It also ignores that women, generally speaking, have greater support networks than men. Men in America have generally been expected to handle far more things on their own. Plenty of women I know in their 30s and beyond still ask things of their parents whilst I don't know of nearly as many guys in my cohort who rely on their parents in any way.
In a sense, this is all victim blaming. Majority of homeless people are men? I guess they should have been as strong as women! /s
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
There's nothing cherry picked about this, men do worse these days and are more vulnerable than women on a lot of very substantial metrics. It doesn't get more real and objective than looking at the rate of deaths of despair and the gender disparity there. I don't understand why you apparently perceive this as an attack om men.
This inability to acknowledge the vulnerability of men is, as the article points out as well, one of the reasons why there is comparatively little help for men.
But that's exactly what I'm referring to. It cherry picks some examples to make men look "fragile", "sensitive", and "vulnerable".
But if you looked at these terms objectively, which sex is more so?
> Most violent criminals are men
You can't say that and still insist that men are weaker.
> Men, especially young men are much more vulnerable to exhibit maladjusted behaviors and that's both backed by common sense and data.
See how you're twisting the meaning of words to arrive at your conclusion?
Polar bears are more vulnerable to freezing to death than Arabian gazelles, therefore polar bears are "fragile", "sensitive", and "vulnerable" compared to gazelles.
Discussions are pointless when words have no meanings.