Current Events > Are men weaker today, and is it really a problem?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I had a genuine response to the deleted topic and I want to share it damn it.

Men are on average certainly less "traditionally masculine" by previous standards.

I would say it's been downwardly sloping since the Baby Boomers with the greatest indicator being a sharp rise in quality of life. So despite the general weaponizing of the term "Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, weak men create hard times", there is certainly truth within that statement.

Simply put, the easier a person's life is the softer they are going to be. Which I don't think is a bad thing since basically every living thing prefers an easier life. It just becomes a little scary when you live in a world where adversity hides around every corner. The term "It's better to be a warrior in a garden than a gardener in a war" ringing true when the idea of one's village, state, nation or world is potentially at stake.

I would consider myself soft in many regards and seek to change that. The goal of being a warrior gardener that can either protect life or help it flourish.

What are your thoughts? Should we fear a societal collapse and our general inability to weather it? Should not only men, but women seek to be more traditionally tough in regards to our ability to withstand potential wars, famines, and other such disasters that have existed as long as humans have?

I work with several manchilds in which female coworkers will straightup talk about them ways I shouldn't repeat.

One of the biggest reasons I got out of the Army when my time was up. It's true, nobody wants to work with the majority of the newest "adults ". Gen Z I think.

No values or self respect, everyone ,everywhere they go,are only there to cater to their needs...seen it too much now to dismis it myself.

Edit: There will be no collapse or something. Remember growing up hearing about how bad hippies are because the majority fought for human rights...at this point let people get in were they fit in and leave it alone.

Yes, soon well all be like the humans in Wall-e

modena posted...

One of the biggest reasons I got out of the Army when my time was up. It's true, nobody wants to work with the majority of the newest "adults ". Gen Z I think.

they got room for improvement... great things ahead of em except for college boy sluder his ideals suck.

We certainly do have a lot of weak people today. That's the only reasonable excuse when so many people get upset when there's like, a lesbian for 5 seconds in a disney movie.

Theres also the question of why is "traditionally masculine" what we consider strong? There's nothing strong about toxic behaviours and being shoehorned into overly specific social roles. In fact that's very conformist.

Though in your analogy, wouldn't that make Baby Boomers the "weak men"? They're the ones who were born into a booming post-war economy and then pulled the ladder up behind them. It certainly isn't millenials or gen z who are creating the biggest problems currently affecting the world.

#8 well put. But the impact of the Boomer generation has definitely invited the idea of "doomism" into the youth that was once told they could be the President or an astronaut.

The shit rolls down hill and not to sound to grim but, I see it everywhere I go now. And it's not just males...maybe the CDC is onto something about loneliness ect...hell it could even be a simple flavor that's added to a sauce that we haven't found out yet. Off to gamble another day.

No, this is just something conservative types like to say to demonize behavior they don't like.

For me it's more so that boomers weaponize the idea of people becoming weak without realizing that they started it.

While yes, some traditionally toxic male traits are beneficial in a world of chaos. While it is very much true that people always speak of a particular group or movement being the reason a nation falls while generally always being wrong, but the lives we live aren't as secure as we would all like to believe. General natural disasters being the greatest threat, as they have always been.

We saw very well how poorly we handled a pandemic.. How would we handle a world wide famine? A solar flare decimating the energy grid? A volcanic eruption sending us into a winter(thus causing famine)?

Your traditional emotionally stunted man who thrives off of killing stuff and imposing his will is going to be the most likely to survive. That's not to say we should seek to become that or support it, but there's certainly merit within even the worst of qualities when it comes to survival.

Y'all need to actually read the entire argument instead of filling it in with conservative talking points that are easily refuted.

No and it's a weird idea to begin with.

For starters, weaker than when? At no other point in history could a man be so well in shape, clean, healthy, and so on than they are now. Any example of a men being stronger in the past in hunting or whatever else is never compared to its modern day equivalents like soldiers, marathon runners, weight lifters etc.

Give everyone under 25 one year military service.

Whole thing sounds like people trying to create a poetic narrative about society than anything that's actually reflective of the world we live in.

For one, the definition of "strength", and what types of strength are important, are going to change with the times and location one is in. For another, a lot of problems in the world are coming from the top down, and have little to do with the "strength" of the new generation.

itachi15243 posted...

No and it's a weird idea to begin with.

For starters, weaker than when? At no other point in history could a man be so well in shape, clean, healthy, and so on than they are now. Any example of a men being stronger in the past in hunting or whatever else is never compared to its modern day equivalents like soldiers, marathon runners, weight lifters etc.

You're speaking of a small percentage of people who are reliant on a society to provide all the elements that have made them stronger. A society that if collapsed will be unable to provide the necessary environment for these people to thrive. I would definitely agree that the highest degree of ability can be found within our modern era. But are they going to cooperate in moments of scarcity? Will they give a shit about the masses of people who will be wholly dependant on others to meet their needs. How will those masses react in the face of a loss of life as they know it?

My whole point can be summarized as we are absolutely fucked if something really bad happens. It might not happen for a long time, but it's rather ignorant of history to assume we are safe from potential disaster. A bloated population reliant on a sophisticated society, all largely void of survival skills that humans once all learned but do not any longer.

RainyNight posted...

Whole thing sounds like people trying to create a poetic narrative about society than anything that's actually reflective of the world we live in.

For one, the definition of "strength", and what types of strength are important, are going to change with the times and location one is in. For another, a lot of problems in the world are coming from the top down, and have little to do with the "strength" of the new generation.

In our current society, strength definitely takes on a multitude of meanings and evolves with the structure of our lives.

But if we are abruptly and figuratively sent back to the past, those multitudes quickly dissolve to a more basic sense of strength observable in any animal population.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


I am gonna have to look into this. Thank you @cuh

Not only for the recommendation, but being one of the only ones to understand the point I am making.

Yes but that isnt a bad thing, its just a sign we havent had to truly struggle in violent conflicts like WW2.

so, there are some weird ideas in this topic, some of them verging on Jordan Peterson's pseudoscientific drivel. but I want to address this in particular:

BettyWhite posted...

despite the general weaponizing of the term "Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, weak men create hard times", there is certainly truth within that statement.

this is... not really true. I read a pretty thorough debunking of this idea as a multiple part series called "The Fremen Mirage"

https://acoup.blog/2020/01/17/collections-the-fremen-mirage-part-i-war-at-the-dawn-of-civilization/

it's long, but it's well worth reading

Men are definitely a version of weak I wouldnt say more weak, just weak differently.

Like, I dont think the old times of not vocalizing inner trauma is a particularly strong trait, but weak. But men nowadays are just a different version of weak.

If you speak generally about any problem it falls on deaf ears.

Like speaking about any group. Or they can just its the men around your area/life.

TBH i think the pandemic + modern technology has delayed everyone's maturity by like 5-10 years. Zoomers will mature once they hit 30ish.

PMarth2002 posted...

No, this is just something conservative types like to say to demonize behavior they don't like.

I think there is a trend of literal physically weaker men these days now that a lot of jobs are more office and computer based.

But mostly what this guy said when it comes to most arguments

Uh no I think you're biased from watching TV set in the past

Success in life isnt about strength, its about adaptation. The huge and mighty dinosaurs all died out when the world changed after the meteor, and the few who survived became birds. They are small and fragile but untouchable in flight.

So it is for people. Being perfect doesnt have to be about being the strongest, or smartest, or wisest, or richest, but rather its the ability to adapt to our rapidly changing society and find a role one can be happy and successful.

Those who cling to tradition and seek to enforce that on the rest of society stand in the way of freedom by preventing people from finding their happy place, a role they are most suited for because traditionalists say that role is inappropriate for them.

Yeah, we're soft but men were always this soft. Don't listen to dumb propaganda or create it.

to quote Bane, "Peace has cost you your strength. Victory has defeated you."

and it might not be that strange to think that the people/companies ruling you would manufacture tough times

We certanly should, especially during the initial collapse. And it doesn't help how reliant people are on the goverment now. So any groups heavily reliant on them are going to have it especially hard.

Things will eventually stabilize but not before countless deaths, and suffering has come and gone.

This is toxic femininity.