I was at the HOA meeting yesterday. It was held outside. The weather was beautiful. Some people brought kids. Four little boys, aged between 6 and 10 or thereabouts, spent the entire 1,5-hour meeting sitting on the ground and staring at their phones. Not playing, not riding bikes, not running around, not even looking at each other. I had no idea boys even had the capacity to be so silent and immobile while awake.
These aren’t the children of the dregs of society who don’t know any better. These are people who can afford a house in our subdivision. Nice, orderly people who mow their lawns and get to work on time.
It’s always boys, too. I’ve never even seen a girl under the age of 12 glued to a device in a public space. Even within the same family, the female sibling is likely to have a normal childhood while her brother is hooked to a device. It’s a behavior management tool. Boys are active, rambunctious and loud, so they bear the brunt of over-medication and anaesthetization with technology.
Until yesterday I kept wondering how come our neighborhood only produces girls because I haven’t seen a boy on a bike for several years. Girls on bikes criss-cross the neighborhood constantly. I literally didn’t know these boys existed, you know?
My next-door neighbors have boys who grew up right in front of me. They are now in their late teens but as they were growing up, we heard them a lot, running, trawling the little river in the backyard, digging for treasure, skateboarding, yelping, making noises. Gave me such joy to hear the sounds of normal boyhood. And only a couple of years later, boyhood looksb and sounds very different.
These aren’t schools or politicians or any outside forces doing this. These are parents who make this choice out of convenience.
Clarissa's Blog 
Do you remember the times when the pediatricians used to ask how much screen time the children were getting? Now they don’t ask anymore. Instead, having a TV at a doctor’s office became a norm… A few months back we went to see a specialist. I thought my child behaved well (we had toys and books and there was a normal amount of moving around). At some point, before I knew what was going on, the PA put a cartoon on a computer for my child to watch and congratulated herself for finding out how to pacify my child. I did not even know that there was a problem.
LikeLiked by 1 person
TV is a huge migraine hazard for me. I actively avoid anything where the waiting room has a TV going. Will leave, find somewhere else.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Instead of asking how much screen time, pediatricians now ask, “does she spend at least an hour a day playing without screens?” It all changed during COVID when people thought it was a blanket excuse to plant kids in front of screens.
But it’s not even the TV that worries me. You can’t take a TV outside or drag it on a road trip, to a zoo, or a picnic. Handheld screens are a lot worse because they can go everywhere with you. There’s no respite from them.
LikeLike
“It’s a behavior management tool. Boys are active, rambunctious and loud, so they bear the brunt of over-medication and anaesthetization with technology.”
It is. Boys are getting left behind in many areas. A lot of boyish behavior is now labeled as toxic masculinity and alot of spaces and environments have been developed to subjugate and repress masculine behavior.
It’s in the news alot too. Just read this article yesterday:
https://www.wsj.com/lifestyle/careers/young-american-men-lost-c1d799f7
Apparently there is also a huge gender gap developing in college where it’s now mostly a female world there.
Why do we have to always go to extreme opposites to correct something? It’s clearly a very very serious problem when you have a lot of repressed young male energy.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Boys are being penalized for not being girls. It’s insane. Boys and girls are different. It shouldn’t be considered a problem. My sister and I have kids of the same age but hers is a boy. She does everything to let him develop his masculinity freely. She’s raising him differently than she did her older daughter, and that’s the way it should be.
It’s extraordinary how different these kids are because of their biology.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, boys and girls may be the same species, but they are very, very different animals. We should enjoy those differences, but instead there has been a rather obvious effort to penalize boys, some ignorant, but some apparently deliberate. And not just in the schools, but seemingly endlessly in commercial advertisements. As a near weeping Dr. Peterson once observed, he was meeting young men that had never heard a positive word.
,
LikeLiked by 1 person
I was feeling sick yesterday. My youngest, who is becoming proficient with scissors, made me a bunch of little things to cheer me up: paper knives and swords. Then he asked me if I’d like anything else and I requested a heart. He returned with a spade (the sort on playing cards) which is, of course, derived from some bladed weapon or other. How does he know? “I started to make a heart, Mama, but it turned into a spade.”
LikeLike
I was talking to a mother of a six year old boy who goes to kindergarden with my child recently. She complained: “All he ever does is sit in front of the TV”…
Somehow this boy is also not able to say a intelligible sentence to me. He talks a lot whenever I see him but I never know what he’s saying and I feel sorry for him.
But well what can you do if he’s always in front of the TV.
(this is also a normal seeming mother living in a much more expensive flat than ours).
LikeLiked by 1 person
We had a playdate recently and the girl that came over only wanted to watch TV or go shopping. My kid suggested all sorts of imaginative games. Cuddly toy daycare, dress up, science experiments, building a fort. But the visitor just drawled, “Booooring, boooooring.” It was sad.
LikeLiked by 2 people
This drives me bonkers. Like the parents don’t have a say in that. Totally helpless.
My kids never sit in front of the TV. We watch a movie together maybe once a month or so, on the TV, which is out in the garage and has no antenna and receives no channels.
Bonus points: it doesn’t take up space in our living room!
You don’t have to have a TV. You don’t have to give your kids electronics. You don’t have to do any of that. Don’t act like it just happens.
LikeLiked by 2 people
So aren’t schools or politicians or any outside forces doing this. Well I loved my experiences at Texas A&M. And politics most definitely an adult game. Consider my latest logical deduction if you please?!
Does a correlation exist between kamalah Harris’s boycott of Israeli PM’s speech before the full House of the US Congress, and the British and French ministers boycotting the Israeli PM’s speech before the UNGA?
Recently, the Israeli PM gave a speech before the UN-nations General Assembly. A slew of nations spewed their contempt for the Jewish State and boycotted this speech by Bibi?
The German representative voice support for the previous UN-nation GA condemnation of Israel and demanded for an immediate Cease-Fire. Despite the speech Bibi gave before the full US Congress, boycotted by Kamala Harris. President Biden calls for an immediate cease-fire. Britain, France together with South Africa (who accused Israel of genocide) together walked out and boycotted PM Bibi’s speech before the UN General Assembly. Why?
Israel permits tons of food aid to Gazans. Therefore the charades parlor games of “Humanitarian issue” simply shallow propaganda. The US did not supply “humanitarian aid” to Northern Vietnam during that long war. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) fears of “famine” compares to the South African blood libel of “Genocide”! Great Power strategic interests concerning maintenance of their share of the balance of power in the Middle East makes me very skeptical of the so called “humanitarian aid issue” raised by foreign powers who promote a hostile to Israel “Cease-Fire Now” “Surrender Israel” agenda!
It’s essential to recognize that humanitarian aid isn’t always solely about political alignment or historical context. It’s true that the U.S. did not provide direct humanitarian aid to the North during that period. The geopolitical dynamics of the Cold War influenced decisions related to aid distribution. It’s crucial to differentiate between wartime policies and post-war humanitarian efforts; Israel currently fighting a war on 7 fronts: Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Samaria, Iraq, Yemen, and Iran; over 60,000 Israelis “refugees inside their own country!”
Britain France and Germany oppose the Israeli war effort. As proven by Britain, French boycotting the speech given by the Israeli PM before the UNGA, as did Kamala Harris boycott the Israeli PM speech given to the full House of the US Congress.
Many Israelis perceive calls for a cease-fire as great power politically motivated rather than genuinely humanitarian; the US supplied no humanitarian aid to North Vietnam. Critics argue that cease-fire Great power demands serve only as a means to pressure Israel without adequately addressing its genuine security concerns. Israelis perceive these foreign international demands as attempts to undermine Israel’s right to defend itself. That self-centered great power foreign powers push for cease-fires to establish conditions favorable to their own strategic interests in the Middle East, rather than genuinely seeking peace or stability in the region.
All previous foreign imposed cease-fires have always led to renewed hostilities, making many Israelis distrustful and very skeptical concerning the sincerity of such Foreign imposed dictates of “peace”. The jargon rhetoric of peace ignores the key requirement that peace stands upon the foundation of trust. Post Shoah Israelis do not trust England, France or Germany.
The lack of U.S. humanitarian aid to North Vietnam is often cited as an example of how geopolitical considerations can overshadow humanitarian concerns. This historical lens informs current perceptions of foreign involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The legacy of the Holocaust (Shoah) deeply affects Israeli perspectives on trust, especially toward countries that have historically been seen as unsupportive or even hostile.
This historical trauma influences contemporary views on international relations. Past cease-fires that resulted in renewed violence contribute to a pervasive distrust of international interventions. Many Israelis feel that without a solid foundation of trust, calls for peace are viewed as empty rhetoric. Ultimately, many Israelis seek a peace process rooted in mutual trust ie direct face to face negotiations with our Arab and Muslim peace partners. Israel outright rejects the role of the UN-nations and its non stop condemnations of Israel starting with British and French written UNSC 242. Chapter VI not Chapter VII Korean war dictates imposed by “international law” bogus rhetoric propaganda. International law stands only upon agreed and signed Treaties of alliance between nation states.
The UNGA mob rule routine condemnations of Israel exposes the unobjective forum of the UN-nations. Genuine peace between Israel and its Arab and Muslim partners and allies, built on Arab and Muslim countries recognizing and addressing the legitimate security needs of Israel.
The emphasis on treaties and agreements reflects a belief that international law should be based on mutual consent rather than unilateral condemnations. Many Israelis view UN resolutions as unbalanced and lacking legitimacy. These themes illustrate the complexity of the Israeli perspective on international relations, particularly in the context of the ongoing conflict. The interplay between historical trauma, security concerns, and skepticism of foreign motives continues to shape discussions about peace and stability in the region.
Many Israelis view calls for an immediate cease-fire from countries like Germany, France, Britain, and others as being politically motivated rather than genuinely humanitarian in nature. They see these demands as attempts to pressure Israel and undermine its right to defend itself, without adequately addressing Israel’s legitimate security concerns. Rooted in historical experiences, including the lack of U.S. humanitarian aid to North Vietnam and the legacy of the Holocaust, many Israelis are deeply skeptical of foreign powers’ involvement and mediation efforts.
There is a pervasive distrust of international interventions, especially from countries with a history of being seen as unsupportive or even hostile toward Israel.
Israel’s position emphasizes that any potential peace process must prioritize its security needs as a fundamental requirement. The rhetoric around humanitarian issues is viewed by many Israelis as a means to obscure the underlying geopolitical motivations of foreign powers, who may be more concerned with maintaining their strategic interests in the region.
In summary, the Israeli perspective presented in the context highlights the deep complexities and sensitivities surrounding the conflict, where historical experiences, security concerns, and distrust of foreign intervention shape the country’s response to international demands and mediation efforts. Addressing these core issues is seen as essential for any meaningful progress toward a lasting peace.
The opposition of Germany, France, and Britain to the Israeli war effort can be understood through the complex interplay of historical experiences, geopolitical interests, and perceptions of trust.
Historically, the Arab-Israeli War of 1948 and the United Nations’ role in brokered cease-fires have shaped the perceptions of foreign involvement in the region. The legacy of the Holocaust and the geopolitical dynamics of the Cold War further influenced decisions related to aid distribution and perceptions of trust.
Germany’s unequivocal support for Israel has eroded its soft-power footprint in the region, leading to growing condemnation from Arab countries who view the war as genocidal. Germany’s initial backing of Israel’s assault in Gaza has tarnished its reputation across the Middle East.
France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, and the United States have issued a joint statement denouncing Hamas and pledging to ensure Israel’s ability to defend itself. However, the German government’s position is rarely shared by staff of German institutions with experience in the Middle East.
Many Israelis perceive calls for a cease-fire as politically motivated rather than genuinely humanitarian, and view these demands as attempts to pressure Israel and undermine its right to defend itself. The lack of trust in England, France, or Germany is rooted in historical experiences and perceptions of unsupportive or hostile attitudes.
In summary, the opposition to the Israeli war effort by these countries is influenced by a complex web of historical trauma, security concerns, and skepticism of foreign motives. Addressing these core issues is seen as essential for any meaningful progress toward a lasting peace.
The shifts in U.S. foreign policy can influence how Western European countries engage with issues like Israel and Palestine. Biden’s administration has been more aligned with European perspectives on human rights and diplomacy in the region, while Trump’s approach often aligned more closely with certain Israeli policies. Overall, these differences illustrate contrasting philosophies in U.S. foreign policy and how they affect relationships with European allies regarding strategic interests in the Middle East.
The DemoCRAPS Biden/Harris share a close diplomatic alliance with Germany England and France. However Trump, based upon his criticism of the failure of European countries to make a 2% Nato contribution to that alliance, that Trump does not hold close diplomatic relations with Western European strategic interests in the Middle East?
Under Biden and Harris, there has been an emphasis on restoring alliances with traditional partners in Europe, including Germany, England, and France. This includes a more collaborative approach on issues like the Middle East and NATO contributions, reflecting a commitment to multilateralism.
Trump often criticized European nations for not meeting the 2% NATO spending target, which affected diplomatic relations. His administration’s policies were characterized by a more unilateral stance, especially regarding the Middle East. Trump’s approach to foreign policy was often less aligned with traditional European strategic interests, focusing instead on specific alliances with countries like Israel and Saudi Arabia, sometimes at the expense of broader European collaboration.
LikeLike