!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
This is a video about it, which I think takes a very sobering approach to it. Her humor tends to be very dark, but if you look at the comment section, she seems to be hitting it head on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQv8VuLpKN4
Now for solutions, I don't know anyone who talks about it beyond the basics of "listen to men" and "give them a healthier and less judgy space to develop social skills". But that's probably because this is such a complex issue and there seems to be no simple solution.
Part of capitalism is a need for high consumer culture. I grew up in a Latin American culture, and there are American sub cultures that also work similarly, there's no nuclear family. Of course your relationship with your parents and siblings are very strong and important, but you have no problem living with grandma, or having your extended family live all very close together, my family were all in the same apartment complex in an immigrant neighborhood. I grew up with my cousins, like every day, if we didn't want to play outside we'd go to different houses to see what everyone was watching on TV, we shuffle around with the different game consoles at different houses, food was entirely communal. After I got married to a typical American partner and started raising our kids together I was very shocked to find out that some food in the house is apparently owned by someone. And eating that food is a serious offense. Anyway, people used to live very close if not in a large family home with extended families. Why was this bad for capitalism? One large house owner by an entire family of 12-22 people securely, in which no one needs to buy their own home. We're a few cars and carpooling is a simple task, where food is distributed to the hungry without a lot of steps between grocer and table, I was wearing clothes my uncle wore when I was an adult. When everyone dresses in a similar manner and suits and work close lasted generations, a pair of taken care of shoes or boots that just get repaired every few decades, are you starting to see the problem? That NOT good for capitalism. When the concept of the nuclear family took hold there was a huge boom in home conduction, hardware stores, department stores, companies made fortunes off baby boomers, all this individualized products, razors, deodorant, soap, every stage in life requires a new variety of soap, 10 kinds of cereal to pick from, new shoes every 6mo.
Humans are Apes. Every other ape on the planet lives in large troops that mutually aid eachother and who is boss, and who is contending to take over, who has first pick of food and women, it's based on what? Being hella aggro? Being bigger, stronger, what? Usually it comes down to who has the best social skills, who ever bonds with the most members of the troop, because when a fight ensures, it's not about who is smart, cunning, or strong, it's about how many apes jump in on your side. We are DEEPLY social animals. The nuclear family isolated men the most. Toxic masculinity harms men on a HUGE scale. Quietly, emotionless, provide a secure home, two or more cars, and income to spare to the family you alone protect. It's pretty lonely. Many men don't even have friendships, one of the worst aspects of toxic masculinity is that it's a sign of weakness to be kind, caring, and nurturing. You know. Those aspect of social life that make every other species of ape successful. So where do men locked out of this already broken system go? They look for groups that will accept them, invite them out, bond with them socially. And who's funding all these far right groups that do this with millions of dollars? Russia. Far right billionaires and millionaires who don't want these men talking about WHY they are locked out of the system. If you look around you can also notice a lot of small service business aren't run by white people. You see Hispanic, Asian, east Indian people, who ''are all packed into that house like sardines'' with a staff of related people doing the work. Consumer culture is a dead end. The Nuclear family is a dead end.
Eventually we will break down and then who survives. The armed and dangerous? Or a farmer, rancher, producer of products, doer of services, with strong social ties and distributes food, product, service, with simple bartering making sure everyone's still alive.
One thing that helps loneliness is communities, especially those that meet IRL. I believe there has been a significant decline in club membership and social groups in the past decades. I think there are several factors behind this, including financial stress (and the resulting scarcity of free time).
One action that people can take is to join communities and participate in them! Even just online groups with similar interests if not IRL groups can help to make friends and feel connected. HTH
I think that many of the approaches that tried to explain it are mostly dangerous.
Like blaming it on gender norms, and toxic masculinity, the most common answer. Because plenty of men who do not comply to gender norms or toxic masculinity (or masculinity at all) still feel alone. And their experience get invalidated by this explanation.
I think a more neutral approach is needed to explain it. Instead of trying to take some explanation that fits your political views and then try to push it as a solution to the problem, the problem should be investigated by itself, and once an explanation is reached accept it even if it does not fit your political mindset.
One hint is that most people that feel alone lack a romatic relationship, the most common approach seems to be that "nah romatic relationships are not needed and we will not even consider them part of the problem". When it's pretty obviously that the lack of this kind of relationships is fundamental in male loneliness.
Because plenty of men who do not comply to gender norms or toxic masculinity (or masculinity at all) still feel alone. And their experience get invalidated by this explanation.
It sounds like you completely miss the application of the explanation itself. The phrase toxic masculinity describes the social norms and expectations that men act a certain way. Society imposes gender norms on people such that those who don't comply are at the highest risk of being shunned or ostracized, and having trouble making social connections. And the social pressure may make men act in ways they wouldn't otherwise, so that they grow up poorly equipped to be introspective and understand their own wants/desires/emotions/drives/motivations.
Toxic masculinity tells men what they're not allowed to be, and tells men what they must be. Both sides of that same coin are toxic to men, and by extension those that the men interact with.
I’ve thought about this a lot myself. I’m 12-15 friends/acquaintances down due to them deciding to step out of life in their twenties or thirties. On paper none of them seemed to be in too bad a way and yet…
There’s obviously the problem that having and discussing emotions is for girls and gays only (/s), but there must be more to it than that.
I think there’s an expectation (where I live) that men should be strong and stoic at all times - but, honestly, many of us are fragile little flowers, some of the time, but it’s seen (erroneously) as weakness.
In my experience most men are happy to talk about: “big screen tv’s, blunts, 40’s and bitches” to NSFW quote
but they can’t open up about emotions and feelings.
What's the deal with poorly explained questions?
Why don't they provide more context for their perspective? Do they think people will magically know what they mean without them explaining it?
Because everything that used to give men purpose nolonger exists or is nolonger viable.
When you have a significant change in the population dynamic, it takes a significant time for the population not (really) effecting this change to adjust.
From my perspective as an old bloke, Women now treat relationships as transactional or have standards that are impossible (for that individual) to achieve; men are reacting in the only way available. There are obviously a number of reasons for the changing in dynamic and I'm not making that statement to judge or analyse; mass change requires motivation. The motivation presented itself.
To my mind society is in the same incredible flux as when the female pill became a real and accessible/allowable thing fifty years ago. Gillick competence case law didn't happen in the UK until 1985; that's awfully late to protect young women.
The risks to a man of a long-term relationship significantly outweigh the potential rewards. Being aware of the overwhelming risks and deciding not to engage doesn't stop one being lonely.
"I used to think the worst thing in life was to end up all alone. It's not. The worst thing in life is to end up with people who make you feel alone." - Robin Williams
There's been a concerted effort over the last several decades to push a men vs women dynamic online, and most men don't buy into it, so it's really just been people shitting all over men without consequence. Just look at the other answers here focusing exclusively on how men can be blamed (edit: many better replies have been posted since I made this comment).
Quite likely pushed excessively by foreign propaganda.
What exactly are you talking about? Men who feel lonely sometimes? Men without friends? Men who are not having sex?
Men without hats?
Men have been taught not to approach women in public unless it's online in a dating app. Women have always been taught not to approach men.
So no one is having relationships except for a very small portion of people who are disproportionately physically attractive.
Pair that with the hypergamy that women are doing where they only chase men out of their league now for the most part and it makes things that used to be normal and taken for granted like getting married and having a family exceptional jewels that are hard to come by.
This isn't true. This is what right wing loser podcasters claim to further the idea of women or libruls as the problem, and themselves as the solution. It's a much deeper problem than that.
If you actually spend time around women you'll find that looks are a way lower priority for them than for men. You'll find that they value things like being understanding, doing interesting things, being trustworthy, and for physical things as long as you're hygienic and have a semblance of style they really don't care much even if you're heavier. And guess what? These are ALL things you can work on to improve yourself.
Want to have more women like you? Work on yourself first. Women aren't attracted to men who complain online about "I'm not allowed to go talk to them in public"