Modern Male Identity Crisis

[Red Diabla]

We can easily see the out of wedlock births, divorce rate, crime rate and a host of other figures have gone up astronomically.

So has the population in general, and outlooks have changed. As has been discussed in this thread, we hear a LOT more about the negative stories. Does that mean there are actually more of them going on that isn't growing at the same rate as the population in general? Also take into account the 24/7 news outlets, and you're going to hear about a lot more horrible stuff going on now. That doesn't mean there was actually less horrible stuff going on in the "good old days", it means you either didn't hear about it or it was dealt with differently.

For instance, just because there are day care facilities in high schools doesn't mean it's an inferior way to deal with teens who have children. It means that children who are born to teenagers aren't put up for adoption anymore. Is that better? I don't know. It's just different. There have always been teens who get pregnant. Always. To deny that is to deny human nature. Same with crime, same with addictions. It all has happened in the past. You may not have heard about it is all.

RD

 

[Swing Motorman]

I was thinking about the whole teenage mothers deal, and for all the times that the situations are just awful, I've seen them turn out to be good things in at least one case. A gal in her late teens recently had a baby girl and must balance her just-out-of-high-school job with the child, and with the child's father (they're due to marry soon, which is happy news.)

What I find oddly nice about it is that since the young mother needs help with child-rearing, the phrase "it takes a village to raise a child" becomes true in a very literal sense. My own mother (who is friends with the teen's mom), is helping with the baby a few days a month, as are most of Mother's friends. If all of these women stay in the little child's life as she grows up, it could be very beneficial. (And on a personal note, I learned a few of child-rearing skills, since Mother dear doesn't like reading directions when assembling car seats, rocker chairs, etc! )

Teen pregnancies can be a mess, that's for darned sure. And with our unreliable news sources, who knows if the trend is growing or fading. But it's not all bad... like Chuck Berry sang, "you never can tell."

 

[AtomicEraTom]

Bingo!

You mean CNN.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Cable TV "news" -- from any network -- is to actual journalism what professional wrestling is to sports. The only thing more demeaning to public discourse is radio talk shows.

 

[Travis Lee Johnston]

Amen

 

[Atticus Finch]

But it's not all bad... like Chuck Berry sang, "you never can tell."

I think we sometimes like to tell ourselves that things are worse than they really are. For example, it seems reasonable that the divorce rate, the crime rate and the rate of unwed childbirth have recently "gone up astronomically".

Well, not exactly.

It depends on the time period to which the current rates are being compared, but in the last twenty to thirty years the divorce rate has remained constant at about 50%. The various crime statistics have generally decreased...especially violent crime…but there are notable exceptions such as juvenile crime, which has increased. Unwed births have increased, but there is still a strong socioeconomic component to that statistic and I think that more and more people are simply rejecting the idea that one has to be married to successfully raise a child.

AF

 

[Edward]

Cable TV "news" -- from any network -- is to actual journalism what professional wrestling is to sports. The only thing more demeaning to public discourse is radio talk shows.

I'm very fond of broadcast journalism over here. Channel 4 News is good in particular, as is the BBC, both its regular network bulletins and the rolling news stations. Course, that said broadcast journalism (as distinct from print) in the UK is subject to very stringent legal requirements that it must be wholly impartial at all times. Occasionally they slip, but for the most part they manage it well, IMO. This is all designed to be in line with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which puts the right to receive information (not misinformation) on an equal footing with the right to express views. Obviously things play out differently under the First Amendment, but I couldn't abide the editorialised nature of the news networks I saw in the US. Different strokes, though....

 

[scottyrocks]

The only thing more demeaning to public discourse is radio talk shows.

I don't often disagree with you, Lizzie, but radio talk shows are almost the only place I find out things that slip by completely unnoticed anywhere else. I will say no more because of the risk of sounding too political.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I'm very fond of broadcast journalism over here. Channel 4 News is good in particular, as is the BBC, both its regular network bulletins and the rolling news stations. Course, that said broadcast journalism (as distinct from print) in the UK is subject to very stringent legal requirements that it must be wholly impartial at all times. Occasionally they slip, but for the most part they manage it well, IMO. This is all designed to be in line with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which puts the right to receive information (not misinformation) on an equal footing with the right to express views. Obviously things play out differently under the First Amendment, but I couldn't abide the editorialised nature of the news networks I saw in the US. Different strokes, though....

We used to have something similar here, the "Fairness Doctrine," which was an FCC regulation requiring broadcast licensees to present equal time for all sides of controversial issues. This came out of the quaint, now-forgotten concept that the airwaves were a public resource, which broadcasters were licensed to use in exchange for a pledge to serve in the public interest, convenience, and necessity, not in service to any particular agenda or viewpoint. This regulation was repealed in the 1990s, and broadcasters have fought fiercely any notion that it should be reinstituted -- not out of any passion for free speech, but out of a passion for all the money that partisan syndicated talk programming brings in. It's one of several unfortunate regulatory changes that contributed to the evisceration of true local radio in the 1990s.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/22/fcc-to-drop-fairness-doctrine/

 

[MikeBravo]

I'm very fond of broadcast journalism over here. Channel 4 News is good in particular, as is the BBC, both its regular network bulletins and the rolling news stations. Course, that said broadcast journalism (as distinct from print) in the UK is subject to very stringent legal requirements that it must be wholly impartial at all times. Occasionally they slip, but for the most part they manage it well, IMO. This is all designed to be in line with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which puts the right to receive information (not misinformation) on an equal footing with the right to express views. Obviously things play out differently under the First Amendment, but I couldn't abide the editorialised nature of the news networks I saw in the US. Different strokes, though....

One point to note, which may be significant, is the the BBC as well as the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) are wholly government funded, with no commercial influence. Compare the regard in which the BBC is held by the public in contrast to News of the Day and other privately-owned "newspapers" in the UK.

In Australia, we had a scandal with "talk back" radio as we call it with "cash for comments" where the broadcaster read from a script provided by the private companies. The are now required to announce if they are receiving money for their comments.

 

[Undertow]

I don't often disagree with you, Lizzie, but radio talk shows are almost the only place I find out things that slip by completely unnoticed anywhere else. I will say no more because of the risk of sounding too political.

I won't argue this with you Scotty, because it's not entirely inaccurate. However, one must be quite vigilant in what is presented as fact, versus what is rumor and/or opinion. I've studied radio talk shows on both sides of the aisle and found all sorts of "facts" being presented as such, when truly they were the lone rantings of the host to stir the daily pot.

On the other hand, some of these folks do get a hold of a tidbit that slips through the mass media, and they are relentless. Rightfully so.

Edward, regarding the BBC: I love the BBC and read it every day. Compared to CNN, the BBC is what adults read/watch for news as opposed to grade schoolers. (no offense to CNN fans, I read them every day too)

My only issue with the BBC is the same issue I have with some of the US' more venerable outlets; namely, it would seem they pull an AP ticker, read it, paraphrase it and present it, all the while avoiding any boat rocking. I prefer the Guardian over the BBC, but even then one must be careful to avoid any political leanings. Such is the world of journalism. [huh]

 

[jamespowers]

So has the population in general, and outlooks have changed. As has been discussed in this thread, we hear a LOT more about the negative stories. Does that mean there are actually more of them going on that isn't growing at the same rate as the population in general? Also take into account the 24/7 news outlets, and you're going to hear about a lot more horrible stuff going on now. That doesn't mean there was actually less horrible stuff going on in the "good old days", it means you either didn't hear about it or it was dealt with differently.

For instance, just because there are day care facilities in high schools doesn't mean it's an inferior way to deal with teens who have children. It means that children who are born to teenagers aren't put up for adoption anymore. Is that better? I don't know. It's just different. There have always been teens who get pregnant. Always. To deny that is to deny human nature. Same with crime, same with addictions. It all has happened in the past. You may not have heard about it is all.

RD

Uh, those rates are computed as a per 100,00 figure so you can rest assured that population size has nothing to do with it. Simply looking at the FBI Uniform Crime reports will show you that crime has increased---especially Homocides since say 1950 as a demarkation point---from 4.6 in 1950 to 10.2 in 1980 and down to 5.9 in 2007. Easy point to make. This is also due to the local governments---like the one I have herelying about what crimes go on. So it is actually higher in other areas such as burgulary, rape, assault etc. More later....

 

[jamespowers]

Uh, those rates are computed as a per 100,00 figure so you can rest assured that population size has nothing to do with it. Simply looking at the FBI Uniform Crime reports will show you that crime has increased---especially Homocides since say 1950 as a demarkation point---from 4.6 in 1950 to 10.2 in 1980 and down to 5.9 in 2007. Easy point to make. This is also due to the local governments---like the one I have herelying about what crimes go on. So it is actually higher in other areas such as burgulary, rape, assault etc. More later....

The teen birthrate per 1,000 unmarried teenagers in 1950 was at 11 per thousand teenagers. It is now over 80 per thousand teenagers---the highest in the developed world!
All of this is imprtant because as these things happen it places a larger burden on the public agencies that we pay for and our society at large. Costs of imprisonment have increased astronomically when you consider that in 1950 our entire prison population was 252,000 while now our population is over 2,000,000 and costs $35-45,000 per year per inmate.:eusa_doh:

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

I would submit that any decrease in the homicide rate has more to do with medical science (which has been able to save more of the victims) than any positive sociological trend. What the same politicians conveniently leave out is that the attempted murder rate has either remained the same or has increased.

 

[jamespowers]

I would submit that any decrease in the homicide rate has more to do with medical science (which has been able to save more of the victims) than any positive sociological trend. What the same politicians conveniently leave out is that the attempted murder rate has either remained the same or has increased.

I had not thought of that. A murder rate could decrease simply because you can save more.

How do you determine an attempted murder rate?

 

[1961MJS]

...Costs of imprisonment have increased astronomically when you consider that in 1950 our entire prison population was 252,000 while now our population is over 2,000,000 and costs $35-45,000 per year per inmate.:eusa_doh:

Hi

It is my understanding from an old (5-10 years) article that the cost of imprisonment ($25K up) is STILL much less than the cost of crime as a whole. Apparently many criminals are prolific enough to cost well over $100K per year. Numbers are from memory.

later

 

[sheeplady]

The teen birthrate per 1,000 unmarried teenagers in 1950 was at 11 per thousand teenagers. It is now over 80 per thousand teenagers---the highest in the developed world!
All of this is imprtant because as these things happen it places a larger burden on the public agencies that we pay for and our society at large. Costs of imprisonment have increased astronomically when you consider that in 1950 our entire prison population was 252,000 while now our population is over 2,000,000 and costs $35-45,000 per year per inmate.:eusa_doh:

Around here, we have had a number of prisions close. Since they are the life blood of employment in many of the rural areas, this has been met with much resistance from the local people who were promised the "high paying" correction jobs and thought they'd be financially secure when industry left.

If you think about it, it's more than a little twisted that a vital part of the economy is a prison and that correctional jobs are considered high paying in some areas.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

If you think about it, it's more than a little twisted that a vital part of the economy is a prison and that correctional jobs are considered high paying in some areas.

One of the most powerful unions in California is the correctional officers union. They even get paid for "walk time" -- the time it takes for them to go from their cars in the parking lot to their posts when they come to work.

 

[jamespowers]

Hi

It is my understanding from an old (5-10 years) article that the cost of imprisonment ($25K up) is STILL much less than the cost of crime as a whole. Apparently many criminals are prolific enough to cost well over $100K per year. Numbers are from memory.

later

Oh yes, that is true enough. When you consider the costs to insurance companies, record keeping and such then it does cost more than detaining them for sure. It is just tough to figure that we have to either choose to warehouse them or they will cost us more that is disturbing.