Melodi
Disaster Cat
Zeeker, you had a wonderful Mother; you were raised right and lucky. Indeed, having to grow up like that is not an automatic sentence that a young boy will turn out to be a criminal (or even socially dysfunctional), but a higher percentage of boys raised that way do have that outcome.
I wish I could find the study done years ago that got buried because the agencies or "experts" did not welcome the results in this field. It was a study of about twenty or so different "programs" designed to help "disadvantaged boys" in Urban Areas. They looked at everything from Scouting to Church groups. They found that the ONLY ones with a high percentage of boys that turned out well had one thing in common (and the ONLY thing in common in many cases):
There was a strong male figure who could work with the boys one-on-one (or nearly one-on-one) for a relatively long period.
That Man could be a Scout Leader, a Coach, a Pastor, a volunteer Big Brother, or in other combinations. However, programs that tried to use women or had so many boys per man that there wasn't time for individual mentoring showed no difference when compared to a control group of boys who got no interventions.
That doesn't mean that Mothers (or Mothers—substitutes) are not needed to raise a healthy boy (or girl), but in the particular role of what I will call "Civilizing," a young man (for lack of a better term) men (traditionally the father, the uncle, the grandfather or even the big brother) filled that role. In many traditional societies, men take over the care and training of boys between the ages of six and twelve.
There are always exceptions to any generality. I have single friends (sometimes through no fault of their own) who raised happy and outstanding young men and men who raised happy and well-adjusted daughters. However, in both cases, they usually tried to find trustworthy men or women (preferably with the family or close friendship circle) to provide what they could not.
Congratulations, Zeeker, for making it happen (and, of course, your Mom for making it happen) and confirming the whole "Man in the House" thing. I've met many people who don't believe this ever happened, but it was pretty standard "social care" in the 1940s up until the 1970s (and, in some places, the 1980s). For various reasons, it affected the urban African American community worse in the long term, but it wasn't helpful for anyone.
I wish I could find the study done years ago that got buried because the agencies or "experts" did not welcome the results in this field. It was a study of about twenty or so different "programs" designed to help "disadvantaged boys" in Urban Areas. They looked at everything from Scouting to Church groups. They found that the ONLY ones with a high percentage of boys that turned out well had one thing in common (and the ONLY thing in common in many cases):
There was a strong male figure who could work with the boys one-on-one (or nearly one-on-one) for a relatively long period.
That Man could be a Scout Leader, a Coach, a Pastor, a volunteer Big Brother, or in other combinations. However, programs that tried to use women or had so many boys per man that there wasn't time for individual mentoring showed no difference when compared to a control group of boys who got no interventions.
That doesn't mean that Mothers (or Mothers—substitutes) are not needed to raise a healthy boy (or girl), but in the particular role of what I will call "Civilizing," a young man (for lack of a better term) men (traditionally the father, the uncle, the grandfather or even the big brother) filled that role. In many traditional societies, men take over the care and training of boys between the ages of six and twelve.
There are always exceptions to any generality. I have single friends (sometimes through no fault of their own) who raised happy and outstanding young men and men who raised happy and well-adjusted daughters. However, in both cases, they usually tried to find trustworthy men or women (preferably with the family or close friendship circle) to provide what they could not.
Congratulations, Zeeker, for making it happen (and, of course, your Mom for making it happen) and confirming the whole "Man in the House" thing. I've met many people who don't believe this ever happened, but it was pretty standard "social care" in the 1940s up until the 1970s (and, in some places, the 1980s). For various reasons, it affected the urban African American community worse in the long term, but it wasn't helpful for anyone.