i think the 90s was the root moment (no pun lol) when beta males took hold of the overall culture. shows like friends were part of the cultural transition.
when i think of that show the first thing that comes to mind is the whiny complaining dudes on the show, how weak they are. the women were kinda hot on there, but the dudes were quite off-putting.
WE GET IT...YOU PREFER STOIC MUSCLE MEN. NOEMOJI
shareI think a much more accurate way to state that is to say that the '90s was the time that realistic depictions of men became more normal in films and on television. Previously, the norm was for protagonists to be idealized, unrealistic tough guys, as escapist fantasy for viewers, but at some point someone realized that realism works better.
Of course, you seem to believe that such things as alpha and beta males actually exist, so who knows what you'll make of my opinion.
humans are humans, but you can't deny people were likely way tougher in past generations. to me it seems to wane more and more with each new generation. the tags alpha and beta are subjective, so there's no way to measure it, but yes i do think some men are decidedly weaker than others. in order to actually assess anything you have to make certain concrete concessions about the language you will be using, and one lib technique is to attempt to dismantle those terms, similarly to what you just did. (not saying that you meant to; but in effect it's the same result)
yeah, i can admit this: probably any random male from the WW2 generation was many degrees tougher than the soft metrosexuals of the 90s and beyond. which one would you want defending you if 200 marauders were charging toward your house with swords and knives? Ross, or John Wayne?
Maybe I'd want Ross? Both are actors, and I have no idea how tough or frail they were in real life. And while that may seem flippant, it gets to the crux of things. You're basing your opinion of the toughness of men of the past on how men were portrayed in the media. In the past, actors were told to act tough, and now they're told to act more relatable, but that tells me nothing about the actor in his day-to-day life, or the people of his era.
The best I can say is that I'm now in my 50s, and while societal norms have changed, and it's far more acceptable, and even encouraged, to whine and cry if one doesn't get ones way, and victimhood is exalted, I have not seen any change in the overall toughness in men. In the '70s and '80s, most men seemed to be like Ross or Chandler, and in the 2020s they still do. That hasn't changed. How they are portrayed onscreen has changed drastically, but again, I think that is more due to audiences of the past wanting escapist fantasy on screen, and audiences of today wanting relatability.
first, i wasn't being literal about ross vs JW. though i'd bet on john wayne any day IRL too. i was using them as metaphors for their respective generations.
another assumption you made is that men of every generation are the same and only the portrayal changed. i am basing my take on people i have known, not movies. i guarantee you men of the past generations were tougher than today, not in capacity necessarily but in effect, due to things they went through and how the culture was then. poepl in general were tougher. if you don't realize that then i am not sure what kind of area you are in or what kind of folks you've been around.
i am not saying every man born then was a he-man. i'm just saying the times produced tougher guys, on average. and the new times produce weak snowflakes, on average. not a zero sum equation on either end.
but overall, i wasn't really intending to go this deep into analysis of a (literally) flippant little quip posted to a 90s tv show message board, lol
but in any case you go on thinking what you like, and i will see it my way, and we can agree to disagree.
cheers
Victimhood is now sought after in our society at this point and that is not good. I see young men striving to be victims and that makes me cringe .
shareIn the Simpson's who is the corruption mayor of Springfield?? Joe Quimby?
shareI'm just gonna chip in here and help ya out buzzlightbeer. What you were saying about newer generations is true it's backed by scientific studies. It's comprehensive and agreed upon.
Men in 2011 produce 50% less sperm than Men in 1973.
In 1992, a study found a global 50% decline in sperm counts in men over the previous 60 years. Multiple studies over subsequent years confirmed that initial finding, including a 2017 paper showing a 50% to 60% decline in sperm concentration between 1973 and 2011 in men from around the world.
Researchers found that across the board, strength scores were statistically lower than similar study results from 30 years ago.
The difference was most noticeable among men. For example, a 20- to 34-year-old guy could apply 98 pounds of force when gripping with his right hand, but in 1985, a man of the same age could apply 117 pounds of force, on average.
According to research, men’s testosterone levels have dropped at least 20% in the last 20 years with more and more younger men suffering the effects of low testosterone.
This is not a new trend. Seventy-year-old men in 1987-89 had an average testosterone level that was almost 100 points higher than even 55-year-old men in 2002-04. Meaning that the average 22 year old man today, has an average testosterone level roughly equal to that of a 67 year old man in 2000. Therefore, it’s likely that your testosterone levels are half of those of your father and undoubtedly significantly less than your grandfather.
Thank you for that post, SASKI. Your research confirms my suspicions. It also makes me sad for modern women, who are awash in a sea of woosies and assholes. Did the research suggest reasons for the precipice drop in manhood? Nature? Or Nurture? My guess would be cultural nurture.
shareYou're welcome R_Kane. I have an interest in health and fitness and have been aware of these trends for quite a while so I had to post this to show that buzzlightbeer was correct in mentioning that Men of today are less masculine. It's a fact at this point not a theory, so many studies have found downtrends in male hormone levels, strength, fertility etc, etc.
It's multifactorial.
- Obesity is at an all time high and has been trending upwards rapidly since the 70s. Body fat is known to lower testosterone levels and increase estradiol (an oestrogenic female hormone) levels in men. It's problematic as childhood obesity is very prevalent these days. Children are growing up and maturing with more feminine hormonal patterns. Their bodyshapes, facial features etc, etc are less masculine than they should be. These growth windows are so important, when you're finished developing you're finished. You don't get a second chance. Obesity used to be middle aged adult problem, it's now a child, teen and young adult issue too.
- Insulin resistance (pre-diabetes) is correlated with lower testosterone levels regardless of weight and body fat percentage. Modern diets high in sugar and simple carbs (spikes blood sugar levels) lead to insulin resistance. There was a diet trend not long ago of eating low-fat foods (which had added sugar). That's a major mistake. Dietary fat is correlated with testosterone levels. People following high fat diets (Keto for example) have higher testosterone levels than those following low fat diets. It's the most important macronutrient for testosterone production. Vegan diets (which are increasingly common) often have low fat intake (unless they eat plenty of nuts). You also have soy products which are similar to estrogens in structure. Reasearch on soya beans and it's derivatives is all over the place, some say it doesn't effect hormone levels others say it increases estrogen levels. Soy is a cheap protein source and used in many foods these days.
- Phthalates, which are found in plastics, are in the water supply. So many foods these days are stored in plastic. They bastardize prenatal masculinization. The anogenital distance is larger in men than women due to prenatal exposure to androgens, it's part of the development of male genitalia and the reproductive system.
A study by Swan et al. determined that the AGD is linked to fertility in males, and penis size. Males with a short AGD (lower than the median around 52 mm (2 in)) have seven times the chance of being sub-fertile as those with a longer AGD. It is linked to both semen volume and sperm count. A lower than median AGD also increases the likelihood of undescended testes, and lowered sperm counts and testicular tumors in adulthood. Babies with high total exposure to phthalates were ninety times more likely to have a short AGD, despite not every type of the nine phthalates tested being correlated with shorter AGD.
Swan et al. report that the levels of phthalates associated with significant AGD reductions are found in approximately one-quarter of Americans tested by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for phthalate body burdens.
Women who had high levels of phthalates in their urine during pregnancy gave birth to sons who were ten times more likely to have shorter than expected AGDs.
gay frogs man. we're being poisoned.
shareGreat post. 👍
shareI think Ross was the only real Beta guy on Friends and that really came after season 5.
share