7 ms·

Effect of dwindling & non-existent male role models and more importantly, fathers.

by Santosh83 5y ago

paulcole 5y ago
Why is this an issue? Aren't good role models good role models regardless of gender/sex?
- jaywalk 5y ago
  A woman simply cannot be a role model in all of the same ways as a man, and vice-versa. This belief that men and women are the same and contribute in exactly the same ways is a big part of the problem that this article discusses.
  - paulcole 5y ago
    The opinion article you mean, right? I agree that a woman can't be a role model in the same ways as a man, but I believe this is not necessarily a bad thing.
    - valdiorn 5y ago
      It isn't, in fact it's great that we have different kinds of role models. The problem being discussed is that some people lack certain types of roles models (i.e. male ones)
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    It's an assured-sounding statement, but what is it based on? I have role models that aren't my gender; it makes no difference to me.
    - hackerfromthefu 5y ago
      I recommend the book 'Families and how to survive them' which covers human developmental psychology and has detailed sections on gendered role models. It may push a few woke buttons, but doesn't everything?
      - wolverine876 5y ago
        Apparently your buttons were pushed, and you felt you had to inflame the conversation and degrade people with different opinions.
- mistrial9 5y ago
  some Depth Psychology (Jungian) suggests that the primal biological child is female. Development of a male starts similarly to the female, but must take steps over the growth phases, to differentiate. Historically males are very, very useful for successful survival and reproduction, but times have changed for WEIRD and others.. Meanwhile, cultural ritual was replaced by commercial "neutral" offerings that lessen differences in tribal/cultural groups, and therefore also remove or smooth out important development goal posts for young men. source: student of Depth Psychology
  - hackerfromthefu 5y ago
    I don't know anything about this, but I noticed it's being voted down to oblivion, without a single comment explaining why? Could anyone elucidate?
- Jtsummers 5y ago
  People are emotional creatures, not rational ones. Like it or not, there is an outsized influence on (especially) young people when they do or do not see people "like them" (gender, ethnicity, immigration status, nation of origin, etc.) in various roles. And this is also exaggerated by society. If a boy is in a community where it's "common knowledge" that men are stupid, deadbeat, bums, then no one will be surprised if he acts in a way that indicates he's heading in the same direction. No one will intervene on his behalf, and he will (statistically, not universally) act in a way that conforms to those expectations.
  - humanrebar 5y ago
    Some men are relatively emotionless, and there's nothing particularly bad about it, but it can be difficult to find healthy role models who are wired the same way.
trentnix 5y ago
Yep. In all the talk of racial or gender privilege, the most beneficial privilege a person can enjoy is the benefits of a loving, supportive, traditional two-parent household (there is insufficient data on non-traditional two-parent households). You can see a direct correlation in outcomes when comparing children that emerged from two-parent households over those that emerge from single-parent households. But because that is an uncomfortable and pervasive problem to discuss, almost all social effort is focused on solving less tangible problems.
- junga 5y ago
  Since you mentioned data: You sure do have data to back your claims?
  - trentnix 5y ago
    A Google search will provide lots more examples, but here’s an example: https://www.bbc.com/news/education-47057787.amp https://www.bbc.com/news/education-47057787.amp
    - junga 5y ago
      I tend to agree with that piece. But what made me ask for data in the first place was my perception of the opening of your post which I read as „living in a traditional two parent household is more beneficial than being a white male“ since you mentioned race and gender.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  I wonder how much of that comes down to 1.5-2x the income compared to a single parent household, versus the beneficial effect of two role models.
  - john_moscow 5y ago
    Or, more importantly, selection bias. When people form a family, they eventually start having some disagreements. Those who have the skill to resolve them, de-escalate situations and find compromises, stay together. The ones who don't have these skills get divorced.
photochemsyn 5y ago
There's little evidence for that kind of causality. Economic stability, on the other hand, i.e. the effects of neoliberalism over 40 years? > "Economic transformation has been a big contributor. More than two-thirds of manufacturing workers are men; the sector has lost more than 5 million jobs since 2000. That’s a lot of unemployed men. Not just coincidentally, “deaths of despair” — those caused by suicide, overdose and alcoholism — have surged to unprecedented levels among middle-aged men over the past 20 years." A society divided into wealthy elite homeowners living off investment cash flows, and poverty-striken underclass renters living off minimum wages, is not a very stable or healthy society.
- TimTheTinker 5y ago
  What you're describing is fundamentally the disappearance of the middle class. Historically, an economic middle class is a relatively recent phenomenon. For ages past and across cultures, there were "rich" and "poor" and relatively few in between. What created the middle class in the US was a government system that restricted the power of the elites to abuse that power. As Thomas Jefferson wrote: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal". I.e. the rich, powerful, government, or otherwise privileged people ought not to have rights that the poor do not have. I think the disappearance of the middle class today is largely due to favoritism and miscarriage of justice in government -- like failing to prosecute gross economic crimes adequately (embezzling, insider trading, monopolism, etc.). I don't think rich people are bad by definition, but I do think our government tends to show favoritism to them. EDIT: Lest I sound like I'm coming down on conservatives only, liberals in the US have also been hugely responsible for the disappearance of the middle class. The bipartisan post-WWII GI bill, signed by FDR, severely disadvantaged African-American veterans in how it was carried out - by disproportionately denying applications by African-American veterans for housing. In the decades that followed, Democrat welfare programs provided significantly more total income to 2 divorced adults with kids than a family with 2 married, cohabiting parents -- thus encouraging men to move out so their family could have more welfare money, and (broadly speaking) causing an entire generation of children in poor (and especially African-American families) to grow up without a dad in the home. This lead to further poverty, crime, drug addiction, and ultimately devastation. Clinton's "war on drugs" and his three-strikes rule only made the problem worse by merely prosecuting and imprisoning people in poverty instead of working to repair the root causes of their behavior. This resulted in many more fatherless families. Upholding the rights of the poor is everyone's responsibility, especially those in government, regardless of their political affiliation.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
einpoklum 5y ago
That is either a homunculus argument, or an excuse to blame social phenomena on individual moral/ethical failings.
- tasha0663 5y ago
  > an excuse to blame social phenomena on individual moral/ethical failings The aggregate of individual moral/ethical choices manifests as social phenomena.
  - einpoklum 5y ago
    > The aggregate of individual moral/ethical choices manifests as social phenomena. That's not entirely false, but it's misleading. The personal choices follow relevant distributions, which are themselves not aggregates. Also, such choices are made in circumstances and under constraints that are not up to individual choice.
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
The cynical take is that after dry running it in, ahem, certain sub-groups of the population the powers that be liked the results so much they decided everyone should get it.
- ask_b123 5y ago
  What do you mean?
  - rpmisms 5y ago
    It's public knowledge that the CIA pumped crack cocaine into black communities, which... well. Crack is bad, kids.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    The often stereotyped fatherless poor black household is one of the net effects (accidental or intentional I will not speculate) of government policy over the past ~60yr. No couples with a brain are marrying when doing so would render woman and child ineligible for state aid. The downside to this is that the man is free to leave and leave they do. That's the big one but many government policies have have had the net effect of decreasing stability in poor urban households (regardless of race, but we all know poor urban households do not represent a cross section of society).

Effect of dwindling & non-existent male role models and more importantly, fathers.

paulcole 5y ago

Why is this an issue? Aren't good role models good role models regardless of gender/sex?

jaywalk 5y ago
A woman simply cannot be a role model in all of the same ways as a man, and vice-versa. This belief that men and women are the same and contribute in exactly the same ways is a big part of the problem that this article discusses.
- paulcole 5y ago
  The opinion article you mean, right? I agree that a woman can't be a role model in the same ways as a man, but I believe this is not necessarily a bad thing.
  - valdiorn 5y ago
    It isn't, in fact it's great that we have different kinds of role models. The problem being discussed is that some people lack certain types of roles models (i.e. male ones)
- wolverine876 5y ago
  It's an assured-sounding statement, but what is it based on? I have role models that aren't my gender; it makes no difference to me.
  - hackerfromthefu 5y ago
    I recommend the book 'Families and how to survive them' which covers human developmental psychology and has detailed sections on gendered role models. It may push a few woke buttons, but doesn't everything?
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      Apparently your buttons were pushed, and you felt you had to inflame the conversation and degrade people with different opinions.
mistrial9 5y ago
some Depth Psychology (Jungian) suggests that the primal biological child is female. Development of a male starts similarly to the female, but must take steps over the growth phases, to differentiate. Historically males are very, very useful for successful survival and reproduction, but times have changed for WEIRD and others.. Meanwhile, cultural ritual was replaced by commercial "neutral" offerings that lessen differences in tribal/cultural groups, and therefore also remove or smooth out important development goal posts for young men. source: student of Depth Psychology
- hackerfromthefu 5y ago
  I don't know anything about this, but I noticed it's being voted down to oblivion, without a single comment explaining why? Could anyone elucidate?
Jtsummers 5y ago
People are emotional creatures, not rational ones. Like it or not, there is an outsized influence on (especially) young people when they do or do not see people "like them" (gender, ethnicity, immigration status, nation of origin, etc.) in various roles. And this is also exaggerated by society. If a boy is in a community where it's "common knowledge" that men are stupid, deadbeat, bums, then no one will be surprised if he acts in a way that indicates he's heading in the same direction. No one will intervene on his behalf, and he will (statistically, not universally) act in a way that conforms to those expectations.
- humanrebar 5y ago
  Some men are relatively emotionless, and there's nothing particularly bad about it, but it can be difficult to find healthy role models who are wired the same way.

trentnix 5y ago

Yep. In all the talk of racial or gender privilege, the most beneficial privilege a person can enjoy is the benefits of a loving, supportive, traditional two-parent household (there is insufficient data on non-traditional two-parent households). You can see a direct correlation in outcomes when comparing children that emerged from two-parent households over those that emerge from single-parent households. But because that is an uncomfortable and pervasive problem to discuss, almost all social effort is focused on solving less tangible problems.

junga 5y ago
Since you mentioned data: You sure do have data to back your claims?
- trentnix 5y ago
  A Google search will provide lots more examples, but here’s an example: https://www.bbc.com/news/education-47057787.amp https://www.bbc.com/news/education-47057787.amp
  - junga 5y ago
    I tend to agree with that piece. But what made me ask for data in the first place was my perception of the opening of your post which I read as „living in a traditional two parent household is more beneficial than being a white male“ since you mentioned race and gender.
rootusrootus 5y ago
I wonder how much of that comes down to 1.5-2x the income compared to a single parent household, versus the beneficial effect of two role models.
- john_moscow 5y ago
  Or, more importantly, selection bias. When people form a family, they eventually start having some disagreements. Those who have the skill to resolve them, de-escalate situations and find compromises, stay together. The ones who don't have these skills get divorced.

photochemsyn 5y ago

There's little evidence for that kind of causality. Economic stability, on the other hand, i.e. the effects of neoliberalism over 40 years? > "Economic transformation has been a big contributor. More than two-thirds of manufacturing workers are men; the sector has lost more than 5 million jobs since 2000. That’s a lot of unemployed men. Not just coincidentally, “deaths of despair” — those caused by suicide, overdose and alcoholism — have surged to unprecedented levels among middle-aged men over the past 20 years." A society divided into wealthy elite homeowners living off investment cash flows, and poverty-striken underclass renters living off minimum wages, is not a very stable or healthy society.

TimTheTinker 5y ago
What you're describing is fundamentally the disappearance of the middle class. Historically, an economic middle class is a relatively recent phenomenon. For ages past and across cultures, there were "rich" and "poor" and relatively few in between. What created the middle class in the US was a government system that restricted the power of the elites to abuse that power. As Thomas Jefferson wrote: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal". I.e. the rich, powerful, government, or otherwise privileged people ought not to have rights that the poor do not have. I think the disappearance of the middle class today is largely due to favoritism and miscarriage of justice in government -- like failing to prosecute gross economic crimes adequately (embezzling, insider trading, monopolism, etc.). I don't think rich people are bad by definition, but I do think our government tends to show favoritism to them. EDIT: Lest I sound like I'm coming down on conservatives only, liberals in the US have also been hugely responsible for the disappearance of the middle class. The bipartisan post-WWII GI bill, signed by FDR, severely disadvantaged African-American veterans in how it was carried out - by disproportionately denying applications by African-American veterans for housing. In the decades that followed, Democrat welfare programs provided significantly more total income to 2 divorced adults with kids than a family with 2 married, cohabiting parents -- thus encouraging men to move out so their family could have more welfare money, and (broadly speaking) causing an entire generation of children in poor (and especially African-American families) to grow up without a dad in the home. This lead to further poverty, crime, drug addiction, and ultimately devastation. Clinton's "war on drugs" and his three-strikes rule only made the problem worse by merely prosecuting and imprisoning people in poverty instead of working to repair the root causes of their behavior. This resulted in many more fatherless families. Upholding the rights of the poor is everyone's responsibility, especially those in government, regardless of their political affiliation.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

einpoklum 5y ago

That is either a homunculus argument, or an excuse to blame social phenomena on individual moral/ethical failings.

tasha0663 5y ago
> an excuse to blame social phenomena on individual moral/ethical failings The aggregate of individual moral/ethical choices manifests as social phenomena.
- einpoklum 5y ago
  > The aggregate of individual moral/ethical choices manifests as social phenomena. That's not entirely false, but it's misleading. The personal choices follow relevant distributions, which are themselves not aggregates. Also, such choices are made in circumstances and under constraints that are not up to individual choice.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago

The cynical take is that after dry running it in, ahem, certain sub-groups of the population the powers that be liked the results so much they decided everyone should get it.

ask_b123 5y ago
What do you mean?
- rpmisms 5y ago
  It's public knowledge that the CIA pumped crack cocaine into black communities, which... well. Crack is bad, kids.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  The often stereotyped fatherless poor black household is one of the net effects (accidental or intentional I will not speculate) of government policy over the past ~60yr. No couples with a brain are marrying when doing so would render woman and child ineligible for state aid. The downside to this is that the man is free to leave and leave they do. That's the big one but many government policies have have had the net effect of decreasing stability in poor urban households (regardless of race, but we all know poor urban households do not represent a cross section of society).