Then the boys belong to a socially risk group. Eight times as many suicides as girls. The main cause of death at the age below 45. [*]
Isn't that story a bit incomplete? Boys may commit suicide successfully more often than girls, but young girls attempt suicide much more often based on hospital admittance data. Girls are also more likely to be prescribed antidepressants than boys the same age multiple times over.
I'm not sure where the study that says suicide is the main cause of death for males under 45, but if that is the case it's a recent change based on existing medical sources. Suicide is the second most common for young men after unintentional injury. (Cannot post my source as my points are too low. Sad!)
Even if suicide is the number one killer for males under 45, this could just be indicative that that demo is so unlikely to die due to accident or illness that they're only really at risk when intentionally trying to die. Its an area to watch for sudden changes, but 'suicide being the leading cause of death for young men' on its own is not that informative of a piece of datum. It could be indicative of either a nation-wide crisis or of a massive medical achievement.
A better measure would be to compare young male suicide against itself in a prior year.
There's been rising discourse for the past several years about various 'male crises' of some sort or another; usually with segments tinged towards economic or relational angles. Sometimes I will see one that takes a mental health or overall wellbeing angle. These are all pointed at answering the question of why are young men are NEET-ing rather than participating in central public institutions like their fathers did.
However, most of this discourse strikes me as cope for an anxiety or apprehension that having a lot of young dissatisfied males sitting around is historically a major risk for the current leadership in whatever country those young men inhabit (and also for the occupants of any buildings that may get firebombed as a result of their 'direct action').
It's not that the phenomenon is totally irrelevant to tango, but we shouldn't blindly operate in the frame of such 'cope discourse' about a male, or any, crisis. All that kind of garbage is purely about energizing you to take an action on behalf of someone else and their interests. By the unwritten and binding charter of this forum, we take actions selfishly on the behalf of our Argentine Tango interests.
Perhaps there is no 'relationship epidemic' but just a boring decline of man-woman relationships due to technological factors such as birth control, girlfriend chat bots, artificial wombs, and economics that make child rearing a luxury. Under such conditions we can predict typical dating and pair bonding to slowly decline until the cultural institution loses all momentum (but probably only stopping after we are all dead) and an increasing separation in the social and moral makeup of men and women as they broadly cease all previously compulsory interactions with each other.
What can tango still offer under these conditions? Clearly not everyone (man or woman) who posts here is only dancing to get a date at this point. We must feel that there is something of value outside of lust to be found at the milonga. Additionally its a least plausible that it has something to do with a man-woman diad. Otherwise why would 'female leads' or 'role balanced events' even be terms of discussion?
Perhaps, if tango persists a century from now, it will be because men and women could dance together without the need of a verbal invitation or indeed even having to sit near one another. Or perhaps it will be because you'll need a license to dance tango and the Department of Frivolity strictly role balances all licensed tangueros.
Star dancer of either stripe attracting more partners desirous of dancing with him/her.
