Could you say more about this?

What historical events are you referring to?

I consider myself a disaffected male, and am curious to understand my situation from a historical perspective.

Look up the societal collapse of Rome in particular. It's one of the most named and covered anecdotes. A few other societies follow similar patterns, internally collapsing and being taken apart piece by piece rather than aggressively overtaken. Wikipedia[0] names several societies (I don't keep sources at hand to my own discredit).

It all has to do with incentives and the role of men in societies which to some degree still apply today. Stop giving men incentives to have families or any other reason to care about younger generations, and they stop having a reason to care for the future. Don't give them an incentive to care about the now (wives, partners, comrades), and they stop having a reason to care about the now.

Not having people care for the future is a great way to make them live their lives as short-sighted and hedonistic* as possible, which further affects their reason to care about the now beyond themselves. Not having people care for the now is a great way to incentivize inner conflict and have a party rise to fill the gap.

*: Hedonism on its own has a whole slew of other problems I'd rather not get into detail with, but for the sake of comparison, online dating apps' meat market approach hasn't exactly helped younger people obtain more satisfying relationships.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societal_collapse#Examples_of_...

Thanks for posting this.

Societal collapse is probably something most people desire to avoid, and if the large numbers of disaffected men are the 'canary in the coal mine' and symptomatic of a weakened society, then we as a society also want to come up with solutions to ameliorate that particular suffering as a part of strengthening society as a whole

Society becomes a more dangerous and unforgiving place, and suddenly men have value as protectors and providers again.

To quote Bill Burr "There are no feminists in a house fire"

Surely importing a bunch of Goths and foederati that turned into bagaudae had something to do with it.

The best thing about the fall of Rome is how you can read literally anything into it

  too many soldiers
  too many men, not enough solders
  too many immigrants
  not enough immigrants
  immigrants didn't integrate
  immigrants integrated too much
  not enough defense spending
  recession from too much defense spending
  lack of scientific knowledge
  proto-technocracy instead of realpolitik

i.e. take your pick of

  too much like today
  not enough like today

as well as

  the worst thing to happen to civilization
  not actually that bad

Honestly, my favorite explanation is that gold currency is a ponzi scheme that forced the roman empire to conquer more and more gold bearing land until its territory was so large that it was difficult to defend while simultaneously invading new territory. The moment they failed to conquer an ever growing mass of land, they had to pay the army while all the wealthy people have hoarded gold and kept it out of circulation which destroyed the medium of exchange function of money and therefore forced Romans to issue additional coins with less gold to pay its soldiers as hoarded gold coins do not pay any taxes.

Most people interpret inflation as obvious government mismanagement, I interpret it as an inevitability because of the inherent conflict between medium of exchange and store of value caused by using gold as currency.

Saved money that is used as a store of value interrupts the circulation of money which then stops the payment of taxes which then forces the government to find a substitute for the loss of tax revenue. The answer is to separate the medium of exchange and store of value function into two separate "institutions". Cash is not a store of value, banks delegate the store of value by giving loans to producers of value i.e. companies and entrepreneurs. If you just save cash/gold, there is no guarantee anyone is going to produce value in the future. You are basically speculating that there are going to be people in the future that will gladly take your gold and then people act betrayed when that speculation didn't pan out.

right, sorry, obviously I forgot

  not enough crypto

I'm not GP and can only guess, and not even a particularly educated guess, but I will try, because I too am curious, and everyone knows the best way to get an answer on the web is to post a confident-sounding answer so someone can 'correct me' therefore giving me the actual information I'm hopeful to receive.

I remember (and therefore don't have a source for) users on the web claiming the rise of fascism was enabled partly by strongman leaders engaging all of the disaffected men en masse to serve said strongman's agenda by offering them the things they wanted (respect, status, stability).

If my tripping of Godwin's Law is on the right track, then the GP may be referring to Weimar Germany where Hitler was able to take control over a very quick timeframe, starting with disaffected men and eventually spreading the message to the general populace, taking over the country's government sans violence (though there was certainly violence and intimidation near the end of the Weimar government and probably before then that I am unaware of).

Or, much more likely, the GP meant something else entirely, and I am Wrong On The Internet!

Good question. I wonder if this type of societal situation has lead to wars of conquest in the past. Is there research or studies on events like this? It seems like something that may be difficult to study historically, but who knows.