Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You keep saying that, but you're unable to demonstrate how it was happening.
I contend that it didn't happen at all--it's a modern feminist myth. That's why you aren't aware of Tom Corbett, Marcus Welby, Andy Taylor or Ozzie Nelson, etc. You aren't aware of what we were really watching, you're only aware of the examples cherry-picked by people driving an agenda.
Or if it did happen, it happened to the X-generation, not Boomers.
Here is the hypocrisy: Television in the 60s and 70s was mild in its masculine violence, and we didn't actually get that much of it. Television literally went off at midnight and didn't come on until 6 am. During the viewing day, there was no more than two hours of whatever could be called "man-tough" programming. We didn't go to movies that often in those days either, and most of what any of us saw was children's programming like "Lady and the Tramp."
People will protest wildly against the idea that violent video games are having any negative emotional effect on boys, even though youth since the 80s have been immersed in video games than we were ever immersed in television and movies...and video games are far more violent and "man-tough" than any of the fare we were fed as children.
So which is true? If we were guided by the tame "man-tough" media of the 60s and 70s, how can it possibly be that males since the 80s have not been a hundred times more affected by violent video games?
You keep speaking to ‘man-tough’ or violence; I’m not. I am not familiar with the TV shows of the 60’s and 70’s - and I agree violence in video games can have an effect on youth, but I’m speaking to ‘standard gender roles’ of the past i.e. the man worked and provided financially for his family, women cooked and cared for children, women were ‘emotional’, men were ‘strong’, and so on. My point (as it relates to the thread) - we aren’t ‘breaking’!
There is more involved in raising a family than who is the primary financial provider; it’s assumed both parents are contributing. That said, isn’t the point that it is the child who would benefit from a stay-at-home parent, at least initially?
Yes, the child would benefit from both parents providing that opportunity. That would make both parents providers and the child is the beneficiary. I am sure we agree on this. The problem arises when the stay-at-home parent is not skilled for that kind of responsibility, which is different from the financial provider who seeks employment based on their skills. But as you said, there needs to be a discussion beforehand.
I think what is a challenge here is in defining areas of concern versus areas of non-concern.
I have been trying to ask, "Is there a problem right now, that is specific to men in the West / in America?" And the reason that there are people wanting to ask that, is when you look at gun violence, it is overwhelmingly men perpetrating it. When you look at suicide statistics, the demographic where that is climbing, is men, especially middle aged white men. So if there is a set of people of a certain demographic who appear to be getting more violent and dangerous to themselves and others, then it only makes sense to try and look at WHY that might be happening?
I am not sure it's fair to say "There is no man problem, and there is no white man problem, and there is no gun problem...there is a mental health problem plain and simple full stop." If no other demographics are showing a marked increase in violence to self and others...and do other countries have better mental health? And then there is the fact that it demonizes the mentally ill, because frankly...while people who commit certain acts may be mentally ill, most mentally ill people are NOT dangerous.
But even if we accept that the issue is one of mental health... What is causing an uptick in violent acts and suicide, especially in the demographic group that has ramped it up the most?
And what about some of the underlying mindsets? In the 60's and 70's we did not have internet trolls. We didn't have 4chan or 8chan or Reddit. The word "incel" had yet to be spoken. If you wanted to be an a-hole, it was more difficult to do so anonymously (you might have to wear a sheet.) There was a higher risk you might be held accountable for your words and/or actions, once upon a time, at least insofar as saying nasty things to people face to face could get you punched in the mouth. A lot of these shooters report having involvement with these sites and/or ideologies, or I wouldn't be bringing it up. But when at least a few of the big news perps did post a "manifesto" on 8chan before killing a bunch of people... I just wonder if sealing yourself into an echo chamber of infinitely reinforcing validation for your rage and feelings of being wronged, cheated, whatever... Is THIS part of the "new problem?" Or the new "face" of whatever problem there is?
Or are we still trying to say that there isn't really a problem at all? Nothing to see here?
I think what is a challenge here is in defining areas of concern versus areas of non-concern.
I have been trying to ask, "Is there a problem right now, that is specific to men in the West / in America?" And the reason that there are people wanting to ask that, is when you look at gun violence, it is overwhelmingly men perpetrating it. When you look at suicide statistics, the demographic where that is climbing, is men, especially middle aged white men. So if there is a set of people of a certain demographic who appear to be getting more violent and dangerous to themselves and others, then it only makes sense to try and look at WHY that might be happening?
I am not sure it's fair to say "There is no man problem, and there is no white man problem, and there is no gun problem...there is a mental health problem plain and simple full stop." If no other demographics are showing a marked increase in violence to self and others...and do other countries have better mental health? And then there is the fact that it demonizes the mentally ill, because frankly...while people who commit certain acts may be mentally ill, most mentally ill people are NOT dangerous.
But even if we accept that the issue is one of mental health... What is causing an uptick in violent acts and suicide, especially in the demographic group that has ramped it up the most?
And what about some of the underlying mindsets? In the 60's and 70's we did not have internet trolls. We didn't have 4chan or 8chan or Reddit. The word "incel" had yet to be spoken. If you wanted to be an a-hole, it was more difficult to do so anonymously (you might have to wear a sheet.) There was a higher risk you might be held accountable for your words and/or actions, once upon a time, at least insofar as saying nasty things to people face to face could get you punched in the mouth. A lot of these shooters report having involvement with these sites and/or ideologies, or I wouldn't be bringing it up. But when at least a few of the big news perps did post a "manifesto" on 8chan before killing a bunch of people... I just wonder if sealing yourself into an echo chamber of infinitely reinforcing validation for your rage and feelings of being wronged, cheated, whatever... Is THIS part of the "new problem?" Or the new "face" of whatever problem there is?
Or are we still trying to say that there isn't really a problem at all? Nothing to see here?
It's not just old white men whose suicide statistics are climbing. It's going up for adolescents as well. And misplaced rage is rising across the board as well, just not always manifest as a mass shooting. In some cases it's manifest as road rage or social medial bullying--often also to the point of homicide or suicide, respectively.
These things may not have a single cause--the cause of older male suicides isn't difficult to determine: It's the economy. Someone may say, "Why commit suicide just because you've been rendered irrelevant and useless and unable to meet your family responsibilities?" But even 16-year-old girls commit suicide for those reasons.
Otherwise, social media does seem to loom large as a factor, and some of the impact of social media may be subtle.
For instance, if an adolescent doesn't actually have real contact with real males in the real world, what is his actual impression of what "real males in the real world" actually is?
Does an incel who has not actually had general casual socialization as a male even know how to relate to women? Does he have realistic expectations? Does he know what his expectations should be?
There are a lot of people with problems that come to tragic head that likely would not have developed into problems with normal human socialization.
There are problems, new problems, things that weren't problems decades ago, but the solution is not as simple as merely declaring masculinity is toxic.
What I have noticed is that if a man or boy's behavior or appearance differs from the 'norm'l even slightly, such men or boys are accused of being:
- Gay
- Creepy
- A potential mass murderer
Men and boys on the autism spectrum have to deal with this a lot, because many of them don't understand social cues.
I feel empathy for such men and boys. The minute they try to open up or be different, they're harshly judged. I'm not surprised that the male suicide rate is so high.
What I have noticed is that if a man or boy's behavior or appearance differs from the 'norm'l even slightly, such men or boys are accused of being:
- Gay
- Creepy
- A potential mass murderer
Men and boys on the autism spectrum have to deal with this a lot, because many of them don't understand social cues.
I feel empathy for such men and boys. The minute they try to open up or be different, they're harshly judged. I'm not surprised that the male suicide rate is so high.
Here is another thing that I have questions/concerns about.
So decades ago, autism as such wasn't really understood. I think that now, everyone knows someone who is "on the spectrum." When my older son was 2 whole weeks into kindergarten, I was pulled into meetings to discuss how the school felt he may be autistic and that he needed immediate intervention (the sooner we get him diagnosed, on medication, and on a special learning path, the more successful he will be!--so they said.)
I was floored by this. A child who had never been in such a big building full of people before, with all new expectations, is being pegged as autistic because he got mad when you wanted him to stop coloring before he was finished, and get in line, and he hid under a table from you that day. Wow.
Then I found out that the school got quite a bit of Federal funding for every child so labeled and put into a program.
My nephews, who were in the same school in a nice suburb, both wound up in these "special programs"...both heavily medicated...both kept at home by an overprotective Mom who wouldn't even let them walk 2 blocks to school without an adult...both plopped in front of screens almost every waking moment at home. And at this point? Each of those boys has been through eating disorders, antisocial behavior...neither of them have the social skills that god gave a cheese sandwich, and neither has ever had a girlfriend. Both of them are your pretty stereotypical computer-bound recluses. (They are 17 and 20, like my sons.)
Now, I don't know that it is autism that they were "diagnosed" with in elementary school, or something else. But I do know I heard a lot about them being on different meds that were changed up from time to time, I know that I watched the older one go from being obese to emaciated due to an eating disorder, and the young one display age-inappropriate behaviors (he was not maturing on par with other kids his age)...and yet, when they were very small, they were really sweet, normal children. No issue in evidence, in the early days. And I wonder, seriously, if their family's bizarre thing of not letting, or encouraging them, to interact with the real world in normal ways, had something to do with it. Little boys should not grow up glued to office chairs in a dark basement, staring at a screen, on heavy duty head meds.
But what do I know, I guess...I'm no expert. I only know that my son, who was supposedly "on the spectrum" at 2 weeks into Kindergarten, has grown up to be a perfectly functional young man, with plenty of empathy, who has successfully had a relationship throughout high school with the same girl (he's now engaged to her) and no trouble making or keeping friends, or interacting with the world, or understanding social cues. In case I haven't been clear, I told his school officials that I respectfully disagreed with their assessment. I refused to let them put him into their "program."
Now I understand that meds can really help for people who need them. But is it possible that some of these disorders are over-diagnosed so that schools can get funding, and that the meds given for them might be causing some of the problems they were supposedly meant to treat, in individuals who might not have ever needed them in the first place? I wonder.
If men are killing themselves because they have normal life problems, like illness or job losses, talking or crying about it won't make them strong. I've known too many men who could not deal with problems, everything had to be smooth all the time. Talking is futile with those types, I guess they are supposed to be immortal and never get a flat tire, because how dare that tire go bad on them. How dare their body get arthritis like 99% of the population.
I don't think much of grown men (or women) who would never face problems head on, especially when they burden their spouses and families to be the ones to deal with and fix everything.
If men are killing themselves because they have normal life problems, like illness or job losses, talking or crying about it won't make them strong. I've known too many men who could not deal with problems, everything had to be smooth all the time. Talking is futile with those types, I guess they are supposed to be immortal and never get a flat tire, because how dare that tire go bad on them. How dare their body get arthritis like 99% of the population.
I don't think much of grown men (or women) who would never face problems head on, especially when they burden their spouses and families to be the ones to deal with and fix everything.
"He jests at scars who never felt a wound."
You're talking about men who have lived their lives and are on the downhill side--too old to "reinvent" themselves, but still have a full load of responsibilities that they realize they can never meet.
I haven't been exactly there, but it's because I was lucky to have had the right early experiences and examples, not because I was particularly smart. But I heard the bullet whizz by my ear, so I empathize.
Well, if that inability to let go is causing them unhappiness, therapy would probably be the next step.
BUT, some people are comfortable in their unhappiness, and essentially do nothing to change it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
