141–150 of 177 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't reinstitute gender roles, but recognize that while women have made lots of progress men are still strictly held to their historical gender role, and that the only way forward is to open up the roles available for men.
What about historical gender roles for men would cause a lot of men to be lonely now?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Encouraging people to marry and have committed monogamous relationships. Create a stigma to encourage people to only have sex inside of committed marriage relationships so when they get older the have a lasting relationship with someone. Also it's would help killing the sex trade as a young man will pe willing to pay for it via websites or in person, but don't form those long term relationships before it's too late.
Like I said in a sister comment, you have 108 male to 100 female at birth (correction: 105 to 100[0] in the US), so what do you do with the 'leftovers'? And if some females don't want to play house now that they can survive on their own, do you force them to play? [0] https://www.who.int/data/maternal-newborn-child-adolescent-a...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These christian-adjacent solutions seem completely bizarre to me. They smell like solutions that have been worked backwards from ideology than actual data. South Korea is a christian nation; forget prostitution, even pornography is banned in South Korea. South Korea, while being largely agnostic (~49%), is largely a christian nation by largest sect. If your prescriptions worked, South Korea would be a poster child fo…
The monogamy argument is basically to force women into relationships with these men rather than using their current choice to not marry men they find undesirable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Admit” as in “enable social structures around,” not “confess to random strangers.” As a concrete (and tiny) example: we enforce loneliness at the physical and policy levels by subsiding the construction of car-dependent suburbs: human socialization becomes defined by points of interaction (driving to the bowling alley, except you have no friends to bowl with), rather than transitory areas of interaction.
This is very different your original statement. Social structures that create loneliness are not the same as "stigmatizing" loneliness. And this doesn't explain how the supposed stigma around loneliness causes loneliness in men.
I didn't say that they were the same: I said that expressions of loneliness are stigmatized in men, and that we've developed social structures that create and enforce loneliness. They're separate points.
The stigma around loneliness doesn't as much cause loneliness as it ensures that the causes of loneliness can't be meaningfully ameliorated. To use a popular phrase: "the first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem."
This is a situation that will affect too many men worldwide as they are more likely to live single / be childless. The solution is to have communities or networks of people built explitictly around the idea of caring for others.
It’s called kinship networks built around people with blood ties. In tens of thousands of years nobody has figured out any stronger bond.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like I said in a sister comment, you have 108 male to 100 female at birth (correction: 105 to 100[0] in the US), so what do you do with the 'leftovers'? And if some females don't want to play house now that they can survive on their own, do you force them to play? [0] https://www.who.int/data/maternal-newborn-child-adolescent-a...
Excess at-birth human males die way younger than females. From other males and higher genetic variance. It evens out and even skews the other way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I completely understand your point. But you also have to realize that belief is also a choice, not just a factual agreement on reality. It may surprise you to learn that many of those church attendees are not 100% in agreement. They too have doubts. They choose to believe it for the community. Or the alternative is just too bleak for them.
> But you also have to realize that belief is also a choice Depends on what you mean by "belief." I don't think "belief" as "perceived model / understood facts about the universe" is a choice any more than you decide what you see or hear or otherwise perceive. Maybe at margins where things are unclear. "Belief" in a way-of-being / life path like "I believe that if I live this way, I'll see these results" probably inv…
As with any male-specific problem, the progressive left will blame it on patriarchy and oppose any solution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't particularly agree, but how would you reinstitute gender roles? The president cannot pass a decree that women should be confined to the kitchen. "Traditional" gender roles broke down once wage growth flatlined and it was impossible to support a family on a single income. If you focus on the economic issues - especially those of inequality, it seems to me you would fix far more issues than focusing on social o…
You're right, but you miss a key point: much of what we call "the progressive left" is just corporate and professional managerial class value signaling. It's easy and low cost to call people names and culture war, so activism and attention gets directed (on both sides) toward drag queen story time hour instead of making sure everyone has access to a solid, stable, safe job.
This isn't true. The corporate and professional managerial class are not the same people unionizing coffeeshops and railroads. This is a elite backed misdirection in the same vein that focuses drag shows.
It's difficult to take people seriously when those same "corporate and professional managerial class" are called the "progressive left" while be simultaneously anti-union. Must of what you call "the progressive left" are also just anti-religious conservatives (or left-leaning libertarians at best).