Right now there is a loneliness epidemic throughout the world. More and more people aren’t entering relationships. Gen Z men are having significant trouble dating while there are some economic factors in the mix. From my own view and experiences combined with what I’ve read most Gen Z men are lack the social and communication skills to even enter a relationship. This has and in the future will lead to extreme issues. There’s already been a marked rise in hostility towards women by young men (think Andrew Tate and his ilk) that’s likely born out of this frustration. I would definitely say there’s been a rise in gender hostility ever since the pandemic.

Back in the 50s there was arranged marriages. All a person had to do was just show but now that’s gone because it was an unequal system and I think society missed its chance to establish something much healthier and better in its wake. Now we have people that are unable to connect with each other. We just toss people blindly into the mess that is human interaction and relationships and no one knows what to do anymore. We could be have the most fulfilling relationships humans have ever had. Think of the amount of people who would of never have entered abusive relationships had there been someone around them that showed them what love exactly is.

The way we teach is so heavily focused on teaching people how to be worker drones that we forget the human part of the person. This is why a lot of people who do extreme well in school and college fare so poorly in relationships and have higher rates of depression. We are the most educated and advanced in human history, we know psychology, we can teach this shit rather than tossing people blindly into the meat grinder.

  • seaQueue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    97
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    Can we just restate this as: “A lot of society’s problems could be avoided if parents actually put in effort to parent their children” ?

    • PeleSpirit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      70
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s a cycle of madness though, how can they teach you something they’ve never been taught?

      • sigmaklimgrindset@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Through easy access to education, societal support, and a safety net.

        There are many parents out there who were able to break the cycle of trauma and raise children in positive environments. But almost every single one of them talks about how they had the privilege of the support of friends, therapists, teachers, obs/gyn doctors, whatever, to help break the patterns

        There’s a reason “It takes a village to raise a child” is an idea that is prevalent across so many cultures. The concept of the nuclear family was a tool to sell more real estate, and we are seeing the consequences of that societal shift today.

        • intensely_human
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m pretty sure nuclear families predate concepts in history.

          • sigmaklimgrindset@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            21
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            While there is evidence of nuclear families existing as far as 5 000 years ago, they were only really for wealthy/high status people. The concept of the nuclear family as it’s own autonomous unit wasn’t really widely financially viable until post-Industrial revolution.

            There is even current academic arguments that the previously believed idea that Europe had moved to nuclear families as early as the 17th century may be flawed, as the surviving literature was once again biased towards the merchant/upper classes.

            Wikipedia has a good summary, actually, even though some of the claims are conjecture.

            • intensely_human
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’d say the evidence is in the fact you can find nuclear families in animal species other than humans. Birds and possums didn’t learn that from their wealthy human neighbors. It’s normal for two parents to take care of their young and create a home together. It’s been going on way longer than whatever capitalist marketing campaign you think it came from.

              • sigmaklimgrindset@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                1 year ago

                I don’t think you understand what the term “nuclear family” means in a sociological manner. In humans it’s not just “two parents taking care of their offspring”, there is also a caveat that they are doing that WITHOUT the reliance of an extended social group. Then those offspring are expected to do the same once they reach adulthood. The only social support they are expected to have is their own unit.

                Furthermore, comparing human behaviours to other species such as birds (who flock together in habitats for survival and for migration) and possums (who are a solitary, nocturnal species) doesn’t really mean anything.

                The comparisons should be to species who share similar evolutionary patterns and social habits to humans ie. primates. And across every primate species, whether it be lemurs, gorillas, baboons, simians, etc. they are all connected to a LARGER SOCIAL GROUP irrespective of their family structure (pairs, group family, homogeneous male or female) well into adulthood.

    • TheGalacticVoid
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      No amount of reasonable legislation can force parents to teach this stuff. Doing it through schools is infinitely easier.

      • Zorque@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It also helps provide a social standard that anyone can relate to. Seems weird to demand that parents should be the ones solely responsible to make sure their children are able to socialize properly. That just means they’re main reference for socializing is just their parents.

        • TheGalacticVoid
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          What alternative do you suggest that will be effective enough to not alienate children with parents who refuse to listen or think rationally?

        • Leg@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Considering the sheer amount of time people spend in schools during essentially all of their formative years, it’d be a terrible idea not to implement legislation that could prevent maladaptive behaviors in our populace. Schools are already affected by legislation via the Mindless Drone Initiative established by our industrial forefathers. We might as well update things to make it a Healthy Human Endeavor instead. Finger-wagging at imaginary parents is going to do fuck all by comparison.

    • Zippy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Possibly. How about the reality that people are simply not interacting in person but online. I can’t believe this is not the first post.

      Seriously go out to a bar, a music festival, volunteer, hell get drunk a few times and loosen up. In the 70, 80, 90 right up till 2000 this was every weekend. Hell it is not some work drone thing. That is an excuse. Work later in life is where you actually might meet some friends and from there have drinks after work and maybe that results in a random meeting with some ladies or men in your life.

      School won’t teach this. Life skills need practice not exams.

      • sigmaklimgrindset@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        While true, only one of those things you listed don’t require money, and tbh even volunteering is hard when you have to work 2-3 jobs to get by.

        Kids and adults these days don’t have 3rd places to just relax and hang out anymore. The internet is arguably the cheapest way to hang out.

        • Zippy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sorry but our parents worked more than us and their parents worked more then them. Few people I know work weekends or don’t get two days a week off. Your parents worked normal 8 hours day then they went home and worked on their cars and houses and basically did another 4 hours a day doing of jobs. Their parents went one step further and built their own houses often or helped build them and grew alot of their own food.

          We might work similar or more formal hours but we work far less informal hours that at any period in history. So that does not hold much water to me.

          • sigmaklimgrindset@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            This is only true of certain segments of the working class, mainly the white collar workers located in Western countries. As we see wealth inequality increase globally, I don’t think it’s fair to say every single person is working less.

            Also legality aside, kids generally don’t have money to go to bars, restaurants, or music festivals.

            • Zippy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              If course not every single person is working less but overall we are all working less. Quite a bit less.

              • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                This is not true actually. There was a miss-interpreted study that calculated a lower average in working hours but that was because they didn’t consider that many women work part-time. Which lowered the average working hours.

                When you look at households, though, the number of working hours is much higher. And that does have an influence.

                I am an older person and I can still remember that my mother organised all social occasions of our family. We had big family gatherings regularly, coffee and cake every Sunday, activities in the local community and at schools, etc. This was all organised by the women who did not have jobs. Who is supposed to do all this today?

        • Zippy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          You don’t drink? Just eat food. I joke a bit but I know many people that go to bars just for the music and social and a coke.

      • bleistift2@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Seriously go out to a bar, a music festival, volunteer, hell get drunk

        As a non-drinker I find it interesting that 2 out of these 3 things require the use of a drug. (Yes I know, you can order water at bars, but I doubt that was the point of that statement.)

        • intensely_human
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Okay first of all, how many activities am I holding up?

          Seriously go out to a bar, a music festival, volunteer, hell get drunk

          • Baizey@feddit.dk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Technically not, but it would feel a bit like a ‘socially taboo’ to not drink

            Idk I’d at least put it as slightly awkward, like going to a bowling alley and not bowl, sure you can be social, but it’s weird to not join in

            • Zippy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              Think you need to get out more. Few people bat an eye if you don’t drink alcohol in a bar. Lots go for the music alone is it is a live band. It just some wings after work.

              • Baizey@feddit.dk
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Never said anyone would confront you about it. I’m also with you, live music is different, but that’s not something I have seen much at bars where I’m from

    • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think it’s not just that. I think part of it is overparenting. Part of these skills can only come from trying to practice these skills

      • intensely_human
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, their kids should not be doomed. However they are unless those bad parents get better.

    • BlanketsWithSmallpox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Fwiw we are learning more and more that most of what makes an adult isn’t nurture at all. It’s almost all nature.

      Helicopter or hands-off parenting? The choice won’t impact a kid as much as you think. August 11, 20239:23 AM

      https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1193176710

      Also, great parents still end up with perfectly shit children all the time.

      People online just love playing the blame game on others for an individuals actions though lmfao. Poor upbringing, neglect, trauma, all of that is only one part of explaining someone’s actions. It doesn’t remove the responsibility and free will of the person commiting them lol.

      https://www.npr.org/2010/07/15/128542130/sometimes-good-parents-produce-bad-kids

    • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The influence of parenting is extremely overestimated. I think that is also a symptom of a society where people are reluctant to take on responsibility for themselves. Which is also a reason why people lack community because both (responsibility for oneself and functioning relationships) rely on introspection.