Comment by Mirioron | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Mirioron | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I don't think the two causes listed in the article are actually the causes. I think both are yet another symptom of an underlying problem. I would argue that men doing worse in schooling is likely another symptom of the same issue.

I think that the heart of the issue is that more men nowadays feel that they just don't matter. Not to society nor to anyone else. This leads to a situation where they will simply sacrifice less and try to enjoy more.

So why would men feel that way?

My initial thoughts were that perhaps it is due to the recent demonization of men and the removal of some of their privileges, while the burdens (selective service, unfair family court) remained. While I think that these could be contributing (accelerating) factors, I don't think this is at the heart of the matter. We see similar trends in other countries, where lots of (young) men are essentially checking out from society. Japan is an example of a country where this problem has likely progressed further than in the US. My initial thoughts don't fit, because they couldn't explain why this same process would happen in countries with a pretty different culture from the US.

I'm stumped. Perhaps it's somehow linked to the falling testosterone levels in men that we have observed?

What about the idea that the passing on of power (wealth, social, political) is happening less as people live longer? It would explain why the problem's more pronounced in Japan (long life expectancy, culture of seniority).

this is a very interesting idea

One thing to consider: passing of power is happening less in the US because there are so many baby boomers, and our economy may be growing more slowly.

Did cavemen have a conception of worth? Probably nowhere near what we would think of it. I think if you took these men and tossed them on an island with a forest some would wait to die, many, most would start chopping wood just to have something to do. It's better than being bored.

I'm willing to bet very few of these social dropouts just lay in bed like vegetables all day, they're playing games, consuming media, doing something. And unfortunately that has a better, quicker mental payoff than going to work.

I think the problem is that in older societies you didnt have much else to do but work outside of certain hours because of strict social taboos. Work was the fruit of exploiting men's simple behavior of looking for something to keep busy. Now video games and YouTube are accessible all day long as long as you have a computer or phone and internet, which benefits can provide. I sont think there's any complex civilization level social phenomenon, we just gave men something better to do and the means to do it

I think those cavemen would be busy trying to survive and not doing things out of bordem because they have too many real problems to worry about.

What your comment reminded me of was Sebastian Junger's book Tribe. One of the central tenets of that book is that people need to feel valued by their tribe/family/society. Lack of this can lead to mental illness. Possibly manifesting as the type of malaise outlined in the article.

Maybe one way to address this is to collectively start valuing those jobs that we've denoted as "low status" for the last decades. The jobs like plumbers, linemen, etc. that help make society work.

I don't think plumbers, lineman, etc... are universally looked down on by society. Yes there are some people/communities who do, but there are also people who look down on those who have office jobs, or who do creative work (artists, actors, writers).

True, but the trades typically aren’t pushed as a viable option like “higher status” paths. For decades now, I think the system has pushed the “need” to go to college, regardless of after effects (debt, job prospects etc)

It depends on what the community you're from defines as "high status". In some parts of the US, a tradesman who owns their own small business is far more respected than, say, a lawyer or a software engineer.

What jobs still benefit from a man's physical strength anymore? Most things that need serious brawn use 'hydraulic muscles'? Soon women won't even ask us to twist the lid off jars anymore, there will be an iRobot for that. Where are men needed these days?

We automated away manliness. It's worth less these days. The least valued men are now valued even less. Frankly, I think these disaffected men should go back to the countryside where it's still relatively cheap and grown their own food and drugs. It's not economical to grow your own calories the old fashioned way, but neither is collecting welfare. And it'd be a heck of a lot gentler on the psyche to create something with your own hands. I remember Richard Feynman talking about researching topics that already had been written about just for the joy of discovery. It wasn't needed, but was done recreationally.

Landscaper. Arborist. Construction. Orthopedist. Orderly. Bouncer. Soldier. Sailor.

Agreed. The entire construction and trade industry is huge and these people get paid ridiculous money because nobody wants to do these jobs. These are pretty manly jobs imo.

Construction and trades get paid ridiculous money because no one wants to do those jobs? Bollocks they do. Have you actually spent any time doing any of these things?

Most of the jobs that nobody wants are outsourced to illegal immigrant labor -- the housing boom of the 2000's was built on their backs and their hard word.

Most of the tradies are pulling $50-80k USD, and that's a lot of hard work. That's good money if you're 20 year old, but a Network Engineer with a CCNA, some kinda degree, and 5 years experience will pull $105k USD in a big US city, all while at an air-conditioned desk. And those are the well paid tradesworkers; basic labor and less in demand trades often pays like shit, and doesn't provide benefits.

I ain't saying you can't make good money doing it -- I knew a carpenter who was like #1 ranked on Angie's List and pulled well north of 6 figures -- but those are the exceptions.

How do you suppose these disaffected men will get the capital to afford land, supplies, tools, and everything else needed to survive in the countryside?

It's interesting to me that you equate masculinity to physical strength but nothing else of value

The dating dynamic changed too. As a man, you will be able to date if you are in the top 20% on height and general attractiveness. It wasn't always like that. In the recent past, you could have a girlfriend if you were average good looking and if you showed your worth. Good grades, good work prospects, etc. as long as you committed to a woman. That doesn't seem to work any more.

Sure it works. Plenty of women are looking for a healthy, devoted, average looking man.

You haven’t tried hard enough. You give women little credit in their ability to sift through useless traits. In fact, most optimize this skill, and are patient. It is important not to delay. The best mates are gone more quickly.

I've heard this oft repeated, but no evidence that dating overall works by the 80-20 rule except for Tinder, which hardly represents the dating world at large. It's perhaps true for casual sex, but for monogamy, which is still the most common dating pattern for the overwhelmingly majority of Western civilisation, the math just doesn't work out.

I can't help but feel that this belief is understandably motivated by a desire to see oneself as belonging to the bottom 80%, rather than belong to the bottom 20%, or worse.

A lot of current dating move to online, for better or worse, vide https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/08/17/the-irre....

An in the online tools, physical attractiveness and the first impression matter much more, vide https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11469834.

> I think that the heart of the issue is that more men nowadays feel that they just don't matter.

Isn't everyone feeling this? Maybe men are feeling the ways that others have felt for a long time?

I agree that the loss of privilege is definitely happening, which is honestly a good thing imo, but I'd tie this back to greater cultural unease about one's economic future more than anything else. Most of the folks I know are in their 30s and don't believe they'll ever retire.

If the system is squeezing every ounce of your labor out and you're only seeing a small return on it, what's keeping you motivated?

> but I'd tie this back to greater cultural unease about one's economic future more than anything else. Most of the folks I know are in their 30s and don't believe they'll ever retire.

>If the system is squeezing every ounce of your labor out and you're only seeing a small return on it, what's keeping you motivated?

But by any metric you choose these things were worse in the past. We didn't have safety nets for the elderly. You worked in a factory and not only were the wages bad but the work was dangerous. I don't see how these variables explain the problem now since they had a worse value in the past.

Wealth owned by the lower and middle class used to be higher. Not always, but certainly we're in a period where wealth inequality is wildly different than it used to be.

In periods of increasing wealth inequality, I'd expect less class mobility and increased anxiety and hopelessness.

Combine that anxiety with climate change, political gridlock, loss of privilege, a sense that retirement will never happen, and generally feeling like your parents generation had it better... I can see why people might check out. All these things seem so systemically inevitable.

> Wealth owned by the lower and middle class used to be higher.

Where? In the US?

Post-WW2 saw the rest of the world blown to bits, and the US and USSR being the only two powers left standing. Incomes shot through the roof for the average USA-ian because everyone else who could have done cheap labor was dead or busy rebuilding.

Pre World Wars there was plenty of deep, deep poverty in the US, and there was much labor unrest (e.g. the Pullman Strike, etc.) because of it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com