No one expects young men to do anything and they are responding by doing nothing • Hacker News Board

Re: No one expects young men to do anything and they are responding by doing nothing

#251

Post by Multicomp » Sun, Apr 24, 2022, 2:21 PM UTC

meken wrote: post #171

BlargMcLarg wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Men who DGAF aren't the same as "incels". You and GP aren't at odds with one another. And yes, it is somewhat ironic society is making the exact same mistakes it has before: forgetting how destructive a large population of uninterested young men is towards society, without ever having to be violent.

Could you say more about this? What historical events are you referring to? I consider myself a disaffected male, and am curious to understand my situation from a historical perspective.

I'm not GP and can only guess, and not even a particularly educated guess, but I will try, because I too am curious, and everyone knows the best way to get an answer on the web is to post a confident-sounding answer so someone can 'correct me' therefore giving me the actual information I'm hopeful to receive.

I remember (and therefore don't have a source for) users on the web claiming the rise of fascism was enabled partly by strongman leaders engaging all of the disaffected men en masse to serve said strongman's agenda by offering them the things they wanted (respect, status, stability).

If my tripping of Godwin's Law is on the right track, then the GP may be referring to Weimar Germany where Hitler was able to take control over a very quick timeframe, starting with disaffected men and eventually spreading the message to the general populace, taking over the country's government sans violence (though there was certainly violence and intimidation near the end of the Weimar government and probably before then that I am unaware of).

Or, much more likely, the GP meant something else entirely, and I am Wrong On The Internet!

Re: No one expects young men to do anything and they are responding by doing nothing

#252

Post by igetspam » Sun, Apr 24, 2022, 2:21 PM UTC

t0suj4 wrote: post #95

Helitioo wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We need to find a better reason why this happens. I don't believe it's liberal social values which are not lived by. First of I would believe it's an educational problem and second it's a 'who cares' problem. There are plenty of areas/ghettos of low income and low education around. The blog also contains the following: "The people with the most money and education—the class most responsible for shaping culture and cu…

From what I've heard the problem are divorce courts granting women nearly everything. That rigs the game against dads. Marriage is a huge liability. Men are gambling with nearly all their lives on their partner's unwillingness into a divorce. On the other hand I've heard rumors where therapists were suggesting divorce to married women. I don't know how widespread that is but maybe something worth looking into.

Does it though? In a typical marriage, one side goes to work and the other stays home. The one who stays home has a pretty stale resume during the years kids can't be in school and they often don't make it back to the workforce at all. This is a decision that's usually agreed to because the long term plan is to stay together and this is the agreed upon model for load distribution. Then comes divorce.

The party that has always been the primary caregiver is expected to keep that role, in general. Without a partner who works and gets paid, they are left scrambling to find a job. Since their resume has gone stale, they end up making a fraction of what they would have, had they stayed working. Don't forget, they're still probably the primary caregiver and have to handle finding daycare or babysitters so they can work and take care of of kids.

You can guess which parent generally get the more difficult role. So which side has it better?

My wife hasn't worked since she completed her Masters. If we split, she'd have a degree that qualifies her to be a teacher but not valid certifications. I make a very good salary. She'd have our kid because there's no math that would make sacrificing my job a reasonable option. I could give her half my net and I'd still live the high life but she would have to deal with all the details of scheduling our kid's life and I'd be able to opt out of it. I never plan to split but my life would be much easier than her life would be, if we did.

Re: No one expects young men to do anything and they are responding by doing nothing

#253

Post by AvocadoPanic » Sun, Apr 24, 2022, 2:22 PM UTC

d4mi3n wrote: post #189

AvocadoPanic wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that the US will look and operate more and more like wherever these people came from.

Is this a bad thing? The US was founded by immigrants. Immigration, diversity, and the US’ history with these topics (good and bad) is huge part of the national cultural identity. As a US citizen, I think as long as we can maintain the cornerstones of our national heritage (democratic traditions, constitutional freedoms, etc) it should be fine if things change to reflect the demographics of our population.

Early US immigrants were pioneers wanting to carve a civilization on new continent.

Would you consider the rule of law as a cornerstone of our national heritage? So many of today's immigrants seem to have little regard, evidenced by their illegal entry.

Re: No one expects young men to do anything and they are responding by doing nothing

#254

Post by throwaway_srb » Sun, Apr 24, 2022, 2:22 PM UTC

lettergram wrote: post #209

rayiner wrote: post #3

This is an important read, especially this part. > This highly educated and affluent person prioritized stability for her own children. But refused to publicly endorse this value so that less fortunate children could also benefit from family stability. I’m from a rigidly socially conservative immigrant family that professes fashionably liberal values in public—imposing a double standard between “us” and “Americans.”…

> America so thoroughly that the head of the “conservative” party is a three-times-divorced man of little character. I think that’s an interesting point. The political window has shifted further and further left in recent years. The fact is he’s not the head of the conservative moment, he’s the head of the Republican Party. There are differing factions and he promised something most in the party could support. For ex…

Can you please distinguish between the ex-presidents’s words and actions?

He supported domestic production, but failed to do anything meaningful. He claimed to support the working class but then passed the TCJA which benefited the owners of capital more than labor.

He did get a few things right like Operation Warp Speed, but it’s overshadowed by the sheer incompetence of the implementation of other actions (ref. CARES act).

I’m not trying to start a flame war nor am I insinuating that you are presenting arguments in bad faith; I’m merely stating that the actions need to be contrasted with the words.

The real puzzle to me is the level of support he enjoys after a term in the office. IMO there are much better people to implement the policies that he claims to champion (eg Ron DeSantis, Tom Cotton) who also happen to be vastly more competent.

Re: No one expects young men to do anything and they are responding by doing nothing

#255

Post by h2odragon » Sun, Apr 24, 2022, 2:22 PM UTC

bilbo0s wrote: post #82

rayiner wrote: post #3

This is an important read, especially this part. > This highly educated and affluent person prioritized stability for her own children. But refused to publicly endorse this value so that less fortunate children could also benefit from family stability. I’m from a rigidly socially conservative immigrant family that professes fashionably liberal values in public—imposing a double standard between “us” and “Americans.”…

I hate to be "that guy", but you guys have this whole thing backwards. What men do is based on what men want. What men want is sex. If sex is free then you can have all the liberal or conservative values you want, but it won't cause those men to work harder. Why? Because sex is free. Full stop. If sex costs more than most men will ever have, then you can have all the liberal or conservative values you want, most men…

> What men want is sex.

If it were that simple, there would be more goats and less stress.

Re: No one expects young men to do anything and they are responding by doing nothing

#256

Post by jandrese » Sun, Apr 24, 2022, 2:22 PM UTC

karpierz wrote: post #84

endisneigh wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curious to see the source showing European democracies are more successful, controlling for socioeconomic status.

What does it mean to be "successful, controlling for socioeconomic status"? Their success is defined by their peoples' socioeconomic status.

Maybe it would be better to say "controlling for immigration policies"? But even then the US is going to come out behind because those countries don't have the legacies of slavery still weighing them down.

Re: No one expects young men to do anything and they are responding by doing nothing

#257

Post by photochemsyn » Sun, Apr 24, 2022, 2:22 PM UTC

jelly wrote: post #224

photochemsyn wrote: post #120

I think there are quite a few alternative explanations for the data cited in the article than the ones the author proposes: > "Today, one in six American men between the ages of 25 and 54 are unemployed or out of the workforce altogether: about 10 million men. This number has more than doubled since the 1970s." We have this place in the USA called "The Rust Belt" which was once a dynamic and active manufacturing cent…

Those are certainly causal explanations for the data, but once those phenomena are here they impact people's expectations. Change in expectations is clearly what the author is focusing on. For example, the emergence of the rust belt leaves a lot of unemployed men - the impacted parts of society won't continue to expect the same work ethic and commitment from their men 40-50 years later.

As in, "In the past young men could look to the example of their fathers, who had well-paid automotive manufacturing / steel mill / electronics assembly jobs that allowed them to care for their families and even put a downpayment on a small home, but now they have no such examples and no such expectations of moving into that kind of position at adulthood."

Okay, that's an expectation issue. Why is the author ignoring the change in conditions that led to that change in expectations?

Re: No one expects young men to do anything and they are responding by doing nothing

#258

Post by est31 » Sun, Apr 24, 2022, 2:22 PM UTC

mediumiqsad wrote: post #106

poszlem wrote: post #17

Rob Henderson also coined the term "luxury beliefs" which is one of the most apt name for something we've been witnessing lately ("defund the police" or "healthy at every size" or "marriage is just an oppressive institution of the patriarchy"). I highly recommend that other essay too https://nypost.com/2019/08/17/luxury-beliefs-are-the-latest-...

Rob went to Yale. He's literally a luxury columnist.

He went to Yale, yes, but he doesn't have the typical Yale graduate background of wealth and status. He had a drug addict mother and was sent to foster homes until he was adopted. He experienced the various levels of society first-hand.

Re: No one expects young men to do anything and they are responding by doing nothing

#259

Post by Helmut10001 » Sun, Apr 24, 2022, 2:23 PM UTC

I don't understand why it is stressed that all of this is connected to marriage (or absense of). Parents walking away from responsibility is a cause for problems in children, no matter whether you are married or not. Also, I doubt that the degree of married parents is connected to class. We have both a PhD, a child, and live together for 15 years, failing both to see a reason for marriage.

Re: No one expects young men to do anything and they are responding by doing nothing

#260

Post by VictorPath » Sun, Apr 24, 2022, 2:23 PM UTC

> You put a guy in a chaotic and impoverished circumstances. And then you decide not to expect anything of him.

How about not put them in chaotic and impoverished circumstances? Sweden does not have these problems at the scale the US has.

Also after World War II, a working class guy could get a job at a factory in Detroit, and be able to afford his wife staying home to raise kids in a house he owned, commuting in a car he owned. Maybe going to school on the GI Bill at some point. All of this is gone. People like Charles Murray spent decades attacking the US working class, and now he bemoans that wage slaves are not interested in pursuing the Sisyphean tasks he has laid out.

All of this is concurrent with the material destruction of working class life in the US, which is why the first thing Henderson has to try to knock out is it has anything to do with material conditions.

It was a hell of a lot better to be a working class man in 1960 then 2005. Two thirds of union jobs are now nonunionized etc.