" (Miedzian, 49). Essentially, dispels the notion that evolutionary traits need to be carried through to society, particularly when the have detrimental results.
The second powerful argument that Miedzian is forced to grapple with deals with the theories of political realism. Specifically, the idea that violent and aggressive males are advantageous to society because of foreign struggles and wars. Still, she classifies this premise as false and writes, "The 'real men' who run our country are handicapped by the values of the masculine mystique to make rational foreign policy decisions.... The masculine mystique teaches men to be tough, to repress empathy, and not to let moral concerns weigh to heavily when the goal is winning." (Miedzian, 20, 33). Overall, she believes that these traits are harmful on a large scale and inevitable lead to unnecessary conflict.
Miedzian's recommendations for solving the problem she has identified are most elementally concerned with upbringing. True, the male may be inclined to violence, but society does not need to nurture and magnify the consequences of this inclination. The book suggests that the best environment for children to be raised in is one in which both parents contribute: "If we want to effect a fundamental and long-lasting change with respect to violence, if we wasn't it to become an occupational aberration instead of part of our everyday lives, then co-parenting must be fully accepted and encouraged." (Miedzian, 101). Furthermore, it is asserted that children need to be taken out of the economy and not advertised to with violent toys, videogames, music, and all the ideals they endorse. Generally, young males need to be raised in an environment where the attributes of caring, compassion, and cooperation are valued far above strength, aggression, and competition.
The argument that Miedzian offers is rather comprehensive regarding the whole of society. One of the most powerful effects on young men...
As an educator, this particular aspect of Miedzian's diagnosis is considerably difficult to eradicate. After all, academic competition is one of the driving forces behind students who strive to achieve in their education. This specific form of competition is often believed to be promoted by many of the activities that Miedzian condemns for their violent consequences. Sport, for example, is routinely pointed to as an avenue by which young people can lean the advantages of cooperation, hard work, and achievement; sport is also rooted in the mentality of competition -- you measure your achievements with reference to others. In short, an adversarial relationship develops between students along the lines of sport and academic achievement. Such a mentality cannot simply be removed surgically within the educational structure, but requires a reworking of the whole framework of social success.
An additional trouble for educators is that we are necessarily removed from a student's home life and upbringing. Consequently introducing programs, like Miedzian suggests, encouraging compassion and empathy are likely to be lost in the context of the household.
Furthermore, it is likely that the most accurate claim made by Miedzian was with reference to the commercial market, and methodical way children are being introduced to ideologies that sell, but are ultimately detrimental. To me, this implies the necessity of censorship, but the people who should rightfully be in place to make decisions regarding censorship -- parents and educators -- are invariably absent from decisions regarding it. The V-chip that the book mentions is a small step in the right direction: the values our children are exposed to need to be put in the hands of those who care about them, not the free market.
Bibliography
Miedzian, Myriam. (2002). Boys will be Boys. New York: Lantern Books.
