Adolescence

[mexico1970]

Saw this nice mum and baby on the river yesterday
View attachment 151301

I hope that's a zoom lens mate, you're a bigger man than I am to keep that camera from shaking just to get the shot.

 

[BlueHammer85]

Episode 3 was a quite brilliant bit of acting by the principle actors imo.

I’m glad this sort of TV is appreciated nowadays - it’s a dying art.

 

[madloaf]

Ceaselessly depressing misery porn. Decent writing, good acting (particularly episode 3).

 

[Mad Eyed Screamer]

type cast, seriously? Not seen 1000 blows?

It was meant to be said with a bit of humour..... like Denzil Washington is always typecast as playing a black male.....

 

[idahoblues]

Ceaselessly depressing misery porn. Decent writing, good acting (particularly episode 3).

Looks truly awful

 

[BlueMoonday]

A lot of kids are scrotes, it's often a reflection of their parents

 

[Bigga]

Firstly, let me apologise for the big delay in conversation. I'm aware the momentum may be lost, but I had much work in many different places and didn't have the time to sit down and compose some dedicated thought on the discussion.

I accept there may be no more conversation to be had, but it's been a determination to find time to reply, so here we are...

Just by way of context, I work in social services, and one of the teams that reports through to me is a group of qualified counsellors and psychologists. I took the opportunity to put some of your points to them and it sparked a great conversation. I thought I'd share some of their responses here.

First off the said dominance isn’t leadership, it’s often insecurity in disguise (here they referred to the likes of Trump). And no, dominance isn’t inherently male, that’s a social script, not biology.

For me, dominance often emerges from social competition where, in this case, individuals assert their position through assertiveness, aggression or strategic alliances (fellow peer in men or women). These are, mainly, male traits. As I’ve said before, the exception doesn’t make the rule.

We see it in the animal kingdom, apes being a very good example of this, being closest to us in nature. Males are the natural leaders and the biology does show that.

The idea that men are “more in tune” with their emotions because they repress them is a bit of a paradox. Repression is usually a signal that the emotions feel unsafe to face. As one of our counsellors put it, repressing emotions is a red flag, it’s the subconscious saying, ‘this is dangerous to deal with,’ but that can only be avoided for so long.

Asking them about emotional intelligence they said emotional intelligence is about being able to recognise, name, and manage emotions effectively. That’s what brings clarity not suppressing or ignoring what we feel.

The fact that, generally speaking, Gen X men (and before them), *’repressed emotion’ was a useful tool to navigate difficult moments like adversity, challenges, war etc. I don’t think today’s Gen Z would traverse the same period of adversity in the same way, generally speaking.

(*at this point I needed better analysis of my point so sought out definitive statements of my broader point.) Here’s what I found:

Pragmatism and Practicality:

Gen Xers are known for their pragmatic approach to life, focusing on practical solutions
and results.

Independence and Self-Reliance:

They value independence and self-reliance, often preferring to solve problems
on their own rather than seeking external help.

Work-Life Balance:

Gen Xers are often seen as good at maintaining a healthy balance between work
and personal life.

Resourcefulness:

They are resourceful and adaptable, able to navigate challenges and find
creative solutions.

Skepticism:

Gen Xers are often skeptical of authority and institutions, preferring to form
their own opinions and make their own decisions.

Potential Challenges:

Emotional Distance:

Some studies suggest that men in general, including Gen Xers, may struggle with
emotional expression and vulnerability, potentially leading to emotional distance.

Conformity to Traditional Masculine Norms:

Societal expectations of masculinity can discourage open emotional expression
and introspection among men.

Struggles with Empathy:

Some research indicates that men may score lower in empathy compared to
women, although this is a complex issue with various contributing factors.

Difficulty with Feedback:

Some studies suggest that Gen Xers, like other generations, may struggle with receiving
and processing feedback, potentially hindering their emotional intelligence.

And resilience? It’s not just sucking it up. True resilience means being able to process, adapt, and recover, not just endure. Suppression might feel like strength in the moment, but over time it often leads to burnout, depression, disconnection, and as we find in NZ much worse.

I think we agree at this point where it’s necessary for males to confide and express in other males.

I can only draw from my experiences on this too, which is the two best bosses I've ever worked with have been women. Of course I've worked with some poor female managers too, but I'd add that every male manager I've reported to has been, to put it plainly, a dick.

back to the team responses and here they reiterated that "suck it up” isn’t resilience, it’s avoidance.

I, personally, think the word “resilence” and the phrase “suck it up” are interchangeable terminology when it comes to adversity and getting through the challenging emotional moment of the time. In ‘fight or flight’ moments, how does it work to get one through threatening moments if you’re examining emotions at the time? That time of examination is post (whatever) ‘threat’ for a man. That’s what delivers action over pause and hesitation.

The team were with you on this, more men engaging with each other in open, honest ways is exactly what’s needed, and it’s something we know works. Shared experiences between men is incredibly powerful, especially when it comes to opening up emotionally. Seeing other men work through mental health challenges can be both grounding and empowering. Here in NZ there are campaigns specifically promoting this, targeting rural, mostly farming communities where male suicide rates are high. A demographic that often "sucks it up".

Here is where the psychologists weighed in on their current informed opinion:

The idea that early hunter-gatherer societies were strictly male-led isn’t backed by evidence. Many were far more equal and cooperative than the “men hunt, women gather” stereotype suggests. Women often hunted too, and leadership roles weren’t always dominated by men. Tradition oversimplifies what was a diverse range of social structures.

I think this caught my eye straight away, so I had a look into this particular information. This is a fairly new viewpoint from 2 years ago from Abigail Anderson and her team. I think the term ‘Hunter-Gatherer’ (from the past) is going to be determined upon the status of the community balance of the time (more men or more women) and this dictates the hunting party. I think was a practical solution. It would, also, depend on the size of the animal to bring back to the community/ home (hunting rabbits/ hare/ small animals is also ‘Hunter’).

Today's definition would be for the man to do the hard laborious parts of a job, like working with hands, also this can extend to extreme overtime in the office.

The conversation then segued into the male instinct to protect women and children. This being more about survival and reproduction than any belief in women being weaker. These behaviours likely evolved to support group survival, but how we express them today is shaped by society, not biology. The idea that women need protection because they’re the “fairer sex” being a social construct, not a scientific truth.

This, on reflection of my phrasing, is something I agree with and something I agree is a conflated term, mixing presenting looks with strength.

All disagreed with swapping out society for feminism. The discussion was that the feminist movement has been instrumental in challenging outdated norms and expanding opportunities. It’s society, not feminism, that said men can’t show emotion, that fathers can’t be primary caregivers, or that men must find their value in wealth or dominance.

I think, here, is where I do disagree. I think today’s Gen, for males, is a good example of a displaced ‘norm’ for the permission to ‘be emotional’. I think we are in the period of the ‘new man’ which is creating more lonely males than ever before as they don’t know where they fit in a transitional society. Feminism tells men they are too violent, so today's society takes this into consideration.

The camaraderie of bonding, before, came from the minimum of being in other male peer presence, being silent or boisterous. This can’t happen being scared of rejection as more young men fear this today. Resilience has its place as men and women are not equal in the way they handle and use emotion, generally speaking.

That said, just like toxic masculinity, toxic feminism exists too and it shuts down healthy conversations when it turns into man-blaming or exclusion. Neither extreme helps move us forward.

Agreed. But I, also, want to point out that Feminists can’t accept we cannot be on equal footing for everything, especially in physical states. To think a late male trans should be welcome to compete in women’s spaces in delusional, damaging and, potentially, life-ending in certain cases.

As for Andrew Tate, most hadn't heard of him, those that have, said yes he tells men/boys they can change their lives, but it comes with misogyny, aggression, and deeply harmful ideas about women and relationships. We can acknowledge his motivational angle but you can't ignore the damage that comes with him.

I don’t agree here. I think this is a matter of perspective when it comes to likes of the Tate brothers messaging. I think Andrew Tate, in particular, likes to stoke the indignation of Feminists, men and women, and chooses his phrasing for this, carefully.

I see a different action. I see him him continuing to fight for his place in a shifting world; for him and others.

On the topic of successful men picking women, a few members of our team felt strongly about how this dynamic often plays out. Here's their professional take: They’ve worked with many women who sought out relationships with wealthy or high-status men, believing it would offer security or a better lifestyle. These women are often young and from working-class backgrounds, at first they’re willing to accept the “trophy partner” role often thinking it’s a fair trade.

I agree and I think this is hypergamy for women to me. But, yes, it’s a mutual trading position.

What tends to unfold is far more complicated. They quickly realise they have little to no financial independence, and there’s often a lack of emotional or intellectual connection in the relationship

Often a consequence of such a mutual trading position. Where both parties understand the dynamics.

The power imbalance makes it hard to leave, especially when infidelity or emotional disengagement becomes part of the picture. In these cases, what seemed like a 'way out' can become another kind of trap, one that reinforces dependency and limits their ability to build a life on their own terms.

I disagree here. Women in these situations tend to ‘monkey-branch’. Men will, often, have affairs and keep the partner in the same position as much of the other sexual engagement is a physical interaction (a male trait) only (exceptions accepted), whereas a women who has these tendencies tend to compete in the male space and are unlikely to hold the same reverence for the main partner/ husband.

Relationship dynamics shaped by power and status, rather than mutual respect and shared values, often carry long-term consequences that aren’t obvious at the outset.

Agreed.

Comparing burdens rarely leads to understanding, just more division. Different groups face different challenges, and they’re all valid in context.

At the end of the day, our views on men and women are shaped most by our lived experiences and the role models we’ve had, for better or worse. Whether those experiences were empowering, limiting, or damaging, they shape how we see gender, relationships, and ourselves. That’s why open, respectful conversations like the one we're having (and hopefully enjoying), give us a chance to widen the lens.

I agree here.

I’ve, literally, just had a discussion with my son that lasted over an hour and my suspicions of his position came through in that conversation; that he’s battling his modern school learnings with his natural state of being.

I think it’s going to be a very interesting time coming up for young men.


Thanks for the discussion and, again, apologies for the much delayed reply.

 

[BlueHammer85]

Way way to much generalisation aimed at youngsters - ‘Gen Z’ is being thrown about all over the place by people that believe they can speak for everyone.
I do think youngsters that get trapped on social media can be influenced by the likes of Tate and other channels and that’s a huge problem as was shown in adolescence- the targets should be at those channels rather than trying to generalise the whole ‘Gen Z’ generation.

 

[mexico1970]

Way way to much generalisation aimed at youngsters - ‘Gen Z’ is being thrown about all over the place by people that believe they can speak for everyone.
I do think youngsters that get trapped on social media can be influenced by the likes of Tate and other channels and that’s a huge problem as was shown in adolescence- the targets should be at those channels rather than trying to generalise the whole ‘Gen Z’ generation.

On one side we have Tate and on the other side we have OnlyFans.

David Attenborough doesn't get a look in, all the navel gazing in the world isn't going to change that.

 

[Bigga]

On one side we have Tate and on the other side we have OnlyFans.

David Attenborough doesn't get a look in, all the navel gazing in the world isn't going to change that.

Exactly.

I think the interesting pick up from Hammer is Tate as the problem, not the sexualised images of women throwing their semi/ nakedness online to all and sundry.

And whilst Tate made his money that way and also tapping into lost young men, he also recognises the problem. They both exploit young men in bad ways.

For me, I prefer the Chinese version of TikTok where this exploitation is banned for the most part, although China represses freedom of speech against the Gov.

 

[Bigga]

Is this fear mongering...?



Schools to give boys anti-misogyny lessons...

What are people's thoughts on this?

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

Is this fear mongering...?

View attachment 152041

Schools to give boys anti-misogyny lessons...

What are people's thoughts on this?

It would probably save schools the time and money if parents instilled some sensible values and behaviours at home rather than essentially single out young men for a sort of remedial collective punishment.

 

[CTID1988]

 

[I'm With Stupid]

A lot of kids are scrotes, it's often a reflection of their parents

There's one kid actor in the school scenes who was brilliant. He made me want to slap him so bad. Perfect example of an utter little twat.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

View attachment 152042

Let's not pretend that wasn't caused by exactly the same misogynist attitudes to women and girls.

 

[Strangerepublic]

Let's not pretend that wasn't caused by exactly the same misogynist attitudes to women and girls.

It's amazing how woman behave as badly as men, in different ways but usually as awful in intent, but a) that's usually brushed under the carpet or b) blamed on men as well, because expecting agency and accountability from women is too much to expect.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

Is this fear mongering...?

View attachment 152041

Schools to give boys anti-misogyny lessons...

What are people's thoughts on this?

School's job to fix all of society's problems, as usual I see. But obviously the 'show it in schools' knee jerk response is a bit stupid. You think kids spending 4 hours of learning time passively watching a TV show is going to solve anything? So it's definitely the right approach to actually create a proper curriculum around it if you want to address it. They already have relationship education, so I see nothing wrong with incorporating modern trends into that and addressing current issues.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

It's amazing how woman behave as badly as men, in different ways but usually as awful in intent, but a) that's usually brushed under the carpet or b) blamed on men as well, because expecting agency and accountability from women is too much to expect.

Three Girls is about the victims of the Rochdale rape gangs mate.

 

[Strangerepublic]

Three Girls is about the victims of the Rochdale rape gangs mate.

I realised, thanks for correcting me, misread his comment.

But his "misogyny" comment touches upon the other big problem with "everything is misogyny" attitude.
Problem 1 is of course blaming boys for all the ills of society, and giving girls a free pass - the series being discussed is a prime example.

Problem 2, on the other hand, is excusing cultures that have a genuine problem with how they treat women by pretending that a) all men have some kind of uniform "misogyny" problem, and b) this "misogyny" is independent of sub-cultures, and ignoring the fact that some cultures are genuinely awful.

The race swap in adolescence is one example of this. Knife crime and fatherlessness, for instance ,is strongly a function of race, and the makers of this series are clearly afraid to tackle that.
Blaming Rochdale on "misogyny" is another prime example of pretending all of society is "misogynistic". And thereby pretending that all cultures are equally likely to engage in such activities.

 

[Bigga]

School's job to fix all of society's problems, as usual I see. But obviously the 'show it in schools' knee jerk response is a bit stupid. You think kids spending 4 hours of learning time passively watching a TV show is going to solve anything? So it's definitely the right approach to actually create a proper curriculum around it if you want to address it. They already have relationship education, so I see nothing wrong with incorporating modern trends into that and addressing current issues.

Well, yeah. I don't see the point in making official fanfare to insert a 'misogyny' curriculum, just get it done and insert a 'missandry' one to.

If the Gov are so determined on promoting equality, let it be so.