Show the same respect you want from others and be friendly. But if you don’t get that respect back, it’s probably smart to disengage with whoever is being mean to you.
Get a dog and take walks through areas where lots of people will be. Statistics have shown that when a guy has a friendly and cute dog with him and he starts chatting up a woman, he’s much more likely to get her number and get a date.
And another pro tip! dating app profile pictures should have at least one picture of you with your dog.
and on dating apps, practice good typing etiquette.
Some men are looking for a “hack” that will let them dominate the “meta.” They think life is just like video games. You can see them angrily talking about women while the stream themselves playing games.
The problem is, people (not just women) are generally interested in people that are interesting. Being interesting requires time and effort.
Some men are looking for a “hack” that will let them dominate the “meta.” They think life is just like video games. You can see them angrily talking about women while the stream themselves playing games.
most of the guys who say stupid shit like that aren’t saying it because they actually believe it. You’d be amazed at the number of people there are that operate troll farms to muddy the waters on literally every issue you can think of.
I wouldn’t be shocked at all if Tate is one of those people who’s just paid by some corporation or thinktank to say the things he says.
Of course there are plenty of guys that think there’s some trick to it. And those are what we call “too far gone”
And it isnt? But for other reasons. A lot of times I found women not sharing the same interests I have. And there is a extremely hard competition. For me its like the job rat race. I will not compete, take your “piece of meat”, your “trophy” and enjoy it. Not misunderstand me, I just not dispute with anyone for a job a women or really anything else thats the trap of life.
Andrew Tate isn’t creating these young men out of well adjusted people.
Young men today face a mountain of issues with zero sympathy from the people or institutions around them. And grifters prey on these men.
Having grown up in the “teach boys not to rape” era of progrssive rhetoric, it’s actually insane to see all these people just insist being in a guy’s world is all sunshine and rainbows and all these men are just awful people falling of their own accord.
Young men get told some pretty damaging things growing up, even from progressive people.
Everyone has problems, lots of people are coming of age all kinds of fucked up, and we can’t fix this by implying it’s all their own doing.
You just revealed a lot more than I think you realize.
Climate change isn’t part of the discussion.
No one is trying to blame anyone in this context.
We’re talking about cultural issues that are tied in with the mental and emotional growth of people.
So very much hate and malicious intent is created by unstable people brought up to sincerely believe that what they do and believe is right. Often this is due to some religious indoctrination, though other reasons exist. Few are those who are truly evil at their core. In another group we have the confused and the uncertain trying to just exist in a world that is often cruel and unfair. As they grow and in moments of extreme vulnerability they reach out for answers.
As an online community one of the healthiest activities we can do is talk about these things. Express that shit is hard and offer encouragement and positive, safe places away from conmen and manipulators, as much as we are able. To do that we need to focus where we can.
On top of all that, these days most rejection of men happens before there is even any opportunity for the men say anything. With dating apps putting so much emphasis on looks (a very small minority of users of these apps do anything but look at the first photo before swiping left or right), and surveys finding that women consider over 80% of men less attractive than ‘medium’ (i e. a 3 or lower on a 7 point scale), mean that tons of men reach that conclusion in the final panel simply from getting no traction with women at all, making whether they’re a Tate acolyte or whatever not even relevant.
I had a teacher point this out to me too by just pointing out the percentage of girls in the class. They call them the lost boy generation because good intentions to get women into paths like STEM resulted in forgetting about investing in the boys.
But also some of us boys need lots of damaging things its not a one size fits all. Not traumatizing stuff but damage is needed for boys. Boys need to be pushed and discipline and we need to break bones and fight and get dirty to become an adult who can go on to teach a new generation how to do those things safely and responsible.
I’m a stem teacher, and I work hard at trying to get more women into stem.
More women reduce reduce the number of men but simply increase the number of subjects we teach.
More women in stem creates normality and produces more women in stem. When we have open nights women telling women how cool and interesting the subject is excited them.
It increases range and capacity, I have tasks that are designed to interest young men. As I started producing content that also interests women we got better and richer tasks.
In my teaching area we moderate other teachers courses and every single teacher who whines about women in stem have boring single focused programs
Men like courses with women. Especially if those women have similar interests
The no opportunity for males to be exceptional is a dog whistle. Stem is still there for men. There are still high standards.
The problem is a lack of men in teaching roles.
Young men have few, sometimes no, men who act as role models…for example, I get comments from students who love the fact that I have a beard and they like that a teacher is proud to present in one.
Secondly men and women have different skills socialized into them. Guys are better at exams and practical tasks while women are socialized to be better at communicating tasks. As men left education assessments moved from practicals and exams to essays.
Socialized isn’t entirely correct it’s also a lack of focus on the difference between how young men and women develop in primary years which also leads to skill issues
Anyway ranting on my phone sucks. More women in stem, especially in digital technology and engineering is great, women have ideas, they can solve problems, we should learn why engineering is a sausage festival instead of just assuming that it is because men are more exceptional at engineering than women.
This is something that men will need to step up and do. We need left wing men who’ll help them out. And each of us can do what we can to help the boys we know too.
All true. But because teaching is historically “women’s work,” it is undervalued and underpaid.
Most teachers I know have at least Master’s degrees, yet we’re paid less than B.A.s start at in many fields. I took a 20k/year pay cut when I became a teacher, despite having received a Master’s degree before entering the field.
Until we value teaching as much as we value other types of work, we’re not going to attract large numbers of qualified people, whether they’re men or women.
Thank you for bothering to rant on your phone despite the fact that it sucks.
I am a middle aged engineering student (undergrad) with two young daughters (6 and 8), so many of the things you refer to are on my mind a lot.
In my country (UK) the number of male teachers/carers is strongly proportional to the age of the student. Nursery staff : predominantly women Primary school staff: maybe a few men as main teachers Secondary school: is it 50/50? or still more like 70/30? (I dunno, it’s a long time since I was there, and my kids aren’t there yet)
Anyway, it’s easy to have young boys, especially if (their father works away, or is otherwise distant from the family), get up to the age of being aware of Andrew Tate with very few male role models.
I don’t know about the UK, but my experience in the US was exclusively women in elementary school, 80-90% women in middle school, 60-70% women in high school. I was actually surprised when I first had a male teacher in middle school, I guess I had thought that male teachers was like an old timey / TV / college thing.
Young men today face a mountain of issues with zero sympathy from the people or institutions around them. And grifters prey on these men
Idk, I don’t feel like young women are really offered any kind of safety net or support system that isn’t being offered to boys.
it’s actually insane to see all these people just insist being a guy’s world is all sunshine and rainbows and all these men are just awful people falling of their own accord.
This is the thing, I constantly hear how awful young men are being treated. I don’t ever really hear any specific reasoning that can’t be explained by other means other than sexism against men.
Imo this is one of the first generations of young men, especially young white men, that weren’t born on third base. The men’s right movement is a reactionary movement that’s just upset about being placed on an equal footing, and then falling to achieve the same results of previous generations of young white men.
That feeling of slowly rolling a stone up a hill all day as others unbound by such heavy burdens briskly walk by is the same feeling poc and women have experienced in this country since it’s inception. You aren’t being treated worse than everyone else, it’s just that equality feels like prosecution to those who have traditionally lived charmed lives. Welcome to the jungle, I hope you learn to enjoy your stay. I think the affectations of the moneyed class have ended, they have decided they don’t have to keep up the charade. We’re all the same to them now, and will all be exploited as such.
Idk, I don’t feel like young women are really offered any kind of safety net or support system that isn’t being offered to boys.
I mean, there are special scholarships and programs only for women, and explicit preferential hiring for women in some fields. There is nothing like that for men, even in fields men are grossly underrepresented in (which also tend to be fields where men are mistreated or have their duties restricted for more or less explicitly sexist reasons - like child care).
This is the thing, I constantly hear how awful young men are being treated. I don’t ever really hear any specific reasoning that can’t be explained by other means other than sexism against men.
Here’s the trick - when you hear how say women or black folks are mistreated, you don’t require “any specific reasoning that can’t be explained by other means other than” discrimination against them.
I like using criminal justice as an example of this:
If I asked you to prove that the criminal justice system was racist, you could throw a whole pile of statistics at me. A whole panoply of stats demonstrating how black people are treated worse by the criminal justice system. But if you take those same measures and break them down by sex instead of race, they more or less all have a sex gap, that sex gap favors women over men, and for most of them it’s a similar or larger gap than the racial one. The core difference is that you will treat the racial gaps as proof of racism in and of themselves, while requiring the sex gaps to prove that there is absolutely no other hypothetically possible cause other than sexism.
When a gap lies in one direction, blaming discrimination is the default move and when it lies in the other then every other possible explanation has to be provably false before it can even be considered.
Imo this is one of the first generations of young men, especially young white men, that weren’t born on third base. The men’s right movement is a reactionary movement that’s just upset about being placed on an equal footing, and then falling to achieve the same results of previous generations of young white men.
So long as you define “being on an equal footing” as others having explicit institutional benefits you don’t.
For example, girls outperform boys in education K-12 (and there are studies that suggest this is at least in part a result of bias in grading favoring girls), girls both enter higher education and graduate from higher education at higher rates than boys, etc, etc, etc.
My favorite is people being angry when men apply anti-discrimination laws to things like differential pricing that favors women, differential benefits that favor women, literally any application of Title IX that benefits a boy, that sort of thing.
You aren’t being treated worse than everyone else, it’s just that equality feels like prosecution to those who have traditionally lived charmed lives.
Ironically, the oldest known expression of this notion comes from a proto-MRA on USENET in the late 90s, except he was talking about women.
If I asked you to prove that the criminal justice system was racist, you could throw a whole pile of statistics at me. A whole panoply of stats demonstrating how black people are treated worse by the criminal justice system. But if you take those same measures and break them down by sex instead of race, they more or less all have a sex gap, that sex gap favors women over men
Right, but that’s not really an adequate comparison. Women are biologically intrinsically different from men, this presents in attitude and aggression. There is no intrinsic difference between a black or white male.
Now I’m not claiming that this is an explanation for all of the legal disparity, I’m sure that there is a cultural input. However even if cultural input was entirely responsible for the disparity, it still wouldn’t be an appropriate cross comparison.
With regards to black men in prison, it’s easy to see who is responsible for the disparity. Black men were victimized by a system controlled by primarily white men.
With regards to the disparity between men and women in prison, who is responsible for the disparity? We’re women in control of the legislative bodies who set up the justice system? Are these men being arrested sentenced and guarded by a state apparatus largely run by women?
long as you define “being on an equal footing” as others having explicit institutional benefits you don’t.
Like…?
For example, girls outperform boys in education K-12 (and there are studies that suggest this is at least in part a result of bias in grading favoring girls), girls both enter higher education and graduate from higher education at higher rates than boys, etc, etc, etc.
Lol, I haven’t heard of that one. It’s kinda silly to propose when we already know that girls emotionally and physically mature at a younger age.
First off, thank you for demonstrating my point. You’re totally comfortable with jumping to discrimination as being the first and only (or at least primary) explanation when looking at disparities affecting some groups, but require every other possibility be exhausted before considering it for men.
Right, but that’s not really an adequate comparison. Women are biologically intrinsically different from men, this presents in attitude and aggression. There is no intrinsic difference between a black or white male.
So, biological factors that explain why men are more likely to be convicted when prosecuted for a crime, tend to get harsher sentences when convicted for a given crime, tend to be given higher bail for similar charges etc, etc, etc? Let alone being 95% of those killed by police and a large majority of those convicted of violent crimes.
It’s interesting that you claim there is no intrinsic difference between black and white males, when there are measurable genetic differences (not just between black and white folks, but between black and white folks with ancestry from different regions and those differences are larger than the genetic differences between males and females from the same reason) that manifest as phenotypical differences and one would argue that in the difficult to separate mess of nature and nurture there might in fact be differences in attitude and aggression between typical white and black US males.
Except those differences apparently do not justify any differences in treatment and any gap between population distribution and distribution of negative criminal justice outcomes is necessarily discriminatory, while the SRY gene does a lot of heavy lifting in terms of criminal tendencies and criminal culpability.
Lol, I haven’t heard of that one. It’s kinda silly to propose when we already know that girls emotionally and physically mature at a younger age.
In a particular way that causes them to be graded better than boys, but for much of that difference to go away in standardized testing where the student’s identity is not part of the equation at all?
First off, thank you for demonstrating my point. You’re totally comfortable with jumping to discrimination as being the first and only (or at least primary) explanation when looking at disparities affecting some groups, but require every other possibility be exhausted before considering it for men.
I think you might just be jumping to conclusions that fit your biases.
So, biological factors that explain why men are more likely to be convicted when prosecuted for a crime, tend to get harsher sentences when convicted for a given crime, tend to be given higher bail for similar charges etc, etc, etc? Let alone being 95% of those killed by police and a large majority of those convicted of violent crimes.
No, I’m saying that they aren’t really comparable. There are too many variables that can’t be accounted for to draw any meaningful conclusions.
It’s interesting that you claim there is no intrinsic difference between black and white males, when there are measurable genetic differences (not just between black and white folks, but between black and white folks with ancestry from different regions and those differences are larger than the genetic differences between males and females
Lol, no. The physiology that is most associated with things like attitude and especially violent behavior is based on hormone production. There aren’t going to be phenotypical expressions that modulate hormone production in a significant way.
Also the genetic variability between ethnic groups are immeasurably small, and inconsistent. There is often more genetic variability within a single ethnic group than there is between two completely different ethnicities. Ethnicity is largely a social construct, with things like skin color just being an expression of phenotypical mutations.
Except those differences apparently do not justify any differences in treatment and any gap between population distribution and distribution of negative criminal justice outcomes is necessarily discriminatory, while the SRY gene does a lot of heavy lifting in terms of criminal tendencies and criminal culpability.
My dude, saying that something doesn’t make a decent comparative study is not making any kind of claim.
In a particular way that causes them to be graded better than boys, but for much of that difference to go away in standardized testing where the student’s identity is not part of the equation at all?
Yes? Outside of standardized testing what are children being graded on…? Things like cooperation, class participation, communication, and reading and writing. Things girls typically advance in at a younger age.
The problem with your claim is that discrimination requires someone to be the discriminator. What group is responsible for this discrimination in the justice system? A system that’s historically been comprised of almost entirely males?
Yes, the justice system in America is messed up, but who exactly is responsible for that if not men? Even if we pretend you are correct, that men have been sent to prison specifically because of their masculinity… Okay, now what?
So we hunt down those responsible for the discrimination? The judges…male, the cops…male, the lawyers…male, what about the lawmakers?..oh yeah mostly men. Okay, so men are discriminating against other men? Maybe…that suggest that masculinity in and of itself wasn’t actually the target in the first place?
It’s almost as if the drug war establishing a prison industrial system had some unforeseen consequences… Consequences you may be misinterpreting in a way that fulfills your own preconceptions.
Short version is that a 46 year old woman sexually assaulted a 14 year old boy. Not just because he’s underage, but he wasn’t consenting even insofar as his consent is relevant being underage and all.
Her name is protected from the media, she’ll be eligible for release in less than a year, and she likely won’t be considered a risk to children and subjected to anything as a consequence. She was considered to have reduced culpability due to an eating disorder, an anxiety disorder and an adjustment disorder. Hell, I’m pleasantly surprised the media actually described what happened as “rape” rather than an “incident”, “affair”, or “romp” like usual.
I can’t imagine a 46 year old man being convicted of forcing himself on a 14 year old girl against her will and potentially getting less than a year, not being considered a risk to children and having his name hidden by the media. And they definitely wouldn’t be reducing his time in incarceration in favor of longer parole because of how bad prison might treat him.
Nothing about this story is easily explained by biological differences between men and women. But it demonstrates malagency pretty well - she’s not being punished like she’s a man because as a woman she’s not treated as responsible for her actions as a man would be.
I can’t imagine a 46 year old man being convicted of forcing himself on a 14 year old girl against her will and potentially getting less than a year
Right, but is that the specific criteria that we utilize define demographically motivated discrimination.
This is an anecdotal account, and I don’t really see how it helps your initial claim. Roy Moore raped little girls and almost became a sitting senator. Brock Turner admitted to raping a girl and was given a slap on the wrist.
If there is systemic discrimination in court on things like sexual assault, I would feel comfortable guessing that women are the victims of said discrimination the vast majority of the time.
Also this happened in the UK where perpetrators have a lot more rights, so we don’t really know if she is being treated differently than other males in that particular justice system.
Nothing about this story is easily explained by biological differences
Men are much more likely to commit sexual assaults, therefore the courts are much more likely to have a precedent when sentencing men. When anything you are familiar with is presented differently, you are more likely to treat it differently, even if they are virtually the same
Ignoring the issues people face becuase they come from what you determine to be a “privileged” class is just another form of bigotry.
Young men don’t stand to benifit from the same patriarchal systems we do, nor do we stand to benifit from the patriarchal systems our fathers did. And even if it did, one privileged doesn’t nullify the issues faced by other inequalities such as race, wealth, class, ability.
The issues they face are real reguardless of what privilege they have or are assumed to have.
Equality should be about giving every individual a fair chance at life regardless of who they are or what they came from. Not some team sport where “one side” must be crushed under to goosestep of self proclaimed progress seekers.
Ignoring the issues people face becuase they come from what you determine to be a “privileged” class is just another form of bigotry.
Simply stating that the problems are not intrinsic to being male is not ignoring the problem.
Young men don’t stand to benifit from the same patriarchal systems we do, nor do we stand to benifit from the patriarchal systems our fathers did.
Who is we? What I’m saying is that young males are not being hurt anymore than any other demographic, they just aren’t culturally inoculated to it, and so they think they’re worse off.
And even if it did, one privileged doesn’t nullify the issues faced by other inequalities such as race, wealth, class, ability.
I never claimed it did?
issues they face are real reguardless of what privilege they have or are assumed to have.
Like? As I said, I keep hearing these blanket statements attesting to unique issues, but no one claims what they are or how they occur.
Equality should be about giving every individual a fair chance at life regardless of who they are or what they came from.
Do you think that we are living in some sort of post scarcity society? If there is an elevated class, its only means of elevation is to stand on the heads of it’s "equal"counterparts.
Not some team sport where “one side” must be crushed under to goosestep of self proclaimed progress seekers.
Lol, and those who stood on our heads suddenly proclaimed themselves victims. How do you think they stand elevated if not by crushing down the competition?
It’s only goose-stepping when the boot is on your face, when its someone’s else’s face they’re told to turn the other cheek.
Nobody is arguing for “elevation”, nobody in their right state of mind anyway, and I’m not asking anyone to turn their cheek to anyone wrong doings done to them. However, when it’s men who feel wronged you ask them to turn the other cheek. Man up. Deal with it.
The fact of the matter is it’s exactly this dogmatic rejecting of men that pushes them towards people like Andrew Tate. If the progressive zeitgeist refuses to listen to someone, they will follow anyone else who will. We shouldn’t tolerate the intolerant, but if we truly seek to defeat it we must understand it and treat the systemic issues that cause it to arise. It’s not the romantic ideal of the rebel taking down the empire in a victorious display of self-satisfaction, but it is the method that gets lasting results.
I’ve never stood on anyone’s heads, least of all yours. I’d appreciate it if you could at least treat the next generation with the same respect.
I think validating the claim that young men are specifically being treated worse than others in similar demographics is a tacit validation of allowing them to maintain their hierarchy.
However, when it’s men who feel wronged you ask them to turn the other cheek. Man up. Deal with it.
I can’t control how people feel? If someone feels wronged, but can’t explain how or why, am I supposed to genuflect in agreement? If two people are struck in the face, and only one of them cries, should I ignore the stoic? We should be improving the lives of all young people, not just the ones who shout about it the most.
The fact of the matter is it’s exactly this dogmatic rejecting of men that pushes them towards people like Andrew Tate.
I’m not rejecting that young men face problems, I’m just claiming they don’t face any problems more dire than anyone elses problem in the same demographics.
You just interpret that as rejection because you don’t empathize with the others.
We shouldn’t tolerate the intolerant, but if we truly seek to defeat it we must understand it and treat the systemic issues that cause it to arise.
And we do that by being more concerned about the problems of young men than others?
It’s not the romantic ideal of the rebel taking down the empire in a victorious display of self-satisfaction, but it is the method that gets lasting results.
What do they want, what are you willing to give them? According to the men’s right movement, their problem is that women are too free to turn down their advanced, women are too educated, no one wants to be their trad wife, and that there’s just too much competition in the job place because of things like affirmative action.
If that’s their problem, I don’t care, and I don’t really feel like he needs to validate their opinion.
I’ve never stood on anyone’s heads, least of all yours. I’d appreciate it if you could at least treat the next generation with the same respect.
You are an individual…we are talking about socioeconomics. We are talking about the systemic abuse that’s affected every demographic in America besides white men since the inception of this country.
Do you think the golden era of American history that the men’s right wants to revert to was shared by everyone in the country? That black families were able to afford a spacious house and take care of a large family on one person’s income? No, that was only a possibility for certain demographics. White men were given free home loans from the government, black families were sent to the projects, and women weren’t even able to open bank accounts.
You aren’t worried about the next generation, you’re only worried about the next generation of young white men.
Progress isn’t a competition, there need not be losers. We can acknowledge two things being bad at the same time. As we type there are children being forced to mine toxic cobalt with no protection just so we can have these electronics to argue. How can we argue our lives are any bad compared to them? Might as well put off anyone’s progress until we finally beat out the modern salve trade. It’s a unproductive way of thinking.
Do you think a newborn “white male” as your oppressor too? Someone who has never had the chance to do anyone wrong? Must they really be subject to your scorn?
And what of the white men today? If they gain nothing from your progress, then why must they be concerned with it? After all you seem to think that white men as a class have the ability to crush others with their privilege. How could we expect these people to work in the interest of a movement that only seeks to take from them indiscriminately? And wouldn’t it be natural for them to simply follow the example that you have given them? Be wrathful, spiteful, hateful, boil down human beings to their perceived class, do anything to get a win for their own group. Hell just look at the news, abortion rights are being repealed in America. This is happening in real time, and I promise you neither of us are happy about it.
Socioeconomics can say whatever it wants about groups and demographics and “numbers this” or “numbers that”, that doesn’t change the fact that we are individuals in a world of many other individuals. Privilege, true and quantifiable privilege, is always relative and we should listen when people tell us about their problems, since it will encourage and empower them to do the same.
We can together to build a world that’s better for everyone, but that requires that we don’t waste our lives away trying to hold each other down out of a need for revenge. Every step we take for ourselves or our own perceived group is a step backwards, and it’ll be our children who will have to make up for that. Do you care for the next generation, and what you’ll leave them to deal with?
Progress isn’t a competition, there need not be losers. We can acknowledge two things being bad at the same time.
Then why do you insist that we divide class solidarity among gender? Why not advocate for improving life for all young people instead of insisting that men’s problems take priority?
As we type there are children being forced to mine toxic cobalt with no protection just so we can have these electronics to argue. How can we argue our lives are any bad compared to them? Might as well put off anyone’s progress until we finally beat out the modern salve trade. It’s a unproductive way of thinking.
Lol, what kind of rhetoric is that? Children in other countries work in cobalt mines, so it’s okay if American kids work at McDonald’s…
We are talking about equity in our own country, we are talking specifically about whether young men in the west are really experiencing more or worse problems than their counterparts.
Do you think a newborn “white male” as your oppressor too? Someone who has never had the chance to do anyone wrong? Must they really be subject to your scorn?
Lol, we are talking about sociology, not an individuals psychology. I don’t scorn individuals for being a part of any class, but i do scorn individuals try and preserve the class hierarchy for their own benefit.
And what of the white men today? If they gain nothing from your progress, then why must they be concerned with it?
That’s the thing, when we protect the most disadvantaged class we help protect every other class perceived as better than. This is a foundational to ideologies like feminism. If you can’t charge a disadvantaged class with some accusation, then there is no fear for the classes perceived to be more valuable.
This is one of problems with labeling white men as the most disadvantaged class. If we spend all our effort protecting A class that doesn’t really need protection, then we are leaving people actually in danger out on a line.
After all you seem to think that white men as a class have the ability to crush others with their privilege.
Do you think white men today as a class have not benefited from generational wealth created by systemic racism? What do you think slavery was if not crushing others with privilege?
How could we expect these people to work in the interest of a movement that only seeks to take from them indiscriminately?
So now equality is stealing? Just because I don’t think that white men are the most disadvantaged people in our country, I’m now taking from them indiscriminately?
What is progressive to these young men, what else could they possibly want that other people have?
And wouldn’t it be natural for them to simply follow the example that you have given them? Be wrathful, spiteful, hateful, boil down human beings to their perceived class, do anything to get a win for their own group.
Yeah… Seems to be exactly what they are doing. You have heard of Andrew Tate, correct?
Hell just look at the news, abortion rights are being repealed in America. This is happening in real time, and I promise you neither of us are happy about it.
And your solution is to …validate the men’s right movement? You’re literally claiming that men are not privileged, yet they are able to pass abortion laws. Further more you are saying that they are doing this because we don’t baby them enough in progressive political spaces.
Socioeconomics can say whatever it wants about groups and demographics and “numbers this” or “numbers that”, that doesn’t change the fact that we are individuals in a world of many other individuals.
You do understand that we don’t make policies around individuals?
Privilege, true and quantifiable privilege, is always relative
Relative to what…?
we should listen when people tell us about their problems, since it will encourage and empower them to do the same.
Oh yeah, I’m sure that encouraging the klansmen to air his grievances will surely benefit me, a man of color?
but that requires that we don’t waste our lives away trying to hold each other down out of a need for revenge.
It’s problematic to me that you think equality euates to revenge. I’m not saying to be mean to young white men, or even judge them. My only claims is that we shouldn’t prioritize white men’s problems over other demographics. And to you that means I’m thirsty for revenge?
Every step we take for ourselves or our own perceived group is a step backwards
And how does that apply to your original claim?
I still find it hilarious that you haven’t answerd my original rebuttal. How exactly are young men any worse off than anyone else in a similar demographic?
A gish gallop, easily googled, is when someone makes a large number of arguments regardless of quality instead of quality arguments.
Other approaches to debate you should get familiar with are ad hominem and strawman, I won’t answer your questions about those though because, like the gish gallop, they are easily googled.
You didn’t make objective arguments, you made ten assertions in the form of questions, without sources or papers or support, and then attacked me personally with a story you made up on the spot with absolutely no true knowledge of me or my background.
You have no credibility, and nobody should listen to you, and certainly nobody should waste time cataloging, researching, sourcing and then articulating a response to that gish gallop.
Ah yes, classic gish gallop. You make 10 claims with no support and everyone else needs to do the legwork.
Yet I present you with a single term, gish gallop, and you ask me for the definition. Curious this double standard. Further demonstration that you are an unserious person making an unserious argument.
You’re picking fights, more or less.
Now, let me pick one of your points to counter and at the same time demonstrate why the gish gallop makes you unserious.
A serious person would, for example, not just ask why men have a 3x higher suicide rate, but would at least cover the gender paradox and therefore recognize that young women have higher rates of suicidal ideation and attempt suicide more often than men of the same age. Women overall attempt suicide 2 to 4x more often but have a lower completion rate. Gender discrepancies in suicide completion come down to myriad factors including the tool used and strength differences, not typically found to be due to men getting a bad deal from society though, or whatever point you wanted to make.
So here’s the thing, you get to make that 3x claim devoid of meaningful sources and context (and I will reply in turn ala Hitchens Razer) , and in a single sentence tucked in the middle of a pile of other claims. Me, on the other hand, have to write a whole paragraph to dispute it. Now imagine how long and involved a reply to the full gish gallop is. It will, in fact, be longer to address each and every talking point you make than it was for you to write it. Worse, you push the burden of finding evidence for your claims off onto others. Worse still, as you’ve already demonstrated, being called out leads you to ad hominem and strawman arguments.
You aren’t serious and nobody should feel obligated to reply to you as if you are.
How many grants are designed to be awarded to exclusively females? I don’t know, but it’s more then 0.
Because those grants are usually in fields where the demographics are skewed male and they want more women in that workforce. That’s motivated by owners who want to lower labour cost, not because anyone’s targeting men.
How many grants are designed to be awarded to exclusively males? Including sports or fields mainly dominated by males?
Pretty sure men and women get scholarships to play every sport in college? And I’m pretty sure there’s a lot more males getting those scholarships than women, football teams are pretty large.
When a girl says they are suicidal how quickly do they get support? When a man says they are suicidal, how quickly do they get support?
That’s just because women are better communicators than men. They seek help when it’s less severe and are more likely to respond to treatment. Most men who seek help before suicide so it as a last resort, and America has really shitty healthcare. Again, not targeting men.
Anytime iv mentioned that iv been suicidal, the “help” I get was told to man up and not think about bad stuff. Iv been going to therapy on my own and at my own cost for years to help me give the strength to wake up tomorrow.
Well, shame on whoever told you that and I’m glad you sought help yourself. However, that’s mostly something we men are doing to themselves. We can’t blame anyone else for that, nor can anyone else but us fix it.
Why is it males still can’t talk about their thoughts and feelings without being considered a lesser man?
Because of other men… Have you tried having a platonic friendship with a woman or maybe better quality not man, they don’t tend to think less of you because you talk about your feelings. I talk to my friends about my feelings all the time, no one thinks of me as a lesser man.
Why is males have 3 times the suicide rate then females?
Because we don’t communicate our feelings as well or as often as a whole. We also tend to be less squimish about our method of suicide, when women tend to think of the aftermath more.
Why is it until very recently, women in a divorce would normally automatically be given full custody of their children?
It used to be a common belief in family court that mothers were more important to child development than men. This was assumed to be true as men traditionally were away at work more often and children required a stay at home mother.
This wasn’t targeting men, it was implemented by men who believed in the idea of the atomic family.
Why is it, when a male calls the cops over domestic violence, it’s the male who still gets arrested a majority of the time?
Who is making that discretion? The vast majority of police officers are men, they have the discretion to determine who gets arrested.
Why is there sigma still around a male being gay?
By who? And do those people think being a lesbian or bi is okay?
But yep, my male privlage gives me such a massive advantage over females, or others who identify as female, or non binary.
I mean just legally and economically…
use animals as a reason to keep going because on a personal level, I have nobody. I literally have to pay someone $310 CAD every month to listen to my problems.
You think that’s not happening to women?
Most females do not understand the isolation most males deal with.
Most men are not dealing with that kind of isolation, and I don’t think you have hung out with enough women to make that determination.
It’s easy to get stuck in an echo chamber because of how connected we all are, try different groups.
Again, there isn’t a single grant a female does not have access too, while males do not have the same access to all grants.
And those grants are for what?
But yes, males do get more grants for sports because, men play sports more often then females, and men normally enroll for sports mainly to get grants, not to become professional athletes.
Lol, okay so men have more access, but you’re mad they don’t have exclusive access?
third sentence, again no, men can communicate just fine, it’s just when we do, we are seen as lesser men. Stigmatization.
And the consequences of that is…men not communicating.
iv told close female friends and male friends of mine about me going to therapy and most times after iv done so, the people I told treat me differently. They treat me like a snowflake.
Sounds like you just have shitty friends.
Also, most of my friends are actually female belive it or not. I have a very small group of friends, and it’s nearly a 2:1 ratio of females to male. I love this so much, you don’t know fuck all about me, yet you assume so much
Well, you were the one who said you were completely alone and isolated and only relied on the comfort of your cats for companionship. Now you say you have a bunch of gal pals, but they call you snowflake when you tell them you in counseling?
Jesus christ you must consider yourself a victim.
Lol, why? I have great talks about mental health with my homies all the time. I’m a happily married man, with a wife who cares about how I feel just as I care about how she feels.
Also what echo chamber am I in? What gives you this impression?
FEMALE! It’s a dead giveaway my friend. Also the whole grant and suicide thing is a pretty popular trope in those circles, despite being pretty easy to explain if you actually did a little research.
never really had a father figure. I was the only male in a house of 4. 1 mother and 2 sisters. I raised with a female mindset, and did it ever cause me problems trying to make male friends.
There is no uniform mindset for men or women. If you spend all your effort caring about what people think of you, or worrying if you’re being manly enough, you’re never going to find the time to actually find someone or something that makes you happy.
is blaming men for everything.
Alternatively who’s fault is it? Are women responsible for our mental health? Who else can be responsible for your mental health other than yourself?
it’s just that equality feels like prosecution to those who have traditionally lived charmed lives
I cannot speak for “that country”, assuming you mean the US, as I don’t live there. That said, I think people don’t have actual past lives as a reference. If my grandfather or father lived in a different world, this can at most create expectations, but cannot be really generating a feeling of prosecution, because the current one is the only life I have actually lived and I know.
Then there is another issue, which is that in reality there are a lot of factors that determine whether you are born “in third base”. Gender, historically, has been one of them, but it’s far from being a guarantee. However, the political discourse often flattens this issue and makes it almost two-dimensional. If you are a white man, you are privileged, period. Fact is, there are tons of white man that are absolutely not privileged, and are also victim of an unequal and oppressive society. These people are substantially alienated because their voice is simply not represented anywhere. My leftist interpretation is that some of the egalitarian discourse (feminism, LGBT rights etc.) has been to some extent swallowed by the status quo, and lost a lot of the revolutionary potential it had, becoming more focused on individual perception and rights, rather than on systemic issues that therefore could capture also the dynamics of a white man being also oppressed, even if from a different angle. In other words, if feminism is purely focused on battles of women as a group of individuals, and not as part of a system that oppresses them within a wider mechanism, then oppressed people that don’t strictly belong to that category have a much harder time to see in women a reflection of their own oppression.
Basically, a realization such as:
We’re all the same to them now, and will all be exploited as such.
was true already decades (centuries) ago, and that’s why lots of feminist battles were linked to socialism and leftist ideologies. This is nothing new, really, and forcing to read the current issues only from the racial perspective or only from the gender perspective (etc.) makes it much harder to build solidarity between groups who are instead left to fight battles within the system, without a perspective or a struggle to move past it.
If my grandfather or father lived in a different world, this can at most create expectations, but cannot be really generating a feeling of prosecution, because the current one is the only life I have actually lived and I know.
The problem is that even if your grandfather isn’t around to tell you about it, the evidence of his accomplishments outlive him. You don’t need to embody someone’s personal lives to understand that your grandfather lived an upper middle class working at a factory, and you can barely afford to make rent. That your father married his highschool sweetheart and started a family in his twenties, and you’re thirty and can barely afford groceries for yourself.
the political discourse often flattens this issue and makes it almost two-dimensional. If you are a white man, you are privileged, period. Fact is, there are tons of white man that are absolutely not privileged, and are also victim of an unequal and oppressive society.
Right…but can you claim in an academically honest way that a poor white man has historically been offered more opportunities to succeed than a poor black man? That poor white men and poor black men have the same opportunities to lift themselves out of their class structure?
These people are substantially alienated because their voice is simply not represented anywhere.
Idk, I would say the majority of the United States Congress has been very open to mens rights advocacy. This discourse revolves around people like Tate who have created space specifically for men to air their grievances.
Some say they are driven there because they have no progressive place to go. I just think they don’t want anything to do with progressive spaces, because progressive spaces do not put them on a pedestal. They are included vicariously, the progressive ideology of supporting young people doesn’t preclude young men. It just isn’t solely focused on them.
was true already decades (centuries) ago, and that’s why lots of feminist battles were linked to socialism and leftist ideologies.
I agree, but until recently there has always been a social understanding that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. So long as the upper class threw enough scraps down from the table, the pet class would support the hierarchy.
This is nothing new, really, and forcing to read the current issues only from the racial perspective or only from the gender perspective (etc.) makes it much harder to build solidarity between groups who are instead left to fight battles within the system, without a perspective or a struggle to move past it.
That is my problem with specifically focusing on mens rights, it’s just another division in class solidarity.
You don’t need to embody someone’s personal lives to understand that your grandfather lived an upper middle class working at a factory, and you can barely afford to make rent. That your father married his highschool sweetheart and started a family in his twenties, and you’re thirty and can barely afford groceries for yourself.
Sure, and that’s why I spoke about expectations. But a feeling of being prosecuted requires something else, in my opinion. Everyone in the situation you describe would realize that the problems are common, and not “mine” because male. What I thought you were referring to was the dissonance between expecting a privileged life and having a regular one, such as not being handed over things on a silver platter and having to simply “work” for them.
Right…but can you claim in an academically honest way that a poor white man has historically been offered more opportunities to succeed than a poor black man? That poor white men and poor black men have the same opportunities to lift themselves out of their class structure?
Sure, but that doesn’t help anybody, because we don’t live in statistics and we don’t live historically. If I am a struggling person, telling me that historically the category that I happened to belong to was privileged hence I am privileged feels like adding insult to injury. In fact, the moment arguments such as “sorry, it has been centuries the turn for [CATEGORY] now it’s the turn of [OTHER CATEGORY]” are thrown around is the moment those categories will see themselves as adversaries for vital space, and not on the same side fighting against an oppressor, which is exactly what I think happens in many instances today. And make no mistake, I think this is by no means a coincidence, this is absolutely functional as such struggle is less threatening to who detains power.
Idk, I would say the majority of the United States Congress has been very open to mens rights advocacy. This discourse revolves around people like Tate who have created space specifically for men to air their grievances.
I am talking about mainstream and daily life. And it’s not even about men’s right, it’s about struggle of people independently from the individual social group(s) they belong to, but more focused on class (for example). The “men’s right” movement is a reactionary movement that sees in feminism and other movements a threat, and to some extend, they are a threat. Intersectional feminism is not mainstream, it did not really breach the social norm or discourse. What did breach is the superficial/apolitical version of it that stays on the surface. This is what people see everyday in movies, TV series, on the workplace, on social media etc. This is what I mean by not having representation, not having a voice.
They are included vicariously, the progressive ideology of supporting young people doesn’t preclude young men. It just isn’t solely focused on them.
I can’t talk about what’s going on in US, but what reaches on the other side of the ocean, doesn’t include men at all. In fact, the main cultural result of progressive movements that I can observe from here is “woke”-ism, which I lack a better term to define, which is basically apolitical and fully focused on individual elements within the status quo, but lacks a proper political frame and analysis and therefore is very narrow in scope (women, race and LGBT).
so long as the upper class threw enough scraps down from the table, the pet class would support the hierarchy.
I mean, the biggest political struggles happened almost 50 years ago. I really don’t see what you are referring to, nor I do see right now in any form a coherent political movement who focuses on the class struggle as main objective. Am I missing something, maybe?
That is my problem with specifically focusing on mens rights, it’s just another division in class solidarity.
I addressed this point earlier, but I will repeat it just to elaborate. I don’t care about men’s rights. I care about a class analysis and a political movement that uses it, which is able to channel all the struggles from oppressed people, starting from women and other minorities, without alienating some of them due to irrelevant differences. This is in essence my problem: the current mainstream “progressive” discourse has been so neutered politically that has become individualist and as such doesn’t capture the whole dynamic of class oppression. To make a concrete example, in tech the debate about women and other minorities is extremely hot and it’s absolutely common to be the sole focus of diversity initiatives etc. Obviously this is posturing from the companies’ perspective, but even the progressive people often fail to talk about other issues such as ageism (and many other things, ofc), which is an even bigger discriminatory factor in tech. It’s not that one is more important of the other (or viceversa), it’s that they are both results of the same exploitative dynamic and focusing on one of them without capturing the higher level problem becomes neutered and alienates people.
Sure, and that’s why I spoke about expectations. But a feeling of being prosecuted requires something else, in my opinion. Everyone in the situation you describe would realize that the problems are common, and not “mine” because male.
I am not that confident this is true. I don’t expect that level of self awareness in the majority of young people.
because we don’t live in statistics and we don’t live historically. If I am a struggling person, telling me that historically the category that I happened to belong to was privileged hence I am privileged
First I do think we live in statistics, some of us may be unaware of this but it affects nus either way. Secondly, I think the internal contradiction is that a poor white person is likely to believe they should be more privileged based on their race, but are not because of progressive policy. The same way poor people protect the wealthy from taxation.
Finally we are discussing social class, not how individuals react to the idea of social class. I didn’t say all white people were privileged people, I said white people belong to a privileged class. It’s the same as saying San Fransisco is a rich city, instead of saying everyone in San Francisco is rich. If you are not a rich person in San Francisco, and I said the problem is inherent in the wealth of San Francisco, would you take it personally?
am talking about mainstream and daily life. And it’s not even about men’s right, it’s about struggle of people independently from the individual social group(s) they belong to, but more focused on class (for example). The “men’s right” movement is a reactionary movement that sees in feminism and other movements a threat, and to some extend, they are a threat. Intersectional feminism is not mainstream, it did not really breach the social norm or discourse. What did breach is the superficial/apolitical version of it that stays on the surface. This is what people see everyday in movies, TV series, on the workplace, on social media etc. This is what I mean by not having representation, not having a voice.
Right, but who does have that kind of representation or voice if not white men? Even in your example you highlighted how intersectional feminism never got its time in the mainstream.
doesn’t include men at all. In fact, the main cultural result of progressive movements
I mean, I think that’s fairly natural if there really isn’t much room for men to progress in a society. If you’re already at the top, where else is there to make progress other than supporting allies who haven’t made it yet?
First I do think we live in statistics, some of us may be unaware of this but it affects nus either way.
What I mean is that if I am a white unemployed, poor, knowing that 90% of rich people are white and male doesn’t make me any richer or privileged.
a poor white person is likely to believe they should be more privileged based on their race
based on what you think so?
Finally we are discussing social class, not how individuals react to the idea of social class. I didn’t say all white people were privileged people, I said white people belong to a privileged class. It’s the same as saying San Fransisco is a rich city, instead of saying everyone in San Francisco is rich. If you are not a rich person in San Francisco, and I said the problem is inherent in the wealth of San Francisco, would you take it personally?
But this is the problem. Class is not tied with demography in itself, class has to do with relationship to wealth. White people don’t belong to a privileged class, the privileged class is mostly composed by white people. They are not the same thing. I would take it personally if you defined policy that worked on the assumption that “San Francisco” is rich, if I am one of the thousands of homeless people, indeed.
Right, but who does have that kind of representation or voice if not white men? Even in your example you highlighted how intersectional feminism never got its time in the mainstream.
Women and other minorities today have that representation. Mainstream discourse involves a lot these topics. Unfortunately not intersectional feminism, because that’s way too threatening.
I mean, I think that’s fairly natural if there really isn’t much room for men to progress in a society. If you’re already at the top
That’s the thing, being a man doesn’t make you on top. Thinking this way, with airtight categories is indicative of the kind of idea that as long as “a proportionate amount of women” are going to be “on top” (i.e., in position of power), we are fine. We are not. This always leave a significant amount of people oppressed. That’s why I think feminism should be (and partly is!) a transformative movement, and why I think it’s a problem that it has been swallowed by the status quo. This, to me, is the wrong battle. If someone told me that since I am man I am “on top”, and therefore I should just be an ally, I would feel alienated, because this fails completely to capture the mechanism of the system that oppresses both me and women.
What I mean is that if I am a white unemployed, poor, knowing that 90% of rich people are white and male doesn’t make me any richer or privileged.
Would that person be claiming that young white men are the most disadvantaged class?
Remember, I didn’t claim that all white people were privileged. Only that if you were to for some reason break class down to race and gender, young white men would not more discriminated against than anyone else.
based on what you think so?
I mean we are talking about people who are claiming that young white males are being ignored or specifically discriminated against. So they’re already drawing conclusions based on race. In America a common trope is to blame minorities for economic disparity. Going back prior to the civil war, where poor white farmers blamed the slaves for ruining the labor market.
Class is not tied with demography in itself, class has to do with relationship to wealth. White people don’t belong to a privileged class, the privileged class is mostly composed by white people. They are not the same thing.
Again, the original context was about a group who already specified their demography. The premise was that young white men were specifically disadvantaged.
My rebuttal was that specifying young white men, instead of just young people was problematic. But if we were to examine this demographic as a class, it would be hard to say they were disadvantaged. I did not define the structure of class in this argument, the person I was originally responding to did.
Women and other minorities today have that representation.
And white men do not?
That’s the thing, being a man doesn’t make you on top. Thinking this way, with airtight categories is indicative of the kind of idea that as long as “a proportionate amount of women” are going to be “on top” (i.e.,
When I said the top, I meant in policy. If we are talking about political equality, there are not a lot of reasons for men to justifiably advance their own rights.
If someone told me that since I am man I am “on top”, and therefore I should just be an ally, I would feel alienated, because this fails completely to capture the mechanism of the system that oppresses both me and women.
And if they told you they were progressive about mens rights?
Would that person be claiming that young white men are the most disadvantaged class?
I don’t think so, and I don’t see why it’s relevant. Young white men are not a class, also, and I don’t see why they should think in those terms. The fact is, if you are told that you are on top due to the population you belong to, but you effectively are not, you are alienated by that movement. I think it’s fairly straightforward, no? A movement that considers “young white men” a class (a privileged one), is alienating because it fails to capture the reality of class structure.
Only that if you were to for some reason break class down to race and gender, young white men would not more discriminated against than anyone else.
And I agree with this.
I mean we are talking about people who are claiming that young white males are being ignored or specifically discriminated against. So they’re already drawing conclusions based on race. In America a common trope is to blame minorities for economic disparity. Going back prior to the civil war, where poor white farmers blamed the slaves for ruining the labor market.
Yeah but we are not talking about the people of this article specifically, are we? I am talking about generally poor men. Why these people should think that they should be more privileged based on race? I think that the majority of people would simply want to have more, exactly like everyone else. The idea that people should deserve more based on their race seems closer to white suprematism which is a minoritarian ideology. Also this is very unlikely in countries that don’t have the same racial divide as the US.
The premise was that young white men were specifically disadvantaged.
And this - to some extent - is also my argument. Specifically, they are because their oppression is not acknowledged nor part of the agenda for the progressive movements. They are alienated as oppressed and they are not member of the upper class by virtue of their population, hence they are as oppressed as others, without anybody representing their problems. So they are specifically disadvantaged from this perspective as there is not even a movement that they can support in which they recognize themselves. Some of them, turn to reactionary ideologies/people (like the ones in this article) that capture their problems.
And white men do not?
Not in the same way. Again, the mainstream cultural discourse lost a lot of the political connotation and flattened purely on gender/racial issues, so no, white oppressed men don’t have a political outlet that capture their struggle in the same way, right now. This to me explains the growth of the Jordan Peterson & co., which act as representation for those people’s issues, and are the exact reflection of the progressive movement who -failing to put class struggle at the center, and focusing on individual populations- pushes the idea that oppressed populations are actually in competition with each other for vital space (sorry, nothing to do for white men, you are already on top, now we need to support [POPULATION]).
When I said the top, I meant in policy.
Well this in my opinion is an extremely limited perspective, because oppression and inequality is not solved by policy.
And if they told you they were progressive about mens rights?
I would answer the same I answered before, I don’t care about mens right per se. I generally strongly oppose this idea that class should be divided in the different population, each with its own set of problems and demands. This to me seems like a perfect way to shatter class unity which becomes purely based on mutual support (being an ally) rather than on common interests and reciprocal recognition as members of the same class and victim of the same dynamics.
Yeah but we are not talking about the people of this article specifically, are we? I am talking about generally poor men.
I think this has been our problem, yes I have been specifically talking about men who have already self identified as being more disadvantaged because they are young white men.
I don’t believe that class has to do with race, but that was the specific claim I was originally negating. My arguments surrounding race were attempts to point out internal contradictions within this claim. If we do accept the framework of race specifying class, as the claim was stated, things don’t really make sense.
I think that the majority of people would simply want to have more, exactly like everyone else. The idea that people should deserve more based on their race seems closer to white suprematism which is a minoritarian ideology.
It is only a minority view depending on what part of the country you are in. When I went to elementary school in South Carolina they taught that the civil war was about state rights, and that the majority of southerners didn’t even like slavery, and that was because slaves made them poorer.
I think you are underestimating just how racist certain parts of this country are, and how important racial ideology is to their culture. And just how effectively it utilized race in class division. “If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.”
Specifically, they are because their oppression is not acknowledged nor part of the agenda for the progressive movements.
Right, but that’s namely because western politics is devoid of any actual class consciousness. It primarily is still focused on individual rights, of which white men aren’t really disadvantaged.
So they are specifically disadvantaged from this perspective as there is not even a movement that they can support in which they recognize themselves.
See that’s where I disagree, there are progressive political parties who engage in class consciousness. They just aren’t popular, and don’t tend to attract a lot of white young men, or at least in my area.
Again, the mainstream cultural discourse lost a lot of the political connotation and flattened purely on gender/racial issues, so no, white oppressed men don’t have a political outlet that capture their struggle in the same way, right now.
Fox News doesn’t match that description? Alex Jones, Tucker Carlson, a slew of other networks or anchors that specifically talk about this constantly? They have plenty of political outlets, just not a lot of healthy ones. But again, this is because those same networks are ran by the people who benefit from preserving the status quo.
Plus, i think the same problems are endemic to minority groups as well. It’s not like this representation is really focusing on class politics, they’re all based around individual rights. What exactly is the difference between the leaders of black lives matter and Jordan Peterson, other than one may have more legitimate complaints?
Well this in my opinion is an extremely limited perspective, because oppression and inequality is not solved by policy.
Yes, but that is typically what progressiveness looks like outside of class consciousness, and I don’t really foresee us evolving past that any time soon.
would answer the same I answered before, I don’t care about mens right per se. I generally strongly oppose this idea that class should be divided in the different population, each with its own set of problems and demands. This to me seems like a perfect way to shatter class unity which becomes purely based on mutual support (being an ally) rather than on common interests and reciprocal recognition as members of the same class and victim of the same dynamics.
Right, but this debate did not start in a vacuum. The original affirmation was that young white men were specifically disadvantaged.
I think there was a confusion where you thought my arguments within the framework of the original affirmation were taken as individual claims instead of rebuttals to claims. I think part of that is due to me responding to a slew of gish gallop made by the op.
I think we have essentially been in agreement, with maybe some differences in opinion about the scope of white supremacist ideology being practiced in America.
I think you are underestimating just how racist certain parts of this country are, and how important racial ideology is to their culture.
I also want to expand the perspective and not be US-centric. I am not from US, I don’t live there. There are many other places that share similar situations. I can agree that perhaps in some parts of US what you are saying is true. I am saying that this is definitely not the case in many european countries where there is no such racial divide. Of course, right-wing parties still utilize race whenever they can (e.g., immigration).
See that’s where I disagree, there are progressive political parties who engage in class consciousness. They just aren’t popular, and don’t tend to attract a lot of white young men, or at least in my area.
Yeah, of course they exist, this is the same in Europe. They are not mainstream, they are not among the parties people vote to see their representative in parliament etc. This is why I stressed on the “mainstream” aspect.
Fox News doesn’t match that description? Alex Jones, Tucker Carlson, a slew of other networks or anchors that specifically talk about this constantly? They have plenty of political outlets, just not a lot of healthy ones. But again, this is because those same networks are ran by the people who benefit from preserving the status quo.
You are right, and probably I did not specify well enough. I am talking about progressive (and leftist) political outlets. You quoted exactly the kind of people I was referring to when I mentioned those who end up capturing the problems for these people and then using them for their own interests. To simplify: if a poor white man sees in his interest the Carlson’s agenda and not the one from a progressive movement, this is a failure first and foremost of that movement imho. To me it is a failure in building an analysis and making proposals that people from all races and genders can understand and recognize themselves into. This is why I mentioned that imho the Carlsons are just the flipside of the coin of a neutered progressive (mainstream!) movement.
Plus, i think the same problems are endemic to minority groups as well. It’s not like this representation is really focusing on class politics, they’re all based around individual rights. What exactly is the difference between the leaders of black lives matter and Jordan Peterson, other than one may have more legitimate complaints?
Exactly my point! And yet BLM is the mainstream movement that reaches the news and essentially the only one that we know of from US on the other side of the ocean. I am sure that for locals things might be different, but that’s exactly what I am referring to as the problem. The main political discourse is occupied by movements which lost all traits of class politics, therefore laying the ground for people to entrench themselves into movements based on characteristics which are (politically) irrelevant. If you are a poor (maybe relatively uneducated) white man, your political opinion is hardly shaped on niche analysis and research, and more based on what you see around you (TV, socials etc.). If all this person sees are movement who don’t talk at all about problems they might be facing, then they will turn to those who do, Carlson and these other toxic guys.
Yes, but that is typically what progressiveness looks like outside of class consciousness, and I don’t really foresee us evolving past that any time soon.
Me neither, but this means that the struggle is completely neutered and within the boundaries of the system, and as such cannot address systemic issues. I think it’s absolutely necessary to see past it, given the global political situation.
I think we have essentially been in agreement, with maybe some differences in opinion about the scope of white supremacist ideology being practiced in America.
Very likely, and probably also because I live in a different world and I have a different background, so I did not want to dismiss but also did not want to focus solely on US issues/perspective. I also believe that the people the article talks about are -unfortunately- not only is US. I remember Peterson having a talk (or whatever you can call those) where I live and it was fully booked…
Have you been on Reddit lately? Every post has about 50% of comments that are incel type statements just talking about how they’ll be forever alone, they have no good traits, etc. it’s fucking pathetic
One of the reasons it is so hard is that right now is an extremely difficult time for people, so I think meeting people is even more difficult. If you are stressed out about making rent every month, guess what socialization and finding a partner becomes a distant priority vs just surviving.
I promise you though there are plenty of women out there who find social awkward people into niche hobbies sexy, especially if you are a genuinely nice person (which, beyond a superficial impression, is pretty much always the truly sexy thing about a person).
The problem is that those women are sitting at home exhausted and sad from modern life the same way you are, and it is hard to meet people outside the context of a bar.
If you are a nice person you are sexy and enough the way you are, what needs to change is the brutal grind of modern life, not you.
I mean just from a basic freetime calculation… women didn’t use to be able to work, which is fucked up, but it is also fucked up how much everybody’s lives are swallowed up by work at least in the US, and if you compare the difficulty of finding a women to hit it off with vs when women weren’t working as much…. I mean you have to cut yourself slack. The women of your dreams probably isn’t at the bar or wherever public meeting space you are, or actively on the dating app because they are stressed out and working all the time just like you :(
I usually suggest finding a social way to exercise a hobby or passion. If someone gets involved in a group or activity that puts them out there to meet people. And hopefully, if it is something they enjoy they won’t feel like it is extra work or stress. Doesn’t work for everyone but it does work.
Depends. Speaking from a lot of experience being a socially awkward guy, the following helps:
Improving fitness and wearing clothes that show it, getting rid of any terrible haircuts.
Having standards other than appearance and focusing on that from the start. This means rejecting attractive people who aren’t a good personality/etc. fit. Why does this help? It leads to better conversations and less wasted time.
Attitude of trying to laugh/have fun/be fun. She’s not into FOSS and motorcylces? Ok, don’t keep bringing it up then, instead talk about something you both like (and if you followed the above, there should be something).
Yeah that’s exactly it. You won’t find Joe Rogan ever saying things about women like Andrew Tate does. Joe Rogan loves woman. He’s raised 3 daughters and has a loving wife.
There’s some overlap but it’s not nearly as much as you think. I’ve listened to Rogan for more than 10 years. Probably 1500 episodes. Never listened to more than 2 mins of Andrew Tate and that was enough to decide I didn’t like him.
I’m not really in those circles but I feel like the timeline is wrong here. I don’t think young men see these figures, then venture out parroting them and crash their metaphorical bicycle. I think the bicycle crash is what makes them seek out that content. Maybe that’s how it’s working with very young men who are just now starting to talk to girls, idk.
The problem from where I stand is that conventional advice on how to get attention from women doesn’t work like it used to. Young men are entering the world and finding that they’re just not as attractive as their mothers have been telling them their whole life, and setting yourself up to have a decent income isn’t the selling point that the older generation told us it was.
So you either focus on other areas of your life and maybe you happen into some kind of relationship, or you look to adapt to this world of dating apps and hook-ups and you probably end up unsatisfied for a number of reasons, and that’s when someone turns to the manosphere.
As a guy who luckily only had to deal with the shitty realm of PUA in the early 2000s, I will say that typically it’s not a bike crash that gets you in the road. It’s more like you stumble across some con man who says he can “pick up any girl he wants and he’ll show you how!” So being a young impressionable male you try the advice and it usually doesn’t work. That leads (me at least) down the path of misogyny and “nice-guy ness” (I’m very sorry, I’m better now), and bada boom you’ve got yourself a roganite.
I actually don’t think there’s any “crash”, they’re just being sold a false idea of masculinity from the jump. They’re unhappy because they’re told (and shown through cultural male representation) that healthy men are satyric and dominant and are encouraged to seek sexual satisfaction over seeking emotional satisfaction, and then get frustrated when the object of their sexual desire rejects them in favor of emotional satisfaction over the sexual.
I think Joe Rogan fits into that genre because he very much views masculinity through a naturalistic lense, even if he isn’t advocating for toxic male behavior as explicitly as Tate or fresh and fit.
Getting attention from women shouldn’t be the goal at all, it should be forming satisfying emotional connections, and that is something men are simply not taught.
I’m not a Rogan meathead, but women are absolutely super choosey these days. Dating apps have given women an inflated sense of their own (dating) worth, and they largely want tall, handsome, well-off, slightly older men.
Of course I’m painting with a broad brush here, but this post is talking in generalities anyway.
Maybe dating apps aren’t the best way to stand out to women? What worked for me was putting effort into my social life. I met my current partner after a mutual friend knew both of us were single and asked if we were open to meeting up.
I’m not a Rogan meathead, but women are absolutely super choosey these days. Dating apps have given women an inflated sense of their own (dating) worth, and they largely want tall, handsome, well-off, slightly older men.
If this is happening even a little bit it is because of the distorting forces of capitalism and addictive phone apps are warping peoples interactions on dating apps.
I promise you, if you are genuinely a pretty nice human being who tries to be a good person there are plenty of women out there who want to fuck you. Really, the world is full of horny women who get hot and bothered by realizing that cute man they just met is also really sweet and kind. You don’t need fit any particular idea of a man, I understand it feels like you do and that is an awful feeling but it is a feeling not the reality.
Also women are probably more choosey because they are by large exhausted from work places that grind them down, trying to make rent, healthcare bullshit and any number of other struggles of modern life, just like you. They want to make sure that use their vanishing amount of free time, energy and money pursuing somebody that isn’t going to be a dead end.
If you want the quickest route to more men finding women who are interested in them, then support unionization, the social safety net, workers rights, and progressive legislation on housing. We need to take better care of people so that they have more free time, energy and money to pursue love and sex.
Fair enough. I’m not an incel and I have found some luck in the dating scene. But it’s important that we speak honestly about these trends in dating. And while I don’t think all problems in society stem from capitalism, I do agree that capitalism is exasperating the problems in the dating scene.
The comments are quite saddening, and also quite worrying.
This isn’t to put women’s issues down, but men have problems too. There’s a reason why young men turn to these grifters and get manipulated by them.
Even above all of that, assuming you don’t agree, it’s a problem. We’re building up generations of uneducated and toxic men led by these role models. We can’t just shrug that off and say it’s not our issue, because at some point it is going to be our issue.
This is a problem that I really feel like gets no attention.
With all the focus on women’s rights, young men feel neglected. And modern feminism does imply that men can’t really talk about issues because that comes from a place of privilege.
This isn’t the only time it happened. Male victims of sexual harassment and assault were pretty much entirely shut out of #MeToo.
So, young men feel marginalized and they will listen to whoever makes sense.
And modern feminism does imply that men can’t really talk about issues because that comes from a place of privilege.
I mean yeah there are shitty feminists like there are shitty types of all people but no most modern movements of feminism that are considered seriously by academics and people concerned with gender, sexuality and politics absolutely DO not imply men can’t talk about issues. Intersectional Feminism isn’t just about empowering women, it’s about creating structures that defend and empower everybody including women.
A feminist might be exhausted from toxic masculinity and the power imbalances of men vs women in society and in the moment not respond well to you bringing up issues with men, but feminists definitely by and large do care about men and the issues they face because at the end of the day they are just the flip side of the problems women face.
It’s all part of the same problem and the only way to fix it is to take better care of each other, which includes men, it includes everyone.
absolutely DO not imply men can’t talk about issues.
That’s so ridiculously false. Every college campus in America has a women’s only space now. How many of them have a men’s only space that hasn’t been coopted by the women’s studies department?
The only men’s spaces left in academia are frats…which is the bastion of al the things this post is complaining about.
And hell…that’s the core of this issue. If regular non toxic alpha wannabes want to talk about an issue…there’s simply no place to do it because the feminists have driven those discussions to the dark dank corners of toxic hell holes of society.
If regular non toxic alpha wannabes want to talk about an issue…there’s simply no place to do it because the feminists have driven those discussions to the dark dank corners of toxic hell holes of society.
Cite your sources if you want to make huge lazy generalizations that are honestly insulting to the immense amount of violence and structural exclusion women have faced down to get to the imperfect state of women’s equality.
Cite your sources it is a bunch of angry feminist activists shouting down men everywhere just trying to talk about why they are hurt.
Show me your sources, and a couple of anecdotes don’t count, show me evidence this is happening systematically.
edit love it, downvote me without giving any evidence that.
I think the point I’m trying to make is that DEI seems to have forgotten the cis white male.
Yeah, we’ve been privileged forever…and obviously equality feels like oppression to the priveleged…but at the same time I know I can find employee groups for every racial group, gender, and sexuality…except for the white cis male. To the other posters point, the same is true on college campuses. The only space left is frats, and that tends to attract toxic personalities.
At some point, everyone need to be able to feel they are in a comfortable space with peers. That is, ultimately, the whole idea of DEI. And it is a very noble idea. But in the process, we’ve co-edified all of the old-boys-groups and made it offensive to want to form a new one.
modern feminism does imply that men can’t really talk about issues?
not to be all “source?” but — source?
This statement feels full of selection bias. Let’s assume Angela Davis literally said this, does that mean Judith Butler agrees?
But I imagine it’s more that this was said by a semi-anonymous rage bait account on a social media platform.
That’s not to say such things aren’t hurtful - they are - but in the same way FirstnameBunchOfNumbers on Twitter says stupid shit all the time - eg all unions are all always bad and are literally communism - that doesn’t speak for the entirety of tradespeoples.
I’d much rather actually discuss the points raised. I was interested to discuss whether the person I was replying to (might be you - can’t tell on mobile) thought that what they said reflected all feminist thought, and whether that was current, new, or had always been there since Wollstonecraft etc
Do you really want to go into the difference between the “notallmen” epithet and the concept that because someone accuses a group of something does not mean that they are guilty of it nor does it mean that group is a monolith? The conversation seems fairly straightforward and doesn’t really need elaborating on. But I guess if you genuinely did have questions about the difference between “notallmen” and “accusing a group of something they didn’t do” I’d be willing to attempt to answer reasonable questions on the topic.
No, I am not the person you responded to, I just thought it was funny because all I could think of reading your comment was how many parallels it had to the “not all men” saying.
But to be more serious, I don’t think you can point to any individual saying men can’t discuss these topics, but there is a sentiment that has been felt for a long while. Listen to Bo Burnham’s Inside and he jokes about being a white guy trying to be supportive but not really being sure how without coming off as a “white savior.” A couple decades ago Ben Folds expressed frustration at not feeling allowed to express his personal problems to some degree in Rockin the Suburbs, and while that was more aimed at complaining from a place of privilege I think it captures a similar feeling the person you responded to expressed.
I think it’s difficult for a lot of men, especially younger ones, to express that kind of feeling without being (or feeling like they are being) rejected for having those feelings because they are the ones with the privilege. Or they may bottle up those feelings in an unhealthy manner out of guilt for potentially distracting from those with bigger issues. And those can open the door to them rejecting feminism in general so that they can express those feelings. People like Andrew Tate are able to take advantage of that.
I didn’t say men can’t discuss issues, (i wasnt even saying whether they should) I’m saying that for any sensible, reasonable definition of what “modern feminism” is (what does that even mean?), there is no correlation to “men can’t discuss these things,” and no prominent, published authors, scholars or journalists are saying such things - outside of tabloids, looking to score rage clicks.
Woman here. (Sorry, don’t typically announce my gender, but relevant to the comment if someone else reads it.)
Tbh I wish the conversation were more positive. I ain’t no expert cuz I’m struggling with my own advice, but I’d recommend: Try to get a decent job, work on your mental health, take care of yourself, build friendships, try to get in a decent place financially, and maintain a healthy schedule, environment, and diet. Be the kind of person you’d want to date. And treat women like men for the most part. Most people I know in relationships met at work, school, church, dating apps, or through friends / common interests.
But the reason I’m not on the dating market myself is cuz I’m a mess of a human being who doesn’t want to be trapped in a codependent relationship. Dating doesn’t sound appealing at all when I have so many problems I need to work through first. I’ve seen what happens when people try to fix their problems with relationships; it usually results in more problems.
Thank you, sorry if I gave off the wrong impression. I actually said it as I was previously in a situation where I was, but I started focusing on myself (taking advice similar to yours) and it actually does help! Previously I was flat out scared of talking to women. I thought even looking at someone could be creepy/harassing.
Turns out just talking to someone and then asking if they’d like to go out for food or something in a respectful manner after a conversation isn’t creepy and actually seems to invoke a positive reaction from them sometimes? Who would have known!
I find it telling that the meme is about men following idiotic “influencers” and so many people here are like “I identify with that man on the bike but my problems are unrelated”
I wouldn’t say identify. Pretty sure many of us don’t follow Andrew Tate or influencers in general. We’re showing empathy for the general situation. Sorry it bothered you.
Add comment