• naught@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    5 days ago

    I think it’s phrased like this because it’s less acceptable for men to express feelings like sadness or loneliness. men and boys who are lonely and alienated can more easily fall down the Andrew Tate/4Chan/Jordan Peterson/blackpill pipeline which yields violent extremist behavior. Obviously it’s not only men

    • straightjorkin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      Women don’t have the same issue because it’s socially acceptable for them to have deep emotional connections with their friends, where as men are mocked for being gay if they open up to their buddies about any kind of difficult emotion.

      • naught@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        I have had the good fortune of being borderline gay with all my friends for my whole life. I wish it upon everyone

    • Richard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      i don’t think so, if there was another context i would absolutely agree with you, but following the discourse this, on my eyes this is phrased more like “men are getting more lonely but not women” or “men are getting more lonely, and it’s because of women”; if it was another person, this would be the case, but this text did not mentioned any social acceptance of man’s loneliness

    • mmddmm@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      Yes, it’s because despite the problem being the same for everybody, the “treatment” has to be very different. So it’s better if you break it down into two different epidemics.

      And one gets more attention because every single well known and applied procedure to fight the epidemics don’t work for them.