Horrific statistics about the mental health of teenage girls in USA \ Globally

[chriscase]

FWIW the whole concept of modern society as a degeneration seems hopelessly simplistic. Are we to assume that at some time in the distant past there was some pristine society we have all "degenerated" from? Perhaps it was back in the 17th century when some light entertainment consisted of burning cats alive. I expect my Puritan ancestors would be rather disappointed to know we value their labor and sacrifice so little.

As far as the nuclear family goes, it seems to be a relatively recent innovation. Perhaps the true golden age was when people lived more in clans or large extended families. Maybe the true agent of "degeneracy" is agriculture, or perhaps written language. After all, before writing we have few definitive records of divorce or other societal ailments.

[Lord Thesaurian]

FWIW the whole concept of modern society as a degeneration seems hopelessly simplistic. Are we to assume that at some time in the distant past there was some pristine society we have all "degenerated" from? Perhaps it was back in the 17th century when some light entertainment consisted of burning cats alive. I expect my Puritan ancestors would be rather disappointed to know we value their labor and sacrifice so little.

It wasn’t my intention for my observations to hit close to home on a personal level. It’s an all too common emotional deflection to suggest that I’m a segregationist or witch hunter because I’ve mentioned how much better society can function when people exercise what used to be a basic level of self control.

As far as the nuclear family goes, it seems to be a relatively recent innovation.

It’s a several thousand year old innovation that has been the norm for at least a thousand years. But OK.

Perhaps the true golden age was when people lived more in clans or large extended families. Maybe the true agent of "degeneracy" is agriculture, or perhaps written language. After all, before writing we have few definitive records of divorce or other societal ailments.

I don’t consider the recent abolition of basic personal standards that directly caused a collection of crippling and intractable societal ailments to be an advancement, and certainly not comparable to agriculture or writing. As for the family itself, its destruction was not preordained by the march of history, and acknowledging that isn’t golden-agism. Even in 2020, the preeminent global civil rights organization of our time still considers the traditional family to be an oppressive reality whose final eradication is a top priority.

We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.

https://uca.edu/training/files/2020/...er-Handout.pdf

Apparently, the real problem isn’t that the nuclear family has been destroyed, it’s that it still exists at all. However, I’m content to rely upon the evidence.

[mishkin]

Lord Thesaurian, what do you mean when you say nuclear family? (I'm intrigued that you don't even accept non-biological parents in my previous attempt to define a healthy environment for child/adolescent development)

Please?

[alhoon]

Children of single parents are at greater risk for abuse and violence, and single fatherhood is correlated with child abuse regardless of income level. What part is unclear/untrue?

That is my opinion too, although I wasn't aware that single fatherhood is correlated with child abuse at all income levels. What I mean is that I understand single fathers may be bad fathers whether rich or poor, but I would expect rich parents to more easily be able to afford nannies and better schools or even just material distractions to keep their children more healthy. I am not saying you're wrong, I am just saying I am surprised.

Decades of survey data show teens born out of wedlock whose biological parents subsequently reunite report better health than either those whose parents who remain separated or whose mothers marry a stepfather.

That's kinda obvious. However it doesn't address whether the "better" mental health is good enough.

I’m saying people shouldn’t have kids unless they are married, and should stay married if they do.

You can't force people to stay together if they are unhappy together. There is another statistic... declining birth rates as people don't want to have kids. But that's a different discussion.

To get back to the discussion:
Your solution of forcing parents to stay together for the benefit of their kids mental health is unenforceable and the parents fighting all day would not be good for the mental health of the kids whether it is better for the kids if the fighting parents stayed together or went their own way.

Thus, considering we can't do that, the question is... what can we do?

And the follow-up question is:
- Bad parent situation is one of the reasons for such horrid statistics. Cyberbullying, pressure etc is a different one.
I would bet that financial strain, even if the parents do stay together does a number on the mental health of teenagers. Legio stated that divorce is worse than poverty (may be correct, may be right) but I think that applies for kids below 15. When you're 15-18 and you realize that your prospects for a better life are very much tied to the financial abilities of your parents + the girl / boy you like is going to a party you can't afford to go + you are an easier target for bullies because you're poor...
that would not be good. Certainly, 20 years olds or even 18 years olds are better at handling this than 14 years old, but that still CANNOT be easy.

In my country we have those big big exams at the end of high school, that you have to do well in order to get to a good university or a university in your area that your parents can afford to send you. Universities are free, but living in a different city is not and many families cannot afford to send their kids to those nice free unis in the other side of the country. Thus, in a the course of a couple of weeks and 6-8 exams will define your entire future.
And that's a ton of pressure. We are having cram schools, summer preparatory schools etc for our last two years of high school and a lot of studying, missing out many activities and it is very common for us to halt hobbies and sports in the last year of highschool and greatly limit our social activities to free up time and energy to study and prepare.
This adds a lot more pressure.
There are teen suicides - that are rarely reported on the media as we don't want to "spread the idea" and many are classified as "accidents" for religious reasons (our church looks down on suicide very very much). But the rates of teen suicides at those two final years of highschool, while not reported on the media are gathered by the statistics people. And they are not good.

After aaaaaaaaaaaall this side-track to return to what I meant to draw your attention on: In my country, pressure on teens is high at the last years of high school because University entrance exams are very important for your future.
In USA where lack of money could well mean you're effectively blocked from the good unis (unless you're a prodigy) there may be a similar pressure; "My parents can't afford to get me in a top university, so I have to bust my butt off in order to get scholarship for a decent university or I will be burden with a huge student debt."

[Lord Thesaurian]

That's kinda obvious. However it doesn't address whether the "better" mental health is good enough.

If better health isn’t the point, you should change the thread topic.

You can't force people to stay together if they are unhappy together.

To get back to the discussion:
Your solution of forcing parents to stay together for the benefit of their kids mental health is unenforceable and the parents fighting all day would not be good for the mental health of the kids whether it is better for the kids if the fighting parents stayed together or went their own way.

You can and the state already does in terms of childcare, at least in the US. Parents who divorce have custody and child support obligations settled and enforced in court. Regardless of whether or not they choose to get married and live together, parents are legally responsible for their children. Banning divorce isn’t the point, but I suppose I would reexamine and restrict no fault divorces in cases involving children as was the case pretty much everywhere before 1970, since people keep harping on this tangent.

Thus, considering we can't do that, the question is... what can we do?

People can get married and stay married if they choose to have kids. I don’t know how it is people seem to think this is a situation where we can have the cake and eat it too. Governments around the world have already tried the “it takes a village” approach to child rearing, and decided instead to support traditional families. Sometimes, there are no shortcuts.

Government-run orphanages have been phased out in most developed countries during the latter half of the 20th century but continue to operate in many other regions internationally. It is now generally accepted that orphanages are detrimental to the emotional wellbeing of children, and government support goes instead towards supporting the family unit.

In USA where lack of money could well mean you're effectively blocked from the good unis (unless you're a prodigy) there may be a similar pressure; "My parents can't afford to get me in a top university, so I have to bust my butt off in order to get scholarship for a decent university or I will be burden with a huge student debt."

If economic factors haven’t driven the decline in youth mental health the way divorce rates have, I don’t see how the above is a separate issue in terms of priorities. Most survey data suggests pretty much all teens plan to attend college, but most don’t have specific plans or expectations about how they will ultimately pay for it.

[sumskilz]

In USA where lack of money could well mean you're effectively blocked from the good unis (unless you're a prodigy) there may be a similar pressure

You are mistaken here. Lack of money makes university tuition and living expenses while attending effectively free. On the income-based repayment plan, your payments are 15% of your discretionary income for 25 years after which the debt is forgiven. Discretionary income is that income which you make that is above 150% of poverty level. For an individual with no children, this is 15% of your income above $20,385 annually. This threshold is higher if you live in a more expensive area and/or have dependents. If your income is below the threshold, you simply pay nothing each month, yet each month still counts toward your debt forgiveness as if you had paid. For comparison, the median income in Greece is $15,384 PPP, which is well below the level at which a person has completely free living expenses and tuition for college, plus a negative tax rate.

If your parents have an upper middle class or higher income, but refuse to pay for your university, that’s when it’s actually difficult if you are a student under the age of 24 who is not married. From age 24, or if you are married, your parents income is no longer considered in your need calculation.

[mishkin]

in the absence of response, regarding the good old nuclear family

The idyllic nuclear family, where loving mother and excellent homemaker Dorothy cares for little Timothy and Elizabeth and attentive and responsible Ralph brings all the necessary maturity and financial stability, has only existed in television commercials. They (the establishment) have tried to establish it as a norm, as what we should aspire to, which has created more trauma and dissatisfaction than anything else. In contrast to that ultranaive, impossible family, there is the real family, in which Ralph goes to whores every Friday after work, Dorothy consumes anxiolytics at large, Timothy begins to question his sexuality (and feels horrified because it is not what he society expects of him) and Elizabeth panics every time Uncle Johny shows up for a visit (you know why).

the nuclear family, only cool in television commercials and in the church pulpit. Tell us about your great nuclear family (rhetorical question).

PS: if Elizabeth gets pregnant as a teenager or out of wedlock, have no doubt that her parents will pay for the abortion. The responsible is not going to suddenly become a mature and responsible person, no white knight is going to rescue her and provide her with a happy life (with a happy nuclear family) from then on.

[chriscase]

You are mistaken here. Lack of money makes university tuition and living expenses while attending effectively free. On the income-based repayment plan, your payments are 15% of your discretionary income for 25 years after which the debt is forgiven. Discretionary income is that income which you make that is above 150% of poverty level. For an individual with no children, this is 15% of your income above $20,385 annually. This threshold is higher if you live in a more expensive area and/or have dependents. If your income is below the threshold, you simply pay nothing each month, yet each month still counts toward your debt forgiveness as if you had paid. For comparison, the median income in Greece is $15,384 PPP, which is well below the level at which a person has completely free living expenses and tuition for college, plus a negative tax rate.

If your parents have an upper middle class or higher income, but refuse to pay for your university, that’s when it’s actually difficult if you are a student under the age of 24 who is not married. From age 24, or if you are married, your parents income is no longer considered in your need calculation.

The problem there in my experience is that (at least in my case) the expected contribution from the family is way more than said family can afford. It's not so much unwillingness as inability. I couldn't afford to go to college until I'd spent about 6 years in the workforce and was no longer a dependent on my family's tax return. After that, I was able to attend college in CA pretty close to tuition-free.

in the absence of response, regarding the good old nuclear family

The idyllic nuclear family, where loving mother and excellent homemaker Dorothy cares for little Timothy and Elizabeth and attentive and responsible Ralph brings all the necessary maturity and financial stability, has only existed in television commercials. They (the establishment) have tried to establish it as a norm, as what we should aspire to, which has created more trauma and dissatisfaction than anything else. In contrast to that ultranaive, impossible family, there is the real family, in which Ralph goes to whores every Friday after work, Dorothy consumes anxiolytics at large, Timothy begins to question his sexuality (and feels horrified because it is not what he society expects of him) and Elizabeth panics every time Uncle Johny shows up for a visit (you know why).

the nuclear family, only cool in television commercials and in the church pulpit. Tell us about your great nuclear family (rhetorical question).

PS: if Elizabeth gets pregnant as a teenager or out of wedlock, have no doubt that her parents will pay for the abortion. The responsible is not going to suddenly become a mature and responsible person, no white knight is going to rescue her and provide her with a happy life (with a happy nuclear family) from then on.

Yeah, I'm really puzzled about this nuclear family fever-dream that appears to be going on.

Isn't the nuclear family more or less an extended family where most of the support / safety net has been cut away, either by relocation or disintegration of the extended family? I thought it was pretty well established fact that for tens if not hundreds of millenia people existed in networks of bands - extended families - that tended to move around seasonally and gather together at some point during the year. If we've "fallen" from some original, pristine state it would have to be something proximate to whatever that arrangement was. Though I do think even this notion of a Fall is simply a rehashing of Platonic/scriptural "Fall" via Augustine and Rousseau.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

In Germany the idea of the nuclear family rised only lately in the 50s. Before the extended family with aunts, uncles and cousins was more important.

About the fairy tale of holy-happy nucleus family:

Key facts

• Nearly 3 in 4 children - or 300 million children - aged 2–4 years regularly suffer physical punishment and/or psychological violence at the hands of parents and caregivers
• One in 5 women and 1 in 13 men report having been sexually abused as a child aged 0-17 years.
• 120 million girls and young women under 20 years of age have suffered some form of forced sexual contact.
• Consequences of child maltreatment include impaired lifelong physical and mental health, and the social and occupational outcomes can ultimately slow a country's economic and social development.
• Child maltreatment is often hidden. Only a fraction of child victims of maltreatment ever gets support from health professionals.
• A child who is abused is more likely to abuse others as an adult so that violence is passed down from one generation to the next. It is therefore critical to break this cycle of violence, and in so doing create positive multi-generational impacts.
• Preventing child maltreatment before it starts is possible and requires a multisectoral approach.
• Effective prevention approaches include supporting parents and teaching positive parenting skills, and enhancing laws to prohibit violent punishment.
• Ongoing care of children and families can reduce the risk of maltreatment reoccurring and can minimize its consequences.

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-s...d-maltreatment

And as i said problematic family relationships are one of the causes of child mistreatment:

"Relationship

Characteristics of the relationships within families or among intimate partners, friends and peers that may increase the risk of child maltreatment include:

family breakdown or violence between other family members
being isolated in the community or lacking a support network
a breakdown of support in child rearing from the extended family."

So you better leave your partner if you family is already broken, its better for your children.

[Lord Thesaurian]

* Nearly 3 in 4 children - or 300 million children - aged 2–4 years regularly suffer physical punishment and/or psychological violence at the hands of parents and caregivers
* One in 5 women and 1 in 13 men report having been sexually abused as a child aged 0-17 years.
* 120 million girls and young women under 20 years of age have suffered some form of forced sexual contact.
* Consequences of child maltreatment include impaired lifelong physical and mental health, and the social and occupational outcomes can ultimately slow a country's economic and social development.
* Child maltreatment is often hidden. Only a fraction of child victims of maltreatment ever gets support from health professionals.
* A child who is abused is more likely to abuse others as an adult so that violence is passed down from one generation to the next. It is therefore critical to break this cycle of violence, and in so doing create positive multi-generational impacts.
* Preventing child maltreatment before it starts is possible and requires a multisectoral approach.
* Effective prevention approaches include supporting parents and teaching positive parenting skills, and enhancing laws to prohibit violent punishment.
* Ongoing care of children and families can reduce the risk of maltreatment reoccurring and can minimize its consequences.

All these stats are worse for single parent households than married parents.

"Relationship

Characteristics of the relationships within families or among intimate partners, friends and peers that may increase the risk of child maltreatment include:

family breakdown or violence between other family members
being isolated in the community or lacking a support network
a breakdown of support in child rearing from the extended family."

Did you read what you highlighted? Seems like you’re making the opposite point to what you intended.

If we've "fallen" from some original, pristine state it would have to be something proximate to whatever that arrangement was. Though I do think even this notion of a Fall is simply a rehashing of Platonic/scriptural "Fall" via Augustine and Rousseau.

Until you can make the connection between this hunter gatherer strawman you’re building and the basic fact that people who have kids should be married and stay that way, as was the case within living memory, these rhetorical tactics aren’t as witty as you may assume.

[mishkin]

the basic fact that people who have kids should be married and stay that way

Are you against people having the option of divorce? Are you against the fact that, for the sake of their mutual children, a couple can decide, after considering it for a long time, to divorce?

[Sir Adrian]

Yeah, I'm really puzzled about this nuclear family fever-dream that appears to be going on.

Isn't the nuclear family more or less an extended family where most of the support / safety net has been cut away, either by relocation or disintegration of the extended family? I thought it was pretty well established fact that for tens if not hundreds of millenia people existed in networks of bands - extended families - that tended to move around seasonally and gather together at some point during the year. If we've "fallen" from some original, pristine state it would have to be something proximate to whatever that arrangement was. Though I do think even this notion of a Fall is simply a rehashing of Platonic/scriptural "Fall" via Augustine and Rousseau.

Yes we did have extended families for hundreds of thousands of years, but then we discovered agriculture and moved from the cave and the matriarchal society structure to increasingly sophisticated cities and villages and the nuclear family where the father worked outside the home to sustain the family and the mother worked inside the home to sustain the home itself. The two child nuclear family mishkin references only really came about during the tail end of the industrial revolution when people did not need many hands to aid on the fields or in the home.

That being said, the nuclear family is the bedrock upon which out entire civilization has built for the last 10000 years.

[chriscase]

Until you can make the connection between this hunter gatherer strawman you’re building and the basic fact that people who have kids should be married and stay that way, as was the case within living memory, these rhetorical tactics aren’t as witty as you may assume.

Well I'm not the one here fetishising a mythological past with terms like "degenerate society". If you mean to enshrine classical antiquity or the middle ages as our supposed golden age of "nuclear family" perfection, the evidence would appear to be against you, on multiple grounds. I also doubt anyone living today would really prefer to live as an ordinary person in any of those bygone eras, unless they get to do so as a member of the very small minority at the very top of the social structure. No wonder so many past life recollections are as Julius Caesar or Cleopatra.

No, if you want to point to a social structure we have supposedly degenerated from, the most plausible candidate is the extended family/clan structure that appears to have worked well enough for tens of thousands of years prior to recent innovations. Though there is almost certainly an extensive range of variation that likely occurred over those millenia.

And your precious "nuclear family" itself stands as likely an emblem as any of whatever "degeneration" one might posit. I mean, what is the nuclear family but a denatured clan that's lost most of its redundancy, self-accountability, and oral tradition? It's more or less what you get from a village after it's been wiped out by the plague or other natural disaster.

We're trying to make up the difference with other innovations, and maybe we will succeed, but you can hardly claim that the nuclear family by itself provides the ideal environment to grow healthy children. And we have seen quite clearly that positions of trust that lack visibility and openness to the broader community tend to attract those who are least deserving of that trust. Behind closed doors, the nuclear family can harbor abuses that would not be tolerated in a wider social structure.

That being said, the nuclear family is the bedrock upon which out entire civilization has built for the last 10000 years.

Well as recently as Carolingian France most people did not live in what we'd recognize as the "nuclear family". The best demographic evidence from that time shows a matrilocal and matrilineal society among ordinary people, with an emphasis on the avunculate in child rearing. I think the "nuclear family" as we understand it is a significantly more recent development.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Well I'm not the one here fetishising a mythological past with terms like "degenerate society". If you mean to enshrine classical antiquity or the middle ages as our supposed golden age of "nuclear family" perfection, the evidence would appear to be against you, on multiple grounds. I also doubt anyone living today would really prefer to live as an ordinary person in any of those bygone eras, unless they get to do so as a member of the very small minority at the very top of the social structure. No wonder so many past life recollections are as Julius Caesar or Cleopatra.

You’re accusing me of concocting your strawman. It’s not as though our parents and grandparents hunted saber tooth tigers or battled the Gauls, so this idea you’re pushing that today’s society is just too different for people who have kids to get married and stay married is more indicative of the emotional state of your argument than the factual state of mine.

No, if you want to point to a social structure we have supposedly degenerated from, the most plausible candidate is the extended family/clan structure that appears to have worked well enough for tens of thousands of years prior to recent innovations. And your precious "nuclear family" itself stands as likely an emblem as any of whatever "degeneration" one might imagine.

Regardless of how much copium is flung around about burning cats and Cleopatra, the fact remains you brought all this up, not me. My argument has nothing to do with whether someone alive today would want to be an ancient Roman. Therefore, the onus is on you to connect the dots between what I actually said and what you wish I’d said. Degeneracy is a factually accurate description of what has taken place as a result of the deliberate destruction of the family unit in recent decades, defined as a gradual deterioration. You can go ahead and make the argument skyrocketing single parenthood, divorce and deteriorating youth mental health is great and wonderful, but claiming I’m a feudalist because I call that trend a massive problem with clear causes isn’t that argument.

We're trying to make up the difference with other innovations, and maybe we will succeed, but you can hardly claim that the nuclear family by itself provides the ideal environment to grow healthy children.

Ive provided a mountain of evidence confirming the nuclear family produces better outcomes for kids, including mental health, than the current state of affairs which as degenerated from a recent point where single parenthood was an unheard of local scandal to the current point where it is the norm. The causal link there is firmly established. If you want to invent a better solution for kids than to be raised by their moms and dads together, feel free, but so far no one has. It’s not for me. I don’t need my mom and dad anymore. But the kids trying to off themselves in double digits probably do.

[fkizz]

Other than repeating the Holy Mantra that Family is the Bad Wolf Left Behind (preferences, to be fair depends on which family we're talking about, not all families are the same, not all are supportive, not all are abusive, not all are functional, not all are dysfunctional, obvious stuff, etc.);

No matter how much the past is painted as the Lord of Darkness, reality remains, currenty society and the present are giving such a feedback where all the holy modernity dogmas are being questioned, and the "modern clergy" obviously feels as uncomfortable as feudal clergy felt when church dogmas were questioned..

Reality is, we have a state of society where suicide is a popular thing. This should be given some importance somehow, unless we're happy with having a rise in teenagers killing themselves. Alternatively we can just entertain ourselves signaling on how modern we are while happily ignoring more teenagers dropping like flies.

[Sir Adrian]

Well as recently as Carolingian France most people did not live in what we'd recognize as the "nuclear family". The best demographic evidence from that time shows a matrilocal and matrilineal society among ordinary people, with an emphasis on the avunculate in child rearing. I think the "nuclear family" as we understand it is a significantly more recent development.

The nuclear family as we understand it existed in the time of the Romans. It has also existed and continues to exist elsewhere around the world, from Africa to Asia. It is definitely not a new concept. It existed in ancient Greece, it existed in Mesopotamia 4000 years ago and in Egypt 6000 years ago. In fact ancient Egypt is considered the odd one out of the bunch because it had the concept of divorce.

To my knowledge Carolingian France was no different than Merovingian France and Capetian France, namely a distinctly patrilocal society. But if you have some reputable sources claiming otherwise (i.e. actual scientific papers not feminist hit-pieces written to sell a narrative), I would be happy peruse them.

[chriscase]

You’re accusing me of concocting your strawman. It’s not as though our parents and grandparents hunted saber tooth tigers or battled the Gauls, so this idea you’re pushing that today’s society is just too different for people who have kids to get married and stay married is more indicative of the emotional state of your argument than the factual state of mine.

Regardless of how much copium is flung around about burning cats and Cleopatra, the fact remains you brought all this up, not me. My argument has nothing to do with whether someone alive today would want to be an ancient Roman. Therefore, the onus is on you to connect the dots between what I actually said and what you wish I’d said. Degeneracy is a factually accurate description of what has taken place as a result of the deliberate destruction of the family unit in recent decades, defined as a gradual deterioration. You can go ahead and make the argument skyrocketing single parenthood, divorce and deteriorating youth mental health is great and wonderful, but claiming I’m a feudalist because I call that trend a massive problem with clear causes isn’t that argument.

Ive provided a mountain of evidence confirming the nuclear family produces better outcomes for kids, including mental health, than the current state of affairs which as degenerated from a recent point where single parenthood was an unheard of local scandal to the current point where it is the norm. The causal link there is firmly established. If you want to invent a better solution for kids than to be raised by their moms and dads together, feel free, but so far no one has. It’s not for me. I don’t need my mom and dad anymore. But the kids trying to off themselves in double digits probably do.

I wouldn't call you so much a medievalist as a fantasist. You seemed to be more or less making up some past that doesn't appear to have ever existed, cherrypicking some statistics about divorce, and laying on some heavy implications about the fallen state of contemporary society. But now you say I misunderstood, so we're good now.

But what is this difference you claim is so significant, between a two-parent household and a single-parent household? Every "nuclear family" is exactly one disaster away from being a single-parent family. Seen this way, your "mountain of evidence" appears to tell us that tragedy and loss are bad.

I would say, from a taxonomic point of view, that the single-parent family is simply another variation of the nuclear family - one where some catastrophe or other has removed one of the parents. I expect this is a lot more likely in the absence of a robust extended family that might help buffer the impacts of problem events such as illness, infidelity, or violence. So really I think all those terrible statistics about divorce should be laid directly at the feet of the modern "nuclear family" you like so much.

One thing that should be pointed out here is that, by and large, mass shootings are themselves acts of suicide. The problem is very likely one and the same.

[fkizz]

Chriscase, other than dicussing which ideologies and institutions are the best and worse ones, are you capable of adressing the issue at hand, the rising in youth suicides? Or is the truth too much to handle?
Well, when the truth gets grim, not everyone can digest it.

But this is a lot fairly obvious cope-what aboutism in your posts.

[chriscase]

So the hypothesis at hand was that our youth suffer from some kind of woke attack on the "traditional family". I myself find that claim to be unconvincing, for already-stated reasons I wouldn't want to belabor out of consideration for you

[fkizz]

So the hypothesis at hand was that our youth suffer from some kind of woke attack on the "traditional family". I myself find that claim to be unconvincing, for already-stated reasons I wouldn't want to belabor out of consideration for you

I have no hipothesis. I just know that objectively speaking currently teenager suicides are rising, and that is the topic of the thread.
Discussing the issue will require allowing raising points of some variety, given it's not a pre-defined academic problem.

And your posts are just whataboutism and strawman around this.
If it's too grim for you, no one forces you to participate.