The demise of Men?

Post Reply New Topic

Yep. The book is here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/92793117/The-Culture-of-Narcissism-Christopher-Lasch



I agree. Service to others is one of the major themes in my own books.

I think that we are (fortunately) seeing the end of male-dominated civilization.

Just to clarify, the balance I found was a recurring temporary result, not a consistent reality.

If evolution and nature provided humans a conscious ability to maintain a balance/contentment, starvation and extinction would have likely been the result long before now. I am aware of no way to fool mother nature, into providing a free lunch like that lasts.

But one thing I am sure of is the temporary answers lie in the discipline of moderation as opposed to excess, per each person's individual nature and experience.

A culture/environment of excess either negative or positive can be harder to navigate than a culture of moderation. That's an evidenced part of general animal/human nature.

I think that the taboos of culture are past the point of attempting to protect humans from themselves per the new expanded avenues of virtual reality that exist.

These concerns were addressed decades ago, but no longer are seen as effectively necessary. It has become the responsibility of each person to navigate; as always those that continue to adapt will continue to survive.

The medium appears much more powerful, than any voice in the wilderness, saying there might be a serious potential problem, western culture. That was more than evident in the 1500 responses to the original linked article. Only those willing to entertain the potential of the problems would likely go to the effort to pursue the details of the research.

That likely does not include many with a potential problem of excess, before they find themselves consciously acknowledging a problem exists. Not unusual as long as a human being can gain a reward from a behavior. The power of the medium shines through.

My feeling after reading the CNN piece was to wonder if all the complaining (I've seen articles like that before, and movies like "failure to launch") is the male equivalent of, "women should get back in the kitchen and do what society expects them to do." Maybe if women have the right to be free of that then men become free of striving to be breadwinners (and being valued solely for that quality)? Well, ok, not likely, but it's an interesting thought.

I saw an interesting comment by a gay man to a similar article. Basically, he said that until women accepted having a "kept man" to take care of the family, then women would continue to become more crazy (his words, not mine) and stressed out trying to do it all themselves. But I think that is not going to happen. At this stage, I think few people truly respect stay-at-home dads, though maybe over the decades continued economic necessity that will change that. I think it's going to be slow, painful, and ugly, if it does happen, though.

I've never seen this kind of gnashing of teeth aimed at women. I think it's what allows girls to be tomboys and boys not to do the equivalent without major repercussions -- no one cares what the girls do because no one (culturally) expects them to "run the world" someday. Therefore, boys need to be whipped into shape; to do be formed so that they do what they're supposed to do in society. So, people see any deviation from that as the disintegration of the glue that holds society together. But is that the price of freedom? Is that why people simultaneously envy and hate bikers?

The posts I've read on cnn and the tone of the article/ebook sounded like this. No matter how the role in society sucks, men need to perform. The article and book didn't state why boys still had to mature and fill the gender roles though. If you avoid creating responsibilities like a family, relationships, or getting a house, you can get by on much less income.

IMO, people are just afraid of the changes.

The culture will have to adapt, or die. You can't ignore economic and social reality for very long.

If it doesn't adapt, the people left standing will be those outsiders who did. They'll be the new cultural elite. This has happened countless times, it is the process of social evolution.

As far as I can see, it looks like adaptations are already taking place in the latest generations. I think if adults just stay out of their way (in terms of culture, gender, etc) they'll come to grips with it, all on their own. Nature's chief demand is adaptation and while our social institutions may be poor at it, human beings themselves are past masters at it, when allowed to.

Thanks for the links. The battle of patriarchy against egalitarianism that exists in the US, as well as other countries, that in part can be reduced to a battle of the genders and whom retains control at the basic unit of survival, seems at the crux of some of the highlighted west vs.middle east evidenced conflicts.

It seems clear that most western developed countries continue to attempt to move toward the goal of egalitarianism, even the US, with the latest approximated effort of healthcare reform.

In reading some of the reviews on Lasch's work it appears that he warns of the breakdown of the family unit, and is quoted by the conservative movement by some in support of that movement, which maintains a patriarchal element.

At this point for some in the west which appear to be approaching a majority in the US, that support egalitarian ways, it may be difficult to understand just how deep the cultural traditions of patriarchy run in the countries that still maintain those practices for the majority of their country. The way of the west, just in something like exposure to internet pornography, threatens that way of life, and perhaps in part, it is becoming evidenced as a fear worth noting.

I like the models of Scandinavian countries that have been successful in recent history of gaining and maintaining a more egalitarian way of life for those whom live in those relatively small homogenous cultures.

But what I wonder is, are the problems evidenced in the African American demographic in the US, per the breakdown of the family unit close to levels of 65%,, an evidenced forecast for the larger arena of culture, in an heterogeneous country as large as the US, experiencing economic problems, where more and more people are not able to compete, not only because of economic problems, but potentially the other factors associated in this thread.

I don't think it is likely going to be easier overall for potentially larger number of single parent households across demographics to manage what it takes to survive without continuing increases in government assistance.

The Ascendency of women in the US, seems to be an evidenced reality, regardless of what is going on with males, and perhaps even influenced by factors such as birth control and mate selection which are in part potentially influenced by cultural and biological factors, along with environmental agents/toxins potentially influencing testosterone levels in males, that the author of the e-book of the topic article addresses in the full research.

It is obvious that an egalitarian way works well per the models of homogenous Scandinavian countries, but does the potential continuing ascendency of females over males through a potential eventual overall weakened state of males, perhaps really merit the concern of what the topic author literally is expressing, along with the larger scale historically accepted theories of Lasch, per the future of society in the US.

It seems obvious that censoring internet porn and video gaming is not going to solve the issue, considering other evidenced factors. It appears to me that a continued and expanded safety net of social welfare, is going to be vital in the continued existence of the society as a first world society. I think without the benefits available today, it would not take long to reach third world status.

Looking at it from this perspective, one such as myself that has always maintained a need for a more egalitarian society, can see the concern of the conservative/patriarchal viewpoint per the fears expressed in that viewpoint a little clearer, although I don't agree with the ideology. And certainly don't agree with the strict patriarchal values in some countries in the middle east, but the fear for the survival of the overall society, in view of what is seen happening in some western developed countries, likely does inspire a potential element of evidenced concern and fear in middle east countries, and without a doubt in the "tea party" core of the republican party.

That conservative core, seems to be focused almost entirely on patriarchy, in that anything that supports continued egalitarianism is strongly opposed and even evidenced as hated on right wing radio talk shows supported by the "tea party" core of the republican party. It is the mantra of one talk show, "The Rusty Humphries Show", per the "brother from another mother" and "sister from another mister" mantra that is repeated constantly on that radio show. Always sounded like a racist comment to me, but this issue of patriarchy and the family unit really shines through strong in that comment per the fear of losing patriarchal control at the base of human nature, in an attempt to control the destiny of one's genes, in what appears to be a tongue and cheek way of ridiculing those that have lost that control.

Interesting conflict with what appears to be no easy long term solutions, and even more interesting that video gaming and pornography could play as an unwitting/witting factor among others in global politics.

But most interesting is that major conflicts of the world could be associated with a base instinct for reproductive control that appears to be associated with levels of hormones maintained in a culture; changing at what appears to be at a significant pace in the US and some other western developed countries, aligned with more egalitarian ways of life.

There is a member of this site that provided an estrogen based theory associated with the autism spectrum that made some interesting observations on this issue in a book authored on his site, in how cultural change influences hormonal balances among males and females per the move away from patriarchy, through the course of human history. It's associated with the domestication of human beings, which is hormonally influenced per neoteny.

It is linked here, for anyone that made it this far in this lengthy post that might be interested in the ideas of that author, as this overall issue of "the demise of guys", seems to be potentially relevant as associated with the increasing prevalence of autism spectrum disorders beyond diagnostic issues, associated with the overall hormonal changes in society that appear to influence what has traditionally been understood as patriarchy and roles of dominance per males and females.

So yes I would agree that this issue is likely much larger than video gaming and pornography. But, the fact that pornography is no longer the taboo as it is used to be, per culture at large, may be associated with the general trend of egalitarianism, where one would probably otherwise intuitively associate it with patriarchy. Even more interesting, that females are increasingly approaching levels of participation with males in video gaming and the viewing of pornography.

Reminiscent of our closest extant primate relative the Bonobo, a matriarchal primate that uses sex to control males, but in an unwitting virtual reality sense of that behavior.

The 1500 comments from the topic article, come clearer into focus, as society at large tries to figure out a changing cultural and potentially hormonal influenced reality.

A question per broad band access pornography may be how influential it may be in the eventual potential demise of patriarchy instead of guys.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo

http://www.neoteny.org/

I don't think that porn and gaming is going to 'end' guyness, but (as has already been touched on here) they are changing the selective pressures and therefore changing the qualities that men need in order to be successful.

Gaming has some positive effects too. I think there was research done that action game players have better hand-eye coordination and visuo-motor skills while other types of video games such as puzzle games or adventure games could enhance cognitive abilities and are sometimes used in educational settings. It's mostly due to neuro-plastisticity from playing video games, the brain develops the abilities required to play them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefits_of_video_games

Thanks to all for keeping replies to my earlier post polite, especially to nominalist, who I can tell doesn't agree with me

For the record, I don't think I'm a "conservative" (the last time I voted Republican was 1972), and in terms of "patriarchy," the point I was trying to make was that for a lot of men who accepted and supported the ideas of women's lib, part of that may have been that we should not be fighting quite so hard for all the best jobs, not be spending all our free time with "the guys" watching sports... I mean, as a healthy old white Anglo Saxon American Protestant male, all I should have to do is snap my fingers and all good things will come my way easily, right? (Yes, I'm being sarcastic).

And as I mentioned before, I am part of the generation who came of age as that change was happening, so maybe we're a little bit entitled to feel somewhat adrift. Most of us will be dead in another 20 years and then the societal change will be complete. We probably didn't provide a very clear role model for the next generations. And in terms of the "decline of men," I'm not talking about househusbandry; when I look around, I see a lot of guys who don't go to work, but don't do their share of the traditional "women's role" either.

Consider the "occupy" movement of today. They're not just saying that the 99% need to be better paid and cared for, they're saying that the way for that to happen is that the 1% have to stop being so greedy, so self-centered. I do agree that many of these CEOs are way overpaid and not that talented, but what if Occupy succeeds and all these CEOs just back off and retire to the Caribbean). In another 30 years, will we be talking about "the decline of leadership" ??? At the risk of coming across as a conservative again, I'll just namecheck "Atlas Shrugged."

And to get back to porn and video games and the decline of men, are those things the cause or are they among the results? Some of both? Are they just substitutes for the things that men did back in the days when we lived in a patriarchal society?

Again, thanks for keeping all this polite - so unusual for a discussion of things political

Clearly, men need to get off the Playstation and computer and do some housework. Unfortunately, there has been no "men's lib" movement to tell them that these activities are acceptable/necessary/honorable for them to perform. Further, as the feminist movement agrees with the traditional male sentiment that housework is for chumps, we now have a society where NO ONE wants to cook or clean or take care of the kids. The economic system has adapted to the double-income model, and now most families can't afford to have one parent at home, regardless.

I'm definitely not saying a woman's place is in the home. However, SOMEONE needs to be doing the housework. And society needs to stop dumping on whichever person, male or female, is doing it. Part of the reason we have an obesity epidemic is because both genders think cooking proper meals is "beneath" them.

I think that Atlas might be surprised to look behind himself and find either that others are sharing the work of the job that he used to do, or that the world has been holding itself up fine all along.

I think that's a straw feminist. I don't know of any feminist women who never do any housework, and I know a lot who love to spend time with the kids. What the feminists I speak to - and I speak to, and listen to, a lot of them - want, is to SHARE the work. Most couples these days are dual-income, and it's not fair for the husband and wife to both come home, and have one of them always having to do a second shift of work while the other always collapses on the couch with a beer and turns on the sports.

I don't disagree with most of what you said. I just feel as though the "demise of guys" is overly sensationalist. I think that we are seeing the end of patriarchy (male dominance).

a different opinion. The issue is considerably more complicated then presented.

Its not the demise of men, its a deeper generalized social problem. Women are more conformist by nature, this is why they don't show an obvious problem. Men are more stubborn. Men are just the canary in the coal mine. Its just a side effect of a deeper problem.

What does it mean to be successful? There's the issue of how viable our society is. I mean reproduction. The developed world has a fertility rate bellow replacement. Its a sign of an unadressed problem. In a nonviable society, measures of success get flawed. Is it really a bad sign, if you are maladjusted, in a dysfunctional society?

I don't like some things that are being implied by the way. Reading a book is superior in playing video games? You aren't exactly sociable when reading a book.

I'm saying they have the causality backwards, on top of having the wrong causality relation. I think that the interpretations are a bit too behaviorist. Porn and video games are just visible psychological compensations. Banning porn and video games will not work. Its like removing the alcohol from an alcoholic, with out addressing the reasons he started drinking.

Our current social structure is not viable. We can't reproduce any more. On top of that we are destroying the environment at a passe never seen before. Fixing that, will have social repercurtions, that complicates the wholle issue. This is why i mention the environment here.

The solutions are too difficult politically to be taken any time soon.