I have two nephews in their twenties and a son in law who is twenty nine. I think that one thing thing you are referencing is that many men, and to varying degrees, relish big challenges. I would say that evolution designed males, more than females, to be willing to run around in the forest chasing animals, some dangerous. Also to be ready and willing to go to war. Challenges, Intense effort. Also camaraderie.... Modern society not only doesn't offer this to young men, but it emasculates in many ways. Some young men are able to deal with this just fine, Others less so.
Of course there is a spectrum within both sexes, but men do have different needs than women.
As a father to a male slightly older than the groups you mention, I can attest to this. In large party (they say, so it might be worthwhile to listen to them), women have become toxic, either wild-eyed feminists who want to sue or suppress them, or gold-diggers of one sort or another.
Again, listen to THEM. Many have unfortunately been influenced by Rollo Tomassi's book (which even ultimately suggests you need a loving family to survive, but which in getting there supports all sorts of damaging philosophies). They are dropping out of college at a significant rate because they do not see a financial advantage and (EQUALLY IMPORTANT) colleges are now dominated by women. This shift is seen in Japan and other countries as well. It is not about equality but in a world of female dominance, men say no thank you.
I don't know what the answer is, but it certainly isn't more of trying to shame young men into participating in more social actions. Church is first and foremost a place where they would meet suitable mates, but leftist society has tried to destroy church.
And here I thought things were bad when I was in college the mid-70s and most sorority women had the mercenary view that any man without stellar career prospects was beneath notice.
Because there are a few know-it-alls (actually no-nothings conning vulnerable people) who have "Male Monk" websites doesn't imply that the presence of them has anything to do with the phenomenon of so many men lost in our cultural wilderness.
There is something big, and much more significant, and long-lasting about what is happening, and no one understands it well.
Over the course of evolution men were built to create children. Period. And now the earth is full, too full. How much of what is happening is built into men's DNA?
While I agree trying to be a modern monk is destructive, I'd like to play devil's advocate on behalf of those (not just men) who find much social interaction tedious. Particularly those of us who are introverts.
I think this trend is partly a reaction against America's highly extroverted culture, where so many people, at work and elsewhere, always feel the need to talk, and to smile all the while. It's also partly a reaction against America's excessive optimism: we have believed for too long that we, because we live in the world's "greatest" country, are entitled to good things. That expectation is crashing against some brutal economic, cultural, and geopolitical realities. More Americans realize sometimes things just suck, and that's natural.
This doesn't mean antisocial behavior is better, but there is value in pushing against optimism and extroversion. If a person can do this in moderate doses (finding periods of silence amid the mindless chit-chat, avoiding noisy, alcohol-infused social events with annoying people) without being rude or contemptuous, they may fare better in some ways than Americans who go along with the expectation of hyper-happiness, and the ridiculously high expectations that can set.
Although introverts often are good citizens and make important contributions to society as individuals, effective leadership of large governmental and corporate organizations requires extroversion -- that is, getting to know and influence many people.
Hopefully, that is in the form of respecting all law-abiding people, with the intention of advancing the interests of the majority without "unreasonable" harm to the minority. But whether this is viewed as "leading" people or "manipulating" them, the ability to do so on a large scale is essential.
I am an introvert-certified as such by Myers-Briggs. Yet when thrust into a situation, I can will myself to be otherwise though I am not a natural. I even learned to work a room. I am not as far out on the end of the curve as others I know so that may be the key. I was also able to provide leadership to large organizations though I wasn't cut out to be El Supremo.
Isn't this what the lib women wanted? Isolate the men. We don't need all that testosterone in our lives. We are smarter. We can do just as good, or better job of running things than men. Hip, hip hooray, the lib women have won.
Back in the sixties, Louisiana had solved it's problem of segregation by separating the sexes into separate schools. Yes. The public school system had separate schools for males and for females. Manners and habits aside, the system did not wholly produce the end result of a completed citizen.
Last night, I heard/saw a commencement speech given by John Lewis as he addressed a university commencement class encouraging the young folk to take their accumulated knowledge and go out and tackle the worlds of the future because their bright young minds were not befuddled nor weighed down with neither apathy nor abject boredom. They are our future.
But what is the intellectual history of Monk Mode?
I don't have the answer, but I suspect that Jordan Peterson is implicated somehow if only because he has been lauded for the no-nonsense pull-up-your-socks advice he dispensed to young men before he got red pilled and went over the edge.
And the meditation? Is this Sam Harris' doing? I greatly admire Harris but his evangelist's embrace of meditation has me baffled. How can someone who rejects belief in things that cannot be proven preach so adamantly about the alleged universality and benefits of a completely subjective experience? Still, it's a large part of Harris' brand. He seems like the type who would appeal to sober-sided young men.
Loneliness is not a new phenomenon, however. I was agonizingly lonely in my final years of high school and throughout college and law school. I don't want to contemplate the state I would be in if I hadn't met the man forty years ago who would become my husband. Nature had a hand in it - I am not extroverted and I am gay - but nurture was mostly to blame. At about age 16 I lost my tribe and have never found it again. As I moved from one new and very different culture and group of people to another I got progressively farther behind in my ability to fit in. In groups I become a stranger among familiar strangers. Thank goodness for my husband, his family and a handful of friends. My twenties were hell.
Advice such as "go to the dreaded work happy hour, sit down in a coffee shop, chat up your neighbors, text an old roommate" strikes me as being about as useful as telling a depressed person to be happy.
I just finished watching Masters of the Air and was struck by the growth that takes place in men who undergo extreme challenges. The ones who survived became amazing men, and I’m sure great husbands and fathers. What challenges exist for boys today that will turn them into fully actualized men?! I fear they are few and far between.
This is horrifying.
I have two nephews in their twenties and a son in law who is twenty nine. I think that one thing thing you are referencing is that many men, and to varying degrees, relish big challenges. I would say that evolution designed males, more than females, to be willing to run around in the forest chasing animals, some dangerous. Also to be ready and willing to go to war. Challenges, Intense effort. Also camaraderie.... Modern society not only doesn't offer this to young men, but it emasculates in many ways. Some young men are able to deal with this just fine, Others less so.
Of course there is a spectrum within both sexes, but men do have different needs than women.
As a father to a male slightly older than the groups you mention, I can attest to this. In large party (they say, so it might be worthwhile to listen to them), women have become toxic, either wild-eyed feminists who want to sue or suppress them, or gold-diggers of one sort or another.
Again, listen to THEM. Many have unfortunately been influenced by Rollo Tomassi's book (which even ultimately suggests you need a loving family to survive, but which in getting there supports all sorts of damaging philosophies). They are dropping out of college at a significant rate because they do not see a financial advantage and (EQUALLY IMPORTANT) colleges are now dominated by women. This shift is seen in Japan and other countries as well. It is not about equality but in a world of female dominance, men say no thank you.
I don't know what the answer is, but it certainly isn't more of trying to shame young men into participating in more social actions. Church is first and foremost a place where they would meet suitable mates, but leftist society has tried to destroy church.
And here I thought things were bad when I was in college the mid-70s and most sorority women had the mercenary view that any man without stellar career prospects was beneath notice.
Because there are a few know-it-alls (actually no-nothings conning vulnerable people) who have "Male Monk" websites doesn't imply that the presence of them has anything to do with the phenomenon of so many men lost in our cultural wilderness.
There is something big, and much more significant, and long-lasting about what is happening, and no one understands it well.
Over the course of evolution men were built to create children. Period. And now the earth is full, too full. How much of what is happening is built into men's DNA?
While I agree trying to be a modern monk is destructive, I'd like to play devil's advocate on behalf of those (not just men) who find much social interaction tedious. Particularly those of us who are introverts.
I think this trend is partly a reaction against America's highly extroverted culture, where so many people, at work and elsewhere, always feel the need to talk, and to smile all the while. It's also partly a reaction against America's excessive optimism: we have believed for too long that we, because we live in the world's "greatest" country, are entitled to good things. That expectation is crashing against some brutal economic, cultural, and geopolitical realities. More Americans realize sometimes things just suck, and that's natural.
This doesn't mean antisocial behavior is better, but there is value in pushing against optimism and extroversion. If a person can do this in moderate doses (finding periods of silence amid the mindless chit-chat, avoiding noisy, alcohol-infused social events with annoying people) without being rude or contemptuous, they may fare better in some ways than Americans who go along with the expectation of hyper-happiness, and the ridiculously high expectations that can set.
Although introverts often are good citizens and make important contributions to society as individuals, effective leadership of large governmental and corporate organizations requires extroversion -- that is, getting to know and influence many people.
Hopefully, that is in the form of respecting all law-abiding people, with the intention of advancing the interests of the majority without "unreasonable" harm to the minority. But whether this is viewed as "leading" people or "manipulating" them, the ability to do so on a large scale is essential.
I am an introvert-certified as such by Myers-Briggs. Yet when thrust into a situation, I can will myself to be otherwise though I am not a natural. I even learned to work a room. I am not as far out on the end of the curve as others I know so that may be the key. I was also able to provide leadership to large organizations though I wasn't cut out to be El Supremo.
I knew it. Being tagged as an introvert is the kiss of death!
Isn't this what the lib women wanted? Isolate the men. We don't need all that testosterone in our lives. We are smarter. We can do just as good, or better job of running things than men. Hip, hip hooray, the lib women have won.
Back in the sixties, Louisiana had solved it's problem of segregation by separating the sexes into separate schools. Yes. The public school system had separate schools for males and for females. Manners and habits aside, the system did not wholly produce the end result of a completed citizen.
Last night, I heard/saw a commencement speech given by John Lewis as he addressed a university commencement class encouraging the young folk to take their accumulated knowledge and go out and tackle the worlds of the future because their bright young minds were not befuddled nor weighed down with neither apathy nor abject boredom. They are our future.
Democrats need to reach out to these young men all the time everywhere. They are the future.
But what is the intellectual history of Monk Mode?
I don't have the answer, but I suspect that Jordan Peterson is implicated somehow if only because he has been lauded for the no-nonsense pull-up-your-socks advice he dispensed to young men before he got red pilled and went over the edge.
And the meditation? Is this Sam Harris' doing? I greatly admire Harris but his evangelist's embrace of meditation has me baffled. How can someone who rejects belief in things that cannot be proven preach so adamantly about the alleged universality and benefits of a completely subjective experience? Still, it's a large part of Harris' brand. He seems like the type who would appeal to sober-sided young men.
Loneliness is not a new phenomenon, however. I was agonizingly lonely in my final years of high school and throughout college and law school. I don't want to contemplate the state I would be in if I hadn't met the man forty years ago who would become my husband. Nature had a hand in it - I am not extroverted and I am gay - but nurture was mostly to blame. At about age 16 I lost my tribe and have never found it again. As I moved from one new and very different culture and group of people to another I got progressively farther behind in my ability to fit in. In groups I become a stranger among familiar strangers. Thank goodness for my husband, his family and a handful of friends. My twenties were hell.
Advice such as "go to the dreaded work happy hour, sit down in a coffee shop, chat up your neighbors, text an old roommate" strikes me as being about as useful as telling a depressed person to be happy.
I just finished watching Masters of the Air and was struck by the growth that takes place in men who undergo extreme challenges. The ones who survived became amazing men, and I’m sure great husbands and fathers. What challenges exist for boys today that will turn them into fully actualized men?! I fear they are few and far between.
It's the toxic culture.