. And Basilisk asked the prison guards to let him go to say goodbye to his relatives. Theoretically, both martyrs could have escaped, but they returned to certain death because they wanted to suffer for Christ and did not want to lose their good name, to pass for deceivers and cowards.

And do not give in advance not only the desired sweets and cartoons, but also - which is much more important! - the privileges associated with growing up. As, actually, was at all times at all peoples. The child first had to prove that he had matured to transfer to another age category, and only then his rights expanded. And not vice versa, as often happens now.

Boys are more active than girls

Boys are on average more mobile and playful than girls. And this is also no accident. It would have been difficult for an inert smudge to cope with the difficult tasks of extracting food, protecting the family, searching for and developing new lands. Compared to girls, boys have a more developed sense of orientation. I remember how it amazed me that the eldest son already in three and a half years was showing me the way when I drove him by car through the whole city to my great-grandmother. I myself didn’t really remember the route, but it took several trips to tell me where to turn and where to go straight.

In boys, the hunter's ancient instinct slumbers. They need space, they need travel, adventure. 95% young male strollers. Spending most of their lives in a closed and fairly cramped space — a city apartment and a school class — the boys suffer from physical and mental deprivation (lack of movement and necessary positive emotions). Therefore, at the break or rushing out of the apartment on the street, they begin to play tricks, rush, mess around. Attempts to crush this splash of energy will lead to even greater overstrain, increased aggressiveness and disobedience. Many parents note that, being a few days in a row within four walls (for example, due to illness), the son begins to literally stand on his head. And having escaped to freedom, running into and jumping, it calms down, becomes more manageable and compliant.

Therefore, be sure to reckon with these little boy features. It is necessary to build a regime for children so that there is an opportunity to take a walk and run in the fresh air, go hiking, see new places, go skiing and skating in the winter, in the spring and summer - on a bicycle. In short, adults should saturate the boys' need for physical activity and space. A sedentary lifestyle, this scourge of citizens, and for adults is fraught with many extremely unpleasant diseases, but for the young, still emerging organism, it is simply destructive. Of course, there are things that you have to put up with. We are not able to cancel the class-study system of schoolwork, although within this system there are techniques that allow children to move. For example, the system V.F. The market hall, according to which the classes are equipped not with ordinary desks, but with desk-desks, and the schoolchildren can work either sitting or standing. But how a child spends his free time depends almost entirely on his parents: what they allow him, what they allocate funds for.

From this point of view, it is also better not to encourage the interest of the sons in computer and television. Especially on weekdays, after school. Among other drawbacks, this is an additional load for the eyes, and hypodynamia, which leads to disruption of the cardiovascular system and brain, which causes general weakness, insomnia, reduced work capacity, reduced mental activity. Hypodynamia also negatively affects the musculoskeletal system and the gastrointestinal tract. In short, the whole body.

At school age, boys are very important to engage in some sports section. This makes it possible to alternate mental loads with physical ones, disciplines, distracts from aimless spending time.

Take care of mind development

Speaking of mental stress. Destruction of fundamental education, teaching schoolchildren to act mainly within the framework of predetermined algorithms, training to solve stereotypical tasks, or even almost completely guessing the correct answer in test mode, when the test or exam is more like solving a crossword than a serious, deep testing of knowledge, such “innovations” that impede the normal development of the intellect, are simply murderous for boys. The male mind, inquisitive, free, seeking independent solutions, is driven into the cage. Yes, and the randomness of the presentation of the material, the lack of harmony and internal logic - all that was characteristic of classical education - are especially unbearable for the analytical, male mentality. Without understanding the meaning, without seeing logic in an arbitrary set of facts, an intelligent boy is lost. He cannot mechanically learn a lesson in order to please the teacher (a motive that is often quite sufficient for girls). Interest in learning disappears, difficulties accumulate, gaps in knowledge become more and more, and by the end of elementary school, a child who has given so much hope often turns into a neurotic trio.

If the boy also sits down from childhood on computer games, then the matter is quite seams. Not only because it is a kind of addiction that inevitably leads to a narrowing of horizons, a loss of curiosity, and often no other interests whatsoever besides gaming. The fact is that the computer, according to the reviews of psychiatrists and psychologists studying this issue, distorts the child’s thinking and teaches thinking not creatively, but technologically. In most popular games there is no scope for the flight of thought and fantasy, the search for solutions comes down to the choice of predetermined options (that is, this is also a kind of test), standard images and cliches are imposed on children. Thinking is programmed, there is a robotization of personality. The child does not learn to look for solutions on his own, does not learn to analyze and draw conclusions, but acts mainly through trial and error, because this is the only way to move forward in many computer games.

Pay attention to how many modern advertising guys with frankly stupid, even moronic facial expressions. Unfortunately, in this case, advertising is no longer giving out wishful thinking, but to a certain extent reflects reality. Enough to ride the subway, walk through the streets and look around. But for the most part, children are still not born intellectually flawed, but completely normal and even clever! So we are talking about typical pedagogical neglect and intentional duping of people in the framework of the information war, which is fraught with tragic consequences both for an individual and for the country as a whole. Stupid men not only do not inspire respect for women (and therefore lose the right of primacy in the family and society), but often turn out to be unable to realize what is happening. Therefore, they are easy to manipulate. And inertia, inflexibility, standardization of thinking leads to a narrow-mindedness, when even under the pressure of irrefutable evidence a person cannot accept a point of view that does not fit into the usual stereotypes, and either falls into aggression, or leaves reality in the world of computer-television dreams, intoxicates itself with drugs or alcohol. That is even more disables the already weak consciousness.

Boys need to be raised in a military spirit.

For many parents, the cadet corps is practically the only way to keep teens from going outside and further, as juvenile human rights defenders express, “conflict with the law”. For many, but not for all. For children with a fragile psyche (for example, those who, under the influence of stress, have nervous tics and obsessions), separation from home and tough male treatment can become an unbearable psychological burden. In any case, I repeatedly had to deal with the fact that, having given my son to a paramilitary institution on the advice of a psychologist or in my own mind, my parents subsequently had to treat him for neurosis.

And for other, more “thick-skinned” guys, a militarized educational institution is truly salutary. And to recognize who is more suited to someone, it is possible much earlier, without waiting for adolescence. How many times have you heard from relatives of willful boys, that of those who are gentle and gentle with them, they twist the ropes, and the formidable teacher or strict trainer adore and obey without question. And from the harassment of bullies such a guy will not suffer. He himself whom you want will oppress.

However, it often happens that mom exaggerates the vulnerability of her offspring. And because he still seems to her to be small, and because many women do not have enough sensitivity from their husbands, so they are looking for such an understanding in her son. And he, using his mother's condescension, completely beats off his hands. In those cases, alas, which are too common in our time when a family cannot cope with a recalcitrant teenager, and because of its immaturity, he is still not able to do without control and external motivation to work, it is better to think about the boy’s device boarding school. Let it not be militarized, but still it is where discipline is monitored, taught to self-control and self-service. This is what Princess Olga Nikolaevna Kulikovskaya-Romanova, the widow of Prince Tikhon Nikolaevich Kulikovsky-Romanov, who was brought by her nephew to the holy martyr Tsar Nicholas II, says about this: “It would be right after ten years when the child had already received full parental love and affection to give it to boarding school. There the child learns discipline. This is at home, he can bask in bed and not wash. And try to behave in a boarding school. Children in a team usually do everything with everyone. In the boarding school everyone gets up, everyone goes to the line, everyone goes to class ... As for boys, it is very important to revive the system of cadet corps in Russia ... Boys should be educated in a military spirit. Boys need it. They do not necessarily have to become military after the end of the cadet corps. But they will be disciplined for life. And the children will get friends for life. Cadet friendship forever. ”

Olga Nikolaevna knows what she is talking about, since she herself studied in a private boarding school for noble maidens. “If I had not been accustomed to discipline at the Mariinsky Don Institute,” testifies the princess, “I would not be able to transfer those tests that fell to my lot” [2].

Maternal pity (“How can he cope without me, he is so unprotected!”) In such cases does not benefit the son, and if you give this pity, then the consequences can be very dire. As it happened, for example, the mother of thirteen-year-old Leni K. As a child, he had a whole “bunch” of diseases: asthma, neurodermatitis, gastritis, scoliosis, endless acute respiratory infections. Mother raised him alone. The husband formally existed, but in reality was not present, did not give money, was interested not in his son, but mainly in vodka. Lyudmila Vadimovna "dragged" the child alone. By the age of ten, he had become stronger, although he still could not boast of excellent health. But in psychological terms, the situation is rapidly deteriorating. The guy in his eyes turned into an "anti-social element." And the mother, understanding and acknowledging this, signed on her helplessness, saying that she had a too soft character and had no influence on her son. It became clear to 13 years both for her and for those around her that if no urgent measures were taken, the guy would definitely follow the curve. He had already abandoned all circles, did not want to study, was rude to his mother and desperately sought independence, meaning by that the opportunity to come home whenever he pleases (or not to come at all) and do what his left leg wishes. Lyudmila Vadimovna called for help, begging to arrange a child in a good boarding school. The cadet corps refused to take him for health reasons.

Some compassionate people with great difficulty managed to agree on the admission of Leni to a good closed school, located outside of Moscow, far from urban temptations. Truly gigantic work was undertaken, since mom did not have money to pay, and with marks like Leonid, not only in a good school, but also in the mean seed it was risky to meddle. In addition, the boy himself constantly put sticks in the wheels, knowing that you would not play at the boarding school. The maximum that he agreed to is to go there for the holidays in order to “just see” (and during that time they promised to pull him up in the main subjects). But, once in place, Lyonya, as often happens with children, quickly settled down, became involved in an interesting, meaningful life that teachers tried to arrange for students who did not leave for one reason or another in the summer to go home, became friends with the children. Then the school year began. Lyonya did well in all subjects, did not break the discipline, was fond of playing basketball. In short, what else could you want? However, the mother after the end of the first quarter took her son to Moscow. For what reason? And because Leni, when she visited him, had a weary (and, as she thought, unhappy) appearance, he complained to her of fatigue and a strict trainer, forcing him to wring out his fists. Well, he also had a runny nose, and the nurse did not pay enough attention to it, just gave the child a drop, and that was all. And Lyonya was scattered and irresponsible: he put the vial on the nightstand and forgot. So not for long and antritis to earn!

Now Leonid is sixteen. Mother has bitten all the elbows for a long time, but you cannot return what you have done. By the end of the ninth grade, the son, however, still held out, but this was given to her at such a high price that at the mere thought of her experience, tears flow in a stream. At the moment, the guy does not study, does not work, sleeps for four days, then staggers somewhere or sits at the computer, with mate and threats extorts money from his mother, steals in supermarkets, gets drunk. About health, of course, does not think. Lyudmila Vadimovna inspires herself and others that at least the case has not reached the drugs, but it looks more like psychotherapy ... Recently, Lyonya has contacted football fans. What's next is better not to think. One of his buddies, three years older, is already sitting at the stabbing, the second in a fight broke two ribs and a collarbone ...

Listening to this saga, which is becoming more nightmarish with each chapter, I want to exclaim: “So what have you achieved by protecting your son from a strict trainer and from a cold?” But what's the point of asking? But Lenya was even going to be transferred over time to the cadet class - he was in a boarding school like that - he proved himself so well ...

And how were boys raised before?

Thinking about education, it is instructive to refer to the experience gained in the people. Say, how did Russian peasants, who constituted the overwhelming majority of the population before the revolution, raise boys? “The lack of strong power and proper supervision from the father, supported by the practice of using force, was considered to be the cause of family disorder, debauchery, indiscipline of children, quarrels and fights between them,” writes VG Cold in the article "Fatherly punishment in the upbringing of a teenage boy among the Eastern Slavs in the late XIX - early XX century". “In Russians, disobedience to the fatherly will assigned to the son the nickname of“ nepochetnik ”/“ disrespect ”,“ disobedient ”, which was considered shameful, and could be a reason for expelling from the house without a part of the father's property” [3]. Among the Little Russians, even the proverb existed: "Whoever does not hear the tata, that hear the kata (the executioner)".

“Until the end of infancy,” the author continues, “the father, who appeared in the rituals of“ humanization ”(in the first swaddling, christening, tonsure) as a symbol of communion with the family, race, and for the boy who was the prototype of masculinity, almost did not participate in raising his son ... Before 5 – 7, and sometimes up to 12 years, the children were under the care of the mother, she had basic responsibilities for the care and care of the children. The head of the family performed the function of general supervision, he was called upon as the highest authority when the child broke the rules, but the punishment during this period was not his prerogative. ”

“Father has little communication with them, since they are not yet his assistants. He rarely punishes them, and for the most part his mother does it, ”informants from the Vologda and Kostroma provinces reported.

“The old man does not beat children in vain. In the summer, he does not have time to get along with the children, and in the winter only in the evenings: he sits on his knees, tells fairy tales ”[4]. In the Vologda district, while the sons were small, they were called “mother’s children”. Caressing them, she directly said: "This is still my son." From 12 years, as soon as the sons began to help the father in the field and other male works, they got out of the supervision of the mother and, unlike the daughters, became the “children of the father”. Now the mother communicated with her sons less, the prerogative of upbringing, and therefore of encouragement and punishment, went to her father.

The son, brought up by his mother until adulthood, outside the male community, was ridiculed by the people as spoiled, unintelligible, inconsistent. He was given the nickname "mama's son", which speaks for itself. In 1772, a peasant woman-widow of the Tomsk province “announced” in the Berd ship hut that she had “with her son Feodor ... someone to go to tillage and a house institution to teach no one,” and asked permission to move with her son to the mother. “Observers unanimously confirm the conclusion about the exceptional role of the father and, in general, of the older men in the family in raising their sons,” the historian N.A. Minenko [5].

Children under the age of 5 – 7 were treated mildly, almost not punished, many misconceptions and mischief were glimpsed. ““ En Ishsho is small, he lacks sense, ”the father said about his son,“ he will grow up, will come to his senses, then he will do, and now what to take with him? ” You didn’t get him out, and tomorrow again for the same ”... As soon as the children“ came into their minds ”, the attitude towards them became stricter and more exacting, they began to be“ taught ”, that is, scolded and reprimanded for pranks and disobedience. Especially strictly acted if the child mischievous in front of adults, interfered and did not obey the comments; Repeated punishment (“wedge wedge knocked out”) could be earned by the one who, having received his own, yelled and complained for a long time ”[6].

Labor education of boys began quite early. In the peasant environment, ingenuity, thrift, skillful hands were highly valued. “Already a three-year-old boy helps his mother: to clean potatoes, sweep the floor, find his father's sash, gather peas into a cup, kick the chickens out of the garden,” reported at the end of the 19th century from the Novaya Ladoga district of the St. Petersburg province [7]. Then the boys gradually accustomed to male work. In 6 – 7 years, they had already driven cattle into the yard, with 8 – 9 - they drove horses to a watering place, traveled with the older guys at night, learned to sit on a horse and manage it, drove adults to lunch in the field. By the 9 – 10 years (in other places a little later), the boy was able to harness a horse on his own, helped his father in harrowing, put the sheaves on a barn and threshed. The boy who ruled a horse during a harrow was called a harrow. Not only the child, but also his entire family was proud of the achievement of the boronovolk age (from 10 to 15 years). Even the proverb “Your boronovolok is more expensive than someone else’s employee” was common. At the same time, they also taught various crafts necessary for farming. Depending on the specifics of a particular area, it could be wood or leather processing, weaving of bast shoes, twine, etc. Boys and accustomed to fishing and hunting. All this happened under the supervision of elders. Especially strictly suppressed laziness.

Usually by the age of majority, or even earlier, in 14 – 15 years, family punishments ended. They did not punish me for faults anymore, but tried to convince with words. The older the son became, the more respectfully the adults addressed him. Only a community court could punish an adult son for disobedience, disrespect, or insult inflicted on his father. According to the parents' complaint, the administration could punish with arrest or publicly whip out rods, and the village and volost authorities could not refuse to assist. The offended father gathered the village and asked the neighbors to tear off his son in the presence of all. Such an extreme measure covered the son with shame, opposed to society and actually removed it from the field of reproduction, because the public flogging of an adult boy was considered an indelible shame, the girls refused to marry him.

The basis for the rigid system of restrictions on the activity of a teenage boy was the idea of ​​the spontaneity and uncontrollability of his essence.

Much attention was paid to the heroic education of sons. In the mass consciousness, commanders and military heroes who earned the glory of Russia were highly valued. The type of national leader of Ancient Russia is represented by the princes, the leaders of the squads ... In their exploits both personal righteousness and national service were valued - that they, not sparing their stomachs, defended their native land. Simple people who sacrificed themselves for the sake of the Fatherland were also very honored. At the end of the 19th century, one of the correspondents from the Gzhatsky district of the Smolensk province reported to the Ethnographic Bureau that “people are pleased to read about those who sacrificed themselves to Russia ... the feats of many insignificant persons shown during the Patriotic War 1812 of the year cause pride of the people and deep respect to the unknown heroes, the memory of which is transferred from the elder to the younger ”[8]. The ideal of a bold, strong, loyal to the Fatherland warrior, reliable friend and comrade passes through all the folklore - from the epics to the late soldier songs. Remarkable is the fact of the existence of soldiers' songs - their themes were close to the peasantry. Since the Northern War, when the soldier's mass first appeared as a collective hero of the Russian epic, these songs have become almost central to Russian historical poetry [9].

The one called up for military service was in the eyes of the people a defender of the Fatherland and invariably felt respectful attitude of the villagers, all the inhabitants of the region. Seeing off to the soldiers was solemn. The rookie was blessed by parents, as well as by the godfather and mother. The return of the soldier from the service also constituted an event for the whole village. A lot of people gathered in the hut to listen to his stories about our military force. The theme of battles, military exploits in the past and present was constant during conversations at meetings of adults, often in the presence of children. The stories about wars focused on the success of Russian troops. The bad news penetrated the people sporadically and did not attach much importance to failures, being sure that the enemies would not be able to resist the Russians, that “God himself, the Mother of God and St. Nicholas would not allow it” [10]. In other words, optimism and belief in victory were brought up in the younger generations of future men. The decadent moods, so common in recent decades among our population, were not popular, although the conditions of life were much worse today, and the defeats, as we know from history, also happened.

It was considered shameful to coward, evade, and hiding behind comrades. Here is what an interesting testimony about the nature of the representations of the Kuban Cossacks was left by the war correspondent in the Far East during the Russo-Japanese War of 1904 – 1905. He had a chance to talk with Kuban plastinos - so called special units engaged in reconnaissance, sabotage operations, etc. You can say it was an analogue of modern special forces. “Tall, mighty as an oak, a Kuban Cossack complained bitterly that he had been appointed in a wagon train. “Did I go here only to clean the horse and carry the grain? What will I say at home when they ask me how I fought with the Japanese? ”The real grief shone on the energetic face ...“ And is it impossible to do that, ”continued the Cossack,“ in order for us, the plastins, to enlist everyone in the ranks in the train to appoint spare soldiers? Between them there are some very bad little men. ”” [11].

[1] Bohutskaya T. Boys prefer to compete, and girls - to cooperate // Home education. 2004. No. 2. C. 3 – 4.
[2] Kulikovskaya-Romanova ON I see the transformation of Russia //
[3] Male compilation. Issue 2. M., 2004. C. 170.
[4] Derlitsa M. Selyanski diti // Ethnographic site. Lviv, 1896. T. 1. C. 131.
[5] N.Nenko Russian peasant family in Western Siberia (XVIII - first half of the XIX century). Novosibirsk, 1979. C. 121.
[6] Cold VG Paternal punishment in the upbringing of a teenage boy in the Eastern Slavs in the late XIX - early XX century // Male collection. Issue 2. C. 175.
[7] Listova T.A. Traditions of labor education in the village. Russians. M., 1997. C. 115.
[8] A.V. Buganov Warrior-hero in the historical memory of Russian // Male collection. C. 200.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid. S. 200-201.
[11] Tonkonogov I. Our Cossacks in the Far East // Collection of stories of correspondents and participants of the war, placed in various periodicals. SPb., 1907. C. 28.
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Debugger2005
    Debugger2005 4 July 2013 09: 44
    Orphanages and boarding schools should be assigned to military schools
    1. Canep
      Canep 4 July 2013 10: 45
      In orphanages, approximately 50% of girls. How are they with them?
      1. Ivan_Ivanov
        Ivan_Ivanov 4 July 2013 10: 57
        Don't women need women in the army?
      2. washi
        washi 4 July 2013 11: 57
        Guys code guardianship of the military, girls under the doctors. For starters, normal warriors and medical workers will grow.
        Something similar is described by R. Zlotnikov in the novels `Viva the Emperor and` Armageddon`
    2. Mikhail3
      Mikhail3 4 July 2013 12: 04
      I completely agree. Makarenko, a truly great teacher, an unsurpassed master of this business, wore his whole life an evil hiss of his superiors out of the image like a medal. Wanting to insult him and clarify the whole disgusting essence of the Makarenko method, they called him terrible words - commander’s pedagogy! Here Makarenko did so out of the children of people, and commanders commanded and raised them. With the military it would be many times, ten times easier ...
      1. albanech
        albanech 11 September 2013 13: 30
        I will not repeat myself! All think right! Nice to read!
  2. Grigorich 1962
    Grigorich 1962 4 July 2013 11: 02
    Thanks for the article ... especially from the woman. I am given concerned about the problem of raising boys as future men. And forgive this personally my opinion ... men were the most powerless in modern society. They decide little of their life themselves (I do not take the sphere of consumption) .... for them it was decided by society, the state. A lot of boys grow up in single-parent families, which also leaves an imprint on their lives. Many guys grow up infantile .... not wishing to be heroes. Computer games for many have become a kind of virtual life ..... this is also a serious problem. Few boys constantly go to sports clubs .... and excessive parental care .... often because of one child in the family, they bring up egoists ... incapable of thinking about others. I have two sons ... the older one is already leading an independent life and the younger ones have to deal with it. I try to instill in him a heroic Russian history .... respect for elders and women .... I try by personal example to show my negative attitude to smoking, drinking and drug addiction ..... God willing everything will be fine
    1. Cyber7
      Cyber7 4 July 2013 21: 58
      Do it right. If you do not teach them something, no one will teach them anything.
    2. Kahlan amnell
      Kahlan amnell 8 July 2013 13: 27
      ... God willing everything will be fine

      To give it, one must not sit idly by and trust in mercy. We have to work day after day, year after year. This is the only way to grow a good harvest. My husband and I have three sons and a daughter, and we look at them now and rejoice, because we see that they grew up as people.
  3. Rashid
    Rashid 4 July 2013 11: 05
    Almost everything in the article is correct, only it’s difficult to agree with the role of religion. Now many go to temples, consider themselves believers, and so on. But note, in Soviet times several generations of unbelieving people grew up, but what kind of people they were! Builders, scientists, military, we are now talking about them with pride. It was just an idea, an ideology of creators, not consumers. Religion will never be a creative force in our time, it can only keep people a bit in the air of decency. I am sure that the world will return to the ideas of socialism, communism, that is, the system that has given us and our fathers so much good.
    1. dark_65
      dark_65 4 July 2013 18: 02
      Did not read the commandments of God? Not so difficult, there are only ten of them.
      It’s hard to observe, religion will still be the cement of the nation, the time has not come.
      1. dark_65
        dark_65 4 July 2013 18: 15
        Yes, to hell with me on this minus, I'm right.
      2. Donvel
        Donvel 4 July 2013 20: 58
        Correction: religion will NOT be the cement of the nation.
        1. dark_65
          dark_65 4 July 2013 21: 49
          Do you know what will happen next? When your wife believes, children ... the weak believe more. And this is coming, the war will be when? I am not a prophet, but I think in 1,2 generations.
          1. Donvel
            Donvel 4 July 2013 23: 01
            Next will be the apogee of consumption, new generations will consume, consume and consume. Religion is useless to them. Previously, the defender was the ideal man, now - a successful businessman. And it hints.
      3. dark_65
        dark_65 4 July 2013 22: 08
        What does the Motherland begin with? For you, for me, for millions of citizens? .. for me from the oath that she brought.
      4. Cyber7
        Cyber7 4 July 2013 22: 20
        Religion is not cement.
        Laws are written (including the Criminal Code) for those who violate them.
        If a person is brought up in such a way that it is disgusting for him to break the laws, which he himself implicitly (intuitively, ethically, existentially) decided to follow - he does not need dogma and CC. He will simply live as he sees fit. And that will be true.
        But what he will consider correct is what you are obliged to teach him.
        Will he stand up for the weak, not even able to defeat the scum? Will grandmother give way to a trolley bus?
        How to educate - so he will live and will.
        And time ... It's always against us. And to hope for its lack or that "it has not yet arrived" is the lot of weaklings.
        If you want to do something, you are looking for a way. If you do not want to do anything, you are looking for an excuse.
        It always has been.
        1. Hleb
          Hleb 5 July 2013 00: 01
          did I understand correctly that you don’t need to be religious in order to be a person? Is it enough that your parents explained to you from birth what is good and what is bad?
          1. Cyber7
            Cyber7 5 July 2013 00: 59
            Man is man by definition.
            Religion can make a person better or worse.
            But the choice always remains with the person.
            Parents can slightly influence his choice.
            But a person himself must decide what to be. This is his "freedom of choice".
            Generally speaking - with a capital letter. This is what real "freedom" is. And no reforms or "democracies" can influence this.
            1. Hleb
              Hleb 5 July 2013 01: 20
              Man is man by definition.
              arch wisdom))
              sometimes we use the words "a real person" or "a person with a capital letter", etc. or "non-human", "this is not a person, this is an animal" - that's what I meant. to grow up not a crook and a scoundrel, but a man.
              Parents can slightly influence his choice.
              indeed, why raise a child at all ... and most importantly, religion can do better or worse, and Mother can slightly influence ... belay no words
              1. Cyber7
                Cyber7 5 July 2013 02: 11
                Quote: Gleb
                arch wisdom))

                This is not a collision, honestly. I didn’t want to say anything bad. Just such a life. Himself sometimes sick of her.
                Quote: Gleb
                indeed, why raise a child at all ... and most importantly, religion can do better or worse, and Mother can slightly influence ... no words

                You have no children yet. Otherwise, you would know how difficult it is for a born character to bend and straighten under what you think is right. He already knows everything that he needs. And sometimes at the age of 7 he says things that you cannot even think of at 40.
                You are just different. Highly. Although similar in appearance.
                I said that a person is born with his personal ethics and aesthetics. And radically change this is not within the power of either parents or kindergarten teachers, or teachers at school. Because children are so similar in appearance (genetically) to their parents, but so different from them in their worldview.
                It is possible that nature is so trying to get rid of repeatability. Fuck knows why.
                But it is so.
                And he understands religion in his own way. And she can affect him.
                1. Hleb
                  Hleb 5 July 2013 02: 31
                  there are children. but there is some truth in the fact that I saw them a little and dealt with them. Such a job was already. Even bigger ones (I must say my wife did a good job)
                  He already knows everything that he needs
                  I still don’t agree. You can’t even bring up this approach? But what do you think if you give an abandoned child from birth to a normal family with a certain charter, principles, outlook on life and if you give it to some kind of camp (...) -the result will be one in the end? in your opinion, yes, because he was born with his own logic.
                  Because children are so similar in appearance (genetically) to their parents, but so different from them in their worldview.
                  one cannot exclude the other. No wonder they say, for example-All in father. I’m not a specialist of course, but it seems to me that genetics is not so selectively arranged that there is an external similarity, but not by nature. like and vice versa ... either there is similarity or not. but at least some kind of particle is transmitted from parents
                  1. Cyber7
                    Cyber7 5 July 2013 02: 56
                    Quote: Gleb
                    with this approach, you can not bring up?

                    No, you still need to educate. It is a fact. But very carefully. A belt can make little difference. Someday he will stop crying and will endure silently. And then the parent with the belt will be ashamed.
                    Or the parent will understand that this effect does not make sense anymore.
                    Quote: Gleb
                    But what do you think, if you give an abandoned child from birth to a normal family with a certain charter, principles, outlook on life and if you give it to some sort of camp. will there be one result?

                    There is a friend who adopted a son. He surprises both parents with his perception of the world. I do not know what would have happened if he had been in the camp. But I think that the result would be the same. The little man has his own opinion. And parents have to adapt to it. I don’t know what will happen next and who will get over whom, but so far the adoptive parents are adjusting to it, and not vice versa. But he had not yet gone to school.
                    Quote: Gleb
                    one cannot exclude the other

                    I do not oppose. I just say that a born person has a character that has a very indirect relation to parents.
                    Such are the cases.
        2. O_RUS
          O_RUS 11 July 2013 22: 44
          Quote: Cyber7
          If you want to do something, you are looking for a way. If you do not want to do anything, you are looking for an excuse.

          Gold words! I agree with you good
      5. erg
        erg 4 July 2013 23: 14
        Religion will not be. Two millennia exist, the so-called main religions (the beliefs of the ancient peoples can not be called religions, they did not have time to grow up to them) and not one has failed in its task. They did not change human society for the better, did not become a cementing force for nations (because as soon as one of the religions became dominant, it immediately showed internal contradictions that led to division within religion). The reason in essence is that any religion implies blind submission, giving only one choice: to believe or not to believe. In this situation, no matter what positive moral principles religion carries, they will not work. This has been verified by millennia of the development of society. It is simply not in human nature that blind submission. It is the ability to reflect, doubt, etc. allowed to survive man, as a species and human society.
        1. Cyber7
          Cyber7 4 July 2013 23: 41
          Ideally, religion is a striving for that bright and unquestioningly correct, that there is a swindling in every person.
          And religion has no other tasks than to make a person more humane - kinder, more supportive, respectable, more peaceful and tyd.
          She is trying to change people, but people are all different.
          Religion did not become the cement of the nation. Orthodoxy simply added to people the confidence (confidence) that they were going the right way.
          Russian people never believed recklessly, blindly. He first thought, and then made a decision. Therefore, we are Orthodox, not Catholics, or, God forbid, Muslims or Jesuits.
          About faith. There are three words in Russian that reflect an affinity for faith.
          Do-believe - to faith.
          U-faith - in faith.
          And actually - faith.
          No other language has such a gradation.
          And what is happening inside the religious patriarchs is so, it has no special relation to the common people.
          Patriarchs - they are the same people. And so - to sin too sinful. And to judge them is not for us.
          Faith is not blind submission. Faith is warmth somewhere inside when you make the right decision for which you will not be ashamed.
          To no one.
          1. Cat
            Cat 5 July 2013 00: 02
            Quote: Cyber7
            Ideally, religion is a striving for that bright and unquestioningly correct, that there is a swindling in every person.
            And religion has no other tasks than to make a person more humane - kinder, more supportive, respectable, more peaceful and tyd.

            who told you this?
            Any religion (!) Admits, moreover, approves of war, murder, robbery, oppression and tydy. And not so much in relation to criminals (for them there is repentance and forgiveness), but in relation to infidels. And it doesn’t matter that these same infidels can also be kind, honest, decent. This does not interest anyone. Either you believe in what we believe - or you are a sinner. Or you will accept our faith - or they will burn in hell, and do not care how you lived there and what you did.
            Where is the desire to make everyone more humane - it is not clear. But the desire to subordinate everyone to their will and their laws is visible to the naked eye.
            And the best proof of this, as the comrade rightly noted ergis the thousand-year history of all and all religions.
            1. erg
              erg 5 July 2013 00: 21
              I’ll add another phrase of one very intelligent person, although today they can also bring to justice for her. It sounds something like this: during its existence, Christianity actually accomplished the task of the devil.
            2. Cyber7
              Cyber7 5 July 2013 01: 03
              Other than the Qur'an, have you read anything else?
              Only the Qur'an contains the word "infidels".
              You are not right.
              1. erg
                erg 5 July 2013 01: 19
                Infidels exist for all religions. Just when translating the provisions of the Koran, this word was the closest in meaning. By the way, an exact translation of the Koran into Russian does not exist. Many terms cannot be correctly interpreted, as their exact meaning is often lost. Accordingly, it turns out to be impossible to select the right words and concepts from the Russian language.
                1. Cyber7
                  Cyber7 5 July 2013 03: 22
                  Quote: erg
                  Infidels exist for all religions

                  Maybe I don’t know something. But give an example from Orthodoxy, where the word "infidels" is used.
                  Quote: erg
                  There are at least a dozen, moreover, considering the problem from different angles, and not from one position.

                  You read so many different books. Must know.
                  I will be interested.
                  Just don't say that
                  Quote: erg
                  to find the right words and concepts from the Russian language is impossible

                  This is an excuse. She does not count.
                  1. erg
                    erg 5 July 2013 07: 02
                    The word infidel is not used. But other words, in the same sense, yes. For example, the word unclean, which is used by some Old Believers. However, I will not argue with you. When one of the opponents begins to turn to insults, this speaks very well of his "intellectual" abilities.
              2. Cat
                Cat 5 July 2013 03: 26
                Quote: Cyber7
                Other than the Qur'an, have you read anything else?
                Only the Qur'an contains the word "infidels".
                You are not right.

                Quran, speak? No, I didn’t read it. But he read the Bible, and in particular the Gospel of Matthew:
                10:14 But if someone does not accept you and does not listen to your words, then leaving the house or from that city, shake off the dust from your feet;
                10:15 Verily I say unto you, It will be more pleasing to the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment, than to that city.

                What is it like?
                Or, for example, these lines:
                10:32 So everyone who confesses Me before men, I confess that I also am before My Heavenly Father;
                10:33 But whoever denies Me before men, deny that I also am before My Heavenly Father.
                10:34 Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword,
                10:35 for I have come to divide a man with his father, and a daughter with her mother, and a daughter-in-law with her mother-in-law.
                10:36 And the enemies of man are his household.
                10:37 He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and whoever loves a son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me;
                10:38 and he who does not take his cross and follow me, is not worthy of me.

                Where is it about kindness, honesty, decency? Nowhere. Only Faith, everything else is forest. Children including.
                1. Cyber7
                  Cyber7 5 July 2013 04: 31
                  Quote: Cat
                  Quran, speak?

                  Sorry, the lines about the Koran were intended for comrade / gospel / His Grace erg-but.
                  The site engine responds in a strange way.
                  Not my fault, but I apologize.
                  And I will not discuss the lines quoted by you on the website and in the topic "Raising boys".
                  1. Cat
                    Cat 5 July 2013 04: 43
                    Quote: Cyber7
                    And I will not discuss the lines quoted by you on the website and in the topic "Raising boys".

                    Why? The topic is about children, and the Bible lines quoted by me are also about children. And we have a debate about whether to look at religion in the process of raising children, or not.
                    You claim that it is worth it - so let's figure out what this religion can teach children. Is it logical? Is logical.
          2. erg
            erg 5 July 2013 00: 11
            Sorry, you have a confusion in your head. You wrote a bunch of other people's phrases without even realizing what you wrote. You divided the Catholics and the Orthodox without understanding that these are two sides of the same faith in one god, one religion. And they were born in one place and at one time. Moreover, Orthodoxy is primarily Catholicism (in the sense that the term Orthodoxy was used before the term Catholicism appeared). How Jesuits differ from Catholics you do not know at all. But these are the same Catholics. The term faith in Russian is not necessarily associated with faith in God. And do not bring word formation in the spirit of Mikhail Zadorny. He is a satirical writer, and his monologues primarily make fun of certain things, especially human stupidity. I did not write that faith is blind submission, read carefully. And remember, to get an idea of ​​something, it is not enough to read one two books by one or two authors. There are at least a dozen, moreover, considering the problem from different angles, and not from one position.
            1. Cyber7
              Cyber7 5 July 2013 01: 15
              You say that confusion is in my head, but you yourself confirm the opposite.
              I clearly understand what I am saying (and writing). If you do not understand the difference between Catholics and Orthodox - this is not a forum where it would be worth talking about. And that is not the topic.
              I seldom look at provocatively and I have not heard of three approaches to faith in him. This thought was expressed by one of my good friends even before the collapse of the Union. I just brought her here. She has nothing to do with satirists.
              Quote: erg
              I did not write that faith is blind submission, read carefully.

              Quote: erg
              any religion implies blind submission

              Do you share religion and faith?
              Your problems.
              Quote: erg
              And remember

              Do not tell me what to do, and I will not tell you where to go.
              1. Hleb
                Hleb 5 July 2013 01: 27
                Do you share religion and faith?
                What should you think in order not to separate these two terms?
              2. erg
                erg 5 July 2013 01: 31
                I did not write that the phrase belongs to Zadorny, I wrote - in the spirit of Zadorny, feel the difference. Faith and religion are separated: faith does not always grow into religion; religion is always based on faith. But the term faith is not always associated with faith in God. If you don’t understand, go to the library and read the relevant literature (I can advise the seminary library - a lot of material). I understand the difference between Catholics and Orthodox, but you again did not carefully read it - I indicated that they grew out of the same faith. And forgive me, if a person smacks of nonsense, I will indicate what to do.
                1. Cyber7
                  Cyber7 5 July 2013 04: 06
                  Quote: erg
                  I did not write that the phrase belongs to Zadorny, I wrote - in the spirit of Zadorny, feel the difference.

                  I feel. The word "perky" is spelled correctly like this - "Zadornov". And I shouldn't have copied "Zadorny" from you. It would be correct to write - "Zadornova". Keep in mind for the future.
                  Quote: erg
                  But the term faith is not always associated with faith in God.

                  Very interesting. Especially the word "god". With little and not "gd".
                  Indeed, not always.
                  But are we talking about "not always" or about "faith"?
                  Quote: erg
                  and again you didn’t carefully read it - I indicated that they grew out of the same faith

                  Father and mother had two sons. And they were so different from each other.
                  I understood. The two religions grew out of one root, but they are different. I’m saying that they are different, you’re saying that they grew from the same root.
                  Quote: erg
                  And forgive me if a person smashes nonsense,

                  Will not forgive. Because I think that with the word "nonsense" you got excited.
                  Quote: erg
                  I will indicate what to do.

                  A comma should be placed after the word "indicate". But that's not the point. The point is, are you taking too much on your chest? Doesn't the burden pull?
                  In general, this whole dialogue reminds me of "simple trolling". Understand, really?
                  Do you want to talk about my problems? Are you a psychologist, or do you just lack communication with your peers? Then what are you doing on a Russian-language website dedicated to the defense of the homeland (namely Russia, in this context) and weapons (Russia itself)?
                  Or are you just trying to breed me into revelations about where, who and how I am?
                  : oh, fig-you-smile:
                  I’m no longer interested in talking to you, sorry.
                  Vague doubts tear my soul. And I used to trust her. I believe her.
              3. Cat
                Cat 5 July 2013 03: 46
                Quote: Cyber7
                Don't tell me what to do

                But can I advise something? I do not insist that you leave everything right now, and take up the implementation of my advice life. You decide.
                So: before discussing about religion, its goals and objectives, Catholics, Orthodox, etc. - Read the Bible first. Without being distracted by the interpretation and not listening to the sermons of the clergy. Read it yourself. Thoughtfully. From and to. Interesting book. Very interesting. It is so interesting that after reading it, your views on religions in general and on Christianity in particular will very, very change. I promise you that.
                1. Cyber7
                  Cyber7 5 July 2013 04: 16
                  Have you read "Apocrypha of Ancient Christians"?
                  Also a funny book, if not too biased to relate to it.
                  I would also advise you to read it, only to find a little book today is not so simple.
                  1. Cat
                    Cat 5 July 2013 04: 37
                    Quote: Cyber7
                    Have you read "Apocrypha of Ancient Christians"?
                    Also a funny book, if not too biased to relate to it.
                    I would also advise you to read it, only to find a little book today is not so simple.

                    Finding something now is not a problem. The problem is to determine the authenticity of certain texts. Since even in different translations the same text often sounds exactly the opposite. Plus, most of the texts are known only in the form of parts, fragments, later copies of the original text (with an unknown degree of certainty), etc. etc.
                    Therefore, to consider them as an impenetrable argument, at least, is not serious. Moreover, we have a conversation about a particular religion - the cornerstone of which is the very Bible. This should be the starting point. And let us leave all the old clay cuneiform letters of incomprehensible origin to historians - because, whatever truths may sound there, they have nothing to do with present Christianity.
                    Output? Your attempt to refer to the Apocrypha - according to your own terminology, is called the word "excuse". And, accordingly, it does not count =)
                    1. Cyber7
                      Cyber7 11 July 2013 22: 49
                      Quote: Cat
                      Therefore, to consider them as an impenetrable argument, at least, is not serious.

                      "Apocrypha" I am mentioned only in the sense
                      Quote: Cat
                      But can I advise something?
                      No more.
                      Quote: Cat
                      ... because, no matter what truths are heard there, they have nothing to do with present Christianity.

                      I was not talking about religion, but about faith.
                      Relation to religion with a very substantial doubt. But.
                      Listen to Yuri Vizbor's song "Atheists" (the last two lines are directly related to the topic under discussion). Or watch "They Fought for the Motherland". It is also very defining.
                      Quote: Cat
                      Output? Your attempt to refer to the Apocrypha - according to your own terminology, is called the word "excuse". And, accordingly, it does not count =)

                      No, you're wrong. "Apocrypha" was just "by the word".
                      I said that faith
                      Quote: Cyber7
                      Ideally, religion is a striving for that bright and unquestioningly correct, that there is a swindling in every person. And religion has no other tasks than to make a person more humane - kinder, more supportive, respectable, more peaceful and tyd. She is trying to change people, but people are all different.

                      It is true that in this statement I used the word "religion" instead of the word "faith." Sorry, my fault.
                      And the rest - global-existential - faith does not allow the defenders of the homeland to become killers. And that is exactly what I would advise to instill in the upbringing of the young generation. Sizmalstva.
                      That to love the Motherland is good, and that to desire something foreign is bad.
                      That's all. If faith (or religion) helps this, then why bother?
                      I said that faith (and religion) is not cement.
                      Each person from any statement takes only what is closer to him.
                      If he sees only the word "infidels" in faith and religion, it is unlikely that this will lead him to something bright.
                      And if a small person has good and love in his heart, then no religion will hinder him. This faith cannot be overcome. But to educate her is nonsense for any educator.
                      And he will not find equal overexposure in the whole earth.
                      But I don’t know how to make it so that the boy would now love his homeland and put it above his thoughts about the Tugriks.
                      Something like that.
      6. Hleb
        Hleb 4 July 2013 23: 30
        do you follow everything?
      7. dark_65
        dark_65 4 July 2013 23: 59
        ........... cheap, and children unfortunately ... grow up.
        Swamp nits ... I'm ready to show my face, and you?
        1. Hleb
          Hleb 5 July 2013 00: 03
          ....... cheap, and children unfortunately ... grow up.
          Swamp nits
          but do not you now sin with your word and your anger?))
          after all, mortal sin
      8. The comment was deleted.
    2. Kahlan amnell
      Kahlan amnell 8 July 2013 13: 31
      "Faith and religion are not synonyms. A believer is child Of God. Religious Man - slave God's ".
    3. Defender
      Defender 10 March 2014 23: 07
      Without God, a nation is a crowd
      United by vice
      Or blind, or stupid,
      Or even worse - cruel.
      And let any one rise to the throne
      Verbally high syllable.
      The crowd will remain a crowd
      Until he turns to God!
      1. Defender
        Defender 10 March 2014 23: 51
        Enemy Brzezinski understood everything perfectly, and the brothers will not understand until now that "as long as people are praying in the churches of God, petition for a panikhida early in Holy Russia."
  4. hohryakov066
    hohryakov066 4 July 2013 11: 26
    I read the article with great pleasure. It is extremely pleasant that the author of the article is a woman. In spirit it is close to the position of O. Vereshchagin. Still, this point of view has penetrated the heads of our bosses from education! Unfortunately there is a situation "to the contrary !.
  5. etrusk
    etrusk 4 July 2013 12: 07
    Wonderful article! I would add a section on the issue of emancipation to it. It no less kills a man in a boy, and then a man. When a woman is brought up so that she must lead and then lead accordingly, in a man this awakens laziness with all the consequences. While women should promote the leadership of men, they crush him.
    In accordance with this, I consider the proper upbringing of girls to be an integral part of the health of society and the right relationship between a man and a woman.

    It would be very interesting to see also an article on the education of girls of the same author.
  6. washi
    washi 4 July 2013 12: 13
    The school had a paramilitary pioneer organization with the military game Zarnitsa. For schoolchildren of the Komsomol age, the ball is the game Eaglet. There were guards of pioneers at the monuments, help and communication with veterans. There were military gatherings with parts rooms and firing.
    In Soviet times, there was everything, even full refrigerators, despite the empty (in some areas) shelves in stores. There was no departure to the northern coast of the Atlantic Ocean, but there was free access to the southern coast of the North and the northern coast of the Pacific. Tickets were cheap. Even with those salaries, one could see the valley of geysers, the omul cavity, and look for amber during the holidays.
  7. IRBIS
    IRBIS 4 July 2013 13: 37
    I agree with the author in many ways. Consistency and commitment - these are the qualities of a real man that I brought up with my sons. Let it be harsh sometimes, to the point of "snot", but the result is. The senior is now one of the best specialists in the Northern Fleet, the middle one is a VU cadet. You have to constantly "fight" with maternal love and unnecessary "licking your beloved kitten", but it's worth it. And you should not rely on the school and other organizations - the boy is raised by a man who is next to him. And it is he who should be an example of a man for a growing offspring.
    1. Mhpv
      Mhpv 4 July 2013 15: 02
      Quote: IRBIS
      You have to constantly "fight" with maternal love and unnecessary "licking your beloved kitten", but it's worth it.

      This is one of the important reasons for becoming a male character in raising sons. He insisted that the older one (14let) was more interested in boxing than extra in English (one lesson prevented one training) almost before the divorce, but the son turned out to be well done On my side. But now, although it has only lasted for a year, my mother is glad how matured and my son matured.
      In general, in my opinion, this is not even an article, but the cry of a female soul. It’s good Tatyana that you realize this, but recently many women have not been trying to burden themselves with their families (that I am a cook or a washerwoman) and give birth just for themselves, and cherish these dolls as they like, thereby killing the masculine in them.
      In schools, there are many teachers who do not have either a family or a husband, how do these ladies relate to boys if they hate men? I have two such examples in the stairwell, two families of teachers, one hates men and the other changes them every six months already (although it’s not looking to find old people).
      The influence of a woman on men is all the same obvious, if a woman is smart, then she will do what she needs from a man, and this in due time will also affect the education of sons. hi
      1. erg
        erg 4 July 2013 23: 40
        Boxing is more important than English ... Have you tried to combine it? In ancient Athens, there were such smart people as Socrates, Plato, etc. In addition to being philosophers, they were also wonderful warriors (there was an urgent service in Athens). Socrates repeatedly participated in campaigns against Sparta (there was a war between Athens and Sparta). Plato was also the Olympic champion in pankration (a rather deadly fight where many tricks were allowed, including the use of teeth). For the Hellenes, it was important to develop a harmonious personality. No wonder they said about a stupid man: he can neither read nor swim. No need to sacrifice the development of intellectual abilities in favor of physical ones. And vice versa, too, is not necessary. Try to develop in parallel. The youthful body allows it. Moreover, the human body requires both physical activity and mental. This is his nature.
        1. Roman Skomorokhov
          Roman Skomorokhov 4 July 2013 23: 52
          Exactly! Not just to give to the snout, but spiritually and sublimely! So that the subject of influence was wounded both morally and physically.
          I definitely agree.
          1. erg
            erg 5 July 2013 00: 15
            Inspired and sublime - to warn, and give to the snout if you did not understand. By the way, I always liked the phrase of one of the heroes of Kuravlev - I am an intelligent person, but simple, I can give in the face.
  8. spok
    spok 4 July 2013 14: 01
    but as a matter of fact

    A couple of homosexuals from the United States and New Zealand sexually exploited a boy born to a Russian woman, said Pavel Astakhov, presidential envoy for children’s rights.
    “American Mark Newton and his partner from New Zealand Peter Truin for $ 8000 persuaded a woman from Russia to bear their child. Having taken the boy, the so-called parents repeatedly committed sexual acts with him, shooting this in the photo and video, ”Astakhov said on Monday in his microblog on Twitter.
    According to him, the child was the victim of at least eight pedophiles in France, Germany and the United States, "where he was specially brought for filming in porn films."
    1. dark_65
      dark_65 4 July 2013 18: 03
      I would really dismember these animals live, and I would give the organs to needy children ...
      1. Mikhail
        Mikhail 6 July 2013 00: 24
        Another question is whether the organs of these animals are suitable for normal people.
  9. alan_07
    alan_07 4 July 2013 15: 24
    No need for a child to push military affairs into the brain, he is a child.
    Let his mother teach tenderness and courtesies as much as desired. The father should simply always talk with him about his interests and smoothly put on the path of respect for elders. Make it clear why he will get a belt from his father. To put a line, mom crawls on the pope constantly for a deuce, for getting dirty, etc. Ie a trifle. Father, once in his whole life when he disobeys, then he will understand what his father will not allow and what his mother will allow.
    For example, it is enough for me to look in the direction of my son so that he understands my discontent, this was the case with my father, the father of my father, it should be so. Respect is education. If parents do not respect anyone, do not have respect, especially for the older generation, then the child will not learn.
    And he will understand weapons and everything connected with this in his own time (14 years), taking into account the current not calm time.
    1. Gato
      Gato 4 July 2013 16: 29
      No need for a child to push military affairs into the brain, he is a child

      He is a boy, he doesn’t need to shove anything - it’s in the genes, before the pacifists simply did not survive. I know by my fools, although I did not spend any time with them in early childhood. If they were given cubes or legos, the result always turned out to be fortresses, tanks, airplanes, bruises under the eye and neighboring children as prisoners of war.

      Respect is education. If parents do not respect anyone, do not have respect, especially for the older generation, then the child will not learn.
      - 200% agree, golden words.
    2. smile
      smile 4 July 2013 18: 20
      I didn’t hit my son once, I only shocked him twice ... I’ve been beaten twice in my life - one of them because I used 30 washed tracers under the foundation of the warehouse of the sapper boxer by burning ... it could have torn ... and nothing normal seemed to work out ... both :)))
      And the son should initially be brought up as a defender of the Motherland and a fighter with injustice, and it doesn’t matter who he will become later, this is a mandatory moment without which he will not become a real man .... But you don’t need to cram anything, you need to educate, arouse interest the child, this is the main task of the parents. and mom and dad.
      By the way, my son (15) is absolutely not afraid of me ... he is proud of me (even boasts, sometimes lying) and does not want to upset me ... and I am proud of him.
      1. Roman Skomorokhov
        Roman Skomorokhov 4 July 2013 23: 57
        Quote: alan_07
        Respect is education. If parents do not respect anyone, do not have respect, especially for the older generation, then the child will not learn.

        Respect alone is not enough, no? And by themselves only cats will be born, and even then cats are needed, whatever one may say.

        Quote: smile
        And the son should initially be brought up as a defender of the Motherland and a fighter with injustice, and it does not matter who he will become later

        If educated properly, that will become.

        Quote: smile
        to arouse the interest of the child, this is the main task of parents. and mom and dad.

        Set an example in person - isn’t it?
  10. Toporkoff
    Toporkoff 4 July 2013 16: 32
    Everything is correct. As our social studies teacher at school said: "A woman should not participate in teaching boys," and teaching and upbringing should be separate.
    The problem is that in the end they give birth to a little attitude to the child as gold (I know by myself), and devote a minimum of time to upbringing (I also know by myself).
  11. Letterksi
    Letterksi 4 July 2013 16: 35
    I have been hearing these mantras for thirty years now. Yes, everything seems to be correct honesty, decency, keeping a word, etc. But, probably, no one will deny that ingenuity and cunning on the battlefield and in life are also necessary as honesty and decency. I understand that they are going to mess with me right now, but, for example, there is no sniper without cunning and ingenuity. Honesty gives rise to excessive directness in action. In the age of maneuvers on the battlefield, straightforwardness is clearly not a sufficient benefactor to win. Women love not honest and straightforward, but successful in the broadest sense of the word. Of course, success is often achieved by straightforwardness, but in a world with a huge population and limited resources, the role of maneuver will only increase, however regrettable it may sound. Integrity should be a benefactor for intra-public consumption, for example, within a country. For export, how come. Double standarts! pancake! in the real world, there’s no escape from them.

    I wonder if Pavlik Morozov was less honest, would his father survive? I think yes. And to hell with this honesty in a similar situation? And how many people were jailed for honesty? When did a person give evidence? And to this day they plant

    The second thing I disagree with is how difficult it was to live before, but how easy it is now. Previously, they fought, plowed, sowed, endured hardships steadily and patiently. And now, you see, they’ve become soft like shit and are sitting with video toys. Let's take a look at the past. 10 years pass - a man plows, 20 years pass - a man plows, half a century passes - a man plows, a century - and again a man plows his land allotment with the same plow inherited from his great-grandfather. Those. the society was simple and understandable like three pennies, Pasha work and you will be happy. No adaptation is needed. What about now? - every 2-5 years a new surprise. Many of us have already managed to live under the Soviet Union, survived perestroika, held out reckless and moneyless 90s, fat 0s. Slid into the crisis of the 1998s and 2008s. and now again a recession on the nose. Blin's economic roller coaster! Try not to get neurosis and myocardial infarction under such conditions, while maintaining respect for your other half. At the expense of a warrior. 80th war, 94 war, 99 war. Now again everyone is talking only about the Taliban. The whole of 20th Russia fought in one way or another. Moreover, the war was more bloody than before. And they are definitely not less than before. However, somehow we live!

    Needless to say, it was very difficult then, but now there is buzz and happiness everywhere. And how many traps are set at every corner for the present younger generation? Drugs, prostitution, gang attacks from around the corner three on one, blueness, loans and more. All this has not happened before. Everything is done to decompose the "real" man.

    In short, there used to be problems, now problems. Life has not become easier life has not become more fun. She just changed. I think that it’s harder now than before, but this, as they say, IMHO.

    We need to educate children to survive in modern conditions, and not focus on the benefactors of the past
    1. Petrovich
      Petrovich 4 July 2013 18: 59
      No one says that savvy and cunning on the battlefield is bad. It is impossible to pull words out of context and lead to their own conclusions. And what, in fact, is the conclusion: Do we need to educate children to survive in modern conditions, and not focus on the benefactors of the past, that is, the benefactors of the past must be rejected? And what are our benefactors today? Consumption * etc.? Strongly disagree!
  12. Powder donut
    Powder donut 4 July 2013 18: 42
    As a person who grew up without a father and has already become a father, I consider this article the best of what I read. Around me (I am 29) there are a lot of children of my age, but still behaving like infantile children ...
    I consider the growing up of boys without a father to be the main reason for the wrong growing up. Father is an example and an indicator; sometimes a father is replaced by an uncle, as I had. THE RIGHT FATHER is a guarantee that the boy will grow up to be a real man. But the absence of a mother (or a bad mother) can also disfigure a child.
    The boy needs to be programmed, so that authorities must be respected, whether it's just a senior or a teacher or a woman. If this is not there will be trouble ...
    There is an example in front of how a child is indulged in all his nonsense, and when he starts to resist or insist on his own, his parents say "This is his character." What will grow out of this ?!
    1. Hleb
      Hleb 4 July 2013 20: 26
      Around me (I am 29) there are a lot of children of my age, but still behaving like infantile children ...
      Are they all without a father brought up and therefore infantile?
    2. erg
      erg 4 July 2013 23: 51
      It is NOT necessary to program, for this is blind submission. It is necessary that a person understands why he should respect this and that. I understood why and for what. True, this is sometimes very difficult to achieve, it is easier to really program. But who said that raising children is an easy process. Sometimes it can last a lifetime. Afraid not to cope - do not have children.
      1. Cyber7
        Cyber7 5 July 2013 00: 22
        It’s hard for a little person to tell or prove it.
        It is difficult to make him understand (or believe?) That he is being told the ideal truth.
        It’s strange. Any two people of different sexes can give birth to a person. But no one teaches them to raise a child. They give it to the kindergarten, in which the girls put in it a basis of ethics. Then they send him to a school, where for three years teachers with two years of secondary special education educate him. And only then people with higher education and an established ethical worldview begin to engage in the child.
        The little man, IMHO, is already born with his vision of the world. He still hardly understands this. And it is at this time that you can influence it. Change what he’s wrong in.
        Then he himself will understand that he is taught mediocrity. And go their own way.
        And who will grow out of it - the Liberator or the Tyrant - you will learn from the newspapers.
        After all, when you could raise a hero out of him, you were not up to it (work, family squabbles, dissatisfaction in every sense, lack of homeostasis and tydy).
        So he grew up and went to the Airborne Forces. Or became a manager at some McDonald's.
        But you are no longer participating in his choice.
        You are aloof. Gawking.
        1. erg
          erg 5 July 2013 00: 26
          So I wrote about this. You can’t, once, do not have time - do not have a baby. And if you want, forget about your own self, and grit your teeth to create a new, real person. Only this way and not otherwise.
          1. Roman Skomorokhov
            Roman Skomorokhov 5 July 2013 23: 41
            Erg, you are great! Do not add, do not take.
  13. Volkhov
    Volkhov 5 July 2013 00: 14
    Article - perversion - woman's advice in raising boys. If she, after 3 years of a boy, was engaged only in his life, it would be much better.
    Russia has been captured since 1920 and male teachers replaced women to create a more stupid and submissive population. When trying to revive the 40s, Stalin did separate training, but during the restoration of Zionism and the top of Nazi agents (Khrushchev, Beria, Zhukov) they returned joint training.
    In England and many other places, quality education is separate - they need an intelligent elite.
    1. agbykov
      5 July 2013 09: 43
      This woman is a professional educator and psychologist % FC% E
      2% EE% E2% ED% E0); some of her publications:

      And, please, do not use the first method of literary polemic (see Karel Chapek "Twelve Methods of Literary Controversy or A Guide to Newspaper Discussions"), if you have nothing to say on the merits ...
      1. Roman Skomorokhov
        Roman Skomorokhov 5 July 2013 23: 42
        Quote: agbykov
        This woman is a professional teacher and psychologist.

        Noticeable, by the way. To the naked eye.
  14. does it
    does it 5 July 2013 01: 32
    In our country, which in the XNUMXth century has already experienced a period of militant atheism, and not in the cold, but in the hot phase, with the destruction of temples and the murder of millions of Orthodox Christians
    This is the habit of pulling the cloak of martyrdom on ourselves. Representatives of all religions that we have only suffered on the territory of our country. For me, religion is an opium for the people under Tsarist Russia, we would hardly have flown into space, but our priests would quickly deal with scientists. they are engaged in inculcating a love of literature, poetry, astronomy, sports to explain what is good and what is bad! and not to litter his brains with religious precursors. For the rest, the article and the author are plus.
  15. Ljubomir
    Ljubomir 5 July 2013 06: 26
    Good clever article. I went too far in the religious issue, but I advise young parents to copy and give read to acquaintances.
  16. Taz
    Taz 5 July 2013 10: 07
    In my opinion, a child is born with already embedded character traits, which are almost impossible to influence. And character, in turn, affects both the behavior of the child and his "good breeding". Even at the age of one year, one child who is calmer pays attention to the remarks and prohibitions of parents, and the other, more mobile and "restless", continues to do his job despite any persuasion and threats. This is from personal observation and experience. The task of the parents is to tell what is right and what is not and to direct the child in the right direction, and only God knows how the child will float. And to break the character means to break the personality. IMHO
  17. Sterkh
    Sterkh 5 July 2013 22: 44
    Quote: Rashid
    in Soviet times several generations of unbelieving people grew up, but what kind of people they were! Builders, scientists, military, we are now talking about them with pride. It was just an idea, an ideology of creators, not consumers.
    - There was a religion (connection with God, or Gods), but without intermediaries, priests. There was a conscience! But now the state appeals to her when they, the officials, need something from us.
  18. Knizhnik
    Knizhnik 11 July 2013 16: 53
    Good article. Surely it will seem to many that there are only hackneyed truths, and you try, you will not regret
  19. Lazy cat
    Lazy cat 23 October 2013 06: 17
    Quote: Lubomyr
    Good clever article. I went too far in the religious issue, but I advise young parents to copy and give read to acquaintances.

    Not a good, but a great article. I agree with Lubomyr.
  20. _KM_
    _KM_ 8 November 2013 17: 13
    The article is about the upbringing of men and the flaws of female upbringing, and the links are mainly books written by women. And what kind of boy will eventually get ?! :-(
  21. Free Island
    Free Island 27 November 2013 12: 25
    everything is very simple - the myth of a more vulnerable male psyche was invented by "fascist homosexuals", those who promote gay culture around the world, those who erased Europe from the political map of the world, turning it into Geyropa, those who are destroying all over the world institution of the family, replacing mom and dad with "parent number 1" and "parent number 2". PS Dear moderators and administrators, please pay attention to the fact that the word "homosexual" is not a foul language, it is quite literary and MORE FULLY reflects the essence of what is now fashionable to be called the soft gentle word "GAY". And they are homosexuals in Africa and homosexuals, and if they rule the world - then they just do not have mercy.
  22. npetrov45
    npetrov45 12 January 2014 03: 24
    A son is growing, because the article is in the subject. Thank.
  23. Arbatov
    Arbatov 26 February 2014 17: 36
    Aw, what a good article. Many, many can be taken into practice.
    But, since the author is still a woman, emotional moments should be missed through her, masculine understanding.
  24. AV 587
    AV 587 4 March 2014 20: 17
    For me, this is complete nonsense, or a flood. No, the words seem to be correct. And the thoughts are correct. Or simply the author is a woman. Or the author simply could not formulate her thoughts succinctly. Of course, I suppose that books could be written to fully cover this topic. But if you take up an article about "raising boys", and even in the "military review", then write clearly and clearly: the boy must have a mentor, the boy must become a master in any craft, the boy must defend himself, his family and his homeland, etc.

    Quote: Lubomyr
    Good clever article. I went too far in the religious issue, but I advise you to copy and let your friends read it young to parents.

    I would say in a different way: young, poorly read, not taken care of by the older generation, uneducated parents

    Quote: LetterKsi
    LetterKsi July 4, 2013 16:35

    But I agree with this comment

    I am sorry that the author of the article on such an interesting topic is a woman. Not her reproach. She has respect. And for understanding the topic, and for trying to convey to young parents a little information about proper education. Although I disagree with many.