State of Health Report Shows Growing Despair Among American Men(finance.yahoo.com)
finance.yahoo.com
State of Health Report Shows Growing Despair Among American Men
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/state-health-among-american-men-040100395.html
197 comments
> not one had a non male aggressor
Decades ago I briefly dated an extremely physically abusive woman. Nearly killed me a couple times. I ended it. Not a single person has the slightest bit of sympathy over this. I've never struck a woman but maybe I should have in self defense. If I had though I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever I would have been reported, arrested, and imprisoned, regardless of all facts.
Decades ago I briefly dated an extremely physically abusive woman. Nearly killed me a couple times. I ended it. Not a single person has the slightest bit of sympathy over this. I've never struck a woman but maybe I should have in self defense. If I had though I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever I would have been reported, arrested, and imprisoned, regardless of all facts.
Hey, from an internet stranger, I'm sorry this happened to you. That's a terrible situation, made worse by the culture around you.
I hope you've found support since then; if you haven't, here's my anonymous support.
Here are links to finding more support: https://malesurvivor.org https://victimconnect.org http://www.mensadviceline.org.uk
I hope you've found support since then; if you haven't, here's my anonymous support.
Here are links to finding more support: https://malesurvivor.org https://victimconnect.org http://www.mensadviceline.org.uk
From an early age, my dad told my brothers and me, ALL the time that we should never hit a girl or woman. Ever. He drilled into us that there is never a reason to do this.
Fast forward to high school and college, and I freeze when a woman gets physically aggressive and starts to seem violent. A part of my brain expects to fight back, but years of inculcation of the mantra, "never hit a woman" stopped me from responding (and it's not quite in my nature to run). So I just tried to shrug it off while such things happened.
But, yeah, people should not hit people, unless in self defense, etc. Definitely if someone is attacking you it should not matter their sex when defending yourself. Ideally, anyway.
Fast forward to high school and college, and I freeze when a woman gets physically aggressive and starts to seem violent. A part of my brain expects to fight back, but years of inculcation of the mantra, "never hit a woman" stopped me from responding (and it's not quite in my nature to run). So I just tried to shrug it off while such things happened.
But, yeah, people should not hit people, unless in self defense, etc. Definitely if someone is attacking you it should not matter their sex when defending yourself. Ideally, anyway.
Is the media really shaming young men for being useless? What are the most notable movies or shows?
Anecdotally it seems to me that the "lazy, young, and failing at everything" stereotype is much more prevalent for men than women in popular media. On the other side the "young but really capable and never giving up" stereotype is much more common for women.
Of course inversions of these tropes can be found all over the place so to properly see if there's a skew you'd need to analyse a whole lot of media and see which is more frequent. I'm not about to embark on that project so the best I can give you is a description of how it feels to me.
In the end I don't think these sorts of stereotypes are too unbalanced, for every bad female stereotype you can find a bad male stereotype. I feel like the conversation shouldn't be about who has it worse and deserves compensation, it should be about how we decouple both good and bad stereotypes from gender or skin color or sexual orientation or what have you.
You need stereotypes to tell compelling stories, otherwise you'd have to explain every single character in-depth. This isn't a bad thing, but we need to be more careful about attaching stereotypes needlessly to real existing groups of humans.
If I were a script writer and it'd be up to me I'd probably just write the script with whichever stereotypes it needs, and then once the script is done flip some coins for the irrelevant character attributes such as gender or skin color or eye color. As far as I can tell those basically never matter for telling a story. Even in the case of it being historically inaccurate I wouldn't say it matters: you're already suspending your disbelief for a lot of stuff in the movies, the idea that e.g. a woman would be a commander in the first world war isn't a stretch big enough to break immersion.
I need to learn to write more coherently and start a blog I think.
Of course inversions of these tropes can be found all over the place so to properly see if there's a skew you'd need to analyse a whole lot of media and see which is more frequent. I'm not about to embark on that project so the best I can give you is a description of how it feels to me.
In the end I don't think these sorts of stereotypes are too unbalanced, for every bad female stereotype you can find a bad male stereotype. I feel like the conversation shouldn't be about who has it worse and deserves compensation, it should be about how we decouple both good and bad stereotypes from gender or skin color or sexual orientation or what have you.
You need stereotypes to tell compelling stories, otherwise you'd have to explain every single character in-depth. This isn't a bad thing, but we need to be more careful about attaching stereotypes needlessly to real existing groups of humans.
If I were a script writer and it'd be up to me I'd probably just write the script with whichever stereotypes it needs, and then once the script is done flip some coins for the irrelevant character attributes such as gender or skin color or eye color. As far as I can tell those basically never matter for telling a story. Even in the case of it being historically inaccurate I wouldn't say it matters: you're already suspending your disbelief for a lot of stuff in the movies, the idea that e.g. a woman would be a commander in the first world war isn't a stretch big enough to break immersion.
I need to learn to write more coherently and start a blog I think.
I asked for the most notable movies and shows. A few choice specimens which you think would resonate would work.
For example, if I were to pick a few top candidates for nerd representation in media I might pick the IT Show or CSI or Mr Robot.
For example, if I were to pick a few top candidates for nerd representation in media I might pick the IT Show or CSI or Mr Robot.
- The Big Lebowski: The Dude
- The Disappointments Room: David. At one point, he says that he plays Xbox and takes naps while he watches his wife Dana work, when he's asked what he does for a living.
- The sopranos: Tony Soprano has a hard time getting his son A.J. to do any work whatsoever.
- Seinfeld: George
And to be fair, the trope does have inverted instances as well, but again it seems to me to be uncommon:
- Married with children: Peg Bundy in the later seasons, Al bundy isn't much better though
> I asked for the most notable movies and shows.
And I ask god for a golden leprechaun every night, but that doesn't mean I'll get one. As a show of good faith I've spent some time researching an answer to your question, but just because you've posed a question doesn't mean you're entitled to an answer fulfilling your criteria.
- The Disappointments Room: David. At one point, he says that he plays Xbox and takes naps while he watches his wife Dana work, when he's asked what he does for a living.
- The sopranos: Tony Soprano has a hard time getting his son A.J. to do any work whatsoever.
- Seinfeld: George
And to be fair, the trope does have inverted instances as well, but again it seems to me to be uncommon:
- Married with children: Peg Bundy in the later seasons, Al bundy isn't much better though
> I asked for the most notable movies and shows.
And I ask god for a golden leprechaun every night, but that doesn't mean I'll get one. As a show of good faith I've spent some time researching an answer to your question, but just because you've posed a question doesn't mean you're entitled to an answer fulfilling your criteria.
Not exactly "young men", but I'd argue the Simpsons and Family Guy are noteable for the dumb white male father figure.
That goes back to at least the 1970s.
There I suspect that the kid/woman v. dad/authority conflicts, the smart & pluck being on the first side and the obtuseness on the latter, really depicted the script writers v. the management.
There I suspect that the kid/woman v. dad/authority conflicts, the smart & pluck being on the first side and the obtuseness on the latter, really depicted the script writers v. the management.
Try Shakespeare and Greek Mythology before that.
Or if that's too far back, television's The Honeymooners (1955-1956). Or the Flintstones for that matter.
Or Fibber McGee and Molly if 30s radio shows are your thing.
The bumbling male and the stalwart woman is a trope that is thousands of years old.
Complaining about it is new.
Or if that's too far back, television's The Honeymooners (1955-1956). Or the Flintstones for that matter.
Or Fibber McGee and Molly if 30s radio shows are your thing.
The bumbling male and the stalwart woman is a trope that is thousands of years old.
Complaining about it is new.
[deleted]
> The decline in life expectancy is occurring in part due to deaths from despair. From 2007 to 2017, the mortality rate from drug overdoses increased 82%
This is a perfect example of how corporate greed (and a political system that now mostly exists to support it) is ravishing the American people. After decades of obvious abuses, the company pushing OxyContin is finally being stopped, but no one is going to jail (see: https://www.npr.org/2019/09/19/762455218/as-drugmakers-face-...), and although the company is bankrupt, we're merely locking the barn door after the billions have escaped.
This is a perfect example of how corporate greed (and a political system that now mostly exists to support it) is ravishing the American people. After decades of obvious abuses, the company pushing OxyContin is finally being stopped, but no one is going to jail (see: https://www.npr.org/2019/09/19/762455218/as-drugmakers-face-...), and although the company is bankrupt, we're merely locking the barn door after the billions have escaped.
The pharma companies are merely a useful scapegoat for the real cause: awful state policies. This is blatantly obvious after only a small amount of research, like the fact that opioid overdoses have increased as opioid prescriptions have decreased.
The government restricting the supply of opioid painkillers has only served to push those who need them into the black market. Blaming companies like Purdue is only playing into the same talking points as the drug warriors: evil dealers pushing dangerous drugs onto innocent people.
We need to decriminalize and legalize all drugs: possession, creation, and distribution.
The government restricting the supply of opioid painkillers has only served to push those who need them into the black market. Blaming companies like Purdue is only playing into the same talking points as the drug warriors: evil dealers pushing dangerous drugs onto innocent people.
We need to decriminalize and legalize all drugs: possession, creation, and distribution.
> The government restricting the supply of opioid painkillers has only served to push those who need them into the black market
This is a pretty shallow summary of the actual state of affairs. Yes, people who need drugs have been forced into the black market. But so have people who are addicts. Legalizing might or might not help, but it doesn’t help to pretend that everyone is a chronic pain sufferer.
The reality is that for decades many people were handed highly addictive painkillers for relatively minor pain (and for too long for acute pain). The end result is an epidemic of addiction. Those addictions didn’t evaporate when doctors started to reduce the frequency of opiate prescriptions. Hence the shocking reality that “opioid overdoses have increased as opioid prescriptions have decreased.” Well, yeah. A bunch of addicts have turned from Oxycodone to heroin.
This is a pretty shallow summary of the actual state of affairs. Yes, people who need drugs have been forced into the black market. But so have people who are addicts. Legalizing might or might not help, but it doesn’t help to pretend that everyone is a chronic pain sufferer.
The reality is that for decades many people were handed highly addictive painkillers for relatively minor pain (and for too long for acute pain). The end result is an epidemic of addiction. Those addictions didn’t evaporate when doctors started to reduce the frequency of opiate prescriptions. Hence the shocking reality that “opioid overdoses have increased as opioid prescriptions have decreased.” Well, yeah. A bunch of addicts have turned from Oxycodone to heroin.
I don't think your points are mutually exclusive. In both cases, negligent government policy is fueling the deaths.
They are killing chronic pain sufferers and addicts alike, and addicts are sick humans too.
They are killing chronic pain sufferers and addicts alike, and addicts are sick humans too.
Absolutely. I just don’t like the disingenuous pro-legalization argument that pretends that “restricting the supply of opioid painkillers has only served to push those who need them into the black market” as if that’s anything close to the whole story.
You're looking at the symptom rather than the disease.
The despair is the disease. Drug and alcohol use are from people self-medicating their symptoms.
If anyone cared to address this problem, they'd look at what causes despair. That despair is often from economic and social distress.
Instead, everyone is outraged up on a media and politically driven moral panic about pharmaceutical medication that happens to be rarely abused and is almost never addictive (fewer than 0.1% chance of becoming addicted to prescribed painkillers, study on over 640,000 patients, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27400458).
The despair is the disease. Drug and alcohol use are from people self-medicating their symptoms.
If anyone cared to address this problem, they'd look at what causes despair. That despair is often from economic and social distress.
Instead, everyone is outraged up on a media and politically driven moral panic about pharmaceutical medication that happens to be rarely abused and is almost never addictive (fewer than 0.1% chance of becoming addicted to prescribed painkillers, study on over 640,000 patients, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27400458).
No, drug and alcohol addiction definitely can produce despair. Causation can and does work both ways in this one, causing a spiral which is almost impossible to trace back to a single thing.
No, I don’t think economic problems per se cause despair. People are richer, much richer, than 100 or 1000 years ago. I don’t think that changes the fundamental human struggle with meaning, hope, purpose, and everything else that wards off despair.
No, I don’t think economic problems per se cause despair. People are richer, much richer, than 100 or 1000 years ago. I don’t think that changes the fundamental human struggle with meaning, hope, purpose, and everything else that wards off despair.
I think that part of the problem may be that people are richer in ways that don't make them happy or give them meaning, and poorer in ways that do.
Most notably, it seems to me that owning your own house and land would bring a much greater sense of autonomy, accomplishment, control, etc. than more consumeristic things like TVs, video games, fancy food, etc. (not that its bad that those things exist).
Most notably, it seems to me that owning your own house and land would bring a much greater sense of autonomy, accomplishment, control, etc. than more consumeristic things like TVs, video games, fancy food, etc. (not that its bad that those things exist).
I agree the problems should be fixed, but it's a serious enough problem that both the symptoms __and__ the underlying causes need to be addressed. Just working on one or the other isn't going to resolve the issue.
Just to let you know, the word you meant to use is “ravaging.” It’s almost an antonym to “ravishing.”
This is not too surprising for many reasons.
Also, a significant part of modern American culture actively devalues men and thinks of men and masculinity as problematic. This is particularly true within certain political movements and social cultures. That has health consequences, as is already widely known from many studies on various other forms of discrimination and discriminatory movements.
Also, a significant part of modern American culture actively devalues men and thinks of men and masculinity as problematic. This is particularly true within certain political movements and social cultures. That has health consequences, as is already widely known from many studies on various other forms of discrimination and discriminatory movements.
This has become a lot more noticeable within the last few years (e.g., the Washington Post editorial "Why can't we hate men?"), and it is indeed having a negative effect on my state of mind.
Not easy to do, but I've been working hard on withdrawing from social media, outrage news, etc., and those who are wrapped up in it. It seems appealing in the moment, but I do think it ultimately contributes to this sort of despair.
Not easy to do, but I've been working hard on withdrawing from social media, outrage news, etc., and those who are wrapped up in it. It seems appealing in the moment, but I do think it ultimately contributes to this sort of despair.
Discovering what true masculinity means and how to fulfill it is going to be key for men today to keep their sanity and hope. And that begins with courage and a sincere search for the truth, and it continues with the courage to stand up for the truth in the face of threats and injustices.
Feel like we're either fat and unmotivated, or overworked and unsatisfied... with only a thin slice finding something in the middle.
Just turned 28 and can say I easily fit the bill for 3/4 of these descriptions. I've been chalking it up to a quarter life crisis and am desperate for a geographic move to add some new experiences to my life.
Moving will briefly introduce new experiences but you will quickly adjust.
Finding and developing new interests and hobbies is a much better longterm solution.
Finding and developing new interests and hobbies is a much better longterm solution.
I've moved and helped friends move quite a bit, and in my anecdotal experience, the only way a geographical change helps if either if you just can't do what you need to do in your home town (like moving to SV or NYC for work) or if your home town life is absolutely toxic and you can't get away from it without leaving.
I moved across the country for no good reason except to move. Absolutely nothing was different. I was still the same person, except now without friends or family. I wasn't running from anything but everything followed me anyway. I've had half a dozen friends in the same situation. You can't run from yourself.
Meanwhile I helped a friend move about a year ago because she couldn't get away from high school drama. She was in her 30s, and still caught up in high school drama from her high school friends. She moved away and made new friends and completely cut her old friends out of her life. Massive difference. I've had friends of friends do the same thing when their family life was toxic. Big help from the sounds of it. Immigrants do it constantly, running from toxic politics to start a new life in a safer place. It works.
But if you're running from yourself? You can't run fast enough or far enough. You will always be you. Fix that before you fix your geography, or it will just be a very expensive lesson learned. It took a long time for my bank account to recover from my move and even longer for my circle of friends to recover.
I moved across the country for no good reason except to move. Absolutely nothing was different. I was still the same person, except now without friends or family. I wasn't running from anything but everything followed me anyway. I've had half a dozen friends in the same situation. You can't run from yourself.
Meanwhile I helped a friend move about a year ago because she couldn't get away from high school drama. She was in her 30s, and still caught up in high school drama from her high school friends. She moved away and made new friends and completely cut her old friends out of her life. Massive difference. I've had friends of friends do the same thing when their family life was toxic. Big help from the sounds of it. Immigrants do it constantly, running from toxic politics to start a new life in a safer place. It works.
But if you're running from yourself? You can't run fast enough or far enough. You will always be you. Fix that before you fix your geography, or it will just be a very expensive lesson learned. It took a long time for my bank account to recover from my move and even longer for my circle of friends to recover.
> it will just be a very expensive lesson learned.
Moving doesn't have to be a financial hit. If you move to an area with higher wages it may earn you money.
Moving doesn't have to be a financial hit. If you move to an area with higher wages it may earn you money.
You will have to pay a bigger security deposit.
In my experience moving from a culture that's miserable for you can make all the difference. I have lived in places that were night and day from where I am now and want to get back but cannot find a sustainable way.
If you are moving from Ohio to Indiana or from one town to another where you are then sure not much will change. But I don't think a lot of people realize how different societies and priorities are outside their bubbles. Where I am is the worst sort of bubble culturally and socially I could possibly be in for my mental health. Completely opposite to my core values. But desire isn't enough to "move". You need health, money, assistance.
If you are moving from Ohio to Indiana or from one town to another where you are then sure not much will change. But I don't think a lot of people realize how different societies and priorities are outside their bubbles. Where I am is the worst sort of bubble culturally and socially I could possibly be in for my mental health. Completely opposite to my core values. But desire isn't enough to "move". You need health, money, assistance.
Mountaineering has changed my life and my friends & fam now love it too =)
It is at times like these that I wish Hacker News included number of views in addition to the number of replies.
Threads like this give the impression that everyone is miserable and fill up quickly with sad stories.
It’s good the internet gives those people an outlet and a place to connect, but if this was say viewed by thousands and only got 60 replies it might provide some perspective. Most people are just fine.
Threads like this give the impression that everyone is miserable and fill up quickly with sad stories.
It’s good the internet gives those people an outlet and a place to connect, but if this was say viewed by thousands and only got 60 replies it might provide some perspective. Most people are just fine.
Firstly, if you're saying most people are just fine then that's surely the wrong framing; you don't wait until most people are hurting.
Secondly, why does one try to persuade people that the scope of hurt isn't that bad by... eyeballing a HN post for popularity? And using that to counteract a report full of collected data?
Secondly, why does one try to persuade people that the scope of hurt isn't that bad by... eyeballing a HN post for popularity? And using that to counteract a report full of collected data?
So, what is your source that "most people are just fine"? I'd wager that what you mean is, you're fine and you think most people you know are fine. Good luck, in any case.
These two articles sum it up nicely. About 5.7% of men are depressed and about 8.7% of women. Most people are just fine. I hate alarmist journalism and sensational headlines.
https://www.healthline.com/health/depression/facts-statistic...
https://www.verywellmind.com/depression-statistics-everyone-...
https://www.healthline.com/health/depression/facts-statistic...
https://www.verywellmind.com/depression-statistics-everyone-...
The following, recent Rolling Stone article provides some real-world context.
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/suicid...
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/suicid...
When I was in high school I had a stereotypical thought that most of the ass hole more popular guys would have shit lives after college. Historically that wasn’t true. But nowadays... it seems more valid. Most of the guy’s who followed stereotypical social strategies in high school have turned out pretty poor. The guys who have done well are the one man who were smart or kind. Your value to others should be self evident from being a person people like. People saying it’s all about work and money... sound like assholes who don’t realize it.
I'm a man, and for the life of me I don't get how people are feeling personally attacked by feminism. Same with racism: I just don't connect these issues with me as an individual. And I've never experienced an interaction where others have done so, either. I've been to any number of feminist events with my partner, and nobody ever made a negative comment rooted in the fact that I'm a man.
I supported feminism as it was originally explained to me, as against violent and abusive dictatorial strictly patriarchal systems insidiously designed to suppress and oppress minority viewpoints and ways.
But since then I've realized there are many other things that feminism means to people. It's not a great label as it doesn't mean anything in particular. Some variants are definitely bigoted hate against a certain gender. I don't agree with those. Diffusion of label-meaning: what can be done about this. For me... be a label-skeptic. Irrelevant, though no one cares. Only mindless labels matter in the great big wide world.
But since then I've realized there are many other things that feminism means to people. It's not a great label as it doesn't mean anything in particular. Some variants are definitely bigoted hate against a certain gender. I don't agree with those. Diffusion of label-meaning: what can be done about this. For me... be a label-skeptic. Irrelevant, though no one cares. Only mindless labels matter in the great big wide world.
Totally understand where you are coming from. My wife and I tend to see modern feminism as a way to tell males that being masculine is bad while simultaneously telling females that being feminine is bad. Seems like the same pay for the same work aspects of the movement are where they should instead focus.
Likewise politically, I’m for individual liberty for all adults but not for an anemic taxation system for the rich.
I guess that makes me a centrist these days?
Likewise politically, I’m for individual liberty for all adults but not for an anemic taxation system for the rich.
I guess that makes me a centrist these days?
Be a male at school today, in most of the Western world, and you will experience misandry by your teachers.
People that have sexual trauma are trivially easy to trigger with large shows of political power or 'abuse' around sex. It worked on me when I was younger. The only solution is to get your sex life in order and some of the people engaged in that debate are doing just that.
I often ask the same question. But apparently so many feel personally attacked by feminism that you’ve been downvoted into oblivion.
Just wanted to leave a few quotes here, from The Sociological Imagination by C. Wright Mills, one of my favorite books. Also, if any of this resonates, see the link in my profile and come read with us:
"The very shaping of history now outpaces the ability of men to orient themselves in accordance with cherished values. Even when they do not panic men often sense that older ways off feeling and thinking have collapsed and that newer beginnings are ambiguous to the point of stasis. Is it any wonder that ordinary men feel they cannot cope with the larger worlds with which they are so suddenly confronted? That they cannot understand the meaning of their epoch for their own lives? That—in defense of selfhood—they become morally insensible, trying to remain altogether private men?
Is it any wonder that they come to be possessed by a sense of the trap? It is not only information that they need—in this Age of Fact, information often dominates their attention and overwhelms their capacities to assimilate it. It is not only the skills of reason that they need—although their struggles to acquire these often exhaust their limited moral energy. What they need, and what they feel they need, is a quality of mind that will help them to use information to develop reason in order to achieve lucid summations of what is going on in the world and what may be happening within themselves."
"What are the major issues for publics and the key troubles of private individuals in our time? To formulate issues and troubles, we must ask what values are cherished yet threatened, and what values are cherished and supported, by the characterizing trends of our period. In the case both of threat and of support we must ask what salient contradictions of structure may be involved.
When people cherish some set of values and do not feel any threat to them, they experience well-being. When they cherish values but do feel them to be threatened, they experience a crisis—either as personal trouble or as a public issue. And if all their values seem involved, they feel the total threat of panic.
But suppose people are neither aware of any cherished values, nor experience any threat? That is the experience of indifference, which, if it seems to involve all their values, becomes apathy. Suppose, finally, they are unaware of any cherished values, but still are very much aware of a threat? That is the experience of uneasiness, of anxiety, which if it is total enough, becomes a deadly unspecified malaise.
Ours is a time of uneasiness and indifference-not yet formulated in such ways as to permit the work of reason and the play of sensibility. Instead of troubles—defined in terms of values and threats—there is often the misery of vague uneasiness; instead of explicit issues there is often merely the beat feeling that all is somehow not right. Neither the values threatened nor whatever threatens them has been stated; in short, they have not been carried to the point of decision. Much less have they been formulated as problems of social science."
"Yet men do not usually define the roubles they endure in terms of historical change and institutional contradiction. The well-being they enjoy, they do not usually impute to the big ups and downs of the societies in which they live. Seldom aware of the intricate connection between the patterns of their own lives and the course of world history, ordinary men do not usually know what this connection means for the kinds of men they are becoming and for the kinds of history-making in which they take part."
He goes on to talk about the relationship between work and leisure as a "crisis of ambition" in American society. Great read.
"The very shaping of history now outpaces the ability of men to orient themselves in accordance with cherished values. Even when they do not panic men often sense that older ways off feeling and thinking have collapsed and that newer beginnings are ambiguous to the point of stasis. Is it any wonder that ordinary men feel they cannot cope with the larger worlds with which they are so suddenly confronted? That they cannot understand the meaning of their epoch for their own lives? That—in defense of selfhood—they become morally insensible, trying to remain altogether private men?
Is it any wonder that they come to be possessed by a sense of the trap? It is not only information that they need—in this Age of Fact, information often dominates their attention and overwhelms their capacities to assimilate it. It is not only the skills of reason that they need—although their struggles to acquire these often exhaust their limited moral energy. What they need, and what they feel they need, is a quality of mind that will help them to use information to develop reason in order to achieve lucid summations of what is going on in the world and what may be happening within themselves."
"What are the major issues for publics and the key troubles of private individuals in our time? To formulate issues and troubles, we must ask what values are cherished yet threatened, and what values are cherished and supported, by the characterizing trends of our period. In the case both of threat and of support we must ask what salient contradictions of structure may be involved.
When people cherish some set of values and do not feel any threat to them, they experience well-being. When they cherish values but do feel them to be threatened, they experience a crisis—either as personal trouble or as a public issue. And if all their values seem involved, they feel the total threat of panic.
But suppose people are neither aware of any cherished values, nor experience any threat? That is the experience of indifference, which, if it seems to involve all their values, becomes apathy. Suppose, finally, they are unaware of any cherished values, but still are very much aware of a threat? That is the experience of uneasiness, of anxiety, which if it is total enough, becomes a deadly unspecified malaise.
Ours is a time of uneasiness and indifference-not yet formulated in such ways as to permit the work of reason and the play of sensibility. Instead of troubles—defined in terms of values and threats—there is often the misery of vague uneasiness; instead of explicit issues there is often merely the beat feeling that all is somehow not right. Neither the values threatened nor whatever threatens them has been stated; in short, they have not been carried to the point of decision. Much less have they been formulated as problems of social science."
"Yet men do not usually define the roubles they endure in terms of historical change and institutional contradiction. The well-being they enjoy, they do not usually impute to the big ups and downs of the societies in which they live. Seldom aware of the intricate connection between the patterns of their own lives and the course of world history, ordinary men do not usually know what this connection means for the kinds of men they are becoming and for the kinds of history-making in which they take part."
He goes on to talk about the relationship between work and leisure as a "crisis of ambition" in American society. Great read.
The headline is a weird, cherry-picked minor point from within the article. I had to Ctrl+F to even find it (after skimming).
I've spent every night for the last few months trying to find a way/reason to keep going mentally. Before that it was every other night, a few times a week, few times a month etc. Before the inciting event for this decline, badly done and ultimately unneeded surgery fifteen years ago taking away everything, I never ONCE considered this. In fact I was positive when discussing the topic that I would NEVER do such a thing and that there would always be a way, always be family or friends, always be a system there to hold me up. Because that's what I had been indoctrinated to believe. It wasn't true.
I worked hard, in a career beneficial to society. I helped people, always had great empathy, and treated others with respect. Even then I didn't really get it when I would come across someone like I am now. Someone who suffered and lost it all. Someone on the edge. I did what I could to help them but I was as ignorant and naive as ever believing the rest of the system and society would give them that same attention and value. I thought it would be ok. It's not ok.
The truth is in American society has decided human life and security isn't the most important thing. It's decided INDEPENDENCE and profits and ego and the chance to be wealthy and powerful is. Everyone for themselves. Guns are rights but healthcare is an "entitlement". Equality is somehow "wrong".If you need help you are "weak" and a "loser" and "nobody is going to live off MY tax money". They think if you can even open your eyes, or type an occasional rant online, that means you can grind away like everyone else and "why don't you just" and they KNOW this is true because they KNOW they would be able to when they reached this unfathomable state. Saying this will make a lot of people angry because nationalism is an identity for many and ultimately proves the point.
About the same time my health was ruined a friend in Belgium had a similar experience. He was given social support to keep his flat, healthcare, spent a few years reeducating in a new skill and was able to reenter society and function. He has a happy life and family now. My experience was denials from government assistance programs, struggling to manage with savings and small private pension but no health insurance, watching a family full of puritanical hypocrites turn away and blame. My friend lost something of his life, but was allowed to regain one worth living and not fear every little bump being the end. He gets to have a future as a result. I do not.
Next came cycles of motivation and disappointment and trying as hard as I could to hold it together only to have things collapse because with more limits and needs nobody can manage that alone despite what everyone needs to believe for their own mental security. The root of victim blaming right there folks. Some people are always going to need help. Some can rebuild at least some but still need help doing so. Stability. Access. Caring.
After you see that help isn't coming comes the anger...then that anger slowly morphs into despair. Then one day comes this indescribable sensation that even the moment before you couldn't believe would ever TRULY happen even thinking abstractly about it. Acceptance. Not acceptance of the decline. Not acceptance of the despair. Acceptance that you aren't afraid to let all of this life go anymore. You don't WANT to not BE...but you want to not be THIS. You want suffering, judgement, isolation, pain, complete lack or agency in LIFE anymore. You are exhausted all the time and it's not worth the tiny if any moments of joy anymore.
You are still rational. You aren't running around with your underwear on your head and flinging you poo at people. You are just running on empty, You swim as hard as you can and you sink, you relax and go with it and you sink, nothing works. It's always said to be your fault, not the fact you were unceremoniously dropped in the ocean and told to fend for yourself whilst people give "advice" from the shore like "just learn how to swim" and then get offended when you cannot as if your drowning insults them. You have walked over every "next hill" for years looking for petrol, and it's never there. Or if it IS there 1/1000000000 times and some nice and truly well meaning shopkeeper is smiling and waving you there, someone else swoops in front and takes the rest or the shop closes right as you straggle up to it because you stepped in a hole and that slowed you down even more.
Despair isn't some inexplicable thing. It's 99% of the time rooted in clear, multiple causes. But this society, ESPECIALLY this society, won't face or address them. Most people like me don't end up like me out of some fault in themselves or some unsolvable problem. But it's easier to punch down for both ego fulfillment and to bolster your own feelings of personal safety because YOU are better than that and it will never happen to you. You were smart, and planned, and have good people around you. Well guess what...the "Just World" isn't.
There was a time I was an activist for health and social issues. It never had any macro effect. I tried to "just get out of you don"t like it!" Doing that alone is very, very hard and I could never get it to work permanently. The damage done here would follow me everywhere and ironically block the path to even a life in those better conditions. There was a time I thought about crazy things like applying for asylum in a more socially conscious country, but the truth is people in this situation don't get approved. I am out of fuel and hope, there is no petrol station over the next hill, and my bootstraps were worn to dust years ago. There are countless people like me and nobody here ever thinks they will be one of them.
I worked hard, in a career beneficial to society. I helped people, always had great empathy, and treated others with respect. Even then I didn't really get it when I would come across someone like I am now. Someone who suffered and lost it all. Someone on the edge. I did what I could to help them but I was as ignorant and naive as ever believing the rest of the system and society would give them that same attention and value. I thought it would be ok. It's not ok.
The truth is in American society has decided human life and security isn't the most important thing. It's decided INDEPENDENCE and profits and ego and the chance to be wealthy and powerful is. Everyone for themselves. Guns are rights but healthcare is an "entitlement". Equality is somehow "wrong".If you need help you are "weak" and a "loser" and "nobody is going to live off MY tax money". They think if you can even open your eyes, or type an occasional rant online, that means you can grind away like everyone else and "why don't you just" and they KNOW this is true because they KNOW they would be able to when they reached this unfathomable state. Saying this will make a lot of people angry because nationalism is an identity for many and ultimately proves the point.
About the same time my health was ruined a friend in Belgium had a similar experience. He was given social support to keep his flat, healthcare, spent a few years reeducating in a new skill and was able to reenter society and function. He has a happy life and family now. My experience was denials from government assistance programs, struggling to manage with savings and small private pension but no health insurance, watching a family full of puritanical hypocrites turn away and blame. My friend lost something of his life, but was allowed to regain one worth living and not fear every little bump being the end. He gets to have a future as a result. I do not.
Next came cycles of motivation and disappointment and trying as hard as I could to hold it together only to have things collapse because with more limits and needs nobody can manage that alone despite what everyone needs to believe for their own mental security. The root of victim blaming right there folks. Some people are always going to need help. Some can rebuild at least some but still need help doing so. Stability. Access. Caring.
After you see that help isn't coming comes the anger...then that anger slowly morphs into despair. Then one day comes this indescribable sensation that even the moment before you couldn't believe would ever TRULY happen even thinking abstractly about it. Acceptance. Not acceptance of the decline. Not acceptance of the despair. Acceptance that you aren't afraid to let all of this life go anymore. You don't WANT to not BE...but you want to not be THIS. You want suffering, judgement, isolation, pain, complete lack or agency in LIFE anymore. You are exhausted all the time and it's not worth the tiny if any moments of joy anymore.
You are still rational. You aren't running around with your underwear on your head and flinging you poo at people. You are just running on empty, You swim as hard as you can and you sink, you relax and go with it and you sink, nothing works. It's always said to be your fault, not the fact you were unceremoniously dropped in the ocean and told to fend for yourself whilst people give "advice" from the shore like "just learn how to swim" and then get offended when you cannot as if your drowning insults them. You have walked over every "next hill" for years looking for petrol, and it's never there. Or if it IS there 1/1000000000 times and some nice and truly well meaning shopkeeper is smiling and waving you there, someone else swoops in front and takes the rest or the shop closes right as you straggle up to it because you stepped in a hole and that slowed you down even more.
Despair isn't some inexplicable thing. It's 99% of the time rooted in clear, multiple causes. But this society, ESPECIALLY this society, won't face or address them. Most people like me don't end up like me out of some fault in themselves or some unsolvable problem. But it's easier to punch down for both ego fulfillment and to bolster your own feelings of personal safety because YOU are better than that and it will never happen to you. You were smart, and planned, and have good people around you. Well guess what...the "Just World" isn't.
There was a time I was an activist for health and social issues. It never had any macro effect. I tried to "just get out of you don"t like it!" Doing that alone is very, very hard and I could never get it to work permanently. The damage done here would follow me everywhere and ironically block the path to even a life in those better conditions. There was a time I thought about crazy things like applying for asylum in a more socially conscious country, but the truth is people in this situation don't get approved. I am out of fuel and hope, there is no petrol station over the next hill, and my bootstraps were worn to dust years ago. There are countless people like me and nobody here ever thinks they will be one of them.
I think a big issue is the incredible juxtaposition between what you learn about America as a child...
The land of opportunity Work hard and be rewarded The shining nation on the hill
And what you see as an adult
Lose your job? No healthcare, and little support
Get cancer? Go bankrupt and lose everything if you’re not lucky or super rich
Let’s pass major legislation! Oh great another huge tax cut for the mega rich.
Go to school? Be saddled in debt for decades.
Get out of school? Work multiple jobs just to make ends meet in a system that favors employers
And how’re you supposed to escape? By buying material possessions that don’t bring lasting quality of life improvements, or by wallowing away in a drugged up haze, or by binge watching television and other media.
We’re supposed to be the leaders of the free world but we our government is increasingly disfunctional and tailored to special interests and the wealthy.
Meritocracy? Ha. The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and the middle class is being hollowed out.
This administration certainly hasn’t helped as it amplifies its fear based rhetoric of migrants, and crime while pushing us backwards on climate initiatives and ruining our reputation abroad.
It’s no wonder people are depressed. Wage slavery sucks, living on a knife’s edge sucks, and there’s really not much going on to change it.
I’m pretty hopeful for the younger generations, but boy is it a mess they’re inheriting.
The land of opportunity Work hard and be rewarded The shining nation on the hill
And what you see as an adult
Lose your job? No healthcare, and little support
Get cancer? Go bankrupt and lose everything if you’re not lucky or super rich
Let’s pass major legislation! Oh great another huge tax cut for the mega rich.
Go to school? Be saddled in debt for decades.
Get out of school? Work multiple jobs just to make ends meet in a system that favors employers
And how’re you supposed to escape? By buying material possessions that don’t bring lasting quality of life improvements, or by wallowing away in a drugged up haze, or by binge watching television and other media.
We’re supposed to be the leaders of the free world but we our government is increasingly disfunctional and tailored to special interests and the wealthy.
Meritocracy? Ha. The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and the middle class is being hollowed out.
This administration certainly hasn’t helped as it amplifies its fear based rhetoric of migrants, and crime while pushing us backwards on climate initiatives and ruining our reputation abroad.
It’s no wonder people are depressed. Wage slavery sucks, living on a knife’s edge sucks, and there’s really not much going on to change it.
I’m pretty hopeful for the younger generations, but boy is it a mess they’re inheriting.
Meritocracy? Ha. The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and the middle class is being hollowed out.
This administration certainly hasn’t helped as it amplifies its fear based rhetoric of migrants
Migration was and is a big part of the process. Not the only part, but still a problem to be solved. If you presumably want a European-style healthcare system in America and a job market that doesn't only favor employers, you'll need to acknowledge that the laws of supply and demand apply to labor and social services, and that an all-inclusive welfare state and mass migration can't work together.
This administration certainly hasn’t helped as it amplifies its fear based rhetoric of migrants
Migration was and is a big part of the process. Not the only part, but still a problem to be solved. If you presumably want a European-style healthcare system in America and a job market that doesn't only favor employers, you'll need to acknowledge that the laws of supply and demand apply to labor and social services, and that an all-inclusive welfare state and mass migration can't work together.
> If you presumably want a European-style healthcare system in America and a job market that doesn't only favor employers...
This doesn't stand up to the least amount of reflection.
There are immigrants in Europe. If you look at European countries individually there is massive immigration between them, as well as immigration from outside. And yet.
The US system favors employers not because of free-market competition between employees (or at least not predominantly so) but because corporations have bought the US government and twist every law to their advantage. Destroying the last vestiges of labor unions was just one small part.
This doesn't stand up to the least amount of reflection.
There are immigrants in Europe. If you look at European countries individually there is massive immigration between them, as well as immigration from outside. And yet.
The US system favors employers not because of free-market competition between employees (or at least not predominantly so) but because corporations have bought the US government and twist every law to their advantage. Destroying the last vestiges of labor unions was just one small part.
This comparison is apples to oranges. Intra-EU immigration is mostly high-skilled labor, and the outside low-skilled migration situation is different from America's. In America, most illegal immigrants work in huge numbers in the service and agricultural industries. In Europe, the most comparable group of people being migrants from Africa and the Middle East, are overwhelmingly unemployed. There's less of a supply shock to labor, but certainly very large costs to the state and its healthcare programs. Many European healthcare systems are more strained than ever.
> Intra-EU immigration is mostly high-skilled labor,
Actually it’s the opposite. In fact it’s an area of concern for the EU as they have not been ale to make highly skilled occupations (lawyers, engineers, etc) as portable as hod carrying.
> Many European healthcare systems are more strained than ever.
Citation? Complaints from my friends in France and Germany are risible to someone who has had to interact with US system.
Actually it’s the opposite. In fact it’s an area of concern for the EU as they have not been ale to make highly skilled occupations (lawyers, engineers, etc) as portable as hod carrying.
> Many European healthcare systems are more strained than ever.
Citation? Complaints from my friends in France and Germany are risible to someone who has had to interact with US system.
> There are immigrants in Europe. If you look at European countries individually there is massive immigration between them, as well as immigration from outside. And yet.
And yet in almost no country has the original population almost become a minority, unlike the US. So clearly the cumulative net immigration is greater in the US. And Bernie Sanders (someone who has certainly applied the "least amount of reflection" to this) seems to share the GPs view: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0
And yet in almost no country has the original population almost become a minority, unlike the US. So clearly the cumulative net immigration is greater in the US. And Bernie Sanders (someone who has certainly applied the "least amount of reflection" to this) seems to share the GPs view: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0
The original population of the United States is Native Americans. Is that who you meant when you said "original population"?
Or to put it another way, brown people who speak Spanish, for example, have been in North America just as long as white people who speak English...
Actually, the more I think about it, the more curious I am about who you think the "original population" of the United States is, and why
Or to put it another way, brown people who speak Spanish, for example, have been in North America just as long as white people who speak English...
Actually, the more I think about it, the more curious I am about who you think the "original population" of the United States is, and why
> brown people who speak Spanish, for example, have been in North America just as long as white people who speak English...
Actually a century longer! The original European capital of North America was Santa Fe in 1610...
Actually a century longer! The original European capital of North America was Santa Fe in 1610...
deogeo(1)
The original population of the Americas was some ungulates, mice and a few flying animals. Humans have always been an invasive species if you want to go far enough back. Where do you want to stop and start the clock to call it the "original population"?
I feel like you're replying to the wrong comment. Unless you're merely agreeing with the parent comment.
LOL, fair enough but this whole thread has been a bit of a dumpster fire. I'm a bit curious as to why it's on HN. I shouldn't have commented, to be honest. The whole "original population" v. "migrant population" argument has always been a little odd to me, is all, as humans are inherently migratory and invasive. Our tribal natures have always made us warlike, we just have a tendency to do it on larger scales (though WWII was the epitome, seemingly), and this goes back to chimpanzee lineages. I just threw in a jab when I should have walked away =)
Agreed entirely. Best wishes friend - and fellow "just human" :)
You nailed it.
I am disabled myself and I have experienced this. But, I am a dual US|EU national.
I actually experienced a very traumatic injury on Thursday, and had to be seen in my city's level 1 trauma unit. I am physically disabled and fell down some steep concrete stairs, (I probably need to use a wheelchair probably from now on.)
I ended up having surgery to repair the injury on Friday.
My pain was under control in the ambulance, but that was it.
I literally screamed nonstop during Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, due to the hospital refusing to give me adequate pain control. My abdominal muscles are still sore and my voice is gone still. When pain management finally came on Monday, they cared more about what medications I could "get outside" the hospital and "what the maximum quantity would be" more than actually controlling my pain.
They didn't even have any pillows for me on the unit to elevate my limb.
The whole experience was extremely traumatic and barbaric. It was reminiscent of a third world country.
Supposedly this is one of the best trauma units in the country, too.
I am done with this country. I cannot do this anymore. It is killing me.
I am disabled myself and I have experienced this. But, I am a dual US|EU national.
I actually experienced a very traumatic injury on Thursday, and had to be seen in my city's level 1 trauma unit. I am physically disabled and fell down some steep concrete stairs, (I probably need to use a wheelchair probably from now on.)
I ended up having surgery to repair the injury on Friday.
My pain was under control in the ambulance, but that was it.
I literally screamed nonstop during Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, due to the hospital refusing to give me adequate pain control. My abdominal muscles are still sore and my voice is gone still. When pain management finally came on Monday, they cared more about what medications I could "get outside" the hospital and "what the maximum quantity would be" more than actually controlling my pain.
They didn't even have any pillows for me on the unit to elevate my limb.
The whole experience was extremely traumatic and barbaric. It was reminiscent of a third world country.
Supposedly this is one of the best trauma units in the country, too.
I am done with this country. I cannot do this anymore. It is killing me.
Sorry you experienced that. I understand you intimately for all the good that does. I've been both provider and patient and know how wrong it all is here. I have been done with this country for a long time, but every attempt to stabilize elsewhere was ruined by the damage done to me here as I cannot independently meet the requirements. Some sick irony. Taking away someone's health, in a pay to play society without safety nets, is mostly a death sentence. If I had a way out of here back to Europe that was sustainable I'd take it but the clock is running out on me. Other people are always the one dictating if I get to live or not and I have lost all agency. Opting out of it all is the only power I have left and if I am not careful even that will be denied and more trouble added. The same system that won't help to live will forcibly prevent you from saying "no more". Ah but for an accident of geographical birth. Wrong place and wrong time. I hope you can at least get back to the EU and have a better chance...if that's possible for you. But I also know damage done travels with us as well.
It does ruin everything. I was waiting to leave around summer 2020 due to the ACA decision being released around then, but things are becoming more urgent. This incident sealed the deal for me.
I have 2 rare immune-mediated diseases that affect my peripheral nervous system, plus type 1 diabetes.
I receive SSDI off of both mine and my deceased father's work record, as I was able to prove that I was disabled before the age of 22. I somehow had enough work credits at age 21 to claim off of my own work record, even though I was a university student. I worked like a madman.
I receive 75% of the maximum SSDI payment (due to my father's earnings) and my healthcare costs exceed my social security/SSDI check. Next year, if the ACA is overturned, I will die if I do not leave the US.
People do not realize that social security does not go far if you are unhealthy.
I naturalized by descent when I realized that there was legitimately a remote chance of the ACA being overturned...as in before the lawsuit came in to fruition.
A good place to consult is reddit.com/r/IWantOut but I would not post there as they are ableist as can be and there is a keyboard warrior demographic. Nevertheless, it is a good resource.
I have 2 rare immune-mediated diseases that affect my peripheral nervous system, plus type 1 diabetes.
I receive SSDI off of both mine and my deceased father's work record, as I was able to prove that I was disabled before the age of 22. I somehow had enough work credits at age 21 to claim off of my own work record, even though I was a university student. I worked like a madman.
I receive 75% of the maximum SSDI payment (due to my father's earnings) and my healthcare costs exceed my social security/SSDI check. Next year, if the ACA is overturned, I will die if I do not leave the US.
People do not realize that social security does not go far if you are unhealthy.
I naturalized by descent when I realized that there was legitimately a remote chance of the ACA being overturned...as in before the lawsuit came in to fruition.
A good place to consult is reddit.com/r/IWantOut but I would not post there as they are ableist as can be and there is a keyboard warrior demographic. Nevertheless, it is a good resource.
I hear you. I was denied all SSDI etc after years of fighting. Credits expired entirely now. I am "too poor" for a subsidized ACA plan. If I was a little MORE poor I could get one but you know how it is balancing things as one change cuts you off of another needed thing. You cannot win.
I've been trying to get out (back out) for a long time. It always went under because of the my health getting worse and family bailing from any support as a result, so I couldn't maintain residency another way. If everything that's happened to me had happened in a country with social systems, which likely wouldn't have since the surgeries that disabled me were profit driven and unneeded, I would at least have a chance to live. I want to live. I am not some emo woe-is-me case. There is just nothing but closed doors in front of me and the place I am now in is closing to me as well. The ONE time in all these years one DID open thanks to someone kind, more went wrong with health and family and I couldn't get through it before it shut. Your life shouldn't depend on one lucky chance from a stranger.
I've been trying to get out (back out) for a long time. It always went under because of the my health getting worse and family bailing from any support as a result, so I couldn't maintain residency another way. If everything that's happened to me had happened in a country with social systems, which likely wouldn't have since the surgeries that disabled me were profit driven and unneeded, I would at least have a chance to live. I want to live. I am not some emo woe-is-me case. There is just nothing but closed doors in front of me and the place I am now in is closing to me as well. The ONE time in all these years one DID open thanks to someone kind, more went wrong with health and family and I couldn't get through it before it shut. Your life shouldn't depend on one lucky chance from a stranger.
I am really sorry. Also, I am on meds right now which make me self absorbed, so sorry if this comes off the wrong way.
You did nothing wrong. There is way too many high expectations to even get approved for SSDI, like needing to be continuously insured.
It is absolute insanity.
I know you have been doing everything you can. Unfortunately, I have been spending this year making plans for leaving the US with my extremely complicated health stuff.
The only reason why I get by is because I have an extremely supportive family.
To have to rely on the "goodwill" of strangers is a cruel existence.
I know that you are not emo. I know this country is killing people. It is believed that the third leading cause of death in the US is preventable medical errors. Plus, when healthcare costs an arm and a leg too...we really are killing people,
You did nothing wrong. There is way too many high expectations to even get approved for SSDI, like needing to be continuously insured.
It is absolute insanity.
I know you have been doing everything you can. Unfortunately, I have been spending this year making plans for leaving the US with my extremely complicated health stuff.
The only reason why I get by is because I have an extremely supportive family.
To have to rely on the "goodwill" of strangers is a cruel existence.
I know that you are not emo. I know this country is killing people. It is believed that the third leading cause of death in the US is preventable medical errors. Plus, when healthcare costs an arm and a leg too...we really are killing people,
My email is in my profile if you are inclined. I would be interested to know if you have come across ideas I have not. It's usually somewhere from nothing to useless on the advice scale. Then you have to not only deal with disappointment, but people's "offense" at their advice not working as well. I tend to cycle from waking with some desperate hope something will present itself...to becoming despondent and resigned to flip the switch by night, especially the days some new pain or problem presents, but try to get by thinking "just try one more day and hope"...but an artificial limit of days has recently been placed by others so even "one day at a time" indefinitely doesn't work. People can only take so much.
I will email you in the next 24 hours.
Doctors are afraid to get arrested for prescribing pain meds. The government has injected itself into healthcare as a political response to the media response to the "opioid crisis."
I have an elderly family member (70s) that is treated as a pariah by one of the few pain clinics accepting new patients in the city.
I have an elderly family member (70s) that is treated as a pariah by one of the few pain clinics accepting new patients in the city.
I am sorry. They definitely should not be doing this to somebody in their 70s. It is truly appalling!
The sackler family did create an crisis so they could rake in billions.
No, the government created the crisis by restricting supply of painkillers people desperately need. Purdue is a nice scapegoat though. Good job playing the same card as the drug warriors ("evil dealers").
Wait, you were talking about the US? I'm kind of surprised, since not being able to get "real painkillers" is one of the talking points I sometimes read about my local (german) system. Probably more focused on over-the-counter drugs, but this obviously also has an impact on what hospitals try to give.
So yeah, you're experience doesn't really fit my worldview, unless this is a hard counter-reaction to the recent opioid-epidemic.
So yeah, you're experience doesn't really fit my worldview, unless this is a hard counter-reaction to the recent opioid-epidemic.
Thank you for this post. I really resonate with it, although I have drawn perhaps a different conclusion.
Due to my limited ability to type/dictate and the controversial nature of my experience, I am not going to go into detail. I just want to give another data point to people claiming that more welfare programs will make these problems go away.
I have completely given up on the traditional health care system. It is so unbelievably bad when it comes to my illness that I am better off becoming my own doctor and paying for everything out of pocket. Because of this, I am a strong proponent of reducing welfare programs(except UBI) and making healthcare participation an option. I am battling a crippling illness. Almost no one has moral high-ground to insist that I give them my money for their health care. I am so so much sicker than easily 99% of the population. I should qualify for disability, but I don't because my illness is poorly understood by slow-moving government bureaucrats.
But I am fortunate to have identified the cure, and in a few years perhaps I will be back to normal. At that point I will be happy to pay health insurance premiums to help those sicker than I, but right now, my survival depends on the ability to not pay. $3000/year is the difference between life and death for me.
Due to my limited ability to type/dictate and the controversial nature of my experience, I am not going to go into detail. I just want to give another data point to people claiming that more welfare programs will make these problems go away.
I have completely given up on the traditional health care system. It is so unbelievably bad when it comes to my illness that I am better off becoming my own doctor and paying for everything out of pocket. Because of this, I am a strong proponent of reducing welfare programs(except UBI) and making healthcare participation an option. I am battling a crippling illness. Almost no one has moral high-ground to insist that I give them my money for their health care. I am so so much sicker than easily 99% of the population. I should qualify for disability, but I don't because my illness is poorly understood by slow-moving government bureaucrats.
But I am fortunate to have identified the cure, and in a few years perhaps I will be back to normal. At that point I will be happy to pay health insurance premiums to help those sicker than I, but right now, my survival depends on the ability to not pay. $3000/year is the difference between life and death for me.
> I am a strong proponent of [..] making healthcare participation an option.
You'll be happy to know then that a key provision of Obamacare was gutted, and there is now no fee/tax/penalty for not being insured.
https://www.healthcare.gov/fees/fee-for-not-being-covered/
Dont take this post as an approval of the change - I think it will end up making healthcare more expensive for everyone, as now there is less incentive for healthy people to carry insurance. Not carrying insurance in the US is extremely risky in my opinion, but most healthy young adults don't end up needing much medical care, and a few hundred dollars a month is not a trivial expense. Certainly when I was younger not carrying health insurance for a period of time was the difference in making rent or not.
You'll be happy to know then that a key provision of Obamacare was gutted, and there is now no fee/tax/penalty for not being insured.
https://www.healthcare.gov/fees/fee-for-not-being-covered/
Dont take this post as an approval of the change - I think it will end up making healthcare more expensive for everyone, as now there is less incentive for healthy people to carry insurance. Not carrying insurance in the US is extremely risky in my opinion, but most healthy young adults don't end up needing much medical care, and a few hundred dollars a month is not a trivial expense. Certainly when I was younger not carrying health insurance for a period of time was the difference in making rent or not.
Yes that change has been a literal lifesaver for me. That $3000 I save a year can now be put towards healthcare that actually works instead of going from doctor to doctor as they shrug their shoulders while telling me there's nothing they can do.
I understand that there are many who believe the gutting of Obamacare is a universally bad thing, but it does put more money in the pockets of hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of sick people who the healthcare system completely neglects. I'm not talking about moderate illnesses either, I'm talking about illness that completely destroys every aspect of your life. Many of the most seriously ill commit suicide because the other option is withering away in excruciating pain while people accuse them of being crazy.
I don't think you appreciate the choice I've had to make. I'd rather take the risk and go without insurance. The other choice is death from not being able to afford the treatment I need right now.
I understand that there are many who believe the gutting of Obamacare is a universally bad thing, but it does put more money in the pockets of hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of sick people who the healthcare system completely neglects. I'm not talking about moderate illnesses either, I'm talking about illness that completely destroys every aspect of your life. Many of the most seriously ill commit suicide because the other option is withering away in excruciating pain while people accuse them of being crazy.
I don't think you appreciate the choice I've had to make. I'd rather take the risk and go without insurance. The other choice is death from not being able to afford the treatment I need right now.
IYDMMA, what's the illness and what's the cure? I am a "temporary staff" member at a state-run hospital entity, but because I'm not "full-time" (which makes no sense because I work 40 hours a week) I'm not entitled to health benefits. So I am trying to bullshit my way into other "full-time" jobs in order to get the health care I need. The state used to give me free health care, but because I make $40ishK a year, they have taken it away.
> IYDMMA, what's the illness and what's the cure? I am a "temporary staff" member at a state-run hospital entity, but because I'm not "full-time" (which makes no sense because I work 40 hours a week) I'm not entitled to health benefits. So I am trying to bullshit my way into other "full-time" jobs in order to get the health care I need. The state used to give me free health care, but because I make $40ishK a year, they have taken it away.
It's worth noting that this varies by state and tends to change based on the number of employees. In NJ for employers with under 50 employees, 25 hours/week is considered full time for the purpose of extending medical benefits.
It's worth noting that this varies by state and tends to change based on the number of employees. In NJ for employers with under 50 employees, 25 hours/week is considered full time for the purpose of extending medical benefits.
I've said this in the past but I'm going to reiterate at the expense of much downvotes again.
America is the third world country of all developed countries.
For individuals like you seeking human connection, I highly recommend SE Asia as a place to permanently migrate to.
You will find meaning in mingling with people who don't care about the rat race on the edge. Comes with its own shortcomings but you've lived the lonely life of America. It cannot go lower than this.
America is the third world country of all developed countries.
For individuals like you seeking human connection, I highly recommend SE Asia as a place to permanently migrate to.
You will find meaning in mingling with people who don't care about the rat race on the edge. Comes with its own shortcomings but you've lived the lonely life of America. It cannot go lower than this.
Keep up your hope. There are incredible upcoming economic and technical advancements. Me and thousands of like-minded super professionals are quietly working passionately for you. Please.. we're trying our hearts out here.
I think it's great you are working to better lives and applaud that. It's not for lack of effort by the truly good people that things are like this. It's not a failure of yours and those like you. The failure is of the selfish, greedy, narcissistic, unempathetic, etc and the system they built. Nothing is going to change in my lifetime, let alone the actual, short, practical time I have coming up to effect any change. The hope is gone and that's why rants are all that's left and even those get snuffed out when they can with arguments and voting. I hope you change the world with your efforts...I really do.
Despite it's dubious underpinnings and specious applications, the theory of the disposable male seems to fit this.
The only thing the majority of men are useful to in society is work/production. If you take that away, then the other function of men (reproduction/fertilization) can be accomplished by a much smaller fraction of the male population.
We are taking away the only thing that justifies the existence of most men, and we are reminding them of it every day with the society we are creating with no safety net or healthcare.
But after the last election, I stopped caring.
The only thing the majority of men are useful to in society is work/production. If you take that away, then the other function of men (reproduction/fertilization) can be accomplished by a much smaller fraction of the male population.
We are taking away the only thing that justifies the existence of most men, and we are reminding them of it every day with the society we are creating with no safety net or healthcare.
But after the last election, I stopped caring.
Well said, i am so frustrated for how much value american culture puts on work but not life for men. I think all Americans could benefit from a better balance between the two...
This isn’t helped with the feminism bandwagon. It’s turner into a power struggle, and lost bearing on what’s right.
I've always been off-put by the fact that the hyper-focus on getting women into higher paying jobs isn't paired with a cultural push to not see traditionally women-dominated occupations (nurses, teachers, caretakers) as lesser ones, a big reason IMO that men self-select away from them
Obviously economic power is tied closely with overall respect, power, and influence, but it seems to me that more work (heh) should be done challenging the assumed correlation of economic value and human value. Instead we see an accelerating of capitalism's implicit devaluing of all value that isn't financial, by unconsciously further denigrating the (again, imo) important but lower-paid jobs traditionally occupied by women.
Obviously economic power is tied closely with overall respect, power, and influence, but it seems to me that more work (heh) should be done challenging the assumed correlation of economic value and human value. Instead we see an accelerating of capitalism's implicit devaluing of all value that isn't financial, by unconsciously further denigrating the (again, imo) important but lower-paid jobs traditionally occupied by women.
I find it strange that the occupations you mentioned (nurses, teachers, caretakers) are lowely paid. Let's take nursing as an example. I keep hearing there is a shortage of nurses, and if that is so, shouldn't nursing salaries skyrocket? It's basic economics. A shortage of supply in a particular industry coupled with increasing demand should result in higher salaries. In fact, I've seen a similar phenomenon in a number of other industries (caretaking is one of them), where there is not an adequate supply of labor yet salaries are still low. Few people seem to raise this point, and I would love to know what is going on.
> It’s basic economics
Yes it is! An employee only produces so much value. You don’t raise a salary beyond that no matter how limited supply is.
Yes it is! An employee only produces so much value. You don’t raise a salary beyond that no matter how limited supply is.
Nurse salaries are pretty good I think, around 46k to 79k a year I see on averages.
Home care / care takers / medical assistants are super low though.
Home care / care takers / medical assistants are super low though.
Back 15 years ago the spouse of one of my coworkers was a registered nurse and there was a shortage and I think nurses could compensation higher than an average software engineer. But later on, he said there was a lot of recruitment of nurses from the Philippines which brought the salaries down. Atleast that is what he used to tell me.
If your concept of self requires the subjugation of others, you neither deserve happiness, nor will you ever find it.
> lost bearing on what’s right.
Say what? Why should increasing opportunity for one person imply some sort of diminution for another? Seems pretty sadly zero-sum to me, and the very opposite of a capitalist society.
Say what? Why should increasing opportunity for one person imply some sort of diminution for another? Seems pretty sadly zero-sum to me, and the very opposite of a capitalist society.
The idea that the measure of. A person is their job is a relatively new idea, really back to the industrial revolution. Something that recent should be relatively easy to flush out of society (“relatively” meaning only a few decades.
This kind of reductionist world view is what screws up efforts to provide UBI, universal health care etc.
This kind of reductionist world view is what screws up efforts to provide UBI, universal health care etc.
> The idea that the measure of. A person is their job is a relatively new idea, really back to the industrial revolution.
Only in the sense that specialized “jobs” are a product of the industrial revolution. But the idea that people are defined by their work goes back basically to the dawn of time. Many English last names come from peoples’ trades (Smith, Miller, etc.). In hunter gatherer societies, rituals for adolescent males often revolve around hunting and war. Men who couldn’t do those things were a burden on their community, unless they fit some other social niche (spiritual leader, etc.).
Only in the sense that specialized “jobs” are a product of the industrial revolution. But the idea that people are defined by their work goes back basically to the dawn of time. Many English last names come from peoples’ trades (Smith, Miller, etc.). In hunter gatherer societies, rituals for adolescent males often revolve around hunting and war. Men who couldn’t do those things were a burden on their community, unless they fit some other social niche (spiritual leader, etc.).
There were "professions" (i.e. religious calling) and of course aristocratic rank and power, but these village jobs typically did not connote social rank.
Yes though we are talking about Europe, not, say, India.
Source: I have a degree in European history and specifically studied non-aristocratic social systems of late feudal France and England. But my assertion is just as applicable to the non-landholders of the American colonies and early United States, as is well attested in the contemporaneous literature.
Yes though we are talking about Europe, not, say, India.
Source: I have a degree in European history and specifically studied non-aristocratic social systems of late feudal France and England. But my assertion is just as applicable to the non-landholders of the American colonies and early United States, as is well attested in the contemporaneous literature.
Is your position that there was no hierarchy of status or prestige below the aristocracy in a feudal society?
No, all human groups of almost any size have hierarchies of one sort or another though they can be fluid or dynamic. That appears to be a property of higher primates anyway.
Ignoring the De Jure (or De Bello) aristocratic and 2e Estate ranks, jobs were pretty loosely connected at best to one's "rank" in medieval society, in particular in the countryside. Certain jobs had a cap ex element (miller in particular, but smith too) but that would likely have been the property (and investment) of the local squire or lord, not the property of the operator.
Even the jobs you named such as cooper, baker etc tended to be tied to urban societies (towns really), and a farrier was sufficiently specialized to be in the court, but not to have any sort of special grade or rank.
In the later Middle Ages as the growth of the guilds and cities began to challenge the aristocracy, rank still depended more on wealth than job (an inversion of the aristocratic order, and that of the Roman republic and empire, where you became wealthy though power rather than the other way around as today). But even there we're talking about a small number of people; being a baker or miller wasn't really a self identity in the way we think of it today.
And there were people assigned job-related surnames as a tool of scorn (Goldschmidt -- goldsmith) where there were jobs reserved for specific outcasts (i.e. jewish people in Europe): again they had those jobs as part of bing an outcaste group; they didn't become outcastes by having those jobs.
Ignoring the De Jure (or De Bello) aristocratic and 2e Estate ranks, jobs were pretty loosely connected at best to one's "rank" in medieval society, in particular in the countryside. Certain jobs had a cap ex element (miller in particular, but smith too) but that would likely have been the property (and investment) of the local squire or lord, not the property of the operator.
Even the jobs you named such as cooper, baker etc tended to be tied to urban societies (towns really), and a farrier was sufficiently specialized to be in the court, but not to have any sort of special grade or rank.
In the later Middle Ages as the growth of the guilds and cities began to challenge the aristocracy, rank still depended more on wealth than job (an inversion of the aristocratic order, and that of the Roman republic and empire, where you became wealthy though power rather than the other way around as today). But even there we're talking about a small number of people; being a baker or miller wasn't really a self identity in the way we think of it today.
And there were people assigned job-related surnames as a tool of scorn (Goldschmidt -- goldsmith) where there were jobs reserved for specific outcasts (i.e. jewish people in Europe): again they had those jobs as part of bing an outcaste group; they didn't become outcastes by having those jobs.
The article mentions younger female age groups are also experiencing marked increases in ODs and suicide rates, albeit not as quickly. It is not just men dying more often from despair.
Additionally, the female age-adjusted obesity rate is higher than men's (41%! vs 38%) which can lead to larger health problems later in life, so we may only just be seeing the S-curve for equivalently increased female mortality rates.
Additionally, the female age-adjusted obesity rate is higher than men's (41%! vs 38%) which can lead to larger health problems later in life, so we may only just be seeing the S-curve for equivalently increased female mortality rates.
It must be really hard being obese in a media-saturated world of photoshopped instagram.
I think if you ask most women, they’ll disagree with this hypothesis. I doubt very many women aspire to be single parents. Fewer still aspire to polygyny with one high status man.
The data shows that educated women seek men of similar means and status (Men happily date down due to different optimizations), which are in short supply. What option women settle on because of that isn’t yet clear.
With regards to poly whatever, it’s frequently mentioned that the top 80% of women are competing for the top 20% of men on dating apps. What happens as cohorts age will be the interesting part.
If I had to wildly speculate, a whole lot of folks are going to end up unhappy, and those who can will settle for whatever partner they can find once they meet the point of emotional exhaustion (ie loneliness, etc).
With regards to poly whatever, it’s frequently mentioned that the top 80% of women are competing for the top 20% of men on dating apps. What happens as cohorts age will be the interesting part.
If I had to wildly speculate, a whole lot of folks are going to end up unhappy, and those who can will settle for whatever partner they can find once they meet the point of emotional exhaustion (ie loneliness, etc).
"What option women settle on because of that isn’t yet clear".
Well from my experience it isn't settling for an older man.
When I was in my 30's and making $100K+ I tried on-line dating and was pleased at how many desirable women responded to my profile. Assuming that would always be the case, I decided to focus on my career and postpone getting into a serious relationship.
At 47 I decided to "settle down" and resume on-line dating. With a target age range of 34 to 40 since I would like to have children. I am millionaire, tall, good looking, muscular, high-income, etc. But the only responses I received are from women 50+. Not sure how this ends for me but at the moment I feel a sense dread.
Well from my experience it isn't settling for an older man.
When I was in my 30's and making $100K+ I tried on-line dating and was pleased at how many desirable women responded to my profile. Assuming that would always be the case, I decided to focus on my career and postpone getting into a serious relationship.
At 47 I decided to "settle down" and resume on-line dating. With a target age range of 34 to 40 since I would like to have children. I am millionaire, tall, good looking, muscular, high-income, etc. But the only responses I received are from women 50+. Not sure how this ends for me but at the moment I feel a sense dread.
I'm not interested in starting an American women flamewar.. but I've traveled extensively in the developing world for work, and I'm pretty sure that women in other countries would be much more inclined to accept an age gap with that type of net worth.
I don't have hard statistics and won't try to look them up.
I don't have hard statistics and won't try to look them up.
This is going to sound harsh, but: better luck next incarnation.
7 billion people in the world, there's someone for everyone out there.
In your situation, I would seek out the services of a professional matchmaker. Online dating is going to garbage considering the resources available to you. If kids are important, I’d even move the lower age bound to 27.
Just my two cents, I’m a bit younger than you but similar means, married but in an open relationship and date. Be picky, but cast a wide net.
Just my two cents, I’m a bit younger than you but similar means, married but in an open relationship and date. Be picky, but cast a wide net.
Possibly worthless advice, but I’d suggest you date someone your own age and adopt.
Online dating is a scam. You have better chances taking to random strangers.
I would imagine a safety net and subsidized healthcare actually diminishes the traditional biological functions of males in human populations. With a safety net e.g., the males don't need to necessarily be the breadwinners/hunters to the same degree and so their traditional function is less required.
But yeah the dispoable male is a dubious theory.
But yeah the dispoable male is a dubious theory.
It explains so many parts of what seems to happen on online dating, but like many theories it's probably waiting for a better one, or a better version of this one.
It definitely gets oversimplified/overapplied and abused in service of more extreme MRO/Incel people, but last I looked there were actual biological evidence from other species.
It definitely gets oversimplified/overapplied and abused in service of more extreme MRO/Incel people, but last I looked there were actual biological evidence from other species.
You mean the 2018 midterm election?
Yooo ! After reading the above comment... I realised SkyNet is not mans biggest enemy !
mikelyons(4)
Although I'm male, I live my life surrounded by women and have a large focus on women's issues. I also see the writing on the wall: IVF technologies that are being developed today will further erode the value of men in most if not all non-socially conservative societies. I predict large numbers of women in single, cohabitating, or lesbian arrangements having children together because large numbers of men have proven themselves insufferable. I certainly know I have demonstrated as much in the past.
Men capable of rethinking their relationship with women and what it means to be a male, rather than a man, I imagine will do fine in the coming social upheaval.
Men capable of rethinking their relationship with women and what it means to be a male, rather than a man, I imagine will do fine in the coming social upheaval.
I don’t think reducing the value of men or women to their reproductive traits is a healthy outlook.
Additionally, the same technology level that could make men reproductively useless could do the same for women. In reality, neither will happen.
Additionally, the same technology level that could make men reproductively useless could do the same for women. In reality, neither will happen.
I could see lesbian parenting becoming more common with greater social acceptance.
Single or cohabiting though? As a recent parent, I doubt it. Raising children remains extremely challenging, and significantly easier if you have a committed partner for it. There's no way my wife would be able to go on, say, a 10-day business trip to Laos or a 3-day industry conference if I weren't holding down the fort at home, or for that matter able to get to the gym tonight if I weren't picking our son up from daycare, taking him to gymnastics and cooking dinner for him.
How a couple chooses to split up the labor in their relationship is their business, but the fact that there's more than enough labor for a couple isn't going to change regardless of technology.
Single or cohabiting though? As a recent parent, I doubt it. Raising children remains extremely challenging, and significantly easier if you have a committed partner for it. There's no way my wife would be able to go on, say, a 10-day business trip to Laos or a 3-day industry conference if I weren't holding down the fort at home, or for that matter able to get to the gym tonight if I weren't picking our son up from daycare, taking him to gymnastics and cooking dinner for him.
How a couple chooses to split up the labor in their relationship is their business, but the fact that there's more than enough labor for a couple isn't going to change regardless of technology.
I think GP is talking about a James Holden or an It Takes A Village Scenario. Where one child or group of children has a larger pool of guardians looking out for them. Doesn’t even have to be that exotic. My aunt’s neighborhood took it in turns to take all the kids one day a week, so the other parents had a few days for their own stuff and appointments.
What you basically said is that women > men - [physical advantages, reproductive necessities]. You didn't explain why.
Women, collectively (at least in the sphere of the "public conversation"), are growing increasingly tired of dealing with men and their idiosyncracies. Or rather, they are realizing there are alternatives to silently accepting the errant behavioral traits.
No one is making an absolute value claim of the two genders, so your comment is at best begging a divisive question that isn't relevant here.
No one is making an absolute value claim of the two genders, so your comment is at best begging a divisive question that isn't relevant here.
Your assertion is extremely divisive. It implies female behavior is the norm (men and their idiosyncrasies) and that male behavior is errant.
Women have plenty of idiosyncrasies and errant behavior, too.
Women have plenty of idiosyncrasies and errant behavior, too.
Whataboutism already?
No one is challenging your claim either. Women are capable of making subjective value judgments and many who are willing to talk about it are demonstrating them.
No one is challenging your claim either. Women are capable of making subjective value judgments and many who are willing to talk about it are demonstrating them.
You could swap the two and your words still holds true. It means nothing. There is no substance to what you said. There's even some group, Maga I think it is, there is no equivalent for women. Who's getting sick of who?
All I see is individuals being more choosey. People ghost both ways now a day. No gender does it more than the other.
All I see is individuals being more choosey. People ghost both ways now a day. No gender does it more than the other.
I believe you've been brainwashed, time for you to quit what seems like a pretty toxic female environment.
[deleted]
Possible, though I've read complaints about the reverse as well. That more men don't feel they need women in their lives anymore, despite being straight, because of, well, porn.
The MGTOW movement is a thing.
Downvotes aside, women deciding en masse that they no longer want to be around men and choosing IVF to have children (just daughters I guess) is about as likely as men deciding en masse that MGTOW is for them. Sure, some small subset of people might go that route but that’s not going to become normal for either gender. Humans have a fairly strong impulse to bond with someone they find sexually attractive.
Systematic devaluation of half of the human population can't be healthy. What's the point of engaging in a society that doesn't value us?
> Men capable of rethinking their relationship with women and what it means to be a male, rather than a man
And what does this mean, exactly?
> Men capable of rethinking their relationship with women and what it means to be a male, rather than a man
And what does this mean, exactly?
This is some pretty severe self-loathing. You should find yourself a better environment if this is what you’re being told.
> Men capable of rethinking ... what it means to be a male, rather than a man
What does this even mean?
> Men capable of rethinking ... what it means to be a male, rather than a man
What does this even mean?
I agree we'll sees a swing in political narratives from 'strong man 1% wield fire' to minorities to lgbt and the great mother. It's already begun, reddit is bathed in it. We might see a loud minority of lesbians start bra burning or whatever as a political story in a few years. But when it comes to statements about large scale social changes from disruptive technology causing a political change one needs to be more careful.
[deleted]
The good news is that the social groups where both traditional masculinity and femininity are not looked down upon (typically conservative, religious folks, not necessarily any particular religion, either) will grow due to the higher birth and family stability rates. This will hopefully lead to better mental health for both men and women who are suffering under the current system.
That theory (with a different group of people) has been a favorite of racists for at least two centuries. Yet, somehow, it never really materialises.
In your specific case, it is bound to fail because the children of religious parents are rather likely to leave religion. The various kinds of injustice children experience at the hand of religious organisations helps in that regard.
If you don't believe me, just think back in time: religious people have always had more children. And yet, religion has a been declining for a long time.
Among the most reproduction-happy have been groups like the Amish. But they haven't taken over the US, have they?
In your specific case, it is bound to fail because the children of religious parents are rather likely to leave religion. The various kinds of injustice children experience at the hand of religious organisations helps in that regard.
If you don't believe me, just think back in time: religious people have always had more children. And yet, religion has a been declining for a long time.
Among the most reproduction-happy have been groups like the Amish. But they haven't taken over the US, have they?
Really? I'm pointing out that religious populations like Catholics and Muslims are increasing and im being accused of racism? These are the two most diverse religious groups on the planet. Your accusation is laughable
>Among the most reproduction-happy have been groups like the Amish. But they haven't taken over the US, have they?
You realize their population in 1900 was around 6000, and they're now 325,000 right? At current "population doubles every 20 years" rates, well, it won't be long now.
You realize their population in 1900 was around 6000, and they're now 325,000 right? At current "population doubles every 20 years" rates, well, it won't be long now.
anecdotal nonsense, a few years back we went through a wave of new HR videos about harassment and intimidation and not one had a non male aggressor. it was so bad the women attending the sessions were mocking the presentation.
fortunately they canned that approach not long after after the poor reception.