Meet Mrs. Shingo Same as Last Month Mrs. Killer
Priority News Exchange Program News Item (PNEP)
Well only another month has gone by and we again have the same topic to deal with. Another woman has been charged with killing her boy (4 year old), and she too has another questionable death in her background being more closely looked at by police. Yet the excuse given for the murder is noteworthy and we will discuss this and its global scope too.
In the present murder case there was a new boyfriend this time and two ex-husbands, with no access to stop such statistically higher death rates among kids with no natural father in play around to protect them (again not very new). Yet the reason that both the wife and new boyfriend gave for this murder (we have yet to hear the details on the other childâ€™s death) were related to the boyâ€™s inability to sit still, which was to have allegedly drove the mother and boyfriend to killer the boy.
Now aside from the obvious fact that there were two people around sizing up the boy for the ditch, which would make any normal boy child have ants in his pants, we still must look at the issue of this trait being found strongly in boys.
Also we must avoid the temptation to blame the new boyfriend, for he wasnâ€™t around for the last childâ€™s mysterious death and as we discussed last month with crib death how women all seemingly to have a get out of jail card. Before anyone ever gets up the courage to investigate any crib deaths or other deaths several kids have to die! Men must really be set by nature to be scared of dealing with women. There must be an important listen in there. It seems to question a woman for murdering a child means extremely high stress for the police who have old fashion chivalry ideas that must be thrown away in this new equal world. Why would so many police avoid doing such uncomfortable work until there is a second, third or fourth kid dead says much about the real number of female murders in general (in some cases it took this long). I hear outside Japan it is the same.
How many teachers have made this claim against boys moving around too much, along with not writing and dressing up their books in a pretty way? It is interesting that this is so common in boys for nature has made them restless, which if given appropriate avenues to pursue makes them great inventors.
My English teach and I have discussed this (and he proofs my work you are reading here), and we both see the very similar things. He says when he picks up his son at daycare he sees the same thing all the time. He is the earliest one to do so and often sees burned out female teachers who have given up intervening with rowdy boy actions and sit with the girls in exhaustion for they can talk to them and not have then do more physical stuff so as to intervene all the time with boys.
We both see the inherent weaker physical ability of women playing a part in their characters and therefore their effectiveness in socializing boys in the best way for our cultures. For a lot of research coming out says boys learn better from males and this kind of paints this as boys just donâ€™t listen to women is some childish way, instead of looking deeper into what we see. Maybe boys are more impressed with talk by those who do, than talk by those who love to talk only.
A male teacher may first use words, and if not focus on something else, will physically intervene shortly there after and thus allow his words to mean more to boys. This carries more weight and respect with boys. Young boys are often impressed with big daddy, and this may be in relation to what Dad can do with all that power too, aside from just being impressive to young boys. While womenâ€™s preference for words (with no follow up of action) leads to boys not respecting them or any authority figures in general that prefer to do the same.
The worst thing one can do is to talk discipline and not act upon it, for that leads to a complete shut down in listening for some kids (more telling in boys) from ever reacting to mere words from even those who do act. This certainly must have some carry over to school, where sitting still and listen to words are so prized. Society looks at physically ability and then likes to cut it off from character completely. Strong bodies means intervening more, being less fear based (and therefore avoids the use of rationalization to allow manipulation of others to deal with ones fears) and much more.
My teacher finds that his wife & daycare females preference to talk makes his job harder, for his son comes home and needs to be acted upon more often for a bit before his son remembers he is dealing with a man now. He says when he and his son are home alone, or have passed some time with no female influence everything goes so much smoother. At first he was shocked and for sometime couldnâ€™t understand what was the cause, until he notice how the daycare women were consistent with his wifeâ€™s approach to handling boys in general.
Therefore with schools so filled with women we can look forward to boys on m*censor* almost completely ignoring words and talk (for the fathers are absent even from many homes now). This may have started from WWII and the 50s when companies wanted men always at work. Still as anyone can tell you that a childâ€™s character is formed very early, and so the later introduction of the fatherâ€™s role (or the mother ways for that matter) will have much less affect. This is because trust with grown males is much harder to come by, and this again emphasizes the need for fathers that understand male ideas involve early, which hadnâ€™t happened even pre-feminism (as men were off working at the start of the industrial era). On farms and in the trade periods fathers were on site involved, or nearby, and so were there early to build trust with give and take responsibility along with rules. The females preference for control and need for unconditional love undermines this direct good male tough love approach with boys. We have been suffering from the womenâ€™s way for much longer than some like to see it. Companies over control of workers could have started the long road to the destruction of the family unit, before feminist greatly increased the collapse. It is the need for both male and female parents being involved early, especially with the sex they match, to bring a health family. Of course the quality of the parents ability is important, but all studies prove even low quality parents are better than none. So even in the feminist idea of no day is better than a bad dad doesnâ€™t work out. Especially when the one making the judgment on what is bad is the talk specialist with the rear of government.