Has society left men behind?

[bush_cheney2004]

Of course you are speaking from a boys perspective. Trust me. As a girl, they tend to go with the flow of the same gender. And the female gender were encouraged towards nursing and secretarial courses. That was it in the 70's.

Maybe...maybe not...I have six sisters. Only one pursued a technical career after realizing that her masters degree in psychology would only feed her cats. The very term "secretary" was in dis-favour by the 1980's. When Y2K rolled around, Hollywood media declared that "nerds win", but very few of the "nerds" were women.

[WestCoastRunner]

Ok so here's the summary I'm getting of your opinion:

If men have any issues, they should man up.

If women have any issues, these should be carefully investigated, their root causes identified, and society changed so as to resolve these issues.

Does that about cover it?

No not really. I agree the issues facing men should be investigated. But I suspect that after all the studies are done, men simply need to mature and study more.

[WestCoastRunner]

Maybe...maybe not...I have six sisters. Only one pursued a technical career after realizing that her masters degree in psychology would only feed her cats. The very term "secretary" was in dis-favour by the 1980's. When Y2K rolled around, Hollywood media declared that "nerds win", but very few of the "nerds" were women.

Many of my Y2K colleagues were women. This is what I am trying to say. We were around then. Edited August 23, 2016 by WestCoastRunner

[Bonam]

No not really. I agree the issues facing men should be investigated. But I suspect that after all the studies are done, men simply need to mature and study more.

So maybe women just need to mature and go into technical fields and study more too, then?

[TimG]

But I suspect that after all the studies are done, men simply need to mature and study more.

Huh? In other words: any problem men have is the fault of men. Woman, OTOH, are perpetual victims that need society to deal with their issues.

[bush_cheney2004]

Many of my Y2K colleagues were women. This is what I am trying to say. We were around then.

Sure...we had some too. But they were picked off by marriage, motherhood, and other career interests. Many preferred business analysis and project management over careers as developers or DBAs. And their "sexist" male colleagues weren't changing much either.

[Bonam]

Huh? In other words: any problem men have is the fault of men. Woman, OTOH, are perpetual victims that need society to deal with their issues.

The funny thing is that this view is almost universally held today in Western society.

[WestCoastRunner]

Huh? In other words: any problem men have is the fault of men. Woman, OTOH, are perpetual victims that need society to deal with their issues.

Uh no. As statistics show women are exceeding men in university admissions. Men need to stop blaming women for their drop in admissions and put on their man underwear just as women have had to do.

[bush_cheney2004]

Uh no. As statistics show women are exceeding men in university admissions. Men need to stop blaming women for their drop in admissions and put on their man underwear just as women have had to do.

Interesting...women needed to put on their "man underwear" ? I think that distills the issue nicely.

[dre]

Why do men earn only ~40% of degrees while women earn ~60% of degrees? Why are fewer and fewer men pursuing post secondary education? Does anyone see a problem with this?

Why is that necessarily a problem any more than a larger percentage of men in computer programming jobs is a problem.

Maybe men are just choosing not to spend so much of their lives in school? Maybe they have other good opportunities to make good money.

[WestCoastRunner]

Interesting...women needed to put on their "man underwear" ? I think that distills the issue nicely.

No. women had to put on their big panties.

[TimG]

Men need to stop blaming women for their drop in admissions and put on their man underwear just as women have had to do.

Then why doesn't the same comment apply to every profession where women are under-represented today? Seems to me that if women wanted to do those jobs they would and since they don't there is nothing that government should concern itself with.

[Archduke al-Qaddafi]

Men need to stop blaming women for their drop in admissions and put on their man underwear just as women have had to do.

No one is blaming women, but they are saying that society should acknowledge and maybe even try to help with some of the issues that men face, rather than brushing it off and saying "man up." When I was in university (in the 2000's) there was talk of creating a counselling center specifically for men (like the ones they have for women, indigenous students, LGBT) so that maybe they could deal with things like high drop out rates, high suicide rates, the fact that mentally ill men are less likely to seek treatment, domestic abuse (it happens to men, but they rarely talk about it because they are expected to "man up") etc. It was squashed by the student union. They said men aren't a marginalized group. The word "misogyny" came up. You get the idea. Saying that "men as a group are facing their own specific issues and maybe we should try to offer them some help" is not the same as "blaming women."

Edited August 23, 2016 by Archduke al-Qaddafi

[Big Guy]

Why do men earn only ~40% of degrees while women earn ~60% of degrees? Why are fewer and fewer men pursuing post secondary education? Does anyone see a problem with this?

Oh wait never mind, I forgot, they can all man up and go be plumbers.

That is because American women are smarter than American men. About 70% of American women have an unfavorable opinion of Trump:

Women Support Trump

Edited August 23, 2016 by Big Guy

[Smoke]

That is because American women are smarter than American men. About 70% of American women have an unfavorable opinion of Trump:

Women Support Trump

Or women aren't as smart as men and just believe everything they hear on mainstream media.

[Argus]

Just in time for Father's day, Barbara Kay points out how male roles are disappearing under the PC zealotry of equality which has gripped government, media and academia.

As women’s roles expand, society’s need for men in their traditional roles as protector, provider and parent is shrinking. As men absorb society’s indifference or outright hostility to them, they feel increasing loss of “mission.” The news is replete with the bad things some men do, and much of the media tolerant of collective condemnation. Last week The Washington Post published a vicious denunciation of men by a gender-studies professor, entitled, “Why Can’t We Hate Men?” The content of the piece, replete with falsehoods to boot, bore out the scabrous misandry its title implies.

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/barbara-kay-the-male-crisis-thats-ruining-our-boys-and-no-one-cares-about

[dialamah]

Oh look, another diatribe against women who have had the gall to move beyond the kitchen, nursery and bedroom.  

[Michael Hardner]

20 hours ago, Argus said:

1) Just in time for Father's day, Barbara Kay points out how male roles are disappearing under the PC zealotry of equality which has gripped government, media and academia.

2) As women’s roles expand, society’s need for men in their traditional roles as protector, provider and parent is shrinking. As men absorb society’s indifference or outright hostility to them, they feel increasing loss of “mission.”

3) The news is replete with the bad things some men do, and much of the media tolerant of collective condemnation. Last week The Washington Post published a vicious denunciation of men by a gender-studies professor, entitled, “Why Can’t We Hate Men?” The content of the piece, replete with falsehoods to boot, bore out the scabrous misandry its title implies.

1) Oh Kay...
2) Sentence 1 makes sense, then sentence 2 makes a non-sequitur leap (indifference ? hostility ? where did that come from ?)  Also this condition is not necessarily related to gender specialization reducing, but is a result of myriad changes that are shaking western society.
3) Aha.  The usual villain: a crazy liberal professor with crazy ideas.  

Overall, though, Kay is correctly pointing out a malady and an uneasiness that we have today.  But gender role changes effectively move to share the responsibility for family between traditional family leaders, it should be pointed out.

 

[turningrite]

As the "middle" part of middle class has largely disappeared in "post-industrial" societies, it's difficult to imagine how men of modest intelligence or talents can or will maintain the roles traditionally assigned to them. There are massive implications in this, including declining family formation and birth rates. And the increase in single-parent (mainly female) led households generates other concerns from rising drug addiction levels to increasing crime rates among young men who grow up in these households. The old social structure, which admittedly never can or will be reconstituted, is dead. But we seem unable to imagine what we'll replace it with.

[Michael Hardner]

15 minutes ago, turningrite said:

1) As the "middle" part of middle class has largely disappeared in "post-industrial" societies, it's difficult to imagine how men of modest intelligence or talents can or will maintain the roles traditionally assigned to them.

2) There are massive implications in this, including declining family formation and birth rates.

3) And the increase in single-parent (mainly female) led households generates other concerns from rising drug addiction levels to increasing crime rates among young men who grow up in these households.

1) Well, as you said we are post-industrial so traditional roles are disappearing

2) Yes.  Since 1965.

3) You are repeating things you have heard without checking.  I did the check for you and found this.  It's been declining for awhile now.

4)   "The old social structure, which admittedly never can or will be reconstituted, is dead. But we seem unable to imagine what we'll replace it with."

I agree but we can't talk to each other about anything at all it seems, because we can't agree on information, on experts, and we're dealing with an influx of people who want to talk about issues but don't know how.

[turningrite]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

3) You are repeating things you have heard without checking.  I did the check for you and found this.  It's been declining for awhile now.

 

"3) You are repeating things you have heard without checking.  I did the check for you and found this.  It's been declining for awhile now."

The graph you copy provides no context. What, exactly, is it testing, and where? Below is a link to Stats Can's interpretation of 2016 census data on the incidence of single parent-led family households in this country, which notes that  "Lone‑parent families and stepfamilies—created following the death of a parent, a separation or a divorce—are not new phenomena. However, these families are more frequent and more diverse than before." 

https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/as-sa/98-200-x/2016006/98-200-x2016006-eng.cfm

As for the relationship between single family households and crime, I take my information from various sources, including a federal government study (Dept. of Public Safety) on juvenile delinquency - which has long been understood as being related to increased propensity for adult criminality - that was released in 2011:

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/fmls-rsk/index-en.aspx

The 2011 federal study identifies the following factors as significant contributor to juvenile delinquency:

Risk factors in this [family characteristics] category include:

• Single parenthood (i.e., a lone-parent family);
• Mental health of parents;
• The number of children in the family;
• The past/life-history experiences of parents;
• Having a young mother; and
• Instability in the family (e.g., unpredictable family income, multiple family transitions, broken home).

You shouldn't assume when posting that people who express opinions aren't doing so on the basis of legitimately held and supportable views.

Edited June 18, 2018 by turningrite

[Michael Hardner]

10 minutes ago, turningrite said:

  The graph you copy provides no context. What, exactly, is it testing, and where? 

  Sorry - Statscan study on poverty from 2009:

https://lop.parl.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/prb0917-e.htm

The quote you provide is about single parent families AND stepfamilies which is different than your original point, which is the loss of traditional male roles in contemporary society.  To reiterate, here is your point coming from that:
"There are massive implications in this, including declining family formation and birth rates. And the increase in single-parent (mainly female) led households generates other concerns from rising drug addiction levels to increasing crime rates among young men who grow up in these households."

[turningrite]

42 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

  Sorry - Statscan study on poverty from 2009:

https://lop.parl.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/prb0917-e.htm

The quote you provide is about single parent families AND stepfamilies which is different than your original point, which is the loss of traditional male roles in contemporary society.  To reiterate, here is your point coming from that:
"There are massive implications in this, including declining family formation and birth rates. And the increase in single-parent (mainly female) led households generates other concerns from rising drug addiction levels to increasing crime rates among young men who grow up in these households."

Thanks for the Stats Can link, but the data and analysis do not appear to contradict anything I've posted. As for the drug use linkage, I have to point to an American National Institutes of Health study, which concluded that "Our analyses indicated that children from intact families used significantly less inhalants, marijuana, and amphetamines than children from single-parent families." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3075408/

Your complaint that I'm conflating single parent-led families with the loss of traditional male role models is manipulating my initial post. I point out at the beginning of my post that the traditional economic roles assigned to males, particularly relating to employment options and opportunities, have declined. Later in my post, as a separate point, I noted the socially deleterious impacts of the growing trend of single parent-led households. Complex posts can often include separate ideas that are factually distinct from one another while remaining complementary. My main point is that the decline of the middle class, including the decline of economic options that were traditionally open to moderately or less educated males, alongside the growth in single parent-led households with their inherently more negative social outcomes, has had significantly broad impacts. I don't think this a controversial or insupportable assertion.   

Edited June 18, 2018 by turningrite

[Michael Hardner]

4 minutes ago, turningrite said:

1) but the data and analysis do not appear to contradict anything I've posted.

2) As for the drug use linkage, I have to point to an American National Institute of Health analysis, which concluded that "Our analyses indicated that children from intact families used significantly less inhalants, marijuana, and amphetamines than children from single-parent families."  

3) Your complaint that I'm conflating single parent-led families with the loss of traditional male role models is manipulating my initial post. I point out at the beginning of my post that the traditional economic roles assigned to males, particularly relating to employment options and opportunities, have declined.

4) Later in my post, as a separate point, I noted the socially deleterious impacts of the growing trend of single parent-led households. Complex points can often include separate ideas that are factually distinct from one another while remaining complementary. My main point is that the decline of the traditional middle class, including the decline of economic options that were traditionally open to low and moderately educated males, alongside the growth in single parent-led households with their inherently more negative social outcomes, has had significantly broad impacts.    

1) I posted a graph showing a decline from the 90s and you posted something about single parent AND stepfamilies.  Do you have anything showing an increase since 2009 ?

Original quote "And the increase in single-parent (mainly female) led households"

2) Ok.  And now we should discuss something to link all of this to the lack of gender traditionalism in men ?  My issue with you is you are focusing on one aspect of changing society and tying them together.  Do you think it's causal ?  Or is just part of the mess that we are experiencing.

3) Ok.

4) Ah ok, well you have answered it.

As a general comment (ie. our society isn't as secure, is more unhappy, hasn't thought about what it means to be a parent, etc.) your points resonate with me.  But since we aren't speaking to each other, and in fact are electing more divisive proxies to represent us... well what is the answer ?

Can we even agree on common values ?

 

[Michael Hardner]

4 minutes ago, turningrite said:

  I did provide a citation for this in the form of a federal study that indicates higher rates of incidence for certain negative behaviors, and particularly drug use, for children who grow up single parent-led households.

Moving to the appropriate thread to prevent thread drift...

 

I get this, but did you provide one for increasing incidence of single-parent forums ?  To counter my graph that shows they are decreasing ?  Objectively I would like to know.