People who give up on life

[Dappy777]

I have had a few experiences recently with people who've given up on life. They are all male, over 40, single and childless. My cousin, for example, is 48 and lives with his mother. He's sort of her carer (she isn't physically dependent, just depressed and clingy). I know he feels trapped, but he's sort of given up. He doesn't bother dating, has lost touch with old friends and does a minimum wage job to get by.

There seem to be a lot of middle-aged men like this. I encounter a lot of them in my line of work. They have never come to the attention of the authorities because they've never claimed benefits. Instead, their parents provide them with food and a home. In return the parents (or parent) gets company and support. They're often ashamed of their life, and so they don't socialise, date or work. Things tick along OK until the parents die. Then the problems begin. The person will often be in their 50s or 60s, with poor social skills, poor mental health (undiagnosed autism or depression, for example), no job or CV, and no savings. Often, the house has to be sold (either to pay for nursing costs or because siblings demand their share of inheritance). The individual then finds himself alone for the first time and unable to cope. It's not a pretty sight. People like this really need to consider what will happen after the death of the parents.

Just curious if others have encountered such men and know what I'm talking about. Maybe (because of the work I do) I get a skewed view, but it seems quite common. Because of the shame involved, it tends to be hidden.

That's sad. People in that situation underestimate how quickly time goes. I should have chosen a better title for the thread, but it is kind of accurate. The sorts of people I'm describing often do give up, partly because they feel trapped and ashamed, but partly because of their age. If you haven't struck out when young and built up some kind of life (not necessarily a partner or kids, but at least a job, a few friends and hobbies, a foot on the property ladder, etc), it becomes much harder. Dating in your 40s and 50s is bloody grim (take it from me lol). And making good friends can also be hard. By 40 or 50 most people are settled. They're settled in their relationship, friendships, career, etc. Suddenly being thrown out into the world at 55 or 60 is much harder than at 25 or 30.

DS is one who would say he’s happy with a simple life. That’s fine, and he earns, works, looks after himself. He isn’t in this category- but easily could be. He’ll be retiring around the age we start needing care, and could easily see moving in with us as the obvious solution. Reading this makes it evident that I need to make sure that doesn’t happen.

There’s a difference between choosing a simple life and having no choices.

Those who think this thread is talking about them and feel offended are probably mistaken. This isn’t ’people who live with their parents’. It’s people who for whatever reason opt out of the majority of normal life and can’t get back in.

Do you have family who could look after him if something happens to you? Do you have younger siblings or your DP? Or nieces / nephews who are friends with your son? Even in adulthood my cousins and I are friends and help each other.

I suspect that may be because the fathers just absent themselves (either by leaving or hiding behind work) and abdicate responsibility for how their kids are raised.

Well my living circumstances and age match, but my point is that many of us, and there are countless thousands who care for our elderly relatives at home (as was absolutely the norm not that long ago) do so whilst going about normal(ish) lives - there are sacrifices, if you can call them that, but I'd not change a thing.

Its not enough just to say “this is what this person is like, they are a loner/dysfunctional/introvert”. Why isn’t society enabling people to participate? How can we change it?

So basically all the people who are just introverted, perfectly happy leading their atypical lives, or have no interest in participating in other people's ideas of what they should be doing, can't just be left to do their own thing, and this is something that needs changed whether they want it to change or otherwise?

Sure, there are people who are "trapped" or have been denied opportunities through no fault of their own, and yes, society needs to think about how to help these people give themselves a leg up, but society also needs to respect the fact that some people choose to live what is perceived to be an "atypical" life and leave them in peace to get on with it.

This is why I totally understand why some people bristle at terms like "failure to launch", because it reinforces this idea that there is only one acceptable way to "do" life, and school - university - career - mortgage - marriage - children is the only permitted and acceptable path, otherwise you are somehow living your life to the detriment of wider society. It's outdated nonsense, and frankly it's highly offensive.

Faults on both sides clearly and I imagine that is generally the case, it's just that the mothers are getting blamed for it and the fathers aren't for some reason.

Thanks for responding. Yes we have lots of family, siblings, cousins etc. I also encourage DC into local autism youth groups and we are part of a wonderful Church.
I fear that there are many like him, too autistic to get a job, and so support himself, but not autistic enough to qualify for any form of support.

But how would the girl have coped? Sometimes, forcing people out into 'the real world' is cruel. Some people are poorly equipped for life, it's as simple as that. They find it hard to date and make friends because people don't like them or want to be friends with them. That's just the reality. I have attended ACL classes that included middle-aged people like this. Often, they lived at home with their parents, didn't work and suffered from various mental health issues. To get them out of the house, their parents or support workers had made them take classes. Though I went out of my way to be kind to them, many were tedious and unpleasant. Obviously that isn't true of everyone who is middle-aged and living at home, but it is true of a lot. They had no social skills and nothing to say.

Well said.

To be clear (and I accept it sounds like I'm making it all about me) I have "launched" about four times, only to have the rug pulled out by genuinely unforeseen circumstances each time.

So now, heading into my late 50s, I'm mentally, physically and emotionally exhausted, and I'm not the world's preferred demographic by dint of age and sex.

If I'm choosing to "give up on life" right now, can't i just be left to regroup without the implication I'm defective, detrimental and a burden to society? The only certainty is change, so I might, things might, and maybe some of the very broad ranging group in question also might.

But I tell you something, railroading and scolding is likely to have quite the opposite effect.

@XDownwiththissortofthingX

So basically all the people who are just introverted, perfectly happy leading their atypical lives, or have no interest in participating in other people's ideas of what they should be doing, can't just be left to do their own thing, and this is something that needs changed whether they want it to change or otherwise?

I have no problem with people leading atypical lives or living as suits them. I think having agency in how you determine your path in life is critical and I am not advocating everyone should follow some identical path into climbing the corporate ladder.

But I disagree with your contention about being “introverted”. I think this word is now widely misapplied to describe “someone with chronic social anxiety”. True introverts aren’t people who shun society and retreat into their bedrooms or their immediate family. Being an introvert just describes the way you gain energy in your life.

But it’s been coopted by people who find social interaction difficult as a kind of justification for limiting contact with other people. Choosing to limit social contact and enjoying your own company is not the same thing as being a misanthropic social hermit. This attitude gives people air cover to isolate themselves in an incredibly damaging way.

I think I'm the type of person you describe. I'd never actually thought of myself as a social problem until I read these comments. I'm not in the benefits system.

It's hard to go and socialise when I'm not just the default on call person for my immediate family but also for other elderly people in the community whose own children and grandchildren have responsible jobs far away.

It sounds like you're fulfilling a valuable social role, and have good social and organisational skills.

You have described in a very nice, non-judgemental way a Loser. This is not something new, there are always life’s losers. Let them be.

But this isn’t you! You have taken risks, been out there, done things.

Shit happens- and it sounds as though you have had far more than your fair share!

This isn’t about people who have been through the wringer and come home to recover.

Absolutely! Like there will always be busybody’s too.

I have a male relative like this. He was completely indulged by parents who were afriad of upsetting him, and as such never built any resilience or had any drive.

It sounds as though you are hugely social, doing loads of community work.

This isn’t you.
Anymore than it was me when I was on the parish council and hugely active in the community it’s, but not doing paid work.

I hear you, alongside mum I have two other local elderly who I look in to and help out - neither you, nor I are failures, or anything detrimental - the way we have chosen / or circumstances led us to lead our life is no one else's business.

I feel very fulfilled, and I always use my late uncle as an example of the perils of normal life, he climbed the corporate greasy pole, worked long hours doing something in the city, had a holiday to the costa plonks once a year they told him to bugger off with a crappy gold clock a 65, his health went down hill, into a home and died - if that's you choice in life great, but I reckon I have a better time of it!!

Are they loosers though, my definition of a looser could be someone who Gets a job sitting at a computer, doing something in admin, working long hours, spending most of it paying a mortgage or rent, having a holiday once a year, and hoping they have good enough health and enough pension to enjoy retirement - or indeed not, entirely depends on your viewpoint, and ultimately, to quote Bad Lurman "the race in life is long, but ultimately its just against yourself"

Exactly and what business it of anyones really.

Let them be. It's their life. They're not coming on here judging and discussing your life OP.

Actually some examples quoted have been just that, men who got divorced, went home and never left.

And part of the question is about post bereavement situations. Which applies to me. I may have got out there and done stuff, but I have nothing to show for it, and no anchors in the community, and little scope for just rocking up anywhere with a flourish and re-establishing myself.

The whole topic is essentially about a section of society who appear to not conform to where they should be given their age, who don't appear to want to engage, and who are alleged to be a problem for the greater collective. I believe the term used was misanthropic hermit. (Scrooge?) I would argue that such a character would be barely observed and less of a problem than most.

I think you are mischaracterising yourself. You aren’t what this thread is about: you sound like a person with huge social value.

I agree that "introvert" is often misused, but regardless, it describes people who don't adhere to the typical idea of having an active social group, family, circle of friends etc that most people deem essential in order to remain healthy and well.

FWIW, I am a misanthropic social hermit, but I wouldn't describe myself as introverted. I'm not socially anxious, I don't have any issues at all with social interaction, I certainly don't find it in any way "difficult", it just doesn't benefit me any to spend what I consider excessive time in the company of other people. I don't crave company, I don't enjoy it for the most part, and I'm far, far happier being left alone to the point whereby I'd rather people just didn't contact me at all rather than inviting me to participate constantly.

Over time I've become more comfortable with simply saying "no" to invitations, but I know it still prompts this idea that there is somehow something "wrong" with me, and that I'm missing out and must somehow be damaging myself by not participating. I'm not, at all. I'm perfectly happy and content. What would damage me is feeling compelled to oblige other people and sit through social occasions when I'd far rather just be at home pottering about doing my own thing.

Some people don't actually need the company of others, and they are perfectly happy and well without it. Yet an inability to comprehend this in some quarters still persists, and the default is that anyone who eschews what is considered "typical" in terms of social/family life must somehow be defective. It's not true at all.

The issue is, if you didn't know me and you looked at my life, you would immediately conclude I am one of your examples of someone who has "retreated into their bedroom" and am isolating myself, and therefore, I must either be damaged myself, or I'm somehow damaging someone else. I'm not, I just choose not to participate socially because I'm happier that way, but you wouldn't know this unless you asked me, so anything else is just lazy assumption.

In fairness, there is quite a lot of effort made to reach and help lonely men. In my village alone there's a men's wellbeing group and a mental health group. Add to this the usual activities, walking groups, sports, the gym, the greater ease with which solo men can move about and go wherever they choose without the caution women tend to apply, and I'm struggling to see what 'society' can do more. Sometimes it's a case of you can lead the horse to water.