Opening Men Up Emotionally

[SpankyMcFly]

I've spent most of my life watching men and women blame each other-- I am so sick of that. Succeed or fail, it's a two way street.

I feel for this issue, on both sides of the gender wall. No one is innocent, and anyone who thinks their gender is an out-and-out victim is full of it.

*sigh*

Agreed. If you have enough of these conversations this is what you see happen time and again. It invariably starts when someone well intentioned brings up a unrelated/semi related matter that is about both genders. It can quickly devolve into a blame game. At least men (some) are talking about the subject of male emotional expressiveness.

 

[LovecraftianMonstrosity]

Yep there's always a greater risk but people don't even wrap it up
The penalties for a mother having an unplanned pregnancy with no stable partner in life has diminished with the rise of the welfare state since the 60s. Single motherhood has been incredibly subsidized and just like with anything else in economics, the more you subsidize something you increase it. The welfare state in combination with family courts has removed the necessity of a male contributor.

I think you're reversing causation here. Marriage has crumbled among the poor as inequality has risen. This has largely been caused by economic factors like top wages requiring higher education rising much faster than low wages that do not. It's kind of dangerous to just plug two data points and correlate them and think you have the whole story. It is better to do with with a host of factors not just two do you don't create a false view.

Here is a humorous example of that:

Spurious Correlations

 

[ZNP-TBA]

I think you're reversing causation here. Marriage has crumbled among the poor as inequality has risen. This has largely been caused by economic factors like top wages requiring higher education rising much faster than low wages that do not. It's kind of dangerous to just plug two data points and correlate them and think you have the whole story. It is better to do with with a host of factors not just two do you don't create a false view.

Here is a humorous example of that:

Spurious Correlations

This is like a .7 or higher correlation. I'm not saying single motherhood created welfare or not even necessarily vice versa but there is a definite relationship here. Single motherhood seems to be the most rampant within populations that collect a disproportionate amount of welfare.

Simply if you institute programs that subsidize single parenthood then is it all that shocking that you're going to get more single parenthood? Even if there was an epidemic of single parenthood due to economic circumstances before hand then you would expect with welfare there would be some sort of trend suggesting a decline in single parenthood I.e. government welfare programs are working and reversing the tide. Instead we see the opposite which should give one pause to consider maybe it isn't working.

If you have a better way to interpret the data to basically suggest the exact opposite of what I'm suggesting here then, by all means, feel free to make a rebuttal

 

[LovecraftianMonstrosity]

[MENTION=25403]ZombieNinjaPirate[/MENTION] Here is my rebuttal. If your assertion that higher social spending leads to increased rates of unwed motherhood, then this should be the case across the world, but in fact we see the exact opposite. Many countries like Sweden, Finland, etc have much higher rates of social spending than the United States and much lower rates of single parent families. One common response is that perhaps this is the case because of unique factors to those countries like ethnic homogeneity, but we see the same in states with high social spending and much more mixed populations like the UK, France, and Spain. However, we do see that in states with higher rates of inequality there is an increased rate of single motherhood. So this explains both why this single parent families are NOT a function of increased social spending and that the solution you advocate would likely make things WORSE. In addition, decreasing inequality internationally would decrease other correlated social ills like increased rates of mental illness, lower life expectancy, lower maths literacy, etc. I do appreciate your openness to a back and forth on this and I hope this in't alienating, but I suspect you're just a person who doesn't tend to emotionally invest yourself in these types of debates, so we could probably have a good back and forth.

Edit: I didn't quote you so this thread doesn't become a wall of spam.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

This is like a .7 or higher correlation. I'm not saying single motherhood created welfare or not even necessarily vice versa but there is a definite relationship here. Single motherhood seems to be the most rampant within populations that collect a disproportionate amount of welfare.

Simply if you institute programs that subsidize single parenthood then is it all that shocking that you're going to get more single parenthood? Even if there was an epidemic of single parenthood due to economic circumstances before hand then you would expect with welfare there would be some sort of trend suggesting a decline in single parenthood I.e. government welfare programs are working and reversing the tide. Instead we see the opposite which should give one pause to consider maybe it isn't working.

If you have a better way to interpret the data to basically suggest the exact opposite of what I'm suggesting here then, by all means, feel free to make a rebuttal

There was this era called the 60s where counterculture took over, morals decayed, and social control died. I don't deny there is some relationship but a lot of couples today reject marriage in general and so are unwed parents, but in a LTR.

Hell, as a kid in the 70s I watched "Love, American style" after school, which was basically a sit com about free love. People had sex in the middle of the day in the park behind my suburban home. Until AIDS, there was a lot of promiscuity, and even after that.... the cultural decline was real....and so the marriage decline with it. Murphy Brown wouldn't raise a whisper today, but that was huge back then...

With all that, government support may be a minor factor. The loss of the social stigma was much bigger factor.

 

[grey_beard]

Take for example ... The military. Should it be shut down?

Start with ISIS.

 

[grey_beard]

*cough* casual sex hookups *cough*

*cough* "empowerment" *cough*

 

[ZNP-TBA]

[MENTION=25403]ZombieNinjaPirate[/MENTION]If your assertion that higher social spending leads to increased rates of unwed motherhood,

That's not exactly what I'm asserting. What I'm asserting is if the reason is social inequality, like you posit, then the massive expansion of social welfare (I.e. fighting inequality) in the United States should have curbed the rise of single parent households in the United States but the exact opposite has happened. The rate of single parent households began to dramatically increase as these social programs began taking place (something like a .8 correlation). It's like saying there is a medical epidemic and vaccine X is supposed to address the issue and stop the epidemic. Vaccine X goes into effect but instead of seeing reduced cases of said medical epidemic we see increased cases of it. Logic and statistical evidence would suggest that vaccine X is not having the desired effect (in fact its having the exact opposite effect) and production of it should cease until a better method is devised for dealing with the epidemic.

then this should be the case across the world, but in fact we see the exact opposite. Many countries like Sweden, Finland, etc have much higher rates of social spending than the United States and much lower rates of single parent families.

This is not what we see, at least there doesn't seem to be any direct correlation between social spending and decrease of single parent families.

I'll grant you Finland looks in pretty good shape but so does Greece, Turkey, and Italy(all above 90% in tact families) and it can be argued that Greece, Italy, and Turkey do not spend nearly as much on social spending as the United States ( the United States is actually among the top nations in the world in social spending) because those countries simply do not have the capital to implement high end welfare. The U.K. even tops the U.S. Interesting that Latvia tops this list yet Lativia's largest expenditure is on the Public sector (welfare).

Actually you've made no case other than a personal opinion on the matter with nothing to back it. You'll need more than that and I'm open to seeing what you have.

 

[grey_beard]

Even if we accept they are all deadbeats why are women choosing to risk procreation with these kinds of guys?

It takes two to tango and overlooking the fact that women are making terrible decisions shouldn't be ignored (and most definitely not rewarded).

Tingles über alles.

 

[Mustafa]

Start with ISIS.

 

[LovecraftianMonstrosity]

[MENTION=25403]ZombieNinjaPirate[/MENTION] There is a problem with that logic. If inequality is rising faster than social spending then you get what I proposed. Also, a lot of this has to do with human social psychology for example we often focus on the very top as the "standard" by which everything else is measured even if it is impossible for everyone to achieve that standard (I should qualify this statement by saying that it is only true under current constraints).

This is why you often don't see these behaviors for example in the third world even though they are under more extreme forms of poverty. The "frame of reference" is doesn't include the lavish lifestyles that we see in the first world, but rather what they experience in their day to day lives.

I should qualify this by saying that this is a measureable idea. For example, if it is correct than third world countries with higher rates of inequality should exhibit more of the negative effects of inequality than third world countries with lower rates of inequality. I am open to other factors being involved like culture, etc.

 

[ZNP-TBA]

There was this era called the 60s where counterculture took over, morals decayed, and social control died. I don't deny there is some relationship but a lot of couples today reject marriage in general and so are unwed parents, but in a LTR.

Hell, as a kid in the 70s I watched "Love, American style" after school, which was basically a sit com about free love. People had sex in the middle of the day in the park behind my suburban home. Until AIDS, there was a lot of promiscuity, and even after that.... the cultural decline was real....and so the marriage decline with it. Murphy Brown wouldn't raise a whisper today, but that was huge back then...

With all that, government support may be a minor factor. The loss of the social stigma was much bigger factor.

Like I said, I'm not claiming that welfare is the direct cause of single parenthood since single parenthood has always existed in some fashion, at least in the time periods we have data for, but it sure didn't help and may have accelerated it. Such a strong correlation ( again, I didn't state a direct causation, I recognize the difference) shouldn't be overlooked.

 

[grey_beard]

You've been on the high sees too long, methinks, Matey.

Once you are in a position for sex, backing it is difficult to say the least. amirite?


The answer being, of course, to not put oneself in position for sex....until one is in a mutual loving relationship/marriage.

This has been discussed extensively on both the MGTOW and the PUA sites.

Consensus seems to be, the "point of no return" is NOT when the people are actually in bed, but long, long before that; when enough
social barriers have been crossed and enough "go along to socially get along" choices have been made, that suddenly reversing the
flow the sweep of things towards intercourse, simply isn't an option. This is why back in the dark ages, young people were chaperoned
or not allowed to be alone with a member of the opposite sex for any period of time.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure: why isn't anyone TELLING the young'uns these things anymore? Why is anyone
attempting to do so roundly mocked/criticized for the attempt? And then, when the young'uns get knocked up, why do they always
have the nerve to look surprised?

 

[grey_beard]

[MENTION=25403]ZombieNinjaPirate[/MENTION] Here is my rebuttal. If your assertion that higher social spending leads to increased rates of unwed motherhood, then this should be the case across the world, but in fact we see the exact opposite. Many countries like Sweden, Finland, etc have much higher rates of social spending than the United States and much lower rates of single parent families. One common response is that perhaps this is the case because of unique factors to those countries like ethnic homogeneity, but we see the same in states with high social spending and much more mixed populations like the UK, France, and Spain. However, we do see that in states with higher rates of inequality there is an increased rate of single motherhood. So this explains both why this single parent families are NOT a function of increased social spending and that the solution you advocate would likely make things WORSE. In addition, decreasing inequality internationally would decrease other correlated social ills like increased rates of mental illness, lower life expectancy, lower maths literacy, etc. I do appreciate your openness to a back and forth on this and I hope this in't alienating, but I suspect you're just a person who doesn't tend to emotionally invest yourself in these types of debates, so we could probably have a good back and forth.

Edit: I didn't quote you so this thread doesn't become a wall of spam.

You're forgetting the longitudinal variable of *time*.

Back in the pre-LBJ days (IIRC even as far back as the 1920s) the black population in the US had a higher rate of intact families than the white.
(There are cofounding variables including religiosity and incarceration rates among males...which also changed over time; and, as fatherless families exhibit a whole *host* of dysfunctionalities and
behavioural pathologies among their children ... see for ex. US Senator (D-NY) Daniel Patrick Moynihan's alarmed report over this in 1969...the cofounding variable exhibit feedback on one another.)

Pot, meet electric stirring element.

 

[LovecraftianMonstrosity]

[MENTION=20783]Grey[/MENTION]-beard I do not understand your criticism. How would time alter the phenomenon of single parent families in your perception? I will say this though the economic situation for african-americans was increasing post 60s in part because of the civil rights movement, however this situation began to reverse in the 1980s and became much worse in the 1990s to the present.

 

[ZNP-TBA]

[MENTION=25403]ZombieNinjaPirate[/MENTION] There is a problem with that logic. If inequality is rising faster than social spending then you get what I proposed.

And this is why liberals typically have a poor understanding of economics (even if its just honest ignorance with good intentions). You think just redistributing more money towards something will make it better. First off, you have to make the case and source your data that social inequality (which is a broad and nebulous definition that's hard to pin down) is rising faster than social spending. I appreciate your desire for universality by bringing up the other countries but then here too you will have to show the same case in countries like Greece, Turkey, and Mexico. I wouldn't necessarily call these bastions of social equality yet they have less single parent households than places like the U.K, Belgium, and U.S. (all arguably more conscientious of inequality).

The "frame of reference" is doesn't include the lavish lifestyles that we see in the first world, but rather what they experience in their day to day lives.

Most people in the first world (by this you certainly mean the West) do not live lavish lifestyles.

My point wasn't to state social welfare is the cause of single parenthood yet there is a strong correlation between the increase of social welfare and single parenthood at least in places like the U.S., Belgium, and the U.K. In the United States ( I'm referencing it because it is my home country and I have done the most research about here) there very much appears to be an 'acceleration' of single parenthood in the data that most strongly correlates with social spending. Furthermore, in the late 60s more social equality was finally given to minorities along with more benefits yet we saw a sharp rise in single parenthood particularly among minority communities. I'm not an expert and do not profess to be one but I don't think we can really have a conversation about about social spending, inequality, and single parenthood without looking at the data first or else we're just talking out of our opinionated asses

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

This has been discussed extensively on both the MGTOW and the PUA sites.

You pretty much lost me at this line.

 

[LovecraftianMonstrosity]

*shrug*

I would prefer to leave the politics out of it, but I was not advocating more spending per say, rather social policy that normalizes income distribution. Also, I can show numerically if you wish that the rates of wealth concentration have been increasing much more rapidly over the past 30 or 40 years or so than social spending has in the United States, but it sounds like this would violate the idea you have already constructed for yourself so perhaps now you are less inclined to listen. Regarding the comparison to the "top" what I mean is that typically a teenage or pre-adolescent view of the world is very romantic and the young girl hopes for prince charming to come and rescue her and sweep her off her feet while the young man hopes for a supermodel. So it is precisely that the median does not conform to this that causes a discrepancy between the wish a young person may have and reality. So people wait longer and longer clinging to the idea that they can have that while the vast majority are in fact underemployed and earning less than their parents did comparatively. Whereas in much of the third world the comparison is to say a the man in the village with a lot of cattle or the most beautiful woman in the village they grew up in. The frame of reference does not include the kind of luxury we experience here.

Here are the more popular music videos in contemporary culture for example:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-9-kyTW8ZkZNDHQJ6FgpwQ

People compare themselves to what they see. Perhaps you do not, so you do not relate, but from 16-24 when a lot of children are born who grow up to become a part of single parent households that is the fantasy that people think is the way that things "should" be.

 

[Crabs]

I've not read through the entire thread, but I think a lot of it boils down to sexuality. To my knowledge, women have historically been attracted to strength in men and sexually repulsed by weakness (in men). Exceptions aside, I think when you get down to the fundamental qualities of heterosexual attraction, this polarization is usually at play. What is more baffling is the sexual fluidity of many women, experimenting with other women, in some cases while still identifying as heterosexual. But it seems that a lot of these women do not find the same feminine traits in their female partners equally attractive in their male partners. There is still that expectation of men to embody strength and masculinity. Even at the height of the appeal of the Sensitive New Age Guy (glamorized by Hollywood fiction) there were complaints about men becoming too feminized - "Where have all the real men gone?" If attraction isn't a choice then women are no more to blame than men for being attracted to whomever they're attracted to. But as long as female sexuality demands that men refrain from expressing weakness, uncertainty/lack of confidence, fear, etc, men will continue to hide or deny such emotions. It's the flipside of women being objectified and valued for their physical beauty, which is why a lot of them spend so much time altering their appearance. Neither one is going away any time soon.

 

[small.wonder]

This has been discussed extensively on both the MGTOW and the PUA sites.

I'm totally with you on the avoid temptation at the get go, part, and that's easy to avoid in a casual sense-- it's within a relationship that it's hard (if long term commitment hasn't been yet established). In that case, both people need to be committed to not putting themselves in murky waters (if they've agreed to putting off the sexual element) not just the woman. We all get weak sometimes.

I don't want to derail this thread, but what is up with this MGTOW stuff?! Don't get me wrong, I understand what drives men to that kind of thinking (I sometimes slip into the female version of it) but just abandoning women-kind, and a man's own desires for relationship and family, is just dumb. It's really the perfect counter-extreme to the man-blaming, "strong + liberated" female victim mentality. The solution is always in the middle. It grieves me even in a personal way because I struggle to find good men and sometimes (as aforementioned) start to think I'm just better off leading a single life. It's the same deception that well-intentioned individuals of both genders experience, but it's a lie.

And to the OP (since I've only commented on side issues), I do think raising boys to be open emotionally is important-- not shaming them for expression, but talking them through beneficial ways of channeling that (as I would with a child of either gender). This is something, honestly, that I've witnessed mishandling of by fathers just as much as mothers though. My Dad and brother are perfect examples. My Dad was pretty absent (working + traveling) but he always frowned on crying or being hurt with both my brother and myself. I think it was because that was very ingrained in him, and as a result he had no idea what to do when we were upset or sad. My brother specifically was also pretty discouraged from other forms of emotion that I wasn't, and expected to be stoic/independent younger.

Now that my brother is a father (and a hella great one too, I might add) he's better about these things than my Dad was, but there are still moment that I've seen him shame my nephew-- usually when he's stressed (he's 6w7) and in regards to not instantaneous obedience (my nephew isn't even two yet!) or when he senses any sort of defiance. He reacts too strongly, too quickly, and (though he's an amazing Dad is almost every other way) I do think it will affect my nephew in the long run.

I suppose that's called personality though, yes? I know I wouldn't be who I am if my parents hadn't screwed up in the ways they did-- the truth is that all kids sustain hurt and are messed up somehow, there's no preventing it, only processing it and turning it into growth.