Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The data are clear: The boys are not all right

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

631–640 of 1001 posts

Re: The data are clear: The boys are not all right

#631

Post by jimkleiber »

hwers wrote: post #309
ytwombly wrote: post #150

US-based cis-hetero white man here. The data reinforce the impression you get glancing at the headlines or spending a day out anywhere in America observing other men. Dare I say it even reinforces what I know from painful firsthand experience as a man, at the lowest points in my life. I was lucky though, with a supportive family who helped me through the confusing years of early adulthood. You can point to the declin…

I feel like at least being allowed to state that things are as bad as they are (outside anonymous forums like this) would be a great step towards getting closer to solving things. Right now we're still in a state where we have to keep a faked optimism everywhere we go which is suffocating.

I appreciate this. I've worked for the last 10 years in helping us get better at saying how we're feeling and yet we still hold so much in. Projecting one thing yet feeling something different on the inside.

Re: The data are clear: The boys are not all right

#632

Post by bckr »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #518
ytwombly wrote: post #150

US-based cis-hetero white man here. The data reinforce the impression you get glancing at the headlines or spending a day out anywhere in America observing other men. Dare I say it even reinforces what I know from painful firsthand experience as a man, at the lowest points in my life. I was lucky though, with a supportive family who helped me through the confusing years of early adulthood. You can point to the declin…

Not 100% sure, but the fact that you specified cis and hetero is part of the problem. These 2 terms are a strong indication of some recent changes that are probably having a big influence in this problem.

> are probably having a big influence in this problem

Or maybe they're orthogonal. Or maybe the influence is going in the other direction. Or maybe it's a feedback loop (most likely). Or maybe they're both caused by overlapping upstream causes.

In any case, a return to a society that acknowledges and appreciates gender and sexual minorities is probably a positive. (A return, in that at least one ancient civilization had a place for these folks, namely the Sumerians).

Re: The data are clear: The boys are not all right

#633

Post by monkeydreams »

jimkleiber wrote: post #623
cuddlybacon wrote: post #531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note: This is a rough mix of reading Jonathan Haidt's books and my own thoughts. What America is seeing is basically the result of a culture that only uses one moral value. Jonathan Haidt believes there is a set of moral primitives that all our brains support[0]. All other moral values or rules can be explained in terms of these. He also says that the US (potentially excluding the south) is the most single moral on e…

> The theory proposes six foundations: Care/Harm, Fairness/Cheating, Loyalty/Betrayal, Authority/Subversion, Sanctity/Degradation, and Liberty/Oppression; I'm curious to learn more about how he concludes that most of the US has coalesced on care/harm, as intuitively I would assume at least fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, and liberty/oppression would also apply as I see them come up a lot in the discourse here in…

I am in agreement with you that Care/Harm is probably not the moral axis most at play in the US.

Liberty/Oppression is the primary axis (see gun control debates, state rights, mask mandates, neo-liberalism, etc, etc) with Fairness/Cheating (billionaires paying more tax, public healthcare for all vs excessive hospital bills, etc, etc) corresponding as the secondary political axis. Nearly all arguments portrayed in media, government, etc, orbit along one or both of these dimensions.

Re: The data are clear: The boys are not all right

#634

Post by ravel-bar-foo »

prawn wrote: post #597
N1H1L wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The purpose of a man's life is meaning and the search for it. For years, centuries even, this meaning in a man's life was provided by being a provider. This order was enforced through society. And you can use society and religion interchangeably here because the distinction between the two is only a century or two old. And this order enforced the role of a child-bearer and nurturer to women. Obviously, such an order…

What's stopping these men being a provider for themselves, their partner, family or children? I'd agree that meaning/purpose is part of this puzzle, but there are still children needing a provider and partners who either expect a fulltime breadwinner or find some other balance. My guess is the perceived opportunity of improving your lot in life has declined and males, on the whole, have struggled with motivation as a…

So my family is very liberal. When I mentioned to my trans-brother that my goal in life is to be a well-earning father who is able to provide for my family, I got called 'priviledged', told I have an outdated mindset, and demeaned as a wannabe patriarch. I didn't say anything about limiting the opportunities of my wife, but bigoted sentiments were read into my desire to support a family. This despite the fact that my father was very much the supportive and calm leader, and we turned out very well as a result.

It seems to me that in one generation we have gone from fatherhood and motherhood being high-status to being low-status. But maybe that is part of this very liberal bubble.

Re: The data are clear: The boys are not all right

#635

Post by Enginerrrd »

nautilius wrote: post #626
robotresearcher wrote: post #624

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The mid winter family-oriented festival predates Christianity. The party at the darkest part of the year is indeed the original point.

Indeed. I'd be surprised to find a single culture on this planet that did/does not celebrate that days are finally getting longer.

Even among equatorial people's?

Re: The data are clear: The boys are not all right

#636

Post by fouc »

valdiorn wrote: post #600
mrjangles wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>huge amount of effort over many years into online dating My god I hope you aren't talking about tinder are you? You are totally clueless about women and dating if that is what you are talking about. Go out to bars, talk to people, do activities and meet lots of people. stop doing 'online' dating (of any kind) Seriously, myself and everyone I know found that upon reaching 33 the interest from women in their 20s sky r…

Literally everyone I know who is around my age (~34), if I ask them how they met their partner, the will say they met their partner online, myself included. "go out to bars" is advise that's about 20 years out of date, mate. However, being successful at online dating is non-intuitive and takes skill. Of course, if you're in your mid 30's and you want to bang college chicks half your age with daddy issues, maybe "goin…

> talk to people, do activities and meet lots of people.

You missed the rest of the sentence.

Re: The data are clear: The boys are not all right

#637

Post by majormajor »

N1H1L wrote: post #301
ytwombly wrote: post #150

US-based cis-hetero white man here. The data reinforce the impression you get glancing at the headlines or spending a day out anywhere in America observing other men. Dare I say it even reinforces what I know from painful firsthand experience as a man, at the lowest points in my life. I was lucky though, with a supportive family who helped me through the confusing years of early adulthood. You can point to the declin…

The purpose of a man's life is meaning and the search for it. For years, centuries even, this meaning in a man's life was provided by being a provider. This order was enforced through society. And you can use society and religion interchangeably here because the distinction between the two is only a century or two old. And this order enforced the role of a child-bearer and nurturer to women. Obviously, such an order…

Let's split out your "purpose" vs "role" statements more precisely.

You say the purpose of a man's life is meaning and the search for it. Do you use "man" to mean both men and women there, or are you simply ignoring women?

You say historically the role of being a provider provided (ahem) that meaning to men. You say the role of being a child-bearer and nurturer was forced on women and don't comment on what this meant re: purpose or meaning there.

So I have a lot of questions I don't see answered in your claims:

1) What is stopping men today from providing? I'm surrounded by male coworkers who (in)famously make more than many women, including most of their own spouses. Some of those partners are not employed, even. So clearly this is not a universal, but specific to a subset of men.

2) Are those men who are not doing "traditional providing" being provided for or are they simply solo? Being a bachelor is of course not new; living off your parents is also not new, but maybe more common today (?), being provided for by a woman would be relatively newer.

3) What is preventing men who are not providers from finding other meaning while being provided for?

4) If we want to go back in time, wouldn't the answer just be "man the fuck up and get over it"?

I'm pretty sure "modern liberalism" acknowledges that there is a problem (at the extreme level, incels who go on mass shootings are obviously seen as a problem), I think your diagnosis is just in a minority.

What data point supports your claims that society has broken men versus something like "the problem is that today many men have adjusted poorly to lessened dependence on them, and increased competition with them, and this is made worse by self-reinforcing downward-spiral bubbles like the "incel" wing of the internet." That the societal failing is actually "toxic masculinity," etc, which gives boys ridiculous expectations and standards to meet in order to feel successful. Not everyone can excel! Only 5% of people will be in the top 5% by definition! Pushing boys towards achievement and material success if doomed to failure.

That's not even getting into e.g. how suicide/opiod addiction/etc are hardly restricted to un-or-underemployed men who aren't in traditional gender roles!

Or how a major complaint of young women today in the dating world is "young men are fuckboys who have no interest in a long term thing" which is quite the opposite observed behavior from "trying to be a provider"...

Re: The data are clear: The boys are not all right

#638

Post by [deleted] »

adriand wrote: post #430
awaythrow483 wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm 33, Ive got a fairly high IQ, make $340k in a STEM field and enough to retire tomorrow, I'm not unattractive, and put a huge amount of effort over many years into online dating. I've pretty much given up on dating. I have a total inability to find anyone I'm interested in that is interested in me. When I was younger and I wanted to go to bars and get drunk and be an idiot I had plenty of attractive sexual partner…

> tell Women painfully stupid stuff they want to hear If you are looking for a reason for your travails, here it is. If you started out with this level of contempt, it’s no wonder you’ve been unsuccessful. If you became embittered due to your challenges, then I’m sorry. That is a hard path. But if you want it to change, I think you have some work to do. And I wish you luck with it.

[deleted]

Re: The data are clear: The boys are not all right

#639

Post by throwaway0a5e »

ask_b123 wrote: post #467
throwaway0a5e wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cynical take is that after dry running it in, ahem, certain sub-groups of the population the powers that be liked the results so much they decided everyone should get it.

What do you mean?

The often stereotyped fatherless poor black household is one of the net effects (accidental or intentional I will not speculate) of government policy over the past ~60yr.

No couples with a brain are marrying when doing so would render woman and child ineligible for state aid. The downside to this is that the man is free to leave and leave they do. That's the big one but many government policies have have had the net effect of decreasing stability in poor urban households (regardless of race, but we all know poor urban households do not represent a cross section of society).

Re: The data are clear: The boys are not all right

#640

Post by sundarurfriend »

ReactiveJelly wrote: post #419

> we must stop defining masculinity as necessarily toxic I know "toxic masculinity" is a dumb academic term that never should have become a slogan, but Andrew, Mr. Yang, that's not what it means. It's like "async functions". Not all functions are async. It's okay if a function is sync. Adjectives modify nouns to make them refer to a specific subset. It's fine to be masculine. I don't know what it means to be masculin…

When a woman engages in a stereotypically gender-conforming behavior in a harmful way, it's called "internalized misogyny".

When a man engages in a stereotypically gender-conforming behavior in a harmful way, it should have been called "internalized misandry".

Instead, because academia is not free from biases of its own, a condemning, shaming, loaded term was coined for this side of things.

Post reply on HN