Botond173
30d ago
Since the poster is banned and thus cannot respond, I'll ask the question here: what failures in East Hastings and Kensington is he(?) referring to? What is the significance of these places, wherever they are?
Botond173
30d ago
They don't. It's not seen as an issue because if you're a suburban teenager you're expected to go off to college somewhere at 18.
Botond173
1mo ago
I suppose the social milieu was such that adults got spooked by the horrific specter of 18-20-year-old boys getting into car accidents, fistfights, having unprotected sex etc. and this measure was seen as a good idea. People generally don't consider long-term consequences in such situations.
Botond173
1mo ago
The so-called sex recession has been discussed both here and on the two old subreddits extensively, and a consensus seems to have formed for a good reason (I think) that it's not actually a sex recession per se but instead a socialization/community recession, a recession of social interaction. That is, it's not only sexual activity that is declining but also every form of socializing and all traditional social circles (churches, clubs, associations etc.), and the sex recession is just one consequence of that.
There are three related phenomena that I remember being occasionally addressed on the subreddits, namely:
- The decline of shopping malls.
- The decline of arcades.
(These two started to take place largely around the turn of the millennium and were exacerbated by the 2008 financial crisis, and can be explained by a combination of social and technological trends but that's not the point here.)
-
The long-term effects of the federal enforcement of 21 as the drinking age, as a phenomenon peculiar to the USA. This meant that people over 21 and under 21 have no venues or social circles left where they can interact, and teenagers who graduate from high school and subsequently lose that place as a venue for socializing basically find no replacement for that, because every conceivable venue that could fill that role caters to people over 21.
-
The proportion of 18-year-olds with driver's licenses has apparently also declined massively, which appears to be a phenomenon tied to the ones above; anyway, I don't remember it ever being discussed here in detail.
All in all, the obvious combined effect of all of this is the massive loss of what sociologists call third places for teenagers in particular. And all this happened before the proliferation and normalization of smartphone/tablet use, which had its own great consequences, of course.
So, to get to my question: have there been studies about this particular phenomenon and its effect on the sex recession or the social lives of teenagers / 20-somethings? Because there must have been one. Was it ever even discussed in mainstream media?
Botond173
1mo ago
Not a good idea, I think. If you start speaking of the Oregon Trail generation to me, I'll immediately think if 19th Century pioneers.
Botond173
1mo ago
But conservatism is already doing tons of work toward extincting itself
Huh?
Botond173
1mo ago
Unfortunately that seems likely. On a related note, it reminds me what a nonsensical and uninspired term "Generation X" is. It gives you no hint about the peculiarities about that group whatsoever, unlike the terms Boomer and Millennial, and supposedly it didn't even stick, relatively speaking. I looked up the Wikipedia entry on it and it turns out that the term in its multiple original manifestations didn't even carry the definition it does today, which gives us even less of a reason to actually use it.
Latchkey kid, on the other hand, is I think a brilliant and practical term for members of the same generation, it neatly sums up the essence of their lifestyle. It's kind of lame that no such phrase was invented for a) Millennials b) their children.
Botond173
1mo ago
Given the novelty, proliferation and overall significance of combat drones in the Ukrainian war and other recent conflicts, I wonder if it's only a matter of time until some combatant somewhere deploys nuclear warheads for EMP effect as a countermeasure.
Botond173
1mo ago
These are examples of men getting criticized for their promiscuity though. This is a rather important distinction.
Botond173
1mo ago
I’m aware that Southern Antebellum nostalgia as such is a recurring hot subject in the US culture wars. I’m also aware that my overall knowledge about this subject is scant, but I was reminded of something I’ve read about the English (First) Industrial Revolution, namely that it generally brutalized the local working class, and also implanted a rather deep sentiment of nostalgia and longing in the middle and upper classes for the bygone days of bucolic living in the countryside, when the environment wasn’t yet polluted to shit, you could still usually see the clear sky, there was no upheaval, misery, mass povery and general ugliness around you etc.
I suspect that Southern Antebellum nostalgia, which predictably gets portrayed in the worst possible light by the Blue Tribe faithful, is (more precisely: was, because I’m sure it doesn’t exist anywhere near the level as it did 50 or 100 years ago) essentially the same thing: Southern Whites mourning their peaceful, undisturbed lifestyle in a bucolic land, swept away completely by the dirty horrors of war, industrialization, social upheaval, the centralization of political power etc.
Botond173
1mo ago
As far as I know, prohibition measures in the US, enacted on state level many years, even decades before 1920 in multiple cases, were a long-term indirect consequence of the massive culling of men in the Civil War. A lopsided operational sex ratio (yeah, I just found this phrase on Wikipedia) that favors men inevitably leads to an overall loosening of social norms concerning men’s behavior, which in turn invites backlash on the part of the church lady demographic. This isn’t surprising. Gorbachov’s anti-alcohol campaign in the USSR was driven by the same fundamental considerations, presumably. (According to the 1959 Soviet census, the male-to-female sex ratio among the 35-50-yrs-old cohort was a whopping 4:7. )
I’m wondering if similar social forces are at play in South Africa now.
Botond173
1mo ago
Who could've known that a half-arsed comment of mine will generate multiple QC responses!
Botond173
1mo ago
What is actually likely to happen is that he, in a literal sense, will conclude that she likes spending time with him - that's it. Nothing more.
Botond173
1mo ago
In historical terms, it isn't long. But in terms of the cultural war and social change, definitely a lot has changed between 2016-2024, even more so between 2012-2024. So the social context is different.
Botond173
1mo ago
True, it doesn't exactly do so. But I remember the days when, after years of culture-warring, Great Awokening, militant leftist SJW rhetoric, all the talk about dismantling the vestiges of structural racism, BLM riots etc, American society got to a point in 2020 when there were three rather old cishet White men remaining in the competition for the position of presidential nominee. I just found it rather ironic, and I saw a bunch of people online drawing parallels with the late-stage Soviet gerontocracy, which, considering the ongoing socio-economic crises (the opioid epidemic, rising rates of alcoholism - especially among single women - and prescription pill abuse, rising levels of violent crime and mental illness, the obesity epidemic etc.), appeared to be definitely warranted. I think it's just logical to extend this parallel when a relatively much younger candidate emerges, poised to win the election and portraying herself as the anointed one who will finally shake things up.
Botond173
1mo ago
You're right. Maybe it's all just gaslighting, astroturfing etc. But I'm sure she has more political influence behind her than Trump.
Botond173
1mo ago
She's relatively young. Gorbachev was also 54 when he assumed power, and was the protege of the former head of the KGB, and voted into power by the Politburo.
Botond173
1mo ago
I think she’ll have every conceivable incentive to try. She’ll be pimped by the MSM and the Dem establishment as the first woman of color to become President, and they’ll push the narrative that she’s set to leave a great legacy and accomplish great things for a society still tainted by the vestiges of structural racism etc. Also, the polycrisis (I wasn’t even aware that such an expression exists!) will probably continue and worsen, so the overlapping negative socio-economic tendencies will reach a point of escalation sometimes between 2025-28 where Kamala’s supporters will compel her to act – if she doesn’t initiate reforms herself first, that is. Also, she derives whatever level of political legitimacy she has from not being an old white fart who failed to cure the nation’s ills i.e. Biden and Trump. She’ll have to continue to demonstrate that she’s different from both of them.
Botond173
1mo ago
I think I have at least a vague idea of what the usual so-called “far right” accusations were against Biden, Obama or Clinton and I’m rather certain they never included that “he’ll accelerate the decline of the US empire and cause political instability/collapse due to failed reform attempts”. I can think of a dozen other accusations regarding abortion, gun laws, overreach of federal power, BLM etc. but not this one.
Also, I think the notion that Trump has a 50% chance of winning the upcoming election is, in light of what happened the last time he tried, is rather far-fetched.
Botond173
1mo ago
Gorbachev wasn't that much younger. Andropov was 1914, Gorba 1931, barely 17 years difference.
True, but Kamala isn't that young either, in fact she's 5 years older now than Gorbachev was in 1985.
TR had 15 years on his predecessor, JFK 27 years, both promised plenty of new policies.
Again, true, but the political environment was rather different from the current one in both cases, wasn't it? There was no sense of vibecession/stagnation, disillusionment in the party leadership, general anomie etc.
The problem that in 1980s, the politbyro had been staffed by generation of Brezhnev, implementing Brezhnev policies since Brezhnev.
I suppose one can make a similar point about the Dem party leadership?
Botond173
1mo ago
It's not merely that she's relatively young, it's that she's much younger than the two presidents who'll have preceded her.
What issues can be her Perestroika, her Glasnost, her liquor ban?
You can also name about a dozen potential issues, can't you? The college debt bubble, the NIMBY vs. YIMBY struggle, the opioid crisis, economic stagnation, the housing bubble, Medicare, women's rights etc.
Botond173
1mo ago
There was an incident where there was a black convict who escaped from the prison, and the police chased him down and beat on him, and I just couldn't stand that.
I'm not a sociologist but I'm sure it's almost a small miracle that police were even available then and there to chase him town, instead of an armed group of vigilante citizens who'd have hanged him on the first tree after one or two rounds of torture, which I'm also sure was a completely normal course of events. I wonder how many suburban middle-class normies are even aware that poor and remote communities had little to no police force throughout history.
Botond173
1mo ago
About a month age I made the argument that essentially, future historians will draw parallels between Gorbachev and the Kamala Harris presidency, which at this point seems to be rather likely to come around next year. I can understand why it was downvoted because I made it deliberately vague, thinking that spelling my assumption all out in detail would narrow the discussion down too much and derail it at the start. Anyway, I recently read the New York Magazine article titled The Joyous Plot to elect Kamala Harris... by Rebecca Traister, and while I wouldn't say that it strengthens my argument to the full, it certainly doesn't include anything that would contradict it, I think. She's being lauded as a champion of both Democrat party leaders and grassroots organizers (mainly of female ones, that is), ushering in a new era of hope and political change after long and disheartening years dominated by old farts in leadership positions.
Unfortunately I think the parroting is not without basis at all, with certain qualifications, that is. The fact is that the period roughly between 1955 and 1980 (that is, between the consolidation of the post-Stalinist political order and the critical period of economic stagnation, energy shortage and the foreign debt trap) was, according to the standards of their own history, an era of prosperity and peace for every country in the Soviet bloc. For local men born between 1935 and 1955 (for simplicity’s sake, let’s look at men only here), their experience as teenagers and young adults was roughly this:
If you have enough human agency to complete your education and to work a job, you’re not a cripple or a retard, and you aren’t some career criminal or alcoholic bum either, society basically gives you a guarantee that you’ll have a stable job, a pension, food on the table and some place to live. If you’re willing to make extra effort, you’ll maybe even have a car, a fridge and a cottage in the country.
Should you leave your job for whatever reason, you can just find another similar one.
There’s no blanket expectation towards the youth that everyone gets a college degree. You can have a respectable existence as an average normie without attending college.
Due to the lopsided sex ratio that disfavors women and a cultural environment that is markedly different from today, unless you’re a cripple, a retard, a bum, an alcoholic or a crazy person, and you aren’t hideously ugly or disfigured either, then finding a non-obese, non-addict, non-crazy, non-slut wife who’s 3-5 years younger than you and isn’t a single mom either is rather easy. As a man you can considerably raise your social status just by not being a drunkard.
You very obviously have a better life than your parents and especially than your grandparents. Society is generally in consensus that your offspring will have even better lives than you.
Life may be boring but also predictable. You have limited options but you can also make reasonable plans. Your general impression around you is that everything is getting more or less better. Energy is cheap, so is credit.
By the time the political transition of 1989 takes place, you already have a house/apartment, a family, a career and status. Even though bad times are ahead, you’re an established citizen. Most of your life is already behind you. You won’t need to adapt to the new order.
Now, compare this to the average life experience of men from the same region of the world born between 1970 and 1980, or between 1990 and 2000, and you’ll notice that the difference is like night and day.
Noted, the generation I described above aren’t the equivalent of Boomers in a strict chronological sense; they’re older than them. But that is beside the point. (It’s also true that the locals born between 1960 and 1970 or so faced rather negative consequences of the transition period after 1989, because they were expected to adapt but were generally too old to do so, and they were also too young to take part in the general looting of state assets i.e. privatization.)
The issue, I think, either in the USA or in Eastern Europe isn’t that young people think Boomers had it so much better, it’s that Boomers apparently think that their grandchildren have the same opportunities that they did, while at the same time actually having it so much better because they can buy shiny new gadgets with touchscreens, and are both baffled and angry when they don’t have the same outcomes in life as they did.
More options
Context Copy link