I enjoyed this article
I will say it’s very easy to accept that victim attitude. I did. I don’t any longer, I’d consider myself a humanist with the belief we need to make society better for everyone.
I’m going to whine for a bit, I’m in my mid 30s now, and when I was in high school social media was new and Facebook was pretty much at its peak. I don’t know what growing up is like for kids these days, but I do know my 11 year old nephew is like the kids in the article and he knows all about “red-pill” alpha/beta/sigma shit (but not how incorrect it is).
As a teenager it felt like being a white straight male meant I was being pushed backwards to make room for helping push women forward (I saw felt like because sometimes how somethings feels outweighs reality).
As an example, to pay for university I went through lists of scholarships and almost all of them were focused on minorities and women, and so I was ineligible. I worked 30+ hours a week after school school and I worked really hard to get up to an A average so that I could get some scholarships to help afford tuition (and I still ended up with debt). It was a really tough time and I was filled with fear about the future. At the time I felt that that I had to put in more effort to get less than my peers did because I was a straight white boy. My girlfriend at the time ended up getting so many scholarships and bursaries that she could afford her tuition, and her residence, and fun money leftover, and she never had to take on any debt to pay for her even more expensive university. I only got one scholarship (not for lack of trying) based on my grade cutoff, and I ended up taking on debt which took years to pay off. It felt very unfair by comparison, and I know her experience did not reflect the average, but that’s what I saw as my comparison.
I also was a frequent 4chan user at the time, I joined for the memes, but there was a lot of commentary about how the education system had been changed to favour girls and that when it was more adversarial boys performed better. By then the statistics had already swung so that more girls were getting accepted into university, and they were more likely to graduate. I still have no idea how true the things I read on 4chan were vs reality, they definitely excluded the narrative of sexism against women in the old days, but they felt real, they matched with real statistics, and it was a cohesive narrative. I got sucked in, and I was bitter, and I saw all the ways in which I was the victim.
Obviously I never experienced any of the downsides of being a minority or being a woman. I never got the perspective of why things were harder for them and why they deserved help. I only saw there was help for them while I was struggling to keep afloat. I only saw the still present expectations on men to be providers, all the bad sides of patriarchy without knowing what patriarchy was (except meaning male and bad). Also at the time, there was stuff like anti-rape pledges that schools were making boys take, and it sorta felt like being treated like a criminal for crimes you knew you would never commit.
Anyways, I’ve meandered a lot. The discourse has evolved but I still don’t think men’s issues get the discussion they need, and I don’t think we’ve seriously focused much effort on the question of “how do we help boys too”.
Now that alarm bells are ringing and it feels like we’re still not adequately discussing men’s issues, and sadly it feels like the only people who actually are, are those alt-right red-pill influencers (who are massively warping the truth to fit a narrative) because they’re not afraid to get labelled over it.
And just to sign off, over 15 years after high school I now see a lot of the privilege I actually had, I’m more aware of the realities minorities and women face, and I know I was a whiny teenager with blinders on to all of the benefits and luck I actually had.
I remembered being the only Asian kid in school on Long Island. It was awful. The constant fights/bullying I was in were so frequent that my parents sent me to defense training.
My teachers would put me down and one of my teachers even physically abused me. The vice principal saw it and didn’t do anything either.
But I felt privileged because I wasn’t the only black kid in my school. He was my best friend. He had it way worse.
My point is that it is all about perspective. My life sucked because I knew what my friend was going through.
I’m sorry you went through that.
That’s the kind of thing I didn’t think about growing up, which was in a primarily white area, and I only really made non-white friends in university.
I feel embarrassed at what I thought back then sometimes.
Obviously it’s not your fault. You’re the product of your environment. Racism is sorta built into everything in our society.
I’ll give you an example that relates to your post.
I work in a small startup and manage a marketing team. Our team is growing and I’m constantly hiring people.
Our founder plans to go public, but our diversity % is awful. We have 2000 employees, 8 blacks, 14 Asians and 80% men. The vast majority of them are white men. The head of HR is a friend of mine and asked me for help.
I told her one of the many reasons was the college graduate and masters preferred line we have on all our postings. It didn’t even matter that it’s a junior position. That was added because they wanted “educated” people. But we inadvertently homogenized all our candidates.
As a test, we changed all marketing positions to just say high school or GED. And with that simple trick, marketing is the most diverse department in the company.
The only thing we can all do as a society is to just try our best to bring diversity to our lives. I was a “don’t bother me and I won’t bother you” type of person when it came to LGBTQ people until I found myself living in West Hollywood and making friends with mostly gay people.
The scholarship thing, and lack of social support for men in general, is still a massive problem IMO. I’m all for lifting those up who need it, but many people, myself included, were too “rich” to get financial aid, too poor to afford anything other than community college (which is great, but it has challenges of its own), and too straight and white and male to quality for 95% of scholarships. I’m very aware I inherently have some level of privilege, and I’m sure there’s even more I’m unaware of, but the single greatest contribution to your chance of success in life is the zip code you were born in.
I’m extremely privileged and make more than enough money for a comfortable living, but the road here was very difficult, and it’s pretty damn easy to see why young boys are leaning right so hard. I’m left as fuck and id even be considered left wing in Europe, but the left in the US has alienated the fuck out of young men and provides almost 0 role models for them. The constant media messaging and sentiment of men are evil, they need to go die in wars, and #killallmen on social media being celebrated is super damaging. If I didn’t end up decently successful and couldn’t take a step back and get a top down view of everything I don’t know if I’d end up nearly as left as I am.
It’s only recently I’ve seen some sentiment change around this, but it’s going to take a long time as all social change does. We really ought to stop telling young boys what to not be and instead SHOW THEM what they should strive to be. This is why people like Andrew Tate get such a cult following. Despite being an absolute dog shit human being, he focuses on uplifting oneself and provides an ideal person who you should strive to be. By comparison that positive male role model who young boys should strive to be is completely absent on the left and leaves many boys, myself included at the time, lost as fuck and surrounded by what they should not be instead of what they should.
There is really easy solution - socially financed education and income based support.
But then how will we get young people to join the military for our unpopular unnecessary wars?
100%
It is a lot easier to see where you’ve struggled than where you are privileged.
But I would like to see more make role models. I didn’t really have many growing up.
I really get this feeling. I remember at uni seeing adverts for scholarships and internships from huge and exciting companies that, in only a few more words, essentially said ‘if you’re anything other than a straight white male, sign up!’. I won’t speak to the value of effectiveness of these programs, but I can really understand how that could create a feeling of unwantedness that the alt right tries to give an answer for.
the morning light hit my stove’s greasy backsplash in just the right way to reveal a finger-traced drawing of a dick ’n’ balls spraying a few fingertip-dots of jizz.
Us mere mortals can only dream of writing this perfect, for indeed here we have an example of prose from an artist at the pinnacle of the form.
“Us” can’t dream, but we can.
I think it’s hilarious that his praise of prose contains errors, perhaps intentionally, but pointing out the irony of such errors causes people to react negatively with down votes.
It’s like you’re the only one who got the joke and everyone else is mad they didn’t understand.
There’s another error in there, as well. See if you can spot it.
“Perfect” is an adjective and should be the adverb “perfectly”.
Yeap, that’s the one I had in mind.
The appeal of a grievance-based identity makes it hard to convince straight white boys that they in fact have plenty going for them, and that they have no reason to feel aggrieved.
Yeah, but they do have reason to feel aggrieved. Patriarchy is fucking boys and men over too.
Yeah this part stuck out to me too. It’s really difficult to see all that’s left on the table when we refuse to acknowledge that boys are absolutely still forced into damaging masculine roles.
Grievance-based identity… Interesting that it is attributed by the author to straight white males; on the right “oppression olympics”, i.e., grievance-based identity, is attributed predominantly to the left.
You do bring up an interesting point there. It does make me wonder how much each “side” is attributing behaviours to strawman versions of the other vs not seeing what they have themselves.
I personally strongly related to the article, I think there’s a crisis in finding meaning in masculinity these days. I think the red pill alt-right types are promoting an easy but unhealthy version of masculinity (fulfilling yourself by status symbols, or min-maxing something, or really falling into the alpha/beta/sigma nonsense).
Christians are famous for their persecution complex, so this feels like an “every accusation is a confession” thing.
Are you assuming that most straight white males are religious and Christian? There’s probably some truth to this, at least in the US, but I doubt that most straight white males are religious enough to have a persecution complex. Moreover, from my understanding and experience, the persecution complex is mainly attributable to Catholics, which further reduces the sample size. On the other hand, I think some flavour of a persecution complex could be attributed to any religion, not just Christianity. After all, religions control through shaming inappropriate behaviours and rewarding desired behaviours.
I was mostly assuming right-leaning people in the US tend to be Christians, pointing out that a cohort known for projecting their problems perhaps isn’t the best to contrast with.
My comment was somewhat flippant, but you raise a good point in that not all Christian denominations maintain a persecution complex. A generalization on my part, I admit.
It occurs to me now that I don’t quite understand your point. Are you suggesting that people tend to accuse groups they don’t belong to of a “grievance-based identity” as a strawman? Or is your point about drawing a parallel between accusatory conservatives and concerned mothers? Or is your point perhaps simply that the author is othering her child?
My original point was mainly about both sides (left and right) attributing grievance-based identity to each other. There’s probably more to it than that. The truth is out there, but I feel like neither side is doing enough to understand the nuances of what’s going on in society and oversimplifies the dynamics at hand.
The statistics have shown for decades that peers are what determine political alignment. The answer is therefore simple: don’t send your kids to conservative education.
Education in general leans pretty far left, though.
I went to public school in a blue state and it was not far left. The labor movement was taught as a handful of very bad situations that caused workers to strike and peaceful protest fixed it. Things like the Battle of Blair Mountain and the violence it took to get where we are were ignored. Same with civil rights, MLK Jr gave some speeches, some people marched, there was resistance, and then we fixed it.
Any non capitalist leanings were ignored or minimized, the organized violence of the state and those who opposed it was ignored, figures were lauded and their life summaries always left out the part were they criticized capitalism or the complacent middle class. No mention of Mother Jones, Smedly Butler, our involvement in Iran as a pre shah state, or anything that would tarnish America’s image as a modern moral state. Hell, they never had the nerve to call what we did to the Native Americans a genocide.
So you got an education
and now you’re pretty far left
Thanks.
I’d disagree with that. I see that the gains we’ve made in quality of life are often the result of literally fighting for change. The systems we live under are the result of incremental change over a long time and should be questioned and resisted when our ability to live a full human life is threatened. The systems we built 10 years ago are unlikely to be perfect, nevermind 200 years ago. There’s a reason the US constitution has the amendment process. It is a living document we are ment to change to address the problems we face. Knowing what it took to get the changes in the past let us weigh whether the changes are worth it and the ruling class knowing we know our history means they know what’s on the table.
If you choose to call living a life with a degree of awareness and the ability to be more than a profit generator far left so be it. However, I’m very fond of not working 7 days a week, 12 hours a day, and dying from preventable illness due to gutted safety standards.
Idk, in France the rich go to private schools filled with right wing kids and teachers.
Oh for sure, Private Schools are a plague of dogma, but the most conservative group in France on average would be a centrist in the USA, where the article was published. Compare educated groups with uneducated groups, and it’s pretty clear that education leads left.
I’ll add to this the lack of male only spaces throughout life. There used to be scouts, boys sports, working men’s clubs, veterans clubs etc. Almost all of it is mixed now because that was sexist. The opposite has happened in female areas with charity leagues, coding clubs, sports, gyms, etc.
Yeah, seeing this in the article:
“It might feel dangerous to let a teenager argue that sexism works both ways”
made me hesitate a bit. Any man with a decent chunk of life experience knows that this sexism cuts both ways. Still, I sympathize with the primary message. I wouldn’t want my children to fall into extremist politics either.
At the same time providing the fundamentals of critical thinking is becoming more and more challenging with how many different actors want to hijack our emotions for their own purposes and bypass rational thinking.
To add to this - the most important thing is the community. Yes, girls are given special organizations. But the cause of this rightward lurch is a world wide withdrawal from community. We’re not spending time together and calling each other out on their shit. Rightwing nutjobs used to be known to be rightwing nutjobs and they were called out for being that way. They knew what they were and they knew the community disapproved. Now everyone is siloed at home on the internet with no social fabric to error check them and tell them that they are being pushed towards nutjobism.
When I need to unload my troubles as a man I go to the bathhouse and by troubles I mean great ropes of jizz.
What is the need for male-only spaces? I can see the need for positive male role models for sure, and those would’ve often been found in those male-only spaces you mentioned. But what is lacking from not having them be male-only?
Why do some women like to have women only spaces? I think different people have different environments they feel most comfortable in, where they can be the most self. I assume that is true for at least some men with men only spaces.
Why do some women like to have women only spaces?
Let’s be real – often it’s because of poorly behaved men.
Or maybe sometimes you want to hang out with people who share a similar experience of being a women?
You can hang out with a group of women and share that without being in a space that completely forbids men. But I get what you’re saying.
At least for me the vibe in a male only, mixed or where I’m the only dude setting - are very different.
Because there are so many male dominated spaces? There are women-only gyms because many gyms have mostly men working out. Look at any basketball court in a park and count the number of women playing. There’s always random dudes, but very few women. Look at any soccer field, baseball field, BBQ area, etc. These are huge public areas devoted mostly to things men want to do.
I say this as a dude who enjoys all of that. If women want their own baseball league or running club or whatever, it literally doesn’t hurt me at all. Men don’t need “men only” spaces because that’s still the default for everything now. If some women show up to play basketball, that’s totally fine. They may not be as strong but there are plenty of smaller dudes playing too. It makes no sense to exclude them.
You only mention physically intensive activities. Some men may have different interests.
They may not be as strong but there are plenty of smaller dudes playing too. It makes no sense to exclude them.
So why would it make sense to exclude men?
Also, I’m not the best person to argue about it, since I personally don’t really like male-only settings so I would not speak from my own experience. And in general I think our society profits more from mixed settings since they help to normalize relations between genders.
You’re entirely correct, this guy’s ‘need’ is completely isolated to himself, it’s not a universal - I’ve never asked myself “wouldn’t this be better if there were fewer women?”, absolutely never occurred to me even.
he wants gender exclusivity because being around women makes him uncomfortable. Well buddy, that’s not how society works lol. Maybe move to Oman or Qatar if they want genders defined like that.
“When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.”
- Maya Angelou
Some dudes are just not comfortable around women, and they all seem to be downvoting comments. The funny thing is, these dudes would probably be thrown out of most “male” spaces (sports bars, basketball courts, weightlifting gyms) for being nuts.
What is the need for male-only spaces.
Mental health and happiness.
It honestly depends how truthful you want to be. The first is men are allowed to talk about issues with other men without being judged for it. So it could be “I’m worried I don’t make enough money for my family” they wouldn’t want their family or family’s friends around then. Could be “I’m having this sex issue”. Could be “this one night stand sexually abused me and if I tell anyone she told me she will go public that I raped her when I was the victim!”. Without men only spaces those conversations can’t happen because you can’t say “oh I’m going to,” actually where? haha I can’t even think of an example where a man can go to talk about sexual violence, thats how bad it is. But I meant “oh I’m going to go to this sexual violence clinic for men and it will be in secret so you don’t know I’m going” it needs to be a casual place that allows for other conversations.
Now this is the controversial part that will divide people. I think most men simply just enjoy men only spaces some of the time. They feel less judged and they feel it’s more friendly. I honestly think men only spaces are important to mens health because they can enjoy themselves and act “normal” they can act in a way that feels natural to them rather than acting the way women find socially acceptable.
Sounds like what you want is a non toxic non judging space. It doesn’t have to be mens only.
I know what I want.
I have mixed group settings, I’ve even had me and a load of girls settings, I’m comfortable in them both and enjoy them immensely.
I think men and boys need male only spaces and it’s fucked up that it is so frowned upon.
You’ve expressed what you want, but your reasons don’t don’t reflect positivity. They reflect the notion that women are somehow fundamentally other to you tlin a way men aren’t, and you provide no reason to believe that to be true.
You know what you want. It’s not at all clear that you understand what you need.
Many women don’t feel empathy towards men. They were never expected to.
beginning to wonder if he’s afraid of women or… afraid of women.
Thank you for sharing that. I haven’t had the same experiences. I don’t feel the same sense of judgement or anything in mixed-gender spaces, but I won’t discount those who do.
I have close friends of both genders with whom I’d talk about those kinds of issues with.
I am confused as to why there needs to be a “men’s-only club” for some of those conversations to happen, though. Those generally aren’t conversations I’d want to have where strangers can overhear, regardless of gender. So I would just call a friend to go somewhere private, likely outdoors, or somewhere like a car or someone’s home.
In my area, I do believe there are men’s-only therapy groups and the like, and I hope that that becomes the norm around the world as time progresses.
Unfortunately, I think the bias towards women’s-only spaces being normalized and men’s-only spaces being replaced with mixed-gendered spaces has been because of the history of men using those spaces to exclude women (e.g. from career opportunities), or from behaving inappropriately towards women in mixed-gendered spaces (such as gyms and swimming pools).
I think there is a lot of work to go into socializing young boys and young men. I would almost be worried that male-only spaces would be somewhere where men “Don’t have to worry about that woke/Politically Correct shit anymore”, and then eventually feel like that’s how society should be.
There is definitely a place for male-only spaces, but as I’ve never felt the need for them, I was curious as to what others wanted them for. So, thank you for that.
Mental health and happiness.
you need men-only environments to be happy?
also you ask for sex advice at the gym, at the scouts, at the club?
Your need for gender exclusivity really is on you mate, please don’t act like it’s universal.
Not for gyms no. Uni-sex gyms are the best in my opinion and I would choose then over single sex. More people, more space, more machines, no point having men only gyms because I’m not really having convos and when I do it’s just as likely to be men or women for something causal unless I’m asking people how many sets they got on the bench press.
I’m fairly certain the hidden secrets of girls who fancies who, and does she like me back all came up in scouts. That’s all part of growing up. I certainly learnt a move or two from the rugby club and people got helped out on issues they were having with girls, finances, school, mental health, fitness, confidence, friendship. The rugby club was the biggest source of positivity I have ever seen in my life. Yet I had more than a few girls who knew nothing about it, never even met rugby players telling me it’s “toxic”
I was very careful not to use the word universal. If I had to bet I would say confidently way more than 50% of men and boys would benefit from some male only spaces.
Let me ask, why are you so against men only spaces? Okay you don’t want men only spaces, that I can accept. But why deny that to others, where are people going to go for issues I mentioned?
Let me ask, why are you so against men only spaces?
Because it’s a fantastic waste of resources for reasons you either choose not to or cannot articulate lol. Having spent time in gender excluding MOS’s, then spending time in integrated specialties, I realized it was absurd and puritanical in most cases.
Okay you don’t want men only spaces, that I can accept. But why deny that to others, where are people going to go for issues I mentioned?
because I don’t want to live in Saudi Arabia or any other country that sexualizes or others gender to the point of building duplicate infrastructure to serve each. It’s wasteful, immature and asinine.
Frankly, I don’t care about your estimates of how many your wild ass guesses say it would benefit, it’s not going to help society. In society, we all have to live together, there’s no safe spaces we can run away to in order to escape whatever it is you’re afraid of.
If you start down this road, when the nazis show up at your bar and say “oh we don’t exclude women, we exclude the undermenchen” you should be comfortable knowing you created that situation.
Now, assholes… man, I wish, oh how I wish, we could just exclude assholes from the public sphere, but I don’t get my wish, and neither should you.
I would have to disagree that men having access to mental health and help for domestic violence is a waste of resources but I guess we can’t all be cunts. If you can’t see that I guess you’re beyond help.
Still never answered where guys go for issues.
As for men only social clubs, well its not a waste of resources because it will pay for itself like it has done in years gone by. There is value in it and it is paid for, that’s how the economy works. Otherwise everything we do that isn’t work or food is a waste of resources.
I’m absoultely not only about division of sexes I’m on about some small, in certain cases sexual divided areas that woukd improve mental health. But good strawman.
Well I’m glad you got all the answers to stuff. I guess my conversation with other men are pointless but seeing as you have all the answers and know there is no benefits (eventhough I have first and second hand proof it does).
If there are no safe spaces let’s close down women only spaces then, they don’t need domestic violence centres, we don’t need prison we don’t need police, not point worry about anything we all need to live together.
I would have to disagree that men having access to mental health and help for domestic violence
at the mens only hospital, or the men’s only therapy building?
No one’s trying to take away male access to mental health and help, cute strawman tho. Nothing about those even require the therapists to be gender specific, say nothing about the entire facility.
you have yet to explain how gender division improves mental health, it’s not a strawman argument at all. you stay you want things, say they’re important to your mental health, then do absolutely nothing to explain how that requires gender exclusive facilities.
I do love how you jump from “if I can’t get mens only X, women shouldn’t have protection from domestic violence”.
did you really mean to say that bit aloud?
Why not just join a men’s footy team? why do you need a men’s only clubhouse? It’s silly mate. Go join a monastery, I think you’d be happier.
There is a debate to be had. But just as women benefit from women only spaces men might benefit from it too. Because sexual selection always plays a role in social dynamics, especially at that age. But I’m not sure it needs institutions for that, and that also isn’t an argument for men only “good old boys clubs”. More about good male (non toxic) role models.
What you get now are vile role models online that are actively pushing toxic masculinity or even fascism.
You can run a survey for yourself. Personally I have always longed for male-only spaces, and I say this while most of my friends are female. That’s kinda the point.
Personally I have always longed for male-only spaces,
Join a monastery then bud, no longer any need for longing.
society has sorted you out, take it and go instead of inflicting your gender phobias on the taxbase, paying for duplicate infrastructure just because you don’t want to be around women is absurd.
Or go live in Saudi Arabia already.
Read the whole comment. I don’t have many friends, and all the close ones are women. I can talk with them about many things, but sometimes I end up relying on the only lesbian one among them hoping that she’s “male enough”.
My comment is anecdotal, of course, you don’t have to believe that many other people have sometimes the need of hanging out only with other men. But even among acquaintances who hang out in couples in a friend circle, it’s habit that some weekend retreats are boys-only, girls-only.
Many women don’t feel empathy towards men. They were never expected to.
lol you actually believe this?
I don’t have many friends,
surprise surprise surprise!
just a giant bucket of ‘no, really?’ every time you comment.
One reason is because young males bond differently when there are no females in the group. When there are females the males often compete with each other for the female’s attention, rather than building strong bonds together.
Is that true even for young children, though?
I could see the bonding being different in different contexts though.
I came to say the same as many other replies. For older men, it doesn’t matter as much, they can simply create their own spaces, but for boys they really can’t, they are pushed into mixing in most situations. Boys are more boisterous, so need the organized outdoor spaces. They can’t get that male space from sleepovers like girls at that age do.
For another example, think of how a group of teenagers act on their own, now how does that change when you add an adult? It is obviously unhealthy for them to always be around an adult.
Of course they can get that space from sleepovers. Gaming interested boys have done that for decades - LAN parties, or nowadays the less physical Gaming over Discord or whatever. For sports-focused boys, of course things like soccer teams are way more important spaces.
Yes, by not introducing trauma of being micromanaged, parented too much and by allowing them personal space.
By understanding that this doesn’t mean kids don’t need help, they need a lot of it, but you don’t come arrogantly with your mind made up about what kind of help exactly they need.
By being respectful of their borders in interests also, because when a kid is interested in anything at all, and the parent thinks it’s cool to just intervene “helping” in that interest and “participating” without being invited, especially publicly, that’s worse than bullying.
And also doing that thing which may seem stone age - never ever support anybody from the outside against your kid. Teachers, other kids’ parents, neighbors, anybody. If your kid does something wrong, you talk. But you don’t turn it into something you discuss and judge behind their back together with teachers or whoever else and then come to your kid with your opinion. That’s called family values and it really is important.
In short, respect.
Militant right ideologies are attractive for people who feel themselves disrespected. Idealistic ideologies (not only right) are attractive for people who lack happiness. Repressive ideologies (again not only right) are attractive for people who feel themselves weak. Conspiracy theories are attractive for people who feel lost. Reactionary ideologies are attractive for people who feel rejected.
I had conservative parents and I might have grown up the same… but I slid WAY to the left which I attribute to one very specific and pivotal event: watching the news and protests around Trump getting elected while I was sitting in a McDonald’s in Thorncliffe Park. Until that day I was pretty indifferent to politics and stuff, but this had me question: what injustice in this world led to this crazy person to take power?
Teach empathy.
Make them the helpers.
There is a problem that creates a hostility towards feminism as it stands now and minorities.
Look at how positive discrimination has progressed.
The goal is roughly 50/50 representation. But to get there from where we were we have positively discriminated in favour of girls and women.
Desirable entry level jobs do not end up in a 50/50 hire pattern because the starting point was skewed to begin with. Hiring over represents women.
Leadership and management often needs a correction from 100% male to 50%.
That means promotions favour women.
But it goes further back. Educational programs, university places etc. As well as other areas of life. Sport funding, healthcare interventions.
All these areas we’re correcting for social injustice against women and we aren’t impacting those who are already at the top of the ladder.
Instead we’re disproportionately helping women up the ladder to eventually get to equality.
That’s justifiable looking at society as a whole. I’m not generally against positive discrimination.
But add on to that the same mechanisms to help minorities and you do have a weight of advantages that can lead to an overcorrection or at the very least feel like one.
Then take it another step.
In the UK there was a program which targeted additional funding for disadvantaged children in education. It recognised girls and helped them, it recognised minorities and helped them.
The program was designed to be agnostic and look at demographics and attainment to determine where funding would go.
At the point at which the metrics used to determine funding pointed to white working class boys, after the pendulum had swung, the Conservatives cut funding for it.
There is privilege. There are reasons to correct for privilege and ways to do that to make a more equal society.
But the way we’ve chosen to get there as quickly as possible has reversed privilege in small, key areas, rather than eliminating it.
In a world where we have a generation that has spent their entire political lives pulling up the ladder. That right wing generation has found support amongst the young in promising to pull up the ladders only put back down for the select few.
The most desirable jobs and areas for social mobility have been targeted for positive discrimination. To try and create representation of the unrepresented as the first step.
There is increasing inequality overall.
There are those who cannot get onto the ladder seeing the left help people not like them. Just because they aren’t women and aren’t a minority themselves.
The left has fundamentally failed to target root causes of inequality and lack of social mobility.
Who are you going to vote for. The side taking away your privilege while doing nothing for you?
Or the side who promises not to take that privilege from you?
If the left wants young men’s votes it needs to tackle inequality and social mobility directly. Otherwise it may be the correct, albeit distasteful, conclusion, that a culture war benefits young white men. After that it’s only a matter of cognitive dissonance to justify the harm to society as a whole for personal benefit and young men vote right wing.
he left has fundamentally failed to target root causes of inequality and lack of social mobility.
If the left wants young men’s votes it needs to tackle inequality and social mobility directly.
What are you talking about? The left has found and implemented solutions to those problems (not perfect but better than nothing) in places where the left had power - northern Europe for example.
I’m speaking from an anglocene perspective I admit.
The “left” in the UK and US has had power. But they didn’t contradict right wing economic policy from the 80s when they had the chance.
We’ll see what they do next time they get a chance but looking at the UK we haven’t had a left wing government that would help since the 70s and it’s hard to start a conversation about who to vote for by talking about things that happened before someone was born.
The track record of Labour in the UK and the Democrats in the US is not good enough in the living memory of the voters they want to turn out for them.
But they didn’t contradict right wing economic policy from the 80s when they had the chance.
So how are they left if they don’t actually enable core leftist ideas?
Democrats in the USA would be a rather conservative (when it comes to economics ) party in most social market economy countries. Which is my point - it’s not that the left does not have solutions for social inequality problems. It’s just that there are no politicians in power (in the USA and UK) who are interested in bringing those to life.
They’re “left” because we live in a 2 party system and they did spend money on healthcare and education.
I get what you’re saying. Essentially I’m saying the same thing,the left aren’t left enough to ensure their policies help everyone instead of a select few.
But they are the left under FPTP voting where most votes get disenfranchised.
So you kind of identified the problem in the political system as of itself but still you are blaming the left?
You’re identifying “the left” how exactly.
I’m saying if the left in those countries wants to win votes they have to gain voters by offering them something. That’s what moves the Overton window, a party trying to appeal to a broad base.
We don’t have a system which encourages a left, right, and centre leading to coalition governments.
We have a FPTP system which encourages 2 major parties to try and form coalitions within themselves to win an absolute majority in government. With outsiders getting disenfranchised.
Which coalition will the young male voter join? The one offering them something.
In a FPTP system what you seem to identify as “the left” are not the left. They are outsiders, detached and not pulling the government one way or the other.
They are involuntarily neutral voters except when they vote for one of the major 2 parties.
I disagree with the disenfranchisement in the system. I identify it as an additional problem. But the core problem is a lack of appeal to that demographic.
You’re identifying “the left” how exactly.
People who try to put leftist idea into work?
So again, you clearly see that the US-American political system is absolutely broken and bonkers, but blame the left for it. Which in USA (at least economical left) did not have any power to beginn with.
Maybe I’m not getting your message.
When has the left ever had power in the US? Labour in the UK had a bit post war, but they’ve since stopped being left.
You cant just call neolibs the left and complain that the left didnt do anything.
Gatekeeping what’s left and right makes no sense. There is an Ovrrton window and two parties either side of that centre.
FPTP voting is about disenfranchising voters. Ensuring they don’t vote is one way of doing that.
You have to vote for the lesser of 2 evils until you get to the point of electoral reform being possible.
And you make electoral reform possible by organising and pressuring the most likely party to do it.
No. The left has a very clear political meaning, it does not simply mean “Whats less to the right”.
When leftists talk about leftist policies as solutions to issues, we dont mean “oh right wing policies but just not super right”.
Left —————| Middle |—A——B— Right
Tell me, what side of that spectrum do you think A is?
I’m afraid “the left” hasn’t had a clear meaning for many decades now.
The meaning of what is left and right shifts over time and whatever method you choose to place the middle is where biases appear.
If no party to the left of A has a chance of government and no party to the left of B has a chance of government, you’ve placed “middle” in the wrong place.
Ignoring political reality by starting a history lesson isn’t going to create changes.
It’s likely to lead to voters involuntarily disenfranchising themselves and not having any effect on the duopoly the system encourages.
The left is not relative, nor has the meaning shifted in all this time.
The left is the same communists and anarchists it has been for over a hundred years world wide now.
Political party popularity does not change political ideological meaning.
And the American system doesn’t encourage duopoly, it literally enforces it. So yes, of course many leftists are going to feel disenfranchised after close to a century of being villainised and neglected by their “representatives”. The solution to that is for a party to adopt leftist ideals, but that goes against the interests of the ruling class who’s money and influence runs the game.
The track record of Labour in the UK and the Democrats in the US is not good enough in the living memory of the voters they want to turn out for them.
it’s not enough that the left has to rescue the fucking economy every time, now it’s the left’s job to fix everything else? ooh boo hoo won’t the left help poor white men…
Well that attitude is my point.
A workers party that isn’t helping a large portion of voters is missing out on a lot of votes.
you’re never going to support left causes anyway! bye felicia.
Funnily enough I almost exclusively support left causes. I actually vote too!
sure thing buddy. I believe you.
lol
If the left wants young men’s votes it needs to tackle inequality and social mobility directly.
sure as hell isn’t going to be fixed by the right now, is it?
embody the improvement you want to see in the world.
Absolutely. I’m single handedly going to “embody” fixing systemic inequality.
Even though I’m doing alright the only way to mathematically do this is to become Robin Hood.
Will you meet me in Sherwood Forest and become a merry person?
the right is in power far more often than the left, do you ever try this shit with them? lolol
If you’re good enough with philosophically questioning and deconstruction of ideas in a non-militant manner, you could deradicalise someone. I could not find the news, but there is a father who deradicalised his son by engaging his son’s thoughts. The natural instinct is to quickly react and be angry but father kept questioning where his son got the ideas and explained why they’re wrong. The son’s view did not change over night but it worked.
I heard of Street Epistemology as a concept to lead those questioning conversations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1e4HZfHSRQ
Hear hear! Meaningful discourse can be very powerful.
Giving your children self confidence and educating them also on more philosophical topics is definitely something parents can/should do. The problem arises when parents can’t fulfill that task.
I think this article may shed some interesting context and complement OP’s linked article nicely: https://theconversation.com/gen-z-boys-attitudes-to-feminism-are-more-nuanced-than-negative-222532
What is rightthink and what is wrongthink is already predetermined before conversations start. So someone who is young and wants to think for themselves cannot hold a position that is not already predetermined, they cannot even talk something through to get the right answer because even holding the wrong answer is liable for attack.
Not even that but not holding the right answer and advocating for it aggressively is already aggressively wrong.
And who is responsible for most of these issues? You guessed it white men. No only do they have to hold the right position they have to defend that position more than anyone else.
The world is getting a lot more competitive but I think the thinks most guys care about is getting girls and getting money do to things like by a house. Sex has gotten horrifically competitive with some guys getting laid loads and some guys not getting any. It pays to be the best and guys know that, lying about it doesn’t help anyone. Theoretically evening out that somehow is probably better for society but I can’t even conceive of how that would happen, but might be an explaination of how marriage for life became the norm.
In terms of money it’s difficult for everyone, but then for everyone else to get a leg up when you are struggling is aggravating. All anyone wants is a level playing field and white guys don’t get that. Also girls still like guys with money whereas it isn’t the same the other way around.
Sure you can say something like women liking guys with money is all part of the patriarchy and pushes that back onto men. But serious, how are the current generation going to fix that? It’s okay for women to feel money makes a man but not to change, but it’s not okay for men to let that happen. That just doesn’t make sense.
Then the mental health aspect is men don’t have anything. They get attacked, they get told they need to be strong, countless examples of women abusing men for being weak (that’s seems the norm in relationships) I guess that’s somehow not women’s responsibility either it’s the patriarchy. So men find comfort and support in other men but that is also not okay. There are no man days in work, no male only spaces, no one trying to push men into a career for teaching. Men even having a normal guy only friendship group gets attacked in ways that women only friendship groups don’t.
I’m sure this comment will do poorly because it doesn’t fit the narrative and people will gloss over it but that’s the explaination of what’s going wrong in guys lives today.
And another hard fact for a lot of people here is the right actually have some points. Can you believe that a huge contingents of different attributes supported by ~50% of the population has some things going for it. I am left wing, probably very left wing. But the way the left act is pushing a lot of people to the right. Conversations with the right are much more open, much more free. The left is so aggressive and unopen to discussion it pushes people away. If the right offers equality and tells young boys they are not born with oringal sin for being boys, then people are going to listen. We need a party that is left economically but individually right.
deleted by creator
Tldr
Boys are told how to think and they must advocate for that position or they are wrong. No discussion.
White men are the cause of issues, even for things like women abusing men because it’s due to the patriarchy.
The world is actually competitive for sex and money. More so than ever.
Men getting the blame, not having any help, not being allowed things that help their mental health pushes them to the right because the right has more open conversations and more equality for all. (Well with the exception of financially).
Lmao.You live in a fantasy world
Can you believe that a huge contingents of different attributes supported by ~50% of the population has some things going for it. I am left wing, probably very left wing. But the way the left act is pushing a lot of people to the right. Conversations with the right are much more open, much more free. The left is so aggressive and unopen to discussion it pushes people away. If the right offers equality and tells young boys they are not born with oringal sin for being boys, then people are going to listen. We need a party that is left economically but individually right.
I was with you until this part.
No, 50% of the population isn’t on the current political right, not even 50% of the voting population is on the political right. In Canada it’s much closer to a third of the population. Just because there are two mainstream political sides, does not mean they divide the population accurately.
And second, Conservative conversation spaces tend to have a lot of censorship as well. Look at the conservative subreddits, or Twitter right now, or Truth Social, or Parlor, or any other “conservative” space. Dissent gets you banned. Maybe it feels like you can have more conversation there because the opposition just disappears and you never have to think about it. That’s not to say primarily left wing spaces or online social justice warriors are perfect, there are a ton of very very active anti-car/capitalism/whatever people who will aggressively harass people too.
“Son, don’t be a Nazi.”
“OMG literally 1984.”
Sex has gotten horrifically competitive with some guys getting laid loads and some guys not getting any.
Borderline incel horseshit.
Theoretically evening out that somehow is probably better for society
Nevermind, outright incel horseshit.
I am left wing, probably very left wing. But the way the left act is pushing a lot of people to the right.
I’ve heard this a lot - almost always from smirking fascists. The sort who think the left do anything but discuss. They talk so much they get nothing done.
Right-wing conversations are empty slogan contests, in a manipulative tone of voice. Like “original sin for being boys,” a fucking obvious strawman, commonly spat when someone describes toxic masculinity. Which is not a criticism of masculinity any more than “don’t eat poisoned apples” is a criticism of apples.
We need a party that is left economically but individually right.
Oh, like the Strasserites. Sincere anticapitalists committed to a strong national identity, right up until they were dragged into the street and shot on the Night of the Long Knives because they were fucking Nazis.
“Son, don’t be a Nazi.”
“OMG literally 1984.”
You accuse me of using a strawman later then use the biggest strawman ever.
You don’t believe sex and money have gotten more competitive over time? (Just look at tinder just look at the working poor)
You think it’s good for society if sex and money gets more competitive over time? If no then what have I said that’s wrong?
I’ve heard this a lot - almost always from smirking fascists. The sort who think the left do anything but discuss. They talk so much they get nothing done.
He’s the best way I can describe it. The right will say that “taxes should be low and that people should make their own way in life, so people either need to pay for their own education or get their parents to do it”. The left would say “education should be free”. That’s part 1, part 2 is the right will say “The best applicant should get the job” the left will say “it doesn’t matter about who is best what we want is more women, so all the male applicants can be ignored” (which is never reversed either). Part 1 most people are left part 2 most people are right. Unfortunately the left are shooting themselves in the foot.
It’s always toxic masculinity and men are always responsible for it. Even if a boy is young and has never made a decision in their life they are told they are responsible for toxic masculinity and need to fix it. The term itself is sexist as it implies, and is used, to say men are entirely at fault for this. Toxic feminism is never talked about. Women are never told they need to stop with the toxic masculinity. They are never told to stop expecting men to be emotionless and strong all the time, instead men are told to have more emotion. Yet for most men they say “when I showed emotion to my girlfriend she used it against me or we broke up” yet somehow that’s mens fault.
You put “rightthink” and “wrongthink” in your first sentence. Don’t whine about an Orwell connection when you made it.
You don’t believe sex and money have gotten more competitive over time?
One, those topics are not related, and slapping them together is a tell.
Two, talking about relationships as nothing but sex, and also a competition, is depressingly transparent on a level I’m not sure words can convey. The fact you asked this question is damning. The answer is no, but the answer doesn’t matter, because it’s like asking about “Muslim birthrates” or “human biodiversity.” The framing itself is fucked. If you yourself are not a diet Nazi then you’re getting ideas from people who definitely are. Being human feels kinda broken, and someone offered a simple scapegoat that feels satisfying to hammer on, even though you know the implications are horrific: “I can’t even conceive of how that would happen.”
Describing access to vaginas as some kind of resource to be distributed is dehumanizing - and anyone suggesting you’re owed a woman is a fucking monster.
Three, concentration of wealth is intrinsic to right-wing economics. So congratulations on figuring out those suck. Shame your mouth’s still full of their dishonest takes about gender equality.
the left will say “it doesn’t matter about who is best what we want is more women, so all the male applicants can be ignored”
Arguments are easy when you just make shit up.
Toxic feminism is never talked about.
Because it’d be toxic femininity, genius. And of fucking course feminists address how stereotypes about women impact women - but the ranting Youtube manosphere dorks you seem to get your information from do not understand the concept. They think pushing girls toward pink and frills and cooking and babies is good, actually, even when it’s exaggerated to exclusionary extremes, and girls who don’t do that suffer ostracism and mockery. That’s the exact mirror of boys suffering when cliche masculine associations are twisted into unyielding demands… usually at the hands of other boys.
No feminist is out there telling boys to get laid or they’re a failure. That’s y’all. You do that shit - as you’re doing in these very comments - and you scoff at the label for it, because you don’t like how it sounds.
A rose by any other name would have just as many pricks.
Looks like we are going to have to start at the basics with this one.
noun: strawman an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent’s real argument
The Nazi comment you made was a strawman. Nice one.
Then I pointed it out and you switched it to me complaining about 1984. Again nice strawman.
Two, talking about relationships as nothing but sex, and also a competition, is depressingly transparent on a level I’m not sure words can convey. The fact you asked this question is damning. The answer is no, but the answer doesn’t matter, because it’s like asking about “Muslim birthrates” or “human biodiversity.” The framing itself is fucked. If you yourself are not a diet Nazi then you’re getting ideas from people who definitely are. Being human feels kinda broken, and someone offered a simple scapegoat that feels satisfying to hammer on, even though you know the implications are horrific: “I can’t even conceive of how that would happen.”
Wow yet another strawman
Describing access to vaginas as some kind of resource to be distributed is dehumanizing - and anyone suggesting you’re owed a woman is a fucking monster
Yet another strawman! I never said anything of the sort.
the left will say “it doesn’t matter about who is best what we want is more women, so all the male applicants can be ignored”
Arguments are easy when you just make shit up.
No I’ve seen it first hand and it’s been in the news. Women get way more leg ups than men and numbers get capped or reserved.
Because it’d be toxic femininity, genius. And of fucking course feminists address how stereotypes about women impact women - but the ranting Youtube manosphere dorks you seem to get your information from do not understand the concept. They think pushing girls toward pink and frills and cooking and babies is good, actually, even when it’s exaggerated to exclusionary extremes, and girls who don’t do that suffer ostracism and mockery. That’s the exact mirror of boys suffering when cliche masculine associations are twisted into unyielding demands… usually at the hands of other boys.
Think this was in reference to women attacking and looking down on men for being unmanly. Yet no mention of how women should behave better, who’s responsible for that?
No feminist is out there telling boys to get laid or they’re a failure. That’s y’all. You do that shit
Haha its like you’ve not met women. Women always make out guys are pissy because they can’t get laid or because they are short. But I’ve never seen guys do it, guys just enjoy having sex that’s why they try to get it. And very frequently they help each other.
Man what a complete mess of a comment haha.
Diet Nazis are the subject of the article. That’s what parents’ sons become, when they “slide to the right.” Your lack of clarity in pointless whining does not make my dismissal the problem.
Your lies about what you said in plain fucking English help nobody. You wrote: “you don’t believe sex and money have gotten more competitive over time?” You describe sex as a competition, in as many words. You directly conflate it with competition for money.
Regarding guys “getting girls,” you explicitly mused about “evening out that somehow.”
Stand by what you say or shut up.
I’ve never seen guys […] make out guys are pissy because they can’t get laid or because they are short.
You’ve been that guy, in this conversation. Examples in omnipresent media are so plentiful I’d be here all day slapping your face with them just to call you liar again. Have you ever watched a single action movie, boner comedy, or high-school drama? Try it some time, it’ll be a novel experience, if you’re not just obviously full of shit.
If you don’t care what words mean then I won’t care about you.
I was on about how children grow up and the lack of discourse and ability to think for themselves. I’m sorry you were unable to understand that and had to take the extreme examples only.
Because they are. Everything is a competition, work, housing, relationships, sex, money that’s just how it is. Sure it’s not the same as a foot race competition but you still competing against others that’s the defintion of the word.
That’s not distributing a resource though. You said that. All I was musing was that it would be healthier if people and society if people weren’t chasing what they want all the time. If some guys weren’t fucking a different girl everyweek and chasing that high, if guys weren’t trying to emulate those guys just to get one bit of positive attention from women, if women weren’t casually shagging some guy out of their league then remaining single because they “can’t get a good guy” but really they been fucking guys who have no interest in settling they just been playing the game. I think society would be better. How that happens I don’t know. If you dont agree with that you must look fondly on the pickup cluture as much as the “artist” do. Education probably the answer maybe something like mens clubs could be one example as I said before were you can get intergenerational knowledge and guys can tell younguns what’s important in life. But really it’s a difficult problem and whether you agree or not I don’t think that’s the optimal state of society, what is I don’t know.
Weirdly I have had this abuse from women. Not from guys when I was a virgin as a child, but I got it from girls. I didnt get it from guys either, i did get ribbed when I hit on a girl and failed but only in a light humoured funny way, but I did get it from girls. Which seeing as I’m 6’1 and got the nickname “top shagger” in my university rugby club it really goes to show how high the bar is for girls and how hurtful they actually try to be. Like I said I’m 6’1 and slept around so I’m not really bothered, but I can see and empathise with others. I don’t think it’s fair to out of the blue say things like “if you was taller girls would like you”. But whatever, girls seem to think that’s a good thing to say.
What an open wound of a comment.
And not in any of the ways you seem to think.
people seem to blame boys for everything without realizing how the world has changed.
The main point of the article is how it changed? And women are going left and men right.
still treating them like oppressors
I have a problem with the inherent hypocrisy in this article. The author presents the issue of her sons “sliding to the right” as a problem in itself, rather than explaining why she thinks it is a problem.
If you, as a parent, see a shift in your child’s belief system or political preferences as a problem, you need to do some introspection and be able to fully articulate why it’s a problem other than “I don’t like it.”
Because sliding to the right is a problem. If you dont see the problem with the current right than that’s a you problem.
Isn’t the key words though “the current right”? The right & left of 2003 where both different from today, why would young rightists or leftists grow up to be mirrors of their forbears?
Assuming that just because your son is (for example) whining about video game journalists, that doesn’t mean he’s automatically going to call for abortion bans in all 50 states. He’s a thinking human being with an intact rational faculty, give him some credit.
So you didn’t read the article? Seems pretty clear to me why they feel like it’s a problem and tackle the specific topics.
With all due respect, I think your child deviating from what you’ve tried to teach them is the most natural thing in the world to be concerned about. I don’t think it’s hypocritical.
How many conservative christian parents see their kid not wanting to go to church or reading books like The Selfish Gene and intervene? (I know this is kind of a strawman, but just trying to get the point across that if you shift the perspective to a right wing parent with left wing children, you get kind of the same result).
Besides, I think the author is rather honest with their own beliefs:
For those of us (like me) very firm in our political beliefs, it feels good to stake your position and defend it well. But as adults, we need to figure out a way to help our young people work through confusion without feeling shunned by their own families
The actual issue the author has are: the growing divide between male vs female beliefs seems like a bad thing, and the beliefs that boys are increasingly adopting is increasingly a victim complex.
