The Student Room Group

Why are young men so different than before?

If you analyse historic 19th and 20th century battles. For example, Waterloo and the Battle of the Somme. You had soldiers who were majority 17-19 charge in face of certain death, but they would still carry on. However if you were to put modern Western 17-19 year olds in such a position desertion would be rampant. Is this due to a the idea that Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times"
(edited 3 months ago)
What is the evidence base for your assertion ? or are you just trying to be some kind of Andrew Taint *****y little Edgelord ?
Reply 2
Original post by Miss Pulford
What is the evidence base for your assertion ? or are you just trying to be some kind of Andrew Taint *****y little Edgelord ?

I just had an observation based on the quote
Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times"
Original post by Kingdragon
I just had an observation based on the quote
Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times"

thanks for confirming you are a wannabe Andy Taint
Reply 4
Original post by Kingdragon
I just had an observation based on the quote
Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times"

Personally I think his opinions are extreme, what I am saying is that why has there been such a change in society in general.
Original post by Kingdragon
If you analyse historic 19th and 20th century battles. For example, Waterloo and the Battle of the Somme. You had soldiers who were majority 17-19 charge in face of certain death, but they would still carry on. However if you were to put modern Western 17-19 year olds in such a position desertion would be rampant. Is this due to a the idea that Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times"

No it's because the women now want to take everything that used to be the man's in the west so the man no longer having anything to live for.

No job paying more than the woman, hence no decent women interested in them, hence no family, hence no life just the Xbox.

Sure in WWI if you rejected conscription without good reason, or didn't go over the top of the trench when ordered you were ****. These days if push came to shove same would likely be true, it's the only way they've got of pushing people to be cannon fodder.

Most guys now though know that survival in war is slight and random and death rates on the front line are high. They would rather say up yours to the feminist society that has denied them any life and risk death by desertion, avoidance or fighting against those trying to conscript than fighting a war for a feminist society that has caused them a miserable existence not worth fighting for in the first place. Many would be happy to see the feminist career women with their ego go out there and 'prove themselves' and get shot fighting for the society they created and want. Something tells me though they would be the first ones claiming career reasons or any other get out and be happy to see women not being shot dead in equal representation to the men on the battle field.

I as a 45 year old man feel the same way as these 17-19 year olds and most other age groups of men probably likewise feel the same and would rather bugger off from the society that has given the two fingers up to us to date.

Fortunate for the feminist women that we have nukes these days so they are unlikely to face the embarrassment of not having to stand by the so-called gender equality they profess we should all be subjected too.
Reply 6
Original post by Kingdragon
If you analyse historic 19th and 20th century battles. For example, Waterloo and the Battle of the Somme. You had soldiers who were majority 17-19 charge in face of certain death, but they would still carry on. However if you were to put modern Western 17-19 year olds in such a position desertion would be rampant. Is this due to a the idea that Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times"

Of course. Just look at those who subject themselves to the whim of people traffickers and a deadly trip across the Med / English Channel for the hope of a better future. I think we forget what hardship is but I have no doubt that if hardship or the threat of hardship were to decend on this land, we would make similar sacrifices.
Original post by Miss Pulford
What is the evidence base for your assertion ? or are you just trying to be some kind of Andrew Taint *****y little Edgelord ?

You know people were having these discussions before that man was even a thing.
Despite the Laurence Fox soundbite, historically people may just as easily been cowards and in modern times some people exhibit bravery. It’s just this facile “things used to be better” position.
Reply 9
Yes, it is a crying shame that we don't have a generation of men suffering PTSD due to the trauma of war or limping around because they they had their leg blown off.
Original post by Anonymous #1
No it's because the women now want to take everything that used to be the man's in the west so the man no longer having anything to live for.


Please do explain precisely what women have taken from you to the point that you have nothing to live for.
(edited 2 months ago)
Original post by Katerina S.
They've taken (or rather the government has made it so) the higher pay that used to be paid to men so now it is all equal pay. That means that men cannot fund the life women want them to fund, and most still expect them to fund it, a home, the ability to support family. The change in pay has swung the hypergamy scale against most men.

Recent quote in the news was that marriages have decreased in the UK from 25 percent unmarried several decades ago to 40 percent unmarried now, that's huge! Moreso, now there are around 60 Percent of people who are single with a partner! That's another shocking statistic. Hence why are birth rate is collapsing in this country and there is concern of how we are going to pay for future state pensions.

We need to turn this country around back to the society we had several decades ago and stop causing ourselves all this pain. Few of the people featuring in the statistics above are going to be happy and many are going to be facing loneliness and hence unhappiness in life. We should accept that feminism has only brought us misery and is failing the country. It's either turn this around or wallow in misery for many so long as they can stand it.

We don’t live in a communist system. A person is not entitled to a certain income just because they are a man. You have to earn it.

We don’t need to turn back the clock. Women are a lot more than just baby making machines that should be financially dependent on a man. They are capable of having autonomy over their own lives.

It is depressing to see some men blaming their personal failings on feminism. It avoids personal responsibility.
Original post by Gazpacho.
Yes, it is a crying shame that we don't have a generation of men suffering PTSD due to the trauma of war or limping around because they they had their leg blown off.

except of course we never haven't ,just smaller numbers compared to the world wars and Korea

whether it's Boomers in Norn Iron ( or asa result of Republican terrorist activities in the UK and mainland Euroe)

Boomers and Genx X in the first Gulf War and Kosovo ( and then end of Norn Iron)

Gen X and millenials in the seond lot of Sandpit adventures ( Iraq II and Afghanistan)
Original post by Katerina S.
They used to be entitled to a certain income and the system worked. Birth rate and those in relationships was way higher than it had been since they changed the system. People were happier too as a result.

Many UK guys are now dating women abroad to avoid the feminazi's in this country. Only another decade or so and the feminist career girls will have not reproduced and bred out of society. Then we will go back to the good times 😁


I can’t imagine how emasculated a man must be to be scared of dating a career woman or describing women as feminazis because they’ve got a sense of personal autonomy.

Such weak men would really benefit from growing a pair.
Original post by Katerina S.
They used to be entitled to a certain income and the system worked. Birth rate and those in relationships was way higher than it had been since they changed the system. People were happier too as a result.

Many UK guys are now dating women abroad to avoid the feminazi's in this country. Only another decade or so and the feminist career girls will have not reproduced and bred out of society. Then we will go back to the good times 😁

The employment rate among women has been steadily increasing from 50% in 1970, which I assume is long before you were born, to 70% today. "Career women", which in your case basically just means women who want a job, have existed all throughout that period. They haven't been "bred out of society".

You'll find that a lot of women want to find a partner and start a family.
Original post by SHallowvale
The employment rate among women has been steadily increasing from 50% in 1970, which I assume is long before you were born, to 70% today. "Career women", which in your case basically just means women who want a job, have existed all throughout that period. They haven't been "bred out of society".

You'll find that a lot of women want to find a partner and start a family.

Exactly the employment rate has increased for women over the decades. Not only that though in the 90s the University system was expanded massively and way, way more women went to University, men as well but far more women than ever before.

The end result, too much supply of skilled labour leading to low wages. The workers have just been shifted over from unskilled jobs to skilled jobs but the pay remains much the same. That and the labour pool has been added to by more women in the workplace as noted, immigration, etc.

Many people don't really comprehend that all of that is going to have an affect in their lives. They see the world is still turning but the don't realise that their circumstances are now often limited by the social change I have noted here. They think because they don't get a job it was down to their performance rather than the Employer having loads of applications. Employers will of always whine about not enough workers. What they really mean is that they want excess people applying for the jobs so they can pay the bottom rate possibly.
Original post by Katerina S.
Exactly the employment rate has increased for women over the decades. Not only that though in the 90s the University system was expanded massively and way, way more women went to University, men as well but far more women than ever before.

The end result, too much supply of skilled labour leading to low wages. The workers have just been shifted over from unskilled jobs to skilled jobs but the pay remains much the same. That and the labour pool has been added to by more women in the workplace as noted, immigration, etc.

Many people don't really comprehend that all of that is going to have an affect in their lives. They see the world is still turning but the don't realise that their circumstances are now often limited by the social change I have noted here. They think because they don't get a job it was down to their performance rather than the Employer having loads of applications. Employers will of always whine about not enough workers. What they really mean is that they want excess people applying for the jobs so they can pay the bottom rate possibly.

Your own statistics disprove your argument. Career women, which again merely means women who have or want a job, aren't being "bred out of society". If they were then we wouldn't have seen the consistent trends in rising employment among women.

Real wages have grown since the 70s, especially during in the 90s and 00s when more people want to university. That trend stopped after 2008. All you have done is ignored a global financial crisis and the failure of subsequent governments to tackle the systemic issues with our economy (e.g. cost of living problems caused by privatisation and our housing sector).

Feminism has nothing to do with it. You have just gone down the sexist rabbit hole.

Your proposal, that we essentially stop women from working, is absurd from an economic perspective. Approximately 50% of workers in the UK are women. Our economy would completely collapse if we stop them from working. Our productivity will plummet and hundreds of thousands of businesses would collapse. Why? Because suddenly 50% of the things being done will stop being done.

Take the NHS as an example. Women make up nearly 70% of the NHS workforce. The NHS is a huge organisation and it is already suffering from staff shortages. It would collapse within days if 70% of its employees suddenly stopped working and we, the public, will suffer from it when we cannot access healthcare.
Original post by Kingdragon
If you analyse historic 19th and 20th century battles. For example, Waterloo and the Battle of the Somme. You had soldiers who were majority 17-19 charge in face of certain death, but they would still carry on. However if you were to put modern Western 17-19 year olds in such a position desertion would be rampant. Is this due to a the idea that Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times"

Almost every claim here is wrong, at least with regard to the Somme:

No, British troops at the Somme were not majority 17-19. Not even close. The majority would have been at least well into their 20s. Officially, the Army didn't accept under-18s at all, and did not send under-19s to the front (though the latter rule was dropped in the last few months of the war, when the situation was becoming truly desperate). Of course, a decent number slipped through the gaps for various reasons - they lied about their age, or military recruiters and officers ignored the rules to make their quotas, or simply because of mundane paperwork mistakes - but a relatively small minority, probably about 250,000 maximum (out of over 5 million men in total who served, so maybe 5%). And being recruited at 17 doesn't mean they saw combat at 17. Or indeed, at all - about 20% of underage soldiers were found out and discharged within just a month of signing up! But even for those who passed under the radar, organising, equipping and training them took time - many of those fighting for the first time at the Somme had joined up at the outbreak of the war, nearly two years earlier. As for the French, they set their conscription age at 20 - and as, unlike Britain, they already had an established mass conscript army and conscription bureaucracy, rather than having to improvise one rapidly, it's likely their proportion of underage troops was much lower.

No, they didn't "charge in face of certain death". The assessment of the generals, which was relayed down to the enlisted men, significantly underestimated how strong the German resistance would be. The plan was that the preceding British artillery barrage of the German trenches would have destroyed their defences, leaving the infantry with the relatively straightforward job of crossing No-Man's Land and overwhelming what little German forces remained. And in the Southern part of the Somme front, this was indeed what happened, and British troops their advanced to most of their objectives with relative ease. The disastrous bloodbath further North was in large part down to German defences proving much stronger than expected.

Soldiers mutinying against their commanders and refusing to fight was in fact a huge and crucial problem in World War I. Indeed, it's how the war ended! German, Hungarian and Bulgarian troops all mutinied en masse in late 1918, leading to military collapse and defeat. And it wasn't just on the Central Powers side. Mass mutinies in the Russian Army were a large part of the Russian Revolution in 1917. The French army also saw wide-ranging mutinies in 1917 - only the huge German intelligence failure of not recognising their full extent enough to take advantage saved the French from a catastrophe.

British soldiers in World War I are not really an example of men shaped by "hard times". In fact, they'd grown up in pretty good times, relatively speaking - they were from the homeland of the world's richest, most powerful empire, whose geopolitical position had previously seemed so secure that (unlike the continental powers) it saw little need for a mass conscript army. It would be quite possible to be an ordinary British adult in 1913 and not really know anyone in your social circles who'd experienced war before - something that would have been quite exceptional for a Frenchman, German, Russian, Austrian, Italian, Serbian, Turk, etc living at the same time.

Reply 18
Are you really criticizing people for not being suicidal in the aim of enriching some old codger now? Unreal.
In either case, you seem to be forgetting a tiny fact that in those battles, cowardice before the enemy (saying no, in other words) was punishable by death.
Original post by Katerina S.
What this has bred though is a hyper competitive society with people aiming for skilled jobs in the hope of someday getting better pay than the low pay they now get with those jobs. They have done their degrees and want to make use of them and they want status too, but the status is usually a poor comparison to real status in society. They exist in their own microcosm and can't see outside the pond in which they exist and what they see as important in that pond.

It's such a society that has bred aggressive career girls, obsessing over their 'careers'. And willing to do whatever and sacrifice their life for their 'career'. I am not so sure that this is something that is purely down to socialisation, it may but possibly an aggressive gene set probe to this in the Anglo Saxon gene set. Anglo Saxon in a broad conceptual term of course.

Either way, I think in the near future we will see the era of career women run it's course. Primarily by the 'career' dream turning sour. Women will find it was not the answer to them having a beautiful life far from it but a pointless choice that leads to nothing but misery. Unfortunately for those women who have sacrificed themselves to a 'career' and their Employer they will find out too late, when their Employer who told them they loved them like family ditches them as they get old as no longer seen off use as yesterday's news like hot coal and tell them they need not drop around no more. That many women fail to understand is the work culture of the Employer always focused on what it best for the business, after all what else can they do.

How are these women suppose to build a life for themselves if they aren't career driven?

Quick Reply

Latest