Who does this sound like? (hint: last name starts with B & ends with USH)

Patriarchy is set up and run not for men as a gender or for masculinity in its fullness or in its mature expressions but rather by men who are fundamentally immature. It is really the rule of boys, often cruel and abusive boys. For the most part, we believe human societies have always consisted of boys and girls more or less unconsciously acting out their immature and grandiose fantasies. Our planetary home more often than not has resembled the island world in William Goldring's 'Lord of the Flies'. Thus our societies have, on the whole, opposed the realization and expression of both mature feminine and masculine psyches.

This is from 'The King Within' by Moore and Gillette. I've only just started it so I can't vouch for it, but I'm telling you, if you want to know why the world is the way it is today and what to do about it, you should really check the men's movement lexicon.

I highly recommend Robert Bly's 'The Sibling Society' and 'Iron John', and especially Sam Keen's 'Fire in the Belly'. All are brilliant, and definitely not for men only.

Is this movement still alive? I was thinking about when Iron John came out - I guess late 80s, early 90s? And wondered if anyone was still talking about this sort of thing.

I've noticed that the half dozen books I've read were all written about the early nineties. I have no idea where it's at as a movement. I'm not sure it ever rated that term anyway. I'm sure they are on to something though. I think a big part of the problem is that men don't read.

Another problem, I think, is that those of us on the left (the readers), probably thought that it was all about the Promise Keeper creeps, a right wing thing, so we never investigated it. I know I didn't. Boy, was I ever wrong. It's a very liberal movement: pro-woman, anti-war, anti-violence, pro-community, pro-environment. It's liberal to the core.

Check out those other books when you get a chance.

But my boyfriend at the time (now husband) read Iron John and it was helpful to him. He is a kind, strong man who has a lot of integrity.

I recently saw an article in Family Circle written by a man who bragged about how having 3 boys was like living in a zoo. Whenever anyone would suggest boys and girls might be similar, he would challenge them by saying - "How many windows have YOU replace in your house this year." Then he went on to inform the readers that his sons would NEVER just belt out a show tune or anything like that.

I had considered buying the magazine b/c it had an article for pilates beginners, but when I saw that, I put it back on the stand. I mean, who does he think WROTE the show tunes? The ballets? The symphonies? The plays? For years and years it was all men. Before we started dressing infant boys like miniature old men and forcing them into stringent "masculine" roles - maybe because of homophobia or whatever, but it's an awful way to treat young boys.

There's also another book called "Real Boys" that you might find interesting. I haven't read the whole thing, but it's on my bookshelf. It delves into the inner lives of boys - which is something NO ONE talks about in this culture.

and it's important. Feminists sometimes get riled that boys should be given more attention than they already get, but the plain fact of the matter is that boys aren't being raised right and they grow up to be the source of nearly all the problems in society.

Bly's 'The Sibling Society' is about the kind of adolescent society that is described in the quote in the OP. We are a society stuck in the warrior mode as a society. We need to take the next step beyond the warrior to the mature king/queen society (these descriptions come from Bly's source material which is various mythologies). It's a society that cooperates rather than competes, it helps rather than kills. This would be a society that is a much more harmonious in the area of gender relations, just to mention one area.

Everyone should read these books. This is really big picture stuff. It's beyond politics in importance.

I can't buy into the idea that short-changing boys is going to help girls.

that since the beginning of the industrial revolution boys spend increasing less time with men. They don't know how to be men because they have no examples to follow. Of course it's much deeper than that but I don't have the time (or a full grasp of the subject matter) to go any deeper today.

Single moms especially would do well to read up on this stuff. Steve Bidulph has written some very good stuff on boys in this same vein.

This whole premise is based on how in an agrarian culture, children would actually work WITH their parents - boys going to work in the fields with the fathers and girls working at home with the mothers.

I guess I'm not surprised this movement never took off. Just imagine how it would force people and policymakers to reconsider our whole economic system - where people are forced to be away from their families for long hours.

In fact, I remember reading an editorial or an essay after Columbine that basically said children today grow up in a sort of youth ghetto - they are rarely around adults other than their parents and a few family members, if they're lucky. They don't get to interact a whole lot with adults, but instead exist primarily among people their own age.

I think you should post something else on this topic under a different Subject line. It is really interesting and I think there are plenty of people here who would have some good points to make if they could find this topic more easily.