[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]

Return ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 452773)
File  []
>> No. 452773 Anonymous
26th July 2022
Tuesday 12:46 am
452773 Men of the future
How did we as a species manage to fail to raise decent men on such a huge scale for decades, mayne post WW2?

I don’t think we can just blame communism/globalization/fishing or one thing.

(A good day to you Sir!)
Expand all images.
>> No. 452774 Anonymous
26th July 2022
Tuesday 1:23 am
452774 spacer
Fathers are less prominent in most people's lives now, whether they're always at work or divorced from your mum or just not willing to put up with your teenage ways. That's my theory. On top of this, you also have the general disintegration of society; everyone is too busy trying to achieve the life they deserve to stop and interact with strangers too much. This can be blamed on baby-boomers being the role models for a level of personal success that cannot be replicated by subsequent generations. Most of my other problems can be attributed to the fact I'm just a general sperg, but my life would be pretty much fine if it wasn't for those two preceding gripes.
>> No. 452776 Anonymous
26th July 2022
Tuesday 3:30 am
452776 spacer
In close succession, two generations of dads were either killed or irrevocably traumatised by war. Men returned from the trenches in 1918 or were demobbed in 1945 to find that they were strangers in their own home. They had experienced things that they couldn't possibly explain to their wives and children, but the inverse was also true - the hardships of the home front were very real, but they were made to seem trivial by comparison to the trenches of Passchendaele or the beaches of Normandy. The physical and emotional separation of war created a rift that couldn't be healed.

Britain didn't always have a reputation for terrible food, but fifteen years of rationing meant that we forgot how to cook - you can't build a culinary tradition from powdered egg and tins of spam. We used to have more varieties of cheese than the French, but we forgot how to make most of them when the government nationalised cheese production and decided that we should only make cheddar. Likewise, fatherhood was so deeply disrupted by two world wars that we lost the cultural knowledge of how to be a father.

My dad was distant and unemotional, because he never really had much of a relationship with his dad. His dad lost 17 of his mates in one day after getting stuck in a minefield in Monte Cassino and was never the same afterwards. His dad never knew his dad, because he was blown to bits in Ypres before they ever got to meet. Four generations and more than a century of non-dad dads.

People point to the 1970s as the decade when family life started to diminish, but I think that's just when we admitted defeat. The baby boomers demanded reforms to divorce law, but they didn't invent the single parent household; a huge number of them were raised in families without a father, or with a father too traumatised to bond with his children. They weren't being callous or foolish when they decided that children didn't need fathers, they were just reflecting their own experience - dead dads, missing dads, dads who drank, dads with explosive tempers, dads who cried in their sleep.
>> No. 452798 Anonymous
26th July 2022
Tuesday 6:55 pm
452798 spacer

Pretty much thoughts on the matter too, although I wonder how much if an issue this is in countries that avoided the wars.
>> No. 452799 Anonymous
26th July 2022
Tuesday 9:30 pm
452799 spacer
I would argue there's far more to answer for in the general atomisation of society under the influence of neoliberal consumerist capitalism, and subsequent dwindling relevance of traditionally male dominated workplaces and all that went around them (working men's clubs, sunday league football, whatever), than it has to do with men dying in wars that were several generations ago. There are no strong male role models in people's lives any more, because masculinity as we knew it is increasingly irrelevant.

(There's a class angle too, like always, in that it's mainly working class men who would have worked in the mills and factories and what have you who have been the hardest hit. But let's not get sidetracked.)

For one thing, you don't need a male provider as the head of the household any more. I've always thought we should do a bit more to encourage stable two parents families rather than just chucking benefits at single mums, but that horse has long since bolted. Even as a socialist and firm believer in the necessity of welfare, I feel that the way our benefits system works routinely harms men, and subsequently their kids, by freezing them out of the family- I've told the story a few times before but I had a mate whose missus chucked him out so she could get more bennies, because he was only working part time. Totally mercenary of her, but that's what the system incentivises. He subsequently topped himself because everyone thought he was a "deadbeat dad", but really he was trying his best to do the right thing and the system penalised it.

Anyway. That's getting away from the point. The question is what we can do about it that isn't just telling men to suck it up and enjoy living in a post-masculine world. The fisherfolk seem to think that would be all fine and dandy, but I really don't think so. I think it causes psychological harms that are going to coming back around to bite us in another few years.
>> No. 452807 Anonymous
27th July 2022
Wednesday 2:30 am
452807 spacer
>I've always thought we should do a bit more to encourage stable two parents families rather than just chucking benefits at single mums, but that horse has long since bolted
At the risk of derailing the conversation I'd toss in that they're hardly living it up on the benefits system either - don't forget one of the first things Blair did was cut benefits for single mums. If our welfare system encourages single parenthood over dual parenthood it's because it's terribly designed by people opposed to the very concept of a welfare state, not because it's intentionally designed to do so.
(I don't disagree with any of your wider point.)
>> No. 452810 Anonymous
27th July 2022
Wednesday 8:26 am
452810 spacer
The problem with the social security system in this country is that it is deliberately designed to keep people placid and to take it for granted.

Poverty wages are topped up by the state and the way this tapers off means that people can either be worse off or not be tangibly better off if they increase their hours, so they're caught in a trap.

As far as I'm aware, no other country in the world replicates what we have with the NHS and you can look across Europe to countries, such as Germany, where they have a far more successful system. When you're given things for free you take it for granted and don't see the value of it. You don't mind if it wastes money because it's no skin off your nose. People have no real idea how much it costs them to see their GP or have a procedure because they have no real stake in knowing. To its critics the NHS is a nebulous monolith where all of the money is spunked away on bureaucracy and unnecessary layers of management because people don't have a fucking clue where the money is going, so they're aghast at solutions to simply throw money into what they see as a bottomless pit. Its supporters have no idea where the money goes either, but their viewpoint is blind devotion as if it's a religion that is beyond reproach; any attempt at reform is painted by them in the binary choice of what we have here or what the Seppos have, with no middle ground. It's like people attempting to understand what the EU was before we had the referendum; it turned out most people didn't have a fucking clue because they couldn't wrap their heads around it, so one of the biggest votes in decades ended up being decided purely by gut feeling.

We have food banks and food panties, but unfortunately they've encouraged a not insignificant number of people stop fully budgeting for groceries as they've realised they can rely on others for this. My local food bank is full of people who've been referred by the council's social housing team, who are explicitly telling them to keep paying their rent (so they're still getting an income) and to cut back on food instead because the food bank will sort them out. It's all about shifting personal responsibility away from people, making them feel that their issues are somebody else's problem to sort out.
>> No. 452814 Anonymous
27th July 2022
Wednesday 12:25 pm
452814 spacer

>As far as I'm aware, no other country in the world replicates what we have with the NHS and you can look across Europe to countries, such as Germany, where they have a far more successful system.
They also have a far more expensive system. It's fashionable to run with with the "oh, you don't have to yankify it, there are other reform options and more money never alone solved anything" route while pointing to whatever they're doing in Europe (one hand over the price tag) but people rarely look at a trial we ran close to home - NHS England went down the road of trendy reform (I'm sure Blair ran more top down NHS reforms than he did wars), NHS Scotland was more or less frozen in place as a centralised monolith at the point of devolution. Today, their performance is - give or take - about equal, but Scotland doesn't have a bunch of bankrupt NHS trusts. (Plus, both Labour and the SNP have quietly been squeezing health spending relative to other public services, to no electoral harm...)
Call me a crazed ideologue but reforming the NHS to be more German would be a poor fourth in my options list behind keeping it the same as it is - cheap and cheerful - copying the structure of NHS Scotland onto NHS England and seeing what happens, or throwing German levels of money at the existing structure and seeing what happens.

Comparing the NHS to our benefits system does it a disservice - the NHS monolith is at a minimum acceptable at delivering healthcare on the cheap, while the wider benefits system is a complete mess which has been designed with no small amount of active malice. Compare internationally (figures from 2021, pre-covid figures much the same) and you'll soon find, as the AI generated story goes, that the bottomless pit now has a bottom and your job as a bottomless pit supervisor is in danger.
a metaphor i couldn't fit in anywhere: When you tell people you can build a Mercedes healthcare system on a British Leyland budget, it's no wonder they think you're trying to sell them a badge-engineered Ford Pinto.
>> No. 452935 Anonymous
1st August 2022
Monday 8:40 am
452935 spacer


>> No. 452936 Anonymous
1st August 2022
Monday 8:53 am
452936 spacer
The above poster is a known dog molester.
>> No. 452962 Anonymous
2nd August 2022
Tuesday 3:10 am
452962 spacer

Explain the popularity of homeopathy in Germany in the context of their supposedly wonderful and completely successful healthcare system. Why are so many seeking out alternative drugs? Smells funny if you ask me.
>> No. 452963 Anonymous
2nd August 2022
Tuesday 4:30 am
452963 spacer

>Explain the popularity of homeopathy in Germany in the context of their supposedly wonderful and completely successful healthcare system.

A large proportion of medical appointments don't involve anything that could be meaningfully described as a disease or a treatment. People who are worried but not clinically anxious, people who are lonely, people who haven't come to terms with the natural wear-and-tear of ageing, people with chronic conditions who are already receiving the best available treatment, people who just want to feel listened to and nurtured. There's nothing that can be done for them medically, but they have unmet social and emotional needs.

The NHS is pretty dismal at dealing with these patients; they're dismissed as the "worried well" or hypochondriacs and they tend to go on a revolving door of GP appointments with the occasional completely unnecessary referral for tests. Some parts of the country are better than others, some GPs are better at using community nursing and social prescribing, but generally these patients are regarded as an unavoidable nuisance. Plenty of GPs sympathise with these patients, but it's hard to maintain that sympathy when there are so many demands on your time.

The German use of homeopathy is a key part of how they solve this problem. Doctors refer patients to homeopaths, the patient gets a long consultation with someone who is good at sympathetic listening and they go away with a bottle of completely harmless placebo pills. Homeopaths are nominally equal in status to doctors under German law, but they aren't allowed to treat anything that looks like a proper illness. Doctors know that it's bullshit, but it's bullshit that makes people feel better in ways that real drugs can't. Homeopaths don't step out of line and say that they can cure cancer, because they very much like being able to accept payments from health insurance. The insurers are happy, because it keeps their costs down.

The ethics of it all make me cringe, but there's no denying that it works - not in a medical sense, but a psychosocial sense. Homeopathy isn't an effective treatment for any disease, but that's entirely beside the point. It fills a need that people have always had, the need for blessings from the priest, incantations from the shaman, herbs from the drugs man, potions from the witch. In an atomised and secular society, we increasingly turn to doctors when we have problems that can't be diagnosed by any test and can't be treated by any drugs.
>> No. 453049 Anonymous
4th August 2022
Thursday 7:32 pm
453049 spacer
In his days even saying bl**dy on recored media was crossing into poor taste category. Poor taste and poor people and poverty are all inevitable companions.

Here’s George Orwell discussing the magic and strangeness of swearing in Down and Out in Paris and London:

>The whole business of swearing, especially English swearing, is mysterious. Of its very nature swearing is as irrational as magic—indeed, it is a species of magic. But there is also a paradox about it, namely this: Our intention in swearing is to shock and wound, which we do by mentioning something that should be kept secret—usually something to do with the sexual functions. But the strange thing is that when a word is well established as a swear word, it seems to lose its original meaning; that is, it loses the thing that made it into a swear word. A word becomes an oath because it means a certain thing, and, because it has become an oath, it ceases to mean that thing. For example, – – – -. The Londoners do not now use, or very seldom use, this word in its original meaning; it is on their lips from morning till night, but it is a mere expletive and means nothing.

Return ]

Delete Post []