It's a nice observation that the literal meaning of what Tate is saying is probably not what makes him attractive to younger men. Given how therapised our societies are, it's surprising that the symbolic appeal of these "problematic" people is not discussed more. In the occasions that it is, it's the adults' meaning of the symbols which is used.
As an aside - I think this is also why there's a significant communication challenge between adults and young adults. Many common images and topics (careers, danger, money, relationships, violence) have very different emotional responses and meanings.
But on Tate, what naiveté to believe that funding a group of regime approved acts will make teenage men lose their violent and base urges. I'm not even sure it would be a good thing if it did work either - one of the great steps in maturing is reflecting on poor behaviour in the past. It gives you a sense of understanding when you see others make mistakes, and an awareness of the importance of self control.
We would be better off looking back at how these urges were historically channeled and directed (sports, opportunity for non sport competition, male only spaces) instead of pretending that we can eradicate them at source. We would also do well to make sure any future policies are designed by adults that have already had significant interaction with young men.
A thought I had while reading; you are absolutely correct that male teachers and dads are not role models for boys. As someone who is now establishing himself, I am only now able to put into practice what my father 'modeled' for me all those years ago. I am only now entering the head-of-house 'role', maybe 15 years later. I wonder if Tate is more appealing to boys because he embodies what they hope their next act to be-- a young, single, rich guy with cool cars who does what he wants.
It would almost be more concerning to see a 12 year old boy obsessed with fatherhood, tracking vehicle maintenance schedules, fertilizing the lawn, preparing tax returns, and cleaning the gutters.
Charles Barkley: "I am not a role model. I am not paid to be a role model. I am paid to wreak havoc on the basketball court. Parents should be role models."
Nearly every great teacher I had was successful (for boys) because they let kids have fun with assignments, goof around in their classroom, and put a ton of time into editing with the student. This made learning feel like you had someone working with you, rather than against you. None of those great teachers were fathers themselves. They were, in fact, not so different from the boys they taught, and perhaps attempting to be a role model would have made them terrible. These teachers were mostly creating spaces where boys could be boys, and successfully pointing out that you could still do well in school while otherwise clowning around and refusing to take things seriously. You could do well in school, as a bit.
Fathers, on the other hand, have a totally different role. Most of the lessons I think fathers teach are about knowing how to interact in public, and how to make your own space. Some of the quintessential dad jobs:
1) Having a literal job, and managing that with a family.
2) Letting you know if your private space is wrong. I.e., not doing enough practice, not doing homework, clean your room, etc.
3) Letting you know if your public conduct is reprehensible, i.e. not passing enough on your sports team or being unruly in polite company. Coaches can also do this, but they are also considered father figures.
4) Camping, hiking, some sense of getting out of the usual spaces and finding your own space.
5) Negotiating, be it with members of the family, customer service agents, etc.
It's worth noting that all of these jobs are largely at odds with the teachers' skills, which largely attempt to remove constraints from the highly constrained school environment. Dad jobs mostly involve imposing constraints where otherwise you'd just be playing video games and such.
My teachers would have been reluctant to condemn a "role model" that a government committee might have passed down as exemplary, but would have allowed my peers and I to mock it. My dad would have called it "total horseshit" and shared a laugh with me over it before launching into a 20 minute tirade. Not sure who matters more in my development.
It's a nice observation that the literal meaning of what Tate is saying is probably not what makes him attractive to younger men. Given how therapised our societies are, it's surprising that the symbolic appeal of these "problematic" people is not discussed more. In the occasions that it is, it's the adults' meaning of the symbols which is used.
As an aside - I think this is also why there's a significant communication challenge between adults and young adults. Many common images and topics (careers, danger, money, relationships, violence) have very different emotional responses and meanings.
But on Tate, what naiveté to believe that funding a group of regime approved acts will make teenage men lose their violent and base urges. I'm not even sure it would be a good thing if it did work either - one of the great steps in maturing is reflecting on poor behaviour in the past. It gives you a sense of understanding when you see others make mistakes, and an awareness of the importance of self control.
We would be better off looking back at how these urges were historically channeled and directed (sports, opportunity for non sport competition, male only spaces) instead of pretending that we can eradicate them at source. We would also do well to make sure any future policies are designed by adults that have already had significant interaction with young men.
Thank you for the well written article.
A thought I had while reading; you are absolutely correct that male teachers and dads are not role models for boys. As someone who is now establishing himself, I am only now able to put into practice what my father 'modeled' for me all those years ago. I am only now entering the head-of-house 'role', maybe 15 years later. I wonder if Tate is more appealing to boys because he embodies what they hope their next act to be-- a young, single, rich guy with cool cars who does what he wants.
It would almost be more concerning to see a 12 year old boy obsessed with fatherhood, tracking vehicle maintenance schedules, fertilizing the lawn, preparing tax returns, and cleaning the gutters.
Charles Barkley: "I am not a role model. I am not paid to be a role model. I am paid to wreak havoc on the basketball court. Parents should be role models."
Advertising, yes, but effective. https://youtu.be/R8vh2MwXZ6o
Nearly every great teacher I had was successful (for boys) because they let kids have fun with assignments, goof around in their classroom, and put a ton of time into editing with the student. This made learning feel like you had someone working with you, rather than against you. None of those great teachers were fathers themselves. They were, in fact, not so different from the boys they taught, and perhaps attempting to be a role model would have made them terrible. These teachers were mostly creating spaces where boys could be boys, and successfully pointing out that you could still do well in school while otherwise clowning around and refusing to take things seriously. You could do well in school, as a bit.
Fathers, on the other hand, have a totally different role. Most of the lessons I think fathers teach are about knowing how to interact in public, and how to make your own space. Some of the quintessential dad jobs:
1) Having a literal job, and managing that with a family.
2) Letting you know if your private space is wrong. I.e., not doing enough practice, not doing homework, clean your room, etc.
3) Letting you know if your public conduct is reprehensible, i.e. not passing enough on your sports team or being unruly in polite company. Coaches can also do this, but they are also considered father figures.
4) Camping, hiking, some sense of getting out of the usual spaces and finding your own space.
5) Negotiating, be it with members of the family, customer service agents, etc.
It's worth noting that all of these jobs are largely at odds with the teachers' skills, which largely attempt to remove constraints from the highly constrained school environment. Dad jobs mostly involve imposing constraints where otherwise you'd just be playing video games and such.
My teachers would have been reluctant to condemn a "role model" that a government committee might have passed down as exemplary, but would have allowed my peers and I to mock it. My dad would have called it "total horseshit" and shared a laugh with me over it before launching into a 20 minute tirade. Not sure who matters more in my development.