As i noted before, not having sex with others = loss of masculinity. Maybe.
Why others are sooooo concerned about these young men is what puzzles me. They won’t revolt, like, say Romania, cuz not masculine enough.
They (the worriers) are just trying to monetize or poweritize them.
Oh for the good old days when women went for guys with no job or car
Unemployment rate is 4.4% currently, a guy with a job is not a high standard.
They do occasional commit mass shootings though
They also voted Trump in…..
Because they are part of larger trend in politics that is doing things like putting people like Trump in office.
You can’t ignore them and then ask why Americans are such bad people for supporting Trump while he threatens Greenland. They are supporting Trump in spite of him doing those things because he is the only one that is talking about these other issues they care about.
The threshold for for getting their attention and vote back from Trump might be really low. Any sensible acknowledgement of the situation might be enough.
The UK is not far behind the US as it pertains to this problem.
I have been tracking the economics of this issue (people under 30) for the last few years, and while I agree with others that social media is amplifying existing problems, the lynchpin of the entire issue stems from economic insecurity.
As to your question: leave Vallejo?
They would need savings to move (rent + deposit), plus a job at the new location. When your economic security is poor, this is difficult. The US has deteriorating geographical labour mobility over the last 30Y, which generally means that people stick to their local areas. This then starts a cycle of low paid jobs, economic insecurity, and poorer mental health (we commonly refer to this as failure to launch) which compounds over time. You see this readily in deprived areas.
What social media can do is amplify those existing economic insecurities. They see others moving forward with their lives (house, family, kids) while they do not. This can breed resentment over time, and its at that point that they become a lot more susceptible to the darker parts of social media.
I don’t think its really possible (at this point in time) to fix the social media aspect of all of this. The genie is completely out of the bottle there. Mental health interventions do help somewhat, but they do not fix the underlying economic issue
Targeted economic help (Housing, Transport) for people under 30 is really the only viable answer as it can improve geographical labour mobility as well (some people will prefer to remain local but others will move for better opportunities if they can get support). If I were the Ds, I would focus on that but at the grassroots level (Mamdani did this in NYC to great effect).
Young men have the lowest voter turnout of any age/gender group - and that’s not a recent development. Seems silly to focus the blame and attention on them, and not older voters.
Heck, evidence is Harris pulled a good bit less of young women in 2024 than Biden did in 2020, despite the prospect of electing the first woman president. (Which may be a dumb reason to vote for anyone, but should nonetheless have improved results with young women, all else equal.)
Maybe the real problem in 2024 was just that Democrats started with a doddering incumbent that most Americans thought was going to be a one-and-done President, only to pivot at the last moment. Plus the Democratic leadership is just comically awful, and that has opened the door to more radical voices who appeal to some of their base, but don’t do the Dems any favors in a general election.
I think it’s just nice to have a thread that’s not apocalyptic.
I think there is building resentment across many typical male issues. They feel like they are slipping at the expense of other groups. Union workers are another that have turned up for Trump. How much of that is feels over realz is important, but putting it on ignore looks like it’s going poorly for dems.
Neither party has a monopoly on incompetent leadership.
when young men get frustrated enough, war or revolution is close. All u need is a charismatic leader (better than trump)
either that or sex robots will do the trick
people are missing the underlying cause. The m/f ratio is out of whack. For a thriving society u need the male-female ratio to be 40/60. This creates both an economic and baby boom. As it is now it is something like 51/49. This causes economic stagnation and frustration. The solution is simple: a war that will decimate the male population. Consider it a form of pruning
Why do you think 40/60 is optimal? Is it from observing which eras of history saw the most growth? Because that would be saying it is not correlation and is causation without much support.
if the only human population on earth were 1 man and 2 women, the species would thrive. If it were 2 men and 1 women, most likely the species would end. Then u extrapolate this. It’s just human nature
Ugly dudes need sex. Better chance (and less work) with more chicks.
Ugly dudes get sex all the time by being nice.
Ugly assholes struggle.
So what if I interpolate and get 1:1? I have to wonder if 60/40 was optimal, why are births closer to 50/50?
Isn’t it like 51 / 49 or so since men do more dumb shit and die before reaching sexual maturity?
There’s a thread for that.
Bumping this thread as the FT published some interesting analysis on the social interactions of 23-34 year olds pre and post pandemic.
Seems that the averages were hiding a bifurcated effect where the social kids recovered im terms of interactions (social face to face ones) while there was a slice of less social kids that did not. This latter slice actually got worse.
I would posit that you will find a lot of young males in that slice of people.
Link to FT Article:
https://giftarticle.ft.com/giftarticle/actions/redeem/39d2dcdd-34c9-444d-9564-567093d64ab2
