Right now there is a loneliness epidemic throughout the world. More and more people aren’t entering relationships. Gen Z men are having significant trouble dating while there are some economic factors in the mix. From my own view and experiences combined with what I’ve read most Gen Z men are lack the social and communication skills to even enter a relationship. This has and in the future will lead to extreme issues. There’s already been a marked rise in hostility towards women by young men (think Andrew Tate and his ilk) that’s likely born out of this frustration. I would definitely say there’s been a rise in gender hostility ever since the pandemic.
Back in the 50s there was arranged marriages. All a person had to do was just show but now that’s gone because it was an unequal system and I think society missed its chance to establish something much healthier and better in its wake. Now we have people that are unable to connect with each other. We just toss people blindly into the mess that is human interaction and relationships and no one knows what to do anymore. We could be have the most fulfilling relationships humans have ever had. Think of the amount of people who would of never have entered abusive relationships had there been someone around them that showed them what love exactly is.
The way we teach is so heavily focused on teaching people how to be worker drones that we forget the human part of the person. This is why a lot of people who do extreme well in school and college fare so poorly in relationships and have higher rates of depression. We are the most educated and advanced in human history, we know psychology, we can teach this shit rather than tossing people blindly into the meat grinder.
Can we just restate this as: “A lot of society’s problems could be avoided if parents actually put in effort to parent their children” ?
It’s a cycle of madness though, how can they teach you something they’ve never been taught?
Through easy access to education, societal support, and a safety net.
There are many parents out there who were able to break the cycle of trauma and raise children in positive environments. But almost every single one of them talks about how they had the privilege of the support of friends, therapists, teachers, obs/gyn doctors, whatever, to help break the patterns
There’s a reason “It takes a village to raise a child” is an idea that is prevalent across so many cultures. The concept of the nuclear family was a tool to sell more real estate, and we are seeing the consequences of that societal shift today.
Removed by mod
While there is evidence of nuclear families existing as far as 5 000 years ago, they were only really for wealthy/high status people. The concept of the nuclear family as it’s own autonomous unit wasn’t really widely financially viable until post-Industrial revolution.
There is even current academic arguments that the previously believed idea that Europe had moved to nuclear families as early as the 17th century may be flawed, as the surviving literature was once again biased towards the merchant/upper classes.
Wikipedia has a good summary, actually, even though some of the claims are conjecture.
Removed by mod
I don’t think you understand what the term “nuclear family” means in a sociological manner. In humans it’s not just “two parents taking care of their offspring”, there is also a caveat that they are doing that WITHOUT the reliance of an extended social group. Then those offspring are expected to do the same once they reach adulthood. The only social support they are expected to have is their own unit.
Furthermore, comparing human behaviours to other species such as birds (who flock together in habitats for survival and for migration) and possums (who are a solitary, nocturnal species) doesn’t really mean anything.
The comparisons should be to species who share similar evolutionary patterns and social habits to humans ie. primates. And across every primate species, whether it be lemurs, gorillas, baboons, simians, etc. they are all connected to a LARGER SOCIAL GROUP irrespective of their family structure (pairs, group family, homogeneous male or female) well into adulthood.
Possibly. How about the reality that people are simply not interacting in person but online. I can’t believe this is not the first post.
Seriously go out to a bar, a music festival, volunteer, hell get drunk a few times and loosen up. In the 70, 80, 90 right up till 2000 this was every weekend. Hell it is not some work drone thing. That is an excuse. Work later in life is where you actually might meet some friends and from there have drinks after work and maybe that results in a random meeting with some ladies or men in your life.
School won’t teach this. Life skills need practice not exams.
While true, only one of those things you listed don’t require money, and tbh even volunteering is hard when you have to work 2-3 jobs to get by.
Kids and adults these days don’t have 3rd places to just relax and hang out anymore. The internet is arguably the cheapest way to hang out.
Sorry but our parents worked more than us and their parents worked more then them. Few people I know work weekends or don’t get two days a week off. Your parents worked normal 8 hours day then they went home and worked on their cars and houses and basically did another 4 hours a day doing of jobs. Their parents went one step further and built their own houses often or helped build them and grew alot of their own food.
We might work similar or more formal hours but we work far less informal hours that at any period in history. So that does not hold much water to me.
This is only true of certain segments of the working class, mainly the white collar workers located in Western countries. As we see wealth inequality increase globally, I don’t think it’s fair to say every single person is working less.
Also legality aside, kids generally don’t have money to go to bars, restaurants, or music festivals.
If course not every single person is working less but overall we are all working less. Quite a bit less.
This is not true actually. There was a miss-interpreted study that calculated a lower average in working hours but that was because they didn’t consider that many women work part-time. Which lowered the average working hours.
When you look at households, though, the number of working hours is much higher. And that does have an influence.
I am an older person and I can still remember that my mother organised all social occasions of our family. We had big family gatherings regularly, coffee and cake every Sunday, activities in the local community and at schools, etc. This was all organised by the women who did not have jobs. Who is supposed to do all this today?
Rewrite it for someone who doesn’t drink.
You don’t drink? Just eat food. I joke a bit but I know many people that go to bars just for the music and social and a coke.
Seriously go out to a bar, a music festival, volunteer, hell get drunk
As a non-drinker I find it interesting that 2 out of these 3 things require the use of a drug. (Yes I know, you can order water at bars, but I doubt that was the point of that statement.)
Removed by mod
You have to have alcohol to go to a bar?
Technically not, but it would feel a bit like a ‘socially taboo’ to not drink
Idk I’d at least put it as slightly awkward, like going to a bowling alley and not bowl, sure you can be social, but it’s weird to not join in
No amount of reasonable legislation can force parents to teach this stuff. Doing it through schools is infinitely easier.
It also helps provide a social standard that anyone can relate to. Seems weird to demand that parents should be the ones solely responsible to make sure their children are able to socialize properly. That just means they’re main reference for socializing is just their parents.
Removed by mod
What alternative do you suggest that will be effective enough to not alienate children with parents who refuse to listen or think rationally?
Considering the sheer amount of time people spend in schools during essentially all of their formative years, it’d be a terrible idea not to implement legislation that could prevent maladaptive behaviors in our populace. Schools are already affected by legislation via the Mindless Drone Initiative established by our industrial forefathers. We might as well update things to make it a Healthy Human Endeavor instead. Finger-wagging at imaginary parents is going to do fuck all by comparison.
I think it’s not just that. I think part of it is overparenting. Part of these skills can only come from trying to practice these skills
Bad parents exist. Should their kids just be doomed then?
Removed by mod
Fwiw we are learning more and more that most of what makes an adult isn’t nurture at all. It’s almost all nature.
Helicopter or hands-off parenting? The choice won’t impact a kid as much as you think. August 11, 20239:23 AM
https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1193176710
Also, great parents still end up with perfectly shit children all the time.
People online just love playing the blame game on others for an individuals actions though lmfao. Poor upbringing, neglect, trauma, all of that is only one part of explaining someone’s actions. It doesn’t remove the responsibility and free will of the person commiting them lol.
https://www.npr.org/2010/07/15/128542130/sometimes-good-parents-produce-bad-kids
The influence of parenting is extremely overestimated. I think that is also a symptom of a society where people are reluctant to take on responsibility for themselves. Which is also a reason why people lack community because both (responsibility for oneself and functioning relationships) rely on introspection.
I would like to see people educated how to argue without getting personal. And how to communicate that you aren’t in a mood to argue right now, because you’re angry and wouldn’t listen.
A good start for sure would be to learn to listen and understand, not listen to answer.
Removed by mod
I could see that being an overall skill but likely won’t result in people leaving their basements and developing some social skills.
Being able to sort out impersonal debate from a fight is a social skill
Yes but it is only one and it is rather a minor one when it comes to socializing in a group or getting you out of the basement. Unless you are the type that immediately starts a conflict with strangers in which case you might have anger issues.
That might help people in relationships mind you and that would have some value.
- What healthy boundaries look like
- The importance of your own interests/activities/time
- How to survive limerence/infatuation without sacrificing yourself
- How to manage emotional responses without just tanking damage
- How to express anger without getting nasty/toxic
- How to recognise NPD / BPD before getting entangled
Maybe not demonizing bpd. Bpd is treatable and people with bpd already suffer a lot of stigma and psychological pain. They don’t act insane just to hurt you or because it brings them pleasure
As a person who has their BPD under control so well that my psychologist doesn’t feel fully comfortable diagnosing me with it anymore, seeing stuff about how be need to be avoided still hurts, a lot. I’ve put in the work, I’ve never missed an appointment with my current psychologist, I do my best to keep myself stable, and to not hurt others or myself, but I feel like I can never escape this diagnosis. I feel obligated to tell any romantic partners that I have BPD, only for it to be used against me. No matter what I do, I’ll always be branded by this, even if I haven’t exhibited symptoms for years. I feel like I’ll either have to lie to people, or tell them truth and walk on eggshells, afraid that any negative emotion will make them think I’m insane, abusive, or crazy. I just want to live a healthy and happy life.
maybe it’s not a lie if you have grown and changed into a new version of yourself.
Yeah, lived through the first 25 years of my life subject to rampant unchecked cluster-B abuse, and nobody even told me things weren’t meant to be that way.
I don’t give two shits about intent, the impact is the same regardless. Like an overly curious bear or something.
See it, recognise it, walk in the opposite fucking direction. And if it follows you, you scream and throw rocks.
And mention things like polyamory. I was 40 before realizing that was an option…
Yeap. I mean, you’d utterly break people’s brains but dammit.
Imagine a world where you’re only ever allowed to have one friend at a time, and anything else was actually considered justification for murder.
I don’t really understand humans.
I would add introspection and the experience in calmly process criticism (and that doesn’t mean always take it in, depending on the source and quality it sometimes is best ignored) to it.
It’s my impression that a lot of interpersonal problems derive from one or both of the parties not being mature as adults: sure, they have the age to be adults (sometimes even seniors) but they’re don’t have the maturity.
I would change the last point to being aware of the mental health of yourself and those close to you.
Talking about mental health in general is so damn stigmatized but I think if more people were aware of how to identify your everyday mental health concerns (anxiety, depression, eating disorders, mania, OCD, etc) and spoke more openly about our issues and our treatments, we’d be able to build better social support networks.
In fact, you could probably fold a few of your points into that.
Hurt people hurt people, as they say - and that cuts both ways. Yes, you should be kind and supportive if you can, but you aren’t obliged to put yourself at risk in order to do so.
Malignant narcissists cause significant, ongoing harm to those they get their hooks into. They may have a terribly sad backstory and lead unpleasant lives, but that doesn’t help the victims any.
BPD abusers tend to be less evil-karen on the surface, but their need for ongong validation is just as intense, and they will harm people just as ruthlessly in order to maintain their supply.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to point out some red flags to let people steer clear of that risk.
This isn’t just an issue in terms of romantic relationships, or gender-specific.
We used to all be exposed to the same media and had common points of reference and interest. It was called water cooler discussion. Unless you’re into sports, this doesn’t really exist any more.
We used to share a more common set of customs. Schools used to have etiquette/finishing classes. Was a lot of it ultimately arbitrary and made up? Of course, but we were all taught the same things, and they became a common language. You knew to take off your hat/glasses when talking to me to show a level of courtesy and respect, and I knew you were showing respect when you did that. This also worked in terms of things like knowing when to adopt a formal tone with others… many people don’t have a formal tone any more, let alone know how to use it.
Everyday life thrust us into more social interaction, too. You used to have to go to stores, talk to people. Even public transport and public spaces used to be a social experience before everyone buried themselves in their mobile phones and headphones. Now the majority of people left trying to interact with you in public are weirdos or trying to sell you something, so people assume anyone approaching you in public is a weirdo or trying to sell you something, suddenly it is taboo to even try to strike up a conversation with a stranger.
And modern outlets like social media encourage some of our worst tendencies. Everything escalates into outrage, tribal warfare, makes us really bad at self-moderation and letting things go.
The-way-things-were was never ideal for a minority of people, but the way things are is ideal for no one. I strongly believe even the innovations that are supposed to help a lot of minorities are hurting them to a degree, too. I fit into a couple of those minority categories myself, and have to force myself to go outside, to use manned checkouts, to put away my phone when outside, as while the alternatives may be easier in the short-term, in the long-term they are making me both physically and mentally less-resiliant.
Yeah, go out and meet random people. Trains are great, as everyone it out of their comfort zone and bored.
Apart from that its pretty hard, because literally staying at home on a single spot, looking in a single direction, seems so fulfilling. Its pretty crazy actually, in the 70s or so nobody would have just sat there and done nothing, even with TVs that was harder and more social.
I think these comments do make good points, but I think you’re romanticizing the past a bit. Just because people didn’t have computers/cell phones I can assure you plenty of people in the 70s were “doing nothing” in similar ways.
Schools should formally teach a lot of basic life skills these days like budgeting, manners, cooking, hygiene, sex ed — because a lot of parents aren’t doing this anymore.
They used to teach these things in school. Then the boomers axed home economics programs in schools to save a little bit of tax money at the expense of future generations, as they are wont to do.
Was it the boomers or anti tax people and pro christians?
They’re the same picture.
Every generation has awful people and awesome people. Proud Boys aren’t boomers. The inter generational bs is meant to divide, don’t fall for it.
Poor teachers… this is a parents job.
Whom are all working all the time.
Wanna drop the C word but seems people dont like to hear it?
Things I wish they’d teach kids:
-
Yoga (one of my niece’s school teaches them basic yoga)
-
breathing / meditation
-
conflict resolution
-
critical thinking skills / logic
-
relationship skills eg knowing your self-worth, knowing how and when to say no, knowing about your own body and that it’s inviolable. If my youngest niece doesn’t want to give me a hug goodbye and her mum says “go on give your uncle a hug” I always make a point of saying it’s fine, she doesn’t have to hug anyone she doesn’t want to
I would add to those:
- how money and credit cards work
- how to pay bills and what paying late means
- how credit score companies are predatory but you still have to abide by them for loans.
- what loans are and what signing for a loan means.
- how to do your own laundry
- how to cook healthy meals for yourself and the nutrition of unhealthy foods. Don’t say, “eat healthy”, but try it out for a few weeks in school.
- how to help your friends without getting sucked in
- how drugs work and what it looks like to spiral out of control. What are the actual side effects of all drugs.
- why might you be self-medicating through lots of drugs and/or extreme video game playing
- how to deal with depression in yourself and others
I would add: teaching that romantic relationships are not the end all and be all of life.
I feel like this is part of the problem, because it creates misogyny, incels and depression when people have their entire self-worth wrapped up in another person liking them. Any person. All of our media pushes this message, especially to young people. I was a serial monogamist all my life until several years ago. I’ve been more productive and accomplished and more in touch with who I am than I’ve ever been. I don’t have the need fpr another person in my life, and that’s how it should be. A partner should be an addition to a person and a life that is already functional. I can’t help but notice now how every. single. song, movie, show, book, etc. is not just about romance, but about another person making someone’s life worth living. It’s fucked up and we need to teach kids that they are enough, by themselves, and that being in a relationship is a choice. It’s not mandatory.
I agree with what you’re saying and I think it’s fair even though I’m in a great relationship. If you look at super old movies, they’re just having fun with everyone and that’s what was promoted. Everything wasn’t the rom coms or intense scrutiny it is today. * Granted, they were probably all drunk or coked up, lol.
Some ex ellent additions! Seeing as we’re all now well aware of each others’ religions, maybe they can replace the pointless RE (religious education in UK) class with a ‘Life Skills’ class.
In a lot of the California schools I’ve worked at, they do teach these things. I think they are really great skills that I wish were taught when I was in school.
Unfortunately there’s a lot of conservative push back and a movement to get these topics out of school.
Yup. We wonder why young people are committing suicide more often when their entire self worth is based on how good they do in school. You combine that with late stage capitalism necessitating two parents working meaning the child might not even see them that much. More kids are neglected with their grades being the only source of validation. It would help so much of them being taught how to love themselves.
yeah I could not believe how late I was exposed to logic and that I would not have been exposed without college and it needs no high level math or anything to learn. I also wish the time spent in gym was actually useful. any martial art would do to me as well but yoga or tai chi would prevent issues around learining fighting. breathing and meditation should really come from any of that if done decently.
It’s quite scary to think that not only are kids not being taught logic, but many are being taught anti-logic; magical thinking etc. It blows my mind that right wingers screech about ‘grooming’ and indoctrination while they’re teaching their kids divisive skybeardguy nonsense. Literally grooming them to be religious.
Imo this is why they pushback and create false equivalence, because they know they’re losing their sad little foothold. Notice how whoever is downvoting comments in this thread has nothing to say.
Other than the yoga, my child’s public school in Kansas does teach about all of those things. Like we have had conversations about them over the last few years, especially about being able to say no to hugs and other personal contact.
Removed by mod
That’s awesome. Wish it was standard practice!
Was that a private or public school? As far as I know Montessori schools are largely private.
-
Relationships are discouraged through school, in favor of competition, so we can be more effectively exploited by the elites (and all hierarchical societies). That is by design. Healthy individuals with good relationships are harder to sell to and to exploit. It’s relatively hard to convince someone who is satisfied with their life and image to buy something. It’s a lot easier to convince them to instead seek emotional satisfaction through excessive buying (escapism). Each new item (or service) you get can temporarily fill the emotional void and provide a fleeting sense of excitement or comfort.
I think that you’re giving them way too much credit. I’d call it a favorable coincidence (for them) but not by design.
That tends to be how things develop when you’re talking about systems. There’s not a cackling Bad Guy engineering these things, but a system of socioeconomic carrots and sticks that, right now, favor exploitation. Schools and education happen within that incentive structure so its natural that they would take on it’s characteristics.
Yeah, you’re probably right to some degree. It may not have been fully intentional on the part of the designer.
However, since the elites of the time controlled the government, the government would tend to favor institutions that elites think will benefit from.
deleted by creator
Could you elaborate what you mean with “behave better”?
Treat women as fellow humans
A huge percentage comes down to this. Don’t treat women as objects or aliens. They’re people.
As you are talking a lot about men, I would say we need to talk about toxic masculinity. Which means basically antisocial, competetive, emotion-suppressing, “talk about things instead of feelings” traits.
Which also is a huge thing capitalism feeds. Noone gets admired for having a healthy relationship with their parents or a few very good friends, but for damn shoes or minicomputers with glass, cameras and sensors everywhere, nobody knew they needed a few decades ago.
So capitalism with ads everywhere and consumerism instead of real values is a huge factor.
If you dont have your own TV, you have to share. No own books, you need to go to the library. No own car, you share it with others.
This is so “uncomfortable”, while it would make people meet lots of new friends. I always make nice accquaintances in the train.
Lucky you, to live where there is a passenger train.
Which also is a huge thing capitalism feeds
And you were off to such a good start, too. If only this didn’t predates capitalism by several thousand years :(
It turns out even in a perfectly egalitarian society people will still compete for mates, and where teaching malea how to compete for mates gets filtered through idiocy, you end up with toxic masculinity.
Hell, if you’re being totally reductionist (and if you get to be, every gets to be), then you’re likely to experience more support for toxic traits in both men and women in an egalitarian society, because social differentiation becomes even more important.
They are not being reductionist, not to the degree you are claiming. It’s true it’s more complicated than “capitalism bad!” but you are talking on the other extreme of the spectrum and you are also wrong. Capitalism absolutely encourages and instills messages of “having things and showing disposable income means you are higher class”.
Capitalism absolutely encourages and instills messages of “having things and showing disposable income means you are higher class”
This is not by any means unique to capitalism.
There will always be markers of social standing, even in a completely post-scarcity Trek-communist utopia.
Blaming an aspect of human nature on an economic system is silly.
Capitalism needs companies to grow. But there is no need for any products most produce. So they use ads and all other toxic methods, abusing the antisocial group dynamics etc. with being bullied for damn shoes… just to sell products.
Capitalism bad.
But there is no need for any products most produce
How do you expect anyone to take you seriously lol
?
We just toss people blindly into the mess that is human interaction and relationships and no one knows what to do anymore.
I mean, to be fair, that’s kind of always been the case to some extent. Not that it’s an excuse or a good thing to have, of course.
It is true that schools don’t teach many or any life skills, and it’s unfortunate. Schools should also teach budgeting and real day-to-day life stuff but they just don’t.
This is the closest to correct answer.
The real issue here is that school is a series of trade-offs, and the local community gets a say. When programs are cut, or content doesn’t match your expectations, people like to blame something big - “it’s the Republicans,” or “it’s the gays” - and in reality it’s just your neighbors prioritize different things than you do.
My school had an entire personal finance class. We learned about compounding interest in math, but some kids really learned it for the first time in PF. They’d learned the math 3 years earlier but didn’t care because “it’s just math.”
The community believed the lie that schools did not teach budgeting, when schools taught all the building blocks of how to budget, and kids couldn’t put it together without the set course.
So, they prioritized that course - and the trade-off was that we lost other courses, because there is only so much money and time.
Back in the 50s there was arranged marriages.
I’m guessing you’re part of a different culture than the US since it wasn’t common here at all, I’ve never heard of anyone being in an arranged marriage. I do agree with you though, that there needs to be peer and love relationships, communication, and life skills being taught. The issue right now is, the teachers are just trying to teach and survive themselves. It would be an education overhaul in the expanding knowledge direction.
What do you think a shotgun wedding is? We definitely did, and still do have arranged and forced marriages in the US. Probably moreso now that child brides are making a comeback, thanks to the loss of abortion rights. Thanks, Republicans.
Shotgun wedding was simply someone got pregnant and the couple may have been encouraged to wed. I seen enough of them and I don’t know if a single one where it was mandatory. Poor reason to get married maybe but was pretty much always but choice and the shotgun statement was more of a joke.
There are few racial cultures in Canada, and likely no European cultures that have arranged ‘forced’ marriages. Encouraging couples to interact in such a way as they might develop feelings for each other is not an forced marriage by the way. And before you get all huffy, yes there have been forced marriages but it is quite rare.
How many shot gun weddings or forced marriages do you know irl though? The OP was saying it like it’s super common.
I think people focus way too much on romantic relationships. And many seem to see them as their lazy ticket out of loneliness.
If you want to improve social skills and alleviate loneliness people have to start and grow healthy communities, friendships and family bonds.
Capitalist thinking has reached interpersonal relationships. Instead of seeking community, people focus on how to optimise their dating market strategies and such. That’s pretty fucked up.
I think that’s also the reason why people lack interpersonal bonds. Investing into communities, friendships, relationships doesn’t fit into a world that is focused on linear progress and material gain. Applying this type of thinking (success, optimization, comparison, …) seems to lead mostly to resentment.
But community is not something you can teach, I think. You can facilitate it by providing opportunities for community building. Like the so called third place and enough time for people to get together casually.
Ultimately it’s something we inherit from generations before, though. And we only stray ever further from it. It’s in our hands now to do it in our lifes, online and in our neighborhoods etc.
The part about gen Z men has been true for every generation’s men.
Not true. Its never been as bad as 63% not in relationships and 15% having no close friendships. Its clearly an issue that has gotten worse evertime. Why do you think this period of time is known as the loneliness epidemic.
You’re getting downvoted because you’re calling out half of Lemmy’s community with that comment. I agree 100%
A vast majority of the non-Western world doesn’t see juvenile relationships as conventional or even a good thing. In fact, youngsters fooling around with the opposite sex without parental consent is straight-up delinquent behaviour in almost the entirety of the Middle-East and Asia. What you call “bad” is rather ideal for the better half of the world.
The middle east isn’t exactly a shining example of healthy gender relations
And Europe and USA are? With over 45% divorce rates?
Not defending ME gender cultures in any way, I know they are fucked. But putting the western ultra-individualist dating convention as the standard is a hieght of ignorance. Almost all Asian cultures have existed without delinquent dating being the norm for centuries, and in no way are they any lesser than Western cultures.
Teens dating are the norm in most Asian countries what are you on about?
You mean in the middle east where women are basically seen as property in most of those countries. Literally not able to leave the house without a chaperone. Or you mean Asian countries like South Korea which is facing the same issues to such an extent that incel like public policies are bring implemented or Japan which again is facing literally the exact same problems.
deleted by creator
This is deliberate in my mind. They don’t want educated, financially literate workers. They want workers that will generate debt and spend money on stuff they don’t need, so they can never get out of their minimum wage jobs.
Interpersonal skills + money?
I dont get it, if it isnt some veeery philosophical course about values and stuff
deleted by creator
A lot of blind courage is also missing. People used to answer to a lot of blind requests in a way that demanded a leap of faith and an effort to establish their own character. It also had a healthy dose of just wait and see. These days people can weasel out of uninformed situations quite a lot. So, we lean to shallow decision models with fewer good intentions accordingly.
Could you give examples? I think I agree with you but I’m not sure I’m understanding correctly.
